PZ Myers. 2005 Jul 25. That's what I call a tool. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/thats_what_i_call_a_tool/>. Accessed 2008 Nov 20.

Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Monday, July 25, 2005

That's what I call a tool

image

Pagan Prattle has made me laugh twice today.

What's smooth, cylindrical, and about 7½ inches long?

Another hint: it's hard enough to knap flints.



It's a 28,000 year old life-sized stone phallus*. Just the thing to keep tucked away in the back of the cave for those nights when mighty Thog, the manly stone-age warrior, is off on another long trek hunting mammoths. The fact that it was also used as a tool to flake flints gives us insight into the primeval meaning of the phrase, "whacking off".



*Personally, though, I think the interpretation of its use is stretching it a bit. Cold and heavy is not usually an erotic combination, and bedroom playthings don't typically double as shop tools. But then again, lacking plastic and silicone, who knows how creative minds will turn?

Posted by PZ Myers on 07/25 at 03:31 PM
Weirdness • 1 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
  1. There were ways to get around the "cold" part of the "cold and heavy," even with Upper Paleolithic technology. Warming in fire (or against the skin) could have worked fine. Presumably women had access to abundant thin skins for "condoms" as well.

    OK, it's handwaving, but it's fun handwaving.
    #: Posted by Chris Clarke  on  07/25  at  05:20 PM
  2. Yes, and with a windmill, an arrangement of leather belts and axles, and an eccentric cam made from an old handaxe, they could have made it vibrate, too.

    It's really too bad nobody ever asked me to write scripts for the Flintstones.
    #: Posted by PZ Myers  on  07/25  at  05:27 PM
  3. "It's NEW!
    It's IMPROVED!
    It's the YABBA-DABBA-DILDO!"
    #: Posted by Chris Clarke  on  07/25  at  05:38 PM
  4. I don't know ... have you never heard of playing with ice?? ;)
    #: Posted by ang6666  on  07/25  at  05:43 PM
  5. I really could have gone my entire life without ever thinking of Fred Flintstone in a sexual context. Thank you, Chris, for that lovely image, that I won't ever be able to unthink.
    #: Posted by  on  07/25  at  05:57 PM
  6. Hmmm...I can just imagine a Stone Age woman moaning, "oh you're so hard..." tongue laugh

    Actually, I think it's pretty interesting, because the default explanation for an object when archaeologists are not able to come up with an immediate and obvious household purpose (like bowls or cups, etc.), seems to be to label it as a religious fetish object (as opposed to sexual fetish). Really, so often, we just have no idea...
    #: Posted by Mrs. Coulter  on  07/25  at  06:33 PM
  7. Of course PZ would never have such a historical incongruity in his animated series, but I think a Flintstones vibrator would probably be something closer to one which is hooked up to a prehistoric treadmill run by dinosaur power.
    #: Posted by Nullifidian  on  07/25  at  06:56 PM
  8. now i know what line of work to go into if i'm ever stuck in the deep dark past by a malfunctioning time machine.

    wonder how they made it smooth enough.... lots of polishing, i s'ppose.
    #: Posted by ekzept  on  07/25  at  07:48 PM
  9. Enough with the sex already! Occam teach us to pick the simplest explanation.

    The reason that the long dong was knocked about and it's design is that we here have the first meeting gavel. The chairman had to bang something symbolically mighty on the stone table, and the live appendage smarted too much...
    #: Posted by  on  07/25  at  09:39 PM
  10. speaking of how the earth moves for ya, western Montana just had a 5.6 earthquake:

    2005/07/26 04:08 M 5.6 WESTERN MONTANA Z= 5km 45.40N 112.55W
    #: Posted by ekzept  on  07/25  at  10:50 PM
  11. a Flintstones vibrator would probably be something closer to one which is hooked up to a prehistoric treadmill run by dinosaur power.

    Or Wilma would just pull that big ol' mastodon trunk in through the window.
    #: Posted by Chris Clarke  on  07/25  at  10:51 PM
  12. Hmmm... On second thought I think the design was based on an object the designer was used to handle a lot and knew would fit nicely in his hand.
    #: Posted by  on  07/25  at  11:56 PM
  13. It is too elaborate and "expensive" to be a sex tool. Probably it was used in midnight ceremonies to promote fertility. You know, sex with the God of Fertility. All societies manufacture these things, many in size XXL.
    #: Posted by  on  07/26  at  12:33 AM
  14. This is reminding me of a conversation from Red Dwarf.

    Lister: “Do you think Wilma Flintstones sexy? Maybe we’ve been in deep space too long, but every time I see her on that show that body drives me crazy. Is it me?”
    Cat: “I think, in all probability, that Wilma Flintstone is the most desirable woman who ever lived.”
    Lister: “That’s good. I thought I was going strange.”
    Cat: “She’s incredible.”
    Lister: “Whad’ya think of Betty?”
    Cat: “Betty Rubble? Well….I would go with Betty….But I’d be thinking of Wilma.”
    Lister: “This is crazy. Why are we talking about going to bed with Wilma Flintstone?”
    Cat: “You’re right. We’re nuts. This is an insane conversation”
    Lister: “She’d never leave Fred and we know it.”
    #: Posted by Virge  on  07/26  at  12:54 AM
  15. Caveman Porno:

    http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,350042,00.html
    #: Posted by  on  07/26  at  06:44 AM
  16. I can see a stone-age tool-maker looking at his flint-knapper one day, and thinking, "You know, that looks just like my other tool," and just etching a few lines on it to improve the resemblance, and to make the lads snigger. Doesn't mean that it couldn't have been used for some other purpose later, though... you know, like sympathetic magic rituals and whatnot.
    #: Posted by  on  07/26  at  07:22 AM
  17. If it was handled, I believe the size had not much to do with XXL but with practical size for flint flaking. But if it was XXL, these men were not too large.
    #: Posted by  on  07/26  at  08:38 AM
  18. I don't know what planet you're from, Torbjorn, but most women I know would be comfortable with that size. Just because we can handle something bigger doesn't mean we really like it (and we usually don't).

    And is that a line etched at the tip, or is it a natural formation of the rock??
    #: Posted by  on  07/26  at  12:00 PM
  19. "Personally, though, I think the interpretation of its use is stretching it a bit."

    Enough with the double entendres already!

    "and bedroom playthings don't typically double as shop tools."

    You must have missed Slate's history of the vibrator:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2121835/slideshow/2121919/entry/2121915/fs/0//
    #: Posted by  on  07/26  at  03:03 PM
  20. lobsterlily,

    On http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct2001/1002390703.Me.r.html
    we find: "Jamison and Gebhard, (Journal for Sex Research 24: 177-183. 1988) used data from the Kinsey report to generate these numbers. ... Erect penis length 6.21 +/- 0.77 (mean +/- SEM: inches)" 'SEM' is a useless measure on variation here.

    I also found on http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=2232:
    "A good summary of recent data can be found at <censured to get pass Pharyngula censorship>:
    There are additional links there to other studies as well. The average length of an erect penis (measured along the top) is 16.1 cm (6.34 in). 90% of measurements fall between 10 and 21 cm (4 and 8.25 in)." The reference site was down.

    My guess is that we are close to the population size where we have a XXL size on clothes or not, depending on economics in business. But I can't argue since it's women who gets the business end of this...
    #: Posted by  on  07/26  at  04:48 PM
  21. Interesting that Pharyngula has a censorship on sites there we can find biological data! Of course, the value of said data can be questioned...
    #: Posted by  on  07/26  at  04:51 PM
  22. What's the site? I only block spammers.
    #: Posted by PZ Myers  on  07/26  at  04:57 PM
  23. Let's see if I can make this a public commentary:

    A v e r a g e - P e n i s.com http://www.a v e r a g e - p e n i s.com/

    And I don't think this is too serious a complaint. In this case it was hard to find any sort of sensible data. Many data sets are from web questionaries or without references. My very own reference is a population of one, so it was not enough to measure variance on. grin
    #: Posted by  on  07/26  at  05:26 PM
  24. Reminded me of the Inuit "Oosik." This is the penis bone of the walrus. Yes, they have those. So I did a search for "oosik sex." Came up with the following link (among others):

    http://www.kowakivory.com/oosic_dildos.html

    A more general search for say, "penis bone" (baculum) will reveal that many mammals have such.
    #: Posted by  on  07/26  at  07:45 PM
  25. Yes, bone would be the old equivalent of plastic. That would be silicon? Resin?
    #: Posted by  on  07/26  at  08:02 PM
  26. I'm intrigued by the notion of what is supposed to constitute the sacred in Stone Age societies. At a lecture I went to last year, the lecturer told us about miniature versions of the Willendorf Venus; pocket-sized, portable female figurines. After pointing out their cartoonish exageration of features, she went on to talk about them as sacred objects of female-worship.

    I couldn't help thinking of modern pornography, with its cartoonish exageration of features and outlandish stories, wondering if these figurines weren't regarded by Neolithic men in the same way that lewd photos are regarded by modern men. Were they really sacred in the sense that a Christian cross is sacred? Conversely, could what modern humans do with pornography be described as worship? (Or will it be described thus in 20,000 years time?)

    If this object is a stone dildo, then was there in practice any difference between worshipping it as a symbol of sexuality/fertility, and using it as a sex-toy? And, more to the point, perhaps, how can anyone know?
    #: Posted by  on  07/27  at  07:41 AM
  27. NelC - that is interesting. (Why am I back on this post again? Oh, well.) I don't think anyone knows yet.

    The simplest explanation would be that they were used as today - as sex toys and pinups. But it took some effort to produce them - so the worship theory is also good.
    #: Posted by  on  07/27  at  09:37 AM
  28. Cold and heavy is not usually an erotic combination, and bedroom playthings don't typically double as shop tools.

    On the contrary, there are those who appreciate heft and thermoclines (or warm it up beforehand). A preliminary search of blowfish.com, for example, will yield 26 different models of glass dildo, and I have heard of the metal handles of kitchen utensils being used to good effect.
    #: Posted by  on  07/27  at  11:22 AM
  29. NelC, you might want to consider the phallic symbols in Angkor Wat, and the phallic shrine in Bangkok. In all cases, the phallic symbols are tremendously oversized. In Angkor, a good 1.5+ feet long, and maybe 6-10" around. In Bangkok, they are as much as ten feet high. Much too large to have any value as a dildo. They appear to be/have been rather sacred, along the lines of the Xtian cross if not exactly so. Thai people are extremely spiritual (superstitious), and leave quite a few tokens in tribute to (or to appease) those spirits relating to sexuality. Prayer to such spirits is also common. The same seems quite likely at Angkor (though how are we to know, in fact, based on ruins alone?).
    #: Posted by  on  07/27  at  06:54 PM
  30. Ashley, phalluses in Angkor Wat was huge, but so were the perfect breasts of sculpted women. Architecture, sculptures and beliefs came from India, were I'm told you may see similar things. (Certainly Kama Sutra and Indiana Jones II containes such stuff.) That mindset seems to have survived somewhat in Thai people.

    But, you have to remember that they were obsessed with the lotus as a symbol. The buildings contained that form. So there may be some synergy and asexuality in the symbolism.
    #: Posted by  on  07/27  at  08:03 PM
  31. Or, indeed, Hindu lingams, or that temple covered with erotic (or pornographic) carvings, the name of which escapes me at the moment.

    But these are from far more recent times than this dingus and the pocket-sized Venuses. If anything, they demonstrate something about the evolution of the organisation of worship-like feelings.

    What I'm thinking is that worship and religious feelings in general have evolved culturally from more profane feelings, and at one time the profane feelings were all there really were, and that that time wasn't that long ago (i.e. since Homo sapiens evolved). And that identifying these artifacts with modern religious artifacts directly is therefore probably misleading.
    #: Posted by  on  07/28  at  05:28 PM
  32. What I'm thinking is that worship and religious feelings in general have evolved culturally from more profane feelings,


    de-volved.
    #: Posted by Chris Clarke  on  07/28  at  05:37 PM