Homosexual/transgender CAVEMAN found

CptStern

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
62
Archaeologists have unearthed the 5,000-year-old remains of what they believe may have been the world's oldest known gay caveman. The male body – said to date back to between 2900-2500BC – was discovered buried in a way normally reserved only for women of the Corded Ware culture in the Copper Age.

The skeleton was found in a Prague suburb in the Czech Republic with its head pointing eastwards and surrounded by domestic jugs, rituals only previously seen in female graves.

"From history and ethnology, we know that people from this period took funeral rites very seriously so it is highly unlikely that this positioning was a mistake," said lead archaeologist Kamila Remisova Vesinova.

"Far more likely is that he was a man with a different sexual orientation, homosexual or transsexual," she added.
Click to expand...

so I guess religious groups can stfu now that it IS natural?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8433527/First-homosexual-caveman-found.html
 
2900-2500BC? Those weren't ****ing cavemen.

Using the term caveman, I would have figured you'd be talking about some shit going back 15-50,000 years at least.

**** man, Egyptian civilization is older than 2900BC.
 
Caveman.. did they think he went to gay dino raves too?
 
CptStern said:
so I guess religious groups can stfu now that it IS natural?
Click to expand...

I do wonder if you like to accompany every post with a sly dig or a direct attack on religion...

And what Raziaar said.
 
I don't know anything about corded culture, but it sounds like quite an assumption to say that the burial method indicates, their sexual orientation, it also implies corded culture was tolerant of homosexuality, which I doubt. God didn't invent homophobia, man did, then man invented God.
 
Three of the four words in this thread title are wrong (or unreasonable conclusions IMO).

[strike]Homosexual/transgender CAVE[/strike]MAN found (in woman's grave)
Click to expand...

There we go
 
Is it definite that corded culture had fixed gender roles, that only a woman would have cooking utensils.

Up till recently it was thought the germanic and celtic tribes that fought against rome, were primitive savages, when in fact they were quite sophisticated cultures. The Romans just lied about them.
 
tons of tribal like cultures have gay and transgendered people

just look at the melanesians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etoro_tribe
The Etoro, or Edolo, are a tribe and ethnic group of Papua New Guinea. Their territory comprises the southern slopes of Mt. Sisa, along the southern edge of the central mountain range of New Guinea, near the Papuan Plateau. They are well known among anthropologists because of ritual homosexual acts practised between young boys and men of the tribe. The Etoro believe that young boys must ingest the semen of their elders to achieve adult male status and to properly mature and grow strong.
Click to expand...

so yeah if such a milenary culture like that have it them is very posible that cavemans too,even this "caveman"
 
hey the romans where not far behind though they didnt do it in ritualistic purposes
 
I'd link 20,000 year old fossils to being Cavemen, not 5,000 years
 
As far as crazy rituals go, that one is really hard to swallow.

<RJMC> said:
hey the romans where not far behind though they didnt do it in ritualistic purposes
Click to expand...

I think your blowing roman homosexuality out of proportion to compare it, to those nuts.
 
<RJMC> said:
hey the romans where not far behind though they didnt do it in ritualistic purposes
Click to expand...

The romans had their own perversions that stand in stark contrast with our current laws and moralities of today. We all know this, so what?

I mean, homosexuality is one thing completely different, but elders basically promulgating a culture that stems around child abuse to satisfy the elders own sexual desires? Come on. First I've ever heard of this Etoro tribe and I'm pretty appalled. Same with the Baruya tribe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruya

These tribes are a problem of pedophilia rather than homosexuality.
 
They totally couldn't have buried him like a woman as an insult, right?
 
I agree with most replies, it's extremely unscientific, not to say just plain ridiculous, so assume that this man had different sexual orientation or gender identity because he was found in a women's grave.
 
But archaeologists and anthropologists are urging those in the media who have dubbed the skeleton a "gay caveman" not to rush to any neanderthal-like assumptions.

British newspapers, such as the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, jumped on Vesinova's comments as proof that archaeologists had found a "gay caveman," despite the fact the term "cavemen" typically refers to Neanderthals who lived 30,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life...chaeologists/4585465/story.html#ixzz1JJi8tukH
 
Seems like very loose speculation to me. There could be any number of reasons why he was buried in a woman's grave.
 
I don't actually see what's so implausible about this. As font of knowledge RJMC pointed out, sexualities outside the gender binary exist throughout the human record. Transvestitism ('two-spirit') is not uncommon as a part of shamanism. The archaeologists in the article even state that they have found other examples like this and that in their experience corded ware culture was very careful with its burial. Modern categories like "gay" (let's not mention cavemen) may not be entirely appropriate, but something of that nature is possible. Of course the archaeologists in question have also stressed that this is informed speculation and they can't be sure; I would hope we all assume a level of exaggeration on the part of the press when these stories are reported. Clearly, we need to go back in time with a hovercraft full of condoms and find out for ourselves.
 
..fails to give you an erection ..you'd prefer your chicks with dicks not look like cavemen
 
Sulkdodds said:
I don't actually see what's so implausible about this. As font of knowledge RJMC pointed out, sexualities outside the gender binary exist throughout the human record. Transvestitism ('two-spirit') is not uncommon as a part of shamanism. The archaeologists in the article even state that they have found other examples like this and that in their experience corded ware culture was very careful with its burial. Modern categories like "gay" (let's not mention cavemen) may not be entirely appropriate, but something of that nature is possible. Of course the archaeologists in question have also stressed that this is informed speculation and they can't be sure; I would hope we all assume a level of exaggeration on the part of the press when these stories are reported. Clearly, we need to go back in time with a hovercraft full of condoms and find out for ourselves.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has a problem with the fact that gay cavemen existed, the problem stems from the fact that this gay "caveman" was not in fact a caveman and the presumption of gay wasn't based on anything more than strong burial traditions.

I mean really though, what are you hoping to achieve when you say gay cavemen existed? Is that somehow going to trump the fact that religious fundamentalists will still say it's a moral perversion against god? They'll say that even if you can get them to go along with the fact that the earth is more than 5-6000 years old... which is older than this "caveman" even is.
 
Yeah, though I certainly think homosexuality is a natural thing, this story is retarded. A caveman couldn't choose to be gay just as much as modern man could? A caveman found buried in girl clothing is definitive proof they were gay? What.
 
CptStern said:
..fails to give you an erection ..you'd prefer your chicks with dicks not look like cavemen
Click to expand...

Lashing out from a guilty conscience maybe? Better hope no one gets a hold of your internet history

This tribal stuff is institutionalized, as is the burial ritual, you have to find man with NO culture or even language, i.e. a natural state to prove or disprove the "homosexuality is natural" drivel. Either that or look at the genes apparently
 
lol, homosexuality is cultural as opposed to natural? From whence the dichotomy, professor? Just because it's cultural, what else would it be other than 'natural'? Did aliens impose it?

But then, in order to show homosexuality is a "natural" occurrence under your definition, one would only need point to buggering chimpanzees.
 
I've always wondered why homosexuality was considered normal in ancient Greek and Roman times, and how it came to be considered unnatural or disgusting in today. This is interesting to me because of certain points that I've been thinking about.

1. Does culture "advance"?

I mean, we no longer have Colosseum matches or feed Christians to lions, nor have segregated schools, etc., and this I believe to be an advancement of morality and culture in general. But what about homosexuality? It turned from being widely accepted to being completely disgusting etc. etc. - so does this mean that homosexuality was something that humanity should be going away from? But how does that answer the question of the sexual minority movement, in which they've enjoyed moderate success in establishing gay people as something that is (slightly) acceptable (compared with something that is a crime)?

I had other points, but I suppose one will suffice for now.
 
The interesting thing about the 'nature' argument, it implies that animals have no mental capacity to nuture their young. Animals are just as capable of being psychologically influenced as humans, infact maybe more so.
There have been studies about the deep physcological impact early childhood expericence can have on a person, even so no one really knows whether we are all born as blanck slates or have inate behaviour from our genes.

When you consider we are a cosmic acccident, when a primordially soup got struck by lightning, and after millions of years produced hairless apes. Is there really such a thing as natural.
 
Civilisation change has no teleological aspect. It is one of those things most frequently and intensely accorded teleological significance, but in truth, culture or ethics can 'advance' only towards a specified goal. If your goal is 'a tolerant society' then some kind of advance towards that might in theory be possible, but in the chaos of the last 2000 years, the rise and fall of societies, there has not been a steady shift from one end of the scale to another but instead various different arrangements which have been closer or further away to something very or only somewhat similar to that stated goal for longer or shorter periods of time to greater or lesser or more limited extents in one area or another or in one way or another. Or, in short: shit happens. Some societies in the past have been tolerant in the ways some existing now are not. Even once you get past the foundation metaphysical problems of proposing a teleological 'progression', you run into the evidential concerns: does this grand historical narrative of yours actually match up to the facts? In almost all cases it does not. In order to work at all as a narrative it must select, exclude, overemphasise, and ignore evidence.

None of this should dissuade us from trying to construct long-term theories of historical development that actually work. But it does mean we must be cautious in the extreme. In your case it reveals the obvious problems with, having arbitrarily defining one time and place as "primitive" and another as "advanced," going on to equally arbitrarily decide that everything the "primitive" era did was tarred with the "primitive" brush. That makes no sense at all. Why not say "hey, they got one" thing right!" Or why not be consistent in your application: everything they did, we should abandon! Or maybe they just did things differently, in their specific way, and we do ours in our specific way, and they are comparable in specific ways but not easily locatable within some bullshit general story.

Talking of specifics, Roman sexual morality was not as far as I know a close match to that of modern tolerant liberals. Nor does their sexuality seem to have been identical to ours. Homosexual love was bound up in structures of mastery and submission, and while it was acceptable to bum your slave or social inferior, it was not acceptable for them to bum you. This is perhaps not something to which we should aspire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Sexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Scantinia
 
stern, why are you so obsessed with convincing people that homosexuality is natural? are you gay??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top