Prehistoric art had a lot of sexual content. Venus figurines are endowed with large breasts and buttocks. Rock-art often consists of nothing more than repeated motifs of female genitals. Ice Age Europeans carved phallic batons from bone and stone. One image from prehistoric Siberia appears to depict a man on skis attempting intercourse with an elk. This is all very interesting, but not very relevant to the sexual choice model for art's evolution.
Sexual selection for art need not imply that our ancestors favored hyper-sexual art in the style of Tantric Buddhism. They need not have gone around everywhere carving lingams (stylized phalluses) or yonis (stylized labia). Even if they did, that would reflect their interests without necessarily revealing the adaptive benefits of their art. Some bowerbirds make bowers that are tall and conical like a phallus, and some make avenue-shaped bowers that look like yoni, but that is a meaningless coincidence irrelevant to their evolution through sexual selection. Tantric myth does provide some lovely metaphors for evolution through sexual selection. Creation occurred through sexual play between an Originating Couple. Krishna seduced all the cow-girls of Brindaban with his blue skin, beauty, and flute music. The path to enlightenment lies in joyful copulation as a mutual escalation of consciousness. Nevertheless, the fact that Pleistocene art often looks Tantric is not very relevant to the sexual choice theory
Was this article helpful?