Our closest genetic relative, the Bonobo or Dwarf Chimpanzee, engages in comunal sex. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that primitive humans, who would have been even closer to the Bonobo, would do so as well.

Terry, Gatesville, Texas

We really haven't changed at all, except on the surface, and then we still go around wearing furs, forming tribes (football) and fighting for territory, so why should sex have changed?.

Euni, Sydney, Australia

well, it seems appropriate that we conduct an archeological dig into the genesis of imagination. Mr Taylor states that "monogamy" began when people began to congregate in communities. I confess: I am neither archeologist nor relationship counselor (Ms Boyton). I know Science constantly changes, fact not rule. Yet I remeber reading somewhere that the "idea" of coupling NOT monogamy began when women figured out that raising kids as a single mother was as much a task as hunting and gathering. I believe women wanted someone to bring home the bacon while they were stuck with the offspring. Thus they convened a meeting and decided unanimously: let's send him out for the steak and potatoes. Not only will we not have them underfoot, they will have less time for screwing around. Yes, we vote to make the man work. It's more pragmatic to form a unit that will make a significant contribution in child-rearing.

boredwell, San Francisco, CA

This is why I hate gender archaeology. There's no point in aruging over what representations of women from 10kya+ because when it comes down to it, we don't have a time machine to go back and actually look at how these representations mean. Were they supposed to represent fertitlity, a particular goddess, or just blatant sex objects? Who knows? The argument is just rendered completely pointless. Honestly, i'd love to see the evidence he's using to say they had group sex? What , there's a bunch of bison on cave wall X and for some reason he's decided all the bison represent people having sex? I prefer to stick to bones and stones thank you very much. At least you can dervive some sort of scientifict data from them as opposed to just guesses.

Betsy, Houston, Tx

Hi Shield Wolf of Richmond VA,

It wasn't your tax dollars spent on this research, it was my taxed British pounds. Just so you know.

Adam, Wakefield,

Why are most people so afraid of the possible history of our sexuality? Before you discredit this, why not do some research of your own? Some of the conjecture I've read here is absolutely mad.

A., Philadelphia,

"It is the reason that most societies have made rules to guide their young people toward monogamy."

Actually, surveys of world societies show that a majority of them practice some form of polygamy. This is also historically found to be true. Only western societies are predominately monogamous, according to sociologists.

Brett Slocum, Minneapolis, USA/MN

God- I hope my tax dollars didn't pay for this! What next? A study to prove water is wet?????

Shield Wolf, Richmond, VA

Do you mean to tell me that we've "discovered" that our forebears enjoyed sex??? ROFL!!! I mean.....DUHHH!!!

Good grief....did we spend money to "discover" this fact???

Julie, Portland, Oregon

If a scholar reaches the conclusion that cave men had sex for religious matters.. who could tell her wrong?

politically correct , Lisbon,

"Women and men evolved sex characteristics to idenfigy [sic] each other?
What a laugh! From one cultural construction to another. None of this is "science.""

Um, why? Tell me, if male genitalia were very small and obscured by hair, women only had visible breasts when lactating, women and men had similar waist and shoulder measurements, and we all had should length head hair and a slightly thicker dusting of body hair than we do today (and nobody shaved). How would you tell a man from a woman?

As we made the transition from ape-like creatures who identified the opposite sex by size and smell to hairless creatures with a dulled sense of smell and similar body size, some other characteristic had to evolve to help us identify males and females. Go re-read your biology book, it's all perfectly scientific.

Emma, Arlingon, TX

I am amazed at how a few people here can judge the study by reading a few paragraphs and not seeing any of the real study that was done to come to these conclusions.

If it is not your thoughts then it must be false?

Would have been nice if they would have provided a link to the total study so we could see the facts of this study.

Lee Yarbrough, Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A.

The nature of our sexuality is in the brain chemistry we have inherited from 10,000 generation of hunter gatherer ancestors. We have only to look inside ourselves to find the truth. As one who has practiced life long monogamy for over half a century I can certify that it triggers incredibly pleasurable brain chemistry. Unfortunate people who do not do it will never experience that special, intense pleasure and be unaware of what they have missed. It is the reason that most societies have made rules to guide their young people toward monogamy.

George Reeves, Raleigh, NC

Is it so hard to imagine that stone age women used phalluses to pleasure themselves? Sex is part of being human. And if you consider how little sex it takes to make a baby, and the fact that pleasure need not be involved at all in reproduction, that leaves the major part of sex being about pleasure. Our stone age ancestors didn't have all the cultural and religious restrictions on human sexuality that we have today.

Stone age men were walking or running much of the time, and ate a diet of whole natural foods. I doubt if they had a problem with fertility. So maybe early humans didn't make phalluses for "fertility rituals." Maybe they were there for other reasons.

The Venus of Willendorf -- no one knows exactly what she is about, but someone put forth considerable effort to make her, which suggests that women were in one way or another considered important. Not much of a stretch from there to imagine that women's pleasure was also important.

Julia Carter, Huntsville, AL

We evolved larger penises and breasts to help the opposite sex to recognize a person as male/female?
I always understood that they served to show how fertile a male/female was/is. Besides that a larger penise could help a male to remove sperm from competitors.

But it is very likely that our ancestors enjoyed sex to the same extent as we do since even our closest kin, the bonobos seem to enjoy sex very much and maybe even more then we do.

Robert, Leiden, Holland

Unless I am mistaken, the Venus of Willendorf statue was previously considered to be a symbol of motherhood, the mother goddess, and of feminine fertility, not as a symbol of any sexual pleasure. The phallus is also a common symbol of masculine virility in many ancient civilizations. While we modern humans are rather sex obsessed, it is the rare one of us who wears a charm shaped as a penis (as far as I know, anyway), yet this was a common charm to promote male virility in ancient times. The Venus of Willendorf statue is under five inches tall, one of several Venus statues, and is almost all T&A, but in a way that (in my opinion) is much more maternal than sexual. The red pigment that was found painted onto her genital area was considered to be menstrual blood, although I suppose it could be considered a virgins blood...but too look at it in that way seems to render the statue...crude. Thats all from memory, but she has her own Wikipedia page for you to decide for yourself.

Chianya, Commack, NY

It is a fairly common anthropological model that the reasons why human females are sexually receptive throughout their cycle is to foster closer relations with either her partner or partners (the jury is still out on if we are naturally monogomus or not). Obviously sex outside of ovulation does not increase the likelyhood of reproduction, but there most be a reason why human's are among the few animals that have females that are receptive most of their cycle.
Religious scholars rarely comment on this fact.

Ben, St. John's, Canada

I see the Desmond Morris School of Wild Conjecture is alive, well, and ticking-over nicely.

Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.

This is wonderful! "Why is it assumed a stone phallus was used for sex games? Could it not have been used by a young bride's family to demonstrate her virginity before turning her over to the family of her new husband?"

Ahhh, ignorance runs amok again. We'd better stick our heads into the sand before things get uncomfortable! Reality is coming!

Tom, Springfield,

"By comparison with modern humans, who appeared about 300,000-100,000 years ago, apes have tiny male genitals, no female breasts and are hairy. But they are easily able to distinguish the sexes because males can weigh up to three times as much as females. "

"Apes??" This is true of gorillas and to a lesser extent orangutangs, but not at all of chimpanzees and bonobos. Chimp genitalia are about the same size as humans', females have breasts (more or less), and are not much smaller than males. Chimps are also far more promiscuous than gorillas and orangs (although no ape species is truly monogamous), and bonobos are randy to the point of absurdity.

Ilya, Boston, MA

And after all those years, we still need breast enlargement. When will we really be able to make the difference ?

Corriveau, Quebec, Canada

That fellow's study is worth the paper it's printed on, and as I'm reading the story online, you get the picture.

Susie James, Carrollton, Miss., USA

For those saying that you can tell the difference between males and females without breasts/genitalia, remember that we are talking about a time when (a) both men and women would have long hair, and (b) any clothing worn would be essentially unisex. Just think of how many women with short hair or men with long hair that have been confused for the opposite gender.

Charles Paul Hoffman, New York, New York

Why is it assumed a stone phallus was used for sex games? Could it not have been used by a young bride's family to demonstrate her virginity before turning her over to the family of her new husband?

Robin, Kansas City, MO, USA

Even bipedalism may have been greatly encouraged by the male being able to identify the female at longer and longer distances; the straighter we stood, the farther out we could see.

jose luis, Hamilton,On, Canada

There will always be academics who are keen to support the preoccupations of the present with their exciting research into the past....

In Vino Veritas, London,

I must be quite extraordinary. I can in fact recognize whether a person is male or female without the need for that person to reveal genitalia or breasts. Mr Taylor must be above the average, too, since from the relatively meagre material available he can deduce that heterosexuality was not the rule, and also that bondage and transvestitism were widespread practises. What phenomenal scientific insight from Venus of Willendorf!
On the other hand, it cannot be too surprising to hear that our stone age forebears enjoyed sex - after all, we are here.

Kit, Norway,

Next time I'm called a caveman by my girlfriend I will have a witty reposte

Jim, Melbourne, Australia

David from Birmingham, you are sceptical about this article, but in fact it's fairly well established that stronger jawlines in men, breasts in women, etc. serve biologically to distinguish the sexes and avoid confusion. This is precisely why they are attractive to the opposite sex. The easiest thing to mistake for a male/female of the species is a female/male of the species, so the things that differentiate one sex from the othger attract (heterosexual) members of the opposite sex.

Caroline Devitt, Zaragoza, Spain

Nexdt time I'm called a caveman by my girlfriend I will have a witty reposte

Jim, Melbourne, Australia

David from Birmingham, you are sceptical about these findings, but in fact it is reasonably well established that one function of stronger jawlines in men, wider hips ijn women, etc. is recognition of the sexes. In primitive societies (and modern ones, actually) the easiest thing to mistake for a male/female of the species is a female/male of the species.

Caroline Devitt, Zaragoza, Spain

If this is true, were the statues in Japan of phallic symbols used for sexual games or for fertility symobols?

Were they hard to use?

-I have to ask, this is the mecca of sex here in asia.

Gabriel Metzger, Bangkok , Thailand

Women and men evolved sex characteristics to idenfigy each other?
What a laugh! From one cultural construction to another. None of this is "science."

Homo, Springfield , Il

"prominent male genitals and female breasts developed to aid recognition of the opposite sex in creatures of similar size and shape"

Two, count 'em, two insights to be gained from this:
One, men and women have difficulty recognising the other. Perhaps they should get drunk more often. It could aid recognition, regardless of who's wearing the beer goggles. Two, men and women look a lot alike. Particularly after they've had a few, as our Stone Age forebearers undoubtedly did, and would want us too as well.

David, Birmingham, UK

Doesn't this mean size matters?

Scott, oakland, ca

It's very refreshing to know that a great many other sexual explorers have gone before me!

Rik Lambert, Letchworth, UK

The term homosexual was more then likely not even thought up, for the first couple of thousand years. It would NOT be in the bible even, except that king james and a few others made certain changes when they translated it into English.

BUT, it would not surprise me if, even back then, guys would be attracked to other guys, not as much as today, but still; OR, even as a way to show one mans dominance over others..................... :O

Ronald Asbury, Goodland, America/Kansas

Where's the evidence? The Venus of Willendorf and stone phallus are not evidence of "bondage to group sex, transvestism and the use of sex toys". Phalluses made of stone or wood are common in many cultures but they are not necessarily used as sex toys, for example, they may be use for worship or to ward off evil.

hazh, Oxford,

"...prominent male genitals and female breasts developed
to aid recognition of the opposite sex in creatures of similar
size and shape..."

Unless I'm seriously mistaken, breasts are for feeding babies, not identifying their owners as females. This kind of sloppy evolutionary thinking is what makes people so suspicious of Darwin's big idea. Breasts may have come to play an *additional* role to milk production, male genitals too - such "exaptions" as Daniel Dennett calls them are often hijacked in the cause of sexual selection - but it is simply mistaken to say that *any* feature developed or adapted "in order that..." (fill in your pre-determined purpose). The eye didn't evolve "in order that" its owners might see. Eyes evolved because light sensitivity conferred an advantage in some early individuals, and subsequently those born without eyes didn't leave any descendants.

Robin Prior, London, UK

Complete absurdity. Before the invention of writing... there is no way to know what anyone was thinking.

Scott, Neverland ,

"far from having intercourse simply to reproduce, they had sex for fun." Now , who would have thought that!?

Ed Zuiderwijk, Cambridge, UK

Studies of extant hunter gatherer societies such as the Bushmen certainly do not support Taylors hypothesis. Moreover, it seems to me that both permanent breasts and large flexible penises have emerged over time as indicators of genetic fittness, through our species long established recreational approach to sex.

Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK

If you "reality" has anything to do with Judeo-Christian ramble, I swear to your God.

Ray Bulloch, Merritt Island, Florida

Wait, that humans in the past had predominantly hetero-sexual sex for the purpose of reproduction only is a widespread lay belief? Not sure I agree with that. also, seems like just another way to justify the misogynistic status quo with functionalism.

Megan, Chicago, IL

The right conclusions - for completely the wrong reasons!

Rachel, Cambridge, UK

More academic conjecture uncorrelated to reality!

Chris Stevens, Austin, TX