"But it’s really hard to challenge entrenched orthodoxy and facts in academia." 🤔
https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/14/17009834/hallie-lieberman-buzz-sex-toys-history-technology
@hrisskar idk know man, the title is misleading: she is not an academic. She never published any study and her only argument for 30k yo sex toys is that a penis shaped object is unlikely to shape a flint?
Even if it was a penis, which is unlikely, she seem too sure of herself saying "surely was a sex toy", as if that is the most common usage for penis-shaped objects. Which is not.
@arteteco I suppose that's what she perceives in her mind with anything vaguely penis-shaped? Not saying that's wrong or bad: what do many straight men do when presented with anything that looks like a pair o' cheeks or milkies? 
Though now I'm curious (please excuse my dirty teen-mind 
) what else is there to do with penis-shaped objects than for the ladies to get their healthy jollies? (Assuming any example object isn't, say, a mere rod for turning a large switch.)
@hrisskar mind you, I'm not archeologist or paleoanthropologist, so that's just on the top of my mind and with a limited expertise in the field.
Since we started to produce composite artifacts, that's for example a blade held by a handle (which could be a bone, a piece of wood...) well all those handles were penis shaped. Big bones, stuff to crush stuff, and so on were mostly penis shaped.
And, also, we had penises, like, actual penises in stone and such, but as far as we know they were used for devotional, religious, spiritual stuff and the like.
It may be a matter as you say of what do you perceive, as a man or a woman, but there are quite a few women in the field and I tell you, a scientist formed as a naturalist, geologist just collects the clue and gather them at the best of his/her ability. I know it's still very much a guessing field, and hard proof is hard to bring, that is why you should be very careful in proposing new stuff.
