As far as i can tell the Aztecs made (almost?) no porn.Every other society made erotic and pornographic art. From very primitive tribes sculpting vulvas and phalluses to Europe and Japan (fisherman's wife).The Aztecs were very unique. And they have to be the only culture i can't find any porn of. And they made LOTS of art. They have after all a very recognizable art style.Isn't that weird? It seems weird as fuck that a culture which made so much art and has it's own style seemingly made no porn.Whatever you find online is usually Mesoamerican - not Aztec. I asked Ai - it did tell me that they have indeed made very little erotic and pornographic art. It still lists some examples, but when i looked them up - they looked like body horror. Not erotic at all.There's so much discussion around whether or not sexual degeneracy is good for society. If the Aztecs made almost no porn - i feel like that should be part of that discussion.
>>18481016Aztecs were a very puritan warrior culture
>>18481018They had some gods for prostitutes and such. I'm not too knowledgeable when it comes to the Aztecs. I just tried to look for erotic Aztec art and couldn't find anything that looked erotic.Which has to be the only culture like that which i know of. Even the Muslims have some historical sketches of gay art.
>>18481016They did have a Fertility Goddess, Xōchiquetzal, She was likely based on an earlier Mayan Goddess that we no longer have the name of and historians just refer to as "Goddess I" and there are some somewhat erotic depictions of her. It's likely the Spanish might've destroyed most of it for not following Catholic values and also likely as a means of controlling the native populations by defying their sexual rituals.
>>18481027True - but i can't find any depictions of her which look erotic. She looks very veiled up in these depictions.
>>18481034Again, you have to look more into the Mayans to find erotic imagery, most of it from the Aztecs seem to be lost
>>18481039But they were quite different. The Aztecs seem fairly unique.I know a bunch of art was destroyed - but there's still so much art and so many sculptures which survived.The indians still have gigantic sex temples after 600 years of islamic rule and the british.If the Aztecs made lots of porn i suspect a good chunk would've survived. Especially like sculptures.
>>18481018Even the islamic arabs made porn.
>>18481018>puritan warrior culture >*checks under the hood*>skins children alive and wears their skin as suits very puritanical indeed
>>18481016The Tartars never made any sort of erotic art either, despite apparently being degenerates.
>>18481208Have they made lots of art in general? Because the Aztec made so much art it has a highly recognizable style. They made drawings, paintings, sculptures...
>>18481222Like they made this weird sculpture which looks like the currency of Path of and Exile.Almost all of their art is weird like that.Some of it reminds me of modern corporate art. (weird proportions and a certain ugliness to it)
Or this snake sculpture.There's some art which is very detailed and you can tell someone spent a lot of time on it.This snake sculpture is sorta cool. But most of their other art looks as if it was made by aliens.Like it's missing a certain human quality.
Like this stone thingy here - you can't tell what it is. But you can tell that it took time to craft. (it has same fairly small details).There is in fact something which sorta looks like titties. And that's sorta the most erotic thing you can find.That's so very clearly different from other cultures. And the Aztecs themselves were very different.The closest thing today i think is corporate art. (which similarly seems to miss a certain human quality).
I tried looking up various gods who were considered fertility gods and or gods of prostitutes but can't find anything truly erotic.
>>18481303the Aztec stuff is as human as it gets, you're out of touch with it in our modern secular world, it's nothing at all like corporate art. it's fucking divine. you just haven't seen enough of it. that coyolxauhqui stone you posted is missing its paint, but it's pretty obvious what you're looking at if you're familiar with the art style. Also, it would've been placed at the base of the main temple, it's a recognizable part if the mythology.>>18481016>>18481823I think you're looking in the wrong place. they wrote lots of erotic poetry iirc, but I would need to look for it. sexy art might have existed but was destroyed. Most of the surviving art we have was carved in stone or similar material, but tons of their art worked from feathers or painted.
>>18481303>you can't tell what it isIt's pretty obviously a pile of dismembered body parts
>>18481016Not Aztec, but there's some other meso (or maybe Andean?) peoples who made clay figurines with huge dicks fucking eachother in the ass.
>>18481016Didn't they have some fucked up dick mangling rituals that wouldn't have allowed them to goon
>>18481303That's a depiction of the Goddess Coyolxauqui's defeat by dismemberment at the hands of her brother, Huitzilopochtli. It's an extremely obvious thing for anyone with even basic knowledge on their culture actually
>>18481016The majority of surviving Aztec art comes from the ruins of one specific building, the Templo Mayor, and the rest were shit that was big and impressive enough to not immediately get destroyed or stolen as modern Mexico City grew around and beyond what was once Tenochtitlan. The Templo Mayor was the main temple and dedicated to two specific deities (Huitzilopochtli & Tlaloc) and they weren't likely to make huge pornographic sculptures at random because why the fuck would they.And so, most surviving Aztec art consists of things directly related to the state cult of Huitzilopochtli, such as aspects of his mythology (e.g, the Coyolxauhqui stone and the Coatlicue statue); things that the Aztecs felt were fitting offerings for the two deities worshipped at the Templo Mayor such as war loot; political monuments like the Tizoc stone; and large decorations like the one big snake head statue or the famous sun stone.
>>18481205>>skins children alive and wears their skin as suitsYes, that doesn't have anything with not being puritanical, retarded tranny
>>18482078No, that was the Classic Period Maya. As far as I know Aztec bloodletting rituals involved pricking one's earlobes and fingers instead
>>18481016>Every other society made...pornographic artI think a lot of ostensibly erotic art in other ancient and medieval societies was (probably, or at least not primarily) intended to be pornographic, but likely depicted sex acts or nudism for ritual or thematic reasons.Similarly, there are depictions of sex, reproductive imagery, etc in Mesoamerican codices from Central Mexico for symbolic or thematic purposes. You seem to make a distinction between "Aztec" and other Mesoamerican art in your post, but keep in mind that depending on how you define "Aztec", then we may arguably only have a very, very limited amount of drawn/painted surviving Aztec art.I was having a hard time finding the examples I was thinking of but asked around and some friends of mine found some of them:>On this page: https://www.famsi.org/research/loubat/Fejervary/page_26.jpg of the Codex Fejérváry-Mayer (Loubat facsimile), there is a Huastec(?) figure depicted as ejaculating>On this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Borgia#/media/File:Codex_Borgia_page_10.jpg of the Codex Borgia (Loubat facsimile), Huehuecoyotl(?) is apparently having sex with a humanoid figure, and what might be a depiction of coprophagia according to the Arqueologia Mexicana issue I'm dumping >On this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Borgia#/media/File:Codex_Borgia_page_49.jpg and this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Borgia#/media/File:Codex_Borgia_page_50.jpg and this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Borgia#/media/File:Codex_Borgia_page_51.jpg and this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Borgia#/media/File:Codex_Borgia_page_52.jpg of the (Loubat facsimile), a pair of figures appear to be having sex>On this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Borgia#/media/File:Codex_Borgia_page_59.jpg of the Codex Borgia (Loubat fascimile), there may be a depiction of a sex act as a figure is groping the breasts of another1/?
>>18482652>>18481016Cont:>On this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Borgia#/media/File:Codex_Borgia_page_61.jpg of the Codex Borgia (Loubat fascimile), the two figures connected through the mouth is apparently a depiction of a homosexual sex act according to the Arqueologia Mexicana issue I'm dumping Keep in mind i'm not totally sure about the interpretation of these pages, I don't have time to dig into a bunch of papers and books analyzing the Borgia right now, though this: https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0185-12762006000200003 identifies the Borgia page 49 and 50 depiction as a marriage ceremony rather then sex. On the other had the Arqueologia Mexicana issue I'm dumping identifies it as a sex depiction instead/tooAlso, this isn't including depictions of nude figures, of giving birth, breastfeeding (tho shoutout to this page of the Borgia showing a fish(?) breastfeeding off a female figure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Borgia#/media/File:Codex_Borgia_page_16.jpg) etc. I'm sure there's more in other codices I'm missing as wellI'll also dump a article from Arqueologia Mexicana I was sent about sexual themes in Huastec art/in depictions of HuastecsAlso, here's some random papers I found with tangential examples from other parts of Mesoamerica while trying to find the codex depictions:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231877646_The_Unusual_Sculptures_of_Telantunich_Yucatan_Phalli_and_the_Concept_of_Masculinity_among_the_Ancient_Mayahttps://storage.googleapis.com/rua-uplo/files/books/9873/36ebc574-bd04-45e1-9a43-3c5fb318176b.pdf>I asked AiYou shouldn't, AI is entirely unreliablefor factual info, especially with a topic like Mesoamerica where there's so much misinfo around online that the AI will be trained on2/?
>>18482678Cont:>>18481018>>18481025>>18481034>Xochiquetzal and prostitutes It's been a while since I looked into it, but IIRC the association between certain deities and prostitution is overstated or entirely invented. I at least remember that Xochipilli doesn't actually have associations with male prostitutes/homosexuality, which is an idea that originated from a long chain of misinterpretationsThis post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/z2cz6w/the_aztecs_had_ahuianis_women_entertainers/ixh78x3/ and the follow up reply does point to there being some link between prostitutes and Xochiquetzal, but at least as it is worded it doesn't seem like an especially strong one to me, but maybe there's more to itOn that note, regarding the Borgia page 59 depiction with the groping, Zotzcomic/Kamazotz/Daniel Parada, who some of you may know for his artistic reconstructions and collages of Mesoamerican fashion, says this:"ive seen some interpret that as xochiquetzal with an ahuiani and a warrior or a priest in the middle. The distorted figure also representing the distortion of the social order or something like that, with sexual transgression taking place. Pete Sigal goes a bit more into that in his Flower and Scorpion book. I have that packed away so I can't show you myself but I know it's there">Aztecs were a very puritan warrior culture>*checks under the hood*>skins children alive and wears their skin as suits >very puritanical indeedDoing sacrifices or not has nothing to do with how puritanical or prudish the culture is.The Mexica of the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan do seem to be pretty puritanical and prudish or "conservative", at least in a literalist reading of our sources...3/?
>>18482679>>18481018>>18481025>>18481034>The Mexica of the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan do seem to be pretty puritanical and prudish or "conservative", at least in a literalist reading of our sources...Cont:They complain a lot about other Mesoamerican groups not hiding the breasts or genitals as much as they should, they apparently strictly punished homosexuality and what we'd call gender nonconformity (though some researchers propose this is at least in part a result of them trying to make themselves look better to the Spanish/the Spanish interpreting sources this way, since for example the Nahuatl text condemning that sort of behaviour is not as harsh as the Spanish text), wheras say the Spanish assert that male prostitution was more common along the coasts. Mexica queens also seem to have wielded less power or been treated as full rulers left often then Maya, Zapotec, or Mixtec ones, but again I've seen some sources try to argue this is more the result of our sources appealing or or being viewed through a Spanish lens and that in reality Mexica queens may have held more power or acted as full rulers on occasion (though I am skeptical of the latter at least). Things like drunkenness, adultery, etc were also harshly punishedOn the flip side, though, a big part of our sources on Mexica ethics, morals, and virtues stresses moderation, not necessarily abstaining, from moral vices and pleasures, something you can see touched on in the Askhistorians link I posted4/?
>>18482680Cont:>>18481907>they wrote lots of erotic poetry iircI wouldn't say "lots", but there are some poems/songs which touch on lust, sex acts etc (again, the Askhistorians post mentions one; there's also the Chalca's Women Song which might mention sexual assault or regretted sex, and an annal regarding it's performance also alludes to a male musician, Quecholcohuatl, who preformed it to Axayacatl then caught his eye and the two had homosexual sex, though my understanding is this annal is maybe not meant to be taken litterally or at least that reading it as homosexual sex being normal/accepted is probably not correct, but again it depends on your interpretation of our sources, some researchers do take it to be an example of normalized homosexuality, and I haven't read enough about it to really form my own opinion)>>18482078>>18482154Off the top of my head I don't know if penile bloodletting was also a Aztec/Late Postclassic Central Mexican practice we know people did, but I believe that at least myths mention Quetzalcoatl drawing penile blood to mix with the crushed sacred bones from Mictlan/the underworld, which he then used to form people in the current version of the world, like how one would mix water with maize flour to make masaSo that suggests that penile bloodletting was a thing, I think?5/7
>>18482682Cont:>>18482042You're probably thinking of the Moche and their sex pots6/7
>>184827487/7 for now
>>18482652Thanks anon, i'll take a closer look later.Taking a first glimpse, it looks more like accidental nudity than erotica to me.
>>18482652>I think a lot of ostensibly erotic art in other ancient and medieval societies was (probably, or at least not primarily) intended to be pornographic, but likely depicted sex acts or nudism for ritual or thematic reasons.No, you can so every easily find erotic sculptures of some obscure tribe. And medieval europe made lots and lots of erotic art. So did medieval japan.Like there's a fresco depicting Leda being raped by a swan from Pompeii. It's 2000 years old. Google Leda and the swan and you see lots of women being banged by swans (it doesn't look much like rape). Our ancestors were rather perverted.
