Traditional Maori penis tattoo.

[maxcok]

ok max cock even though you have been quite rude to me, i will explain my position
I have never heard of maori tattooing their cocks and i cant see how they could have done it. Period.
On top of this the op writes about maori sustaining erection for very long periods of time and also uses a photo of a modern carving to support his hypothesis. Use your common sense... and where are you now howard?
You are arguing it could be true- and it could. But i doubt it. Another reason i doubt it is that the whole point about oral traditions is that customs and stories including myths are passed down orally from generation to generation and this one has not been passed down or else we would have heard of it.
I parrot again that the maori culture is current, alive and well documented so this custom would be widely known about, if it occurred, because the practice of tattooing cocks would be passed down and it would still be done.
So maxcock what are you basing your argument on other than being bored with other threads?

Where was I "quite rude" to you? I only pointed out that you were making the same comments as jujube, and I referred you to my reponse to him in my post rather than repeating myself. I'm not 'arguing' anything here, simply exploring possibilites and pointing out that you (and he) seem to have a very limited appreciation for the vagaries of anthropological/archaeological study. It is curious though how you seem to travel together and echoe the same opinions.

Unless you have done significant research into Maori culture and traditions, what you believe or reject out of hand is only your own uneducated opinion. Regardless, neither you, nor he, nor anyone else can say with certainty that the Maori never tatooed their genitals. The fact is, much has been lost in the last hundred years or so in the actual application (ta moko) and meanings behind the moko. Furthermore, this is exactly the sort of knowledge, if known, that has traditionally been repressed by academics. If you don't get the tongue in cheek intent of the OP and are incapable of engaging in intelligent, albeit theoretical discussion, I'm not really interested in explaining it to you. You're taking this a bit too seriously, I think.

p.s. I am seldom if ever bored, and I will post in whatever thread interests me.

 

[maxcok]

Maxcock merely excerpts material from Wikipedia articles in attempts to contradict whatever another member has posted previously, often changing his stance (and therefore contradicting himself, too) in order to antagonize a new target.

I have never seen an image of the eponymous "max cock," but he is indeed one of the biggest asshOles on this forum.

Since you claim to know all there is to know all about the ancient Maori and their oral traditions (based only on what is known since Europeans became aware of their existence) do feel free to enlighten us all. So far all you have to offer, the same as your friend, is denial of something unprovable one way or the other. I never claimed to be an expert on Maori culture and traditions, and I don't deny doing some quick research to confirm dates and geographical origins. It might behoove you to do some research of your own before you authoritatively state personal opinions and anecdotal evidence as though they were fact, as you do here, and as you did most absurdly in that other thread I mentioned. Still waiting for your "scientifically valid evidence" over there. LOLOLOL

Please prove your insulting accusation that I change my stance and contradict myself to "antagonize a new target", and back it up with links to examples. I don't change my stance, I don't target anyone, and I don't go out of my way to be antagonistic, though I will defend myself vigorously when attacked. Clearly it is you who are being antagonistic here, evidenced by the quote above. If you are confused by the direction of the thread, if you are incapable of supporting your position and engaging in a intelligent discussion, there is no need to get frustrated and resort to childish name calling and dishonest accusations. Behavior like yours is not well tolerated on the board. You might want to check your attitude if you expect to stay at the party.

 

[midlifebear]

Traditional Maori tattooing practices have been documented by anthropologists. Do you think there is some herb that would make a guy stay hard for at least an hour while some other guy (as traditional Maori tattoo artists were male, or at least the ones who tattooed other males were; let's assume that a majority of the males who might receive a tattoo would be heterosexual) stabbed his penis repeatedly with this? If such an herb actually existed and had been used by the Maori people, I think it would be widely known throughout the world by now, and it would probably fetch a good price at the market. The Maori are not an uncontacted tribe of Amazonian aborigines, after all.

Well, not to be argumentative, but thick tea made from fresh Yohimbe bark will, in most cases, keep you hard and erect under the worst circumstances. But first, you have to be horny and get an erection for the Yohimbe to work.

The Yohimbe extract sold in heath food stores is too weak of a solution to be of much good and causes more of a placebo effect. And when cooking up the real stuff and drinking it, too much can cause cardiac arrest no matter how healthy your ticker may be.

To completely screw up the famous line from Hamlet, "There are a whole bunch of stranger things that are real than exist in most folks personal universe." :biggrin1:

 

[green carnation]

well actually. Now that you mention it, i have studied maori culture. At university level. In new zealand..
Maximum bore, have you ever met a maori or even been to new zealand? I lived there for 30 years.
I am not going to repeat my point again about families and tribes passing traditions down through the generations and that the only reason this was not passed down is because it cant have been prevalent in the first place. Even if only one tribe did it- decendents of that tribe would know about it today.
And by the way; moko are specifically chin tattoos. On women! I dont know what web sites you are getting your information from. Maybe you learnt that in your tangata whenua studies at university?

 

[maxcok]

well actually. Now that you mention it, i have studied maori culture. At university level. In new zealand.. Maximum bore, have you ever met a maori or even been to new zealand? I lived there for 30 years.

I am not going to repeat my point again about families and tribes passing traditions down through the generations and that the only reason this was not passed down is because it cant have been prevalent in the first place. Even if only one tribe did it- decendents of that tribe would know about it today.

I never claimed to be an expert on Maori culture and traditions, . . . .

. . . The wisdom of the ancients, including the use of botanicals available in their environment, is a vast store of knowledge long lost to 'modern' man. Who can say what they knew, what they used, and what they did? Anthropology and archaeology are inexact sciences, and often colored by theoretical assumptions viewed through the lens of contemporary existence. . . .

. . . Who knows what happened in the past, how many thousands/millions of species have vanished over time, or what lies as yet undiscovered in our own world. What we know about the effects of botanicals and other natural elements in the environment barely scratches the surface. To think otherwise, is modern hubris. . . .

. . . . Do you think they didn't exist before being discovered by Europeans, the first significant contact occurring in the late 18th century? Are you an expert in their oral traditions, and do you know what may have been lost in their narrative over the millenia? It's generally assumed they arrived in what is now called New Zealand, coming in waves sometime prior to 1280 ad. It's thought they came from somewhere in East Polynesia, where there is a long rich tradition of tatooing. The ancestral roots of the Polynesians are thought to stretch back to Tiawanese aboriginals at least 5,000 years. . . .

. . . . Unless you have done significant research into Maori culture and traditions, what you believe or reject out of hand is only your own uneducated opinion. Regardless, neither you, nor he, nor anyone else can say with certainty that the Maori never tatooed their genitals. The fact is, much has been lost in the last hundred years or so in the actual application (ta moko) and meanings behind the moko. Furthermore, this is exactly the sort of knowledge, if known, that has traditionally been repressed by academics. If you don't get the tongue in cheek intent of the OP and are incapable of engaging in intelligent, albeit theoretical discussion, I'm not really interested in explaining it to you. You're taking this a bit too seriously, I think.

Capiche?

And by the way; moko are specifically chin tattoos. On women! I dont know what web sites you are getting your information from. Maybe you learnt that in your tangata whenua studies at university?

Really?? Here:

"Although the tattoos were mainly facial, the North Auckland warriors included swirling double spirals on both buttocks, often leading down their legs until the knee. The women were not as extensively tattooed as the men. Their upper lips were outlined, usually in dark blue. The nostrils were also very finely incised. The chin moko was always the most popular, and continued to be practiced even into the 1970s.

The Moko is similar to an identity card, or passport. For men, the Moko showed their rank, their status and their ferocity, or virility. The wearer's position of power and authority could be instantly recognized in his Moko. Certain other outward signs, combined with a particular Moko, could instantly define the "identity card" of a person. For example, a chief with Moko and at the same time wearing a dog cloak could be identified as a person of authority, in charge of warriors."

The Maori - Tattoo - History - nz.org​

​

And you claim to have lived in New Zealand for 30 years and studied their culture at the University? Interesting.

 

[D_Jimmy Jammer]

moko are specifically chin tattoos. On women!

Your'e right - and lips, though I've seen what we would naively
call tattoos on other parts of their body (e.g. arms.) Moana
Maniapoto (Moana & The Moa Hunters, a funky ethnic (Maori)
band) has them on her arms (and maybe elsewhere.) I saw them
in Europe. She and the band are very traditional and I doubt it
would be whimsical or have no meaning.

 

[maxcok]

And by the way; moko are specifically chin tattoos. On women! I dont know what web sites you are getting your information from. Maybe you learnt that in your tangata whenua studies at university?

Your'e right - and lips, though I've seen what we would naively
call tattoos on other parts of their body (e.g. arms.) Moana
Maniapoto (Moana & The Moa Hunters, a funky ethnic (Maori)
band) has them on her arms (and maybe elsewhere.) I saw them
in Europe. She and the band are very traditional and I doubt it
would be whimsical or have no meaning.

Funny that every site I've visited contradicts this contention that moko are unique to women, including the New Zealand history site I linked already, including the official New Zealand Tourism Board site:

Why do people get facial moko?
A moko on the face is the ultimate statement of one's identity as a Māori. The head is believed to be the most sacred part of the body. To wear the moko on the face is to bear an undeniable declaration of who you are.

Is it only men that get moko?
Women wear moko on the face too. A woman's moko is worn on the chin, as well as occasionally appearing on the forehead, upper lip, nostrils, and throat.

Ta moko - significance of Maori tattoos ​

and for what it's worth, Wiki:

"Men generally received moko on their faces, buttocks (called raperape) and thighs (called puhoro). Women usually wore moko on their lips (kauae) and chins. Other parts of the body known to have moko on it include the foreheads, buttocks, thighs, neck and backs of women, and the backs, stomachs and calves of men."​

Tā moko - Wikipedia​

Also from the Tourism Board website:

Women continued receiving moko through the 20th century, but moko on men stopped around the 1860s in line with changing fashion and acceptance by Pākehā (white New Zealanders).

​

So it would appear that the practice of men tattoing their faces at least went into decline beginning in the 1860's, in an attempt to assimilate into European society. There's that modern bias again, ignorant of what happened in the past, out of sight out of mind. Until someone provides independent verification to the contrary I'll believe the sources I've read, namely that traditionally moko were worn by both women and men.

 

[D_Jimmy Jammer]

every site I've visited contradicts this contention that moko are unique to women, including the New Zealand history site I linked already, including the official New Zealand Tourism Board site:

As I understand it, moko are not unique to maori women but are worn by them mainly on the lips and chin and, possibly elsewhere on the body (e.g. Moana Maniapoto.) Full or predominantly facial moko are (or were) the province of Maori men and represented, depending on their detail and (I assume, coverage), generally speaking, status. Moko seems to be a general term for Maori 'tattooing' on the face and the body. No?

 

[maxcok]

As I understand it, moko are not unique to maori women but are worn by them mainly on the lips and chin and, possibly elsewhere on the body (e.g. Moana Maniapoto.) Full or predominantly facial moko are (or were) the province of Maori men and represented, depending on their detail and (I assume, coverage), generally speaking, status. Moko seems to be a general term for Maori 'tattooing' on the face and the body. No?

Yes, that's my understanding, with the qualification that 'moko' refers only to tatoos on the face, and the tatooing process is called 'ta moko'. Jujube said that moko were only chin tatoos and only worn by women, which is plainly incorrect according to my understanding and everything I've read. You agreed with his quote, so I naturally assumed you agreed with his definition. I think you and I are essentially on the same page now.

 

[D_Jimmy Jammer]

with the qualification that 'moko' refers only to tatoos on the face

What about..

Men generally received moko on their faces, buttocks (called raperape) and thighs (called puhoro). Women usually wore moko on their lips (kauae) and chins. Other parts of the body known to have moko on it include the foreheads, buttocks, thighs, neck and backs of women, and the backs, stomachs and calves of men.

That's Wiki which has a Biblio but doesn't reference this statement to any of the titles. I guess you have to hunt through them.

 

[maxcok]

What about..

That's Wiki which has a Biblio but doesn't reference this statement to any of the titles. I guess you have to hunt through them.

Yeah, I noticed that as an inconsistency depending on the source, so I don't really know the answer.
In my judgment, the first source I linked seemed the most detailed: The Maori - Tattoo - History - nz.org
Whether it's the most accurate I can't say, but there's lots to explore on the site.

 

[green carnation]

and in your reading have you come across any academic proof that maori tattooed their penises? Or indeed any mention of it at all?

Yeah, I noticed that as an inconsistency depending on the source, so I don't really know the answer.
In my judgment, the first source I linked seemed the most detailed: The Maori - Tattoo - History - nz.org
Whether it's the most accurate I can't say, but there's lots to explore on the site.

 

[maxcok]

and in your reading have you come across any academic proof that maori tattooed their penises? Or indeed any mention of it at all?

No I haven't, and I think I've made that clear. As I've said repeatedly, I'm not an expert on the Maori. As I've also said, our knowledge of them and their history, indeed our knowledge of most 'primitive' societies is extremely limited at best, based mostly on the interpretation of mere shreds of surviving archaelogical evidence, and based on the recording of oral traditions - which incorporate myth with history, naturally change over decades, centuries, even millenia, and therefore must be taken with a HUGE dose of salt. A summary of my position quoted from my posts was provided for you here.

My objection is directed towards you or anyone else who states categorically that the Maori never engaged in this practice, or any other practice for that matter, simply because we have no record of it. When you state authoritatively and incorrectly that 'moko' are only worn by women it illustrates how foolish this kind of thinking is, made all the more ridiculous by your claim that you are well versed in their culture. I am only allowing for the possibility they could have done this, and many, many other things that are unknowable to us, and unknowable even to their descendants.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Howard1122]

What''s your source for all that? I hadn't heard of the penis being tattooed before, and pre-European, they used a chisel, not a needle, hence the grooves. I don't think it would work in either the glans or the scrotum, since the warriors, like Elvis, were not made of wood, and as he almost sang ,"I don't have a wooden hard.".

My sources are the accounts of European ethnographers such as Elsdon Best, early colonial settlers and the traditional accounts of Maori themselves. There is an interesting account of genital tattooing in the book Moko published recently. The modern carvings are in the traditional pre-missionary manner. The first modern carving done in the old way caused a great uproar. Not many pakeha actually knew the facts and objected in ignorance :statues with penises are the norm. How many people actually know the circumstances of the famous All Black haka, "Ka Mate.." The knowledge was not actually lost. In traditional times not all tattooing was by cuting, pricking was used as well.

 

[xtoxin]

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I heard that the Maori also used to slice off their penises once they reached the age of 40. Even though this practice isn't recounted in any academic history of the Maori, I gleaned this info from a very reliable source. You can't disprove this, can you? Therefore, admit there is a possibility that it's true. Good, solid, logical argument there, maxcok.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

Maori culture is not "primitive". It is as anthropologists used to say, pre-industrial. It is as rich now as it ever was. The Maori's say: women have babies, and men get tattoos. The Maoris of the 19th century decorated many parts of their bodies, so I doubt they left out their penis. I worked with a Maori in London and he appeared to have no tattoos until observed in the showers; his thighs and penis were elaborately tattooed in Maori tradition.

 

[maxcok]

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I heard that the Maori also used to slice off their penises once they reached the age of 40. Even though this practice isn't recounted in any academic history of the Maori, I gleaned this info from a very reliable source. You can't disprove this, can you? Therefore, admit there is a possibility that it's true. Good, solid, logical argument there, maxcok.

You really don't get it, do you? Nine posts in four years? So glad you wasted one on me.

 

[xtoxin]

Aha -- "personal attack" is a classic logical fallacy, a crutch on which people rely when they can't win based on the facts. "Nine posts in four years?" Great rebuttal. Way to prove your point about the Maoris. I don't think my "post count" is relevant here. But good try. You can read up on your flawed approach here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html

 

[maxcok]

Aha -- "personal attack" is a classic logical phallacy, a crutch on which people rely when they can't win based on the facts. "Nine posts in four years?" Great rebuttal. Way to prove your point about the Maoris. I don't think my "post count" is relevant here. But good try.

Please explain how my post was a "personal attack" any more than your pointless little sarcastic snipe.

Guess what, I'm not trying to "prove" or "disprove" anything. What "facts"? You really don't get it, do you?


p.s. The word is 'fallacy', though 'phallusy' might be more apropos.

[Edit: Wow, two stealth edits in less than three minutes. Nice. One to correct your spelling, one to add a stupidly irrelevant link, which guess what, I couldn't give a crap about reading. Good day sir.]

 

[xtoxin]

Most people edit after they write. Jeez, I'm so ashamed for copy-editing! What the hell are you trying to prove? And why are you counting the minutes it takes for someone to reply to this board? I couldn't care less about the Maoris, or whether or not they tattooed their penises. But for some reason, you have chosen to take a ridiculous stance here. You just seem to be gunning for a fight, about nothing. You're right -- I really don't "get it," at all. I don't get you.