> I assume you're referring to the Catherine McCoid decolonizing gender stuff from the 90s?

Amongst others.

> That is still talked about, but I'm not aware of it being taken seriously as a theory.

I'm not sure what to say to this because you're essentially arguing that your own ignorance is representative of the reality in the field. You recognise that these questions have been part of the discourse now for a third of a century but at the same time suggest it's all done in jest? I really don't know how to read this.

> We also have a whole lineage of art from the prehistoric age to today

We very much do not. There are many gaps, especially significant ones in pre-history and you're skipping multiple millennia to stretch a connection to temple prostitution, as well as ignoring the very clearly evident variation in the representations of women more recently across geographies.

> Even among the competing hypotheses...

Well we can end it here because the salient point is that pornographic representations of women is no longer the dominant theory and you seem to accept that.