handofdave wrote:
That there is no head on this figurine is extremely significant, and tends to lead me to believe that it's not a totem of female equality, but just the opposite. A headless figure is a figure that's been stripped of it's individuality.

By our modern standards, anyway...

I realise Ms Willendorf 25,000 bc has an average sized head but headless , footless , armless , seems more typical.

I suppose most of these items do 'condense' the sexual aspect down to it's essential forms... the lingam and yoni.

Maybe the amulet was a way for a male to 'possess' the female power, sort of like the way the aborigines of Australia would perform drastic circumcisions with the intent of giving the male a sort of vagina of his own, granting him a form of 'power' over the real thing.

As for patriarchal religion's need to 'purify' the woman in order to make her worthy of worship, I'm skeptical that the intent is anything but another form of male distrust of women's sexuality.