Re: Intercourse /vs/ Offspring

E Douglas Kihn (
12 Dec 1996 08:03:22 GMT

In <58kj57$> (Gerold Firl)
>In article <58gfdf$>, Douglas Kihn) writes:
>|> In <> Hugh Hoskins
>|> writes:
>|> >When did man first recognize the correlation between intercourse
>|> >babies being born 3 seasons later?
>|> This is such a heluva good question, it deserves to be public!
>|> take on it is that paternity wasn't known until animal husbandry,
>|> started around 8,000 to 10,000 years ago.
>Could be, although low-intervention reindeer-style husbandry may have
>been in use *much* earlier. Some researchers have suggested that
>gazelles were being managed on the coastal plains of the ice-age
>levant 30,000 years ago.
>Depictions of copulating animals in the cro-magnon cave paintings also
>suggests an earlier comprehension of the connection between sex and

>Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of
>me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---- Gerold Firl @

'Scuse me. . .
But rock paintings showing animals copulating (and having a heluva
great time) doesn't make that connection at all. It merely suggests
that pre-technological humans recognized a good time when they saw it!
Now, if there was a rock painting that showed animals copulating, and
then in the next picture the same species giving birth, wouldn't that
be a HOOT!

Dr. Doug