Re: Intercourse /vs/ Offspring
Richard F. Hall (realistic@seanet.com)
Mon, 9 Dec 1996 10:46:21 MST
In article <19961209142700.JAA12391@ladder01.news.aol.com> ehutchison@aol.com writes:
>From: ehutchison@aol.com
>Subject: Re: Intercourse /vs/ Offspring
>Date: 9 Dec 1996 14:27:51 GMT
>Hugh Hoskin wonders "When did man first recognize the correlation between
>intercourse and the birth of babies three seasons later?"
It might be of interest to the general audience that even up to the time of
Darwin, and even in Darwin's beliefs, the woman was a "pod" in which the man
deposited the seed from which the child grew.. The woman was not recognized
as providing any genetic contribution to the child!
This is a bit off the question, but should keep any of us from feeling too
advanced from those who hadn't cought on the the sex=children connection.
It's always amazing to me how much mankind takes for granted today that was a
mystery just a few years ago. It's amazing we aren't crazier than we are.
I have found some information to try to help people who are ernestly trying
to sort things out. I categorize this as Realistic Idealism.
rich
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism
|