|
Post by Moose on Feb 12, 2013 18:34:59 GMT
At what point in our evolution do you think that human beings realised the connection between sex and pregnancy? Sex is something we will always have done simply for instinct - well obviously, we'd not be here otherwise - and it takes quite a while for a pregnancy to become obvious. For how many tens of thousands of years are otherwise sentient humans likely to have believed that pregnancy just spontaneously happens?
|
|
|
Post by Shake on Feb 12, 2013 19:30:35 GMT
A very good question, Ms Moose. I'm sure I don't have the answer.
Makes you wonder then, if any other animals realize the connection. I feel like in some way, they must though.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 12, 2013 19:35:36 GMT
I was wondering that too. And then musing further I wondered if humans are the only species who are able to have the concept of a 'father' (even tho, until comparatively recently, paternity could not be proved and was largely dependent on the mother's word).
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 12, 2013 19:55:35 GMT
Athenians (and possibly other ancient civilizations) regarded women not as mates but as baby factories, so they would have made the connection between sex and pregnancy. The connection was also clear in the Old Testament. Genesis 4:1 "Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain."
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 12, 2013 20:02:07 GMT
Yes but I am thinking a lot further back that that .. tens, thousands of hundreds of years, before any sort of recorded civillisation
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 12, 2013 20:31:40 GMT
The connection between sex and pregnancy would have been well known in the practice of animal husbandry. "Animal husbandry has been practiced for thousands of years, since the first domestication of animals," says Wiki. And the earliest animal to be domesticated was the dog, possibly 30,000 years ago. On the other hand, almost all fertility symbols from Neolithic times are female. I can find only one that is male (too rude to post), which suggests fertility was regarded as a female province.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 12, 2013 20:34:14 GMT
That's a good point about animal husbandry.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Feb 12, 2013 20:50:58 GMT
I have heard this rumour before but wasn't convinced. You'd have had to have lived a very sheltered life and be pretty ignorant to not realise!
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 12, 2013 20:51:58 GMT
?
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Feb 12, 2013 20:59:58 GMT
Click on the link! I don't know why I bother posting so many of them!
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 12, 2013 21:02:13 GMT
Ah right .. did not realise it WAS a link. In this skin it does not show at all
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Feb 12, 2013 21:07:02 GMT
Ah! I had noticed before, but didn't want to alter the other penguin's skins. I have become so used to Pengreen (shameless plug) that I had forgotten that they do not directly show up, unless hovered over.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Feb 12, 2013 21:34:11 GMT
I detest having links too obvious, if it is embedded in a sentence then I should be able to read the sentence and not focus on links, dammit!
Besides animal husbandry, I think the fact that a lot of children will resemble their fathers would be a clue.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Feb 12, 2013 22:21:18 GMT
Heh, it is a shame that you can only change the colour and not the font decoration. I think there is a line somewhere between too obvious and invisible. I like to put links to obscure words or subjects to save others having to go and search for themselves. I expect someone would also have made the link between the fact that only women who were sexually active had babies, although a long time back they probably started much younger, what with the much shorter life expectancies. Maybe the children look like their fathers through osmosis!
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 13, 2013 1:07:48 GMT
The thing is that presumably way back when, everyone was sexually active?
Is there about to be a fight between my two favourite penguins?!
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 13, 2013 1:58:52 GMT
The thing is that presumably way back when, everyone was sexually active? I suspect our ancestors were more reserved than today's young people. We have the same genes as our ancestors, more or less. They include the bonding instinct, the mating procedure that pairs a couple for life. That exists today and therefore it must have existed 30,000 years ago. James Burke explained it on TV many years ago as 12 steps (although I think the number of steps is arbitrary): A couple catch each other's eye They smile at each other They talk to each other They come close to each other (inside the other's personal space) They hold hands or touch in some other way Kissing (four different levels) Petting (two levels) Sex Couples who want to mate move through the levels one at a time and do not progress to the next level until both are comfortable with that level. So, for example, a girl will not speak to a boy until they have both smiled at each other. In ideal circumstances, this results in bonding for life and there is a lot of evidence that before the pill was invented in 1960, a lot of couples followed this mating procedure instinctively. We are often given the impression that cavemen took their wives with brute force in a cavalier manner without regard to the woman's wishes but I think that's completely false. There is no doubt the mating procedure exists in our genes today. How could that be so if it wasn't present in our genes 30,000 years ago? I am forced to conclude that cavemen adopted a cautious mating procedure in just the same way that couples did in general in the 1950s and earlier.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 13, 2013 4:05:07 GMT
Um I could not agree less. Where on earth are you getting that idea from?! Do you think that chimpanzees have cautious, nineteen fifties style mating procedures?! Do you really think that the Victorian era or similar was like that? it was not.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 13, 2013 9:48:34 GMT
The simply answer to your question, do I think chimpanzees have cautious, 1950s style mating procedures, is that we have evolved from chimpanzees over 8 million years or so. It's widely regarded that cavemen 30,000 years had an almost identical genetic makeup to modern humans and that must include one of the most basic instincts of all, the mating and bonding process.
A person's underlying genetic makeup is very strong but it could have been overriden by Victorian social mores. However, 30,000 years ago there were no social mores, nothing to impede natural instincts. It's not my idea, it was James Burke's, a presenter on BBC TV many years ago but I think he has a strong case.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 13, 2013 18:33:21 GMT
I thought we were related to chimps, not evolved from them . But I honestly don't think that there was ever anything polite about courtship and mating way back when. From the female point of view it could probably have been quite brutal indeed
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 14, 2013 1:33:23 GMT
I thought we were related to chimps, not evolved from them *sigh* Yes, we're evolved from the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 14, 2013 22:50:29 GMT
Just being pedantic I don't actually know anything about the sex lives of chimpanzees tho. I presume that, although they presumably feel affection for some of their kind (and animosity towards others) they probably do not experience love and sex in the same way that we do and do not make any connection between the two
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 15, 2013 1:14:13 GMT
I think you're right although we can only surmise.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 15, 2013 3:09:48 GMT
we could always ask them
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 15, 2013 16:11:54 GMT
Er, how?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 15, 2013 18:17:39 GMT
That tongue pokey out yellow thing was meant to be indicative of something
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Feb 16, 2013 1:40:26 GMT
Oh, OK, missed that.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Feb 19, 2013 16:53:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Feb 19, 2013 18:55:05 GMT
That sounds rather interesting..
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Feb 19, 2013 20:45:04 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 9:26:41 GMT
But I honestly don't think that there was ever anything polite about courtship and mating way back when. From the female point of view it could probably have been quite brutal indeed Jo, even our guinea-pig male Sparky, who ended up getting Patch pregnant, didn't just jump her. There is a bit of flirting going on before, waggling the butt and making low, rumbling noises. And these days, if he tries to get too close to Patch she does know how to keep him away (I should maybe not mention how).
|
|