ivan
12-05-2006, 05:20 PM
from extraordinary origins of everyday things by charles panati
pg 331
birth control:
but the concept is ancient, practiced in early societies, and it arose out of an astonsihing biological change that occurred in the female reproductive cycle some 6 billion years ago.
the change involved estrus, or heat. at that time, females, in the lineage that would become homo sapiens, began to switch from being sexually receptive to males only during limited periods of estrus to continuous arousal (?) and receptivity. thus, from conceiving young only during brief season (nature's own birth control), the female evolved to bearing young year round.
anthropologists theorize this development went hand in hand with the emerging trait of walking erect. to acheive balance for upright posture, the pelvis canal narrowed; this meant difficult and often fatal pregnancies. natural selection began to favor females with proclivity for giving premature birth- that is, for having babies small enough to negotiate the narrowed canal. these premature babies required longer postnatal care and consequently kept the mothers busier. thus, the female became increasingly dependent on the male for food and protection. and she guarenteed herself and her offspring these necessities by offering the male in return sexual favors for longer and longer periods of time.
ivan:
so, with this in mind, should men who are with a woman who does not or can not have sex as often as he does "breed" with her in order to reduce the genetic possibility of passing down the predisposition of little sex? or will the gene pass down naturally due to the human "need" to have children and thus return humans to a "heat cycle" sex because of women becoming more independent of men for food and shelter in modern times?
pg 331
birth control:
but the concept is ancient, practiced in early societies, and it arose out of an astonsihing biological change that occurred in the female reproductive cycle some 6 billion years ago.
the change involved estrus, or heat. at that time, females, in the lineage that would become homo sapiens, began to switch from being sexually receptive to males only during limited periods of estrus to continuous arousal (?) and receptivity. thus, from conceiving young only during brief season (nature's own birth control), the female evolved to bearing young year round.
anthropologists theorize this development went hand in hand with the emerging trait of walking erect. to acheive balance for upright posture, the pelvis canal narrowed; this meant difficult and often fatal pregnancies. natural selection began to favor females with proclivity for giving premature birth- that is, for having babies small enough to negotiate the narrowed canal. these premature babies required longer postnatal care and consequently kept the mothers busier. thus, the female became increasingly dependent on the male for food and protection. and she guarenteed herself and her offspring these necessities by offering the male in return sexual favors for longer and longer periods of time.
ivan:
so, with this in mind, should men who are with a woman who does not or can not have sex as often as he does "breed" with her in order to reduce the genetic possibility of passing down the predisposition of little sex? or will the gene pass down naturally due to the human "need" to have children and thus return humans to a "heat cycle" sex because of women becoming more independent of men for food and shelter in modern times?