[lbo-talk] Re: language of contempt

[JBrown72073 at cs.com]

Kelley writes:
>Jenny and Miles, a question. What about some anthropological research that
>suggests that some groups may not have even understood how reproduction
>works. That is, they assumed parthenogenesis. I remember reading a few
>books, years ago, in which it was argued that humans probably didn't know
>how reproduction worked -- requiring a male and female -- and assumed 
>parthenogenesis.

I'm not up on the latest either, and I'm sure Jerry or Charles would know 
more, but my memory is that understanding of _some_ male contribution is thought 
to be fairly widespread but not universal.  In the case of paternity being 
partable, the thought was that sexual intercourse fed the growing fetus.  Other 
groups thought that intercourse opened up the passageway for the infant to pass 
through.

Jenny Brown