There are some questions that, while they seem obvious at first, become far less obvious when you think more deeply about them. A famous one is “do fish drink water?”

Today’s stupid question is:

“How was it discovered that sex causes babies, and when?”

My thoughts turned to this question when I remembered that some aboriginal tribes didn’t know that sex causes babies. Most aboriginal women started sex not long after menarche.

So, was it discovered in neanderthal times
Or 40,000 BC
Or after domestication of the wolf 15,000 years ago.
Or with sheep domestication 9,000 BC.
Or in Mesopotamia with the first domesticated plants sometime between 9,000 and 4,000 BC.
Or with the castration of animals in Mesopotamia about 2,100 BC
Or with the Chinese eunuchs about 2,000 BC
Or did it have to wait until anatomical surgery, by people like Galen, about 140 AD.
Or wait until after the discovery of the microscope capable of imaging animal cells in 1675 AD
Or wait until the importing of plants and animals into Europe circa 1730 AD.
Or wait until the improved microscope by Lister in 1830 AD
Or Gregor Mendel in about 1830 AD
Or wait until IVF on animals in 1959 AD – OK, this is getting ridiculous but you get my point.

“How was it discovered that sex causes babies, and when?”

Basically, since the beginning. While anthropologists and evolutionary biologists can’t be precise, all available evidence suggests that humans have understood that there is some relationship between copulation and childbirth since Homo sapiens first exhibited greater cognitive development, sometime between the emergence of our species 200,000 years ago and the elaboration of human culture probably about 50,000 years ago. Material evidence for this knowledge is thin, but one plaque from the Çatalhöyük archaeological site seems to demonstrate a Neolithic understanding, with two figures embracing on one side and a mother and child depicted on the other. A firmer conclusion can be drawn from the fact that, though explanations for conception vary wildly across contemporary cultural groups, everyone acknowledges at least a partial link between sex and babies.

As for how humans attained what biological anthropologist Holly Dunsworth calls “reproductive consciousness,” that part is murkier. Most likely, we got the gist from observing animal reproduction cycles and generally noting that women who do not sleep with men do not get pregnant. But that doesn’t mean that early peoples—or for that matter, modern people—thought or think of the process in the utilitarian, sperm-meets-egg way that the scientifically literate do now.

Around the turn of the 20th century, anthropologists working in places such as Australia and New Guinea reported that their subjects did not recognize a connection between sex and children. However, subsequent research has shown these biased reports to be only half-true at best. For example, Bronislaw Malinowski claimed in 1927 that, for Trobriand Islanders, the father played no role in producing a child. But later anthropologists studying the same group learned that semen was believed to be necessary for the “coagulation” of menstrual blood, the stoppage of which was thought to eventually form the fetus.

Even though the Trobriand Islanders’ traditional explanations of conception seem quaint or strange, they do on some level recognize the tie between sex and childbirth. And of course, before we Westerners get to feeling all superior, it must be said that our notions of conception are not wholly consistent or rational either. (The number of unplanned pregnancies in the United States reveals as much.) As women’s studies scholar Cynthia Eller points out, while “other events may also be necessary—such as the entrance of a spirit child through the top of the head (in the case of the Triobriand Islanders), or the entrance of a soul into a fertilized egg (in the case of Roman Catholics) … it is simply not believed that women bear children without any male participation whatsoever.”

https://slate.com/technology/2013/01/when-did-humans-realize-sex-makes-babies-evolution-of-reproductive-consciousness-of-the-cause-of-pregnancy.html

dv said:

Basically, since the beginning. While anthropologists and evolutionary biologists can’t be precise, all available evidence suggests that humans have understood that there is some relationship between copulation and childbirth since Homo sapiens first exhibited greater cognitive development, sometime between the emergence of our species 200,000 years ago and the elaboration of human culture probably about 50,000 years ago. Material evidence for this knowledge is thin, but one plaque from the Çatalhöyük archaeological site seems to demonstrate a Neolithic understanding, with two figures embracing on one side and a mother and child depicted on the other. A firmer conclusion can be drawn from the fact that, though explanations for conception vary wildly across contemporary cultural groups, everyone acknowledges at least a partial link between sex and babies.

As for how humans attained what biological anthropologist Holly Dunsworth calls “reproductive consciousness,” that part is murkier. Most likely, we got the gist from observing animal reproduction cycles and generally noting that women who do not sleep with men do not get pregnant. But that doesn’t mean that early peoples—or for that matter, modern people—thought or think of the process in the utilitarian, sperm-meets-egg way that the scientifically literate do now.

Around the turn of the 20th century, anthropologists working in places such as Australia and New Guinea reported that their subjects did not recognize a connection between sex and children. However, subsequent research has shown these biased reports to be only half-true at best. For example, Bronislaw Malinowski claimed in 1927 that, for Trobriand Islanders, the father played no role in producing a child. But later anthropologists studying the same group learned that semen was believed to be necessary for the “coagulation” of menstrual blood, the stoppage of which was thought to eventually form the fetus.

Even though the Trobriand Islanders’ traditional explanations of conception seem quaint or strange, they do on some level recognize the tie between sex and childbirth. And of course, before we Westerners get to feeling all superior, it must be said that our notions of conception are not wholly consistent or rational either. (The number of unplanned pregnancies in the United States reveals as much.) As women’s studies scholar Cynthia Eller points out, while “other events may also be necessary—such as the entrance of a spirit child through the top of the head (in the case of the Triobriand Islanders), or the entrance of a soul into a fertilized egg (in the case of Roman Catholics) … it is simply not believed that women bear children without any male participation whatsoever.”

https://slate.com/technology/2013/01/when-did-humans-realize-sex-makes-babies-evolution-of-reproductive-consciousness-of-the-cause-of-pregnancy.html

Surely we were able to observe it in other species around us.

“Even though the Trobriand Islanders’ traditional explanations of conception seem quaint or strange,”

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Basically, since the beginning. While anthropologists and evolutionary biologists can’t be precise, all available evidence suggests that humans have understood that there is some relationship between copulation and childbirth since Homo sapiens first exhibited greater cognitive development, sometime between the emergence of our species 200,000 years ago and the elaboration of human culture probably about 50,000 years ago. Material evidence for this knowledge is thin, but one plaque from the Çatalhöyük archaeological site seems to demonstrate a Neolithic understanding, with two figures embracing on one side and a mother and child depicted on the other. A firmer conclusion can be drawn from the fact that, though explanations for conception vary wildly across contemporary cultural groups, everyone acknowledges at least a partial link between sex and babies.

As for how humans attained what biological anthropologist Holly Dunsworth calls “reproductive consciousness,” that part is murkier. Most likely, we got the gist from observing animal reproduction cycles and generally noting that women who do not sleep with men do not get pregnant. But that doesn’t mean that early peoples—or for that matter, modern people—thought or think of the process in the utilitarian, sperm-meets-egg way that the scientifically literate do now.

Around the turn of the 20th century, anthropologists working in places such as Australia and New Guinea reported that their subjects did not recognize a connection between sex and children. However, subsequent research has shown these biased reports to be only half-true at best. For example, Bronislaw Malinowski claimed in 1927 that, for Trobriand Islanders, the father played no role in producing a child. But later anthropologists studying the same group learned that semen was believed to be necessary for the “coagulation” of menstrual blood, the stoppage of which was thought to eventually form the fetus.

Even though the Trobriand Islanders’ traditional explanations of conception seem quaint or strange, they do on some level recognize the tie between sex and childbirth. And of course, before we Westerners get to feeling all superior, it must be said that our notions of conception are not wholly consistent or rational either. (The number of unplanned pregnancies in the United States reveals as much.) As women’s studies scholar Cynthia Eller points out, while “other events may also be necessary—such as the entrance of a spirit child through the top of the head (in the case of the Triobriand Islanders), or the entrance of a soul into a fertilized egg (in the case of Roman Catholics) … it is simply not believed that women bear children without any male participation whatsoever.”

https://slate.com/technology/2013/01/when-did-humans-realize-sex-makes-babies-evolution-of-reproductive-consciousness-of-the-cause-of-pregnancy.html

Surely we were able to observe it in other species around us.

Even in dogs, how would they know that every dog that did produce a baby had copulated at least once?

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Basically, since the beginning. While anthropologists and evolutionary biologists can’t be precise, all available evidence suggests that humans have understood that there is some relationship between copulation and childbirth since Homo sapiens first exhibited greater cognitive development, sometime between the emergence of our species 200,000 years ago and the elaboration of human culture probably about 50,000 years ago. Material evidence for this knowledge is thin, but one plaque from the Çatalhöyük archaeological site seems to demonstrate a Neolithic understanding, with two figures embracing on one side and a mother and child depicted on the other. A firmer conclusion can be drawn from the fact that, though explanations for conception vary wildly across contemporary cultural groups, everyone acknowledges at least a partial link between sex and babies.

As for how humans attained what biological anthropologist Holly Dunsworth calls “reproductive consciousness,” that part is murkier. Most likely, we got the gist from observing animal reproduction cycles and generally noting that women who do not sleep with men do not get pregnant. But that doesn’t mean that early peoples—or for that matter, modern people—thought or think of the process in the utilitarian, sperm-meets-egg way that the scientifically literate do now.

Around the turn of the 20th century, anthropologists working in places such as Australia and New Guinea reported that their subjects did not recognize a connection between sex and children. However, subsequent research has shown these biased reports to be only half-true at best. For example, Bronislaw Malinowski claimed in 1927 that, for Trobriand Islanders, the father played no role in producing a child. But later anthropologists studying the same group learned that semen was believed to be necessary for the “coagulation” of menstrual blood, the stoppage of which was thought to eventually form the fetus.

Even though the Trobriand Islanders’ traditional explanations of conception seem quaint or strange, they do on some level recognize the tie between sex and childbirth. And of course, before we Westerners get to feeling all superior, it must be said that our notions of conception are not wholly consistent or rational either. (The number of unplanned pregnancies in the United States reveals as much.) As women’s studies scholar Cynthia Eller points out, while “other events may also be necessary—such as the entrance of a spirit child through the top of the head (in the case of the Triobriand Islanders), or the entrance of a soul into a fertilized egg (in the case of Roman Catholics) … it is simply not believed that women bear children without any male participation whatsoever.”

https://slate.com/technology/2013/01/when-did-humans-realize-sex-makes-babies-evolution-of-reproductive-consciousness-of-the-cause-of-pregnancy.html

Surely we were able to observe it in other species around us.

Even in dogs, how would they know that every dog that did produce a baby had copulated at least once?

Some people are more observant than others but I’d say animals thta had a quick turnaround would have been obvious at first.

mollwollfumble said:

There are some questions that, while they seem obvious at first, become far less obvious when you think more deeply about them. A famous one is “do fish drink water?”

Today’s stupid question is:

“How was it discovered that sex causes babies, and when?”

My thoughts turned to this question when I remembered that some aboriginal tribes didn’t know that sex causes babies. Most aboriginal women started sex not long after menarche.

So, was it discovered in neanderthal times
Or 40,000 BC
Or after domestication of the wolf 15,000 years ago.
Or with sheep domestication 9,000 BC.
Or in Mesopotamia with the first domesticated plants sometime between 9,000 and 4,000 BC.
Or with the castration of animals in Mesopotamia about 2,100 BC
Or with the Chinese eunuchs about 2,000 BC
Or did it have to wait until anatomical surgery, by people like Galen, about 140 AD.
Or wait until after the discovery of the microscope capable of imaging animal cells in 1675 AD
Or wait until the importing of plants and animals into Europe circa 1730 AD.
Or wait until the improved microscope by Lister in 1830 AD
Or Gregor Mendel in about 1830 AD
Or wait until IVF on animals in 1959 AD – OK, this is getting ridiculous but you get my point.

“How was it discovered that sex causes babies, and when?”

When?

About 9 months after sex was discovered, i reckon.

(There are no stupid questions, but there are stupid answers, as i have just demonstrated.)

The Rev Dodgson said:

“Even though the Trobriand Islanders’ traditional explanations of conception seem quaint or strange,”

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I mean it’s no dafter than European Renaissance ideas about reproduction but it seems quaint and strange to those of us born after the discovery of the microscope.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Surely we were able to observe it in other species around us.

Even in dogs, how would they know that every dog that did produce a baby had copulated at least once?

Some people are more observant than others but I’d say animals thta had a quick turnaround would have been obvious at first.

Probably not observed so much in dogs, but it would be obvious among livestock whose mating habits were more readily observed and controlled.

probably some had an idea from adults of opposite gender laying with each other, the evident attractions that inclined that, and nesty behaviors, observed desires in others that resulted in children, reinforces the ways mentioned below

good part of it is instinct, say for example many ladies strongly desire children, and (for some part in some way anyway) desire a man, and man desires woman

better to consider the broad range of familiarities exhibited and acted on, attractions that incline the behaviors

humans have instincts for observing attractions, bonds too

what exactly do you want to define as sex, does it have to be specifically and only the putting something in something, the DNA insertion apparatus in the DNA receiving apparatus, perhaps the enthusiastic conclusion also

seems a bit reductive, maybe it is a modern thing for it to be viewed so reductively, though i’d venture a guess the act itself can be quite focused, reductive

what of something like birds copulating, building nests, eggs in the nest, nesty behaviors, getting food for youngsters

plenty hints in nature of copulation related resulting in offspring, opportunity to associate the goings on

i’ve seen a few birds playing leapfrog, see them building nests, going back to the nests, seen eggs in nests too, then youngsters hatch, the birds grow up

plenty hints of it in nature, familiarity resulting in offspring

all the creatures breeding

By 1537 AD it was known that human sperm was alive and could grow into a baby. But the role of the egg cell in human reproduction was not known.

Alchemy attributed to Paracelsus De natura rerum (1537)

That the sperm of a man be putrefied by itself … so long that it comes to life and moves itself, and stirs, which is easily observed. After this time, … a living human child grows therefrom, with all its members like another child, which is born of a woman.

Sort of related.

The current New Scientist has an article about the evolutionary benefit of apes masturbating.

The consensus seems to be that it is physically useful in reducing disease transmission and enhancing fertility.

I have my doubts about that, but apparently it isn’t harmful, since all the surviving apes do it a lot.

So the question is, when did the human apes first decide that masturbation was a bad thing, that must be discouraged as much as possible, and how did this idea survive and become so prevalent?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Sort of related.

The current New Scientist has an article about the evolutionary benefit of apes masturbating.

The consensus seems to be that it is physically useful in reducing disease transmission and enhancing fertility.

I have my doubts about that, but apparently it isn’t harmful, since all the surviving apes do it a lot.

So the question is, when did the human apes first decide that masturbation was a bad thing, that must be discouraged as much as possible, and how did this idea survive and become so prevalent?

Probably with the first religions that saw masturbation as a threat to their religion.

Along side that would tribal behaviour (masturbating in trees, bushes, or out in the open) evolving into township behaviour that would move that behaviour into houses.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Sort of related.

The current New Scientist has an article about the evolutionary benefit of apes masturbating.

The consensus seems to be that it is physically useful in reducing disease transmission and enhancing fertility.

I have my doubts about that, but apparently it isn’t harmful, since all the surviving apes do it a lot.

So the question is, when did the human apes first decide that masturbation was a bad thing, that must be discouraged as much as possible, and how did this idea survive and become so prevalent?

Probably when they came up with the idea that the earthly body and the human soul were parts of separate realms, but combined into one being. Things of the body were dirty and shameful and things of the mind focused on heavenly things were good. Masturbation is using the powers of the mind and the body for purely physical enjoyment. So it is sort of a double bad from this viewpoint.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Sort of related.

The current New Scientist has an article about the evolutionary benefit of apes masturbating.

The consensus seems to be that it is physically useful in reducing disease transmission and enhancing fertility.

I have my doubts about that, but apparently it isn’t harmful, since all the surviving apes do it a lot.

So the question is, when did the human apes first decide that masturbation was a bad thing, that must be discouraged as much as possible, and how did this idea survive and become so prevalent?

Probably when they came up with the idea that the earthly body and the human soul were parts of separate realms, but combined into one being. Things of the body were dirty and shameful and things of the mind focused on heavenly things were good. Masturbation is using the powers of the mind and the body for purely physical enjoyment. So it is sort of a double bad from this viewpoint.

Every sperm is sacred…

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Sort of related.

The current New Scientist has an article about the evolutionary benefit of apes masturbating.

The consensus seems to be that it is physically useful in reducing disease transmission and enhancing fertility.

I have my doubts about that, but apparently it isn’t harmful, since all the surviving apes do it a lot.

So the question is, when did the human apes first decide that masturbation was a bad thing, that must be discouraged as much as possible, and how did this idea survive and become so prevalent?

Probably with the first religions that saw masturbation as a threat to their religion.

Along side that would tribal behaviour (masturbating in trees, bushes, or out in the open) evolving into township behaviour that would move that behaviour into houses.

There would have been a natural transition from having sex outside (in view of others) and moving it inside the Hut / home (out of view from others)

If religion wanted to control behaviour, it would have controlled itself anyway.

furious said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Sort of related.

The current New Scientist has an article about the evolutionary benefit of apes masturbating.

The consensus seems to be that it is physically useful in reducing disease transmission and enhancing fertility.

I have my doubts about that, but apparently it isn’t harmful, since all the surviving apes do it a lot.

So the question is, when did the human apes first decide that masturbation was a bad thing, that must be discouraged as much as possible, and how did this idea survive and become so prevalent?

Probably when they came up with the idea that the earthly body and the human soul were parts of separate realms, but combined into one being. Things of the body were dirty and shameful and things of the mind focused on heavenly things were good. Masturbation is using the powers of the mind and the body for purely physical enjoyment. So it is sort of a double bad from this viewpoint.

Every sperm is sacred…

Every time I see that I’m amazed by how bloody good it is :)

And another thing.

Doing stuff so that you can have sex with a member of the other sex without making babies.

When did that start?

The Rev Dodgson said:

And another thing.

Doing stuff so that you can have sex with a member of the other sex without making babies.

When did that start?

When someone realized that that could be done without making babies.

The Rev Dodgson said:

And another thing.

Doing stuff so that you can have sex with a member of the other sex without making babies.

When did that start?

tree fiddy

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

And another thing.

Doing stuff so that you can have sex with a member of the other sex without making babies.

When did that start?

When someone realized that that could be done without making babies.

Agree that pinning down the exact year would be difficult.

The Rev Dodgson said:

And another thing.

Doing stuff so that you can have sex with a member of the other sex without making babies.

When did that start?

Pig intestine condoms were probably all the rage down Sumer way 3,500 B.C.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

And another thing.

Doing stuff so that you can have sex with a member of the other sex without making babies.

When did that start?

Pig intestine condoms were probably all the rage down Sumer way 3,500 B.C.

Wouldn’t it be fun going back in time to 3,500 B.C. to freak out the priests real bad.

The Rev Dodgson said:

And another thing.

Doing stuff so that you can have sex with a member of the other sex without making babies.

When did that start?

pregnancy temporarily limits the possibility of getting pregnant(again), for nine months or so

sort of contraception in a twisted way, might be a paradox in there for you to chew on

stir^

obviously
sooner than
-≥ Chinese eunuchs about 2,000 BC

The Rev Dodgson said:

Sort of related.

The current New Scientist has an article about the evolutionary benefit of apes masturbating.

The consensus seems to be that it is physically useful in reducing disease transmission and enhancing fertility.

I have my doubts about that, but apparently it isn’t harmful, since all the surviving apes do it a lot.

So the question is, when did the human apes first decide that masturbation was a bad thing, that must be discouraged as much as possible, and how did this idea survive and become so prevalent?

When someone who was apparently powerful enough to foist their phobias on the others?

roughbarked said:

Surely we were able to observe it in other species around us.

You see, that’s one problem for Australian Aborigines.

They could not observe it in the kangaroo or any other marsupial. Because the hole that the baby emerges from is not in any way physically connected to the hole that semen enters. Also a problem with kangaroos is that we now know that a pregnancy can be halted in the middle for many months, so there’s no time correlation between sex and pregnancy either.

> probably about 50,000 years ago. Material evidence for this knowledge is thin, but one plaque from the Çatalhöyük archaeological site seems to demonstrate a Neolithic understanding, with two figures embracing on one side and a mother and child depicted on the other.

Nice, that probably clinches it.. “Embracing” isn’t necessarily sex, I have seen one account where the proximity of two people suffices – no sex is involved.

> everyone acknowledges at least a partial link between sex and babies

Not everyone. At least one top end aboriginal tribe believed that when a black person dies, they are reincarnated as a white baby. Reincarnation is opposed to the belief that sex causes babies.

> generally noting that women who do not sleep with men do not get pregnant

Another problem for aboriginal tribes. There were no aboriginal women who did not sleep with men. Marriages occurred very soon after menarche.

> Around the turn of the 20th century, anthropologists working in places such as Australia and New Guinea reported that their subjects did not recognize a connection between sex and children.

Yes. These are the accounts that I have read.

> the entrance of a soul into a fertilized egg (in the case of Roman Catholics)

That’s a point. The books of the New Testament seem to claim that a child could not be conceived before marriage, and “the hold spirit” causes babies on some occasions. It would be interesting to track that back through the Old Testament and see how far back the belief goes.

Come to think of it the whole “begat” tree is based on a continued male line of descent.

> Even in dogs, how would they know that every dog that did produce a baby had copulated at least once?

Good point. It would have to be after domestication of the wolf, though, circa 15,000 years ago.

> The current New Scientist has an article about the evolutionary benefit of apes masturbating. The consensus seems to be that it is physically useful in reducing disease transmission and enhancing fertility.

My thought on that is that masturbation is physically useful in reducing the incidence of bloody murder caused by sexual frustration.

> Ogmog said:

obviously
sooner than
-≥ Chinese eunuchs about 2,000 BC

You’d think so. Especially as the usefulness of castration of animals was discovered shortly before that.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

Surely we were able to observe it in other species around us.

You see, that’s one problem for Australian Aborigines.

They could not observe it in the kangaroo or any other marsupial. Because the hole that the baby emerges from is not in any way physically connected to the hole that semen enters. Also a problem with kangaroos is that we now know that a pregnancy can be halted in the middle for many months, so there’s no time correlation between sex and pregnancy either.

> probably about 50,000 years ago. Material evidence for this knowledge is thin, but one plaque from the Çatalhöyük archaeological site seems to demonstrate a Neolithic understanding, with two figures embracing on one side and a mother and child depicted on the other.

Nice, that probably clinches it.. “Embracing” isn’t necessarily sex, I have seen one account where the proximity of two people suffices – no sex is involved.

> everyone acknowledges at least a partial link between sex and babies

Not everyone. At least one top end aboriginal tribe believed that when a black person dies, they are reincarnated as a white baby. Reincarnation is opposed to the belief that sex causes babies.

> generally noting that women who do not sleep with men do not get pregnant

Another problem for aboriginal tribes. There were no aboriginal women who did not sleep with men. Marriages occurred very soon after menarche.

> Around the turn of the 20th century, anthropologists working in places such as Australia and New Guinea reported that their subjects did not recognize a connection between sex and children.

Yes. These are the accounts that I have read.

> the entrance of a soul into a fertilized egg (in the case of Roman Catholics)

That’s a point. The books of the New Testament seem to claim that a child could not be conceived before marriage, and “the hold spirit” causes babies on some occasions. It would be interesting to track that back through the Old Testament and see how far back the belief goes.

Come to think of it the whole “begat” tree is based on a continued male line of descent.

> Even in dogs, how would they know that every dog that did produce a baby had copulated at least once?

Good point. It would have to be after domestication of the wolf, though, circa 15,000 years ago.

> The current New Scientist has an article about the evolutionary benefit of apes masturbating. The consensus seems to be that it is physically useful in reducing disease transmission and enhancing fertility.

My thought on that is that masturbation is physically useful in reducing the incidence of bloody murder caused by sexual frustration.

> Ogmog said:

obviously
sooner than
-≥ Chinese eunuchs about 2,000 BC

You’d think so. Especially as the usefulness of castration of animals was discovered shortly before that.

I think easily that the aborigine knew which hole the babies came from long before they saw a kangaroo.
Honestly moll, you do come up with some very strange ideas and that is from me who has seen between worlds and space without a telescope.

When was it realised the male determines the sex of the child not the women
Lots of women condemned for not giving the husband/royal family a male heir

Cymek said:

When was it realised the male determines the sex of the child not the women
Lots of women condemned for not giving the husband/royal family a male heir

Around 1905.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nettie_Stevens

Michael V said:

Cymek said:

When was it realised the male determines the sex of the child not the women
Lots of women condemned for not giving the husband/royal family a male heir

Around 1905.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nettie_Stevens

Danke