"Somehow all the focus on "sex ed" has led to greater ignorance"
yeah, it is like... the over-focus on bodies being used for sex forgets that they do other things like 99% of the time. And even the fact we focus a lot on preventing conception, you're right, focuses enormously on commercial prophylactics, and at this point we've nearly reverted back to people thinking women can get pregnant from a stiff wind if there are men nearby able to see their ankles and the woman wasn't on the pill or wearing an IUD and he wasn't also wearing a condom. Maybe a dental dam just for funsies.
I remember reading about the battling "concealed ovulation" hypotheses - why human women don't have obvious heat like other mammals. I think it was in Jared Diamond's 'Why is Sex Fun'; and all but one hypothesis focused on why women evolved to conceal ovulation from men (to be able to cuck their husbands, to be able to be more choosy about mates, etc.) but only one theory was developed by a woman (actually a man and woman team), and that one, notably, focused on the fact that what is more interesting is that human ovulation is largely concealed from women, and that all the other hypotheses utterly depend on this not being the case and so are obviously poor hypotheses. The women-centric hypothesis was that it evolved to prevent women from being able to prevent conception entirely out of their acquired human-consciousness fear of death; the rhythm method works, but not perfectly. Women who could be tricked by their own bodies were more likely to have more babies, and take over the gene pool.
Naturally, this one makes way more sense to me - to be able to control our fertility can be literally a matter of life and death, and has been seen we stood upright, at least. At the very least, to be able to prevent having babies we'd know we'd have to leave out to die because there wasn't enough food this year means it would have been the power to prevent our suffering over infant mortality, too.
Women who can relearn how to control their fertility better increase the odds of survival for each surviving infant, may reduce the number of dead infants they will have, and decrease their own odds of dying. It's awfully odd knowledge to hide from us, isn't it.
It's also bizarre that we spend a lot of time focusing on commercial tests or doctor-mediated torturing animals to tell us we're pregnant. A simple light would show that quite early, even if the woman couldn't tell herself before quickening - the shocking lavender shade of a pregnant woman's cervix is unmistakable, even to a complete layperson (yes, my midwives asked if I wanted to see). Again... it is awfully odd knowledge to have been disappeared, er... I mean never discovered until just now.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2022-03-10 09:55 pm (UTC)yeah, it is like... the over-focus on bodies being used for sex forgets that they do other things like 99% of the time. And even the fact we focus a lot on preventing conception, you're right, focuses enormously on commercial prophylactics, and at this point we've nearly reverted back to people thinking women can get pregnant from a stiff wind if there are men nearby able to see their ankles and the woman wasn't on the pill or wearing an IUD and he wasn't also wearing a condom. Maybe a dental dam just for funsies.
I remember reading about the battling "concealed ovulation" hypotheses - why human women don't have obvious heat like other mammals. I think it was in Jared Diamond's 'Why is Sex Fun'; and all but one hypothesis focused on why women evolved to conceal ovulation from men (to be able to cuck their husbands, to be able to be more choosy about mates, etc.) but only one theory was developed by a woman (actually a man and woman team), and that one, notably, focused on the fact that what is more interesting is that human ovulation is largely concealed from women, and that all the other hypotheses utterly depend on this not being the case and so are obviously poor hypotheses. The women-centric hypothesis was that it evolved to prevent women from being able to prevent conception entirely out of their acquired human-consciousness fear of death; the rhythm method works, but not perfectly. Women who could be tricked by their own bodies were more likely to have more babies, and take over the gene pool.
Naturally, this one makes way more sense to me - to be able to control our fertility can be literally a matter of life and death, and has been seen we stood upright, at least. At the very least, to be able to prevent having babies we'd know we'd have to leave out to die because there wasn't enough food this year means it would have been the power to prevent our suffering over infant mortality, too.
Women who can relearn how to control their fertility better increase the odds of survival for each surviving infant, may reduce the number of dead infants they will have, and decrease their own odds of dying. It's awfully odd knowledge to hide from us, isn't it.
It's also bizarre that we spend a lot of time focusing on commercial tests or doctor-mediated torturing animals to tell us we're pregnant. A simple light would show that quite early, even if the woman couldn't tell herself before quickening - the shocking lavender shade of a pregnant woman's cervix is unmistakable, even to a complete layperson (yes, my midwives asked if I wanted to see). Again... it is awfully odd knowledge to have been disappeared, er... I mean never discovered until just now.