Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 6, No. 0443. Saturday, 3 June 1995.
(1) From: Milla Riggio <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 02 Jun 1995 17:43:31 -0500 (EST)
Subj: Re: SHK 6.0439 Re: Miss-Begetting
(2) From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 2 Jun 1995 23:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subj: Re: SHK 6.0439 Re: Miss-Begetting
(3) From: Anna Cole <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 02 Jun 1995 10:03:16 GMT
Subj: Re: SHK 6.0433 Re: Miss-Begetting
(1)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Milla Riggio <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 02 Jun 1995 17:43:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 6.0439 Re: Miss-Begetting
Comment: Re: SHK 6.0439 Re: Miss-Begetting
With regard to the issue of fertilizing a baby with male or female sperm. It
is true that male sperm, according to current research theory, are more
vigorous than female, but shorter-lived. As a result, those trying to
determine the sex of a child before fertilization do work with body
temperature, but only to determine the probable date of ovulation, which
affects body temperature. One has a better chance of conceiving a male child
on the early side of ovulation, a female on the later side. But the vigor of
the conception, or as far as I know the degree of penetration are irrelevant
factors. A very healthy baby girl can be produced from a vigorous conception;
and a healthy boy can indeed be got 'twixt sleep and waking with scarce a
murmur of passion. A research obstetrician I used to know who worked with
parents to help them "pre-sex" children would at times have wives call their
husbands from his office and loan them a couch if he thought the time for
conception was right. The method seemed to work just fine for both boys and
girls!
Do we really need to walk much further down this path? The Renaissance myths
about conception are probably just that: myths!
A well-wishing Shakespearean who hopes to hear little more of this particular
discussion,,
Milla Riggio
(2)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 2 Jun 1995 23:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 6.0439 Re: Miss-Begetting
Comment: Re: SHK 6.0439 Re: Miss-Begetting
On the subject of the child being influenced by external influences to the
mother, like the pictures Tom Bishop alludes to, we might also see this sort of
belief applied to animals in Shylock's explanation regarding Laban's sheep.
Cheers,
Sean.
(3)----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anna Cole <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Friday, 02 Jun 1995 10:03:16 GMT
Subject: 6.0433 Re: Miss-Begetting
Comment: Re: SHK 6.0433 Re: Miss-Begetting
It is interesting to contrast Shakespeare's view of the "dull, stale, tired"
marital bed in Lear with its depiction in Hamlet, 1.v: "But virtue as it never
will be moved/Though lewdness court it in a shape of heaven,/So lust, though to
a radiant angel linked,/Will sate itself in a celestial bed/ and prey on
garbage." The lust is there but the bed has been imbued (by the Ghost) with a
shining marital sanctity.
Anna Cole
