On 2021-09-01 7:28 p.m., John Halpenny wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 9:06:30 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2021-08-13 4:27 p.m., Kevrob wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 12:08:48 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 21:04:59 -0600, David Johnston
>>>> <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-08-10 10:53 p.m., Kevrob wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 9:25:07 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>>> Pavane by Keith Roberts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/darkness-be-over-me
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the Church can meddle with the past well enough to avert
>>>>>> Global Nuclear War, why not reach back further? Convincing
>>>>>> the first humans to not commit Original Sin would have been
>>>>>> top of my to-do list - unless that's just a story.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...you can't actually prevent children from growing up and discovering
>>>>> sexual attraction. Unless you just kill them first.
>>>
>>> I agree, if we are allowed to discount the mythology of the
>>> Old and New Testaments. If Roberts does, that's an author's
>>> privilege.
>>>
>>>> Pre-Fall -- /what/ sexual attraction?
>>>>
>>>
>>> A&E could have been feeling it, but not understanding what it was.
>>> After they nibbled that fruit, though?
>> The fruit is a bloody metaphor. She is tempted by a snake, he is
>> tempted by a fig and after they succumb to temptation, suddenly nudity
>> seems like a big deal to them.
>
> Before the fall, nudity was not sinful, so presumably sex wasn't either.
>
> Actually, nothing was sinful.
Well no. That's wrong. They just had not yet "sinned".

On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 21:43:50 -0600, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2021-09-01 7:28 p.m., John Halpenny wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 9:06:30 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
>>> On 2021-08-13 4:27 p.m., Kevrob wrote:
>>>> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 12:08:48 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 21:04:59 -0600, David Johnston
>>>>> <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021-08-10 10:53 p.m., Kevrob wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 9:25:07 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>>>> Pavane by Keith Roberts
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/darkness-be-over-me
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the Church can meddle with the past well enough to avert
>>>>>>> Global Nuclear War, why not reach back further? Convincing
>>>>>>> the first humans to not commit Original Sin would have been
>>>>>>> top of my to-do list - unless that's just a story.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...you can't actually prevent children from growing up and discovering
>>>>>> sexual attraction. Unless you just kill them first.
>>>>
>>>> I agree, if we are allowed to discount the mythology of the
>>>> Old and New Testaments. If Roberts does, that's an author's
>>>> privilege.
>>>>
>>>>> Pre-Fall -- /what/ sexual attraction?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A&E could have been feeling it, but not understanding what it was.
>>>> After they nibbled that fruit, though?
>>> The fruit is a bloody metaphor. She is tempted by a snake, he is
>>> tempted by a fig and after they succumb to temptation, suddenly nudity
>>> seems like a big deal to them.
>>
>> Before the fall, nudity was not sinful, so presumably sex wasn't either.
>>
>> Actually, nothing was sinful.
>Well no. That's wrong. They just had not yet "sinned".

And here we have illustrated one of the deep divisions in Christian
theology:

-- those who consider "sin" to be an /act/
-- those who consider "sin" to be a /state/

For the former, someone who sins is a sinner: the act determines the
state.

For the latter, someone who is a sinner sins: the state determines the
act.

At their extremes, both have problems:

The former include people who have convinced themselves that "original
sin" simply refers to the first sin a person chooses to do. At which
point the child becomes a sinner. Their implication is that a person
who never sins is never a sinner and therefore is righteous no matter
what God may think of the matter.

The latter include people have convinced themselves that since
"everyone and everything is a slave of sin" and "everything is sin",
then there is no point in even trying to do better. Indeed, if
"everything is sin", then there is no moral difference between moral
and immoral. And, in some cases, the very idea that Christians should
behave better than non-Christians is abandoned.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 19:04:33 -0600, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2021-08-13 10:08 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 21:04:59 -0600, David Johnston
>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-08-10 10:53 p.m., Kevrob wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 9:25:07 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>> Pavane by Keith Roberts
>>>>>
>>>>> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/darkness-be-over-me
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> If the Church can meddle with the past well enough to avert
>>>> Global Nuclear War, why not reach back further? Convincing
>>>> the first humans to not commit Original Sin would have been
>>>> top of my to-do list - unless that's just a story.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...you can't actually prevent children from growing up and discovering
>>> sexual attraction. Unless you just kill them first.
>>
>> Pre-Fall -- /what/ sexual attraction?
>>
>> Prevent the Fall (that is, the Original Sin) and who knows what might
>> happen next?
>>
>
>Nothing. They never have sex, they never have babies. The end.
>Remember, the punishment was having to have and care for babies.

For women, yes.

Well, actually the punishment was /sexual desire/, which produced
babies and carried a risk of death in childbirth.

For the men, the punishment was /having to work for a living/.

Whether they would, eventually, have had babies is unknown. Any
attempt to project /our/ experience to a pre-Fall reality is not
likely to work, or even be convincing.

Then again, we do have it on Very Good Authority that "in Heaven,
there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage" which, given the
culture, probably means /no sex/ rather than /free love/.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 01/09/2021 20.04, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2021-08-13 10:08 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 21:04:59 -0600, David Johnston
>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> ...you can't actually prevent children from growing up and discovering
>>> sexual attraction.  Unless you just kill them first.
>>
>> Pre-Fall -- /what/ sexual attraction?
>>
>> Prevent the Fall (that is, the Original Sin) and who knows what might
>> happen next?
>>
> Nothing.  They never have sex, they never have babies.  The end.
> Remember, the punishment was having to have and care for babies.

Not according to these translations:
<https://www.biblehub.com/genesis/3-16.htm>

All of them (okay, as far as I scanned) talk about increasing the
discomfort of pregnancy and/or labor. They all treat pregnancy
and childbirth as a given and threaten changes to it.

--
Michael F. Stemper
The FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written is at
<http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm>
Please read it before posting.

On Thursday, 2 September 2021 at 16:41:31 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 19:04:33 -0600, David Johnston
> <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2021-08-13 10:08 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 21:04:59 -0600, David Johnston
> >> <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2021-08-10 10:53 p.m., Kevrob wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 9:25:07 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> >>>>> Pavane by Keith Roberts
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/darkness-be-over-me
> >>>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> If the Church can meddle with the past well enough to avert
> >>>> Global Nuclear War, why not reach back further? Convincing
> >>>> the first humans to not commit Original Sin would have been
> >>>> top of my to-do list - unless that's just a story.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ...you can't actually prevent children from growing up and discovering
> >>> sexual attraction. Unless you just kill them first.
> >>
> >> Pre-Fall -- /what/ sexual attraction?
> >>
> >> Prevent the Fall (that is, the Original Sin) and who knows what might
> >> happen next?
> >>
> >
> >Nothing. They never have sex, they never have babies. The end.
> >Remember, the punishment was having to have and care for babies.
> For women, yes.
>
> Well, actually the punishment was /sexual desire/, which produced
> babies and carried a risk of death in childbirth.
>
> For the men, the punishment was /having to work for a living/.
>
> Whether they would, eventually, have had babies is unknown. Any
> attempt to project /our/ experience to a pre-Fall reality is not
> likely to work, or even be convincing.
>
> Then again, we do have it on Very Good Authority that "in Heaven,
> there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage" which, given the
> culture, probably means /no sex/ rather than /free love/.

Lots of characters in the bible have extra-marital sex.
If you are caught then the punishment is to be married.
If you are already married then the punishment is death.
Or continuing to be married; whichever is worse.

And we were told to be fruitful and multiply in verse 1:28,
but people are created in chapter 1 and again in chapter 2
so the stories run in parallel.

On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 03:46:40 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 2 September 2021 at 16:41:31 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 19:04:33 -0600, David Johnston
>> <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 2021-08-13 10:08 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 21:04:59 -0600, David Johnston
>> >> <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 2021-08-10 10:53 p.m., Kevrob wrote:
>> >>>> On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 9:25:07 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>> >>>>> Pavane by Keith Roberts
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/darkness-be-over-me
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If the Church can meddle with the past well enough to avert
>> >>>> Global Nuclear War, why not reach back further? Convincing
>> >>>> the first humans to not commit Original Sin would have been
>> >>>> top of my to-do list - unless that's just a story.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ...you can't actually prevent children from growing up and discovering
>> >>> sexual attraction. Unless you just kill them first.
>> >>
>> >> Pre-Fall -- /what/ sexual attraction?
>> >>
>> >> Prevent the Fall (that is, the Original Sin) and who knows what might
>> >> happen next?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Nothing. They never have sex, they never have babies. The end.
>> >Remember, the punishment was having to have and care for babies.
>> For women, yes.
>>
>> Well, actually the punishment was /sexual desire/, which produced
>> babies and carried a risk of death in childbirth.
>>
>> For the men, the punishment was /having to work for a living/.
>>
>> Whether they would, eventually, have had babies is unknown. Any
>> attempt to project /our/ experience to a pre-Fall reality is not
>> likely to work, or even be convincing.
>>
>> Then again, we do have it on Very Good Authority that "in Heaven,
>> there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage" which, given the
>> culture, probably means /no sex/ rather than /free love/.
>
>Lots of characters in the bible have extra-marital sex.
>If you are caught then the punishment is to be married.
>If you are already married then the punishment is death.
>Or continuing to be married; whichever is worse.
>
>And we were told to be fruitful and multiply in verse 1:28,
>but people are created in chapter 1 and again in chapter 2
>so the stories run in parallel.

Not to actually dispute anything you say, I merely want to point out
that all those characters having illicit sex were /post-Fall/ and so
irrelevent to what a Fall-free world might have been like.

Also, the reason the various punishments were applied is /precisely/
the reason "no marriage in Heaven" would, I suspect, mean "no sex" as
well.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 14:50:49 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 01/09/2021 20.04, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2021-08-13 10:08 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 21:04:59 -0600, David Johnston
>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> ...you can't actually prevent children from growing up and discovering
>>>> sexual attraction.  Unless you just kill them first.
>>>
>>> Pre-Fall -- /what/ sexual attraction?
>>>
>>> Prevent the Fall (that is, the Original Sin) and who knows what might
>>> happen next?
>>>
>> Nothing.  They never have sex, they never have babies.  The end.
>> Remember, the punishment was having to have and care for babies.
>
>Not according to these translations:
><https://www.biblehub.com/genesis/3-16.htm>
>
>All of them (okay, as far as I scanned) talk about increasing the
>discomfort of pregnancy and/or labor. They all treat pregnancy
>and childbirth as a given and threaten changes to it.

And the first one ends with:

Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

The reason women have sex despite the danger and pain of childbirth
is, precisely, because their sexual desire overcomes their fear. And
makes them subordinate to their husbands. Well, according to this
verse, anyway.

And also Aristophanes, whose /Lysistrata/, IIRC, is based on the same
general idea of the strength of female (as opposed to male) sexual
desire.

I did glance at others and it appears that some of translators have
decided to interpret this differently. Many appear to regard it as a
power struggle -- you know, to see who wears the pants.

The King James may suggest why:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy
conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire
/shall be/ to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

where the "/shall be/" is in italics which, as those who have read the
notes know, in the KJV means that that is /not/ actually in the text.
IOW, the verb is omitted; the Hebrew may well be closer to "your
desire to your husband", allowing a certain wiggle room. Although as
with Greek, a form of "to be" would usually be taken to be intended.

The Amplified Bible is most interesting, as it usually is:

Yet your desire /and/ longing will be for your husband, And he will
rule [with authority] over you and be responsible for you.

But "interesting" and "accurate" are not the same thing. And why the
"/and/" is in italics I have /no/ idea.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 16:31:43 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 03:46:40 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 2 September 2021 at 16:41:31 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 19:04:33 -0600, David Johnston
> >> <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 2021-08-13 10:08 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 21:04:59 -0600, David Johnston
> >> >> <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On 2021-08-10 10:53 p.m., Kevrob wrote:
> >> >>>> On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 9:25:07 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> >> >>>>> Pavane by Keith Roberts
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/darkness-be-over-me
> >> >>>>> --
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> If the Church can meddle with the past well enough to avert
> >> >>>> Global Nuclear War, why not reach back further? Convincing
> >> >>>> the first humans to not commit Original Sin would have been
> >> >>>> top of my to-do list - unless that's just a story.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ...you can't actually prevent children from growing up and discovering
> >> >>> sexual attraction. Unless you just kill them first.
> >> >>
> >> >> Pre-Fall -- /what/ sexual attraction?
> >> >>
> >> >> Prevent the Fall (that is, the Original Sin) and who knows what might
> >> >> happen next?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Nothing. They never have sex, they never have babies. The end.
> >> >Remember, the punishment was having to have and care for babies.
> >> For women, yes.
> >>
> >> Well, actually the punishment was /sexual desire/, which produced
> >> babies and carried a risk of death in childbirth.
> >>
> >> For the men, the punishment was /having to work for a living/.
> >>
> >> Whether they would, eventually, have had babies is unknown. Any
> >> attempt to project /our/ experience to a pre-Fall reality is not
> >> likely to work, or even be convincing.
> >>
> >> Then again, we do have it on Very Good Authority that "in Heaven,
> >> there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage" which, given the
> >> culture, probably means /no sex/ rather than /free love/.
> >
> >Lots of characters in the bible have extra-marital sex.
> >If you are caught then the punishment is to be married.
> >If you are already married then the punishment is death.
> >Or continuing to be married; whichever is worse.
> >
> >And we were told to be fruitful and multiply in verse 1:28,
> >but people are created in chapter 1 and again in chapter 2
> >so the stories run in parallel.
>
> Not to actually dispute anything you say, I merely want to point out
> that all those characters having illicit sex were /post-Fall/ and so
> irrelevent to what a Fall-free world might have been like.

Indeed, but I took "given the culture" to imply a claim that
the authors of the bible did not imagine sexual intercourse
outside marriage. I mean to point out that this implies
that they hadn't read the bible.

> Also, the reason the various punishments were applied is /precisely/
> the reason "no marriage in Heaven" would, I suspect, mean "no sex" as
> well.

Well, according to various authorities, including
scripture, angels Do It. And they may Do It with
humans.

Does anyone know whether animals Do It when
they are across the Rainbow Bridge? Some of
them were pretty keen on it before they passed on.

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 14:50:49 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not according to these translations:
> <https://www.biblehub.com/genesis/3-16.htm>
>
> All of them (okay, as far as I scanned) talk about increasing the
> discomfort of pregnancy and/or labor. They all treat pregnancy
> and childbirth as a given and threaten changes to it.

And most of our travails in childbirth are caused by our enormous
heads.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:19:28 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 16:31:43 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 03:46:40 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, 2 September 2021 at 16:41:31 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 19:04:33 -0600, David Johnston
>> >> <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 2021-08-13 10:08 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 21:04:59 -0600, David Johnston
>> >> >> <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On 2021-08-10 10:53 p.m., Kevrob wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 9:25:07 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
>> >> >>>>> Pavane by Keith Roberts
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/darkness-be-over-me
>> >> >>>>> --
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> If the Church can meddle with the past well enough to avert
>> >> >>>> Global Nuclear War, why not reach back further? Convincing
>> >> >>>> the first humans to not commit Original Sin would have been
>> >> >>>> top of my to-do list - unless that's just a story.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> ...you can't actually prevent children from growing up and discovering
>> >> >>> sexual attraction. Unless you just kill them first.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Pre-Fall -- /what/ sexual attraction?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Prevent the Fall (that is, the Original Sin) and who knows what might
>> >> >> happen next?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Nothing. They never have sex, they never have babies. The end.
>> >> >Remember, the punishment was having to have and care for babies.
>> >> For women, yes.
>> >>
>> >> Well, actually the punishment was /sexual desire/, which produced
>> >> babies and carried a risk of death in childbirth.
>> >>
>> >> For the men, the punishment was /having to work for a living/.
>> >>
>> >> Whether they would, eventually, have had babies is unknown. Any
>> >> attempt to project /our/ experience to a pre-Fall reality is not
>> >> likely to work, or even be convincing.
>> >>
>> >> Then again, we do have it on Very Good Authority that "in Heaven,
>> >> there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage" which, given the
>> >> culture, probably means /no sex/ rather than /free love/.
>> >
>> >Lots of characters in the bible have extra-marital sex.
>> >If you are caught then the punishment is to be married.
>> >If you are already married then the punishment is death.
>> >Or continuing to be married; whichever is worse.
>> >
>> >And we were told to be fruitful and multiply in verse 1:28,
>> >but people are created in chapter 1 and again in chapter 2
>> >so the stories run in parallel.
>>
>> Not to actually dispute anything you say, I merely want to point out
>> that all those characters having illicit sex were /post-Fall/ and so
>> irrelevent to what a Fall-free world might have been like.
>
>Indeed, but I took "given the culture" to imply a claim that
>the authors of the bible did not imagine sexual intercourse
>outside marriage. I mean to point out that this implies
>that they hadn't read the bible.

That seems an odd way to take it, but, since you took it that way,
your response is understandable.

>> Also, the reason the various punishments were applied is /precisely/
>> the reason "no marriage in Heaven" would, I suspect, mean "no sex" as
>> well.
>
>Well, according to various authorities, including
>scripture, angels Do It. And they may Do It with
>humans.

Only if you insist that "the sons of God" were, in fact, angels. Or
stars -- "the Host of Heaven" appears to mean either (or rather,
both). As with the Divine Court in Job, where Satan appears as a
full-fledged and honored member, it is very hard to say what was
actually meant.

What we need /here/ is a lot more contemporary context. So far as I
know, we don't have it. What we /have/ is a lot of guesswork, some of
it hardened into Tradition.

>Does anyone know whether animals Do It when
>they are across the Rainbow Bridge? Some of
>them were pretty keen on it before they passed on.

The prophets assert that they will all be vegetarians ("the lion will
lie down with the lamb" -- and, no, "lie down with" doesn't mean "eat"
in any sense) on the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord. I think
that's about it on that topic.

For those of us who adopt the attitude that all of Creation is
laboring under the dominion of sin, then current animal behavior is no
guide to sin-free animal behavior.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 11:43:16 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:

[snip]

> The prophets assert that they will all be vegetarians ("the lion will
> lie down with the lamb" -- and, no, "lie down with" doesn't mean "eat"
> in any sense) .....

[snip] Of course not. More like the cover for NATIONAL LAMPOON,
(March, 1976) See: [NSFW]

http://lampoon.rwinters.com/Lampoon1976.htm

--
Kevin R

On 9/3/2021 10:00 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 14:50:49 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
> <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not according to these translations:
>> <https://www.biblehub.com/genesis/3-16.htm>
>>
>> All of them (okay, as far as I scanned) talk about increasing the
>> discomfort of pregnancy and/or labor. They all treat pregnancy
>> and childbirth as a given and threaten changes to it.
>
> And most of our travails in childbirth are caused by our enormous
> heads.

Yup. My poor sainted mother, I was her first at age 18, weight 8 lbs
10.5 ounces and 23 inches long. I wear a 7 and 3/4 (EU size 62) hat
size nowadays which is an XXL. Or a baseball cap on the last notch (if
it has one).

Lynn