# In the days before sperm **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 20, 2003, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-days-before-sperm/196498 "2003-08-20T18:19:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2003, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-days-before-sperm/196498/1 "2003-08-20T18:19:48Z")
Well, to be more accurate, before sperm was discovered… How did people (i.e. doctors, scientists, etc.) think women got pregnant? I would imagine people knew it had something to do with the penis and vagina, but how much did they actually know? What sort of theories were floating around throughout history? Also, when were sperm cells discovered? And when was it discovered that a sperm actually fertilizes an egg? I think I read somewhere that when sperm were first discovered, scientists/doctors initially thought that they were fully formed humans (very small, obviously) that grew to the size of a baby once deposited into a female. I may have heard incorrect information, however, because the source wasn’t exactly all that reputable. Happy ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2003, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-days-before-sperm/196498/2 "2003-08-20T22:34:03Z")
> [@](#): > > I think I read somewhere that when sperm were first discovered, scientists/doctors initially thought that they were fully formed humans (very small, obviously) that grew to the size of a baby once deposited into a female. I may have heard incorrect information, however, because the source wasn’t exactly all that reputable. According to what I’ve read, the “tiny babies” idea is what most people assumed. There were some interesting implications to this idea. For starters, it implied that there was a fixed limit to the number of children a guy cold have. Possibly (and I’m speculating here) they believed that a guy became impotent after he ran out of kids. Also, consider this: all of the children that a man could ever possibly have are (according to the belief) contained within his testicles from birth. Half of those potential children would be male. Those microscopically-small boys would have a full set of micro-babies within their testicles. And _those_ boys would have their own micro-babies, and so on. Each generation to come would be microscopically smaller than the last one. Theoretically, every person who would ever be born already existed. ---
**Author:** ![Already\_in\_Use](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@Already\_in\_Use](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Already_in_Use)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2003, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-days-before-sperm/196498/3 "2003-08-20T23:42:46Z")
**Diceman** , what culture held these beliefs? And how did they account for the fact that children usually bear a resemblance to both parents? ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2003, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-days-before-sperm/196498/4 "2003-08-21T03:24:56Z")
Not quite on-topic, but an amusing story nevertheless: Once upon a time there was a leader named Senzangakona, who had a pre-marital tryst with a woman from a neighboring clan. When she began to show signs of pregnancy, he avoided responsibility, saying that the woman must have an _iShaka_, a stomach parasite which can apparently affect the menstrual cycle. Not long afterward the leaders from the neighboring clan informed the king that he should drop by and retrieve his _iShaka_, who retained the nickname but grew up to become better known as [Shaka Zulu](http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/Africa/ShakaZulu.html). ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2003, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-days-before-sperm/196498/5 "2003-08-21T03:54:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diceman \* > \*\*According to what I’ve read, the “tiny babies” idea is what most people assumed. \*\* IIRC, DaVinci once drew a sperm cell which showed a human man inside it in a fetal position. In the late medieval times and early Renaissance, sperm was thought of as a kind of life force needed to keep the “humors” in balance. Doctors recommended that sickly men have sex as little as possible. Women were thought of as being opposite men when it came to humors, so it was best for those of weak constitutions to stay away from them. Even healthy men should show some restraint, else they be drained of this life force and become weak. And yes, they did believe that it was possible to run out of sperm altogether. Doctors direly warned that this was the consequence for over-enthusiastic and overly-abundant coitus. Sperm was thought of as seed which must be met with female “seed” in order for conception to take place. Since the man releases his in orgasm, it stood to reason that a woman must as well, so many early childbirth manuals recommended that husbands give their wives at least one orgasm. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2003, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-days-before-sperm/196498/6 "2003-08-21T04:06:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lissa \* > \*\* > Sperm was thought of as seed which must be met with female “seed” in order for conception to take place. Since the man releases his in orgasm, it stood to reason that a woman must as well, so many early childbirth manuals recommended that husbands give their wives at least one orgasm. \*\* Heck, **Lissa** , according to one of those racy late-night Hitler and Lizard channel TV shows, that’s exactly what a female orgasm is designed to do! Apparently the female’s contractions increase the chances of the cervix picking up the payload, so to speak. I’m sure people in pre-microscopic times thought about sex just as much as I do, but all they had to go on was practice and observation–and of course the gutter, where my father learned everything he knows, yet still managed to spawn me. ---
**Author:** ![transitionality](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b5e925/32.png) [@transitionality](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/transitionality)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2003, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-days-before-sperm/196498/7 "2003-08-21T04:43:42Z")
The term for the supposed little man inside the sperm was Homunculus, which translates to English roughly as Mini-Me. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2003, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-days-before-sperm/196498/8 "2003-08-21T04:51:38Z")
Sharel Bindom, _Ancient Gynecology_, quoted in [Semen: Varying Western Historical Views](http://www.virtualcity.com/youthsuicide/semen/09-semen-ancient-greece-medieval.htm): > [@](#): > > The primary theory of conception in Ancient Rome was the doctrine of the two seeds. According to this doctrine “both parents created semen.” Democritus, an ancient physician, believed that this semen was derived from the whole body “particularly the important parts such as bones, flesh and sinews.” Because both parents produce semen they both have the opportunity to contribute to the traits of their children. The parent with the dominant sperm contributed the most characteristics. Hippocrates wrote that if both parents produced strong sperm the child was male. If both produced weak sperm the result was a female. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2003, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-days-before-sperm/196498/9 "2003-08-21T05:04:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Democritus, an ancient physician, believed that this semen was derived from the whole body “particularly the important parts such as bones, flesh and sinews.” Wonder what he thought the testicles were for? ---
**Author:** ![Agback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/977dab/32.png) [@Agback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agback)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2003, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-days-before-sperm/196498/10 "2003-08-21T05:39:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lissa \* > \*\ ***IIRC, DaVinci once drew a sperm cell which showed a human man inside it in a fetal position.** Unlikely, since Da Vinci died before Leeuwenhoek was born, and would never have seen or heard of a spermatozoon. Are you sure that what you saw was not the famous Da Vinci sketch of a foetus in a dissected uterus? Regards, Agback ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2003, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-days-before-sperm/196498/11 "2003-08-21T11:12:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Unlikely, since Da Vinci died before Leeuwenhoek was born, and would never have seen or heard of a spermatozoon. Are you sure that what you saw was not the famous Da Vinci sketch of a foetus in a dissected uterus? > > Regards, > Agback No, I’ve seen the sketch he’s writing about. I don’t know who was responsible for it – it _does_ look like da Vinci’s work – but it shows a miniature human being inside what is clearly the head of a sperm cell. As you note, da Vinci was long before Leewenhoek, so I don’t know when the sketch dates from. The idea that Man plants a “seed” inside the woman is clearly based on analogy with planting in a field, and a lot of early writing about sex uses that imagery. One source talks about the penis as “the dibber that is used to plant men”. (A _dibber_ is a stick used to make a hole in the ground for the seed) Other sources talk about sex as plowing, etc. Since the properties of the soil affect the growth of the plant (you need plenty of moisture, and essential minerals), it’s not hard to see how people saw the woman’s contribution to the child’s makeup. These analogies don’t help you reach toward modern genetics, of course. ---
**Author:** ![LorieSmurf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a587f6/32.png) [@LorieSmurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LorieSmurf)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2003, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-the-days-before-sperm/196498/12 "2003-08-22T07:35:57Z")
How would daVinci know what the head of a sperm cell looked like?? I thought the daVinci drawing was of a uterus, too.