Breast Ironing by Feminazis?
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 05:44
VIEWED: 7915
PAGE 1 of 1
Is this civilized activity among the feminazis population?
So determined to denounce femininity and sexuality in favor of "concentrating on education" and "making girls sexually unattractive" that they rationalize gender mutilation?
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/call-breast-ironing-criminal-offence-0038166
83.html
This supports the argument that feminazis are not really human.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is breast ironing acceptable among readers here?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Those are not feminists.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Those are not feminists.
They wish to propel girls into a more successful career are, focusing on education and downplaying social interaction with men, so they don't need to rely upon men.
What part of this is not feminist?
Feminists insist upon denying natural differences between the genders - this merely sounds like an advanced form, right?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Feminists insist upon denying natural differences between the genders - this merely sounds like an advanced form, right?"
No. Feminists just want women to have the same opportunities available to them, and the same rewards and respect, as men.
Do you have a problem with that?
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But as I think about it more Julie, your post reveals a rot in your thinking.
You're so enmeshed in your web of hatreds (who am I going to hate MORE at this moment? Obama? liberals? feminists? the educated? foreigners?) you can't see that western feminists don't share the same culture, the same background, the same history, the same immediate problems, or the same potential solutions, as women from West Africa.
You see a group of women from a foreign culture trying to free themselves from serious oppression - child rape, child marriage, home-imprisonment, women being treated worse than slaves or beasts of burden by their husbands and being beaten or killed without consequence - and you IMMEDIATELY think they are JUST LIKE that hated group of yours, the western feminists.
To you it's all one big, undelineated porridge of hatred in your head, that you keep stirring around and around and around, without a pause for even the smallest bit of thought.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
He hasn't got a clue about what feminists want. He just knows feminism = bad.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can't see the harm in everyone simply stating that this is barbaric and in the same twisted nonsense as female genital mutilation.
I'd never heard of it before either. Sad how some become so twisted as to feel any need to mutilate a young person's body. Horrific.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Sad how some become so twisted as to feel any need to mutilate a young person's body. Horrific."
And if by not doing it they face a worse alternative? Would you consider them 'twisted'? Or would it be their circumstances, that drive them to have to make such hellish choices?
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3545455/I-sex-clients-night-we
nt-school-morning-girls-young-14-selling-bodies-Sierra-Leone-little-3-time-just-education.html
An article about African "Feminists" ...*snort.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Sad how some become so twisted as to feel any need to mutilate a young person's body. Horrific."
And if by not doing it they face a worse alternative? Would you consider them 'twisted'? Or would it be their circumstances, that drive them to have to make such hellish choices?
I have to admit, I didn't get through the whole video, so the alternative you speak of escapes me. What such alternatives , in LONDON, do these girls face ?
I've heard of vicious , barbaric acts done upon women, in Africa, when one tribe tries to basically wipe out another, but even so, THOSE evils are themselves inexcusable, so maybe I'm missing someething which would allow such acts to be permissible. Especially in other parts of the world.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Call For Breast Ironing To Be Criminal Offence
Rebecca Williams, Sky News Reporter
April 10, 2016
There are concerns more than a thousand women have been subjected to a practice known as "breast ironing" in Britain.
The ritual, which was originally carried out in parts of Africa, involves young girls having their breasts beaten, burnt and massaged in order to stop them developing.
The aim is to make women less attractive to the opposite sex so that they focus on school work.
It is almost always carried out by a girl's mother, in the privacy of their own home.
One woman, who we have called Lara, told Sky News she was subjected to mutilation when she reached adolescence.
She said: "They put the spatula on the fire and then they press it on the breast and yes, it hurts.
"Then it goes weak, it's like melting, fat melting and you can feel the breast going back… one of my breasts is bigger than the other one."
It is thought as many as a thousand girls may have suffered this violent mutilation while living in Britain.
A Freedom of Information request by the Conservative MP Jake Berry found almost a quarter of children's services are not trained to deal with the practice, whilst 15% of police forces were unaware it even existed.
Breast ironing is a secretive and brutal form of mutilation.
Heated objects are used to burn children's breasts. Many then have bands tied tightly around their chests.
Experts believe the ritual can cause cysts, abscesses, even breast cancer.
Geraldine Yenwo, the founder of Came Women and Girls Development Organisation, told Sky News: "A lot of them have inverted nipples, they're not able to breast feed their children.
"Emotionally and psychologically, your self-esteem is very badly affected. Physically, some of them have one large and one flattened breast."
Mr Berry is calling on the Government to make breast ironing a criminal offence.
As yet, not a single person in the UK has been convicted of the crime.
In recent years there has been a lot of awareness raised about female genital mutilation.
However, campaigners insist there also needs to be focus on breast ironing, before it becomes a more widespread problem.
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
But as I think about it more Julie, your post reveals a rot in your thinking.
You're so enmeshed in your web of hatreds (who am I going to hate MORE at this moment? Obama? liberals? feminists? the educated? foreigners?) you can't see that western feminists don't share the same culture, the same background, the same history, the same immediate problems, or the same potential solutions, as women from West Africa.
You see a group of women from a foreign culture trying to free themselves from serious oppression - child rape, child marriage, home-imprisonment, women being treated worse than slaves or beasts of burden by their husbands and being beaten or killed without consequence - and you IMMEDIATELY think they are JUST LIKE that hated group of yours, the western feminists.
To you it's all one big, undelineated porridge of hatred in your head, that you keep stirring around and around and around, without a pause for even the smallest bit of thought.
Did I miss something? Where did West Africa come from? Do you not consider England to be Western in terms of culture, civilization?
Britain was the West, until the new west.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They are trying to say that just because a person moves to a different, arguably more developed country does not mean that their stone age mentality dies on the move. There are a great many practices these kinds of people have that can't really be fixed. Just as with FGM, you can make laws all you want and they will still do it and girls will be too embarrassed to come forward. It's a no-win situation.
On the other side, I'm betting it probably does affect sexual habits in these girls and they probably will have better futures, sick as that is. And putting the parents in prison, which is what should happen, would ironically and paradoxically make a decidedly worse future for them, and seeing as they went through torture to try and have a better life is not doing them any favors...
I personally wish puberty could be suppressed in the entire human race until at least 30. Might give this whole planet a chance to move past stupid...Less kids having kids can only be a good thing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's nothing that says these women are allowed to leave their communities or their homes or their husbands. Or that they can read and write in their own language, let alone English. Or that they have any education at all. Their opportunities could be severely limited. Unlike the idiots here who read and write, have computer access and lots of free time, and who've grown up knowing what is and is not allowed to be done to them. And who STILL manage to post things that reveal their vast ignorance and entitlement.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The ritual, which was originally carried out in parts of Africa, involves young girls having their breasts beaten, burnt and massaged in order to stop them developing. The aim is to make women less attractive to the opposite sex so that they focus on school work.- ARTICLE
They wish to propel girls into a more successful career are, focusing on education and downplaying social interaction with men, so they don't need to rely upon men.What part of this is not feminist?- JSF
Hey! I have a MUCH BETTER idea! Why not reduce women's attractiveness by making them cover themselves in black sacks from head to foot, even covering their eyes?
That's feminist, isn't it???
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The funny thing is, I have a sneaking suspicion that feminism was taken over by male capitalists a few decades ago...
That media portrayal of sexy, hard-fightin' hard-lovin' warrior women is pretty off-base as to what women are and what women want. Even back in the stoner age, "free love" wasn't really women's liberation, it was more like male liberation, and women are still having sex because men expect it, not because women want it.
Here is a video by an anti-feminist woman. She has 27 of them (I think) I could only make my way thru about 8, but have patience and listen to at least the first one.
And then there is
Blackout: Remembering the Things I Drank to Forget which describes the current alcohol-driven "hookup" culture.
Quote:
For Sarah Hepola, alcohol was "the gasoline of all adventure." She spent her evenings at cocktail parties and dark bars where she proudly stayed till last call. Drinking felt like freedom, part of her birthright as a strong, enlightened twenty-first-century woman.
http://www.amazon.com/Blackout-Remembering-Things-Drank-Forget/dp/1455
554596
And then there is Girls & Sex: Navigating the Complicated New Landscape by Peggy Orenstein (who also wrote Cinderella Ate My Daughter) which describes a sexual relationship between girls and boys which is as dysfunctional as it ever was, if not more so.
Along with JAYNESTOWN'S diabtribe against American women http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60319 there is apparently a whole lot of misunderstanding and hatred going on.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Seems few here actually care to talk about the issue of the thread.
Too unsavory a topic ?
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Too unsavory a topic ?
What would you realistically have us DO? Let's go to England and protest people who probably couldn't even READ a protest sign and wouldn't care what we say anyway? Whose reality is so vastly different they are willing to torture their own child to try a vain attempt to give a better future?
I mean, if you know someone who's done this that we could shame on social media, go ahead...I don't even have any black people in a five mile radius here though
Pretty whitebread. And pretty sure my neighbors won't care what some fucking African inbreds do...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Inbreds ?
Good grief. You are a bitter one.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We're ALL inbreds.
And there's yer warm fuzzy thought for today. Yer welcome. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
We're ALL inbreds.
And there's yer warm fuzzy thought for today. Yer welcome.
And apparently, we're all AFRICANS ! Some of us just moved around the planet for a while instead of hanging out in the motherland.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
We're ALL inbreds.
And there's yer warm fuzzy thought for today. Yer welcome.
And apparently, we're all AFRICANS ! Some of us just moved around the planet for a while instead of hanging out in the motherland.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
Spoiler for Finding Your Roots:
The recently aired episode of Finding Your Roots had Kenan Ivory Wayans, who found out he was
Select to view spoiler:
not African-American. He is southeast Asian, and his line migrated to Madagascar before being Shainghied into slavery. He has no African DNA. Apparently the same for Maya Rudolph.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
We're ALL inbreds.
And there's yer warm fuzzy thought for today. Yer welcome.
And apparently, we're all AFRICANS ! Some of us just moved around the planet for a while instead of hanging out in the motherland.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
Spoiler for Finding Your Roots:
The recently aired episode of Finding Your Roots had Kenan Ivory Wayans, who found out he wasSelect to view spoiler:
not African-American. He is southeast Asian, and his line migrated to Madagascar before being Shainghied into slavery. He has no African DNA. Apparently the same for Maya Rudolph.
Why do you say all are Africans?
Do you believe the earliest Americans were from Africa?
Where did those in Africa come from? Are you saying the Garden of Eden was Africa?
Do you believe all of the southeast Asians came from Africa?
I don't currently believe that, and am interested if you can convince me or supply proof, or at least which theory you refer to.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
The ritual, which was originally carried out in parts of Africa, involves young girls having their breasts beaten, burnt and massaged in order to stop them developing. The aim is to make women less attractive to the opposite sex so that they focus on school work.- ARTICLE
They wish to propel girls into a more successful career are, focusing on education and downplaying social interaction with men, so they don't need to rely upon men.What part of this is not feminist?- JSF
Hey! I have a MUCH BETTER idea! Why not reduce women's attractiveness by making them cover themselves in black sacks from head to foot, even covering their eyes?
That's feminist, isn't it???
You might be confused.
To hide the lust weakness of males, the males force their women to cover up. How do you redefine this as feminism?
When women themselves struggle to cover themselves and their daughters, and mutilate their mammary glands, solely to avoid gender distractions in order to excel academically, this is in line with the misguided concepts of feminazis through history.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Call For Breast Ironing To Be Criminal Offence
Rebecca Williams, Sky News Reporter
April 10, 2016
The aim is to make women less attractive to the opposite sex so that they focus on school work.
At the risk of being repetitive, here is the pertinant portion which many seem to be ignoring.
And this is in Britain.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Why do you say all are Africans?
Do you believe the earliest Americans were from Africa?
Where did those in Africa come from? Are you saying the Garden of Eden was Africa?
Do you believe all of the southeast Asians came from Africa?
I don't currently believe that, and am interested if you can convince me or supply proof, or at least which theory you refer to.
Unless or until shown otherwise, I'll hold to the view that humans originated in Africa.
Curious w/ the S.E. Asia stuff though. That does intrigue me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You just watched too much Tomb Raider. 
Africa is just the most likely, because they find all the old bones there.
It helps that for much of the last 7 million years Africa was fairly dry and hot in the middle, though.
Supposedly, the planet is 4.6 billion years old and the oldest bacteria fossils are 3.4 billion and dinosaurs are 200 million years ago and then S. America and Africa parted ways about 25 million years ago
and the oldest hominine fossils found are around 7 million and there was a mass migration out of Africa about 150 thousand years ago and then 6 thousand years ago we were doing complex math and astronomy and then now we have Iphones and moon landings and pop culture shows.
I've always wondered if there weren't other hominine species that existed and died out in S America and maybe we carry bits of that DNA. Would explain a lot. Just have to lift up the entire Amazon and dig around a bit...That's all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Why do you say all are Africans?
Do you believe the earliest Americans were from Africa?
Where did those in Africa come from? Are you saying the Garden of Eden was Africa?
Do you believe all of the southeast Asians came from Africa?
I don't currently believe that, and am interested if you can convince me or supply proof, or at least which theory you refer to.
Unless or until shown otherwise, I'll hold to the view that humans originated in Africa.
where did that view come from? Where did you get it?
Quote:
Curious w/ the S.E. Asia stuff though. That does intrigue me.
That episode will be repeated a few times this week on PBS.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Unless or until shown otherwise, I'll hold to the view that humans originated in Africa.
Isn't it possible there were multiple points of origin, not just one? Having a single point sounds to conceited and fairy tale to me - "we're so special." I think life of all kinds would evolve over an entire fertile planet. Plus, multiple points of origin runs against That There BIBLE Adam and Evie story, so there's that.
Are you suggesting to RapKnight that Adam and Eve were "African" and of dark skin color?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The ritual, which was originally carried out in parts of Africa, involves young girls having their breasts beaten, burnt and massaged in order to stop them developing. The aim is to make women less attractive to the opposite sex so that they focus on school work.- ARTICLE
They wish to propel girls into a more successful career are, focusing on education and downplaying social interaction with men, so they don't need to rely upon men. What part of this is not feminist?- JSF
Hey! I have a MUCH BETTER idea! Why not reduce women's attractiveness by making them cover themselves in black sacks from head to foot, even covering their eyes? That's feminist, isn't it??? -SIGNY
You might be confused. To hide the lust weakness of males, the males force their women to cover up. How do you redefine this as feminism? When women themselves struggle to cover themselves and their daughters, and mutilate their mammary glands, solely to avoid gender distractions in order to excel academically, this is in line with the misguided concepts of feminazis through history. JSF
Actually. no, I think YOU'RE confused. Please re-read the part of the article which says ...
The ritual, which was originally carried out in parts of Africa, involves young girls having their breasts beaten, burnt and massaged in order to stop them developing. The aim is to make women less attractive to the opposite sex
The article doesn't say that they wish to make girls less attracted to boys. What the article says is that they will to make girls less ATTRACTIVE to boys. The article implies that "the opposite sex"(men) are the problem, not the girls. In both cases, females are to be made "less attractive". That puts females in the passive role in the relationship, as the object of attraction rather than its instigator.
-----
As far as the origins of the human species, there is no such thing as "no African DNA".
They trace the DNA "thousands and thousands" of years, not "millions". But the origins of humans go back "millions" of years.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Unless or until shown otherwise, I'll hold to the view that humans originated in Africa.
Isn't it possible there were multiple points of origin, not just one? Having a single point sounds to conceited and fairy tale to me - "we're so special." I think life of all kinds would evolve over an entire fertile planet. Plus, multiple points of origin runs against That There BIBLE Adam and Evie story, so there's that.
It does seem like we co-existed with other hominids. Not just Neander either. I guess only in fantasy land could we have evolved along side them, shared knowledge and gotten along. *sigh*
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The article implies that "the opposite sex"(men) are the problem, not the girls.
It's a double edge thing, can you imagine a young girl with burned squashed boobs being eager to show THAT to a guy? The whole "nobody will want me like this" is probably very effective.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What about a world where folks get to live, as they are, with out feeling any need to mutilate their sex organs or searing themselves w/ glowing hot things, to make their bodies less threatening or arousing to the opposite sex ?
That's where I want to go.
Yeah, women are generally really pretty. And I'm THANKFUL for that ! Sure as hell don't want them feeling they need hide themselves. Quite the opposite !
Good god man, have we gone insane ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As far as the origins of the human species, there is no such thing as "no African DNA".
I invite you to explain to that African-American Gates guy hosting the show that he is lying.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's just crazy talk.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
What about a world where folks get to live, as they are, with out feeling any need to mutilate their sex organs or searing themselves w/ glowing hot things, to make their bodies less threatening or arousing to the opposite sex ?
That's where I want to go.
Yeah, women are generally really pretty. And I'm THANKFUL for that ! Sure as hell don't want them feeling they need hide themselves. Quite the opposite !
Good god man, have we gone insane ?
You must be misogynist, and racist, and other stuff.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Humans can't suppress millions of years of sexual evolution by forcibly altering their bodies to look LESS attractive. Just simply not possible.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://image.space.rakuten.co.jp/lg01/36/0000819636/50/img4414eb7dzika
zj.jpeg
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
As far as the origins of the human species, there is no such thing as "no African DNA". - SIGNY
I invite you to explain to that African-American Gates guy hosting the show that he is lying.- JSF
I didn't say that he is "lying". What he is ... is a non-geneticist (and probably a non-scientist) who overstated or is mistaken about what the results mean. Or possibly there was an explanation earlier in the series that explained the limitations of the study.
Based on the short clip that was available to me on Youtube, it's not possible for me to figure out what technique was used to trace back anyone's ancestry a few thousand years, but probably it was something like this:
Quote:
The researchers take this admixture data and use it as a reference point to calculate the exact relationships between specific admixtures and geographic locations. A DNA sample of unknown origin is broken down into its unique admixture—what Elhaik refers to as a kind of genetic fingerprint—which is derived from different gene pools. GPS then matches this “fingerprint” to a population that has a similar genetic admixture, and using a powerful algorithm developed by the team, matches the source DNA to a specific geographic location.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-genetic-gps-can-track-your-origins-
1000-years-back
Original publication
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140429/ncomms4513/full/ncomms4513.ht
ml
This techniques doesn't attempt to trace populations back more than a thousand (or so) years... not the hundred thousand years which goes back to the origins of modern day humans (homo sapiens sapiens) nor the MILLIONS of years that describe hominid evolution. It becomes useless once people hyper-relocate, such as in NYC where people from MANY geographic areas congregate.
The techniques that look to the distant past of human evolution place modern-day human origins at
Quote:
Mitochondrial Eve [who] is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, in an unbroken line, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one woman, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generally (but see paternal mtDNA transmission) is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition, differing only by the mutations that over generations have occurred in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original "Mitochondrial Eve"... Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived between 99,000 and 200,000 years ago, most likely in East Africa,when Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species.
So, all modern-day humans studied so far have traced back to one woman. In Africa.
Most modern humans trace back to one man, who lived a hundred-thousand years earlier.
Humans have approximately 93% of genetic overlap with African chimps.
And, if you want to go REALLY far back, humans share some ultra-conserved genes with animals such as rats, mice, and fruit flies.
----
That doesn't means humans have a simple evolutionary history. The best explanation I have found so far to describe human evolution is that the line of forbears whose DNA was eventually included in our modern species evolved in the crucible of the Afar Triangle (in Africa) which was at times geologically connected and disconnected from the African mainland. This would have allowed "waves" of genetically-similar hominids to spread across the landscape. Even without these distinct "waves", "homo" populations with essentially the same ancestors may have diverged from each other over time ... Neanderthals and Denisovans ... only to eventually be re-combi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, speaking of millions of years of evolution ...
There is one thing that almost all female mammals share, and that is that they are less interested in sex than their male counterparts.
It has to be so.
Copulation, for female mammals, is far more costly than for males, and that's because female mammals get pregnant and nurse their young while male mammals don't. Females get one shot per estrus cycle at their genetic heritage, but for males the situation is different: For them, more copulation is better.
Some males "self-select" for reproduction, fighting each other for the privilege and leaving other males out in the cold (so to speak.) Other males engage in "sperm warfare". Still other males take an active role in raising their young, making themselves useful (if not indispensable) to the female. For some predators (for whom rampant reproduction is not a priority) males and females often don't have much to do with each other except at mating.
I'm not sure what role human males take, but females really do seem to be less interested in sex.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
As far as the origins of the human species, there is no such thing as "no African DNA". - SIGNY
I invite you to explain to that African-American Gates guy hosting the show that he is lying.- JSF
I didn't say that he is "lying". What he is ... is a non-geneticist (and probably a non-scientist) who overstated or is mistaken about what the results mean. Or possibly there was an explanation earlier in the series that explained the limitations of the study.
Based on the short clip that was available to me on Youtube, it's not possible for me to figure out what technique was used to trace back anyone's ancestry a few thousand years, but probably it was something like this:Quote:
The researchers take this admixture data and use it as a reference point to calculate the exact relationships between specific admixtures and geographic locations. A DNA sample of unknown origin is broken down into its unique admixture—what Elhaik refers to as a kind of genetic fingerprint—which is derived from different gene pools. GPS then matches this “fingerprint” to a population that has a similar genetic admixture, and using a powerful algorithm developed by the team, matches the source DNA to a specific geographic location.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-genetic-gps-can-track-your-origins-
1000-years-back
Original publication
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140429/ncomms4513/full/ncomms4513.ht
ml
This techniques doesn't attempt to trace populations back more than a thousand (or so) years... not the hundred thousand years which goes back to the origins of modern day humans (homo sapiens sapiens) nor the MILLIONS of years that describe hominid evolution. It becomes useless once people hyper-relocate, such as in NYC where people from MANY geographic areas congregate.
The techniques that look to the distant past of human evolution place modern-day human origins atQuote:
Mitochondrial Eve [who] is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, in an unbroken line, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one woman, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generally (but see paternal mtDNA transmission) is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition, differing only by the mutations that over generations have occurred in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original "Mitochondrial Eve"... Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived between 99,000 and 200,000 years ago, most likely in East Africa,when Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species.
So, all modern-day humans studied so far have traced back to one woman. In Africa.
Most modern humans trace back to one man, who lived a hundred-thousand years earlier.
Humans have approximately 93% of genetic overlap with African chimps.
And, if you want to go REALLY far back, humans share some ultra-conserved genes with animals such as rats, mice, and fruit flies.
----
That doesn't means humans have a simple evolutionary history. The best explanation I have found so far to describe human evolution is that the line of forbears whose DNA was eventually included in our modern species evolved in the crucible of the Afar Triangle (in Africa) which was at times geologically connected and disconnected from the African mainland. This would have allowed "waves" of genetically-similar hominids to spread across the landscape. Even without these distinct "waves", "homo" populations with essentially the same ancestors may have diverged from each other over time ... Neanderthals and DenisNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, speaking of millions of years of evolution ...
There is one thing that almost all female mammals share, and that is that they are less interested in sex than their male counterparts.
It has to be so.
Copulation, for female mammals, is far more costly than for males, and that's because female mammals get pregnant and nurse their young while male mammals don't. Females get one shot per estrus cycle at their genetic heritage, but for males the situation is different: For them, more copulation is better.
Some males "self-select" for reproduction, fighting each other for the privilege and leaving other males out in the cold (so to speak.) Other males engage in "sperm warfare". Still other males take an active role in raising their young, making themselves useful (if not indispensable) to the female. For some predators (for whom rampant reproduction is not a priority) males and females often don't have much to do with each other except at mating.
I'm not sure what role human males take, but females really do seem to be less interested in sex.
Evolutionarily speaking, the genetic code for females not interested in sex becomes less dominant in the gene pool, and those who like sex become more common. Same for homosexuals. The liking sex group also has helped improve the functions of clitoris, and the various G-spots.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Only if the female is about as large as the male. A female that doesn't want copulation, who is as large and strong as a male, presents a real problem.
So, speaking of millions of years of evolution ...
There is one thing that almost all female mammals share, and that is that they are less interested in sex than their male counterparts.
It has to be so.
Copulation, for female mammals, is far more costly than for males, and that's because female mammals get pregnant and nurse their young while male mammals don't. Females get one shot per estrus cycle at their genetic heritage, but for males the situation is different: For them, more copulation is better.
Some males "self-select" for reproduction, fighting each other for the privilege and leaving other males out in the cold (so to speak.) Other males engage in "sperm warfare". Still other males take an active role in raising their young, making themselves useful (if not indispensable) to the female. For some predators (for whom rampant reproduction is not a priority) males and females often don't have much to do with each other except at mating.
I'm not sure what role human males take, but females really do seem to be less interested in sex.- SIGNY
Evolutionarily speaking, the genetic code for females not interested in sex becomes less dominant in the gene pool, and those who like sex become more common. Same for homosexuals. The liking sex group also has helped improve the functions of clitoris, and the various G-spots.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1kiki - so, you're fully in support of young women having their clitoris snipped, and their breasts grilled,AGAINST THEIR WILL, in a twisted effort to abate their overly sexual nature, are you ?
yes or no.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
(are you) fully in support of young women having their clitoris snipped, and their breasts grilled ... yes or no.
no
I just don't think it's because their mothers are evil and twisted. Horrified by what has historically and culturally been the alternative, and isolated from the benefits of the British legal system, yes.
I thought I was pretty clear.
PS
The pictures I posted were to address the extremely ignorant views some people have on attractiveness and beauty. Those people seem to think that modern western standards are and have ever been the only standards on the planet.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think it meaningful to compare tribal markings to the female mutilation going on, against their will.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I don't think it meaningful to compare tribal markings to the female mutilation going on, against their will.
That sounds racist, or intolerant, or something. Re-education camp for you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Only if the female is about as large as the male. A female that doesn't want copulation, who is as large and strong as a male, presents a real problem.
So, speaking of millions of years of evolution ...
There is one thing that almost all female mammals share, and that is that they are less interested in sex than their male counterparts.
It has to be so.
Copulation, for female mammals, is far more costly than for males, and that's because female mammals get pregnant and nurse their young while male mammals don't. Females get one shot per estrus cycle at their genetic heritage, but for males the situation is different: For them, more copulation is better.
Some males "self-select" for reproduction, fighting each other for the privilege and leaving other males out in the cold (so to speak.) Other males engage in "sperm warfare". Still other males take an active role in raising their young, making themselves useful (if not indispensable) to the female. For some predators (for whom rampant reproduction is not a priority) males and females often don't have much to do with each other except at mating.
I'm not sure what role human males take, but females really do seem to be less interested in sex.- SIGNY
Evolutionarily speaking, the genetic code for females not interested in sex becomes less dominant in the gene pool, and those who like sex become more common. Same for homosexuals. The liking sex group also has helped improve the functions of clitoris, and the various G-spots.
So, in your world, women do not flirt with men? Women who like sex do not hang around, cling to, lay on men they want to have sex with? They do not groom themselves to appear desirable to the male of their choice?
And women who do not like sex cannot conjure how to do the opposite?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I don't think it meaningful to compare tribal markings to the female mutilation going on, against their will."
Neck rings as a symbol of fidelity? The belief is that if the woman is unfaithful, the man is allowed to remove the rings, sentencing the woman to death as the wispy neck folds and snaps. Significant keloid scarring? The theory is that both girls and boys will have passed a 'fitness' test indicating they're ready to join the adults. (Those pretty beads of keloid decorating the back are made by slicing the skin, picking it up with a sharp thorn, and rubbing ashes in the wound to enhance scar formation, bump by bump.) How about penis splitting? Performed over time, the deeper the split the greater the status earned. Cutting off finger joints, joint by joint? It's an indication of mourning after the death of someone close, or important.
There are many examples of practices where children, young adults, and adults of either sex are significantly mutilated, even disabled, to conform to some social expectation. And refusing means expulsion, which is a death sentence. It's hard to say how voluntary it is under the circumstances.
Their culture is our barbarity.
What it isn't is an indication of individual perversity.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
You just watched too much Tomb Raider.
Africa is just the most likely, because they find all the old bones there.
It helps that for much of the last 7 million years Africa was fairly dry and hot in the middle, though.
Supposedly, the planet is 4.6 billion years old and the oldest bacteria fossils are 3.4 billion and dinosaurs are 200 million years ago and then S. America and Africa parted ways about 25 million years ago
and the oldest hominine fossils found are around 7 million and there was a mass migration out of Africa about 150 thousand years ago and then 6 thousand years ago we were doing complex math and astronomy and then now we have Iphones and moon landings and pop culture shows.
I've always wondered if there weren't other hominine species that existed and died out in S America and maybe we carry bits of that DNA. Would explain a lot. Just have to lift up the entire Amazon and dig around a bit...That's all.
OK, so we are all Africans based on assumptions, is that it? That is the only reason for this gigantic leap to vague conclusion, without much evidence?
The best sites for preserving evidence are the only places that evidence ever existed? This isn't even as believable as global warming.
Because we have not yet stumbled across evidence, the evidence does not exist?
It sounds like the entire claim is rubbish.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I don't think it meaningful to compare tribal markings to the female mutilation going on, against their will."
Neck rings as a symbol of fidelity? The belief is that if the woman is unfaithful, the man is allowed to remove the rings, sentencing the woman to death as the wispy neck folds and snaps. Significant keloid scarring? The theory is that both girls and boys will have passed a 'fitness' test indicating they're ready to join the adults. (Those pretty beads of keloid decorating the back are made by slicing the skin, picking it up with a sharp thorn, and rubbing ashes in the wound to enhance scar formation, bump by bump.) How about penis splitting? Performed over time, the deeper the split the greater the status earned. Cutting off finger joints, joint by joint? It's an indication of mourning after the death of someone close, or important.
There are many examples of practices where children, young adults, and adults of either sex are significantly mutilated, even disabled, to conform to some social expectation. And refusing means expulsion, which is a death sentence. It's hard to say how voluntary it is under the circumstances.
Their culture is our barbarity.
What it isn't is an indication of individual perversity.
It is shocking that all of this is happening in BRITAIN, just like the OP pointed out.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Only if the female is about as large as the male. A female that doesn't want copulation, who is as large and strong as a male, presents a real problem.
So, speaking of millions of years of evolution ...
There is one thing that almost all female mammals share, and that is that they are less interested in sex than their male counterparts.
It has to be so.
Copulation, for female mammals, is far more costly than for males, and that's because female mammals get pregnant and nurse their young while male mammals don't. Females get one shot per estrus cycle at their genetic heritage, but for males the situation is different: For them, more copulation is better.
Some males "self-select" for reproduction, fighting each other for the privilege and leaving other males out in the cold (so to speak.) Other males engage in "sperm warfare". Still other males take an active role in raising their young, making themselves useful (if not indispensable) to the female. For some predators (for whom rampant reproduction is not a priority) males and females often don't have much to do with each other except at mating.
I'm not sure what role human males take, but females really do seem to be less interested in sex.- SIGNY
Evolutionarily speaking, the genetic code for females not interested in sex becomes less dominant in the gene pool, and those who like sex become more common. Same for homosexuals. The liking sex group also has helped improve the functions of clitoris, and the various G-spots.
So, in your world, women do not flirt with men? Women who like sex do not hang around, cling to, lay on men they want to have sex with? They do not groom themselves to appear desirable to the male of their choice?
And women who do not like sex cannot conjure how to do the opposite?
For some reason, I have met many women who like sex and have many children, both with the same sperm donor, and with various different sperm donors.
I have also met women who do not practice sex, and do not have any or many children, and oft are never married.
If your world does not have these simple examples, your world seems alien to me. Use your head, and observe with your eyes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
As far as the origins of the human species, there is no such thing as "no African DNA". - SIGNY
I invite you to explain to that African-American Gates guy hosting the show that he is lying.- JSF
I didn't say that he is "lying". What he is ... is a non-geneticist (and probably a non-scientist) who overstated or is mistaken about what the results mean. Or possibly there was an explanation earlier in the series that explained the limitations of the study.
Based on the short clip that was available to me on Youtube, it's not possible for me to figure out what technique was used to trace back anyone's ancestry a few thousand years, but probably it was something like this:Quote:
The researchers take this admixture data and use it as a reference point to calculate the exact relationships between specific admixtures and geographic locations. A DNA sample of unknown origin is broken down into its unique admixture—what Elhaik refers to as a kind of genetic fingerprint—which is derived from different gene pools. GPS then matches this “fingerprint” to a population that has a similar genetic admixture, and using a powerful algorithm developed by the team, matches the source DNA to a specific geographic location.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-genetic-gps-can-track-your-origins-
1000-years-back
Original publication
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140429/ncomms4513/full/ncomms4513.ht
ml
This techniques doesn't attempt to trace populations back more than a thousand (or so) years... not the hundred thousand years which goes back to the origins of modern day humans (homo sapiens sapiens) nor the MILLIONS of years that describe hominid evolution. It becomes useless once people hyper-relocate, such as in NYC where people from MANY geographic areas congregate.
The techniques that look to the distant past of human evolution place modern-day human origins atQuote:
Mitochondrial Eve [who] is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, in an unbroken line, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one woman, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generally (but see paternal mtDNA transmission) is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition, differing only by the mutations that over generations have occurred in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original "Mitochondrial Eve"... Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived between 99,000 and 200,000 years ago, most likely in East Africa,when Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) were developing as a population distinct from other human sub-species.
So, all modern-day humans studied so far have traced back to one woman. In Africa.
Most modern humans trace back to one man, who lived a hundred-thousand years earlier.
Humans have approximately 93% of genetic overlap with African chimps.
And, if you want to go REALLY far back, humans share some ultra-conserved genes with animals such as rats, mice, and fruit flies.
----
That doesn't means humans have a simple evolutionary history. The best explanation I have found so far to describe human evolution is that the line of forbears whose DNA was eventually included in our modern species evolved in the crucible of the Afar Triangle (in Africa) which was at times geologically connected and disconnected from the African mainland. This would have allowed "waves" of genetically-similar hominids to spread across the landscape. Even without these distinct "waves", "homo" populations with essentially the same ancestors may have diverged fromNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I don't think it meaningful to compare tribal markings to the female mutilation going on, against their will.
That sounds racist, or intolerant, or something. Re-education camp for you.
I like how some are trying to play the equivalence game, as if I think one is any better than the other, or some such nonsense.
It's not a freaking competition. But here I am trying to stand up for individual freedom, FOR WOMEN, and 1kiki is still trying to pick a fight.
Un fucking believable.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It sounds to me like you're unfamiliar with evolutionary biology, DNA, sequencing, and science in general. Just because YOU DON'T KNOW the evidence for Africa doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
OK, so we are all Africans based on assumptions, is that it? That is the only reason for this gigantic leap to vague conclusion, without much evidence?
The best sites for preserving evidence are the only places that evidence ever existed? This isn't even as believable as global warming.
Because we have not yet stumbled across evidence, the evidence does not exist?
It sounds like the entire claim is rubbish.
I'm not about to make up your general educational deficiencies. Since you don't seem to trust the fossil record, I've already referenced genetic sequencing as the means to understand who is evolved from/ interbred with whom. The results of genetic sequencing of everyone tested to far indicates that - yes, mitochondrial Eve came from Africa, BEFORE the "out of Africa" migration.
Quote:
Eve Mitochondrial Eve lived later than Homo heidelbergensis and the emergence of Homo neanderthalensis, but earlier than the out of Africa migration.[7] The dating for "Eve" was a blow to the multiregional hypothesis and a boost to the theory of the origin and dispersion of modern humans from Africa, replacing more "archaic" human populations such as Neanderthals. As a result, a consensus emerged among anthropologists that the latter theory was more plausible
The results for Y-chromosonal Adam are less clear, since some of the tested men did not share his genetic profile, so there was probably more than one contiguous male line.
The sequencing and interpretation of genes and their continuing mutations is a very complex topic, so I'm not even going to try.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"But here I am trying to stand up for individual freedom, FOR WOMEN, and 1kiki is still trying to pick a fight."
Are YOU fighting? Because I'm not.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But this was a thread about breast ironing by feminazis. How we got to talking about where homo sapiens sapiens evolved from (originally Africa) seems a far stretch from the original topic of the title.
The point where I left off was that women seem to want sex less than men, and this seems to create a huge misunderstanding of what women want, and what men want.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd much rather discuss human evolution than body mutilation any day.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
But this was a thread about breast ironing by feminazis. How we got to talking about where homo sapiens sapiens evolved from (originally Africa) seems a far stretch from the original topic of the title.
The point where I left off was that women seem to want sex less than men, and this seems to create a huge misunderstanding of what women want, and what men want.
1. Breast ironing is practiced heavily IN AFRICA. Because the women want better for their daughters than pregnancy and poverty and it's all they got.
2. What women are you talking about? I actually have a much higher libido than my husband and know many of the gals here would love to get some if they could tear their spouses/BF's away from work, porn, alcohol, fishin', farmin', mowin', huntin', .... and video games fer five damn seconds.
I think you are thinking of the women from 60-80 yrs ago who were too afraid to talk about what they wanted. My generation has plenty o' drive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
But this was a thread about breast ironing by feminazis. How we got to talking about where homo sapiens sapiens evolved from (originally Africa) seems a far stretch from the original topic of the title.
The point where I left off was that women seem to want sex less than men, and this seems to create a huge misunderstanding of what women want, and what men want.
1. Breast ironing is practiced heavily IN AFRICA. Because the women want better for their daughters than pregnancy and poverty and it's all they got.
2. What women are you talking about? I actually have a much higher libido than my husband and know many of the gals here would love to get some if they could tear their spouses/BF's away from work, porn, alcohol, fishin', farmin', mowin', huntin', .... and video games fer five damn seconds.
I think you are thinking of the women from 60-80 yrs ago who were too afraid to talk about what they wanted. My generation has plenty o' drive.
Perhaps you have foiled her attempts at generalizations.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I grew up thinking women just naturally had their libido in check, but found that to not be the case.
Western society imposes a more 'chaste ' view of woman, for several reasons. I just think women are as horney as men, but their brains can focus on other things.
l.
Most men can't multitask as well.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I just think women are as horney as men, but their brains can focus on other things.
Amen. 100% Well, maybe 75... uhhh 50% of us can, but that is still 49% more than most guys.
Do we HAVE an emoticon for :blowjob: ?Uh, oh, I just lost half of you didn't I?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Generalizations are just that- generalizations. There are always exceptions. I just look at the entire mammalian kingdom, and what I see is that females generally don't put as much effort into "getting some" as males. They don't fight for the privilege, they don't gang rape (as dolphins and ducks do) and they don't go around soliciting sex. Well, maybe their hormones do that for them, and we humans with our poor sense of smell simply don't notice. But what I observe is that females seem to be pretty passive in copulation and at time actively avoidant (ie they run away, if they can).
Perhaps you have foiled her attempts at generalizations.-JSF
Perhaps some biologist will tell me that's not true.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are parallel conversations going on. This is what I wrote in the other.
Quote:
What I find interesting is that in terms of faithfulness and divorce, the statistics show that lesbian relationship are more stable, more equal, and more committed than heterosexual relationships, and that gay (male) relationships are the worst, in terms of longevity and commitment. Maybe that's a cultural bias, but maybe it says something about biology.
Also, there are far more female prostitutes than male prostitutes (who tend to service gay males anyway).
So that might also be saying something about relative sexual appetites.
It is in the nature of women to have children. Biologically, that is a far greater commitment in terms of resources and energy than a male's. Not true for ALL species, of course. For some species the male is just as ... or almost as ... involved in raising the young as the female. For a few species, like the seahorse, the male even "gets pregnant" and carries the babies to term. But the less involved the males are in raising the young, the more likely they are to be eliminated through fighting since they are simply extraneous mouths for the environment to support. There are prolly six or seven extant "reproductive strategies" (from "lay a lot of eggs and swim away" to "have one or two precious children and tend them assiduously") I'm not sure where humans are on the spectrum of reproductive strategies, prolly more like dolphins but that's not saying anything positive about us, if you knew what dolphins did.
In any case, now that we have 7.4+ billion people on earth, and women aren't required to crank out babies just to keep the population stable (and men aren't required to inseminate anything on two legs) we have to find new roles for women AND men.
With greater automation and labor-saving devices, women can work many of the jobs that men can work, so it makes sense that women would be - and should be- more equally-represented in the labor force. trying to stop it - as male-dominated societies in most parts of the world try to do - is foolish.
OTOH, that doesn't mean that everybody is interchangeable. Childcare doesn't seem to satisfy some peoples' need for dangerous physical activities, so perhaps being a "hotshot" firefighter or rescuer-EMT is in line with some people's need for adrenaline. And, we need people who can take care of children, whose activities would test the patience of a saint, as we try to take little wildlings and turn them into citizens. I think there is enough variability in available jobs to suit all kinds of personalities and capabilities, and all jobs are valuable.
But the drive towards splitting people from each other and making everyone be harsh and compete for artificially scarce jobs doesn't create a healthy society. And we still have to solve what appears to be an imbalance in sexual appetites.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Generalizations are just that- generalizations. There are always exceptions. I just look at the entire mammalian kingdom, and what I see is that females generally don't put as much effort into "getting some" as males. They don't fight for the privilege, they don't gang rape (as dolphins and ducks do) and they don't go around soliciting sex. Well, maybe their hormones do that for them, and we humans with our poor sense of smell simply don't notice. But what I observe is that females seem to be pretty passive in copulation and at time actively avoidant (ie they run away, if they can).
Perhaps you have foiled her attempts at generalizations.-JSF
Perhaps some biologist will tell me that's not true.
I keep seeing nature shows where the females are parading around their ovulation hormone scents as near the males as they can, and seemingly confused why they are not getting any (offspring, or gestation).
Perhaps the women zoologists are merely applying human socialization upon the wild animals.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
There are parallel conversations going on. This is what I wrote in the other.
Which other thread?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I grew up thinking women just naturally had their libido in check, but found that to not be the case.
Western society imposes a more 'chaste ' view of woman, for several reasons. I just think women are as horney as men, but their brains can focus on other things.
l.
Most men can't multitask as well.
Do you include a corollary:
Most women can't focus or concentrate as well?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I keep seeing nature shows where the females ..."
Which animals? Because honestly I've seen a lot of nature shows, and in every one of them the males go sniffing out the females, from distances as far as 60 miles (elephants). But I've never seen females go any distance to put their rumps near a male.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Never herd uv breast ironing till now.
1 more reazon to disown the human rase.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.nooalf.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To be fair, they shoud be cutting off their little boyz junk befor he beginz puberty.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.nooalf.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I keep seeing nature shows where the females ..."
Which animals? Because honestly I've seen a lot of nature shows, and in every one of them the males go sniffing out the females, from distances as far as 60 miles (elephants). But I've never seen females go any distance to put their rumps near a male.
Usually I see the females going any possible distance, constantly following the males to be near the males. I will try to look for instances where the females do not follow the males, or stay near the males.
I recently watched a show on Beavers, which are apparently very family oriented, and seem to mate for life. One male build up his lodge, and along came a female to hook up, and they built a family.
For those wondering if this show is interesting, the contents of the show did include discovery of how to make beavers build a dam where humans want a dam, and how to control it from the get go, and how to make beavers not build a dam where humans find it inconvenient. I didn't notice how old the show was.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Generalizations are just that- generalizations. There are always exceptions. I just look at the entire mammalian kingdom, and what I see is that females generally don't put as much effort into "getting some" as males. They don't fight for the privilege, they don't gang rape (as dolphins and ducks do) and they don't go around soliciting sex. Well, maybe their hormones do that for them, and we humans with our poor sense of smell simply don't notice. But what I observe is that females seem to be pretty passive in copulation and at time actively avoidant (ie they run away, if they can).
Perhaps you have foiled her attempts at generalizations.-JSF
Perhaps some biologist will tell me that's not true.
Saw a show on Black Bear families. The females are rubbing their scent on every tree to lure a random male to come hump with. The mother bear abandons her couple month old cub to die while she tries to track down a random male to hump with.
Have not seen any adult (humping) males in the show yet.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I saw the same show about beavers. You neglected to mention that it's the male who goes wandering to find unoccupied territory, and that once he finds some, he spends a great deal of energy building a dam simply to attract any female that happens by. In that case, it's the male establishing a territory and working to attract a female, not the other way around.
But that's generally true when both males and females invest their time into raising offspring. You'll see it in species of birds and fish - the male finding or fighting for prime territory and creating an attractive home, while the female merely picks and chooses.
In group living species where the young aren't raised by both parents - species as diverse as apes, elephants, horses, and dolphins - either the females and males live independently until mating season when the males travel great distances to mate (elephants), or a group of females is herded by a single male who's fought for the females (many apes, horses), or the males will separate-out and gang-rape females (dolphins). The dynamic is that - to ensure survival of young - excess males are denied access to the resources needed by the females and young. It's the males who must fight for the right to the females and the resources they command, and who put the most into it - even to the point of dying trying.
Generally, carnivores live entirely separate lives except for mating. That's because there isn't enough food in a fairly large area to support more than one adult. In that case raising offspring is perilous for the female, because males will kill young that aren't their own. A female with young, when confronted by a generally much larger and more aggressive male, must be prepared to fight to the death to protect her young; or to acquiesce to the male.
On a species level, I can't think of any where the females put much, or any, effort seeking out or trying to attract males to actively mate with. (That's not to say they don't affiliate in order to access food or gain protection. But that's not what you're claiming.)
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I fail to see how you connect this obvious mutilation technique with Nazis and how it relates to feminism. From the reporters own words it's regarded as a practice, however barbaric, to bring less attention to the female in remote areas of Africa.
I dare say that it's being implemented for feminist reasons.
I know this will result in a pedestrian response, but I had to ask how you came about this line of thought. Breast ironing; feminism and Nazis. This ought to be good.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is this civilized activity among the feminazis population?
So determined to denounce femininity and sexuality in favor of "concentrating on education" and "making girls sexually unattractive" that they rationalize gender mutilation?
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/call-breast-ironing-criminal-offence-0038166
83.html
This supports the argument that feminazis are not really human.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is this civilized activity among the feminazis population?
So determined to denounce femininity and sexuality in favor of "concentrating on education" and "making girls sexually unattractive" that they rationalize gender mutilation?
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/call-breast-ironing-criminal-offence-0038166
83.html
This supports the argument that feminazis are not really human.
I fail to see how you connect this obvious mutilation technique with Nazis and how it relates to feminism. From the reporters own words it's regarded as a practice, however barbaric, to bring less attention to the female in remote areas of Africa.
Try reading again, without inserting your bias and after removing your libtard blinders.
This is in BRITAIN. To bring less attention to the female SO THEY FOCUS ON THEIR SCHOOL WORK. Is school work a major focus of females in "remote areas of Africa," as you rearranged the statements?
Quote:
I dare say that it's being implemented for feminist reasons.
I know this will result in a pedestrian response, but I had to ask how you came about this line of thought. Breast ironing; feminism and Nazis. This ought to be good.
SGG
Feminazis are the rabid, dictatorial followers of Feminism's goals of de-sexualizing women, whether the women want to or not.
Although Feminism and Nazis have parallels in practice, with Planned Parenthood. All 3 are big on eugenics, and using eugenics to "weed out the undesirables" or "inferiors" as Margaret Sanger says, which in all three cases means the black race. Feminazis mostly utilize and endorse the abortion practice, and say that poor women (read: black) should not be shackled to their unwanted children (read: stop breeding blacks).
Feminazis want women to forgo pregnancy and reproduction via abortion, for the same reasons put forth for the practice of breast-ironing: focus on school instead of becoming a mother.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, British bulllshit! Thanks for the clarification. You know us "libtards" we're too stupid to read in proper english. That explains it! You have really put your best foot forward and have showed why you are among this country's best and brightest. I am now giving you a standing ovation for the connection you made -
Feminists to Nazis and the like. Absolutely amazing explanation.
I'm at a loss for words to describe the shear stupidity, but I'm just a poor demented libtard after all.
SGG
I just knew this was gonna be good.
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is this civilized activity among the feminazis population?
So determined to denounce femininity and sexuality in favor of "concentrating on education" and "making girls sexually unattractive" that they rationalize gender mutilation?
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/call-breast-ironing-criminal-offence-0038166
83.html
This supports the argument that feminazis are not really human.
I fail to see how you connect this obvious mutilation technique with Nazis and how it relates to feminism. From the reporters own words it's regarded as a practice, however barbaric, to bring less attention to the female in remote areas of Africa.
Try reading again, without inserting your bias and after removing your libtard blinders.
This is in BRITAIN. To bring less attention to the female SO THEY FOCUS ON THEIR SCHOOL WORK. Is school work a major focus of females in "remote areas of Africa," as you rearranged the statements?Quote:
I dare say that it's being implemented for feminist reasons.
I know this will result in a pedestrian response, but I had to ask how you came about this line of thought. Breast ironing; feminism and Nazis. This ought to be good.
SGG
Feminazis are the rabid, dictatorial followers of Feminism's goals of de-sexualizing women, whether the women want to or not.
Although Feminism and Nazis have parallels in practice, with Planned Parenthood. All 3 are big on eugenics, and using eugenics to "weed out the undesirables" or "inferiors" as Margaret Sanger says, which in all three cases means the black race. Feminazis mostly utilize and endorse the abortion practice, and say that poor women (read: black) should not be shackled to their unwanted children (read: stop breeding blacks).
Feminazis want women to forgo pregnancy and reproduction via abortion, for the same reasons put forth for the practice of breast-ironing: focus on school instead of becoming a mother.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey JSF,
Do you think that the parents of girls from Cameroon are sitting around their village
reading Cosmo and listening to the musical stylings of Alannis Morrisette?
Or, for that matter, that the mothers of girls in Britain are practicing this form
of mutilation of the female body while reading the latest book from Gloria Steinem?
That was never mentioned in the report. I think that you have injected your Western values and biases into the story.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What amazes me is that, on the one hand, he rails against 'Muslims' for their debasement of women - then calls feminists 'Nazis' for the crime of wanting equality. I think he's just a tad confused.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
What amazes me is that, on the one hand, he rails against 'Muslims' for their debasement of women - then calls feminists 'Nazis' for the crime of wanting equality. I think he's just a tad confused.
A fundamental point to think about. Once you are no longer confused by your lack of understanding, the opening of your eyes will open the world to you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We agree on something.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
What amazes me is that, on the one hand, he rails against 'Muslims' for their debasement of women - then calls feminists 'Nazis' for the crime of wanting equality. I think he's just a tad confused.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here, I got one: Thinking positive will result in positive results.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
What amazes me is that, on the one hand, he rails against 'Muslims' for their debasement of women - then calls feminists 'Nazis' for the crime of wanting equality. I think he's just a tad confused.
A fundamental point to think about. Once you are no longer confused by your lack of understanding, the opening of your eyes will open the world to you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The only alternative I can imagine is that he thinks women should be happy to be cosseted and exist within the confines of his strictures - without agency of their own, like a cherished pet, or a prized brood mare. Tho given the disparaging comments he's made about women in the past, that doesn't seem to fit his mo.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The only alternative I can imagine
Keep trying. Not so much need for greater imagination - try critical thought.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You mean thinking that women being free to be assholes means freedom for women is bad? You're right, I'm very critical of that thought. And shame on you for believing it.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME