Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

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.

---

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, 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?

---

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 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-combined back into the modern human genome later, when subsequent migrations overtook earlier ones. Clearly, based on the amount of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA on our genetic heritage, there was enough similarity between the groups to be able to produce fertile offspring. Not a biologist, but that would argue that they weren't even different species, since my understanding is that the definition of a species is one which produces fertile offspring. By I'd be happy for any credible biologist to step in a tell me the real story.

Although humans originated in Africa, I see our genetic heritage, altho originating from one area, more as of a "braid" than a line, as humans diverged and recombined over time.

---

So Adam was 100,000 years older than Eve. What a romance.

Is your reference to "East Africa" meaning Somalia, Egypt, Nile River denizens? Or East of the Nile? like Israel, Saudi?

The episode with Wayans, Rudolph, and Shonda Rimes was on again last night, this morning. That was the 4th time I stumbled across that episode.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I just think women are as horney as men, but their brains can focus on other things.

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps you have foiled her attempts at generalizations.-JSF

---

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).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Perhaps you have foiled her attempts at generalizations.-JSF

---

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 some biologist will tell me that's not true.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
There are parallel conversations going on. This is what I wrote in the other.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Perhaps you have foiled her attempts at generalizations.-JSF

---

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 some biologist will tell me that's not true.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
The only alternative I can imagine

---