Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Those are not feminists.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


Too unsavory a topic ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:
We're ALL inbreds.

And there's yer warm fuzzy thought for today. Yer welcome.

---

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

---

Select to view spoiler:

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 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.

---

---

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???

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Curious w/ the S.E. Asia stuff though. That does intrigue me.

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:


The article implies that "the opposite sex"(men) are the problem, not the girls.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As far as the origins of the human species, there is no such thing as "no African DNA".

---

Quote:

---

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 ?

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I don't think it meaningful to compare tribal markings to the female mutilation going on, against their will.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---