Archive for the ‘Junk Science’ Category

First reconstruction of Neanderthal man

Guy 1: Why do women prefer cavemen? Guy 2: I don't know--ask your wife. Guy 3: Have you SEEN his wife?

Sex with cavemen gave humans an immune boost: study

AFPBy Kerry Sheridan | AFP – Thu, Aug 25, 2011

 Sexual encounters with archaic humans like the Neanderthals produced children who inherited key genes that have helped modern humans fight illness and disease, said a US study published Thursday.
“The cross-breeding wasn’t just a random event that happened, it gave something useful to the gene pool of the modern human,” said Stanford University’s Peter Parham, senior author of the study in the journal Science.
Equipped with knowledge of the genome of the Neanderthals and the Denisovans, of whom a tooth and a finger bone were discovered in a Russian cave last year, researchers scoured the data for hints of what genes crossed over.
Scientists already knew that about four percent of Neanderthal DNA and up to six percent of Denisovan DNA are present in some modern humans…

———————————————————————————————-

The latest caveman DNA story above is even more evidence that modern humans and cavemen interbred, and that women prefer sexually aggressive sex partners. That is, if you believe the caveman stereotype.

But perhaps it is the other way around, and men prefer sexually aggressive females? We may never know, because women’s groups and feminists work so hard at denying actual, physical violence and aggression perpetrated by females, despite decades of evidence demonstrating that women are at least, or more aggressive than men.

We may never know because feminism in any western country is based in logical fallacies , and false dilemas that pervade diaolgues, and deny the power of kyriarchy.

But one thing is certain: it is literally in the financial interests of feminists and their allies in science to deny women’s violence, and perpetuate the sexist stereotypes of women as ‘helpless victims,’ rather than as capable people–there’s money to be made in perpetuation.

I should back up a bit: I don’t want to be accused of sexism by all of those sexists –(have you ever noticed how sexist the people who point out sexism actually are)?

So it would be more fair to point out that modern humans interbred with cavepeople, in this case the Denisovan group of ancestors.

We already knew that we are related to Neanderthals–who actually get a bad rap for violence, because of the sexist biases of modern scientists like Greg Laden,who maintain that Neanderthals were all rapists, despite evidence that they were spiritual and compassionate, and also evidence they took care of the handicapped amongst them.

Sex-biased scientists are almost as disreputable as religious ones, and  fanatics who believe the cavemen lived alongside dinosaurs, and ‘went to heaven.’ But you have to take science with a grain of salt these days, as the left/right religious and sexist wars rage through the facts.

So the stereotype prevails that cavemen were a brutal, male dominated species, and  the stereotype waxes and wanes in  currency, because some women are also financially invested in the idea of perpetuating the image of women as vulnerable, and helpless–which is anti-feminist–despite their own claims to the contrary!

Advancements of women who have at least, their own powerful identities, separate from monolithic feminism are nearly antithetical to the rape and rapeology industries that thrive and prosper in academia, government, and social services.

This type of feminist minces words or concepts like “nature versus nurture,” and act like its all one grand mystery how sexism is perpetuated (clue to feminist moms: stop treating your own daughter like a sex object), while pimping their daughters to middle class paradigms of ‘beauty’ and ‘ frailty’ in need of ‘protection’ from cavemen.

Nature and nurture are complex, and not simply explained from either a genetic, or a psychological reasoning, because social forces intervene in each. The bias of scientists selects for or against explaining this complexity–the religious doubt the genetic explanation, the sexists doubt the religious explanations, and both mangle the social implications of the discussion.

Psychological perspective: http://psychology.about.com/od/nindex/g/nature-nurture.htm

Psychological-genetic explanation: http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Nature_nurture

So how can we explain female college wrestlers Brittany and Brienna Delgado, subduing a fleeing hit and run suspect with chicken locks and chokeholds!?

“We do several moves where you stop your opponents,” said Brittany Delgado. “My sister and I are very proficient wrestlers and also played football in high school, so we know about tackling.”

My best guess is that these young ladies weren’t raised by feminists per se, or at least that kind of feminist– or scientists. I would guess they were raised by loving parents who were aware of the interplay between nature and nurture, as well as the biases in each corner.

But one thing is certain: the Delgado girls can probably handle themselves in any elevator–unlike young, white, middle class feminists raised by other middle class sex pandering feminists[see links at bottom for “elevators”] who sexualized their daughters.

As long as sexism and science are blurred with feminism, we may never know what women, or our own DNA really are made of, because like religion, there’s just way too much money to be made in arguing about it, and perpetuating false rape scenarios, and Virgin Mary complexes, rather than getting our human groove on–cave person style.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Porn KeyWords: eight year old girl sucking, eight year old girl tits, prepubescent girl likes mothers tits, under ten year old sexual training, seven year old girl and breasts, eight year old sucks hard, seven year old wants it, eight year old needs training, seven year old needs some cream, young girl needs some cream, eight-year-old girl wants screams for cream, pre-pubescent girl eats cream in moms lap, eight year old girl eats cream while mother looks on.

Mother breastfeeding an eight-year-old girl. Is this child being used by the mother for pleasure? After all, women experience orgasm during breastfeeding.  And I don’t call this an educational video, I call it radical feminist child pornography.

I wonder why any woman would encourage her grown child to suck on her when the kid is eight years old. And I say encourage, because if you notice in the video, the ‘home’ is a virtual cult of mothers orgasmic breasts.

An unplanned orgasm during breastfeeding is one thing- quite normal, healthy, and expected for up to three years of life or so. But eight? How about eleven?

And setting boundaries between adults and children is fundamental to raising healthy children–I won’t even cite that. Boundaries are good, at least, according to ‘society’. As if society is to be believed….”It’s for the children,” they say.

Hmmmmm. According to the video,  “Veronica believes children should decide for themselves…”

Veronica, the mother coos to the child “little monkey…”

I have known a woman who called her vagina ‘her little monkey’; I have known another woman to call her vibrator a little monkey, and called my genitals little monkey as well.

Then to the viewer, Mother Veronica says “She has a soft…strong attachment to it”, speaking about her breastfeeding, near-pubescent daughter. Then she rationalizes the behavior by stating that children who breastfeed longer have higher IQ.

The mother exhibits two rationalizations similar that pedophiles who abuse their children often use: she has a special coded language of cuteness and objectification calling the child her “little monkey,” and also the rationalization that she acts out of love. I am sure somewhere in the literature, you can even find the claim that sex with children makes them smarter, too.

“They may blame the children for being too attractive or sexually provocative. They may also maintain that they are “teaching” the child about “the facts of life” or “love”; this rationalization is frequently offered by pedophiles who have molested children related to them”

Read more: Pedophilia – children, causes, DSM, functioning, therapy, adults, person, people http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html#ixzz1RQg4PcuO

Yukki, sexually abusive, and inappropriate, says I. And how can the child possibly ‘decide for ‘herself? The mother wields ultimate decision making, power, and influence over the girls mind.

If pornography is actually about power relationships and control, or even if equality was a goal, I wonder what the world would think if men had eight year old girls sucking on their tits while they masturbated, or assured us that eight year old boys need their penises held every time they went to the bathroom. We know where that would go…

Breastfeeding grown children is a betrayal of the parents responsibility, and a glimpse of one of the ways that female sexuality–and female abuse of children–takes a different form than sexual abuse of children by males.

Sadly, women feminists, and the actors within the women’s movement are hesitant or dismissive of any suggestion or attempt to categorize this and other inappropriate objectifying or abusive acts that women commit against children as criminal.

Yukki and age- inappropriate, in the very least, says I. But a potential clue about the nature, and difference of sexual abuse of children by women.

Related articles