Ancient Egyptians weren’t black

Unless you mean the slaves.

If only we had a field of scientific study to tell.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/archeology

https://uk.reuters.com/article/oukoe-uk-britain-tutankhamun-dna/half-of-european-men-share-king-tuts-dna-idUKTRE7704OR20110801

Before white people invaded and since apartheid ended, Africa has had no excuse to be shit.

If they had a monarchy system, they might’ve had one King.

They’ve never had an Empire. Quite sad, actually. Every other race has.

They’re still trying to say raging tart Cleopatra wasn’t Greek.

Spot the Afro. I’m still waiting for the Poundland Princess to bring those back like a proud black woman.

About Cheddar Man

Had to wade in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_coloration

We don’t even know the colour of dinosaurs 100%. They might’ve been flamingo fucking pink for all we know.

By comparison, Neanderthal.

But there are faked versions deliberately intended to make blue eyed red-heads (we have mummies) look distinctly African, despite sharing ZERO DNA.

Wow. That’s racist. It reminds me of old American slavery posters.

Now, eye colour is complex but you can make an educated guess, they couldn’t totally make up the eye colour.

To say it’s blue, it’s gotta be blue. You’d expect this from the Ice Age.

The eye colour evolution would’ve had to come after a skin one.

Nobody with blue eyes has skin this dark (mixed race are discounted).

Why?

This person would’ve died from Vitamin D deficiency.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vitamin-d-deficiency-migrant-health-guide

Read A Troublesome Inheritance, we’re too far north to have evolved that.

A 5,000 year old Celtic woman

Common Celtic face

Here’s an Irishman, 2300 years old

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clonycavan_Man

who wore make-up and hair gel.

Here’s Old Croghan Man in another reconstruction with what is considered the strongest tan physically possible, since the skin is lighter genetically in whites then the sun tanned it. He ain’t getting any darker.

Here’s the previous Cheddar Man reconstruction.

Who looks like surviving, living descendants.

This video explains the Cheddar Man’s specifically white-skinned DNA

It’s good archaeology is exposing itself as liars, OOA is absurd since we sequenced Neanderthals, where do you think they evolved?

I’m glad they’re lying. We needn’t lose any sleep over fraud charges down the line. It’s public money, fraud is a crime.

Description

“CHEDDAR MAN: He does already have genes that are associated with extremely light skin pigmentation and freckles in modern day Europeans namely IRF4 and he was heterozygous for one of the red hair mutations which in and of itself causes a lot of depigmentation. I think the authors overplayed their hand on this new algorithm which is not freely available to the public and rushed to conclusions with a clear political intent.

They rushed for a cover-up.

So yes the algorithm might have predicted that the person skin color was the darkest two tones; but the prediction could have been crap!

Are the global warming people working on these predictions?

The 10 SNPs panel predicts it to have Black skin based on 4 SNPs; however Loschbour get a vastly different prediction when adding 3 more SNPs in spite of having a similar genetic profile in those SNPs.”

JF had a video but it was taken down

It was here

“The Cheddar Man Fraud Exposed: Prof. JF Gariepy, biologist.”

Why fear a biologist speaking, huh?

6th century man

The Roman reported us as wearing woad, completely shaven except the scalp and in men, the upper lip. Yes, men rocked the mustache. Black people wearing woad aren’t bright blue, liars.

Even Egyptians weren’t that dark!

There are plenty of ancient references to them being blue-eyed and blond!

Hence this death mask commonality

Literal hair grown out of their heads.

[Most mummies aren’t blond, so it cannot possibly be a result of the process.]

And if race “doesn’t exist”, you can’t claim anyone’s “black”, a racial classification, and further, it’s not solely based on skin tone? And isn’t saying someone less than white = black, the one drop rule?

JF does give me concerns though.

Why are all the creeps atheists?

“Unfortunately we live in an authoritarian state supported by people like you, moral fags, who keep me from doing that.”

Boy, are they in for a shock when they die. Like, the Mr Pointy kind in a warm locale.

Circumcision and sensation

Male circumcision, loss of sensation

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800902

“Circumcision also ablates junctional mucosa that appears to be an important component of the overall sensory mechanism of the human penis.”

Arguably the most important structure.

Of the female partner’s (sub-par) experience

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1079.x/epdf

The difference in sexual behavior in men is the real reason.

Rise in ED in other studies, check.

Rise in masturbation (read: needing porn), oral, anal and anal with other men, all expected.

Needing lubricant is the big deal, that fact alone would increase the risk of STDs it supposedly prevents.

Women, and adult men who knew both, preferred the natural, complete set.
Well, yes, that’s how we evolved, well done.

Human genetic load dragging us down

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788123/
The long-term consequence of such effects is an expected genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition, potentially measurable on the timescale of a few generations in westernized societies, and because the brain is a particularly large mutational target, this is of particular concern.” The word is dysgenic for $200.
“Ultimately, the price will have to be covered by further investment in various forms of medical intervention.”


Good luck with dropping global IQ, if anyone dared measure such a thing. Sum IQ/global population is the equation.

Who will pay for this global NHS? Our NHS is already running down with a slight immigrant pressure.

It is slight compared to The World.

As JF has mentioned, “clusters” as seen in racial categorization, pertain to findings of genetic distance.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070&type=printable

Examination of the relationship between genetic and geographic distance supports a view in which the clusters arise not as an artifact of the sampling scheme, but from small discontinuous jumps in genetic distance for most population pairs on opposite sides of geographic barriers, in comparison with genetic distance for pairs on the same side.

Called it.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/23/chromosomes-make-culture-including-language/

Speaking of germline mutations ruining society.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5597845/

Older fathers’ children have lower evolutionary fitness across four centuries and in four populations

Is that a large enough sample for the manosphere? They don’t like the answer so obviously not.

As if I don’t post topics strategically… tut tut.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/old-men-dead-babies/

“Higher paternal age at offspring conception increases de novo genetic mutations. Based on evolutionary genetic theory we predicted older fathers’ children, all else equal, would be less likely to survive and reproduce, i.e. have lower fitness.”
The sins of the father…
Old dads, no grandkids?
“showed negative paternal age effects on infant survival and offspring reproductive success.”
Sexual selection goes for young men, with better hormone profiles and less obesity.*
Darwin says aged paternal societies are bad for it. Nobody needs your dusty DNA. That’s a sign of corruption – keeping the young men down, not breeding. *another direct link to children again
“Effects survived tests for key competing explanations, including maternal age and parental loss,”
Again, you cannot blame the women.

“We can use our findings to aid in predicting the effect increasingly older parents in today’s society will have on their children’s survival and reproductive success. To the extent that we succeeded in isolating a mutation-driven effect of paternal age, our results can be understood to show that de novo mutations reduce offspring fitness across populations and time periods.”

As close as science gets to settled.

Old fathers are a sign of a dying society. Right up there with strippers and crossdressers. You passed the time period where you were viable with decadence but managed to breed anyway, that society’s social norms are seriously damaged. Applies to women too but paternal age is a bigger factor so I have to spotlight. In a Patriarchy, you would expect fathers are held to the highest standards possible. Their total authority relies on the moral authority consequent of that fact.

Asian-European fertility issue

Partial re-post from: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/03/30/racial-realities-mixed-race-fertility-and-neanderthals/
I wanted to expand a little because it’s ridiculous that I’m the top search result and I want to encourage public, detailed research on this topic.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/10/the-prenatal-wages-of-interracial-relationships/

Speciation is an ongoing process, it’s part of evolution, also an ongoing force. As members of a sub-species, better known as race, continue to diverge over time, the characteristic event will be infertility, fertility issues, birth defects and miscarriage. Once it is born, a failure to thrive and reproduce itself would also count as an adverse selection pressure.

My simple question: do we see this?

Oh, boy. Grab a drink, tall one.

The mixed-race dating pool is limited, to the other mixed-race, for example.
This lowers the potential fitness of the organism, compared to its parents’ baseline.

I’ll take a biomedical approach, from the limited information available.

“From EurekaAlert, Asian-white couples face distinct pregnancy risks…:”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/sumc-acf092508.php

Asians have a lower median birth weight, a racial difference as real as shorter African gestation periods compared to Whites.

“Although past studies have looked at ethnic differences in perinatal outcomes, the majority of research has focused on white- African-American couples. Few studies have focused specifically on Asian-white couples, said El-Sayed, who is also associate chief of maternal-fetal medicine.

More specifically, the researchers found that white mother/Asian father couples had the lowest rate (23 percent) of caesarean delivery, while Asian mother/white father couples had the highest rate (33.2 percent). Because birth weights between these two groups were similar, the researchers say the findings suggest that the average Asian woman’s pelvis may be smaller than the average white woman’s and less able to accommodate babies of a certain size.”

Nature is trying to tell you something there.

There is a clear natural selection pressure exerting itself.
Also, C-section birth puts the baby at a distinct disadvantage, those children have a weakened immune system, poorer health and fare worse in pair bonding.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14662-c-sections-may-weaken-bonding-with-baby/
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001973
Learning disability is on the tag list. Look for yourself.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2473493

It doesn’t decrease infant mortality and can actually kill the mother over time.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/oct/04/one-in-three-us-births-happen-by-c-section-caesarean-births
It’s serious surgery.
“It becomes routine but it is still a major surgery. That carries a long-term effect on maternal health.”
“Compared with women having a vaginal birth, those having a C-section for the first time have… a 5.7 times greater risk of an unplanned hysterectomy”

Nature is telling you something there.

“El-Sayed and his colleagues also found that the incidence of gestational diabetes was lowest among white couples at 1.61 percent and highest among Asian couples at 5.73 percent – and just under 4 percent for Asian-white couples. These findings weren’t altogether surprising: past studies have shown an increased risk of diabetes among Asian couples, which researchers attribute to an underlying genetic predisposition. But the interesting finding, El-Sayed said, was that the risk for interracial couples was about the same regardless of which parent was Asian.”

Dominant genes? No!

“Because of the results on Caesarean section rates they adduce that there is a pelvic size difference between Asian women and white women. Objective male observer acquaintances of mine have generally tended to back up this phenotypic difference between the populations.”

They’re shaped like pre-pubescent boys. Why else get surgery?
You should study it formally though. Asians have the lowest sexual dimorphism and it’s important to know the numbers.

http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2008/10/asian-white-couples-face-distinct-pregnancy-risks-stanfordpackard-study-finds.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2867623/

“Although births of multiracial and multiethnic infants are becoming more common in the United States, little is known about birth outcomes and risks for adverse events. We evaluated risk of fetal death for mixed race couples compared with same race couples and examined the role of prematurity and low birth weight as potential mediating risk factors.”

Miscegenation doesn’t work, even with modern medicine.
This applies to black-white pairings too.

It is a disgrace adults are marrying without knowledge of the biology involved.

“Mixed race black and white couples face higher odds of prematurity and low birth weight, which appear to contribute to the substantially higher demonstrated risk for stillbirth. There are likely additional unmeasured factors that influence birth outcomes for mixed race couples.”

I cannot find a stillbirth study for Asian-White pairings, I’m sorry. Is it so common they need not study it?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3807602/
I am looking, nobody is studying it.
I’m sorry, I am looking. It would be nicer if fewer babies were dying.

We have anecdotes?
https://www.temptasian.com/fyooz/after-3-miscarriages-the-zuckerbergs-are-finally-expecting-a-girl/
“Most people don’t discuss miscarriages because you worry your problems will distance you or reflect upon you — as if you’re defective or did something to cause this.” Mate choice is something you did. The baby didn’t choose to be conceived by you two. Part of your biology must be defective because miscarriage is an outcome of defective conception and/or pregnancy (there are many possible reasons, some environmental, a few random plus ‘stress’). It sounds cruel but yes, medically, something is wrong.

OT: Jews have a non-White miscarriage rate.
Jews invented/funded IVF because they needed it.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/assisted-reproduction-and-judaism
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.529569
Israel is a eugenic ethnostate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fishel#Early_life_and_education
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182091/
“The issue of the rate of recurrent miscarriages in high-risk Jewish women is unresolved.”
I am biting my tongue.

When trying really hard, the only evidence for hybrid vigour in White Americans vs. mulattos, which they sought to prove (scientism) is “relatively small.” …Is it present or not?
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14618
“this study provides evidence [DS: the evidence isn’t proof?] that increased stature and cognitive function have been positively selected in human evolution, whereas many important risk factors for late-onset complex diseases may not have been.”
That’s bullshit, everyone is getting taller and getting better grades.
May not have been? In Nature?
Listen to the twisting in this: http://www.medicaldaily.com/g00/interracial-couples-may-make-taller-smarter-children-due-greater-genetic-diversity-341348
“Meanwhile, human evolution is more focused on the ability to create healthy offspring and have them survive infancy to continue raising them.”
Yes.

…Yes, it is.

“Whether you come from a genetically diverse background or not, in the end even the most common medical ailments that affect society will affect everyone, with genetic diversity having little to no impact.”
No, genes. The most common fatal medical ailments aren’t a cold, they’re genetic-based, it’s established fact. And if it had no impact, why push it?
“It combines the parents’ genetic material, resulting in offspring that possess a unique set of genetic blueprints that increase their chances of surviving and thriving compared to a population with limited genetic variability.”
No such thing. Limited genetic variability? No such thing. Where is this thing?
They’re just talking absolute crap to cover how their study was a non-result. Every genome is unique, between twins even. Thriving and surviving varies by individual genome, that should be studied by the natal people. You know this. You hide the scant data that is there with delusions. This is propaganda. It continues:
“This encapsulates Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection,”
No, he wrote a whole book. Look at the subtitle to The Origin of the Species.
Natural selection is about death and mortality, which you have not studied. Disease is not death.
“where individuals with characteristics that increase their probability of survival”
how? like being able to give birth?
“will have more opportunities to reproduce,”
in a limited dating pool
“according to the University of California, Berkeley’s Understanding Evolution.”
If California understood evolution, it would be Alaska.
“As a result, their offspring will benefit from the variants,”
no, not if they’re the more common disadvantageous mutations or if the combination is novel and fatal
“which will spread throughout the population.”
No, you’re assuming they breed. Infertility exists, and it exists on a spectrum.

http://theconversation.com/being-south-asian-is-as-great-a-risk-factor-for-stillbirth-as-smoking-80074
There would be signs.

“This is an increased risk equivalent to smoking, advanced maternal age or obesity.”

“While other research has found the mother’s ethnicity places a role in the risk of a stillbirth, this has largely been put down to factors related to migration and social disadvantage. What our research shows is women born in South Asia and giving birth in Australia are at increased risk even when other factors are taken into account.”

D.N.A.

“There is growing evidence to suggest a mother’s ethnicity influences how fast her placenta ages as her pregnancy progresses.”

Asian placenta is old, got it.

“For some women, they can go into spontaneous labour sooner. In our study, we found South Asian-born women went into labour a median one week earlier than Australian- or New Zealand-born women.”

Racial differences in gestation duration, again.

“However, for others, an ageing placenta cannot meet the fetus’ increasing metabolic needs at term and beyond. And this increases the risk of stillbirth.”

Infertility, insufficient maternal resources for the fetus. That’s a kind of infertility. Considering how skinny they are and how those female curves are supposed to feed a baby, historically, this is not surprising.
Nature is aborting babies that would starve. Before it kills the mother too.

“And the length of telomeres in placentas from pregnancies ending in stillbirth are two times shorter than those from live births. In other words, the placental cells had aged faster.”

Superior Asian genetics people might wanna cover their innocent eyes.

“Some researchers have also studied ethnic differences in placental telomere length.
In an American study, placental telomeres from pregnancies in black women were significantly shorter than from pregnancies in white women (the ethnic backgrounds of the women were not further defined in the study).”

Superior European placentas. As you’d expect for the one race hit hard by an Ice Age. Perhaps this is an unknown r/K variable.

“Whether telomeres are shorter in placentas from pregnancies in South Asian-born women is unknown.”

Oh, I think I can guess.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4272534/

“There was a high prevalence of stillbirth in this multi-ethnic urban population. The increased risk of stillbirth observed in non-White women remains after adjusting for other factors.”

Whites are different? Biologically? Shudder-gasp!

Let’s see if BMI matters.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1860462
Yes. Of course it does. They only studied high BMI though.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392932/

“However, BMI does not take into account the relative proportions of fat and lean tissue and cannot distinguish the location of fat distribution”

“However, these are based on information derived from the general population, based on risk of mortality, without consideration for racial or ethnic specificity and were not determined to specifically identify those at risk for diabetes. Recently, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presented initial findings from an oversampling of Asian Americans in the 2011–2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. These data, utilizing general population criteria for obesity, showed the prevalence of obesity in Asian Americans was only 10.8% compared with 34.9% in all U.S. adults (13). Paradoxically, many studies from Asia, as well as research conducted in several Asian American populations, have shown that diabetes risk has increased remarkably in populations of Asian origin, although in general these populations have a mean BMI significantly lower than defined at-risk BMI levels (14,15). Moreover, U.S. clinicians who care for Asian patients have noticed that many with diabetes do not meet the published criteria for obesity or even overweight.”

So we’d need to look at WHR, instead of BMI.

New Evidence on Waist-Hip Ratio Reveals Surprising Relationship to Fertility, Urges Revision of Attractiveness Theories

“In women, the connection between WHR and health measures appears to be hormonal. It is known that ratios of estrogen, progesterone, and prolactin affect all of these features. The “right” balance promotes both health and low WHR. One version of the “attractiveness theory” posits that our attraction to this body shape developed as an indicator of overall health.”

“Another crucial part of the attractiveness theory of wait-hip-ratio (WHR) is that this body shape has to be indicative of something related to fertility, or else it wouldn’t have any evolutionary value.

The key feature in a potential mate is biological fitness, that is, the potential to give birth to many healthy and successful offspring.

Desirable females, in the evolutionary sense, are those that are likely to be healthy, fertile, and robust.

Robust = pelvis, btw.
Venus was never a narrow-hipped vixen.
The body acceptance people should really focus on the hips.

A low WHR, it is thought, must correlate with fertility (ability to have children) and/or fecundity (tendency to have large numbers of children).”

There is such a thing as too low. Boyish figures have less fat, fewer curves and narrower hips.
They’re confusing women who have obesity and babies for State money with natural attractiveness, fecundity in the state of nature and blurring BMI with WHR. Nobody said unhealthy (low) WHR is wealthy, for fecundity. That’s a strawman. The hormones and other details, medical details, are better profiled in the most nubile WHR range. It is a range. Don’t line graph me, study.

It doesn’t mention race although many women in the world do not have a figure. Unless you count a figure of 1.

Hormones and junk: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/health-what-a-man-cant-resist-the-perfect-waist-hip-ratio-forget-about-breasts-says-jerome-burne-its-1440859.html

“The waist is one of the distinguishing human features, such as speech, making tools and a sense of humour,’ says Professor Singh. ‘No other primate has one. We developed it as a result of another unique feature – standing upright. We needed bigger buttock muscles for walking on two legs.”

If the waist makes the human, a lot of women are fucked.

The ideal ratio in healthy pre- menopausal women ranges between 0.67 and 0.8. In terms of the tape measure, this is produced by waists between 24in and 28in with 36in hips, and waists between 27in and 31in with 40in hips.”

A range.
…How many Asian women have a 36″ hip?
The fat ones I’ve seen were pufferfish.

“come puberty, the sex hormones start directing it differently.”

sexual dimorphism

“Oestrogen, the hormone of female sexual characteristics, concentrates it on the buttocks and hips while the masculinising hormone testosterone encourages fat to form around the waist.’ At the same time testosterone encourages fat to be burnt off the buttocks while oestrogen takes it off the abdomen.
These characteristically feminine fat stores are used in the last months of pregnancy and during breast-feeding. This is another reason why women who are seriously underweight often stop menstruating – they would not have the resources to support a pregnancy or a baby.”

Confetti time.

“Women with a low ratio, Professor Singh says, tend to start ovulating younger, and those with a high ratio find it more difficult to become pregnant and tend to have children later. [not by choice]
Although a high waist-hip ratio most commonly goes with being overweight, it can also be found in women of normal weight who have high testosterone levels – a condition that is also associated with being hairy, infertile and having a ‘male’ body shape.”

Manly body, fertility problems. Study it. Avert tragedy.

“In a survey of 106 men aged 18 to 22, the favourite was a female of average weight with the classic hour-glass figure. Not only were such women rated as young, sexy and healthy, they were also seen as ideal for childbearing.”

Again, sexy is different from beautiful.
Porn is a lie.

“The young men regarded the underweight women – defined as women of 5ft 5in weighing less than 90lb – as ‘youthful’ but not particularly attractive, especially for childbearing.”

To prefer the obese over the mannish figured for motherhood is huge.
Youthful is code for making them feel like a pedophile.

“In Professor Singh’s other surveys, men of all ages agreed with these findings – thus bearing out her theory of the waist-hip ratio.”

Women dropped the corset to signal they weren’t just baby-making machines.
It’s hard to test low-WHR women in a world of obesity.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4953-barbie-shaped-women-more-fertile/

“Women who were extremely underweight or overweight were not included.”
Study them separately?
Porn is making you drawn to infertile women, with boy hips. Conditioning.

WHRxfertility
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886904003617
“Figures of average weight and a WHR of 0.7 were rated as most attractive and healthy.”
It is important.

I want to see a study that looks at racial WHR against pregnancy issues.
Is that so hard to ask?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051381200044X

“These data indicate that BF% appears to be a strong cue for attractiveness and that the impact of WHR and BMI on attractiveness is dependent, in part, on BF%. The appearance of body fat may provide disruption in the visual cues of both shape and size of the female body, potentially impacting behavior.”

Speciation is determined by biological compatibility in sum. This includes many factors. On none I have seen do Asian-White hybrids succeed over their parental groups’ averages; even IQ gains, if true, would be worse for the individual’s own fertility rate.

The only other thing I could think of is a study on STD rates between couples.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2117964
http://sti.bmj.com/content/87/Suppl_2/ii14
http://www.expat.or.id/medical/stds.html
“The association between travel and STDs has been known for centuries”
What’s the Asian version of burn the coal? Pick the chopstick, get ripped?
http://global-disease-burden.healthgrove.com/l/24974/Syphilis-in-Southeast-Asia
Prevalance: “fairly common.”
The wages of sin. You can’t blame the white man.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02438113
Syphilis present in Asian archaeological samples.
http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/2060294/young-women-among-sufferers-japan-records-huge-spike-syphilis
“Endemic syphilis”
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1952297-overview
http://sti.bmj.com/content/76/6/415
‘referred to as “the intraracial network effect,”’
Oh, that’s why they don’t study it.
“suggest that assortative mixing prevents the spread of STI to other subpopulations.”
“A number of studies in the literature, many of which did not measure biomedical markers of STI, suggest that mixing across subpopulations may contribute to spread of STI in the population, particularly across subpopulations.”
If you increase the microbe’s exposure to different parts of the human genome, it will evolve faster. Simple?
Age groups can be a larger factor, since the older immune system is weak and better for the microbe.
“In a recent study conducted in Seattle we found that most of the disease burden for gonococcal and chlamydial infections in both high prevalence and low prevalence subpopulations was attributable to mixing within the subpopulations”
I think we’ve found the reason white women mix out the least. Same reason we don’t like to eat meat raw – to avoid disease.
‘the proportion of infection attributable to indirect mixing, or so called “bridge populations,”
So it is attributable and naturally must inform sexual behaviour.
“While we found that sexual mixing between particular racial ethnic subpopulations increased the risk of STI significantly, the proportion of the population engaging in sexual mixing, and the numbers of sex partners reported by individuals engaging in sexual mixing across racial-ethnic subpopulations were too low for this increased risk to play a major part in disease burden.”
Hybrid vigour, guys!
The risk isn’t the major part, it’s fine! Water’s fine!
“The literature on racial-ethnic differentials in STI rates and the role of racial ethnic mixing on the spread of STI is emergent; many questions still remain unanswered.”

If miscegenation were unhealthy, we’d know, right?

Old men, dead babies

Harsh title? Yes. Accurate? Yes.

Both parental ages factor into miscarriage risk, equally.

https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/17/6/1649/2919231
Miscarriages occur in teens too so I dunno who is dumb enough to rely on this one variable alone.

37 is the age when maternal age starts to matter for women (depending on family history) if you look at the shift in gradient on the charts (barely any change before) but 40 is the huge risk age in both men and women, as in this study.
“However, the increase in risk was much greater for couples composed of a woman aged ≥35 years and of a man aged ≥40 years.”
Is Human Reproduction not a prestigious enough journal?

The 37/40 thing:
Age and the Risk of Miscarriage
It isn’t sufficiently studied in men but data on paternal age as a factor keeps coming out.
Looks like you can’t just blame the woman again. Takes two to make a baby.
“a dramatic rise starting after age 37, with the steepest increase occurring after age 40.”
“The man’s age matters too. Having a partner over the age of 40 significantly raises the chances of a miscarriage.” Nature doesn’t like old, mutant sperm either.
“Over half of miscarriages are caused by genetic abnormalities.” It isn’t a bad thing, really.
“On average, a woman in her early 20s will have chromosomal abnormalities in about 17% of her eggs” So that’s a really terrible metric considering humans are human. There is always risk.
It’s worse in men than women, so I’m hardly favouring women by opposing this reductionism.
“And as men age, chromosomal defects and point mutations–changes to a single nucleotide in their DNA–become increasingly common.”
Where minors are raped and studied, they tend not to do well either.

Memorize that chart.

A teenager is as bad (at-risk) as a woman with an additional two decades.
You’re still debating less than one percentage point of difference though. Are you autistic?

It’s an interesting variable but hardly everything.

An IVF study


Note: Again, 37 is the magic number.
“While IVF helps many couples overcome their fertility problems, it largely cannot overcome the age-related increase in genetic abnormalities. Without genetically normal sperm and eggs, a viable pregnancy is impossible.”
“Despite this problem, several studies involving couples discordant for age now paint a clear and consistent picture: older prospective fathers raise the risk of miscarriage by about 25-50%. One study found an a 60% increase in the odds of a miscarriage if the father was over 40. Another found a roughly 25% increase in the risk of miscarriage for fathers over the age of 35.”

I guess the Have it All guys can’t read.


As you can clearly see, getting a teenager up the duff would actually be worse.
All things considered.
There are plenty of studies on this but what’s the point?
They basically show the same thing.
No doubt they’ll try to cherry-pick something else to draw focus back onto Boo Women.

A little more then I’ll give up and hope men who value their health listen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809297/
“Trends towards increasing paternal age are being observed in the UK as well as USA, due to delay in marriages for attaining better socio-economic stability.”
Fucking feminists. /sarc

Advancing paternal age has been shown to result in subfertility, adverse pregnancy outcomes (miscarriage, late foetal death, preterm delivery, low birth weight), birth defects (cleft lip and palate, congenital heart defects), achondroplasia, osteogenesis imperfect , Apert’s syndrome, schizophrenia, childhood cancer (brain cancer, retinoblastoma, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia) and adult cancer (breast, prostate and nervous system).3 Possible mechanisms for these problems include single gene mutations, autosomal dominant diseases, structural abnormalities in sperm chromosomes (e.g., reciprocal translocations) and multiple genetic / chromosomal defects. DNA damage in sperm of men aged 36 – 57 years was found to be 3 times that of men less than 35 years”

Good luck blaming females for that.

“The present study has demonstrated that the paternal age more than 35 years was an independent risk factor associated with spontaneous first trimester miscarriages. In order to eliminate the effect of maternal age, which is itself a known risk factor, we selected women between the age of 20 – 35 years, as this is considered to be ideal age for child bearing.”

Yes. 20-35 is the ideal range.


The reproductive system needs time to become stable, women take longer to physically mature (completed by the late twenties).

Paternal age is a factor in disease and infertility, independently.

“They recommend counselling of men more than 40 years of age when seeking pregnancy.
I’m not gloating, my heart goes out to men who waited too long and have to raise, at best, a sickly child. They need to be warned of the risks of waiting just like women do.

“Kleinhaus K et al have studied various age groups and have found father’s age more than 40 years to be significantly associated with spontaneous miscarriage.13 Slama R has also studied age ranges and have found that risk of spontaneous miscarriage showed linear increase in the hazard of spontaneous miscarriage in male age between 20 and 45 years. They also observed that hazard ratio was highest with male age > 45 years compared with 18 – 24 years (HR = 1.87, 95% CI, 1.01 – 3.44).1 Others have used paternal age between 30 to more than 50 years.”

The male system matures before the female, (18, mid-20s). If we’re being nubile about social policy, the wife should be older slightly.

So the ideal female age for motherhood is 20-35, but as we see here, ideal male age for fatherhood is 18-24, up to 30 if we’re pushing it. You’d expect the male age to be earlier since they have more DNA damage over time and shorter lifespans combined with earlier physical maturation.

Biology? Sorry?

Freezing sperm doesn’t last by the way. They go off.

“Studies on paternal age and fertility suggest that male biological clock does exist. Similar to women, advancing paternal age results in negative effects on reproductive outcomes.”
“Klonoff-Cohen also found decreasing pregnancy rate with male age. Pregnancy rate was 53% for men less than or equal to 35 years, 35% for 36 – 40 years and 13% for men > 40 years.”
Again, 35 seems to be the turning point for male infertility. Almost equal to the female 37 downturn but the male peak is earlier because the (greater) damage is cumulative (see next quote) and gamete production is ongoing.

Why do you oldies wanna marry young unless you’re admitting there’s a deleterious effect to counteract?
In future, more studies will look at differences in the under-35 men, between, say, 18-24, 25-29 and 30-35.

We postulate from these studies that damage to sperm accumulates over a man’s lifetime. Sperm making cells continue to divide throughout the man’s life, increasing the chances of mutations. Impaired DNA replication and repair mechanisms and increased DNA fragmentation.
DNA damage could also result from reactive oxygen species formed by alcohol, nicotine and drug abuse.”
The wages of sin.
“According to Aitken RJ’s study, male genital tract infection can result in DNA damage in male germ cells and therefore, increase the rates of miscarriage.”
Oh look, male chastity was logical.

“CONCLUSION
Paternal age more than 35 years was found to be an independent risk factor in spontaneous first trimester miscarriages.”

They haven’t really studied younger in sufficient detail to claim that’s fine though, findings like those mentioned above show <30 is ideal in both sexes, to start.

https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/16/1/65/705193
There a section called “Paternal age and infections”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4125283/
“In this Opinion piece we argue that the tendency of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) to cause infertility is likely to reflect an evolutionary adaptation of the pathogens. We use an evolutionary perspective to understand how STI pathogens may benefit from reducing fertility in the host and what clues the mechanisms of pathogenesis can offer to the evolution of this ability. While we concentrate on human infections, we will also briefly discuss the broader context of STI-induced infertility in other species.

STIs are a common cause of human infertility worldwide…”
No, men can’t sow any wild oats.

No such thing.

“Reduced fertility and an increased risk of complications during and following pregnancy both contribute to reduced reproductive success in the host—and may benefit the sexually transmitted pathogen by destabilizing partnerships and increasing promiscuity.”
The microbes in your urethra are thinking for you.

Not even your dick.

This does explain gay culture. Wow, gay germ theory gets everywhere. This also explains their fetish for fluids and pozzing parties. At least they’re somewhat aware of it.

“Not only are highly promiscuous individuals exposed to a higher risk of acquiring STIs, but STIs may also actively generate hubs of transmission in a vicious circle of promiscuity and infertility: in traditional societies,”
It’s anti-natal and terrible for society.
You can’t leave behind a life of sin.

Also liberal fertility rates make a lot more sense right about now. It is a bug, and it is a feature!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pass-it-on-children-can-inherit-herpes/
STDs can be passed on at conception, which explains the first trimester paternal age miscarriage finding, the older you get, the more diseases infect the body.
A direct study hasn’t been conducted yet – sexual infection history and miscarriage.
Could it find funding?

Doubtful. Even if it looked at both parents.

Onward, to computer modelling!

Sim City; Sin City Edition.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/12/stis-may-have-driven-ancient-humans-to-monogamy-study-says
“Writing in the journal Nature Communications, Bauch and his colleague Richard McElreath from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, describe how they built a computer model to explore how bacterial sexually transmitted infections such as chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis that can cause infertility, affected populations of different sizes. The authors considered both small hunter gatherer-like populations of around 30 individuals and large agricultural-like populations of up to 300 individuals, running 2,000 simulations for each that covered a period of 30,000 years.

In small polygynous communities, the researchers found that outbreaks of such STIs were short-lived, allowing the polygynous population to bounce back. With their offspring outnumbering those from monogamous individuals, polygyny remained the primary modus operandi.

[coughs in r-selection]

But when the team looked at the impact of STIs on larger polygynous societies, they found a very different effect. Instead of clearing quickly, diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea became endemic. As a result, the population plummeted and monogamists, who did not have multiple partners, became top dog.

[hums in Malthusian tones]

The team also found that while monogamists who didn’t ‘punish’ polygyny could gain a temporary foothold, it was monogamists that ‘punished’ polygyny – often at their own expense of resources – that were the most successful.

[religion is evolutionally fit]

[K-types FTW and for discrimination based on self-protection]

While the form of such punishments were not specified in the model, Bauch suggests fines or social ostracisation among the possible penalties.

[stop paying for their babies and STD treatments? FIRSTLY?]
[kinda like how prison was meant to keep you from breeding – a genetic death penalty – until you dummies invented welfare for their women and conjugal rights, making the whole thing useless]

The results, they say, reveal that STIs could have played a role in the development of socially imposed monogamy that coincided with the rise of large communities that revolved around agriculture.”

Socially imposed?

Well, he had to get published I suppose.

The social/cultural clearly comes after the rest. Like, the die-offs?

Civilization has and always will be K-selected. 

Veganism is bad for women

TLDR: It is bad for men but increases or worsens the odds/intensity of conditions women are already predisposed to e.g. depression, osteoporosis, cancer.

Yes, there are links to studies and discussions of studies. Keep reading.

One important fact, before we continue:

Veganism isn’t a diet, a diet doesn’t require supplements.

Nobody really mentions that fact.

The only ones that work too, take things that can only be animal-derived, from lesser sources they aren’t processed correctly or absorbed. The biggest sluts are vegan and this is no coincidence, it’s a transference of physical shame. Find me an adult, virgin vegan. Good luck. This is their penance. I’ve mentioned about the purity obsessed brains of the clean eating cult as a scapegoat (pun intended) for abusing their own animal bodies with corrupting influences and toxins (STDs). It’s religion for atheists, they get to feel pure without prayer, they purge (psychologically unhealthy) without giving up the true cause. The guilt isn’t over raping cows, or whatever else, it’s about allowing themselves to be used. There aren’t many married vegans either, are there?
Politically, veganism is motivated by Communism. It reduces production and weakens capitalism. Farmland is still cleared for plants, as covered before, little animals still die. Yes, even the fluffy ones! Economically, as covered before, this frees up the traditional foods we do produce to sell to foreigners e.g. China’s demand for Britain’s meat and dairy produce, with less hostility from the natives for taking the higher bidder. Food prices still rise (even vegetables) because of China, directly.
It’s a lemming lifestyle, like bisexuality a few years ago because Katy Perry wrote a song.

http://drkaayladaniel.com/do-vegetarians-live-longer-dont-count-on-it/

“In reality, the Hunza and Vilcabambans consume some meat and raw dairy, and the Okinawans eat far more pork than soy. What’s more, there’s no anthropological evidence of healthy, happy fruitarians sunning in gardens of eden prior to the hunter gatherer eras.”

It is a modern diet dependent on technology. Without modern farming, they starve.
It’s status signalling too, it’s classist since most of the country cannot afford to spend that much, including shipping.

“Indeed, leading anthropologists present convincing evidence that meat helped us evolve from big bellied, tiny-brained primates to big-brained humans able to leave all-day “grazing” behind and spend the time developing civilization. In other words, eating animal products made us human.
The latest study to debunk the vegan longevity myth comes out of Graz, Austria. Using data from the Austrian Health Interview Series, researchers from the Institute for Social Medicine and Epidemiology compared omnivores with vegans, ovo-lacto vegetarians and pesco-vegetarians (near vegetarians who consumed some fish, eggs and/or milk) of similar sex, age and socio-economic status. They found the vegetarians suffered from more chronic conditions including allergies, asthma, anxiety, depression, diabetes, migraines, osteoporosis, heart disease and cancer. They had more doctors visits, a higher need for health care, dimmer assessments of their own health, and poorer social relationships.”

Tara McCarthy has always been a twit. You don’t believe in the religious sanctity of life but …conscience? What if a pig just keeled over, if it’s a murder thing, why not eat it? What about lab-grown meat? Twits.

A sexual behaviour study hasn’t been conducted to my knowledge.
I encourage any and all people vaguely left-wing in my acquiantance to give up animal products. Simply by shaming them for non-vegan choices, while they claim to care so much. It works better than overtly telling them.
If you’ve read me on this topic before you’ll know it’s because that causes brain damage. Dietary warfare.
Since it’s a fad diet, when you control for age, the effect disappears. Younger people tend to be healthier on any diet, regardless of what it is.

https://theconversation.com/do-vegetarians-live-longer-probably-but-not-because-theyre-vegetarian-72191

“We followed a total of 267,180 men and women over an average of six years. During the follow-up period, 16,836 participants died. When we compared the risk of early death for vegetarians and non-vegetarians, while controlling for a range of other factors, we did not find any statistical difference.
Put more simply, when we crunched the data we found vegetarians did not have a lower risk of early death compared with their meat-eating counterparts.”
This lack of “survival advantage” among vegetarians, outlined in our paper in Preventive Medicine, does not come as a complete surprise. In 2015, a United Kingdom-based cohort study concluded vegetarians had a similar risk of death from all causes when compared with non-vegetarians. This is contrary to the US-based study findings.”

Evolution says you’re stupid.
American studies are polluted by what passes for the normal diet in your country.

Study here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743516304479

Vegetarians have modest health benefits across some studies, but it’s small. Veganism? No.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/vegan-betrayal-the-myths-vs-the-realities-of-a-plants-only-diet/

Not one respected study has ever shown a long-term vegan diet to be healthier than any other, and most research uncovers troubling deficiencies. They claim meat-free diets are healthier, but healthier than what?”
“Yes, it is possible to get adequate nutrition from a vegan diet;”
did you ask a neurobiologist? no, because they say no, I ask…
“but in practice, many vegans don’t. She observes vegans eating huge amounts of carbs and vegan junk foods and skimping on their protein and vitamin needs.”
They still eat junk, with a trendy label. It’s hipster food.
Children (and teens) shouldn’t be on any unusual diet. ANY. It’s abusive, they need to develop.
“Vegans often cite Campbell’s controversial book The China Study (see also here), but the subjects in his study were not vegans and most of them weren’t even vegetarians.”
If they won’t ban the sale of animal products, they’re eating them on the quiet.
“in practice many vegetarians begin to suffer from insidious borderline malnutrition.”
<cheers>

Can we get those numbers up? Those are rookie numbers.
Listen, if they want to pay for worse junk food than a chav to feel superior, paying through the nose and brain-damaging everyone with their politics, how can I deny them their free will to do so? I wouldn’t want to infringe on their rights

“Too-thin vegans are eating animal flesh after all: their own.” Protein starvation leads to self-cannibalization.’
Well, it is natural. That’s the only moral standard. Common in starvation cases, along with psychosis.
I guess the Left is literally eating themselves.

Vegetarians have more mental conditions, which makes sense if you basically put yourself on rations from a food group or three.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3466124/
The neurotics simply claim to care about the animals (unless they’re white, I’m guessing).
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/16/is-veganism-a-mental-disorder/
Freud’s case studies were obsessed with food, not sex.

Why should we study vegan sex lives?
“Meanwhile, vegans’ special affinity for animals also opens the mind to sick possibilities. Princeton University professor Peter Singer, who authored “Animal Liberation” four decades ago, has argued that bestiality may be acceptable if the animal is into it. “Sex with animals does not always involve cruelty,” he writes.”
…There’s public interest.

“The “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” suggests, “A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning.” Could veganism fit the bill?”

Yes.

It’s easy to test.

But look at the lies:
http://www.veginout.com/blog/going-vegan-can-improve-both-your-physical-and-mental-health/
Self-report doesn’t count.
Studies on vegetarians mean nothing to veganism, unless it’s about the absence of animal nutrition.
They have more anxiety ‘attacks’, the most recent term for hysteria from neurosis.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201211/youre-vegetarian-have-you-lost-your-mind

If you really look into it, vegans are trying to cover.
Things you can’t do because they can’t….
http://intentionalwellnessinc.com/health/herpes-vegan-diet/
Their ‘natural’ solution is always supplements.
They know.
http://www.veggieboards.com/forum/57-transitioning-vegetarian/202401-vegetarian-std.html

HPV only became a problem after Tindr but the app isn’t banned for public health.
K.
http://jacknorrisrd.com/herpes-and-the-vegan-diet-update/
No motive.
https://www.govegr.com/blogtoo/sex-why-vegans-do-it-better
No motive at all.
http://ieatgrass.com/2014/04/do-vegans-taste-better/
It isn’t a sexual signal. Nope! Why would slutty women doing yoga be paranoid about that?

What about the Roman diet? Herbs and olive oil? That would work better than any of this. It’s the reason the Italians were famous lovers.
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-5590/5-Reasons-Why-Vegans-Have-Better-Sex.html

PETA claim veganism helps impotence.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/756989/erectile-dysfunction-cause-treatment-vegan-diet
Men who tried it claim otherwise. The mental health findings alone could be causing it.
Especially since a lot of people wouldn’t date a vegan.

https://greatist.com/live/nsfw-peta-video-vegans-last-longer
I’m sorry, only a slut would be convinced by this. Why appeal to sluts if there’s no connection? It’s a truly selfish diet, since they won’t grow their own food (in which case, fine) then they would have to kill animals as ‘pest control’.

Vegan isn’t a healthy lifestyle. Dairy and meat-eaters can still eat fruit and vegetables. Fuck off?
Tea has flavonoids, so are Brits better in bed than Americans? Are we deserving of being famed lovers now?
The fact the vegans must keep claiming evidence that doesn’t exist once you check shows they know they are unscientific.
There must be another reason.

Veganism is probably just orthorexia.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-10-orthorexia-healthy-sick.html
Many eating disorder people hop ship to veganism and claim it works.
Well, sure, if it’s the same thing rebranded. It would feel right.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-09-vegetarians-susceptible-depression-meat-eaters.html
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-12-vegetarian-diets-healththe-voice-science.html
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-03-vegans-lack-essential-nutrient-intake.html
They lie about cholesterol, acting like people cannot have it high and be vegan.
http://www.vegsource.com/sarah-taylor/vegans-with-high-cholesterol.html
Your genes won’t go away.
http://www.yourdailyvegan.com/2013/06/do-i-need-to-worry-about-my-cholesterol-levels-as-a-vegan/
https://www.baumancollege.org/forum/index.php?topic=6314.0
“Since cholesterol only comes from animal products and they have eliminated all animal products, why is their body still producing cholesterol (LDL)?”
The first part is a lie, obviously.
Do they still smoke, do drugs, drink and sleep around? Other bad habits that would impact cholesterol?
http://www.theveganrd.com/2012/05/when-vegans-get-cancer/
When they stop testing only rich people, who buy better food overall, plenty of ‘old’ diseases start affecting the young.
http://jacknorrisrd.com/mortality-rates-of-vegetarians-and-vegans/
Since you need fat for health, and dairy is a prime source (especially for women), your body will age faster too.
http://thenutritionwatchdog.com/do-vegetarians-age-faster/
Show me an old vegan that doesn’t look like a prune.
“In just 4 short years, she not only had gained weight and said she was “famished all the time”, but her skin looked dry, wrinkly, and saggy. Her hair was dull and dry and grew very slowly.”
You can only get collagen from animal products.
Yes, fish counts as an animal (it has meat, it bleeds) but it doesn’t really do well on collagen. You need poultry and red meats.
“Being a vegan can be aging,” says Vargas, a famous New York dermatologist. “I see 27-year-old vegans who don’t have good skin elasticity. There’s no snap-back to their skin because they’re not getting enough protein and collagen.”
“Other anti-aging benefits of collagen include improving gut integrity by enhancing digestive enzyme secretion, and restoring a healthy mucosal lining in the stomach.”
There’s the cause of vegan flatulence. So much for the better smell.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/30/university-of-graz-study-finds-that-vegetarians-are-unhealthier-more-mentally-disturbed-than-meat-lovers/#sthash.rcTkpRUL.dpbs
They’re socialists because they’re a burden on the health system.

“the press release states that the results contradict the common cliché that meat-free diets are healthier. Vegetarians have twice as many allergies as big meat-eaters do (30.6% to 16.7%) and they showed 166% higher cancer rates (4.8% to 1.8%). Moreover the scientists found that vegans had a 150% higher rate of heart attacks (1.5% to 0.6%). In total the scientists looked at 18 different chronic illnesses. Compared to the big meat-eaters, vegetarians were hit harder in 14 of the 18 illnesses (78%) which included asthma, diabetes, migraines and osteoporosis”

Many of those things already higher in women.
I’ve tried to keep this post short, it’s an intro to do your own research.

The NY Post can’t be considered right wing.
https://nypost.com/2015/11/04/my-vegan-diet-almost-killed-me/
You need fermented foods for your gut, look it up.

Collagen deficits also reduce your orgasm potential, ladies.
https://nypost.com/2018/01/14/bride-says-orgasm-shot-before-the-big-day-saved-her-sex-life/
I assume it would also apply to men?