No. 4337Anonymous 6th March 2016 Sunday 11:39 pm4337Were Asian women created by an Alien race?
Now this is probably going to stir up some heated discussion and get me in a lot of trouble, but please keep in mind that I have been married to Japanese girl now for 8 years now, and I have a lot of very close Asian friends (as well as nearly every race from Arabic to Black American).
This is not meant to be a derogatory statement but rather an attempt to gauge others opinions about the origins of the different races and types that we see on this planet.
I should preface this by saying that I absolutely adore Asian women. I think they are very elegant, attractive and intelligent in general, but there is something that keeps nagging away at me the more I get to know them, and this is the basis for this thread.
I have for a long time had a little voice in the back of my head telling me "Asian women were originally created as pleasure things".
Of course, I always ignore and dismiss it as it's an extremely sexist statement and completely generalised, but it has been coming up a lot lately, and I wondered if anyone else has ever had that same thought?
If I were an alien race that wanted to create the perfect female companion, I certainly could not have done a better job.
They certainly look the most like the classic "greys" out of all the races on the planet in size, build and eye shape.
>>4337 Neotony m8, East Asians are more "civilised" in evolutionary terms than any other race, by this I mean they are furthest removed from our hairy, heavy browed forebears and more childlike in appearance.
This was caused by stricter monogamy than other races, the weaker, but more obedient males got to procreate, unlike the winner takes all scenario with other races where less than half of all men ever had children, and only the more brutal,"alpha" males ever got to pass on their genes.
This is why Asians have the highest IQ, but lack individualism, as such, genius is a much rarer phenomenon in the east.
>>4340 >Although an Egyptian man was free to marry several women at a time, and some wealthy men from Old and Middle Kingdoms did have more than one wife, monogamy was the norm
>monogamy was the norm
Which is 5 thousand years ago. But 3000 years is easily enough for racial evolution, blue eyes have only been around for 6000 years or so for instance.
I know this goes against the currently in vogue secular humanist creationist myth where we all just dropped out of the sky, exactly the same, but there you go.
>>4343 Again, 3000 years is nothing, changes in a race or ethnicity can be measured in mere centuries. But let's study anatomy for a second, try not to blush if you can, ladies.
Testicles size is correlated with promiscuity in humans and our hairy cousins.
>The relative sizes of male testes often reflect mating systems.[13][14][15][16] In species with promiscuous mating systems, where many males mate with many females, the testes tend to be relatively large. This appears to be the result of sperm competition. Males with large testes produce more sperm and thereby gain an advantage impregnating females. In polygynous species, where one male controls sexual access to females, the testes tend to be small. One male defends exclusive sexual access to a group of females and thereby eliminates sperm competition.
>Studies of primates, including humans, support the relationship between testis size and mating system.[15][16][17] Chimpanzees, which have a promiscuous mating system, have large testes compared to other primates. Gorillas, which have a polygynous mating system, have smaller testes than other primates. Humans, which have a socially monogamous mating system, accompanied by moderate amounts of sexual non-monogamy (see incidence of monogamy), have moderately sized testes
Yes, I'm aware this is focused at polygyny, (harem structures) as well as monogamy, but the fact is in both of these scenarios males are not directly competing sexually, thus the need for large balls to inseminate rival females doesn't exist.
Now, to the asians -
>Race differences in testicle size have also been measured (Asians = 9 grams, Europeans = 21 g). This is not just because Europeans have a slightly larger body size. The difference is too large. A 1989 article in Nature, the leading British science magazine, said that the difference in testicle size could mean that Whites make two times as many sperm per day as do Orientals. So far, we have no information on the relative size of Blacks. (Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. 2nd Special Abridged Edition. Written by Professor J. Philippe Rushton University of Western Ontario.)
>“More convincing vestiges of a sexual selective history in which females mated polyandrously can be found in the human male. Perhaps the clearest such vestige is testis size (Short, 1977). Men’s testes are substantially larger, relative to body size, than those of gorillas, a species in which males are polygynous but females mate monogamously so that “sperm competition” within the female reproductive tract is absent. (goes on to talk of chimpanzees) (Wilson, M., Daly, M. (1992) The man who mistook his wife for a chattel: The Adapted Mind; (Barkow, J.H. & Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. eds.), Oxford Univ. Press, New York. p. 299) (Library of Excerpts: Sexual Organs and Heterochronic Theory)
>In the Feb. 9 issue of Nature, Oxford University zoologists Paul Harvey and Robert May asked a related question: “Why does testes size vary among species?” They review evidence from a variety of animal species in which all the polygamous animals have proportionally bigger testes, more sperm and more active sperm than monogamous ones. Why? In essence, the British scientists argue that having more sperm increases the likelihood that a promiscuous female will become pregnant by that particular male. Thus, evolution produced for larger testes in non-monogamous species. Does the same principle apply in humans? “We think it likely that testes size differences among human races have been adaptive in their own right — different responses to different mating behavior,” the two scientists write. They make reference to a study of the testes sizes of some Chinese and some Danes. The Danes’ testes, even when body size differences are taken into consideration, are twice the size of the Chinese subjects’.
>The evolutionary explanation for the difference appears to be Rushtonian. “It could be that for generations the Chinese lived in a society that was sexually secure, while over the same time the Danes lived in a rape-and-pillage and violence kind of society,” Prof. May suggested in an interview. None of this should suggest that even a preponderance of scientists agree with Prof. Rushton, or that he has not been highly selective, plain wrong and less than critical in interpreting much of his data. On the other hand, “If it were not for the social implications of the work, Rushton would not be portrayed as far out as he has been by others,” Jerrison said. The Globe & Mail, September 1990. (#1 The Case Of Philippe Rushton)
As you can see, Chinese testicles are less than half the size of the European's, it would stand to reason that this is caused by the redundancy of having large testicles in a system where females were not promiscuous and males did not have to engage in gangbang sexuality but were secure in their reproductive success, as it is with the tiny balled Gorilla.
