...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Egyptian art and Etruscan art: dark skinned man/light skinned women (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Egyptian art and Etruscan art: dark skinned man/light skinned women
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote:
In this Etruscan painting why is the female lighter than the male?
Because Caucasoid Europeans have the highest sexual dimorphism. Caucasoid or white females are always naturally lighter than men. See the research of anthropologist Peter Frost, who has written whole papers on this topic.

In Negroids there is very little sexual dimorphism. Black females are not lighter or different to black males in craniofacial terms. All that happened is that they piled more fat on the buttocks.

This is why black men like women with huge asses, while to the vast majority of white men this is seen as repulsive.

The are some white men, such as Truthcentric, who like big asses. The word "repulsive" is highly subjective and should not be inserted into the conversation you racist scum. Somebody with a scientific background should be aware of the difference between objectity and subjectivity, because objectivity is especially important in science. You never seem to maintain it.
We don't care what you think is beautiful or not you obssesion with it borders on the feminine.
Peter Frost's article is highly speculative as are his other articles. If you want to provide support use a book.

 -
 -  -

We don't need to read an article to observe in modern day life that most white couples are similar in skin tone, not as much difference compared to some the above Roman and Etruscan paintings but it does happen.

So what is the explanation? We are dealing with ancient Southern Europe where people were darker. There probably weren't that many very pale skinned people. So I believe some of these Etruscan nobles sought out and found females from more Northern regions who were more rare to Southern Europe and looked "exotic" to them.

Posts: 19269 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Posted by ANglo-idiot:
Black females are not lighter or different to black males in craniofacial terms.

Stupid muthafuuck. You have already been debunked on this.
ALL females are lighter than males, even if not readily
apparent to the naked eye due to blood flow in the skin.

ANd in studies of crania men and women do show differences,
and these differences can be detected with a battery
of modern measurements, as already shown in previous
threads where your idiocy was destroyed- example
(Proceedings of the ninth International
Congress of Egyptologists: : Volume 1. p 2017.
Jean Claude Goyon, Christine Cardin - 2007)



Now adjourn your bogus, inadequate wanker ass.

----------------------------------------------------

"If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin
color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion
because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are
fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse,
1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely
because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and
immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by
measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism
in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman’s skin correlates with the thickness of her
subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex
difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women
and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men
(Aoki, 2002; Feinman Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost, 2005; Van den Berghe
& Frost, 1986)."


FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection?
Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103

and:

"A different perspective on sexual dimorphism in skin pigmentation comes from the
recognition that human females require significantly higher amounts of calcium during
pregnancy and lactation and, thus, must have lighter skin than males in the same environment
in order to maximize their cutaneous vitamin D3 production (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000)...
Thus strong clinical evidence continues to support the hypothesis that lighter skin pigmentation
in females evolved primarily as a means to enhance the the potential for cutaneous vitamin
D production and maintain healthy long-term calcium status and skeletal health."

-- Human Evolutionary Biology. 2010. By Michael P. Muehlenbein

 -
Maximizing her cutaneous vitamin D3 production even as you read...
Women are naturally lighter than men due to differing amounts of
melanin and cutaneous blood flow.. even in dark-skinned populations..

Posts: 3983 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thule
Member
Member # 18853

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thule     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Most sexual selection appears in Caucasoids
(Hrdlicka, 1898; Meredith & Spurgeon, 1980; Nelson & Nelson, 1986). This accentuation is noticeable even before birth: Euro-American fetuses are sexually more dimorphic than African-American fetuses (Choi & Trotter, 1970).

Negroids have the least physical diversity and sexual dimorphism which is why Negroid Sub-Saharan African tribes admit they do not marry females based on physical facial features or physical attractiveness. Vilakazi (1962, pp. 59-60) states: "The traditional Zulu does not make physical beauty a first priority or even an important qualification in a wife; and the skin colour of the woman is of little importance."
Dixson et al. (2006) examined mate-choice criteria among Negroids in Cameroon to further discover no consistent preference emerged regarding physical attraction.

Because there is so little dimorphic difference, Black Sub-Saharan African tribal males have never understood beauty. They marry and breed with females in their tribes they admit who are ugly. The only attraction to black males appears to be large buttocks.

Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thule
Member
Member # 18853

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thule     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness:
The are some white men, such as Truthcentric, who like big asses. The word "repulsive" is highly subjective and should not be inserted into the conversation you racist scum. Somebody with a scientific background should be aware of the difference between objectity and subjectivity, because objectivity is especially important in science. You never seem to maintain it.

Big asses are not an attractive feature. Only black males are attracted to them, because sexual dimorphism in negroid females is so low.

How the hell is this racism? It is science.

There was no selective pressures on Negroids which is why they lack phenotype diversity. The females just put on fat around their buttocks.

Still to this day, black men like huge asses, while as i said to all other races, especially whites this is seen repulsive.

Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Posted by ANglo-idiot:
Black females are not lighter or different to black males in craniofacial terms.

Stupid muthafuuck. You have already been debunked on this.
ALL females are lighter than males, even if not readily
apparent to the naked eye due to blood flow in the skin.

ANd in studies of crania men and women do show differences,
and these differences can be detected with a battery
of modern measurements, as already shown in previous
threads where your idiocy was destroyed- example
(Proceedings of the ninth International
Congress of Egyptologists: : Volume 1. p 2017.
Jean Claude Goyon, Christine Cardin - 2007)



Now adjourn your bogus, inadequate wanker ass.

----------------------------------------------------

"If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin
color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion
because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are
fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse,
1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely
because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and
immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by
measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism
in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman’s skin correlates with the thickness of her
subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex
difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women
and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men
(Aoki, 2002; Feinman Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost, 2005; Van den Berghe
& Frost, 1986)."


FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection?
Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103

and:

"A different perspective on sexual dimorphism in skin pigmentation comes from the
recognition that human females require significantly higher amounts of calcium during
pregnancy and lactation and, thus, must have lighter skin than males in the same environment
in order to maximize their cutaneous vitamin D3 production (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000)...
Thus strong clinical evidence continues to support the hypothesis that lighter skin pigmentation
in females evolved primarily as a means to enhance the the potential for cutaneous vitamin
D production and maintain healthy long-term calcium status and skeletal health."

-- Human Evolutionary Biology. 2010. By Michael P. Muehlenbein

 -
Maximizing her cutaneous vitamin D3 production even as you read...
Women are naturally lighter than men due to differing amounts of
melanin and cutaneous blood flow.. even in dark-skinned populations..

Posts: 3983 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thule
Member
Member # 18853

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thule     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The retard above doesn't even bother to check what he quotes.

quote:
"If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin
color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion
because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are
fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse,
1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely
because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and
immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by
measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism
in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman’s skin correlates with the thickness of her
subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex
difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women
and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men
(Aoki, 2002; Feinman Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost, 2005; Van den Berghe
& Frost, 1986)."

FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection?
Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103

This quote only concerns Europeans (Caucasoids) of which there is the most sexual dimorphism in. Frost and other anthropologists have noted that sexual dimorphism in Negroids is completely lacking. Check Frost's online blog.

What a dumbass.

Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Mental protuberance is the bony protuberance at the front of the lower jaw, it is a defining feature of anatomically modern Humans. As archaic homo had no chin or very poorly developed mentum. It appears in all modern races.
Again, mentally deranged idiot, you’re seeing ghosts. For the second time in a row, you’re debating imaginary viewpoints. What did I just say in that post you responded to? I said mental protuberance it isn’t exclusive to Europeans.

quote:
What you are posting is macrogenia, the overexuberant growth of the mental protuberance.
You’re talking out of your neck, as usual. My argument never relied on excessive mentum outgrowth, but rather, a concave facial profile. My argument also never relied on prognathism. WTF are you talking about?
quote:
It only appears in Europeans as a defect, just like other variations of mandibular prognathism like the Habsburg Jaw.
You’re really seeing things, aren’t you? The only one who is talking about mandibular prognathism is you, and you still don’t get it, even after several people tried beating it into that ugly face of yours.
quote:
In other words he recognises the fact seperate geographical populations cluster different craniometrically, a key factor of racial reality.
Boy, shut your mouf, before I give you another one of those intellectual beatings. The type of beating which is known to have you running away from your own threads. You know which thread I’m talking about (hint, AMH and the origin of the so called Caucasoid race). We can bump it right now.

Yeah, I thought so, running away again, as usual.
Posts: 4457 | From: Amsterdam | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Trollkillah # Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 8 posted      Profile for Trollkillah # Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
The retard above doesn't even bother to check what he quotes.

quote:
"If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin
color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion
because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are
fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse,
1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely
because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and
immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by
measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism
in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman’s skin correlates with the thickness of her
subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex
difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women
and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men
(Aoki, 2002; Feinman Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost, 2005; Van den Berghe
& Frost, 1986)."

FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection?
Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103

This quote only concerns Europeans (Caucasoids) of which there is the most sexual dimorphism in. Frost and other anthropologists have noted that sexual dimorphism in Negroids is completely lacking. Check Frost's online blog.

What a dumbass.

The funny part is, you keep posting pictures of females with bodies of 12 year old boys. The sad part is, you really think it's sexy. [Big Grin] [Embarrassed] [Frown]


 -

Posts: 8452 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ANother stream of idiocy posted by Anglo- Buffoon:
Frost and other anthropologists have noted
that sexual dimorphism in Negroids is completely
lacking. Check Frost's online blog.


Stupid muthafucka. The very Frost quote you paste says this:

Men and women differ in complexion
because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are
fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse,
1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely
because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and
immediately before are actually darker than boys).."

FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection?
Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103u


Can't you read imbecile? ALL females differ from males
and are lighter. ALL human humans have sexual dimorphism to
one degree or another. SO how can blacks "completely lack"
said dimorphism according to you, when your own
boy Peter Frost says all human have it?

Damm you are one of the most pathetic idiots in existence.

Tell us -- were you born such a retarded shithead,
or were you originally a slug who managed to rise
to such prominence?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RECAP - debunking the idiocy Posted by ANglo-moron:
Black females are not lighter or different to black males in craniofacial terms.

Stupid muthafuuck. You have already been debunked on this.
ALL females are lighter than males, even if not readily
apparent to the naked eye due to blood flow in the skin.

ANd in studies of crania men and women do show differences,
and these differences can be detected with a battery
of modern measurements, as already shown in previous
threads where your idiocy was destroyed- example
(Proceedings of the ninth International
Congress of Egyptologists: : Volume 1. p 2017.
Jean Claude Goyon, Christine Cardin - 2007)



Now adjourn your bogus, inadequate wanker ass.

----------------------------------------------------

"If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin
color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion
because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are
fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse,
1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely
because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and
immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by
measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism
in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman’s skin correlates with the thickness of her
subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex
difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women
and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men
(Aoki, 2002; Feinman Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost, 2005; Van den Berghe
& Frost, 1986)."


FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection?
Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103

and:

"A different perspective on sexual dimorphism in skin pigmentation comes from the
recognition that human females require significantly higher amounts of calcium during
pregnancy and lactation and, thus, must have lighter skin than males in the same environment
in order to maximize their cutaneous vitamin D3 production (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000)...
Thus strong clinical evidence continues to support the hypothesis that lighter skin pigmentation
in females evolved primarily as a means to enhance the the potential for cutaneous vitamin
D production and maintain healthy long-term calcium status and skeletal health."

-- Human Evolutionary Biology. 2010. By Michael P. Muehlenbein

 -
Maximizing her cutaneous vitamin D3 production even as you read...
Women are naturally lighter than men due to differing amounts of
melanin and cutaneous blood flow.. even in dark-skinned populations..

Posts: 3983 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^^ aka The butthead scholars
Posts: 19269 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thule
Member
Member # 18853

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thule     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
when your own
boy Peter Frost says all human have it?

The Peter Frost article you have posted only concerns Europeans.

Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection?
Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103

It is a paper on European (Caucasoid) sexual selection. It has nothing to do with other races. Even in the quote you posted it starts with ''it could have lightened European skin
color''.

Just stop trolling and embarrassing yourself further. You are thick as ****.

Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

Men and women differ in complexion
because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are
fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse,
1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely
because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and
immediately before are actually darker than boys).."

FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection?
Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103u

Can't you read imbecile? ALL females differ from males
and are lighter. ALL human humans have sexual dimorphism to
one degree or another. SO how can blacks "completely lack"
said dimorphism according to you, when your own
boy Peter Frost says all human have it?

It's true that women tend to have lighter complexions than males due to the biological reasons expressed; however such a difference is only very slight and can be exaggerated if the female doesn't get enough sunlight but her male counterparts do-- as was the case in Greece and Rome where women were being sequestered indoors-- or made non apparent if the women stayed outdoors as much or longer as the men.

This however I don't think has anything to do with the ancient art convention, at least in the part of the Egyptians.

Posts: 22569 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ANglo Buffoon tried to wriggle away from his exposure:
It is a paper on European (Caucasoid) sexual selection. It has nothing to do with other races. Even in the quote you posted it starts with ''it could have lightened European skin
color''.


Stupid muthafuckka. That particular paper talks about
Europeans but in general your own anthropologist Peter
Frost shows that ALL humans have sexual diomorphism.
You are now trying to wriggle away by saying, 'oh that
paper was only mentioning Europeans.' It will not work
little-dick wanker. You claimed blacks have no sexual
dimorphism whatsoever, and said that Peter Frost
said that. But your own Peter Frost specifically
says ALL humans are dimorphic. You have been
caught out in another contradiction. Your little
face-saving wriggle will not save you. You also claim
crania cannot show sexual differences for blacks-
another piece of bullshiit- when in fact credible
study after study shows that sex can often
be determined from cranial sampling. You are an
idiot, and continue to be an idiot, and will be
further exposed as an idiot.

Tell us -- were you born such a retarded shithead,
or were you originally a slug who managed to rise
to such prominence?


Now adjourn your wanker ass while we recap your beatdowns..

-----------------------------------------------------------


THE IDIOT EXPOSED PART 17: - He says there is
no sexual diomorphism in Africans or skeletal
differences between men and women, when the very
anthropologists hr quotes say the opposite.

---------]Originally posted by Anglo- Buffoon:
Anglo_Pyramidologist member # 18853
posted 03 June, 2012 05:47 PM

Anglo-Buffoon 17a-
"Frost and other anthropologists have noted
that sexual dimorphism in Negroids is completely
lacking. Check Frost's online blog."

Anglo-Buffoon 17b-
"Black females are not lighter or different to black males in craniofacial terms."


^^Stupid muthafucka. The very Frost quote you paste says this:

Men and women differ in complexion
because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are
fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse,
1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely
because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and
immediately before are actually darker than boys).."

FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection?
Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103u


------- Can't you read imbecile? ALL females differ from males
and are lighter. ALL human humans have sexual dimorphism to
one degree or another. SO how can blacks "completely lack"
said dimorphism according to you, when your own
boy Peter Frost says all human have it?

------- ANd in studies of crania men and women do show differences,
and these differences can be detected with a battery
of modern measurements, as already shown in previous
threads where your idiocy was destroyed- example
(zakrewski2004-Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania)

your own peter frost debunks you:
---------------------------------------

"If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin
color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion
because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are
fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse,
1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely
because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and
immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by
measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism
in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman’s skin correlates with the thickness of her
subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex
difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women
and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men
(Aoki, 2002; Feinman Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost, 2005; Van den Berghe
& Frost, 1986)."


FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection?
Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103

and:

"A different perspective on sexual dimorphism in skin pigmentation comes from the
recognition that human females require significantly higher amounts of calcium during
pregnancy and lactation and, thus, must have lighter skin than males in the same environment
in order to maximize their cutaneous vitamin D3 production (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000)...
Thus strong clinical evidence continues to support the hypothesis that lighter skin pigmentation
in females evolved primarily as a means to enhance the the potential for cutaneous vitamin
D production and maintain healthy long-term calcium status and skeletal health."

-- Human Evolutionary Biology. 2010. By Michael P. Muehlenbein

Damm you are one of the most pathetic idiots in existence.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------


THE IDIOT'S FAKE QUOTES AND CITATIONS - PART 16
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
[QB]
E1b1b is not Negroid.

Read it an weep -

''Sub-Saharan Africans belong to subclades of E other than E1b1b, while most non-Africans who belong to haplogroup E belong to its E1b1b subclade.”
- Fulvio Cruciani et al, Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa, Am. J. Hum. Genet, p. 74)


^^The only thing is that the "quote above is a complete fake
and was never utter by Cruciani, as can be verified by looking at
his article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181964/?tool=pubmed

The foul faker doctored the quote not knowing the article has been much
discussed at ES. Testifying even more to his incompetence, Cruciani actually
does show E3b or E1b1b occuring in numerous places within "sub-Saharan" Africa.
The three main subclades of haplogroup E3b (E-M78, E-M81, and E-M34) and
the paragroup E-M35* are not homogeneously distributed on the African continent:
E-M78 has been observed in both northern and eastern Africa, E-M81 is restricted t
o northern Africa, E-M34 is common only in eastern Africa, and E-M35* is shared by
eastern and southern Africans (Cruciani et al. 2002)"

--Cruciani

And there is no "page 74" in the Cruciani article.
THE FAKER AND BUFFOON IS AGAIN BUSTED IN A LIE!


THE FAKER'S BOGUS CLAIM PART- 15 - QUOTE:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides:
posted 14 January, 2012 11:41 AM
If you are a white heterosexual male in Britain you have virtually zero chance of getting a job.
All the jobs go to blacks or other immigrants.


^^LOL - Idiotic nonsense.
As of 2001, 92.1% of the UK population identified
themselves as White, leaving 7.9%[270] of the UK
population identifying themselves as mixed race
or of an ethnic minority. The population of the
United Kingdom in the 2001 census was 58,789,194,
UK Office for National Statistics- 2001.

That leaves approx 54 million white people.
About 33% of that population were adult men.
Let's take away 8% or so for minorities. So you are saying then
that 25% of the approx 54 million white people
in the UK are all unemployed? Damn you are dumb,
but you only expose the bankruptcy of your racism.
 -


The Fake C-Ass -Hole exposed PART 14 - BOGUS
"NORDIC BLONDS FLITTING AROUND EGYPT


[QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides:
posted 29 December, 2011 06:05 AM

Hetepheres II was a blonde

^^Hapless dullard, you are exposed in another lie.
Your own reference was checked. It yielded detailed
citations which revealed a quite different story.
Scholars say in the mainstream Cambridge Ancient History:

"We must give up the idea that she was of Libyan
origin, an attractive theory which was based on
blond hair of Hetepheres II, who was then thought
to be her daughter. It is now evident that the
yellow wig is part of a costume worn b other
great ladies."

--I. Edwards, C. Gadd, N. Hammond. 1971. The
Cambridge Ancient History. 3ed Volume 1, Part 2,
Early History of the Middle East

Yet another history says:
"The walls of this interior room are decorated
with hunting and fishing scenes, including a
charming image of Meresankh and her mother,
Hetepheres II picking lotus flowers from the
river.. The pillars have images of Meresankh
wearing a blond wig."

--P. Lacovara. 2004. The pyramids and the SPhinx: tombs and temples of GIza


THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 13- HIS BOGUS CLAIM OF "NORDIC"
EGYPTIAN ROYALTY

quote:
Originally posted by cassiterides:
posted 28 December, 2011 05:40 PM
Early dynastic & old kingdom royalty was Nordic (blonde and fair skinned)

^^^Ha hahahahah you stupid mass of camel vomit!
Up above you reference scholar Frank Yurco, but here is
what Yurco said about the 12th Dynasty, debunking
your claim of "Nordic" Egyptian royalty. You
dumbass.... You are again debunked, with your own
"supporting" references... lmao...

"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.)
originated from the Aswan region.4 As
expected, strong Nubian features and
dark coloring are seen in their sculpture
and relief work. This dynasty ranks as
among the greatest, whose fame far
outlived its actual tenure on the throne...
Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry
had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs,
they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and
adopted typical Egyptian policies."


- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient
Egyptians black or white?', Biblical
Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5,
1989)

 -

THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 12
HE says Egyptologists like Frank Yurco says the Egyptians were "Caucasoid"
--- "Virtually every egyptologist believes the egyptians were Caucasoid" --


BUt Yurco says nothing of the sort.. Here for example, is what he says
about the 12the Dynasty rulers aho were Nubian descent: They seem really
"Caucasoid"... yeah, right.. - quote-


"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.)
originated from the Aswan region.4 As
expected, strong Nubian features and
dark coloring are seen in their sculpture
and relief work. This dynasty ranks as
among the greatest, whose fame far
outlived its actual tenure on the throne...
Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry
had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs,
they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and
adopted typical Egyptian policies."


- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient
Egyptians black or white?', Biblical
Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5,
1989)
-

Another dodge is to twist an old chat/forum discussion
statement by conservative Egyptologist Frank Yurco
out of context. Yurco rejected those who "a
priori"
claimed the Egyptians were "black",
that is, a dogmatic claim without presenting
empirical evidence. He never rejected reasonable
argument with data showing the Egyptians were
an indigenous African population -QUOTE:
.. basically a homogeneous African population
had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to
modern times..
(Yurco 1996- An Egyptological
Review, in Black Athena Revisited)


The Faker exposed- part 11
quote:

Originally posted by cassiterides:
^You claim Vanessa Williams is a black woman when her heritage is white welsh and native american

-------------------------------------------------------------

But when Marc Washingrton smoked him out, and the
actual facts were checked, Anglo-Pyr/Cassifaker is lying
again:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1354054/Vanessa-Williamss-ancestry-revealed-Who-Do-You-Think-You-Are.html
 -
According to the Faker, anyone with any white ancestry is not "really" black.
SO since a majority of African Americans have white ancestry ranging from 5 to 30%
then most Black Americans are not "truly" black you see...


THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 10

quote:
Originally posted by cassiterides:
^ Eurafrican is Caucasoid.




^^You are once again exposed. You said EurAfrican
is Caucasoid, and cited Serti in support. But using
your own citation any reader can see that Sergi
considers EurAfricans to be an amalgamation or mixture
of many types, directly contradicting your claim.

SErgi says: QUOTE:

"This human species, with cranial and facial characters thus well determined,
I call Eurafrican; and this because, having had its origin in Africa, where it
is still represented by many peoples, it has been diffused from prehistoric times
in Europe... The Eurafrican species thus falls into three races: the African,
with red-brown and black pigmentation.. Thus the Mediterranean stock is a race
or variety of the Eurafrican species."

--G. Sergi

You have again failed and are once again exposed.
------------------------------------------------------------

THE FAKER EXPOSED PART 9- HE CLAIMS ALL THESE HIGGINS "DISTORTIONS"
BUT WHEN ASKED TO NAME THE SPECIFIC WEBSITES OF THIS ALLEGED
"AFROCENTRIC' HORROR, HE RUNS AWAY. WHY IS THAT FAKER?


In fact, Godfrey Higgins ALSO says this about "negroes"
quote:

"I believe all the Blavk bambinos of Italy are negroes- not merely blacks;
this admitted, it would prove they very early date of their entrance into Italy." pg 286
pg 434
"the ancient Eturians had the countenances of Negroes, the same as the images of Buddah in INdia." pg 166
pg 474- "They aere in fact, all one nation, with one religion, that of Buddah, and they were originally NEgroes"
pg 59: "nor can it be reasonably doubted, that a race of Negroes formerly had power and pre-eminence in India"
pg 59- AS TO ETHIOPIA: And it is probable that an Ethiopian, a negro, correctly speaking, may have been meant, not merely a black person; and it seems probable that the following may have ben the real fact, viz, that a race of NEgroes or Blacks, but probably of the former, came to India to the west."

cASSIRETEDES own source debunks him. Note the footnote by
his own author- QUOTE: "may not have been
Negroes, though Blacks, though it is probably
they were so."


His own source says they may not have been Negroes
then adds: THOUGH IT IS PROBABLY THEY WERE SO."

^The Faker once again, debunks himself.
And he seems not to realize that Ethiopia is in
"sub-Saharan" Africa.. lol.. pathetic incompetent..


And he never shows these massive number of websites
"all over the internet". Like what? How many? If they
are "all over" then he should at least be able to give
direct links to 6 showing pages where the "Afrocentrics:
are "distorting" Higgins work. LEt's say what the faker
has besides hot air. Post DIRECT LINKS to 6 of
the huge number of alleged "Afrocentric" websites
where the Afrocentrics are "distorting" Higgins. SHow
how they are distorting Higgins with specific quotes
and specific context.


Watch the Faker duck and run when he is again called
on a claim, or make up yet another lie to cover his exposure...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THE FAKER EXPOSED- part 8:

quote:


Originally posted by Anglo-Pyr/Cassiredes:
"Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of
Europe.
"

But then, in your own thread, by your own hand,
you present a picture of an African albino that
has pale skin, light brown or hazel eyes and fair
hair. You said it was impossible, but then debunk
yourself with your own posted picture.. This is
like the 8-9th time you keep tripping over yourself
with lies, contradictions, and bogus claims.

 -


------------------------------------------------------------------

RECAP
The Faker exposed- part 7
Originally posted by Anglo-Pyr/Cassiredes:
"Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of
Europe.
"

^^Your claim is is completely bogus. Native
diversity or albinism causes some tropical Africans
to have light eyes and light hair. You fail againn..

 -

 -


bbvv

================================================


THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6
1-- ^^Faker! In your initial posts you claimed that it
was Cavalli-Sforza talking 'bout negroes "mutating"
from Pygmies. Now in your "corrected" post,
YOU STILL APPEAR A FAKE.
You now remove Cavalli-
Sforza's name on the "mutant" claim, admitting that
you were lying all along!
Bwa ha aha
a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah..


2-- Second point- Peter Frost is debunked by Cavalli-Sforza
who says as to his so-called "mutation" theory:

QUOTE:

"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place
of origin for the Negroid type which includes all
West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many
earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are
not good candidates for a proto-African population."


--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194

Frost mentions Cavalli-Sforza in connection with
sexual selection, and movement of some groups
from Nigeria-Cameroon to other parts of Africa.
He never says Cavalli Sforza talks bout any
"negro mutation" and in fact any mutation claim
is directly contradicted by Sforza. Sucka, you
not only lied bout Cavalli-Sforza, you lied about
your own white writer- Peter Frost, and misrepresented him.



THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6
Anglo-Pyr/CassiREDES says:
''There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty''

^^LMAO! Totally fake! Credible up to date sources
note that blondism is prevalent in early life
BUT, contrary to your claim that:
"There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty",
the shade of color varies. In maturity the hair
usually turns a darker brown color, but sometimes
remains blond. See:
"Gene Expression: Blonde Australian Aboriginals". Gnxp.com.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/blonde-australian-aboriginals.php.

 -

^^Here is one of your Australians over 20 years old
who does have blonde hair. YOu are caught out
spinning bogus claims AGAIN!. Bwa ha aha
a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah..
-

--------------------------------------------------

THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 5a
[b]So where are these tropical african peoples
with pale white or fair skin? blonde red hair?


^^You fail again. African populations can readily produce blond
or reddish blond hair as noted by hair study author Hrdy
1978 himself, and he references Nubia as an example.
Albinism is another source of red or blond hair
in Africa, and albinism is much more prevalent in
African populations than among Europeans. Even
African Americans produce more albinos than white
Americans. (The pigmentary system: physiology and
pathophysiology- By James J. Nordlund 2006: 603)
(E. Roach and V. Miller 2004. Neurocutaneous disorders.)
QUOTE: "In general, the prevalence of albinism in
Africa is much higher, in the range of 1 in 1
100 to 1 in 3900."

So Africa can and does routinely produce red and blond hair.
All non-Africans are MORE LIMITED subsets of
ORIGINAL African diversity. THe originals
have more built-in diversity than the limited
sub-set populations. This is straight science as
noted by the quote from TIshkoff 2000.

Nor are Africans the only tropical peoples who
can produce reddish hair or blond hair. Among
Australian Aborigines, some tropical groups produce 100%
of individuals with blond hair. Melanesians can
also produce blond or reddish hair, and do so routinely.

White people have no monopoly at all on that hair
color. They merely show more of it, but even among
whites, red hair for example is minor- occurring in less than
5% of the overall European populations, mostly in
northern Europe.

So the claim that there are no tropical Africans with such
variation is once again, proved fake. You made the claim.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 4
ime and time again, you stand debunked and exposed
for falsifying claims and references. Let's recap:



Originally posted by CASSIFAKedes::
quote:

The source is Cavalli-Sforza's book on the Pygmies entitled 'African pygmies' (Academic Press, 1986).

This work shows that Negroids mutated from an ancestral pygmy population around 9,000 BC in West Africa. So the 'true' Black African today is a recent mutation. Caucasoids and Mongoloids predate them. [Wink] Negroids only migrated into other parts of Africa during the Bantu expansion or slightly earlier. Prior to them, Caucasoids inhabited North Africa and Bushmen (Capoids) to the south who were displaced by the Caucasoids from the Mediterranean around 12,000 BC.


^^A bogus reference.
Why should anyone take your word for it given
past bogus references? Quote where Cavalli-Sforza
says these so-called "negroids" "mutated" from
Pygmies. The burden of proof is on you, since you made
the claim.

While you scurry to cover your tracks with yet
more bogus claims, Cavali Sforza, in his well
known The History and Geography of Human Genes,
1994 Cavalli-Sforza summarizes his 1986 work on
Pygmies and specifically debunks the "Pygmy as ancestor"
theory held by other older writings. QUOTE:


"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place
of origin for the Negroid type which includes all
West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many
earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are
not good candidates for a proto-African population."

--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194


SO much for your lying claims of "mutations" from "Pygymy" ancestors.
In short, you lied about Cavalli-Sforza, creating a falsified
claim and a bogus "supporting" reference to a claim that is
nowhere supported in his work. You are once again
exposed as yet another racist faker
You are not fooling anyone.


------------------------

THE FAKER EXPOSED-PART 3-
YOu then tried to cover up your lie with even
more bogus nformation and STILL fail


You "modified" your Cavalli Sforza claim by including
page numbers, and then changing some wording to
"adaptive radiation" hoping to divert attention
from your exposure.. lmao..

However pages 361-362 of Cavalli Sforza's 1986 book
says absolutely nothing about any Negroes "mutating" from
pygmies, nor any "adaptive radiation." It merely
discusses Pygmy history and geography. You
picked out a page at random, not knowing it can be
verified via Google Books. You were asked to provide
a direct quote but are still running. Now why is that?

""It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place
of origin for the Negroid type which includes all
West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many
earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are
not good candidates for a proto-African population."


--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194


--------------------------------------


THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 2
And Your pathetic "modification" STILL turned
out to be bogus. You then said:

"True" Black Africans appear as a recent
adaptive radiation apparently branching off from
an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of
ancestry also indicated by osteological data
(Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996).



^^But in fact, Watson 1996 has nothing to do with
osteological data and does not even mention it. It
has to do with mtDNA.

----------------------------------------


THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 1C
YOU THEN PROFFERED ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM BELOW:
He says:
quote:

"Note that in the Old Testament the Danites are the only Hebrew people described as being maritime and associated with ships.."



^^Complete Nonsense. In the Old Testament, the tribe of
Zebulun is mentioned as specifically associated
with ships and maritime elements. QUOTE:

Genesis 49:13

"Zebulun will dwell at the shore of the seas;
Yea, he will be at the shore of the ships, And
his side toucheth upon Sidon. "



Anglo-Pyr/Cassi-Fakdes: MULTIPLE TIMES AT BAT, MULTIPLE
EXPOSURES AS A FAKE...


--fake claim that no Australian Abo over 20 is blonde

-- fake claim that NO tropical Africans have any diversity in hair, skin or eye color

-- fake Cavalli-Sforza citation

-- 2nd fake Cavalli-Sforza reference

-- Faked Watson reference

-- Faked Biblical reference

-- FAke representation of Peter Frost's work

-- Fake claim that "studies" say "egyptians were dark are not like 'light-skinned Europeans". COnveniently, the alleged study is missing..

--Fake Higgins claims

--Fake claim that Guiseppe Sergi's EurAfrican race concept is negro-free

--Fake claim that Vanessa Williams has no black ancestry but is "white and Indian"

--Fake claim that Egyptologists like Yurco consider the Egyptians "Caucasoid"

--Fake claim of white Nordic Egyptian royalty

--Fake claim of "blond" Hetepheres

--Fake claim of white males in BRitain "unable to get jobs"

--fAKE Crucuiani "quote" with "citation"

-- fake claim that blacks have no sexual diomorphism
and no male-female differences show in cranial sampling

Posts: 3983 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
It's true that women tend to have lighter complexions than males due to the biological reasons expressed; however such a difference is only very slight and can be exaggerated if the female doesn't get enough sunlight but her male counterparts do-- as was the case in Greece and Rome where women were being sequestered indoors-- or made non apparent if the women stayed outdoors as much or longer as the men.

This however I don't think has anything to do with the ancient art convention, at least in the part of the Egyptians.

why not?
Posts: 19269 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Because dumb b|tch, I've explained it all to you before but you obviously conveniently "forgot". So let me refresh your memory!

"..Male and female skin colors were probably not uniform among the entire population of Egypt, with pigmentation being darker in the south [closer to sub-saharan Africans] and lighter in the north [closer to Mediterranean Near Easterners] A woman from the south would probably have had darker skin than a man from the North. Thus, the colorations used for skin tones in the art must have been schematic [or symbolic] rather than realistic..."-- Egyptologist, Gay Robins

Therefore the yellow skin convention can NOT be based on reality! And as I've just proven this thread is nothing more than a repetition of another thread you created before which is no doubt a repetition of another one! GTFOH! twit! [Embarrassed]

Posts: 22569 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Because dumb b|tch, I've explained it all to you before but you obviously conveniently "forgot". So let me refresh your memory!

"..Male and female skin colors were probably not uniform among the entire population of Egypt, with pigmentation being darker in the south [closer to sub-saharan Africans] and lighter in the north [closer to Mediterranean Near Easterners] A woman from the south would probably have had darker skin than a man from the North. Thus, the colorations used for skin tones in the art must have been schematic [or symbolic] rather than realistic..."-- Egyptologist, Gay Robins

Therefore the yellow skin convention can NOT be based on reality! And as I've just proven this thread is nothing more than a repetition of another thread you created before which is no doubt a repetition of another one! GTFOH! twit! [Embarrassed]

This is not proof of anything, just speculation of an author. It is also a non-sequitor.

Gay Robbins says that skin color was not uniform in ancient Egypt and that skin tones were lighter in the North than in the South. (so much for your "paint faded" applied to any situation)

Males and females are only sometimes of different color in the art and there are plenty of instances where they are the same.

So in the instances in the art where a female is shown lighter than a male a more common sense explanation is that the female from a Northern Egyptina background while the male is from Southern Egyptian background.

That's the more logical explanation.

And not to be confused with a different situation below where a yellow skin color really is symbolic:
 -

^^^^^
Here we have Nefertari and Isis. Nefertari a real person is pictured much darker than Isis. Isis is painted an unatural yellow color. It's not like a real person who might have a tan yellow color. This color is too yellow. It's symbolic for golden skin of some Gods. Nefertari is not yellow here so you can't say yellow is sybmbolic for females.

Some people get this confused with the below situation a portrait of two real people, Rahotep and Nofret:

 -

The simple explantion is contained in the first part of Gay Robbins remark:

Male and female skin colors were probably not uniform among the entire population of Egypt, with pigmentation being darker in the south [closer to sub-saharan Africans] and lighter in the north [closer to Mediterranean Near Easterners] [/b][
Gay Robbins


there is nothing unusual about two anceint Egyptians from different regions in Egypt getting marrried.

Posts: 19269 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Because dumb b|tch, I've explained it all to you before but you obviously conveniently "forgot". So let me refresh your memory!

"..Male and female skin colors were probably not uniform among the entire population of Egypt, with pigmentation being darker in the south [closer to sub-saharan Africans] and lighter in the north [closer to Mediterranean Near Easterners] A woman from the south would probably have had darker skin than a man from the North. Thus, the colorations used for skin tones in the art must have been schematic [or symbolic] rather than realistic..."-- Egyptologist, Gay Robins


^^lol..
from an old citation:

"In the majority of cases, the woman's skin is coloured a light yellowish-brown, while the man's is painted a much darker reddish-brown (figs. 36, 37). This could be an artistic device to symbolise what we have seen from other evidene: the tendency for women to be occupied indoors and men o of doors... The use of two contrasting colours in relation to gender is obviously a convention, and whole it may in part be based on reality, the situaton with regards to skin colour in life is likely to have been far more complex."


--Gay Robbins 1998. Women in Egypt. p 180-181

Posts: 3983 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 4 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Yes we all know it was a convention but based on what? Robins speculates that it could be due to women staying indoors yet as Ausar has stated many times according to all the archaeological evidence, including artwork as well, women are shown working outdoors alongside men. Women perform agricultural work outside, they prepare food outside, and they sell their goods in the marketplace-- all activities no different from women in modern Sub-Saharan Africa. Even the elite women who can afford to spend their leisure indoors are also shown accompanying their men outdoors in recreational activities. What's more that even images of poor farmers working outside, the women are still painted yellowish! So obviously the whole seclusion indoors argument falls apart.

quote:
Originally posted by the lyinass b|tch:

This is not proof of anything, just speculation of an author. It is also a non-sequitor.

The only speculation is as to why the convention is applied. Her point was that such a color disparity between the sexes was indeed a convention and NOT a realistic feature.

quote:
Gay Robbins says that skin color was not uniform in ancient Egypt and that skin tones were lighter in the North than in the South. (so much for your "paint faded" applied to any situation)
Yes and the difference in complexions is rooted in facts that even the late Egyptologist Frank Yurco agreed. Such a phenomena is not confined to Egypt either. In Europe for example, northern Italians are fairer in both complexion and features than southern Italians, the same can be said for people in China etc. Robins' point was merely that the color convention for females applied throughout the nation even if it did not reflect reality. I don't know what any of this has to do with the equally factual point of paint-faded artwork! Artwork in the south depicting very dark-skinned men could be just as faded

quote:
Males and females are only sometimes of different color in the art and there are plenty of instances where they are the same.
Which only supports the conjecture that the yellow female convention was symbolic rather than realistic.

quote:
So in the instances in the art where a female is shown lighter than a male a more common sense explanation is that the female from a Northern Egyptian background while the male is from Southern Egyptian background.

That's the more logical explanation.

No dumb twit! Robins' point was that it didn't matter what the actual color of a female was-- in fact the example she presented was of a darker female from the south being portrayed with a lighter male from the north!! The result was the same in that if the convention was applied she would still be depicted yellowish!

It is THIS that is the most logical explanation!

quote:
And not to be confused with a different situation below where a yellow skin color really is symbolic:
 -

^^^^^
Here we have Nefertari and Isis. Nefertari a real person is pictured much darker than Isis. Isis is painted an unatural yellow color. It's not like a real person who might have a tan yellow color. This color is too yellow. It's symbolic for golden skin of some Gods. Nefertari is not yellow here so you can't say yellow is sybmbolic for females.

LOL You are obviously too stupid to realize that the situation is the SAME! The yellow color IS symbolic and it is applied to women when depicted with men. However in the case you just described Nefertari above is not depicted with a man but rather with a goddess, hence the deity is symbolized in color!!

quote:
Some people get this confused with the below situation a portrait of two real people, Rahotep and Nofret:

 -

The simple explantion is contained in the first part of Gay Robbins remark:

Male and female skin colors were probably not uniform among the entire population of Egypt, with pigmentation being darker in the south [closer to sub-saharan Africans] and lighter in the north [closer to Mediterranean Near Easterners] [/b][
Gay Robbins


there is nothing unusual about two ancient Egyptians from different regions in Egypt getting marrried.

LOL @ your pathetic attempt to distort Robins now! The point she makes is that the yellow color truly is a convention based on something symbolic NOT that all yellowish women are from northern Egypt you twit!! Why is it then that even northern Egyptian men are not yellow either but brown in color, you dumb lying worm?!
Posts: 22569 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now, for all the other posters who have brains...

Here is the Robins quote in its entirety.

"..Male and female skin colors were probably not uniform among the entire population of Egypt, with pigmentation being darker in the south [closer to sub-saharan Africans] and lighter in the north [closer to Mediterranean Near Easterners] A woman from the south would probably have had darker skin than a man from the North. Thus, the colorations used for skin tones in the art must have been schematic [or symbolic] rather than realistic; the clear gender distinction encoded in that scheme may have been based on elite ideals relating to male and female roles,in which women's responsibilities kept them indoors, so that they spent less time in the sun than men. Nevertheless, the significance of the two colors may be even deeper, making some as yet unknown but fundamental difference between men and women in Egyptian worldview..."-- Egyptologist, Gay Robins

I believe the very last part of the sentence to be true since as I've stated several times before there are various Afroasiatic speakers in Africa whose women paint their skin and faces with yellow ochre, particularly in certain occasions that are festive or auspicious. This custom is practiced by Saharan groups like the Tuareg as well as some Beja of the Eastern Desert and even certain ethnicities in the Horn.

 -

 -

 -

 -

 -

Posts: 22569 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^^ why would you be dumb and post this? You have been trying to say the yellow color was symbolic (and not specifying of what) and now you put up face paint.

So why didn't you open with an argument that perhaps Egyptian women painted their faces yellow??
-otherwise why bother putting up these women you dumb piece of shit

 -

was is Isis yellow and not Nefertari?
Why aren't they both the color of Nefertari jackass?

Posts: 19269 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lyinass dummy:

^^^ why would you be dumb and post this? You have been trying to say the yellow color was symbolic (and not specifying of what) and now you put up face paint.

There is nothing dumb about what I posted, unlike YOU. Yes the yellow color is symbolic as Robins, Yurco, Rice, many other Egyptologists have stated. How the hell can I specify what it symbolizes when nobody knows?! You see, unlike YOUR dumbass I try not to make presumptions especially when I have no evidence. My point about the face paint is that like ALL face and body paint worn by peoples of many cultures, the paint represents or is symbolic of something! Hence the connection, you twit!

quote:
So why didn't you open with an argument that perhaps Egyptian women painted their faces yellow??
-otherwise why bother putting up these women you dumb piece of shit

Egyptian women may very well have applied yellow paint on their faces, however the artwork shows yellow all over the skin, and to the degree that it is shown in artwork strongly suggests a convention than reality, again as agreed by many Egyptologists! So obviously it is YOU who is the the dumb sh|t. Don't get mad at me because I make sound sense while YOU do not.

quote:
 -

was is Isis yellow and not Nefertari?
Why aren't they both the color of Nefertari jackass?

LOL I just explained it in my last post, you moronic worm! It's because Isis is a divinity while Nefertari is human! Thus the symbolism serves a distinction not only between men and women but apparently between women and goddesses!
Posts: 22569 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thule
Member
Member # 18853

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Thule     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Afrocentric logic:

If its painted black = real.

If its painted white or yellow its ''symbolic''.

This is why no one takes them serious. They are always in denial employing double standards.

Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:


quote:
 -

was is Isis yellow and not Nefertari?
Why aren't they both the color of Nefertari jackass?

LOL I just explained it in my last post, you moronic worm! It's because Isis is a divinity while Nefertari is human! Thus the symbolism serves a distinction not only between men and women but apparently between women and goddesses!
 -


apparently you are speaking out of your arse with have your cake and eat it too argument

Posts: 19269 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ WTF do you mean by that?? The yellow color is symbolic convention. What that symbolizes we don't know, only that it applied to women in art especially when portrayed with men. Of course a convention is not used 100% of the time hence the image of Tut and his wife having the same realistic color, stupid twit! The painting with Nefertari and Isis has Isis (a goddess) symbolized by the yellow color. It is not contradictory at all and yes cakes are made to be eaten, you dumb b|tch! LOL [Big Grin]
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo_ParanoidIdiot:

Afrocentric logic:

If its painted black = real.

If its painted white or yellow its ''symbolic''.

This is why no one takes them serious. They are always in denial employing double standards.

LOL double-standard is something YOU and your ilk do all the time. For example I recall it is you who focuses on the yellowish or light color of women which, again Egyptologists note is symbolic, yet you ignore the 'black' or chocolate complexions of the men. Why is that??

In terms of your debunked and false notions of anthropology, whenever "negroid" features are found in skulls outside of Sub-Sahara OR in Sub-Sahara that's very ancient, you claim them to be merely primitive "bushmanoid" or "australoid" traits yet when a skull is shown to have traits of narrow face and nose, it is automatically "Caucasoid" no matter where it is found even if it is found in Tanzania or southern India. Why is that? Why is it you claim Caucasoids to have diversity of traits but you claim Negroids aren't diverse at all, even though you cited a source stating Negroids to be heterogeneous??

Double-standards is all that you survive on even though they are nonsensical and can't protect you from FACTS which destroy your beliefs each and every time so keep dreaming Anglo-buffoon. [Wink]

Posts: 22569 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Trollkillah # Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Trollkillah # Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:


quote:
 -

was is Isis yellow and not Nefertari?
Why aren't they both the color of Nefertari jackass?

LOL I just explained it in my last post, you moronic worm! It's because Isis is a divinity while Nefertari is human! Thus the symbolism serves a distinction not only between men and women but apparently between women and goddesses!
 -


apparently you are speaking out of your arse with have your cake and eat it too argument

The throne depiction of Tut, is likely what his real color was like. I have seen these artworks from up close, very very close at Cairo. This is one amongst many of the works showing him like this, which I have seen from close perspective. Unlike a picture...lol


I have summed up the affinities on him. This alone should make you shut up. Any normal thinking person would. But you keep arguing. lol

And yes, light skin did exist in that part of Africa, but this kind of yellow doesn't look natural on human skin. Many Egyptologists mention this as symbolism.

Posts: 8452 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Trollkillah # Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Trollkillah # Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ This was explained to your lyinass before countless times. This seems to have been an artistic convention that was spread and adopted by other non-African peoples around the Mediterranean.

The convention that women were lighter because they stayed indoors does not excuse the fact that they are many shades lighter than the men or the fact that most women in that time did not stay indoors but worked outside especially in the case of Egyptian women.

So what is your point?

Cosign, this is either another person writing or simple a person with mental drops suffering from amnesia.
Posts: 8452 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Indeed. The mentally deficient lyinass has an annoying habit of repeating topics discussed many times before. Even this topic was addressed to her several times and I posted a link to the last time it was discussed. Unless the lyinass is some elderly senior where dementia is common, I suggest she seeks professional psychiatric help.
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

The throne depiction of Tut, is likely what his real color was like. I have seen these artworks from up close, very very close at Cairo. This is one amongst many of the works showing him like this, which I have seen from close perspective. Unlike a picture...lol

I have summed up the affinities on him. This alone should make you shut up. Any normal thinking person would. But you keep arguing. lol

And yes, light skin did exist in that part of Africa, but this kind of yellow doesn't look natural on human skin. Many Egyptologists mention this as symbolism.

Correct. All the painted depictions of Tut no matter what the variance in facial features show him with the same chocolate complexion.

 -

That women were sometimes portrayed this way also means that the yellow is a convention and symbolic.

Posts: 22569 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
osirion
Member
Member # 7644

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for osirion     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The human male will generally have sex with any type of human female. The cultural concept of marriage forces a dichotymy where women have to compete for men. Such competition led to significant dimorphism. Marriage is practiced in more advance civilizations where there is a significant amount of time needed to transfer cultural values to children. Simply put: more wealthy societies built up more complexed social constructs that required marriage to allow for the transfer of these contructs to the next generation.

However, what is very odd about my theory is that Orientals have the lowest dimorphism.

Black Women physically are significantly different than Black men (Breast, Buttocks, etc).

Posts: 3994 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
osirion
Member
Member # 7644

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for osirion     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness:
^^^ why would you be dumb and post this? You have been trying to say the yellow color was symbolic (and not specifying of what) and now you put up face paint.

So why didn't you open with an argument that perhaps Egyptian women painted their faces yellow??
-otherwise why bother putting up these women you dumb piece of shit

 -

was is Isis yellow and not Nefertari?
Why aren't they both the color of Nefertari jackass?

I have to admit, even today we don't see many dark skinned Egyptian women in the media. But then today we don't see Black women with naturally frizzy Afros very much. Considering that this color convention changed with various dynasties, I don't see how it can be seen as being much more than a fashion.

It is very common to see Egyptian women portrayed with natural African skin color such as below:

 -


Don't know enough to understand why the color convention for Women changed.

Posts: 3994 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ As I have repeated, the yellow convention is symbolic. And secondly even a convention isn't followed 100% of the time. It's almost certain that the lack of this convention was to show more realism.
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:

The human male will generally have sex with any type of human female. The cultural concept of marriage forces a dichotymy where women have to compete for men. Such competition led to significant dimorphism.

This makes no sense. Because biologically males tend to be more promiscuous while females not as much and because biologically females are the ones who bear the offspring this makes the females more choosy and selective about partners than males which is shown throughout nature among the vast majority of species. As such wouldn't it be the males who compete for females? Why do you think males tend to be much more competitive in general? Why do males in countless species of animals do displays either to directly attract females or indirectly through sparring and fights? You're right that marriage is a cultural concept, but I thought it's original purpose was to establish kinship bonds between different families as well as starting family units themselves?

In fact, because marriage is a socio-cultural system, what the hell does it have to do with biological dimorphism which is linked to the biological roles I pointed out earlier??

quote:
Marriage is practiced in more advance civilizations where there is a significant amount of time needed to transfer cultural values to children. Simply put: more wealthy societies built up more complexed social constructs that required marriage to allow for the transfer of these contructs to the next generation.
Yet marriage is also practiced by virtually all cultures worldwide, including so-called "primitive" cultures and definitely by poor people. The vast majority of people in the world are poor, yet that hasn't stopped them from marrying.

quote:
However, what is very odd about my theory is that Orientals have the lowest dimorphism.
What?!! [Confused]

quote:
Black Women physically are significantly different than Black men (Breast, Buttocks, etc).
Yeah, so are all women regardless of color, unless they have some sort of estrogen defect. [Embarrassed]

No offense, but your racialist ideas are beginning to sound like Anglo-Idiot.

Posts: 22569 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
osirion
Member
Member # 7644

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for osirion     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Women do indeed compete for men. In order for the marriage to survive women must keep their male partners sexually satisfied. This is why women wear make up to give the appearance of youth. They wear clothes to keep men's attention. Women compete with each other to out do each other in being feminine. This competition forces the female sex to differentiate from the male.


Don't mean to insult Orientals but any review of the averages would show that the female East Asian is not as significantly differentiated from the male in terms of physique compare to the African female body and the male. Buttocks are not enlarged, breast are rather small, hips are not significantly wider than the male counterpart.

Posts: 3994 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dana marniche
Member
Member # 13149

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for dana marniche   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness:
The are some white men, such as Truthcentric, who like big asses. The word "repulsive" is highly subjective and should not be inserted into the conversation you racist scum. Somebody with a scientific background should be aware of the difference between objectity and subjectivity, because objectivity is especially important in science. You never seem to maintain it.

Big asses are not an attractive feature. Only black males are attracted to them, because sexual dimorphism in negroid females is so low.

How the hell is this racism? It is science.

There was no selective pressures on Negroids which is why they lack phenotype diversity. The females just put on fat around their buttocks.

Still to this day, black men like huge asses, while as i said to all other races, especially whites this is seen repulsive.

I think you need to speak for your own white northern european culture. From what I understand and can see 12-year old or thin and small rear ends on grown women are probably only considered attractive in Anglo places like England and the U.S. today. Certainly not the way it is in most of the Mediterranean countries though. Your culture also deosn't consider the flat rearend as repulsive. I don't know about France . Don't know about the Far East either. Also don't know why I'm talking about this cr__. [Confused] lol!
BTW - Low degree of sexual dimorphism was very common or usual in ancient Egypt though not always found in the rest of black Africa.

Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dana marniche
Member
Member # 13149

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for dana marniche   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
^ Women do indeed compete for men. In order for the marriage to survive women must keep their male partners sexually satisfied. This is why women wear make up to give the appearance of youth. They wear clothes to keep men's attention. Women compete with each other to out do each other in being feminine. This competition forces the female sex to differentiate from the male.


Don't mean to insult Orientals but any review of the averages would show that the female East Asian is not as significantly differentiated from the male in terms of physique compare to the African female body and the male. Buttocks are not enlarged, breast are rather small, hips are not significantly wider than the male counterpart.

This sounds like stereotyping.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Red, White, and Blue + Christian
Member
Member # 10893

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Red, White, and Blue + Christian     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The women depicted in the AE art were lighter because they were Berber or Middle Eastern women.

In Ancient Greece, African men mated with native Euro women. That;s why most men in modern Egypt are Y chromosome Haplotype E and in Greece many are the same.

Over time the Greeks and Egyptians became lighter and lighter due to all this mixing.

The Bible hints at this:
Ezekiel 23:20
Ezekiel 23:19

The AE's liked foreign women.

Posts: 878 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Your conjecture makes no sense considering the large number of portrayals of 'yellow' women in Egyptian art including royal women who were undoubtedly native frome the earliest periods of Egyptian history not only in the north but in the south as well. [Embarrassed]

quote:
Originally posted by dana marniche:

quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
^ Women do indeed compete for men. In order for the marriage to survive women must keep their male partners sexually satisfied. This is why women wear make up to give the appearance of youth. They wear clothes to keep men's attention. Women compete with each other to out do each other in being feminine. This competition forces the female sex to differentiate from the male.

Don't mean to insult Orientals but any review of the averages would show that the female East Asian is not as significantly differentiated from the male in terms of physique compare to the African female body and the male. Buttocks are not enlarged, breast are rather small, hips are not significantly wider than the male counterpart.

This sounds like stereotyping.
I certainly is stereotyping. steatopygia is not as common in Asia as it is in Africa, but there is no doubt that females in Eurasia still possess more body fat and such fat is still distributed in certain areas creating the femal bodess. As for females competing for males, I never said such does not exist however in nature most competation is between males. Also female competition in human societies depends on the cultural practices which again has nothing to do with biological features such as dimorphism.
Posts: 22569 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdt:

Big asses are not an attractive feature. Only black males are attracted to them, because sexual dimorphism in negroid females is so low.

How the hell is this racism? It is science.

There was no selective pressures on Negroids which is why they lack phenotype diversity. The females just put on fat around their buttocks.

Still to this day, black men like huge asses, while as i said to all other races, especially whites this is seen repulsive.

I think you need to speak for your own white northern european culture. From what I understand and can see 12-year old or thin and small rear ends on grown women are probably only considered attractive in Anglo places like England and the U.S. today. Certainly not the way it is in most of the Mediterranean countries though. Your culture also deosn't consider the flat rearend as repulsive. I don't know about France . Don't know about the Far East either. Also don't know why I'm talking about this cr__. [Confused] lol!
BTW - Low degree of sexual dimorphism was very common or usual in ancient Egypt though not always found in the rest of black Africa.

Dana, why do you even bother responding to the idiot?! Everything that he types is a blatant lie plain and simple. The fact that he tries to pass these lies as scientific truth is what makes him even more hilarious! LOL
Posts: 22569 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
osirion
Member
Member # 7644

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for osirion     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Your conjecture makes no sense considering the large number of portrayals of 'yellow' women in Egyptian art including royal women who were undoubtedly native frome the earliest periods of Egyptian history not only in the north but in the south as well. [Embarrassed]

quote:
Originally posted by dana marniche:

quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
^ Women do indeed compete for men. In order for the marriage to survive women must keep their male partners sexually satisfied. This is why women wear make up to give the appearance of youth. They wear clothes to keep men's attention. Women compete with each other to out do each other in being feminine. This competition forces the female sex to differentiate from the male.

Don't mean to insult Orientals but any review of the averages would show that the female East Asian is not as significantly differentiated from the male in terms of physique compare to the African female body and the male. Buttocks are not enlarged, breast are rather small, hips are not significantly wider than the male counterpart.

This sounds like stereotyping.
I certainly is stereotyping. steatopygia is not as common in Asia as it is in Africa, but there is no doubt that females in Eurasia still possess more body fat and such fat is still distributed in certain areas creating the femal bodess. As for females competing for males, I never said such does not exist however in nature most competation is between males. Also female competition in human societies depends on the cultural practices which again has nothing to do with biological features such as dimorphism.
I spend a lot of time in the Asian community. My wife is Korean so we have a lot of Korean friends. I have spent time in Asia and many various parts of the world. It is much easier for a male Asian to pass as a female Asian than it is for a male Black American to pass for a female Black American without some form of cosmetics or prosthetics (fake breasts, enlarged buttocks, etc).
Posts: 3994 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ LMAO [Big Grin] Well, that is some part of Korea or Korea-Town that you've visited. Of course there are going to be males whose physical appearances aren't all that masculine, but the same can be said for any group. I have seen just as plenty effeminate looking white males and yes even black males, but unlike you I don't stereotype. I've lived in the Asian community for far longer than you and I can say the vast majority of men--Korean or not--would still not get away with passing as women if they put on wigs. Your conjecture is not all that different from Anglo-Idiot's presumption that all black women look masculine and therefore unattractive! LOL True, I have seen my share of black women that do look androgynous or even mannish in the face, but that hasn't convinced me to stereotype let alone come up with some bogus hypothesis that sexual dimorphism is minimal to nonexistent among blacks! The vast majority of black women still appear no less feminine than white women, east asian women, etc.
Posts: 22569 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2012 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3