clumsygirl

I know My theory will irritate a lot of people, but I have to move on. According to the latest news, data reported showed the country recorded 275,815 births in 2020, compared with 307,764 deaths. The number of deaths exceeded that of newborns. South Korea experienced negative population growth for the first time. I want to save a lot of good nations. This post is just a part of my book. Apologize in advance, English is not my mother language so there will be some language bugs. The fifth disadvantage of capitalism is adverse elimination of genes because of reproduction professionalization whatever in mixed blood or not. In violence civilization, principles of selection by nature is the Survival of the Fittest, which controls the evolution of all life. What is the essence of principle of selection? It is the non-random differential reproduction of genes, which is why I don't think reproductive rights is one of “human rights” because it involves the category of genes. Natural selection, as an invisible hand, is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working for the own good of the being. so, in a state of nature, natural selection will be enabled to act on and modify organic beings at any age, by the accumulation of profitable variations and the elimination of injurious variation at the same time, or the species would become extinct. That is why we shall see how Natural Selection almost inevitably causes much extinction of some injurious genes accompanied by elimination of some individuals. In short, this is a positive elimination because the winners are eligible to reproduce, so we can view the interests of the winner individual interests, group interests and profitable genes interests are consistent, but there is a divergence of interests between the three in our human contract civilization. Like I said before the biggest disadvantage of pensions is that the genes in successful individuals are doomed to be eliminated, because the supplier must be the one with the lowest opportunity cost who must make no greater achievements in other industries. In short, the suppliers in reproductive market are “lemons.” Of course, this conclusion is based on that a successful survival machine has better genes than a failed survival machine. In China, the government is already going to cancel one child policy gradually due to a pension gap, and even the local government began to give birth subsidies, although Chinese population is still growing. I am sure it is going to happen that those genes in urban people are replaced by those in rural people. It is because urban people are facing higher costs. Not only have they to raise their children, but also spend lots of money on other interest classes, such as piano class, dance class, English language, swimming class, taekwondo Class and so on and so forth. One of my female colleagues, who has a ten-year-old son only, told me that she is more exhausted on Saturday and Sunday she sends his son to Various kinds of classes than she is on work from Monday to Friday. In addition, we must admit that urban people have a higher opportunity cost than rural people. In terms of incomes, urban people basically have pensions, so they don't need the financial support from their children. After considering their costs and benefits together, more and more urban people would exit the reproductive market because they are unqualified suppliers. The rural people are facing the opposite situation. In terms of costs, their children would not learn those things like piano; in terms of incomes, many rural people still have no pension, so they have strong incentives to invest for their old ages. Based on one of the Ten Principles of Economics: People respond to incentives. Bearing a child, like any decision, has an opportunity cost. When the opportunity cost rises, people will choose to have less children. In short, on the farm, children can be assets; in the city they are liabilities. So the worst of the predictions did not come true, and the terrible logic of Malthus's calculations was confined to those parts of the world where wealth and progress lagged. There is an old saying in China: The saints fear the causes while the mortals fear the results. In chemical terms, a free radical would trigger chain reactions, which are spontaneous. Instead of complaining about chain reactions, you should stop free radicals. To be exact, the genes of the poor will gradually replace the genes of the rich, because only the poor will become qualified suppliers in the reproductive market. For the same logic, even if the Germans and the refugees are not mixed blood, the Germans with low fertility will be also replaced by refugees. When there is no immigration, we can regard Germanic nation as an Isolandian reproductive market isolated from the rest of the world, and the price adjusts to balance domestic supply and demand. After immigration, what would happen? I think it depends on the world price and domestic price. Apparently, for Germany, the domestic price is much bigger than the world price in productive market. To be exact, prices in developed countries are far higher than those in developing countries. It must inevitably lead that Germany, as developed country, become importing country in reproductive market, while these refugees become reproductive exporters. Now consider the gains and losses from immigration. Once again, not everyone benefits from it. Immigrants have replaced some people's jobs. The key question is who has been replaced? As the equilibrium price drops in reproductive market, more and more marginal Germanic people, as the original supplier, are forced to exit the reproductive market. As same as externalities, racism is reciprocal. These people are the most hostile to immigrants because they become new losers. In recent years, racial discrimination has become more and more serious in white countries, called Neo-Nazism. I saw a piece of news recently: A white woman has been caught on video hurling racist abuse at an Asian family at a Perth shopping centre. "I was born here, you're not," the woman could be seen yelling in the video. "And all you do is breed these things, rats." "You bloody Asians shouldn't be here either, you get out of this country." Does what this foul-mouthed woman says make sense? Of course, it doesn't make sense. It is because these Asian little rats were also born in Australia too. The first generation of Asian immigrants did the same thing in recent decades as the whites did in 18th century on the continent of Australia. The only difference is that the former resort to contractual civilization nowadays but the latter to violent civilization 18th century. Of course, the outcome of white people will be also same in 200 years later as that of aboriginal Australia 200 years ago. Is this a Karma? History is always strikingly resemblance. In June 2020, footage has emerged on social media of Black Lives Matter protesters in a British town being told by one of a group of men nearby to 'go back to Africa'. In 2017, St. Petersburg mayoral candidate Paul Congemi made the comments while addressing rival Jesse Nevel, a white supporter of the socialist Uhuru Movement, which seeks slavery reparations for African-Americans. "Mr. Nevel, you and your people, you talk about reparations," Mr. Congemi said, "The reparations that you talk about, Mr. Nevel, your people already got your reparations. Your reparations came in the form of a man named Barack Obama." Mr. Congemi continued, "My advice to you, my advice to you, if you don't like it here in America, planes leave every hour from Tampa Airport. Go back to Africa, go back to Africa." Here I have two questions: ①Should the winners compensate the losers in contract civilization? Similarly, should the winners from compensate the losers in violent civilization? ②If compensation is really needed, I do deem native Indians should be at the top of the list. Seriously speaking, Britain and the United States did send blacks back to Africa for many reasons at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century. In 1787, the British government settled 300 former slaves and 70 white former prostitutes on the Sierra Leone peninsula. Within two years, however, most members of this settlement had died from disease or in clashes with local tribes. In many respects, the American program traced British efforts to resettle freed slaves in Africa following that nation's abolishment of the slave trade in 1772. On Feb. 6, 1820, the first organized group of emigrating freed slaves departed from New York to Freetown, Sierra Leone, in West Africa. The enterprise was organized by the American Colonization Society, founded in 1816 by Robert Finley (1772-1817) with the mission of returning freed American slaves to Africa. In 1819, Congress had authorized the return of freed black slaves. The lawmakers appropriated $100,000, a large sum at the time, to be used in returning displaced Africans who had been brought to the United States illegally after the abolishment of the slave trade in 1808. With congressional approval, the American Colonization Society in 1821 founded the colony of Liberia, south of Sierra Leone, as a permanent homeland for freed U.S. slaves. Liberia was "modeled" on the United States, including the Constitution and electoral system. The United States tried to make Liberia a paradise in Africa, but unfortunately, paradise doesn't exist at all. An equal and peaceful situation (win-win game or orgasm together) assumed by the United States between free blacks from the United States and local blacks did not emerge, and Liberia remains mired in war and poverty. Facts proved that another utopian dream was broken. Like I said before there is no short cut in evolution. It is very difficult to finish leap-forward development under the framework of democracy. To be frank, there is no solution to the problem of race because it involves not only individual interests, but also genetic interests. White people are indeed suffering reverse elimination at the genetic level. By the way, since white people would be eliminated one day, who dominated this tragedy? Is it really because white people are kind? Of course not. Those people who are the beneficiaries of immigration dominated this ethnic invasion. Apparently, apart from those intruders, white capitalists at the top are the beneficiaries of immigration because they can enjoy cheaper products and services. Capital is always so short-sighted. It wins again. The former deputy mayor of Italy, Ceccano, Massimo Ruspandini, after the publication of the poster on his Facebook page at that time, "The first ciociaro born in 2019 was Chinese with small eyes." What I want to tell him is don't discriminate yellow people, and maybe in another 100 years his eyes is full of black. I am not alarmist that some demographers have predicted the U.S. will become a majority-minority nation by 2050, with African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics and other minority groups outnumbering the people we call white. The shift in the nation's racial demographics have already been stark. In 1965, whites represented 85 percent of the population, with the other 15 percent made up of African-Americans. These days, white people make up just 60 percent of the nation, while Hispanics account for 18 percent and Asians about 6 percent. I don't believe it is an alarmist talk because in the Toronto subway there are already full of black and East Asian and Indian faces. Some white Italians deem the place in north of Rome is Italy, and the place in south of Rome should be called Ethiopia. Paris has been historically known for the large number of black people from African immigration or who came from overseas territories. How to change this situation? Frankly speaking, it is very difficult to change it. I have no idea. Like I said before, for any vested interest, it's easy to put them in, but it's hard to force them out. We must figure out what the essence of natural selection is. The essence of natural selection is the non-random differential reproduction of genes. Whites are quickly penalized and marginalized already by so-called modern civilization of capitalism. White extinction is the inevitable result of reproductive incomplete professionalization. From the view of genes, the white genes are being hunted now because good genes would be selected by successful individuals previously, but now bad genes would be selected by failed individuals after pension. Evolution is the process by which some genes become more numerous and others less numerous in the gene pool. Before pension, the rich had more surviving children than the poor. That meant there must have been constant downward social mobility as the poor failed to reproduce themselves and the progeny of the rich took over their occupations. I agree with Gregory Clark who is an economic historian at the University of California that the modern population of the English is largely descended from the economic upper classes of the Middle Ages." Meanwhile, as the progeny of the rich pervaded all levels of society, wealth could have spread with them. On the contrary, after social pension, future population will be largely descended from the economic lower classes of the present age. Like Malthus and Ricardo, I bitterly opposed the childbirth subsidy, because it only encouraged the poor to have children. The emergence of pensions will inevitably lead to reproductive professionalization and then bad genes drives out good genes. We can name this atavism or adverse elimination, and the tendency of atavism may often prevent the work of selection. You can easily find that the differences in population growth around the world are large. In developed countries, such as the United States and those in Western Europe, the population has risen only about 1 percent per year in recent decades and is expected to rise even more slowly in the future. Meanwhile, the situation in Japan and South Korea is also not optimistic, and fertility rate of them has hit a record low. According to the latest news, data reported showed the country recorded 275,815 births in 2020, compared with 307,764 deaths. The number of deaths exceeded that of newborns. South Korea experienced negative population growth for the first time. In addition, statistics show that due to the continuous rise in the proportion of the population living alone, the number of households in South Korea exceeds 23.09 million, a record high. The proportion of one-person and two-person families accounts for 62.6% of the total number of households, in other words, more than 60% of South Korean families live with only one or two people. By contrast, in many poor African countries, population grows at about 3 percent per year. At this rate, the population doubles every 23 years. Should the South Korean government controlled by big capital groups open immigration? Immigration can really solve the population problem, but it is a very short-sighted strategy. However, isn't Capitalism always short-sighted? Albert Einstein once called compounding "the greatest mathematical discovery of all time." The reproductive function is a crazy exponential function. In fact, Adam Smith sees two deep-seated laws of behavior. The first of these is the Law of Accumulation. Never underestimate an exponential function whose essence is to accelerate accumulation in one direction. Woe to him who did not accumulate. "The decay of population," moaned William Paley, the theologian-reformer, "is the greatest evil the state can suffer, and the improvement of it the object which ought... to be aimed at, in preference to every other political purpose whatsoever." It is high time that the governments of developed capitalist countries should undertake the important task of reproduction. All troubles stem from a major misconception: Reproductive right is considered as a kind of human rights. I'm sorry to tell you that the conception of reproductive right does not belong to the category of human individuals, but the category of genes. With a little familiarity such superficial objections will be forgotten, but human beings are still in oligophrenia period. Only when we don't acknowledge that reproductive right should be regarded as a kind of human rights can we continue our discussion. Those people, whether to enter or exit reproductive markets, all make rational decisions, but according to a basic principle of The Game Theory, rational choices leads to bad outcomes. All industries can be professionalized around the world without intervention, except for reproduction, because the profession of reproduction involves not only individual interests, but also genetic interests. Obviously, in the current situation, genetic interests and individual interests are contradictory. How to solve this contradiction? I think there are only two ways to solve this contradiction. One is to return back to the previous equilibrium state by abolishing socialized pension, and the other is to reach the next equilibrium state by government intervention in the reproductive market. The former is the complete privatization of reproductive costs and benefits, and the latter is the complete nationalization of reproductive costs and benefits. I personally deem the latter is better than the former because compared with the former, the latter is more specialized. Since the government intervened in providing for the aged, it must intervene in medical treatment, education and finally reproduction. Reproduction industry must accord with the principle of "all-or-none." I know that so far intervening in the human reproductive market is still a very sensitive topic because in our times of higher morality all reason is drowned out. Talking about this topic, we cannot avoid a person (Adolf Hitler) and his eugenics project. Obviously, Hitler did object to the intermarriage and mixed blood and have a special preference for purebred. Heinrich Himmler, who was the commander of Adolf Hitler's Schutzstaffel, and later of the Gestapo in Nazi Germany, founded the Lebensborn project on December 12, 1935, the same year the Nuremberg Laws outlawed intermarriage with Jews and others who were deemed inferior. Lebensborn project can be called "wellspring of life" or "fountain or life." Lebensborn project was the inverse of Hitler's genocidal policies. While other legislation focused on isolating and destroying those the Nazis considered unworthy, Lebensborn was meant to repopulate society with the best of the best: a new crop of racially pure Aryan children. For decades, Germany's birthrate was decreasing. World War I had decimated the Germany’s young male population. Nearly 2,000,000 German soldiers were never coming home. Marriage prospects for German women in the 1920s and 30s were especially grim, a circumstance that led to a number of unwanted out-of-wedlock pregnancies. In 1935, the German government estimated that as many as 800,000 pregnancies were ending in abortion every year. To Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler, this was an unconscionable waste of young Aryan children who might be swelling the ranks of the nation's depleted population and bringing them closer to their goal of a racially pure society. It was in that context that the Lebensborn project was created, which goal was to reverse the decline and increase the Germanic/Nordic population of Germany to 120 million. Nazi Germany thought they were seeking a way to save itself from disastrous population decline. The first Lebensborn home was opened in 1936 in Steinhoering, a tiny village not far from Munich. Ultimately, there were 10 Lebensborn homes established in Germany, nine in Norway, two in Austria, and one each in Belgium, Holland, France, Luxembourg and Denmark. In Lesbensborn project, both mother and father needed to pass a "racial purity" test. Blond hair and blue eyes were preferred, and family lineage had to be traced back at least three generations. Of all the women who applied, only 40 percent passed the racial purity test and were granted admission to the Lebensborn project. The majority of mothers were unmarried, 57.6 percent until 1939, and about 70 percent by 1940. Leaders of the League of German Girls have intimated to their girls that they should bear illegitimate children; these leaders have pointed out that in view of the prevailing shortage of men, not every girl could expect to get a husband in future, and that the girls should at least fulfill their task as German women and donate a child to the Fuhrer. The German Reich was doing its best to make motherhood into an Olympic event, issuing a Mother's Cross of Honor in three classes: bronze, silver, and gold. The lowest rank required a woman to conceive and raise at least four children, while the highest honor recognized a woman who had given birth to eight or more. The Cross of Honour of the German Mother was given to the women who bore the most Aryan children. Those who bore the Mother's Cross of Honor received unique privileges: they could jump to the front of lines, receive government subsidies designed to help them care for the kids, and even have special access to the best meats from butcher shops. At least 7,000 children were born under the project, which ran from 1935 until 1945. Frankly speaking, I don't know how to evaluate this project. Objectively speaking, Hitler was indeed far sighted because he did sense the trend of reverse elimination and genetic survival of the fittest although he resorted to violent civilization to solve them. One thing I can't understand: Hitler himself didn't have blond hair and blue eyes either. Needless to say, Hitler is known as the King of Murder in the 20th century. Hitler and the Nazis had two criteria by which they measured the worth of a human life: race and utility. In the sequence of events, Nazi genocide actually began with the disabled in 1939, around the time World War II started, and was then extended to the Jews in 1941. The entire genocidal project continued until 1945, or basically the end of the war. In 1920, before Hitler's massacre, Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche published a short book titled, Permitting the Destruction of Unworthy Life, which made the theoretical foundation for the subsequent massacre. This book put forward an argument for the systematic elimination from society of those who were deemed to be unfit, disabled, mentally defectives, incurably ill, mental retardation, stunted and deformed children, incurable idiots and useless burdens. Two authors argued that the law should allow and the bureaucracy should enable the euthanizing of "unworthy life." I can imagine how much they have been attacked, criticized and criticized by human rights activists. Unfortunately, these retarded idiots and disabled people are still useful to some people, otherwise, who can they sell medicine to? Apparently, capitalism wins again. I admit that this individual extinction is absolutely illegal under contractual civilization unless we degenerate back to violent civilization. The more crucial question is who and how judges them whether useless or not? To be honest, it is difficult to distinguish between genius and madness before the truth is known. Aristotle ever said that no great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness. Arthur Schopenhauer ever said that genius and madness have something in common: both live in a world that is different from that which exists for everyone else. In my opinion, the only difference between insanity and genius is measured by whether he/she is with the truth or not, so I oppose the extinction of individuals. Now, the question is how do we reconcile the two interests of individual and gene? Here's a compromise strategy: Individuals are allowed to survive, but not to reproduce, namely, separate reproductive rights from survival rights. Reproductive control is necessary, otherwise degeneration is inevitable both at genes and individuals' levels after generations of accumulation in the bad direction especially after the division of reproductive labor. We should let the evil family genes like Bagwell disappear. Maybe you would question that it would lose the genes of genius. Absolutely not. Genius is a kind of probability chosen by God, like the winner of the lottery, without any repeatability. Although the world has fallen into a wave of mediocrity, I am glad to see that genetic screening has long begun with embryo testing. When unborn child was diagnosed with serious illness, like Down syndrome, doctors always advise pregnant women to choose abortion. Essentially, this selective abortion is a kind of gene screening by eliminating pathogenic genes and diseased individuals. Do these diseased fetuses have human rights? The logic is both merciless and inexorable. We can't go too far on the way of irrationality, but it seems we have already been misled too far on the road to mediocrity. Let alone the right of human reproduction, our human beings can't even reach a consensus on whether pets should be castrated. I saw a news recently that a Chinese castrated her cat, which had aroused criticism from unwashed masses who believed castration was cruel and violated the reproductive rights of animals. Do you think such intelligence is suitable for the election? To be honest, in my opinion, castration is not only for pets, but also for many men who have violent tendencies and pedophilia because castration can reduce their aggression and libido. Kindness to them is cruelty to the innocent. Kindness to them is cruelty to the innocent. By the way, what are the similarities and differences between Hitler and Merkel? The same thing is non-random elimination genes, while in the evolutionary game of "Hunt or be hunted", the difference is the former chose to hunt in violent civilization by hard landing and the latter chose to be hunted in contractual civilization by soft landing. If the Homo sapiens had the moral realm of Merkel, they would have been eliminated by Neanderthals. Normal evolution needs to be in a wavy upward pattern, and the amplitude should fall within the threshold, which could be view as a virtuous circle. Now is the time for her to pull back before it is too later. In fact, some prescient governments had enacted laws to intervene in this adverse elimination but had been defeated by human rights. In America, the eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup. Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution. They tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples; supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws; and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and "immoral". Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community. Eugenics supporters' advocates for the removal of genetic "defectives" such as the insane, "feeble-minded" and criminals, and supporting the selective breeding of "high-grade" individuals. Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying. The first state to introduce a compulsory sterilization bill was Michigan, in 1897 but the proposed law failed to garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted. Eight years later Pennsylvania's state legislators passed a sterilization bill that was vetoed by the governor. Indiana became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in 1907, followed closely by Washington and California in 1909. Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a Virginia home for the mentally retarded. While California had the highest number of sterilizations, North Carolina's eugenics program which operated from 1933 to 1977, was the most aggressive of the 32 states that had eugenics programs. An IQ of 70 or lower meant sterilization was appropriate in North Carolina. Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. Although compulsory sterilization is now considered an abuse of human rights, Buck v. Bell was never overturned, and Virginia did not repeal its sterilization law until 1974. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States. A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of "mental defectives", 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15% opposed both. In the 1970s, several activists and women's rights groups discovered several physicians to be performing coerced sterilizations of specific ethnic groups of society. All were abuses of poor, nonwhite, or mentally retarded women, while no abuses against white or middle-class women were recorded. In Japan, a "Eugenic Protection Law (EPL)" permitted involuntary sterilization of people with intellectual or mental disability from 1948 to 1996. More than 16,500 women and men were sterilized against their will. The objective of this law was "to prevent birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point of view, and to protect life and health of mother, as well." (Article 1) Under Article 3 anyone could be voluntarily sterilized if: (1) he/she or the partner had hereditary "psychopathia," "bodily disease" or "malformation," or the partner "has mental disease or feeble-mindedness"; (2) he/she or the partner's relative within the fourth degree of kinship had hereditary "mental disease," "feeble-mindedness," "psychopathia," "bodily disease," or "malformation"; (3) he/she or the partner was "suffering from leprosy, which is liable to carry infection to the descendants." In fact, EPL called sterilization a "eugenic operation," which was done either voluntarily or involuntarily. In 1996 the eugenic provisions were repealed, and EPL was revised producing the "Maternal Protection Law," which allows only voluntary sterilization and abortion. As I expected, the reason for the abolition comes from human rights and women, and ignorant and kindhearted women made a great contribution again in human degeneration. To be honest, this anti-degeneration has never stopped, but it has changed one way. In other words, there are substitutes. Congenital anomalies contribute a significant proportion of infant morbidity and mortality, as well as fetal mortality. The most prevalent conditions include congenital heart defects, orofacial clefts, Down syndrome, and neural tube defects. Since the introduction of ultrasound in the 1970s, ultrasound technology has greatly improved. Advances in medical technology now enable doctors to identify disabilities within the early weeks of pregnancy. Screening can detect problems such as neural tube defects, chromosome abnormalities, and gene mutations that would lead to genetic disorders and birth defects, such as spina bifida, cleft palate, Downs Syndrome, Tay–Sachs disease, sickle cell anemia, thalassemia, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, and fragile X syndrome. It is common practice for the doctor to recommend an immediate legal abortion, when a disable fetus found. The understanding is that if the abortion is performed as early as possible, it will be safer and less psychologically traumatic. The couple are usually advised that termination is the sensible decision and consoled with the prospect that they can try again. There is no essential difference between a compulsory sterilization law and abortion after medical detection, and both belong to the category of Eugenics, which can be viewed as a major victory for good genes against the bad. Unfortunately, there are still some people against ending a pregnancy due to fetal anomaly, under the name of "Human rights". What crazy people! What crazy human rights! What crazy equalitarianism! In rural China, many pregnant women do not go to the hospital for medical detection at all. Because of lower opportunity cost, they prefer to give birth to a baby, and they decide to raise or kill based on whether baby is healthy or not. Of course, the best strategy for irresponsible parents is to put disabled baby in baby hatch and throw them to the government. Few people know about India's monstrous attempt to sidestep an 'overpopulation apocalypse'. Overpopulation has been India's major concern for almost five decades. I am not going to repeat the reason. During the period 1891-1921, India 's population remained almost stationary. During the thirty years between 1921 and 1951, the increase amounted to 109 million or an average 3.63 million a year. In 1951, India 's population was approximately 361 million. The year of 1951 is also termed as population explosion year. The growth rate of population was 21.5% in the decade of 1951-1961 compared to the previous ones. During 1961-1971, the growth rate of population was 24.8%. In order to limit its population growth rate, India has been using sterilization as a method of population control since 1951. From 1972, attempting to sidestep an overpopulation apocalypse, the World Bank loaned India's family planning program tens of millions of dollars to implement a crash sterilization program. The Iron Lady of India, Indira Gandhi, who is the only daughter of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, then Prime Minister of India, received the power to rule by decree from the Indian president in 1969. In particular, Gandhi was convinced population control was essential for India's economic development, and so, he argued family planning should be a way of life. She immediately declared a state of emergency, suspending numerous civil liberties. This freed her government to forcibly sterilize millions of Indian men and women in the 21 months that followed. More than one million men were sterilized in India in 1971, and a little more than three million were sterilized just two years later in 1973 — neither, of course, inconsequential numbers. What set apart the Gandhis' effort, however, was the sheer size and aggressiveness of their program, with 6.1 million men being snipped in 1976 alone. Public officials mobilized en masse to meet statewide sterilization targets. The sterilizations that followed were carried out under so-called "compul-suasion," (a combination of compulsion and persuasion), with a heavy emphasis on the former. Muslims, along with the illiterate and the lower castes, were disproportionately sterilized. Sterilization was no longer a choice but a mandate. But in a country where being a man was defined by his virility, sterilization was a tough sell. Numerous misconceptions associated with vasectomies didn't help. Some people believed the procedure caused death on the operating table; others thought they'd lose weight — or worse, their sex drives. It did not take long, given these horrific tactics, for public anger over the forced sterilization campaign to result in riots. After a series of violent "anti-family planning" protests, Prime Minister Gandhi called a halt to the mass sterilization campaign in March 1977, and her Congress Party was crushed soundly in that year's elections, with both Indira and Sanjay losing their seats. She returned to power three years later, but was assassinated by her own bodyguards and Sikh nationalists in 1984. As for the sterilization program, it was a failure by every measure. Many human rights activists regard the emergency period as "The Dark Age of Indian Democracy" in in the history of India. One of Indira Gandhi's most unpopular policies during her time in office was government-enforced sterilization as a form of population control, which became a stain on her whole life. Is iron lady really wrong? Of course not. There is nothing wrong with sterilizing low-level populations because poverty is inherited just as same as genes. But why failed? After discussing Singapore, I would like to elaborate on the causes of the failure of sterilization program. In Singapore, Eugenics is part of family planning. As early as the late 1960s, just a few years after Singapore's independence in 1965, Lee Kuan Yew revealed his views on the relationship between genes and talent. A proponent of nature over nurture he stated that "intelligence is 80 percent nature and 20 percent nurture" and attributed the successes of his children to genetics. In one of his speeches, he argued that unless the better-educated citizens reproduced at a higher rate, the future of their progeny would be at stake because less economically productive people—the "social delinquents"—would live off the nation's scarce resources. In 1984, the Singaporean government also launched the Graduate Mothers' Scheme to boost fertility among married, educated women and a sterilization program to decrease fertility among the uneducated. The government prioritized college-educated mothers for housing and their child's school admissions and subsidized their deliveries in hospitals. The second component of the eugenic-based policy, the sterilization program, offered married women whose educational level was not beyond junior high school and whose monthly household income was less than 750 Singaporean dollars a grant of 10,000 Singaporean dollars to undergo sterilization of their own accord. The Prime Lee is really brilliant guy. The essence of this policy is an exchange between individual interests and genetic interests, and everyone has to face trade-offs. This deal, what is more, is for only one special group of people, married women. This policy, which is no less than best strategy of killing two birds with one stone, is the most stable strategy so far. On one hand, this policy is highly targeted because Lee knew reproductive rights are in the hands of married women, so he didn't want to waste any money on men or unmarried women. As a result, Lee can achieve his purpose at the least cost. One the other hand, He took human rights into account so he chose to help the poor conditionally. Married women who wanted to be subsidized had to give up their reproductive rights. He turned violent sterilization into transactional sterilization. Now let me answer the question at the end of the last paragraph why the birth control program succeeded in Singapore and China, but failed in India? In my opinion, there are three reasons. First and foremost, in China and Singapore, the targets of sterilization are married women, but in India, the targets of sterilization are mostly unmarried poor young men. This mistake is fatal. On one hand, women are the main body of fertility, so sterilization on male is not an effective way to control population. On the other hand, women are already castrated and isolated from human orgasm by God, so sterilization doesn't cost women anything because they have nothing to lose. But in the patriarchal world, men equate sterilization with castration. After sterilization, they will become eunuchs and cannot experience climax. For example, if you are going to cut my clitoris, I will fight to the death, but if you are going to cut another woman's clitoris, she may not resist. People with different opportunity costs must make different choices. In today's Chinese society, few men are willing to do ligation, let alone the young Indian men of the 1970s. That let the weak be more unfortunate is the eternal subject of evolution since the strong could resort to violent civilization to threaten the precarious contract civilization. Men in low civilization don't care about the harm of birth control ring and side effects of contraceptives to women's body, and only care if they are comfortable; men in high civilization, such as in Canada, most men choose vasectomy for a permanent type of birth control. Of course, this is a coevolution. This is due to the different counter-strategies given by women at different levels. Different independent systems will produce different equilibrium states. Secondly, China and Singapore are dictatorial system, and India is democratically elected system. You see, like I said before, dictatorship is not the worst system, and democracy is not the best. Pyramid society matches dictatorship well, but does not match democracy whose essence is to cater to the public. The greater the gap between the rich and the poor, the less democratic a society could be. Finally, Lee turned violent sterilization into transactional sterilization by conditionally subsidizing the poor, but Gandhi adopted forced sterilization which is indeed contrary to the contract civilization. Maybe there were so many people to be sterilized there, Gandhi didn't have so much money to subsidize. China embodied the superiority of dictatorship again. The birth control plan can be completed without spending any money (applause). Everything has a cost. Precisely speaking, China's sterilization is no more than a population control program, not eugenics program. Authoritarian governments are less likely to offend the mobs at the bottom either. Their power comes from the violent proletarian revolution, so they are afraid of losing power for the same reason. At present, the vast majority of Chinese are descendants of the people at the bottom, as a result of which many Chinese are vulgar because vulgarity could be inherited as same as genes. The old Chinese proverb says, that "it could build a nouveau riche overnight, but it takes three generations to make a gentleman." So far, there is no gentleman in China but nouveau riche only. Similarly, it would take three generations to create a qualified migrant and a qualified urbanite as well. Evolution needs to be done step by step. If influx with zero threshold, the society would face a game of who assimilates whom, which must lead to chaos and eventually degeneration maybe. Like I said so many times, everything has a cost, and it's not a good thing to evolve too fast because any evolution with zero threshold can only generate false prosperity in short-term but store up trouble for the future. This is why I am so afraid to hear the words like liberation and freedom which don't exist in God's dictionary. Similarly, it's not a good thing to be rich overnight. Wealth out of your control will be your bane as well. Oh, I am just getting far from my subject, let's get back to Singapore. The essence of Premier Lee's overall strategy is to separate human rights from reproductive rights. But he didn't realize the essence of marriage was a transaction between women and men, and didn't take into account the cost of marriage for women. As the opportunity costs of educated women increase, more and more well educated women choose to withdraw from the marriage market and the reproductive market. Recently, Singapore has seen the birthrate of Chinese ethnics plummet so fast that it worries about underpopulation. After twenty years of the slogan "Two Is Enough," Singapore officials declared: "Have three—more, if you can afford it!" Lee was indeed not an egalitarian in terms of his reproduction strategies. Despite the 1980s backlash, the inheritability of intelligence remained Lee's pet topic in the years that followed, and indeed to the end of his life. He described his belief that intelligence is genetically determined as a "hard truth" that has kept Singapore going. In his eyes, no amount of government intervention and social engineering can significantly change a person's lot in life as it has already been predetermined by the quality of the genes that they are born with. Government officials can equalize opportunity at the starting point for all, but they cannot ensure equal outcomes. But the result is not what Lee envisioned. However, birth rates across the board remained low as Singapore became a highly affluent and consumerist nation where having children, even if subsidized, could be a burdensome, expensive affair for most citizens. Lee was alarmed that as of 1983, 16 percent of graduate women remained single compared to 5 percent of men. Unmarried female college graduates themselves were frustrated with the government for publicly airing their singlehood and implicitly accusing them of prioritizing their own interests over national ones. They argued that the root of the problem was deeply structural, complaining that their juggling of both career and family duties was difficult in the implicitly patriarchal Singaporean society. They said that this was compounded by a lack of empathy for their difficulties from their male Singaporean counterparts. Why is it? The answer is that division of labor is not detailed enough. Let me put it another way, trapped in the limitations of his times, Lee didn't distinguish between bearing and caring, or separate the responsibilities of the uterus. It can't be blamed on him, nor can it be separated in his time. His wisdom was that he knew to select highly educated women as qualified bearers, but he didn't realize that those women are not qualified carers because they had higher opportunity costs. How to deal with it? Let's have a look and get a lesson from other non-human beings. I have always believed that other non-human beings are rational because the price of their irrationality is death. Now let's review some words in The Selfish Gene by Dawkins: A social insect colony is a huge family, usually all descended from the same mother. The workers, who seldom or never reproduce themselves, are often divided into a number of distinct castes, including small workers, large workers, soldiers, and highly specialized castes like the honey-pots. Reproductive females are called queens. Reproductive males are sometimes called drones or kings. In the more advanced societies, the reproductives never work at anything except procreation, but at this one task they are extremely good. They rely on the workers for their food and protection, and the workers are also responsible for looking after the brood. In some ant and termite species the queen has swollen into a gigantic egg factory, scarcely recognizable as an insect at all, hundreds of times the size of a worker and quite incapable of moving. She is constantly tended by workers who groom her, feed her, and transport her ceaseless flow of eggs to the communal nurseries. If such a monstrous queen ever has to move from the royal cell she rides in state on the backs of squadrons of toiling workers…. In Chapter 7 I introduced the distinction between bearing and caring. I said that mixed strategies, combining bearing and caring, would normally evolve. In Chapter 5 we saw that mixed evolutionarily stable strategies could be of two general types. Either each individual in the population could behave in a mixed way: thus individuals usually achieve a judicious mixture of bearing and caring; or, the population may be divided into two different types of individual: this was how we first pictured the balance between hawks and doves. Now it is theoretically possible for an evolutionarily stable balance between bearing and caring to be achieved in the latter kind of way: the population could be divided into bearers and carers. But this can only be evolutionarily stable if the carers are close kin to the individuals for whom they care, at least as close as they would be to their own offspring if they had any. Although it is theoretically possible for evolution to proceed in this direction, it seems to be only in the social insects that it has actually happened…. Social insect individuals are divided into two main classes, bearers and carers. The bearers are the reproductive males and females. The carers are the workers—infertile males and females in the termites, infertile females in all other social insects. All the troubles, caused by capitalism, should be solved by a capital way as well. What lessons can we draw from these so-called lower organism ants? Apparently, the ant colony, completely controlled by genes, has a strictly division of labor on reproductive strategy that some of them never work at anything except bearing and some of them are responsible for caring. Of course, this division of strategy, based on genetic perspective, would be evolutionarily stable only under the conditions that the carers are close kin to the individuals for whom they care. What about our human beings? It is not necessary in human beings because of Capitalist Professionalization, and it results in it that some unqualified people need to be carers as their profession. I am not sure, maybe until one day God allow the separation reproductive rights from mating rights, and I think that depends on the real awakening of women that they must refuse to breed for free for the poor guys. Austria and Bavaria still upheld the16th and17th edicts prohibiting paupers from marrying. Pension, as the inevitable result of the division of labor by capitalism, is the largest Ponzi scheme by far. The essence of any Ponzi scheme is the game which always need more newcomers to enter. More precisely, Ponzi scheme of pension needs someone or something who can give tax, no matter what the man looks like, and even a dog is all right, just pay the tax. Just because of the essence of pension, the two conditions of American immigration are either talented person who can create wealth for the United States, or rich person who can bring wealth for the United States. In short, America also need money. According to the United States Census Bureau, the Asian American population, including those of multiracial and Hispanic and Latino ancestry, had increased to 20,908,701 by 2016, which has doubled over twenty years ago. I don't know when Humanism had instilled a naive idea to human beings that "reproduction is great, or mother is great, or a woman who does not have a child is incomplete." All these propagandas are for reproduction, and the fact is nothing is great in evolution. Stop all lies about praising your mother's greatness which only encourage irresponsible breeding. Have you ever seen the movie of Capharnaüm (2018) which tell us a cruel fact that human reproduction is not because of love but only reproductive instinct and money? An American TV show, The Act (2019), which is based on a true story, tells us how murdered Missouri mom named Dee Dee Blanchard scammed the world, defrauded a lot of donations and controlled daughter named Gypsy by faking girl's health problems. Kids are no more than the cash cow for these people. The book of Half the Sky tells a truth that Africans care more about whether they can get dollars than whether their daughters to school or not. So, the best strategy for keeping girls in school is not to convince their parents that going to school is useful for girls, but give parents dollars if they keep girls going to school. Compared with Marybeth Tinning, these mothers are not too vicious because they just want money from their children, not their lives. Hong Kong pop diva Anita Mui died in 2003 of cervical cancer at age 40. In the will, Mui wrote that her money would go to a trust that would disburse HK$70,000 monthly to her mother because her mother and brother were addicted to gambling. Mui who passed away in 2003 due to cervical cancer had set up a trust fund to disburse monthly allowance to her mother and elder brother. When Anita was still alive, she even helped to settle her brother's gambling debts. Besides her mother's living expenses, Mui set aside up to HK$400,000 as university expenses for each of her brother's four children. Despite being given a monthly payment of HK$70,000, her mother, Madam Tam Mei Kam, was not contented and had attempted several times to request for more. Americans are no greater than Chinese. Vanessa Bryant gets sued by own mother after Kobe's untimely death. Sofia Laine filed a suit against her daughter Vanessa Bryant, seeking financial support on the grounds that she worked unpaid as a "longtime personal assistant and nanny" for the family for years. According to court documents obtained by People magazine, Laine has claimed that the late Kobe Bryant had "promised to take care of" his mother-in-law "for the rest of her life." In a statement posted on her Instagram Story, Vanessa Bryant accused her mother -Sofia Laine -of trying to "extort a financial windfall from our family." "I have supported her for nearly 20 years, and she was never my or Kobe's personal assistant, nor was she a nanny," Vanessa told the outlet. The 38-year-old, who previously also insisted she has continued her financial support to her mother, called the lawsuit "frivolous, disgraceful and unimaginably hurtful." Kobe's parents also troublemakers. Kobe's relationship with his parents became strained in 2013 after they attempted to auction off some memorabilia from his early career for $500,000, according to ESPN. Kobe got a court order to stop the auction, and his parents publicly apologized in a statement: "We apologize for any misunderstanding and unintended pain we have caused our son and appreciate the financial support he has provided over the years." The words that "It's the economy, stupid'' never go out of fashion, right? I can understand their parents because anyone who invests needs a return. When I first started working, my mother also thought that I should give all my salary to her to manage. But I refused. To be honest, I think animals is great than human beings from the point of individual because they don't expect any positive feedback from their offspring. More precisely: nothing can be called great in evolution, some controlled by gene egoism and some by individual egoism. The nature of pensions determines that human beings themselves become scarce resources. The threshold of reproductive rights is reduced again and again, even to negative. As I said before, zero threshold can only generate false prosperity in short-term, which will inevitably lead to confusion in the long-run. It is high time that we should distinguish bearers from carers, otherwise professionalization of reproduction tends to fill the world with those who are with stupid and defective genes because they have lower opportunity costs. Let's wait and see. Like the cost of education has been transferred from individuals to all taxpayers, and similarly, when the whole society takes all cost of children, it is the responsibility of the government to choose good genes to reproduce according to certain rules. It is logical when I have to pay for upbringing costs, I have the right to choose better genes to synthesize survival machines to support me. To put it another way, all taxpayers are shareholders, who have the rights to decide what kind of survival machine to build because they pay the price, while the government is the management and executor elected by all taxpayers. In this system, Children are not flowers but slaves. We must admit a cruel fact that slavery is a wide spread phenomenon among animals. That's the essence, the cruelest essence. In my opinion, the only way to stop the adverse elimination of genes is separation the reproductive rights from parenting function or establish a certain reproductive threshold. For all physiologists admit that the specialization of organs is an advantage to each being; and hence we also need to adopt a more specialized approach to solve this problem. I guess, in future, human beings would adopt a mixed strategy which includes two main strategies: One is you have the right to spread your genes but you have to bear all the costs; the other is you only provide your gametes, and the rest of things is none of your business related to whether selected or not, and fused with who's gametes. In other words, from individual perspective, they are professional carers, and caring the next generation which do not belong to them is only for money. I guess, in future, paying gametes is like paying taxes, which is also the price we must pay for the virtuous circle of human civilization. The existing breeding strategy will inevitably lead to a result that more and more poor people are breeding professionally. Don't forget that in a hierarchical society, poverty can be inherited just as same as genes. On the one hand, the rich will increasingly be reluctant to pay taxes to support the poor's children. According to The 80/20 Rule that the richest 20% control over 80% of the wealth. In America, one survey who owned America's wealth in 2019 showed that the top 1% owned 29%; 40% owned 30%; the bottom 50% owned 6%. It is normal thing that the top 50% is unwilling to give money to support the offspring of the bottom 50%. On the other hand, if there are more and more people at the bottom, the proletarian violent revolution will happen sooner or later. My mixed strategy can solve these two problems. On the one hand, the rich will be happy to pay taxes because they may also be raising their own children. One the other hand, it can block the inheritance of poverty. Suppose an extreme example: What would happen if every North Korean had half of Kim's genes. There is no difference between a popular election and a dictatorship. This is the highest level of Communism: the high unity of individual interests and genetic interests. Only by doing so can we maintain a positive elimination. We have already seen how it entails extinction; and how largely extinction has acted in the world's history, geology plainly declares. No one I think can have marvelled more at the extinction of species, than human have done. The race of human was already old, but man remained a child. There are only two ways in evolution: hunt or be hunted. We can regard this process as the application of the principle of selection by man's selection. Frankly speaking, artificial selection has been used for many years under domestication. According to my old rules, let's take a look at what Darwin said first in Origin of Species: Under domestication, it may truly be said that the whole organisation becomes in some degree plastic…. One of the most remarkable features in our domesticated races is that we see in them adaptation, not indeed to the animal's or plant's own good, but to man's use or fancy…. But when we compare the dray-horse and race-horse, the dromedary and camel, the various breeds of sheep fitted either for cultivated land or mountain pasture, with the wool of one breed good for one purpose, and that of another breed for another purpose; when we compare the many breeds of dogs, each good for man in different ways; when we compare the gamecock, so pertinacious in battle, with other breeds so little quarrelsome, with "everlasting layers" which never desire to sit, and with the bantam so small and elegant; when we compare the host of agricultural, culinary, orchard, and flower-garden races of plants, most useful to man at different seasons and for different purposes, or so beautiful in his eyes, we must, I think, look further than to mere variability…. The key is man's power of accumulative selection: nature gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain directions useful to him. In this sense he may be said to have made for himself useful breeds…. We see an astonishing improvement in many florists' flowers, when the flowers of the present day are compared with drawings made only twenty or thirty years ago. When a race of plants is once pretty well established, the seed-raisers do not pick out the best plants, but merely go over their seed-beds, and pull up the "rogues," as they call the plants that deviate from the proper standard. With animals this kind of selection is, in fact, likewise followed; for hardly any one is so careless as to breed from his worst animals…. I could give several references to works of high antiquity, in which the full importance of the principle is acknowledged. In rude and barbarous periods of English history choice animals were often imported, and laws were passed to prevent their exportation: the destruction of horses under a certain size was ordered, and this may be compared to the "roguing" of plants by nurserymen…. Some of these facts do not show actual selection, but they show that the breeding of domestic animals was carefully attended to in ancient times, and is now attended to by the lowest savages. It would, indeed, have been a strange fact, had attention not been paid to breeding, for the inheritance of good and bad qualities is so obvious…. We see the same process of extermination among our domesticated productions, through the selection of improved forms by man. Many curious instances could be given showing how quickly new breeds of cattle, sheep and other animals, and varieties of flowers, take the place of older and inferior kinds. In Yorkshire, it is historically known that the ancient black cattle were displaced by the long-horns, and that these "were swept away by the shorthorns" (I quote the words of an agricultural writer) "as if by some murderous pestilence." Here I agree with Keynes who tenaciously held that "we almost certainly want more planning, not less." Like Keynes, I am trying to save capitalism, not destroy it. So far, we must admit the necessity of artificial selection. Can the principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply to human ourselves? Of course, yes. In fact, we are always in selection, by rational men before but by irrational women now. Whether in violence or contract civilizations, the basic principle of selection is to eliminate unqualified genes. Anyone who forgets this will be quickly penalized by selection. That selection generally acts with extreme slowness, so we still have time to correct mistakes we have make. That is not big deal, and the real big deal is how to distinguish good gametes from bad gametes. Darwin also admitted that, selection is the magician's wand, by means of which he may summon into life whatever form and mould he pleases, and not one man in a thousand has accuracy of eye and judgment sufficient to become an eminent breeder. I have been thinking about this question for a long time, and finally prepare to resort to God's strategy as well: A mixed strategy set including female gametes with low risk and low return, and male gametes with high risk and high return. Let me put it another way, we must choose the low threshold as female qualified gametes and high threshold as male qualified gametes. Select a few healthy sperm by strict genetic testing and family medical history and so forth and so on, to fertilize the vast majority of female gametes. Is my prediction crazy? I don't think so. Contract civilization is just as cruel as violent civilization because both aiming at elimination of unqualified genes. If man wants to take the place of Creator, he must be cruel as a Creator. Only with this strategy can we achieve a balance between both genes and individual interests. After the direction is determined, the most critical question left is by what criteria. Different screening criteria will result in totally opposite selection results. For example, in analytical chemistry, liquid chromatography is a technique used to separate a sample into its individual parts. This separation occurs based on the interactions of the sample with the mobile and stationary phases. Components within a mixture are separated in a column based on each component's affinity for the mobile phase. So, if the components are of different polarities and a mobile phase of a distinct polarity is passed through the column, one component will migrate through the column faster than the other. In the mixture, who comes out first depends on what kind of stationary phase you choose. If you choose a polar stationary phase, the nonpolar material flows out of the column first; if you choose a nonpolar stationary phase, the polar material flows out of the column first. Different selection methods determine the opposite selection results. What means should we use to distinguish the level of individuals? Running speed, swimming speed, math grade or English grade? This question deserves careful consideration by later generations. The government should also think about how to deal with those rogues and hegemonists. The name of "Human rights" are useless in evolution because reproduction belongs to gene category not individual category. You must say that such a division of labor will lead to the loss of black genes, but trust me, before the loss of black genes, we are all mixed blood by the accumulation in one direction during successive generations. Maybe this is God's will because reproductive isolation principles didn't exist between different human races. Even if black people completely eliminate all white people one day, the excellent black people will also be replaced by mentally retarded, dwarf black as long as the vicious circle does not change. Everything is under the best arrangement.

i think we can argue something here? Can you tell me what assumptions i mentioned in this paper are wrong. i will response for that. Thank you! thank you for your suggestion, frankly speaking, i don't agree with lots of things Alfred Kinsey said. Thank you again. Moontanman, I hope you were right, unfortunatley, you are not. Unfortunately, the love of a good woman can get herself an real orgasm. You can understand it ,maybe because you are too ignorant. The fact is the child of time, you will see it sooner or later. I hope you can hold your opinion at that time.

As human, the main reason we study on the human sex positions is only for baby conception. Today, I want to stand in the prospective of evolution to have a look at the animals' sex positions. First, we have to know how many sex positions animals have on the earth. One is rear entry (doggie style), the other is face to face. 1, Rear entry In this position, male have the penetration into vagina behind the female. It is also called doggie style, because animals mostly have sex in this position as same as dog. Of course rear entry has lots of variation, such as the standing canine, spooning, the cuissade, and so on, but the core of these positions is penetration from the back of female. According to the people who hold the theory of penis envy, this position is good for stroking female G-spot, because penetration is quite deep in this position. I really have to admit that this position indeed offers a deep penetration during sex, but unfortunately the G-spot never exist. With the skin gone, what can the hair adhere to? 2, Face to face In this position, male penetrates female face to face. If you have ever seen other animals mating, you know that face to face position is pretty much unique to humans, so far we only find two animals who do the sex face to face: Bonobo and Chimpanzee, undoubtedly they are the closest relatives to humans we have found. Missionary position is the most popular in human, and it offers the deepest penetration thereby allowing semen to easily enter the cervix. Of course missionary position also has lots of variation, such as the lap dancing, the female superior position, the scissors position, and so on, but the core of these positions is penetrating female face to face. Do you ever think why almost animals, except human, only have the rear entry sex position? Why face to face position only happens during human, bonobo and chimpanzee? What is the difference between the two positions in evolution? What makes face to face happened on human, but not on other animals? Is face to face sex position the result of human evolution? Here I try to explain these questions step by step. First, if earth's entire history was just 24 hours long, Life on Earth (app. 3.8 Ga) 4:10 AM Metazoans (1.2 Ga?) 17:44 PM Chordates (565 Ma) 21:03 PM Land dwelling plants (475 Ma) 21:31 PM Land dwelling animals 21:46 PM Reptiles (340 Ma) 22:13 PM Dinosaurs (235 Ma) 22:46 PM Mammals (225 Ma) 22:49 PM Common ape-human ancestor (7 Ma) 23:57 PM Homo sapiens (165.000) 23:59:56,9 PM Oldest civilizations (3.500) 23:59:59,9 PM Industrial revolution (250) 23:59:59,999 ? From the history of evolution, undoubtedly the face to face sex position occurs far behind rear entry sex position, because sex reproduction occurs in 18:08 PM, but human occurs in 11:58:43 PM. So we can claim that rear entry really has a long history than face to face, and it also means face to face is really the result of evolution. Second, I think one of the reasons why face to face happens on human is that people want to see and communicate with each other during sex process, at least one side wants. It illustrates that other animals don't have the desire to see the partner during the sex. Why? Sex also ends as male ejaculation, what makes the difference between human and animals? I think the only reason is that the purposes they have sex is different. The purpose animals have sex is just for reproduction, so male only have sex with female during the estrus, maybe once a year or twice a year. In general, they mates only during female estrus. Look back to our human. Man nearly want to have sex with a woman all the time, whatever she is in estrus or not, whatever she is in fertility age or menopause age. Apparently, we can claim that human have sex not only for the reproduction, but also for some other purpose, maybe for pleasure or self sex desire. In modern time, I think reproduction is only a by-product for a man to have sex. Third, what makes human have the other purpose to have a sex rather than reproduction different from other animals? I think the answer is evolution, not only physical evolution, but also psychology evolution. In physical evolution, human is the only animals who always walk upright, and scientists think the first mammal that walked upright was the ape-like australopithecines - believed by scientists to be an ancestor of early humans – which lived about five million years ago in Africa. Walking upright significantly frees up the hands to carry objects, also creates the physical conditions for face-to-face mating. But only physical evolution is not enough in short history of human. In psychology evolution, self-awareness shows up. Frankly speaking, I am not an idealist, but I really agree with some points of Descartes. Human need more than basic physical needs which only in the first floor during Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Undoubtedly, the self-awareness of human is the strongest among all animals, then human are going to pursue the other four needs, like safety needs, social needs, esteem needs, self-actualization. Do you notice that: the higher up in the model of Maslow, the more words "Self" he used, such as self-esteem in forth floor, self-actualization top floor, and of course, self-awareness makes humans so significant difference from others. I don't mean that self-awareness can exist without brain, but the form of its existing is really different from substance, for example, if people got drunk, they were unconscious, but the brain still there. Self-awareness is going to start make human to have a clear perception of internal and external things, including personality, thoughts, beliefs, motivation, and emotions, so human began to a real evolution in comparison with other animals. As human grow in self-awareness, we will understand who we are and what we want and why we want it. So men found that they were more willing to enjoy the special pleasure during sex, not only for the original purpose: reproduction, as a species. I can claim that the phenomenon of human having sex all the time is the product of development of human self-awareness, precisely to say, just man self-awareness. Finally, sex positions evolved. Because chimpanzee females are highly promiscuous, some scientists thought chimpanzee females are more likely to achieve orgasm by mating sequentially with multiple males. This is big mistake. The main reason I think chimpanzee females can't achieve orgasm is just because they mate with multiple males sequentially. If they really have an orgasm, they must have the refractory period right after orgasm, and can't get into another mating. As a woman, I have to admit that the evolutions of man and woman are not synchronous, apparently, the evolution of female, in many areas, lagged behind male. As men, they have already walked out the trap of reproduction, but women are still trapped in the cave. Evolution is always moving forward. Human and our closest relatives are already evolved far forward than other animals, and the most significant sign is the appearance of face to face sex position, because only in this position, female have a chance to stimulate the clitoris shaft by accident, and then women's self-consciousness can be awakened. Women will know that sooner or later the true meaning of sex is "genital rubbing", the problem is that male genital is penis, but female genital is clitoris shaft, not vagina. Many times history is unfair, especially in the reproduction of species. Even we can say that the reproduction is so selfish and cruel, not only can it sacrifice the interests of other species, and also even can sacrifice some group of their own species. Fortunately, evolution is still moving forward, we are only on the middle way of long evolutionary history. Human have lots of things waiting to be changed, human females have more. It is really time for women to get out the trap of reproduction.

David Buss's theory can be summarized as sexual selection is only for reproduction, and also operates in human beings as well. He found that men and women seek out the mates, who best suit their reproductive needs. Women look for men who can give them resources and protection, and men look for women who appear best able to conceive and give birth to healthy and strong offspring. Through surveys, he found that women were more jealous of emotional infidelity while men were more jealous of sexual infidelity, so Buss hypothesized that women find emotional infidelity more threatening because it could lead to the loss of resources she have gained in that mate and would have to raise children on her own, if the mate really leaves her and has real relationships with another woman. He then hypothesized that men found sexual infidelity threatening because they could risk spending resources on a child that may not be their own. I don't deny the results of his survey, but I have to say that Buss is really misled by the results of the survey. Frankly speaking, Buss's theory is only looking for an excuse for men's sex instinct in male-dominated society where women can only be dependent on men to get her resources for survival. The biggest limitation of his theory is it is only applicable to human in the past time, but not in future. In other words, Buss's theory is only applicable to some kinds of societies like China, Japan and Korea, where men hold the dominant position, and women suffer the low status. In China, because of the lack of law, people always have the preference for sons especially in rural. Why does it happen? We have to admit that when food was scarce and violence raged, male physical advantage indeed is much larger than females, but the society like this has nothing difference from animal world. This model in these countries is definitely not the future of human beings. I think a good theory not only can explain what we know, but also can point the direction to what we don't know it yet, and we should look at Western and Northern Europe. When women can rely on their own labor and mind instead of men to get the resources to survive, when with the development of social civilization, woman can rely on social laws instead of men to protect themselves, when women realize that so-called female multiple orgasms is as shit as Communism, when women identify that they only can get real orgasm by their selves, not by men, even they don't have to take the pant off, what are women going to choose? What about men? Are they willing to take the yoke of reproduction, while they have sex every time? Is the only purpose men have sex is to reproduce? Is a man who is reluctant to reproduce any more not going to look for young and beautiful women? Absolutely not. Here are some questions proposed by the students in intimate relationships class from UCLA. I try to give my explanation to these good questions which Buss' theory can't explain well. 1 First of all, Buss's theory can not be applied to same sex relationships. Professor Benjamin Karney gives a far-fetched explanation that same sex relationships between men should be much more open, or accepting of extra relational sexual activity that same sex relationships between women. I don't think so. The central idea of Buss's theory is sexual selection is only for reproduction, as women, they want to get good resources from men to raise the babies, as men, they want to get youth and fertility to make their genes pass down. Benjamin's explanation is fact, but putting the cart before the horse. Buss's theory claims that the reason of men much more interested in having sex with multiple partners than women is men want to seek someone who can give healthy and strong offspring, but in same sex relationships between men, the only reason is not exist, we have to notice here: men are always looking for more partners than women, regardless same sex relationships or heterosexual relationships. I think looking for better mates to produce is not central reason, because the facts tell us men having more interested in have sex with multiple partners have nothing to do with reproduction. 2 What about people who wear condoms? In current society, during many sex, the purpose of men having sex is not reproduction, but only for the last sudden of few seconds pleasure, so they wear condoms in order to not make women pregnant. How do you explain that? You can't say that men don't like young and beautiful women who wear condoms every time. 3 In class, Britney asked what's going on now with attraction to really skinny women. That is very good question, Buss's theory also can't give a rational explanation. I can give you another example for this item, almost in the eyes of people around the world, Diana is much more beautiful and young than Camilla, she gave two handsome and healthy princes to Charles, but everyone knows the result Charles chose Camilla who is one year older than him. God, I hope you are not going to tell me that Charles wants to have a baby with Camilla. I firmly believe that Camilla must have some extraordinary personal charm we don't know and appreciate, but Charles does. Apparently, he chose Camilla not for reproduction. 4 If everything is only for the reproduction, I want to ask you why men also want to make love with partners in the period of no ovulation. Obviously, animals have sex only during female estrus period, but why men want to have sex in any time. Buss's theory also can't explain this difference well between human beings and animals. In summary, I don't want to deny the contributions of Buss's theory, but I think his theory just can be applied to the animal's world where the purpose of having sex is only for reproduction, but his theory is not applied to human world. Maybe that is why human with much smaller and less strong, can rule the earth, but other big and strong animals can not. Maybe the self-awareness in human being is the biggest difference from other animals during the history of human evolution. I think after I unlock the mystery of female orgasm, Buss would like to change his theory for a little bit. I my opinion, the reason why men like to have multiple sex partners is as same as food is human basic physiological needs, some people like rice very much, but if they eat rice every day, they would like to eat noodle for some fresh, but the result is always getting full. The reason why women don't have strong sex drive is women never get full, so they don't care eat this or that. What men do is human biological instincts, but women just get deceived by something. Maybe it is cruel reproduction for human beings.

I add some new pictures in my theory, i think my theory really can unlock the mystery of cause of intersex. Every case of intersex people found are all in my table 3 and table 4. No other one case of intersex you can found not in my tables. I hope you can check this article clearly. then we talk about it here. if you can see the pictures, you can check them on my blog. http://orgasmgirl.blogspot.com/2011/...ccurrence.html 1 Definition of intersex Intersex, in humans and other animals, is the presence of intermediate or atypical combinations of physical features that usually distinguish female from male. It has 4 cases . 1.1Female pseudohermaphroditism In this case the sex chromosomes are XX and the female has ovaries, but also external male sex organs (penis). 1.2Male pseudohermaphroditism They have XY as sex chromosomes, but their external organs are not fully developed or they are completely female on the outside. 1.3 True hermaphroditism While the above were "pseudohermaphroditism", meaning they are mostly male or mostly female, in this case there are both testicles and ovaries. 1.4 Complex or Undetermined Intersex Disorders –Many chromosome configurations other than simple 46 XX or 46 XY can result in disorders of sex development. These include 45, XO (only one X chromosome), and 47, XXY, 47, XXX -- both cases have an extra sex chromosome, either an X or a Y. These disorders do not result in an intersex condition where there is discrepancy between internal and external genitalia. 2 Reasons of intersex As is known to all, Chromosomal crossing-over is an exchange of genetic material between homologous chromosomes. It is one of the final phases of genetic recombination, which occurs during prophase I of meiosis in a process called synapsis. Synapsis begins before the synaptonemal complex develops, and is not completed until near the end of prophase I. Crossover usually occurs when matching regions on matching chromosomes break and then reconnect to the other chromosome. But experts thought that the crossing-over just occurs during Non-sister chromatids in 22 pairs of autosomes, but sex chromosomes often remain unpaired, because the X and Y chromosomes are very different from each other in their genetic composition. That is the key point of intersex. Physical exchange of homologous chromosomal regions by homologous recombination during prophase I is absolute, and Non-exchange is relative. It is easy to understand, as same as the movement is absolute, and static is relative. Intersex is the typical results of crossing-over between X and Y chromosomes. Precisely, intersex is just only one typical result of numerous possibilities caused by crossing-over between X and Y chromosomes. I think there are wealth of contents in X and Y chromosomes, not only unitary control boy or girl. Here I am going explain them one by one case. 2.1 Case 1 Female pseudohermaphroditism when the father' sex chromosomes have crossing-over during meiosis I, the Y chromosome give some chromatid segments to X chromosome, and get some alleles back, which only control the offspring have a small clitoris or a big penis, but not control other information. Then the father gives his exchanged Xf chromosome to his daughter then his daughter has XmXf chromosomes, but she indeed has male penis instead of female clitoris. Here, Xm means X chromosome with some male reproductive traits, and Xf means X chromosome with whole female reproductive traits. There is another key factor that all the genes that control sex trait are dominant inheritance. As a result, the daughter' Xm chromosome from her mother can't express out, and she only can express dominant trait from his father's exchanged Xf chromosome. The result is the girl has a male penis. 2.2 Case 2 male pseudohermaphroditism It is as same as case 1, but the father gives his exchanged Yf chromosome to his son. Although, his son has XfYf chromosomes, he indeed has female clitoris instead of male penis, because the genes whatever in Xf chromosome from his mother or exchanged Yf chromosome from his father are invisible inheritance. The result is the boy don't have male penis, though he has XfYf chromosomes. Here, Yf means Y chromosome with some female reproductive traits. We can say that the above "pseudohermaphroditism" 'culprits are the fathers. More specifically, where did Father's genes come from? Of course from grandparents. In other words, Female pseudohermaphroditism- the grandfather' part of sex genes inherited to granddaughter through his son, and granddaughter expressed male trait from her grandfather' genes. Male pseudohermaphroditism- the grandmother's part of sex genes inherited to grandson through her son, and grandson expressed female trait from his grandmother' genes, not from his mother. I think this point is very important for researching intersex. The above two kinds of ambiguous genitalia is the result of allelic exchange between X chromosome and Y chromosome. The people in this situation whatever Female pseudohermaphroditism or Male pseudohermaphroditism have 46 chromosomes and can produce germ cells. Because the probability of crossing-over occurrence during sex chromosomes is very small, we can ignore the crossing-over again. The following is their offspring genes tape after affected father with normal mother (Table 1) and normal father with affected mother (Table 2). 2.3 Case 3 true hermaphroditism This extreme example of hermaphroditism is quite rare. I am not so sure, I guess it is also due to the crossing-over partial occurrence between X chromosome and Y chromosome, but not allelic exchange, it is non-allelic crossing-over between sex chromosomes. As the result, the people also have 46 chromosomes, but the sex chromosome must have structural abnormalities. A portion of the chromosome is duplicated, resulting in extra genetic material instead of a portion of the same chromosome is missing or deleted. The sex trait the people expressed is they have the 2 homologous organs. 2.4 In case 4 complex or Undetermined Intersex Disorders This situation can't be explained by crossing-over between sex chromosomes and I think it is related to uneven division during Meiosis I or Meiosis II. In Anaphase Meiosis I, the centromere breaks, but sex homologous chromosomes not separate, and go to one of two haploid daughter cells together (Figure 1 and Figure 4). In Anaphase Meiosis II, the centromeres break, but sister chromatids not separate to haploid daughter cells (Figure 2 and Figure 5). Figure 3 and Figure 6 are both uneven division in Meiosis I and Meiosis II. Figure 1 The type of gametes with father's Meiosis I uneven division but Meiosis II even division Figure 2 The type of gametes with father's Meiosis I even division but Meiosis II uneven division Figure 3 The type of gametes with father's Meiosis I and II both uneven division Figure 4 The type of gametes with mother's Meiosis I uneven division but Meiosis II even division Figure 5 The type of gametes with mother's Meiosis I even division but Meiosis II uneven division Figure 6 The type of gametes with mother's Meiosis I and II both uneven division Due to very small proportion of abnormal gametes, there is very low probability to meet between two abnormal gametes. So we can ignore this situation, and just research on the case which is one is normal the other is abnormal. Table 3 shows us the offspring's gene tape with abnormal father's gamete mated normal mother's gamete, and table 4 is the offspring's gene tape with normal father's gamete mated abnormal mother's gamete. It is noteworthy that the all gene types with red color have been found already, not only this, so far people didn't find any another sex-chromosome Anomaly not in my table 2 and table 3. I think that is very strong evidence to my theory. About why does YO not existence? I think the reason must be related to the gene with YY not exist neither. 3 Conclusions I think sex chromosomes not only determine sex, they also have genes for many functions we don't know yet. There is no absolute male and female. Physical exchange of homologous chromosomal is absolute, and Non-exchange is relative. Intersex person is just one of us. Notice here: the gene type with black normal in Table 3 and 4. It means maybe you are the reproduction of uneven division both in Meiosis I Meiosis II, if you are with so-called normal genes. Maybe lesbian, gay and bisexual are all because of crossing-over during sex chromosomes. I think it is the real reason for intersex. Waiting for your reply here. please use your logical way and use your head.

The role of Hormone in Sex determination and differentiation if you can't see the pictures, you can see my full article here The role of Hormone in Sex determination and differentiation http://orgasmgirl.bl...ermination.html Sex hormone is another thorny issue in my theory system. Here firstly I want to claim that intersexuality, transgender, homosexuality and shemale are totally different conception in nature. Intersexuality is identified as ambiguous genitals, commonly has a large clitoris or small penis. The reason is that crossing-over partial occurrence between X and Y chromosomes during father's meiosis period then lead his offspring to be an intersex. Intersex is controlled by natural gene from parents, not by any sex hormones. Transgender is identified who doesn't identity his/her born gender, and do the surgery to artificially change the appearance, but not the genes. It obviously includes the psychological aspects, not only in the physiology. Not considering surgery (modern medicine), transgender is only identified as non-self-identity in psychology, and his/her body is as normal as male/female. I think psychological problem is also controlled by the natural gene. Homosexuality is identified as who only loves the same gender as him/her self. It can be divided into two situations: 1, self-identity, it means he/she identifies him/her self as the born gender. 2, non-self-identity, it means he/she doesn't identifies him/her self as the born gender, he/she wants to be the other gender. Shemale is different from the three above. Famous shemales are always from Thailand, and most of them were from poor families and injected external estrogen when childhood. Ten years later, the male physical characteristics will gradually shrink, such as the male penis will become short and small, and the skin becomes nourish, the breast uplift. They look like as same as a normal female, but the genes they have is also XY. Today I want to talk about the role of sex hormone which really suffered injustice. Human have two sex characteristics, one is called primary sexual characteristic, and the other is secondary sex characteristic. 1, Shape and structure of male and female genitals is called the primary sexual characteristic, decided by genetic material - chromosomes. It has been basically complete at the birth. 2, only the secondary sex characteristic is the result of sex hormones' function in human. There are almost no morphological differences between boys and girls before their puberty, although boys and girls still have testis and ovary. When entering puberty, the difference between men and women begin to appear with the increase of sex hormone levels. Estrogens are produced primarily by developing follicles in the ovaries, the corpus luteum, and the placenta. Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) stimulates the production of estrogen in the granulosa cells of the ovaries. Male levels of testosterone directly induce growth of the testicles and penis and indirectly (via dihydrotestosterone (DHT) the prostate. Estradiol and other hormones cause breasts to develop in females. We can use logic way to reconsider that we can control the gender, if we think hormone is the key to intersex. If you want a boy, you can inject androgen from the beginning of your pregnant, and if you want a girl, you can inject estrogen. Do you think so? Absolutely not, it is so absurd. Hormone can do nothing in primary sexual characteristic. Primary sexual characteristic abnormal is only caused by genes. This is a causal question: Who decides who? Genes decide intersex or normal organs, then organs decide sex hormones secretion normal or abnormal. I can give you another classic example here. There are some eunuchs in Chinese ancient palace whose penis and testis have been removed since he was little boy. I think the sex hormone in eunuch's body have been in balance, neither androgen nor estrogen can prevail over each other. Notice here, these eunuchs are different from shemales, eunuchs don't have testis, it means they can't produce androgen, but they are not injected the external estrogen, so they neither show the male secondary sex characteristic, nor the female secondary sex characteristic. They look like enlarged version of little boy. The shemale is in different way. They still have penis and testis on his body, but they are injected estrogen since little boy, when entering puberty, they don't show male secondary sex characteristic, but female secondary sex characteristic. Why do this happen? I think injection estrogen has destroyed the male normal sexual path, and secondary sex characteristic can't be shown out under so much external estrogen, but they show some female secondary sex characteristic, such as breast uplift, slim waist and wide hips so forth and so on. They still have penis, testis, and scrotum, and penis can't become into clitoris shaft, and scrotum still in fusion together can't get into separated two piece labia majora, and the middle line is still in scrotum. People always identify shemale as female, yes, they do look as same as female, but they are not real female and still have XY chromosomes. I made two pictures to illustrate the relationship between hormone and genes. The above picture is the curve of human with XY chromosomes under different sex hormone. We can consider the black solid line as male physical normal development, and the red dotted line as shemale development. Androgen and estrogen almost get balance in blue dotted box, it also means the children whatever boys or girls before adolescence are under neutral appearance in the blue box, and you can't even distinguish them by their face. When the androgen dominates, the boys get into masculinization, when the estrogen dominates, the boys get into shemale. Here I use anti-masculinization instead of feminization as same idea as particle and anti-particle, because I think if we use prefix "fe-" in the front of a word, it means she must be a she with XX, not XY. Masculinization and anti-masculinization here mean that the natures of them are same, just with different manifestations, as same as particle and anti-particle in physics. <br style="mso-ignore:vglayout" clear="ALL"> Contrarily, the above picture is the curve of human with XX chromosomes under different sex hormone as the same idea as previous picture. We can consider the black solid line as female physical normal development, and the red dotted line as hefemale development. When the estrogen dominates, the girls get into feminization, when the androgen dominates, the girls get into hefemale. Here I use anti-feminization instead of masculinization, because I think if we use prefix "male-" in the front of a word, it means he must be a he with XY, not XX. Feminization and anti-feminization here mean that the natures of them are same, just with different manifestations.

if you can't see the pictures, full article here Is there a really big sex gap between male and female? http://orgasmgirl.bl...ap-between.html My link if you are interested in the research on female orgasm, contact me. clumsygirls@hotmail.com Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus. Most of common relationship problems people think between two genders are that they come from distinct planets. The way males fall in love is with their eyes, and the way females fall in love is with their ears. Male maybe can't understand in his whole life why so many women are full of vanity and comparing with other women. Women also feel inconceivable why men are so addicted to sex and beautiful young women. I am very serious to say that it is because they live in different frequencies and share the different values. The reason why women suffer vanity is that they are with empty soul, not only lose their selves, but also live in other people's evaluation, discussions and praise. The reason why men are addicted to sex so much is that they only care about their own like or dislike and do not care about other people's evaluation or discussion. Frankly speaking, men are rational, and women are irrational. Male logic is more conform to the principles of game theory than female. Here I am not going to talk about the details why female are irrational, in short, women always can't get the central idea of things including sex. Here I want to talk about there is a really big sex gap between male and female from the different genital pictures, when the God created human beings. 1, What can we get from external genitalia anatomy what we called deformity? The above picture is a comparison of the normal and abnormal female genital. Apparently, so-called abnormal female genital looks like a little boy's genitals, with an enlarged clitoris, urethra and vagina fused into one tube, two labia fused together into scrotum with a raphe in the middle. Notice here, there is also a raphe there in normal man. It shows that two pieces of scrotum didn't stick together at the beginning, but with the development of the fetus, two pieces get into fusion together. Female genital deformity, for some reasons so far unknown, just develop into the other side of gender in fertilized egg development process. It is easy to see that clitoris and penis are homologous, labia and scrotum are homologous. The above picture is male genital feminization. We can obviously see that the penis with under developed didn't grow out of the main body, and two pieces of scrotum didn't get fusion successfully in fertilized egg development process for some reasons. This abnormal male genital looks very similar with normal female genital. The above is the development of male and female external genitalia, it is clear that in the process of development, male and female genitals are both from the same organization and structure at the beginning. Only during the development, men and women have the different ways to develop. About why women and men suffer feminization and masculinization, many experts believe that the changes of virilization or feminization are due to androgen or estrogen. I have no idea, if so, I have a question: why the probability of abnormal genital is so low? Because the androgen or estrogen is a concept of quantitative, and every body has both, only in different proportion, how do you define the proportion? If hormone is the real reason to lead deformity, the incidence of deformity should not be so low. I don't know that, but I think there is another possibility, in the process of father's spermatogonia meiosis, some genital gene fragments of the XY chromosomes have allelic exchange partly, as the result is the gametes X or Y is not pure as normal and they get some gene fragments originally not belong to them. However, due to the male once ejaculate thousands of sperm, and the proportion of so-called abnormal sperm is very low compared with normal sperm, so it reduces very low probability of ambiguous genitalia. I think it would be a rational reason. The left picture above is a normal female vulva anatomy, the right one is that I add something according to my situation (PS: I thought I am normal, but I just thought). I have a strong shaft up to the forefront of my pubis. Every time, I need to rub my shaft rhythmically to get my orgasm. What's more important, I can feel a little ball obviously in my right labia majora, and the left one is smaller than the right one. The location of the ball is slightly higher than clitoris, but lower than the other side of my shaft. Not only a ball, I also can feel a stem up attached to the ball. It feels like the stem to an apple, I can say that the ball grow out of my body. Do you think that is very interesting? Yes, I think so. Let me try another perspective. 2, What can we get from internal genitalia anatomy As it is known to all, males can't ejaculate and urinate at the same time. Current theory claimed that male body has a system that keeps it from being able to ejaculate and urinate at the same time. During sexual arousal, muscles at the base of the bladder contract in order to close off the passageway from the bladder into the urethra, the tube through which urine and semen leave the body. This makes it impossible for urine to be released during ejaculation. So, men can feel free to relax and go with the flow, because they don't pee when they come. For women, things are more complicated, it is easy to confuse the sensation of impending orgasm with the urge to pee. This is more common that women suffer urinary stress incontinence when approaching orgasm. Simply, women are really confused by the wrong feeling. In fact, female also can't ejaculate and urinate at the same time, because women also have a valve to keep it from being able to ejaculate and urinate at the same time. You will feel incredible, but it is a fact. Moreover, this valve not only can prevent women peeing during sex, but also can prevent women peeing right after the orgasm immediately, and women would obviously feel they need to wait for a few seconds to open somewhere hard to release the urine. A lot of people claim that urinary incontinence is female ejaculation. I think this theory is absurd and stupid. This is all because people can't figure out what a real female orgasm yet.

Hi，everyone, let me introduce myself first, i am a Master, female. I study female orgasm and sex behavior. As you know, female orgasm remains an evolutionary mystery, whatever from Freud to Kinsey, sometimes someone said G- spot really exist, and sometimes someone said G-spot never exist, the Clitoris is the only organ to give female an orgasm. but so far no one can give an conclusion for female orgasm. What i am doing now is going to end this situation and give the truth to the public, that will be a big bomb for everyone whatever men or women, and it really open a new area in science. Due to the less instruments i have, i need someone's coorperation in characterizing the feature between female and male orgasm. request: 1, Male (I need do the contract experiments between your orgasm and my orgasm) 2, Master or Doctor who study sex behavior, or Neural conduction, or Brain imaging technique. 3, Who has a spirit of questioning to the old concept, not repeat word for word what others say. I am not a porn worker, I am very sincere to invite you. This study is very important not only for women, but also for human being. it will help us to know the nature of sex. i am real the one as your sincere partner, i hope you are also the one for me. i state here we share the results of the experiments together. any interests or questions, ask me. clumsygirls@hotmail.com

At present, there are a number of research labs that are focused on the creation of cells that are genetically male but have been produced from eggs. Alternately, they are also trying to create sperm from female eggs. If the research proves to work, the consequences are particularly important for gay and lesbian couples that wish to have children. The idea is an extremely controversial one that mixes in with politics, religion and ethics. The experiment was widely reported in the news but has not yet been published or successfully replicated, the work does still show that potential for same-sex reproduction exists, and it will likely spur further research in this area. The reproductive revolution is really already in progress. Is same-sex reproduction really possible? I think we should figure out the nature of reproduction first. Theoretically, the human reproduction just requires the fusion of two haploid gametes, and then cell development into a baby under certain conditions. I will elaborate the possibility of same-sex reproduction from two different thinking. 1, the thinking of Surrogacy There are 2 types of surrogate mother: complete surrogacy and partial surrogacy. Partial surrogacy is not true surrogacy, and what I mention here is complete surrogacy. Complete surrogacy: to use consignor couple's sperm and eggs, implanting into surrogate mother's womb then through artificial insemination till the birth of baby. In the whole process, surrogate mother only rents out uterus, no any gene relationship between baby and her. When we talked about reproduction before meiosis was discovered and described for the first time in sea urchin eggs in 1876 by the German biologist Oscar Hertwig, people always linked a man, a woman and sex together. On July 25, 1978, Louise Joy Brown, after the world's first successful "test-tube" baby was born in Great Britain, people realized reproduction doesn't require a man, a woman and sexual behavior between them , but only need sperm, egg and uterus. In this process, sperm replaced a man, and a woman divided into an egg and uterus (as carrier), and sex can be abandoned. We can follow this line of thought and continue to dig deep. The nature of sperm is human haploid nucleus, and an egg can be divided into a haploid nucleus and a shell with enough nutrients and energy but without any nucleus. In my view, the egg without nucleus is another form of surrogate mother, one is considered from a macro perspective, and the other is from a micro perspective, and both of them share the same nature and just provide a place and nutrients and energy required for the cell development. I think, maybe one day, the shell and uterus both can be replaced by some complete set of reproduction mechanisms, and this reproductive system can total replace all certain conditions for a child. In that time, parents just only need to provide two gamete nuclei of them, and female polar body also can be used as same as egg. 2, the thinking of Cloning Techniques Cloning Techniques: Nuclear transfer involves transferring the nucleus from a diploid cell to an unfertilised egg cell from which the maternal nucleus has been removed. The egg and donor cell are normally fused and the 'reconstructed embryo' activated by a short electrical pulse, and allowed to develop into an embryo, and the embryo is then implanted into a surrogate. We can also use this thinking of cloning techniques on the same-sex reproduction. In this method, two haploid nuclei from two different people are injected into an egg that has had its nucleus removed, and then make them fused three together using some specific method or stimulus in order to develop into an embryo, and the embryo is then implanted into a surrogate. This method is really possible in theory, but so far, we just don't find a suitable reproductive system to replace an egg and uterus, we still should use a woman as a surrogate. In this whole process, we use the two gametes from two people after meiosis themselves, it means recombination occurs freely and allele exchange freely, the offspring is also have diversity. We just control the fusion of two nucleuses, but not the production of gametes, in order to avoid the trouble with some kinds of trigger stem cell into spermatogonia or oogonia and then force them meiosis. I know same sex reproduction is a complicated one in terms of political, religious and ethical controversy, but to have descendants keeping parents genes continue to exist in the world should be the common consensus for the human being, whatever straight or gay couples, they do also enjoy the same human rights. Except these artificial resistances, same sex reproduction also has a fatal gender problem. Two female gametes fusion, of course, only can have a baby girl. But what about two male gametes fusion? There are 3 kinds of situations after that. Baby girl is 25 percents, baby boy is 50 percents, and another baby (I don't know how to call) is 25 percents. What if the YY can survive? Is YY super manly? I don't know. I think this would be a really interesting subject. As technology advances, i think it is not difficult for human being to do same sex reproduction. In my opinion, everyone has the right to choose their own way of life, without affecting the others.

if you can't see the charts, you can see them in my blog. Almost all husbands are complaining that their wives have the low sexual drive and never initiate sex with them, and of course they can't get enough satisfactory from their wives. The low sex drive in women becomes the main excuse for men's cheating, and all women are also stuck by this problem. Many explanations have been given to this problem. Some experts say women were born with low sex drive, and some say women don't deserve the high sex desire, because the value of women existence is reproduction, and some say woman's desire for sex is based on a complex interaction of many components affecting intimacy, including physical well-being, emotional well-being, experiences, beliefs, lifestyle and current relationship. A wide range of illnesses, physical changes, medications and hormone levels may change desire for sex. According to sex educator and researcher Beverly Whipple in her circular Model proposed in 1997, she demonstrated that pleasant and satisfying sexual experiences may have a reinforcing effect on a woman, leading to the seduction phase of the next sexual experience. If, during reflection, the sexual experience did not provide pleasure and satisfaction, the woman may not have a desire to repeat the experience. Hers view itself is not wrong, but unfortunately the main point is women not only never got real satisfaction, but also they have no idea what they really need. Whipple' theory gives me some inspiration about how to describe human sex desire accurately. Here, I propose a new view based on Pavlov's classical conditioning and Skinner's operant conditioning to give people a real reason for women' low sex drive. Key concepts of Pavlov's classical conditioning Unconditioned Stimulus (UCS): A stimulus that elicits a response without conditioning. In Pavlov's typical research this UCS was food. Unconditioned Response (UCR): Automatic response elicited by the unconditioned stimulus (UCS). In Pavlov's typical research this UCR was salivation. Conditioned Stimulus (CS): A neutral stimulus that when paired with an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) elicits a similar response. In Pavlov's typical research this CS was bell. Conditioned Response (CR): A response that is learned by pairing the originally neutral conditioned stimulus (CS) with the unconditioned stimulus (UCS). In Pavlov's typical research this CR was dog would salivate at the bell. All his researches were based on unconditioned stimulus can elicit unconditioned response. Chart 1 is the core of Pavlov's theory. Pavlov's study is forward extension, depended on the chart 1. He tried to find whether something else like a neutral stimulus can elicit an unconditioned response except an unconditioned stimulus (ie 2). Before paired with an unconditioned stimulus, a conditioned stimulus can't elicit an unconditioned response (ie 3). Before learning During learning Higher order conditioning Complex higher order conditioning After learning In classical conditioning, Pavlov modified or replaced the stimulus that leads to a given response by a different stimulus, and he described an involuntary or automatic response to a stimulus. But important thing is Pavlov didn't do a test - what would happen, if the dog didn't get the food after every time it already salivated. In other words, the classical conditioning theory ignored the research about "reward" after dog had UCR. This problem is the key to explain why women suffer Low sex drive. I guess here the UCR is not extinct, whatever dog get a reward or not, and it means dog still have salivation, even though can't get food every time. The reason I will explain later. Skinner's study is backwards extension after a response (ie 8). In his "Skinner Box", he found positive reinforcement strengthens a behavior by providing a consequence an individual finds rewarding. The consequence of receiving food if rats pressed the lever ensured that they would repeat the action again and again (ie 9). When a particular stimulus-response pattern is reinforced (rewarded), the individual is conditioned to respond. Reinforcement is the key element in Skinner's operant conditioning. Operant conditioning is distinguished from classical conditioning in that operant conditioning deals with the modification of "voluntary behavior" or operant behavior. In my own opinion, the combination of these two theories just can explain why women suffer low sex drive. Let me analyze the difference of sex drive between male and female one by one, and why men have higher sex drive than women. The main problem is in the women, not in men. Male sexual cycle is a complete closed (ie 10). UCS is genital touch directly, and UCR is penis erection. Unconditioned response (erection) elicited by the unconditioned stimulus (genital touch directly). The only reward male can get is orgasm. Because man can get an orgasm as reward during a sex action like rat gets food after press the lever, they have high desire to repeat the action again and again. Positive reinforcement strengthens male sex action by providing a consequence man finds rewarding. That is the key why men have so high sex desire. After repeat this closed cycle again and again, some conditioned stimulus like porn or some neutral stimulus even not related to sex at all successfully paired with an unconditioned stimulus (genital touch directly) also can elicits a similar response(penis erection). That is why so many things can hook men up and men can think about sex every 15 seconds. That is a normal phenomenon. Why do women have low sex drive? Unfortunately, female sexual cycle is not closed (ie 11). In other words, women can't get orgasm as reward is the key why women suffer low sex drive. After time and time again, punishment will weaken or eliminate female sex action by not providing a consequence as male' orgasm. As time goes by, women think sex is a chore and have no interest in it. Because female sexual cycle is not closed, women never get a normal physical satisfaction at all, no more talking about some other neutral stimulus, of course the consequence is behavior which is not reinforced tends to die out or be extinguished. Skinner's theory said when using consequences to modify a response, the effectiveness of a consequence can be increased or decreased by various factors. These factors can apply to either reinforcing or punishing consequences. I think this view just can explain some different phenomena between men and women. 1 Satiation/Deprivation: The effectiveness of a consequence will be reduced if the individual's "appetite" for that source of stimulation has been satisfied. This point just can explain why men will lose interest in sex immediately, when after they get an orgasm, because men's "appetite" for sex has already been satisfied like the dog is not going to eat anymore if already full, until it gets hungry again. 2 Immediacy: After a response, how immediately a consequence is then felt determines the effectiveness of the consequence. More immediate feedback will be more effective than less immediate feedback. This point just can explain why men don't want be distracted after he already have an erection, because long time interval maybe will make the response failure. A proverb: strike while the iron is hot. 3 Contingency: If a consequence does not contingently (reliably, or consistently) follow the target response, its effectiveness upon the response is reduced. This point just can explain why men always are players and like the new and loathe the old, because the same sex with same people will reduce their desire for sex. 4 Size: This is a "cost-benefit" determinant of whether a consequence will be effective. If the size, or amount, of the consequence is large enough to be worth the effort, the consequence will be more effective upon the behavior. These opposing expected consequences (reinforcing and punishing) balance out will determine whether the behavior is performed or not. This point can explain why men always work hard in sex, not for the women, for themselves. Because the consequence of a sex (orgasm) is men's core interests, of course they think it is large enough to be worth exhaustion. This point is also why women offer low sex drive, because they can't find the core benefit (orgasm) during a sex, of course they don't want to waste any time, any strength or any energy to do such a thing. The pursuit of orgasm is a subjective skeletal muscle activity and required to pay the cost, not like the passive salivary secretion Use Thorndike's law of effect to explain why such difference sex desire and drive between female and male, and why difficult woman have orgasm. Responses that produce a satisfying effect in a particular situation become more likely to occur again in that situation. Responses that produce a discomforting effect become less likely to occur again in that situation. Now I am going to answer previous question- I didn't do any experiments on dog, but I think dog still have salivation until dead, even though can't get any food. It is because unconditioned response (UCR) elicited by the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) is controlled by animals born nervoussystem, not by animals themselves. The animal's physiological instinct response must exist, until the nervous system is cut off. (Like sham feeding in Pavlov's experiment, Pavlov cut off the dog's fibers of the vagus nerve, and then secretion of gastric juice stopped). Women's problem is similar to the dog's. Women also have the UCR (like arousal, vaginal moistness and clitoris shaft erection), when they passively accept the genital stimulus directly, even though they can't get the reward (orgasm). Women are unwilling to accept the stimulation subjectively, no more talking about the foundation between UCR and CR, because all their efforts for sex are futile. I know Skinner's theory had his own disadvantage, he did not consider the animal's emotional factors. If a man loves his wife so much, maybe he doesn't have a sex with other woman who already hooks him up, but it doesn't mean the man don't want to, it just means he can't. I think if we add too much emotional factors to the research on human's basic activities, it will make the situation too complicated. In my opinion, this is unnecessary. Any complex situation is superimposed by a series of simple cases, but just the composite process is complex, mutual restraint and recycled. It may confuse people to know the nature of complex things. Finally, I agree with one of Skinner's views very much - The best way to understand behavior is to look at the causes of an action and its consequences. I can just post less than 10 charts, so i post my last here. My link if you are also interested in the area, contact me. clumsygirls@hotmail.com

if you can't see the charts, please see my blog. Recently, a friend of mine from Portugal gave me some advice about my new theory of female orgasm, although what he said are more platitude and useless, but he indeed gave me some clues about female sexual response model. I check on the internet for all about female sexual response models, and there are three in all. 1, Linear Model by Masters and Johnson in 1966 2, Circular Model by Beverly Whipple and Brash-McGreer in 1997 3, Non-linear Model by Basson R I analyze advantages and disadvantages of these three models one by one and finally construct my own female sexual response model. Excuse my rudeness, and I don't mean to offend anyone, just for the sake of discussion. Linear Model (Masters and Johnson in 1966) Advantages: They proposed this Linear model of sexual response for both men and women and assumed that men and women have similar sexual responses. Their assumption is absolute correct, but unfortunately the later generations completely deny this and consequently make the female orgasm as a mystery for decades. Disadvantages: 1, Linear Model denies the uniqueness of female orgasm and believes the different responses different women may have or an individual woman may have on different occasions. I wonder how they get such a conclusion, since they already assume that men and women have similar sexual responses. Do they also believe that an individual man may have different sexual response pattern? The conclusion they got to the assumption they proposed is a paradox. 2, they think orgasm for women is an occasional occurrence and Beverly Whipple helps them to explain that women may not even experience all of the phases-for example, they may move from sexual arousal to orgasm and satisfaction without experiencing sexual desire, or they can experience desire, arousal, and satisfaction but not orgasm. This explanation is a bigger mistake. Female sexual response if without orgasm is not complete. Women are just as a sex tool, if they can't experience orgasm during every sex. Does she believe that orgasm for men can also be an occasional occurrence? Nonsense!!! 3, this model is an ideal model, and don't consider the environmental factors, so Masters and Johnson don't add the concept of distraction and circulation to this model. 4, The Refractory period is not reflected on the curve. Of course they never expect that female also have refractory period. They didn't mention the repulsion between two orgasms, no matter in one person, or in two persons. A person can not get two orgasms at the same time, and two persons can't get their own orgasms from each other at the same time. Circular Model (Beverly Whipple and Brash-McGreer in 1997) Advantages: They add the concept of circulation to the model. Disadvantages: Circulation of this model shows how pleasure and satisfaction during one sexual experience can lead to the seduction phase of the next sexual experience. This Sentence itself is not wrong, but this circulation is built on a wrong foundation, which considers women can get multiple orgasms during one intercourse. This is the biggest mistake. Only a complete sexual experience with orgasm can lead women to the next sexual desire, of course must after refractory period. Women never have the ability to get multiple orgasms, and Beverly' wrong view mislead people to a wrong direction. Non-linear Model (Basson R) Advantages: Except the circulation, this model proposes other two important concepts: physical satisfaction (orgasm) and emotional satisfaction (a feeling of intimacy and connection with a partner). Disadvantages: Basson clarifies that the goal of sexual activity for women is not necessarily orgasm but rather personal satisfaction. His argument completely strangles the importance of orgasm and overestimates emotional satisfaction and intimacy during sexual life for women. He seriously ignores physical satisfaction (orgasm) is also irreplaceable for women as same as men. I want to ask all males: do you think intimacy can replace orgasm in your sex? I think all answers are negative. If push males to pick the one from the two, I bet they all choose the orgasm, not intimacy, of course men want them both. Frankly speaking, men are already lucky enough compared to women, because so far women don't figure out the two options. The three models are not accurate to describe the real female sexual response, I construct a new model, and let me illustrate in details. Sexual Response Level Firstly, I should pronounce that every woman can respond to sexual stimulation as same as every man, although there is no exact same sexual response between any two individuals, but the basic pattern is shared by all human beings, regardless of gender. This mode is not only for women, but also for all human being. In order to describe the sexual response accurately, I add the concept of the flow chart to my model, the green lines represent the whole process of sexual response. During T1, at the beginning, human is in daily life, and the sexual response level is in normal and not aroused yet. During T2, frankly speaking, desire depends on the body's instincts. A view of Beverly Whipple (satisfaction during one sexual experience can lead to the seduction phase of the next sexual experience) was right, but the problem is women never get satisfaction without orgasm, that is why women think sex is a chore, and why men always initiate sex with women but women don't, and why men think about sex every 15 seconds but women can't. I bet women will also think about sex every 10 seconds, if every time women can have orgasm. During T3, in short, this is a preparation process. When a woman has the desire and wants to put it into practice, she needs someone or something to hook her up in physical. Many things can make women have excitement, such as smell, voice, words and porn. At this time, psychological factors play a decisive role in this phase and the fantasies are really helpful, then body starts to have some changes. The most obvious sign of sexual excitement in the male is the erection of his penis, and the most obvious sign of sexual excitement in female is lubrication of the vagina, but all people ignore the other important sign in female - erection of clitoral shaft. The length of T3 is related to your age, physical condition, and how urgency. When women are very young and good health, T 3→0 Of course we can put T2 and T3 together. When women get aroused suddenly by an accident someone or something very special, T23→0. Women can feel distension and nerve beating of clitoral right way, and then can't move legs anymore. She should only just stand there, until the strong feelings gone, and then she comes back to the normal level T1. When women already in T23, but she thinks it is not the right time to do this things or she is distracted by something or someone, she can give up the original plan and comes back to the normal, of course she can repeat it again during T23 itself. During T4, this is a brewing process. When woman's physical and psychological are ready, she is going to take action. She will twist ass unconsciously and squeeze the clitoral shaft with a proper rhythm and power. Fantasies also play a decisive role here. At the beginning of phase plateau, the slope of the curve is approximately zero, but as the acceleration of the movement, the slope rapidly becomes larger. The curve quickly gets high, and this time she feels her body almost out of her control, and she must stop to squeeze the clitoral and have a break, if she doesn't want to orgasm quickly. She stops for a while or Change position to make the curve back to the beginning of phase plateau or T23, of course, she can come back to the normal, but it is so hard for her. When she finds the game is enough and wants to get the last shudder of climax, she can't stop and should continue to accelerate and accelerate more and more, then she orgasms. The length of T4 is related to your age, physical condition and how long you orgasm the last time. Women also need longer to orgasm than the last time, if she gets several orgasms during one night. Be careful, Very serious consequences. During T5 and T6, both of them are very short. Orgasm almost lasts about 7 seconds, and the curve during T6 falls down instantaneously, then after that women fall into sleep immediately. The most visible physiological change during this period is the loss of erection of clitoral shaft. During T7, women enter the refractory period, and she loses her all interests about sex immediately and just need to sleep. In this phase, she can't get aroused and the capability to another erection or another orgasm. She couldn't concentrate her attention any more, even though she doesn't have the conditions to sleep, until this period of time has elapsed. Women just come back to normal, and have the capability to get into another sex again.The refractory period may be very short in some individuals, especially while they are young, but it usually becomes longer with advancing age. if you are also interested in this area, you can contact me.

Crossing-over partial occurrence between X chromosome and Y chromosome is the key of intersex. I have contacted almost all of the so-called female orgasm researchers and organizations, but no one trusted me. Why such a fact is so difficult to accept by people? Why do they insist on a false and illusory assumption that women can have multiple orgasms? What I wrote are all facts, but```````. I am not an expert in intersex, but I propose a new theory here about intersex to help you to understand female orgasm better. Intersex , in humans and other animals, is the presence of intermediate or atypical combinations of physical features that usually distinguish female from male. It has 4 cases. 1. Female pseudohermaphroditism – In this case the sex chromosomes are XX and the female has ovaries, but also external male sex organs (penis). 2. Male pseudohermaphroditism – They have XY as sex chromosomes, but their external organs are not fully developed or they are completely female on the outside. 3. True hermaphroditism – While the above were "pseudohermaphroditism", meaning they are mostly male or mostly female, in this case there are both testicles and ovaries. These people can appear anywhere from females with a large clitoris to those with male external organs. 4. Complex or Undetermined Intersex Disorders –Many chromosome configurations other than simple 46, XX or 46, XY can result in disorders of sex development. These include 45, XO (only one X chromosome), and 47, XXY, 47, XXX -- both cases have an extra sex chromosome, either an X or a Y. These disorders do not result in an intersex condition where there is discrepancy between internal and external genitalia. Here I will explain 4 cases one by one. As is known to all, Chromosomal crossing-over is an exchange of genetic material between homologous chromosomes. It is one of the final phases of genetic recombination, which occurs during prophase I of meiosis in a process called synapsis. Synapsis begins before the synaptonemal complex develops, and is not completed until near the end of prophase I. Crossover usually occurs when matching regions on matching chromosomes break and then reconnect to the other chromosome. But experts thought that the crossing-over just occurs during Non-sister chromatids in 22 pairs of autosomes, but sex chromosomes often remain unpaired because the X and Y chromosomes are very different from each other in their genetic composition. That is the key point of intersex. Physical exchange of homologous chromosomal regions by homologous recombination during prophase I is absolute, and Non-exchange is relative. It is easy to understand, as same as the movement is absolute, static is relative. Intersex is the typical results of crossing-over between X and Y chromosomes. Precisely, intersex is just only one typical result of numerous possibilities caused by crossing-over between X and Y chromosomes. I think there are wealth of contents in X and Y chromosomes, not only unitary control boy or girl. Case 1, Female pseudohermaphroditism- when the father' sex chromosomes have crossing-over during meiosis I. The Y chromosome give some chromatid segments to X chromosome, and get some alleles back, which only control you have a female clitoris or male penis, but not control other information. Then the father gives his exchanged Xf chromosome to his daughter. Although, his daughter has XmXf chromosomes, she indeed has male penis instead of female clitoris. There is another key factor, all the genes that control sex trait are dominant inheritance. As a result, the daughter' Xm chromosome from her mother can't express out, and she only can express dominant trait from his father's exchanged Xf chromosome. The result is the girl has a male penis. Case 2, Male pseudohermaphroditism- it is as same as case 1. But the father gives his exchanged Y chromosome to his son. Although, his son has XY chromosomes, he indeed has female clitoris instead of male penis, because the genes whatever in X chromosome from his mother or exchanged Y chromosome from his father are invisible inheritance. The result is the boy don't have male penis, though he has XY chromosomes. We can say that the above "pseudohermaphroditism" 'culprits are the fathers. More specifically, where did Father's genes come from? Of course from grandparents. In other words, Female pseudohermaphroditism- the grandfather' part of sex genes inherited to granddaughter through his son, and granddaughter expressed male trait from her grandfather' genes. Male pseudohermaphroditism- the grandmother's part of sex genes inherited to grandson through her son, and grandson expressed female trait from his grandmother' genes, not from his mother. This point is very important for researching intersex. The above two kinds of ambiguous genitalia is the result of allelic exchange between X chromosome and Y chromosome. The people in this situation whatever Female pseudohermaphroditism or Male pseudohermaphroditism have 46 chromosomes and can produce germ cells. Because the probability of crossing-over occurrence during sex chromosomes is very small, we can ignore the crossing-over again. 1.BMP 2.BMP In case 3, this extreme example of hermaphroditism is quite rare. I am not so sure, I think it is also the results of crossing-over partial occurrence between X chromosome and Y chromosome, but this time it is not allelic exchange, it is non-allelic crossing-over between sex chromosomes. As the result, the people also have 46 chromosomes, but the sex chromosome must have structural abnormalities. A portion of the chromosome is duplicated, resulting in extra genetic material instead of a portion of the same chromosome is missing or deleted. The sex trait the people expressed is they have the 2 homologous organs. In case 4, this situation can't be explained by crossing-over between sex chromosomes. I think it is related to Meiosis I and Meiosis II. In Anaphase Meiosis I, the centromeres break, but homologous chromosomes not separate and go to one of two haploid daughter cells together. In Anaphase Meiosis II, the centromeres break, but sister chromatids not separate and go to haploid daughter cells. Details are in the following two tables, red font genes have been found. 3.BMP 4.BMP I agree with the view "The Five Sexes" by Anne Fausto Sterling-Professor of Biology and Women's Studies in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology and Biochemistry at Brown University. I think sex chromosomes not only determine sex, they also have genes for many functions we don't know yet. There is no absolute male and female. Physical exchange of homologous chromosomal is absolute, and Non-exchange is relative. Intersex person is just one of us. Maybe lesbian, gay and bisexual are all because of crossing-over during sex chromosomes. There is my own opinion, I am not an expert on genes, but I am sure that women only can get female orgasm from clitoral. The clitoral is only homologous to the penis. Vaginal orgasm, G-spot and multiple orgasms are all bullshit. Women also have a refractory period after every orgasm as same as male. Don't be silly anymore.

love is love, sex is sex. why can't women separate love and sex? There is only one reason that women can't get orgasm whenever they want by their sex nature. In my eyes, I think love is love, sex is sex. There is no necessary relationship between the two. Sex is like eating, drinking or shitting. You should do it every day when you need, but you never fall in love with food, water or toilet. Do you understand? I don't know why it is so easy for me, but it is so hard for other women. When I fall in love with somebody, I want to be with him all time, and I care about everything about him. I would like to share every minute with him. When we kiss, I can be sexual arousal in one second. I feel my whole bones are crisp, and my private parts are numb, I can't move anyway. Until that feeling gone, I can move. But sex is never that way. First I want to ejaculate, then I see a porn, In the whole process, I don't need to be moved. I just need my some my organ aroused enough. I think one day all women are not going to be cheated by so-called fake female orgasm and can ejaculate like me, you will know what I am talking about nowadays. i am keeping to reveal the truth of female orgasm. if you have interest in female orgasm, contact me. i am sure we can work something out together. i want to find an international cooperation, because i am lack of some useful equipments like PET or MRI.

women also have refractory period after a real female orgasm After sex, men typically are lethargic and completely relaxed, and immediately roll over and going to sleep and they become unresponsive to sexual stimulation and can't get into another excitement phase until some period of time has elapsed. This recovery time is called refractory period. But no research has found that women have refractory period after female orgasm. Why is it? The answer is easy women never get a real female orgasm, they get a fake orgasm. Those women who claim that they can get multiple orgasms during one session are all deceived by themselves. They even don't know what exactly the orgasm is. According to my research, women also have refractory period after a real female orgasm, and they can't get into another excitement phase right after orgasm, and become unresponsive to sex and very tired and find it easy to sleep. Multiple orgasms are impossible in women at all. Mechanism is unclear right now. I guess that because female brain also can release some hormones during orgasm that lead to sleepiness and relaxation. if you have interest in female orgasm. email me: i am sure we can work something out together. i want to find an international cooperation, because i am lack of some useful equipments like PET or MRI.