Compelling new scientific research has shown that female insects and mammals are able to absorb foreign DNA throughout the cells of their bodies. In human beings, this phenomenon has been conclusively shown to occur in women during pregnancy where genetic material from her growing fetus becomes fused within areas of her brain, affecting her chances of developing Alzheimer’s disease.
The evidence now shows that female animals can incorporate sperm DNA from her prior sex partners. This foreign DNA winds up in future children after the woman successfully reproduces with a completely different male. In the human world, this means that the children a man has with a promiscuous woman could possess genes from previous sexual partners he has never seen or met.
There are existing sociological studies that show a marriage is far more likely to fail when a woman had more than two prior sexual partners (1, 2, 3, 4), but now renewed support for the once-questionable field of telegony is showing that there are also genetic reasons not to start a family with a promiscuous woman: children you have with her may have their gene pool polluted by her random affairs and one-night stands.
Telegony is an idea first proposed by Aristotle that claims offspring can inherit genes from the mother’s previous sexual partners. This idea was not scientifically supported until evidence piled up of microchimerism, the phenomenon of foreign DNA becoming incorporated into the genome of an individual. This was first noted to happen in the case of blood transfusions. If you have received blood while in a state of trauma, your donor’s DNA can become incorporated into your genome. Surprisingly little research has been done on microchimerism since then, but all signs point to this being a widespread and common genetic phenomenon throughout the animal kingdom.
A groundbreaking study on flies last year showed the process of females incorporating DNA from previous male partners and then exhibiting that male DNA into future spawn they had with completely different males.
Scientists at the University of New South Wales discovered that, for fruit flies at least, the size of the young was determined by the size of the first male the mother mated with, rather than the second male that sired the offspring.
[…]
“Our new findings take this to a whole new level – showing a male can also transmit some of his acquired features to offspring sired by other males,” she says. “But we don’t know yet whether this applies to other species.”
[…]
Dr Stuart Wigby of the Department of Zoology at Oxford University added: “The principle of telegony is theoretically possible for pretty much any internally fertilising animal, but these hasn’t historically been much evidence for it.
Scientists involved in the study are making the guess that sperm DNA gets absorbed into female eggs without fertilizing them:
The researchers suggested that the effect is due to molecules in the seminal fluid of the first mate being absorbed by the female’s immature eggs, and then influencing the growth of offspring of a subsequent mate.
It was already observed that the human female body acts as a sponge for foreign DNA placed within it:
It is possible that Mc [microchimerism] in the brain is able to differentiate into various mature phenotypes or undergoes fusion with pre-existing cells and acquires a new phenotype, as suggested by murine and human studies in which bone marrow-derived cells circulated to the brain and generated neuronal cells by differentiation, or fused with pre-existing neurons.
[…]
Although the relationship between brain Mc and health versus disease requires further study, our findings suggest that Mc of fetal origin could impact maternal health and potentially be of evolutionary significance.
The above study has two seismic implications. The first is that a woman can absorb enough DNA during her lifetime that it changes her phenotype (i.e. her appearance and overall health state). There could be some truth to the phrase “slut face” in which highly promiscuous women suffer a change to their appearance because of all the variable sperm from different males that have been deposited inside them.
The second implication stems from the fact that it’s scientifically conclusive that single mothers have DNA of their bastard children residing permanently within their bodies. Any man who reproduces with a single mom will have a child that contains DNA from the bastard spawn, which of course includes DNA from the absentee father. This means that men can be genetically cuckolded without being traditionally cuckolded, and that having a baby with a single mom is essentially giving the father of her first child a bonus prize in the game of evolution.
Microchimerism has also been noted in dogs, where older siblings pass on their DNA to younger siblings, suggesting that first-borns possess the highest genetic purity, a suspicion perhaps suspected by the royalty of old. Not only that, but the mother dogs incorporated Y-chromosome material from her male children. The mother dog essentially becomes more masculine by having sons.
The researchers found cells with Y-chromosomes in the mother after these births, meaning the mother had male cells present in her female body. The researchers also found genetically similar male cells in the mother’s female puppies from a later litter. Those puppies were newborn and had never been pregnant, strongly suggesting that they acquired the cells that were left behind by their older brothers while in the womb.
If a woman absorbs Y-chromosome genes from male sperm via casual sex, this would easily explain why women with high notch counts exhibit more masculine traits, something that any international playboy can anecdotally confirm. The promiscuous girl becomes more masculine because various masculine genes are being inserted into her genome and affecting her phenotype.
Some of the older ideas on telegony, dating over a century, now don’t seem so left field:
French biologist and philosopher Felix Le Dantec in his work “Individual Evolution, Heredity and Neo-Darwinists” (1899) mentions several facts that demonstrate telegony. But the evidence was quite pseudo-scientific even for that epoch. The author gave two examples with animals and one for humans.
Le Dantec wrote that some farmer told him that once his swine copulated with a boar and their pigs absolutely resembled the father in color. But when the same swine copulated with another boar some pigs of the second farrow still resembled the color of the male pig the swine had copulated first.
He also wrote about Lord Morton who first interbred a mare and a zebra and got a hybrid of horse and zebra. Next time he interbred the same mare with a horse. As a result of the second copulation the lord still got a colt that had lines resembling those of a zebra.
Microchimerism is on the leading edge of genetic research that has lately included epigenetics, which is the switching on and off of certain genes due to environmental cues. Epigenetics has raised questions against evolutionary theory because it shows genetic adaption can occur within individual organisms without the need for natural selection. New research is revealing how little we actually know about how the human genome works, suggesting a more complex picture than we’ve imagined.
Sociological research was the first to show that marrying women with a robust sexual history increased the likelihood of a failed marriage. Now genetic research adds more evidence to show that such women will birth children that—to a degree we don’t yet understand—are not entirely of the father’s. Because this new field of research is politically incorrect in painting strongly negative consequences for women leading a “strong and independent” promiscuous lifestyle, we are unlikely to see liberal universities approve much in the way of further research in this area.
For thousands of years, a woman’s purity was cherished above all else when it came to creating a family. Now the scientific community is confirming the validity of that practice. Until the science is settled, men who insist on reproducing with a promiscuous woman should at least demand to interview her previous sexual partners so he can become familiar with the men whose genes may be passed on to his future children.
Read Next: The Deregulation Of The Sexual Marketplace
Telegony isn’t new, it’s debunked junk science popular in Islamic press. You’re discrediting this website and its readership by putting this up.
And your basis for saying this is … ?
Telegony was dismissed as nonsense back in the early 1900s IIRC. However, the research cited here (and elsewhere) suggests that the concept may not be entirely bogus. Whether it occurs in other species is currently an unknown.
Basically, he read something that he didn’t like.
I ain’t saying ’tis true and I ain’t saying ’tisn’t. But since genetic science has changed enormously since the early 1900s (for better and worse), it’s worth a fresh look.
So now that there is a new scientific study confirming that *yes* there are genetic factors that are passed down that confirm telegony we are going to dismiss it because it was debunked as junk science 20-30-40 years ago back when we did not have the means to properly test the theory? If science is self correcting then you are the stick in the mud that demands that the Earth is flat and isn’t the center of the Universe because you do not like the results 🙂
Here you go dumabss: Professor Leonard A. Herzenberg of Stanford University in 1979 for the first time proved that fetal DNA can pass into the mother during pregnancies.[19] Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in 2012[20] has shown that it is not uncommon for fetal DNA to get through the blood–brain barrier and into the brain of the mother.[21]Leiden UniversityMedical Center in the same year published a result which indicates fetal DNA from previous pregnancies can enter the bodies of younger siblings.[22] In 2013, scientists around the globe demonstrated in animals, the significant effect of incorporating foreign DNA.[23][24]
Apart from the above-mentioned, one Chinese scientist has proposed possible molecular mechanisms that may account for the reported cases of telegony.[25][26] The proposed mechanisms include the penetration of spermatozoainto the somatic tissues of the female genital tract, the incorporation of the DNA released by spermatozoa into maternal somatic cells, the presence of fetal DNA in maternal blood, incorporation of exogenous DNA into somatic cells, presence of fetal cells and fetal DNA in maternal blood and sperm RNA-mediated non-Mendelian inheritance ofepigenetic changes.
Studies like this are quickly buried or discredited because of how inconvenient it would be for women’s rights if proven conclusive. Right now, there are things that our society absolutely CAN NOT accept, despite all their claims for enlightment. It was like this in the past, and it will be like this in the future. Many well established scientific truths today were ridiculed and denied during centuries before they were accepted.
Correct; however, the enlightenment Era started very roughly 300 years ago fyi to help put things in perspective.
I prefer to be humble before nature as we do not understand much yet in the grand scheme. This is probably some important process in nature or else it wouldn’t have evolved then again this is the first time I’ve heard of it. Personally as long as she hasn’t slept with people I know, is LOYAL, makes it past the qualifying stage and is pleasant be around I could care less.
The real behind the scenes issue is people resent being lied to.
It’s more that if you procreate with someone who is not a virgin, you’re being cuckolded to some degree.
Well, women today have more opportunities to procreate with virgins than ever before. Males, however, have the least amount of such options today.
You sir need therapy. You got some self esteem issues. Take some mescaline in a safe environment and think about that. Doctors orders.
Cuck’s orders?
don’t kill yourself if you ever find out you’re a “cuck offspring” yourself, which is very likely if this is your new threshold for cuckoldry.
You do suffer from low self esteem and terminally egoistic thinking. On the other hand you could be autistic so it’s not your fault you think in only black and white terms, I’m sorry. Honestly try to understand the doctor’s thoughts behind this, or you may end up being very unhappy in a world of dwindling virgins and the book “sperm wars” in existence
I’m sorry you blew your chance. The socialists talked a lot of people into giving up a lot of things in the 90’s and 00’s.
I’m very lucky in that my parents came of age in the time before the
sluttification of females and cuckization of males, and with further luck, my offspring will come of age after the sluttification and cuckization has passed..
Immaterial to the discussion. The male body does not appear to incorporate the DNA of its mates. Likely this is the core reason behind the whole general tendency of females not to care if men sleep around, but non-cuck men get murderous if the woman sleeps around.
This reeks of omega tendencies
It’s an odd assertion to claim some non-specified motive on my part. I’m sorry you’ve failed to noticed, but the socialists kind of won the battle in small part. The questionable purity of the genome of the general populous is already irreversibly tainted is the point of reality. British scientists have already made their latest attempt at playing god with creating the first three parent child. None of us consented to this, but it’s beyond our control. If you recoil like this at the modern turmoil, I don’t see how you’re capable of looking back at the darker chapters of history, especially in conquest and warfare.
Just curious, do you follow human r/k theory at all? If true, it will turn everything on its head at some point.
As will an asteriod hit the earth again at some point.
If you believe that females have a general tendency to not care if men sleep around, I seriously hope you do not possess or drive an automobile, because you are beyond insane and could cause mega-damage to entire swaths of sidewalks.
And it is pretty misandrist of you to claim that men (of any sort) “get murderous” over anything. Men actually have consciences, you know, and self-control, and integrity, despite what boards like this one keep trying to tell us about men.
*Also, this author’s interpretations of these scientific findings are pretty far out there, pretty daft. I mean it’s fun to have a wild imagination but there should be limits.
Mescaline? Or Datura?
Not only do I possess a car, but it’s even *paid off*. How hot is that?
My wife is pretty happy that I’m murderous over her, though. She knows that if the power ever goes out, I’ll be murderous on behalf of her and the kids. Who you gonna turn to, cupcake?
R/K is the asteroid that will hit leftists only.
Well, my husband’s a retired military sniper who teaches hand-to-hand combat now. Maybe he’d know someone we could turn to. Of course whenever tshtf, I plan to leave the door ajar to take out the first few shits myself. The dogs are gonna need meat what with the stores being looted.
But the wife of a self-proclaimed murderous piece of shit who reads rapey pickup artistry websites will probably turn to a nice divorce attorney before I’d need any help when the power goes out, Limburger dumplin’.
{EDIT: I like how you think having one paid-off car is anything other than the minimum of what is expected of any adult! Our 15 1/2 y.o. paid-off his own car and he’s not even old enough to drive it on the streets!}
So then you understand that the point of men is to be murderous when murderous is called for. We have a purpose, tied into our sexual identity, and it all wraps up into a nice bow, see?
No. That is NOT the point of men. That is NOT “your purpose”. The very belief that that is the point of men is why so many of you end up in prison, on the streets, and in morgues, not to mention in divorce courts with limited custody.
I heard the term “toxic masculinity” once but I couldn’t conjure up any fitting examples. But you sure as hell did that trick better than any long-winded article could.
I know this is a site that gives no fuck whatsoever about the rights of men beyond the misguided “right” to trick drunkards into sleeping with you against their will and still not pressing charges, but there ARE a good number of people who actually DO care about the rights of men, and the welfare of men, and abolishing your toxic definitions of manhood should be a big, fat number one on the list.
Men are infinitely better than you give them credit for.
Complement accepted! I am extraordinarily toxic to evil and destructive people.
There you go calling men “evil and destructive people” again, all the while poor, misguided men who think as you think keep ending up homeless, murdered, or suicided. Sheesh, you’re a man-hater. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c0e1e4f672fb16d6ebd7162364387fca7bea6842639c92bd3e953e9283f30df3.png
It’s good that you have married into a military-type guy who knows what he’s doing, as you have questionable judgment and reading comprehension.
Lol no. When you find out that extremely country girl you searched years for in the sole purpose of marrying a virgin, don’t murder her when you find out she fucked someone before you.
I’m far too discriminating to not detect the stink of other men on a girl. I haven’t been neutered yet!
A comment like this doesn’t admit an aura of superior discernment, but naiveté instead.
Bah, I take judgement from manly men, not those desperate for female approval!
You can thank authors, stereotypes, and Hollywood for not understanding the subconscious mind. Don’t think Froyd was all knowing either because he just scratched the surface. Yung believed in a collective psychic unconscious for example and so do many others. Getting to the root of a problem is a lot like playing detective.
You can’t blame people for not understanding themselves because up until now it hasn’t been necessary to survive, but as numbers increase. You know you need to eat and sleep, but you don’t know the sound of your pc, ac, and refrigerator emit waves that alter your brainwave frequency and change your state of mind.
Tinder is way cheaper then the bar. Subconsciously most people conserve energy. Average income per person in America at least is shit. Driving your potential bar mongers to consider working overtime, suicide, and tinder as a way out. Want to fix all this nonsense and bickering then vote for a million dollar stimulus package or pay your employees more. Guarantee people will be too busy being important to get pissed off at everyone because “something” is wrong.
Stop pointing the finger because it’s stimulating.
Well, he tells me he’s the lucky one, mostly because of my good judgment and my being fluent in seven languages, most proficient being English.
But you keep on trying to sell the misandrist view that men are just testosterone-fueled “murderous” thugs waiting to kill when the wrong person comes into view. And hope that your wife and kids don’t end up the way the wives and kids of other such thinkers end up (strangled, burned to death, shot, etc).
I hope you don’t end up abandoned because you don’t give him any purpose.
You’re a overly headstrong young man who tragically speaks and opinionates before making himself well versed and educated. You’re a ram continuously running into a brick wall who’s taking every offer of help as an affront to his ego.
If validity of manliness is what sways your plebian appeals; I lead men for a living, my other job involved bringing people back to life, I’ve been to war, ran over bombs to clear streets and my wife follows my requests like the ten commandments.
Live longer before you try to take a tone of authority with others.
Oh, then you know all about it. What I don’t get is why you feel the need to put on an internet personal of cringing before women?
My God kid. The anger is going to kill you
My man, you’re a shamefully ignorant kid with a childishly black and white perspective, who’s effeminately, and unknowingly, letting his emotions blind him. As I said before, the purpose of this conversation was to enlighten you with little benefit to myself. We won’t ever see each other again, but when you do wake up, you owe the others around you who’ve tried to help also an apology. You owe them genuine conservation to make up for the time you wasted for both parties being dense. To exist thinking you’ve accomplished figuring everything out enough to make such finalized judgments is the height of ignorance. Tradition Christians would call that embodiment of the deadliest sin; pride. You’re not even a geneticist, but willing to throw life determining decisions behind what amounts to a PSA of non-finalized conclusions in which even Roosh states is the case. Read all of this before attempting to reply.
I think you’re gaining some benefit, though. Even if you reject the ideas right away, slowly as you meander through life, each one will fall into place a bit until in the end, enlightenment.
Angry like a fox!
I’m honestly not. I misjudged the wisdom gap between us as reachable when it wasn’t. This is the “leave you with a nugget of advice you don’t have to thank me for” and exit.
I went back to check and you’re the same Carrie who tried to call me violent misogynist on the sexodus article for passing roosh’s blog out. You said you don’t frequent game sites when I called you out, but I was right. What’s your fixation? I actually want to understand this.
No thanks are necessary. But remember: I have swum in a sea of your ideas for most of my life. You have been exposed to my ideas for only a light rainshower. It only makes sense that I would understand yours completely, and you have no real grasp of mine– yet!
You’re very ignorant! Sunspot’s talking about “general” representation of men and women, as in, through societal lens.
You’re very ignorant as well
And you then are very ironic, as you just called me ignorant when it is your statement that is better described as such.
Also, your disqus history only adds to the proof of your own ignorance. BTW, every time you call someone else ignorant, it only screams your projection.
Once again, you’re very ignorant
I agree. However if this was to be widely accepted as irrefutable truth by the medical and scientific professions, it would be justification enough for socially enforced monogamy.
Except then the only people who would push for that would be already typically conservative areas, the rest would just wave it away with rhetoric about free love and it doesn’t matter about her past.
In that case… look at the lineage. It is a good proxy filter.
Or don’t, because she doesn’t matter. If so, you allow her in your life at your own risk.
an interesting point not mentioned here is what happens when one man fucks another in the ass…. gives a whole new meaning to the word “you’re buggered”….
There could be a similar action. If DNA from sperm is capable of being absorbed by a female, it’s at least a reasonable conjecture that it could similarly be absorbed by a male.
No. Male digestive system is not adapted to absorb male sperm….give it another 100,000 years.
Some males have already made the digestive system a secondary source of sperm – perhaps a study would be warranted.
Agree. Imagine how long it took for people to drink in the fact that our planet was no longer flat (back when). Even with the evidence smacking them dead in the face, they have a hard time coming to grips with it.
Something like science and evidence (plus women)? That, alone, doesn’t add up (using facts and shit….crazy, right?).
Unbelievably, there are people who still claim the Earth is flat.
Well it is flat if you take an inductive position. Deductively we know through following argument based on scientific evidence its a sphere.But experientially we perceive it as relatively flat every-time we go out the door. It was their way of thinking that was the problem for our ancestors.
If you apply this to women schooled by western culture you could draw a comparison in thinking problems. Many believe various things because they just feel right or it said so on the billboard or in Cosmopolitan, rather than following scientific evidence and rational debate.
But experientially we perceive it as relatively flat every-time we go out the door
Nonsense. 1000’s of years ago people could observe ships sinking below the horizon and coming back and knew the world was round.
Then you had a Greek who measured the angle of the sun’s shadow on a pole at 2 locations a few hundred miles north and south on a certain day of the years and saw it was different. 360 degrees in a circle and voilà he knew the world was round and the circumference of the earth.
I believe it was Erastonese (spelling?) in 323BC.
Your statement of duality made me think. When did science and evidence get separated anyway? If one used to say scientifically proven, evidence was implied, and verifiable. This was, of course, before science became self-aware and started speaking in third person. At least we get lots of pretty pictures from round lenses(of women).
Science and philosophy were one and the same subject essentially in times past. I’m all for a reconciliation and a return to naturalism. This would undoubtedly undermine attempts at suppression by irrational, unhinged, unbalanced intellectually inept radical feminists.
I agree. I believe a plan need be enacted to place the global radical feministas propaganda scheme somewhere in the deep south, on the edge of their falsely perceived circumstantial evidence. It would bring to light a Naturalist “Moses” type mountain viewpoint that could restore the correct perception and return science to the original philosophical origin of well rounded intent to explain nature, not dictate it.
Lysenko? A model which Feminism clearly follows.
Lysenko as in Stalin’s support given to false ideology as in bad social politics, yes. That is feminism with a lower case f, BTW.
lol he doesn’t know what shape the earth is but here he goes sounding off…
You might want to examine the coin you flipped before you contribute. Ad hominem circumstantial babbling you called in the air. It landed on your head pretty hard. Was the coin showing tails up when you regained awareness? No worries, couldn’t have been too much DNA added to your cells during your ordeal with your fathers’ head burrowing in your mother’s well plowed fertile soil. Stick to bitching about movies about dinosaurs that don’t live up to your consumer driven expectations or fart in your woman’s mouth to ensure you are giving better seed than your (not really)logical procreation has cultivated.
I am struggling with the logic of your statements. Who said that science and evidence were separated?
Science said it
Illogical. Science is a concept and cannot speak.
I agree, in theory you are correct. The concept has started speking in spite of this. It is an illogical speaking concept.
I understand what you mean but I don’t think there was ever a time when people thought the world was flat.
I do. I thought Americans were smarter but many are dumb as rocks. They watch too much shit TV, eat bad food and are lazy. It’s hard to believe that this charade can keep up much longer. I would attack a nation full of half wits (what do you have to lose?). It’s been done before and it will happen again. Empires do fall.
I think that much of this is part of a sociopolitical agenda that’s been in play for some time. I remember taking a bullshit sociology course where the class was utterly convinced that the only way to cure racism n future generations is by actively making a mongrel race.
I’m a general advocate of genetic purity, with exception of perceived value of the genetic union. I value intelligence over the ability to throw/catch a ball or run, so you know my batch will not be darker than I. Maybe more yellow.
This being said, I guess American girls are off the table.
“This being said, I guess American girls are off the table.”
Somewhere a cannibal laments.
Studies like these never HAD credit. Roosh doesn’t understand the science and is misreporting. The traits being spread in the fly studies are epigenetic, not genetic. No DNA is involved.
There is no evidence for actual telegony. Breeders in the 1880s knew nothing about genes or dominantdominant/recessive traits, so looking at discredited studies (as Roosh’s “Chinese scientist” does), only adds a layer of error and confusion.
Epigenetics is a fascinating field, but It ain’t about DNA.
“Epigenetics is the study, in the field of genetics, of cellular and physiological phenotypic trait variations that are caused by external or environmental factors that switch genes on and off and affect how cells read genes instead of being caused by changes in the DNA sequence.” emphasis added
Sure. I’m not a scientist, clearly I’m using the term wrong. But the point still stands: the trait being passed in the fly study is not genetic. The first group of males was better nourished and something in the non-genetic parts of the seminally fluid passed that information. This is a far cry from the MRA panic of “onoes! They’re stealing our DNAs!” Or “wimminfolks need be virgins or else YOU’RE being cuckolded.”
“He also wrote about Lord Morton who first interbred a mare and a zebra and got a hybrid of horse and zebra. Next time he interbred the same mare with a horse. As a result of the second copulation the lord still got a colt that had lines resembling those of a zebra.”
Morton (and others) wrote their findings before any modern understanding of dominant and recessive genes. His findings are explainable without telegony, and in fact have not been replicable. Sometimes horses are born with striping, just as humans occasionally have fur or a primitive tail.
Humans with a primitive tail are usually the product of intense inbreeding. The Royal families of Europe come to mind. A British prince demonstrated this trait.
Anastasia of Russia had the FEMALE gene for hemophilia. Since female hemophiliacs bleed to death once they achieve menses, THAT gene requires incredible inbreeding. The Czars were also guilty of such behavior.
Horses, like show dogs can be incredibly & tragically inbred. That MIGHT account for striping. Morton had successive colts with decreasing striping FROM DIFFERENT SIRES! Inbreeding would scarcely account for such presentation.
The evidence of the horses and the pigs is overwhelming toward telegony.
YOU are in obvious and adamant, (approaching hysterical) denial because this flies in the face of your nearly religious agenda.
It’s interesting that you consider my response to be “nearly religious”, when it’s you lot relying on discredited pseudo-science from two centuries ago. Lord Morton in 1821, without a concept of modern genetics and how traits are expressed, suppressed, and passed, effectively wrote up some anecdotal evidence, and you are not only insisting that it is actual science, but you’re then adding a layer of proscription of female sexuality because of your agenda.
Morton has been thoroughly discredited, by male scientists, prior to females having the vote.
And the fly study, again, has nothing to do with DNA.
Shout all you want about “hysterical” women (defined as ‘I don’t agree with your limited understanding’).
It’s good news. It means we can pass down traits to children even if we didn’t father them
So, are you completely daft? I actually care about scientific validity. You’re just a wanker with a bone to pick. Fortunately, no intelligent woman will every pick (choose) your bone.
Anastasia of Russia was not a hemophiliac, she was a transmitter. The gene for hemophilia lies on the X-gonosome, men get it from their mothers and can transmit it to their daughters. Female hemophiliacs need to have been given the gene by both parents to be hemophiliac, if it is only on one gonosome they don’t get hemophilia. Men get it with only one gonosome, since the Y-chromosome is not able to counteract the defective gene on the other gonosome. Anastasias brother was a hemophiliac though. European royals who have the gene are descendents of Queen Victoria.
http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/t/telegony.html
Evidently, purebreds often produce striped offspring. Even ones who live thousands of miles from zebras.
Morton has been discredited for years. Maybe you conservative thinkers should just start using the bible for your science textbook. It’s no less accurate than Roosh’s mis-summarization of actual science. And it would show your bias more clearly.
hasn’t been a problem so far haha
The Romanovs suffered an EXTREMELY rare form of hemophilia B, which involves the F9 gene. The females in the family suffered prolonged bouts of bleeding.
As you mentioned, this was a “gift” from Victoria, and is carried through the mother.
I have NO IDEA how their mother, Alexandra survived childbirth if SHE was so afflicted. Perhaps the girls inherited the gene from their mother AND a recessive trait from their father.
As the Telegony article mentions, DNA does what it wants and we do not fully understand its behavior.
What emphasis??
I tried to do bold face
Here, fixed it for ya
Boldface fixed
Doosh doesn’t need to understand the science he willfully misrepresents. All he has to do is throw some word salad (or is that toss some word salad?) around and his brainless acolytes will gobble down his ignorant seed as though it were manna.
Don’t believe it? LOL, go read literally ANY other article written by him, and then read the bulk of the commenters. Hypnotized, easily-misled zombies all braying in agreement. It’s pretty cute tbh, until you realize these doofuses have access to firearms!
this study did not prove at all what roosh says
it says adn comes most probably from early miscarriages the woman had with previous partners, explaining the very small proportion of women never having been knowingly pregnant who exhibit this trait.
also, there is no evidence that those cells with their own adn can be transmitted to future kids in humans. Flyes and other animals are very different in that respect.
what study show however is that women with high libido are the most clever and produce the most clever kids.
But hey, take a subservient one instead or better, have no kids you all.
I’m totally lost. What is this scientifically considered “clever” and how is it expressed? This sounds like self-soothing lying just as well
All the study shows is that you get an EVEN BETTER OFFSPRING if a woman has multiple sex partners! 🙂
studes show women with high libido make more clever offsprings.
This is a very intelligent conclusion.
And if we posit roosh is right and women do transmit to later kids some small fraction of former mates adn, what would that ever change?
If you like a woman and the adn that expresses itself in her and makes who she is, what does it change if this adn you like comes solely from her parents or also from former partners?
the fact having a partner does not noticably change women more than men is also a very good indicator of how extremely small such an effect could be; and likely it is very small, unless a woman stayed with a man for ten years and had ten babys with him.
The scientific community is NOT confirming anything about a woman’s sexual history. Genetic diversity is good, it plays a huge role in our ability to adapt as a species (it is why having babies with your sibling is discouraged). If this study is true, then the more sexual partners a woman has, the more diverse our genetics will be, and the stronger we’ll be as a species.
Even if this study is true it cannot affect woman RIGHTS. Because woman rights are RIGHTS – not features that would make us more easy to use for men.
I am a woman – i don’t give a fuck about telegony even if it exists. Really it would be even beneficial for me – i can have casual sex with best males (most handsome, most healthy, most clever) and store these quality genes for my children, whose real biological father would be average.
If woman doesn’t want her children to get genes from her previous partners, she will just have sex only with the use of condoms.
Men don’t decide if they will have children – woman decides it.
I can tell you why women that had more than two partners before marriage easier divorce – because 1. they almost surely live in regions or come from cultures that are not heavily patriarchial, and so don’t hinder divorce with unloved husband, and 2. they have more experience of relationship and sex – so they less likely let abusive husband gaslight her and will more likely know what a good sex feels like, so won’t be satisfied so easily.
If man doesn’t want to marry a woman that had sexual partners before him – its his right. But this man should be prepared to die childless, while other men who are more capable to respect women as persons and respect their human rights, will likely have children and successfully pass their genes in future generations, even if they would be a little bit mixed with genes of mother’s previous partners.
honestly, all that is important for me in my child – is that this child has MY genes. And this is guaranteed, while my eggcell is one that gets fertilized. Males don’t matter so much.
Pretty fascinating stuff.
I checked the link Roosh posted and it didn’t identify any specific papers and the author of this work was vague (I see this often with mainstream science journalism for some reason).
At the bottom is a link to a Google scholar search that leads to Dr. Crean’s work on telegony in flies.
My impressions: So it seems that what the female is doing is gathering genetic material from different mates to incorporate genes from multiple males. I suppose ideally these genes would be for adaptive traits like strength or intelligence but we know many women go for tingles over building civilization. Perhaps this on an average scale leads to better offspring overall and quicker adaptation to a changing environment?
All of the sudden being a player with no children seems like a viable option in a sense. Although you aren’t producing a kid with a majority of your genes, you can pass on some of your genes to many bastard kids. I still think I’d prefer the former.
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=crean+telegony&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
I wonder what Lois has to say about that.
“I suppose ideally these genes would be for adaptive traits like strength or intelligence”
There is no one-to-one correspondence between individual genes and phenotypes, in most cases not even between genes and function. Phenotypes reflect the end result of systems integration over multiple levels (proteins, pathways, cells, tissues, organs), so you can’t easily make that leap from genes to phenotype. It’s all about expression patterns of sets of genes, which are not only continuously interacting with each other, but also with higher levels, being modified by internal- and external (environmental) cues in the process (i.e. bi-directional causal chains are in effect).
“but we know many women go for tingles over building civilization. Perhaps this on an average scale leads to better offspring overall and quicker adaptation to a changing environment?”
This idea (something is “picking” traits) boils down to that of the “selfish gene” (Dawkins, 1976), which is flawed. Even Dawkins himself admitted as much in one of his later books (“A Devil’s Chaplain”, 2003; it’s just a convenient metaphor, and like with any metaphor, it is applicable in only a narrow sense).
The amount of genetic modification that occurs in the somatic cells (especially the brain) is absolutely nuts – not to mention germ cells like the sperm and ova. Nobody talks about this research because the conclusions are utterly terrifying. It means that everything you do now will affect future generations rather than the materialistic fatalism that is holding back biology and medical science.
The Bible refers to bad conduct affecting 3 and 4 generations down the line.
“It means that everything you do now will affect future generations”
This is likely true.
Here are a few examples of studies (there are many more) showing that experiences producing certain effects are detectable in descendant generations, even though those generations could not possibly have been directly affected by the particular experience:
(this requires showing the effect in the so-called F3 generation, because the cell(s) that eventually add to becoming the F2 generation – the grandchild – is already present in the pregnant grandmother, so this cannot be used to show true transgenerational effects)
That was also is classic Greek tragedies/myths.
You know what I’m wondering…
they say porn reprograms the brain
What happens to the genetics of the reprogrammed brain?
i recall reading an article about animals breeding in cold weather giving genes to their offspring that were better suited to the cold… as if the sperm / egg process could actually select what was better for the current conditions, from what they had available on file….
this is an even freakier concept than a little DNA jumping from one host to another….. this means that DNA somehow knows what it’s doing or has some ability to decide what’s better or worse for the current conditions… .
So that is mid 60s til now, yes?
Fascinating stuff…
This is beginning to sound Lysenkoist, the equivalent of his ‘vernalization’ theory.
What is the predominant view if we let go of the “selfish gene”?
I think it’s a matter of perspective. First, we have to get rid of the notion of genetic determinism, it has been rendered obsolete. Second, applying agency to genes could predispose one’s thinking into missing certain aspects of the role of genes in evolution and inheritence. Evolution/selection doesn’t inherently have a purpose or meaning, it operates blindly, it comes upon traits (beneficial or deleterious) in a serendipitous way.
I don’t see how that refutes the notion of the selfish gene… except that it’s not individual genes that are in competition. We have the same view on evolution/selection. Perhaps my knowledge of genotypes and phenotypes is just lacking.
I think what you’re suggesting is that existence is even more vague and loose than the notion of a battleground competition between living matter. It’s more random and fluid than that.
I could just be way off here… Just trying to figure out if we’re on the same page heh.
The selfish gene isn’t a theory, it’s a metaphor Dawkins used to help to describe how things work with genes and selection. Therefore, it doesn’t need to be refuted or proved. We humans often have a need to ascribe agency to processes (like selection, evolution, biochemical mechanisms, and the like). Something must be doing it, it can’t just happen, as we have the tendency to think. I guess my original point was, to fully understand something, we have to keep in mind the limits of metaphors like that of the selfish gene. For these particular limits, however, I’m going to have to refer to the literature, there are some excellent (recent) books out there on this topic (for example, “the music of life” by denis noble, or “the developing genome” by david moore).
Of course we’re on the same path. I’m just quibbling about semantics here.
Thanks for the refs. I could afford to update my thinking on this.
I didn’t really agree with Roosh’s post that evolution no longer applies in the modern world, but it definitely got me to think about how the theory of evolution has become a modern dogma, that even I appeal to very often.
The idea that Lamarckism might have some truth would force a traditional Darwinist to scream “Heresy!”.
I think “God’s death” is still very difficult for modern Westerners to deal with. We haven’t replaced that need with anything that really works yet.
“I didn’t really agree with Roosh’s post that evolution no longer applies in the modern world, but it definitely got me to think about how the theory of evolution has become a modern dogma, that even I appeal to very often.”
Look at the amount of fraud committed on behalf of the Global Warming hoax. That’s nothing compared to evolution. Weak men wanted to white knight (kill God) for women’s rights thinking it would get them laid more (it didn’t). That is all.
If it wasn’t the case, then scientists would have cracked open dinosaur (dragon) bones, knowing them to only be a few thousand years old at most, and found the red blood cells inside a lot sooner. Instead, because of evolutionist dogma, nobody bothered to even try, what with the alleged hundreds of millions of years and all. In face of such evidence, evolutionists just declare that soft tissue must be able to survive hundreds of millions of years, because anything but Creationism/God.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/
Slightly off topic, this is a good doc.
Vasectomy and freezing sperm is going to be the only viable option for western men in a not-so distant future. Double edged sword here is government taxation on the up, which further discourages family minded men… and ironically, aided by the same government, western women become fertile soil for ISIS.
All of *your* children, as a man, with have a full 50% of your genetic material- because the DNA of your mates former sex partners only alters her immature eggs. Your sperm is all you.
Except the actual study showed NOTHING about DNA. Roosh failed to understand the basic science. Women are still safe. Your offspring will have 50% of your genetic material and 50% of hers, period.
It’s endlessly amazing how many faithful readers believe this guy’s “interpretation” of facts.
Lamarckism (i.e. the inheritance of acquired characteristics), just like telegony, was once considered equally bogus, yet results from modern studies strongly suggest otherwise, contrary to established dogma of biology (the neo-Darwinian synthesis). Our understanding of the mechanisms of inheritence and genetic regulation is still far from complete, the field of epigenetics in particular is very active.
Great article! Explains why those women who are with bad boy after bad boy get worse and worse with each passing year…and why married women who choose good men take on the characteristics of those men. Careful who you settle down with, guys.
“Explains why those women who are with bad boy after bad boy get worse and worse with each passing year.”
They don’t need a Chad Thundercock for that. Western culture is enough.
This is interesting however, I never understood the whole “semen from former sexual partners” thing. If a woman had semen in her from a former sexual partner isn’t she most likely going to be pregnant meaning an abortion or having a kid/marriage? I’ve had enough promiscuous sex, but I don’t know that I’ve ever gotten my semen into a girl I was banging on account of pulling out and wearing condoms. So how often does ‘semen from random sexual partners’ happen without the girl getting prego?
I think he means the DNA gets absorbed and incorporated into the woman’s own genetics, not that the semen stays viable in some little Sperm Pouch in her womb.
Right, I get that. I didn’t think there was a ‘pouch’. I’m asking how does the sperm from other partners get into her in the first place without her (usually) getting pregnant. The article makes it sound like most promiscuous sex results in a girl getting the guy’s sperm in her. When, I think, most of the time guys pull out or use a condom. If the guy didn’t do this, the girl would usually become pregnant. I mean how often can you come in a girl without her getting pregnant? I know it does happen, I just think most random lovers/one night stands, etc….don’t get their semen in the girls they bang.
Oh, I see. I misunderstood. Thank you for clarifying.
You can cum in a girl many times and she wouldn’t get pregnant. Depends if she’s ovulating or not. It’s all about timing. You can cum in a girl once and get her pregnant, or cum in her 1000 times before she gets pregnant. You’ve never heard about couples that have been trying to have a baby but couldn’t until years later?
Yes, I have heard of them. It’s just a hell of a roll of the dice for a guy in a casual relationship or doing a one night stand to cum in a girl hoping she doesn’t get prego. Ive never taken that chance even with girlfriends.
The genetic material is absorbed into her fallopian tubes, and the lining of her uterus then appears in her future offspring regardless of who the future father is. If you marry a slut you marry everyone she has been with and so do your children.
From my understanding, if you marry a slut, you do NOT marry everyone she’s ever been with. You only marry those who have EJACULATED their semen into her. A slut can be with many men who never come in her due to use of condoms or pulling out. If I’m wrong here, let me know, but this is my take.
Touche’ – yes if condoms are worn AND she doesn’t swallow or take semen into any orafice or onto her skin it would be impossible for her to pass on any genetic material to future offspring
Only time I cum in girls is when I know for certain I will never see them again and they don’t have my contact info.
Interesting. So your take is that the girl will also take the man’s DNA if he only comes on her skin or if she swallows? Not so sure about that. I’m not trying to be argumentative, but intuitively, that doesn’t seem very possible unless it was “inseminated” in her via vaginal sex. I didn’t see this in the article, are you just inferring this or did you read that somewhere? I think most guys get some on a girl’s skin and lots of times they swallow too without taking any in their vag.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we find out down the line a women’s cooch also absrobs DNA from men’s sweat, saliva, shedding skin cells etc
I assume the most likely route is through the vaginal cavity. The epithelial tissue there is not the same as the outer skin and is the most likely place for absorption to occur. This would also place the foreign DNA closer to where it can have the most effect. However DNA can be absorbed other places just as viruses can be absorbed other places. Contact with eyes, nose, anus, mouth, all these places would transport or be capable of transporting the DNA into the woman. Obviously any breaks in the skin would also do this. The least likely vector would be a ‘hand job’ where the woman wipes and washes her hands afterwards.
From the article it looks like male ejaculate is akin to any foreign pathogen that you do not want to be exposed too unless you are going to marry and stay with the male. If you are seeing a girl and she’s had prior lovers what are the chances that she has never had a condom break, or taken it onto the face (the eyes, nose are susceptible to absorption) etc. Now I would argue that the most likely place for the foreign DNA to be expressed in future offspring is in the vaginal canal but that doesn’t mean its impossible for it to be of negative effective assuming she only did anal or only did blow jobs.
This doesn’t seem so far fetched. I remember reading somewhere, was it here?, that getting your woman to swallow your semen helped increase chances for pregnancy. Basically a similar genetic absorption process.
Regardless, shows the wasteland we are currently in.
Damn this is some interesting stuff.
It means that Otto Weininger was right.
Was he mentioning this?! I really need to read his books.
It’s exactly what he wrote in “Geschlecht und Charakter”.
He mentions as an example white women that had black lovers, passing black traits to the offspring they had from a white father.
It is a must read indeed.
“black traits”
Psychological or physical black traits?
Both my nigga
To say the title and this article are misleading is an understatement. You can’t just take research done on FLIES and apply it to humans. Quote from the lead researcher, Dr. Angela Crean: “There is no evidence of such effects in humans, but there has not been any research on this possibility in humans.”
But not surprising that this pathetic website would spread fear, hatred and misinformation.
What fear/hatred are they spreading with this article? Don’t marry a slut? Oooh so hateful!
Also, this article wasn’t written as the definitive answer. It was merely suggesting, based on studies done with flies, that this could be happening. Flies are typically a starting point with many biology observations/experiments due to their fast reproduction and short lives. Proof that it CAN happen, means it could be going on within us as well.
There is a certain class of people who will argue out of one side of their mouth that humans are animals and that there isn’t much separating us from other animals. . .until that becomes ideologically inconvenient.
The research is interesting for sure but the title of this article as well as the content strongly suggests that these specific findings can be applied to humans which is just not true.
This guy Roosh is misrepresenting the research to suit the fear-mongering regarding female sexuality that is so prevalent in this pathetic “red pill community” and the hatred of women who make their own choices by branding them as “polluted”.
Why have products been tested on animals before human use? Did you know humans are technically animals as well?
Let me ask you a scientific query based upon your vast empirical data of personal experience, perhaps even correlated by your discussions with your cohorts of similarly oriented sexualities: Does vagina penetrated by penises taste/smell different than fresh, virgin vulva?
Lets translate this: “I CAN *STILL* BE A SLUT AND EVERY MAN SHOULD *STILL* WANT ME!!! WAHH!!! WAHH!!!
You are pathetic. So quoting the researcher is crying “wah wah”? Grow up.
Its interesting that other studies involving fruit flies *are* seen as being valid for humans – we all know about the eye color and folded wing vs. straight wing studies but THIS study because of its politically incorrect implications and dire portents for sex in the city crowd absolutely CANNOT be used in the same way. The article says “…there has not been any research..” not “There is NO POSSIBLE WAY THIS COULD APPLY”. Which means it well could apply and also would confirm age old wisdom on the subject, something science eventually gets around to doing sometimes.
So I would say yes, *misquoting* the researcher is you wetting your semen soaked girlie pants and saying WAH WAH because the implications of you being a whore now can’t be washed away as easily, if they can be removed at all. Cheers.
BURN!
Wow you must have been rejected by a lot of girls to hold this much hatred towards them. First of all, I never said there is “no possible way this could apply”. I said this article was written to misrepresent the research and make it seem like it does apply to humans when in reality, we don’t know. Secondly, how the fuck am I misquoting the researche?? I am literally quoting her word for word. Here’s the link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16084184/
Lastly, the fact that you assume I have “semen soaked pants” proves my point that the pathetic men on this website are just misrepresenting the research in order to demean women and promote misogynistic hate towards them.
P.s. I am a lesbian and have never come in contact with semen. Ironically, its you who has the semen soaked pants since I doubt you have ever had contact with a woman and so probably have to resort to relieving yourself.
Cheers.
So you’re a carpet muncher who can’t get a man. Land whales often turn into lesbos as its the only way to get any attention, being so incredibly gross that no man wants them. You must have been rejected and ignored by lots of men and furthermore must be incredibly ugly as even the most hideous of female beasts can get some guy somewhere to dump a load into her given enough alcohol. But you haven’t managed even this. Too bad for you but good on evolution for stopping this mistake before it could spread. I have three kids btw 🙂
It’s cute that it doesn’t occur to you that, being a lesbian, I don’t want to have sex with men. I can catch a dick literally any time I want to anywhere I go. Just not interested. Especially given how pathetic you lot are.
Truly sad and sick to my stomach to hear you have kids. I hope some day someone takes them away from such a vile piece of shit.
I don’t live in the U.S. anymore but with Trump Inc. leading in the polls its likely that it will be your kind hustled into the camps wearing the famous pink triangle you love so much. Sex with men? Only of you lose some weight – maybe if you look good they’ll make you into a comfort woman but I strongly doubt it. Yours will likely be the showers first and good riddance. Maybe I can get a lamp shade made from your no doubt copious excess skin.
As to your sickness that’s great. Let me know if I can trigger anything else. 🙂
Afraid of the consequences of such findings if and when they do appear?
You’re a chick, aren’t you?
Yes! I am a lesbian though so I have never and will never come in contact with sperm. So no, not afraid of any consequences. Just pointing out how pathetic you lot are.
you’re a rug muncher though so you should be worried your gf’s daddy’s dna may confuse her into going back for some cock.
LOL are you retarded or just dumb as a rock? That made no sense.
I asked your sex, not your perversions. I could give two shits how you entertain yourself in your lair.
And since you’re so invested in this topic, then you clearly care about the consequences as they affect other people, else you wouldn’t be here.
Do you golf? Never gone golfing with a lesbian before.
Just last winter, I went skiing with a Jamaican man.
So you came on to a male dominated website to see what it would be like to swing a bat? Pick up any good points on getting pussy?
I couldn’t care less what you asked me. I’ll reply how I want. I see you’re very active on this website? What’s the matter? Can’t hold your own in the real world so you have to sit around with a bunch of lowlives and cry about how women have too much power??
Again – you are pathetic.
well your gf is a lesbian more than likely daddy dumped a lot of loads into her brain to make her damaged enough to turn into a rug muncher.
So basically:
“Me me me”
followed by
Ad hominem and boilerplate snark.
And then, nothing more.
You wasted an entire post to say…nothing.
Congratulations, cupcake.
Sure it did, read the article and references, pussysuckle.
I think the findings, IF and when they appear, are being widely misinterpreted. Even if a woman’s DNA is being altered via previous sexual partners, both parties still contribute 50% to the future offspring. Hardly a genetic cuckolding.
You can always tell they are chicks by their heavy use of SARCASMMMMM and emotion. They don’t just question the article with an open mind.. it’s always extreme and dramatic and OHHH this pathetic website is COMPLETELY wrong and this article is TOTALLY nonsense and gives me butthurt.
In other words, “Don’t you dare speculate that this may have significant implications! Don’t you dare!”
Given soft tissue absorbs whatever you leave to soak on it, it is alarmingly plausible that such speculation may have its merits.
Decisions have consequences, and not all of them are imposed by Really Mean Internet Bullies®.
Is this why couples tend to resemble each other as they age??
That’s a possibility…makes me shudder why animals look like their owners though.
Haha you might be on to something there
A whole new meaning to the term horse face….
Hehe. Go to google images and compare the facial features of Jim Duggar and his wife Michelle Duggar (who have 19 kids). Prepare to be mind blown.
They look like twins…
Exactly.
Do you think being promiscuous had led to the outbreak of man-jawed women? Old coworker had a severe one, pointy chin too. She posted some old college pics on social media- she had a round, feminine face.
You may be on to something here.
Perhaps this is what marriage does.
and couples learn to mimic microexpressions, so the muscles are used the same
Gives new meaning to becoming “one flesh”
I just did, though for added scientific relevance, their degree of contemporary resemblance should be compared to how much they resembled each other before they had any kids together. So I did just that.
Before marriage:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/09/article-2451399-18A3B48900000578-133_634x450.jpg
After 19 kids together (edit: turns out this pic is from 2006, which means fewer kids together, which only strengthens the point):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Jim_Bob_%26_Michelle_Duggar.jpg
Damn.
I dont see it. She looks more like Kip Winger than her hubby.
She looks like Hugh Grant!
Yet, the resemblance is far greater between them now than it was before they had a large number of kids together. In that later picture, they look like they might be siblings.
Maybe she’s porking him…
Wow the shape of her eyes completely change and resemble his after so many porkings.
I have noticed that some people look very similar. This could play a part in that.
So even though I don’t have any children of my own (that I know of) my genes still are being carried on by the women that let me bust a nut inside of them unprotected? Epic.
Nah all your sperm committedsuicide when you needed permission to bust in the women
Hah. This has been a theory of mine for years. Then again, we know the body absorbs liquids applied topically, so it’s almost a no-brainer in a way. This also strengthens my theory that everything we do has an effect on our DNA, the two aren’t directly correlated, however, it shows that DNA can change more rapidly than previously thought and by means other than reproduction.
This also strengthens my theory that we’ve been through all of this before and that the bible isn’t a guide given to us by a divine being, but a collection of great insights given by those who survived the last Armageddon type war. Much of the bible preaches abstinence before marriage and though, I previously thought it was to prevent massive spread of STD’s, it may have something to do with this as well.
Aside from my crackpot babbling, if this occurs in females, it may occur to some degree in males as well. Be careful where you stick it, boys.
This is a good day and a great find. Thanks.
Guys, I was thinking about some books written by promiscous women telling their “adventures”: Erica Jong, Catherine Millet, Jane Juska, Melissa Panarello, Toni Bentley, Zoe Margolis, Sadie Smythe, and the recent Robin Rinaldi. When they talk about their past you will find: violent fathers (or husbands), infidel/careless mothers, depression, low self-steem, need of validation, alcoholism,
drugs, suicide attempts, left-wing ideology, loneliness, miserable marriages…
What bothers me is that their publishers sell them as “brave” and “independent” women, when in fact they probably have issues and pursued promiscuity as a catharsis. I am not a specialist, these are just my assumptions.
Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt1qwHS6TkI
Mental insanity is cool now, just look at the acceptance of these hoes and gaymen as the new normal.
Holy shit, son, that’s a reading list that sounds like something they’d force on Gitmo prisoners.
Jesus….if Roosh’s theory is correct she should be looking like Rock Hudson and have a penis…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kenF3_77774
So basically it’s plausible that you can pass on parts of your DNA just making out with a girl. You do exchange body fluids.
I suggested this topic to Roosh back in like, December or something.
It’s good to see people talking about a terrifying topic like this. Keep
in mind that Roosh never states this is 100% proven. Only that a large
amount of evidence “points” to this conclusion.
IF this is proven
this will have absolutely bone shattering effects throughout the
manosphere and greater society as a whole. I honestly think some sluts
would off themselves if this came to light, perhaps with a bit of
ongoing domestic murder on the side by guys who just won’t handle the
truth about their wives. No wonder people don’t want this getting out.
Once studies on this fully prove this (if they do at all) this might be
the feminist 9/11.
lol you fail to realize that the human species is the greatest rationalizing species probably in the known universe – and women are THE CHAMPION GODDESSES at rationalizing.
They WILL find a way to spin this and celebrate promiscuous sluts even more, such as
“Look ladies! it’s totally OK to seek out hot guys and let them cum all over you! You will fuse with those sexy lil swimmers, and when you do find Mr. Right [beta cuck], and you have his children, those children will also have the sexy genes from your past sexcapades – creating the best offspring possible!!! So don’t let the insecure men hold you down, go get as much facials from hunks as possible!!! Make the best offspring possible, be strong!!!”
Of course they will ignore the long-term effects of carrying out such degenerate, shortsighted strategy, since the more sexual partners a woman has, the more likely she is to have mental issues, like self-esteem issues, also marital issues (higher odds of being unhappy, higher odds of initiating divorce), parental issues, STDs, bad skin & stronger sexual impulses (thus even more bad choices) from all that testosterone boosting, etc. etc.
And all of those issues are proven to contribute to the upbringing of degenerate criminals who have lots of issues and contribute nothing to society.
#NoHymenNoDiamond
Re: No hymen, no diamond. The feminists already dealt with this, starting back in 1971. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4cf0af382e3e39bde51c57609140e4202c77d6db01fb5971f3f8c89aa3d55772.jpg
Talk about how marriage was back then all you want, but in modern times (in the western world), women get the majority of the benefits from it. She can receive full custody of kids, child support, alimony, etc.-hell, at the best I’ve heard of cases where women and men split their possessions 50/50 after divorcing, but women taking over 50% (whether she earned it in the first place) seems a lot more common than men taking over 50%!
To say that modern western marriage is misogynistic is a stretch; even calling it misandric would be a stretch, but it’s closer to that than to being misogynistic.
It’s very misandrist of you to claim that men will kill their wives (with a bit of
ongoing domestic murder). Men are not the uncontrollable, testosterone-crazed rage-machines that SOME men like to claim we are. Some of us actually have self-control, you feminazi-wannabe.
Just FYI the sources Roosh used were in fruit flies and dogs,
HOWEVER, this has already been demonstrated in human females too… I wish he would have added the following to his already great blog
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16084184/
^ interestingly enough the induced-abortions group saw greatest effect
I wonder if men with very high partner counts undergo some smaller effect. Ostensibly guys who swap a lot of spit with many different girls may also see some microchimerism.
Finally, one major aside to all this research is that this effect, while real, is extremely small. The shitty food a woman shovels into her mouth is far greater an effect on future children.
Do you people actually read the articles you post? From your link: “Besides known pregnancies, other possible sources of male
microchimerism include unrecognized spontaneous abortion, vanished male
twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, or
sexual intercourse.”
Despite sexual intercourse ALONE being listed as only ONE possible source (and with only one group having +50% microchmierism), despite most previous studies being done on non-humans, despite the fact that microchimerism has NOTHING TO DO with genome or heritable traits and ONLY about foreign cells existing in a host organism (do tape worms pass from mother to child?), you still go ahead and draw absurd conclusions meant only to justify your already-held beliefs – then have the audacity to claim that there’s some absurd cover-up about this completely marginal and unimportant field.There is zero evidence – at all – that multiple loads of semen in and of themselves in the womb or mouth will pass along traits from mammals to other mammals
By the way, how does it feel to have an entire philosophy based off a shitty metaphor from a lackluster B-grade sci fi movie made by a tranny and “her” brother?
Sorry bro. Truth hurts. Listen to your instincts next time k?
don’t try to speak sense to undereducated internet warriors.
Doesn’t Roosh have a degree in molecular biology or something like that? Does he understand that just because a cell or even cell lines reside in a host organism doesn’t AT ALL mean that foreign DNA is being incorporated or passed on to offspring? This has never even remotely been shown in humans. Explain to me the mechanisms of how that would work Roosh. That is pretty basic biology right there. It’s embarrassing that everyone is just eating this up.
“If a woman absorbs Y-chromosome genes from male sperm via casual sex,
this would easily explain why women with high notch counts exhibit more
masculine traits”
Or, a more reasonable explanation would be that women with high testosterone levels are more likely to be promiscuous in the first place. Women having permanent changes to their DNA as a result of prior offspring sounds plausible. But, a change in DNA from simply having prior sex partners seems very far-fetched.
That is a possibility. Would help if there were before and after photos to compare the women, although even that would not be an end all be all. Tricky thing, this biology subject is.
Yup, a woman’s promiscuous fate is likely decided in the womb, specifically if she is exposed to lots of testosterone (her 2D4D ratio is the indicator of this… anything lower than .95 and she will be a cheating slut). Everything else follows – manjaw/big chin, career-focused, ultra-ambitious/competitive, slutty, tankgrrl, “sex-positive,” YOLO, etc.
Just so happens that being promiscuous and being a cum rag as a result of being promiscuous will make a woman even more promiscuous, and thus undesirable long-term options to the worthy Men.
So sluts won’t ever land a stable long-term relationship with a worthy Man they fall in love with.
Natural Selection is beautiful.
after their goal of extracting ressources, now gentlemen, bitches can extract and collect parts of DNA from males. what a fucked world
And now when girls will largely know this fact, they ‘ll be more selective than ever..
They will be more selective, and even more promiscuous because they want to be able to rack up as much Champion DNA as possible to create the best offspring possible.
Now whores will be using this as an excuse to get creampied by as much casanovas as possible.
More reason not to date sluts or mud sharks!
Mud shark?
Look it up!
From the Urban Dictionary (you lazy POS)
.
A woman of latin/hispanic descent who only dates or fucks with black men.
.
But if I am a white guy then I have nothing to worry about because by definition they would not fuck me anyways.
You’re citing the urban dictionary! HAhaha.Top definition at Urban Dictionary:A white woman that dates black men, usually because of low self-esteem.Why would I be the lazy one? You can take the time to look up words, it’s good for you. Your mom and dad should have told you that and your teacher ,but I understand why your teacher wouldn’t have as school suck now . Mud shark and Coal burner are interchangeable. Women who take that route obviously begin to act and look like black women which gives some credence to this article in my opinion. Stay away from them unless you want some SHAWN KINGs/Rachel Dolezal’s for your progeny.
You’re lazy because you claimed to know but couldn’t take the 10 seconds to bang out a reply. Actually, you are not lazy just inefficient. If you in fact knew the meaning of the word to start with it would have been a whole lot easier to tell me rather than looking up and copypasta the above definition.
.
I tend to look up real words but if someone is using slang in what is basically real time, I just ask.
What are like 15! Get bent! Do your own research, this is the bloody internet mister “I demand you explain to me and if you don’t you be the stupid one”. You sound like a princess.
I didn’t demand anything: I went and looked it up because you couldn’t bother to reply other than. . .look it up!
.
It’s complete princess speak to say “If you don’t know then I’m not going to tell you.”
Yes, keep telling me how it is! That isn’t something a princess would ever do…… I suggested you look it up, you literally are putting those words you wrote down in my mouth. I don’t appreciate other people’s words in mouth trying to explain what I wrote any more than I appreciate dicks in my mouth. I really really don’t like dick’s putting their words in my mouth trying to sound superior. Get Bent!
You have it bass ackwards: YOU are the one putting princess speak in quotes and attributing it to me. I never demanded and I never called you stupid. If I hwert yo fweelings then at least point out the actual insult (which was meant tongue in check rather than dick in mouth, so to speak).
Im not putting”princess”in your mouth. Your words betray your princess status something awful.
“I demand you explain to me and if you don’t you be the stupid one”.
I said nothing of the sort. You made it up and went on your merry way.
I took a paragraph and summed it up, you took a three word response and felt free to elaborate further with your imagination. You do not literally say that sentence, no, but you said that in a paragraph trying to sound witty.There is a difference. You’ve even of stat of being for my actions afterwards with response, you seem to be all about making things up. Your princess status in my book keeps increasing with each even further deluded response.
Oh man. So it’s ok when you do it, and wrong when I do it. . .because you are special.
No I shortened your comment you elaborated on my three word comment. You sir are thick.
How exactly did you shorten my three word comment? Oh wait, you don’t count all your other bloviation so only your first three words are special, just like you.
Yeah , because that’s where we started. I can’t help if you got off topic and tried to prove ever point you could think about any way you could. Princess!
You started with the slang and I asked about it. It’s not like I would find it in Webster’s. A common courtesy if using slang (or technical terms) that others might not know if to explain them. But hey, that makes me a princess. And I treat lots of people like a princess.
Could this lend credibility to the anecdotal observation that a woman can take on race-specific characteristics of her sexual partner(s) of a different race?
I would buy it. Women who date out of race tend to act and start to resemble that race over the years. It would actually make sense though as women have been prizes for other tribes all through the past. They also exhibit a gift for languages above and beyond men. Everything that helps them fit into the new tribe that has captured them would benefit their and their offsprings survival.
Yes.
White women who are into black guys all get a certain look about them. Even their hairlines seem to change and they get a “high forehead” as their hairline recedes a little.
I don’t know what can be said of other “mixes” as I have not observed much more beyond the more easily recognizable “mud shark”.
Women confirmed for cum rags.
Fractional reserve sperm banking
Genetic Recycling Stations
😀 Heh!
Where’s GBFM when you need him :/
lolzlozlolzozolz 😉
Ok. This is probably going to sound strange, but I have always felt that being filled with cum was a privilege granted to me by the few partners I’ve had. Sperm has the ability to spark life under the right circumstances, therefore it is different, perhaps more “precious”, than other bodily fluids, even blood in some respects. Therefore I always felt as though I was carrying a special part of him within me. It was a gift from him in my mind. Not sure if “cum rag” is a pejorative term, but I rather crave being one. Color me weird, I guess.
Yep. Strangest comment Ive ever seen here.
Can you golf?
Not very well. It’s kinda difficult to swing the club when you’re as short as me.
Are you a Hobbit? Homo floresiensis? Can I balance a beer mug on your head?
And a shitty test at that?
I’m short, but not THAT short.
!
That is knowledge only Sir is permitted to know. Not sure why anyone else would think that that information is any of their business. I will say that I”ve never been one to sleep around.
Wow. That many
Really? And the purpose of this whole line of questioning is. …….what? To demonstrate to everyone here what a colossal jerk you can be? Mission accomplished. Carry on.
Psst…..you and anyone else here can believe whatever you want. The only one that matters-that would be Sir -knows the real answer.
I’ve always found it to be the biggest turn-on when a woman whispers during sex that she wants my cum.
That’s the spirit! Being cum rag for your man alone.
BOYS! I THINK WE JUST GOT OURSELVES AN INVITATION! I CALL DIBS ON FIRSTIES!
“Therefore I always felt as though I was carrying a special part of him within me.” ~ well “what if” the man didn’t feel special or good or ‘precious’ when he ejaculated into you…? I wonder; does the bodily fluid still counts as a gift if the man is of low ‘self value’….
or even worse : what if he valued you as much as he valued himself… which is to say ‘not much’? ~ eek! not such a special part after all…
Yes. Cum/Sperm is still the other half needed to create new life, containing his DNA (a part of him), so it matters not how he “felt” as he ejaculated. I fail to see how that affects its value.
See previous response. I’ll also add that a person can’t truly value or love another unless he/she first values him/herself.
Shut up and finish sucking my cock, cum rag
You’re not the only one. I’ve known others. At least, others that would admit it anyway.
Kind of strange, but special. Don’t feel bad about the negative comments hurled towards you. Plenty of girls nowadays see cum as something “bad” and despise it and guys.
Any child you have will still have 50 % of your genes, so you’re not getting cuckolded per se. But retroviruses such as HIV also incorporate their DNA into a human’s genome.. You could imagine that parasites and bacteria, through a vector of a retrovirus could also incorporate their genes into ours..
wow this fascinating to learn, and another reason its better to be a womans first then the guy that marries the leftovers.
Gets me wondering in the next 10 yrs of how common all the hairy, dark haired kids running around in Poland and ukraine will be…..or light skinned thais.
There was a joke that the guy wants to be the girl’s first but the girl wants to be his last!
lol hypergamy right there, rope up the alpha.
girls want what other girls want and guys want other guys havent touched
Is that one a the reason that raped women are cast away ?
This is BAD NEWS for men.
Single mothers might soon be pursuing TWO (or more!) men for child support of the same child.
SHHH! Don’t give them ideas!
Agreed. We dont want CSI meets family court
It turns out….
That you ARE the father!
And YOU are the father!
And you are the father.
And you are the father….
And you…
ROFL! Dude thats my version of hell- that POS maury povich reading paternity results to me forever
In a way that’s how it is now. It’s called welfare.
That;s profound, in a fuct up sorta way…
Hahaha….awww…now I’m depressed…
Wait! Does that mean I can boss kids around and when they say I’m not their dad, I can say “You’re right, I actually pay for your upbringing unlike the prick that bastardized you and left you with just a mom.”? Life is great again!
YOU get to pay child support.
AAAANNDDD Y-O-U get to pay child support!
… and YOU get to pay child support!
EVERYONE gets to pay child support!
(except the girls …)
“We have a warrant for your cum – hand it over and no one gets hurt”
You KNOW some law firm is already working on this!
ah, great, another thing to worry about.
So….
the only solution is going to be to wait for artificial wombs and purchase eggs from virgins.
I’ll bet an egg from a virgin is going to be very huge bucks compared to the doses of semen the lesbians and wall-hit too-ugly-to-fuck women are buying at the sperm banks.
Of course the cuntocracy will scream about the idea of artificial wombs and buying a virgin egg. Every last bit of that will undermine them, capitalism, value of virginity, men deciding on, paying for (without contracts with a woman and THEIR legal system) their reproductive options.
Expect to see a day when young women have a profit motive to be virgins and be in good health and make vast fortunes from selling their eggs to wealthy older white men who got red pilled early on in life and decided they don’t need women for reproduction. The same women fist-pumping and feeling empowered over sperm banks and “you go grrrl you don’t need no man” will exhibit predictable double standards (as usual).
Heck, if I find myself in my 60s and in need of progeny, I just might give over half of what I have for a virgin’s egg and some rented womb-space.
Ahhhh modernity. Don’t you love it when it bites the asses of the very people who flaunted it in our faces and called us names?
Great idea for a screenplay right there….
I was just thinking that.
I just checked out amazon studios- always looking for new ideas,
$10,000 option extension payment for development slate projects.
$200k if we make your movie: $400k bonus if it does really well.
There was a dystopic sci-fi movie called “The Handmaiden’s Tale” which is pretty much where my mind ended up on this.
Given much artistic freedom, I’d go overboard.
Next, on Lifetime…
The Egg Hoarder, starring Lindsey Lohan and Steven Baldwin…
She is looking more and more like Smegel from lord of the rings every day! What is the plural of “precious”?
My preciouseseses!!
How ironic, Lindsey Lohan, that has to be one polluted womb and bad batch of eggs. She might have been useful to Joe Stalin. He tried to breed Gorillas with Russian females. It did not work.
You serious?? Why??
Am I serious about what? Lindsey Lohan is one mess of a young woman. Stalin did try to breed Gorillas with human Females. Lohan is useless for breeding.
why breed women with gorillas? Some supersoldier experiment?
that was Joe’s idea.
And did it work?
😉
Sure did! The offspring survive today. They inherited their brains from the gorillas and their penises from their mothers. And they posted on Reaxxion until it got laughed off the web.
That half would be a better investment than some super well-worn lady looking to settle now that she has hit the wall. It aint like she is going to give anything without you having to beg for after that marriage and you couldn’t guarantee the child is fully yours!
Soon after you won’t even be needing her virgin egg, merely her virgin DNA, obtained from a single hair you covertly pull from her hairbrush.
I was with you all the way until I realized you might have been serious. If you WERE being serious, then that post was the most humiliating, Beta-little-crybaby-bitch thing that has ever made it online. Yes, even worse than that Youtube idiot who just wanted us to “Leave Brittney Alooooooone”.
Again, when I thought you were making the funniest most satirical joke the internet has ever seen, I was with you. Now I’m just a little embarrassed to have a Y chromosome. Dude, step back and examine your mindset. See how “bitch” you came off from start 2 end.
Terrible your trolling is terrible.
Your name and avatar tell me you’re sad.
with this kind of information, women will ride the cock carousel even more in order to collect the best genes from alphas. Also if your kid don’t look like you, there is a chance that any question regarding cheating will be dismissed immediately. It would be really convenient discovery for women
I don’t know the validity of this, but there is reason to question the significance. Assuming modern humans evolved 200,000 years ago, that’s about 10,000 generations in our bloodline. So we have 20,000 grandparents. A few more souls mixed in to our DNA wouldn’t seem to have much additional numeric significance.
I’ve always wondered about a mothers promiscuity and it’s relationship to children with autism. Do women with more partners have a higher percentage of autistic children?
It’s vaccination, if you haven’t figured that out already.
Vaccination with sperm using penis syringe to inject, too
Yawn,cheesy joke
Beware of yawning around spermy penises.
worthy of serious research
telegony theory… lots of dude still don’t know what hypergamy or buffet’s law.
There is absolutely no link between promiscuity and autism (or vaccines and autism). Emerging research is showing that autism is the result of increased levels of “bad” bacteria in people’s guts. When you take a lot of antibiotics as a child, you kill off the “good” bacteria and create a vacuum for the bad bacteria to grow and thrive. This would explain the increase in autism since antibiotics are being prescribed more often and since they are in the meat we eat.
No link between vaccines and autism???!!! Fuck off Nathan and pull your microcephalic head out of your tight asshole. The evidence is piling up at a tremendous rate linking vaccines to a horrendous number of diseases, issues and conditions, but that won’t necessarily be in the next edition of BMJ or JAMA anytime soon.
This article really does emphasize the notion of sperm being “Nectar of the Gods” because the research is now evident that semen truly does “play god” with a woman’s body.
Consider now that any woman holding a full load of semen in her mouth, or multiple loads at once, may subject herself to seminal fluid being sublingually absorbed into her body by crossing the mucous membrane under her tongue and into her blood stream to be microchimerized into her genetic makeup.
This bring a whole new level of “risk” (or genetic advantage really) to men and women involved in group sex. I would recommend further research be conducted into women swallowing the nectar of 4-10 men at once when engaged in group sex and tracking the ‘Y-chromosome-specific DYS14 gene’ over time in the same way that the first link posted in the article above does.
A good variable to test in the above experiment would be being whether the female subject has eaten prior to swallowing a large amount of random sperm or whether her stomach is empty. This may affect the level of microchimerism occuring after group oral sex and whether or not the remarkable neutralizing effect of seminal fluid buys enough time for the nutrient rich male semen to enter into her bloodstream.
As a bit of credit, I do hold a biomedical science degree and most people here who have studied a bit of pharmacology in their own time will know how easy sublingual administration is (as fast as 1 minute for some drugs to enter the bloodstream under the tongue).
Trying to get government-funded bukkake, I like your style.
Actually a journal willing to take on this study could just do historical analysis of pornographic film gang bangs by getting actor records from studios. Then run the same analysis in the first scientific source link in the article to find how many of the semen depositors’ DYS14 genes are found in the gang-bangee’s brain. We really could know the answer as soon as next week!
Damn, I was halfway through “preparing for the trials”
Well, I might as well finish what I started.
” gang-bangee”
LOLOL
the soda came out through my nose..
Good luck investigating, on the Federal dime, the now-typical sluttery of the modern American woman. Can you imagine the uproar of the feminists, calling them out and being able to prove it? It’s just not going to happen. And if it did happen, they’d have to cover it up if it turned out to be true.
Whether it’s true or not, any man with a brain knows not to marry single mothers or breed with women who already have babies from other men because it’s simply bad policy. The studies are nice, but it’s mere confirmation. Fact is, grown men should be educating young men and boys on these issues. Feminism, per strategy, has ensured fewer husbands are in the home and the abolition of the religion that can tell young boys of the risks of involving yourself with slutty women the way they need to be told, the way we tell it here.
If young men were wise to all this, in ONE generation women would have to straighten out or abandon marriage and childbearing as a strategy of withdrawing resources from men. They’re getting wise, little-by-little, marriage is dropping, I see fewer and fewer wedding bands on groups of fellas out for a beer, at the football games, at the airport on skydiving junkets and fishing charters. More and more men of resources have checked out, successful guys with their motorcycles, hobbies, expensive cars, pensions and hobbies and they are NOT sharing their dough with the American harpies and it is beginning to show in the advice columns in the papers and romance Q/As, the exclusive purview of women. Number one issue for broads is “Why won’t he commit?”. Why indeed? Always a problem for the man, never an issue for a woman to look in the mirror and ask themselves.
If you could trick a low-IQ and outspoken SJW to rally for the same study to be conducted on gay men who deposit their semen inside other gay men, we may see some even better conclusive results.
The anus is even better at absorbing pharmaceuticals, semen, HIV etc.
To induce the SJW into calling for this study, it would need to be disguised as a “win” for gays, such that the title of study could go something like “Microchimerism: Is homosexuality genetically induced?”
So many birds to kill with one stone: we could even test the hypothesis, “Do I become increasingly homosexual as I sleep with more and more gay men?”…
Actually, the more I think about this, the clearer it gets: the man who accepts the most sperm may actually be taking on more and more promiscuous and homosexual traits.
This phenomenon of microchimerism would only affect women (already scientifically concluded) and most definitely gay men.
They can’t just admit to themselves the actual truth. It is beyond absurd. No one wants some skanked out pony for anything more than a ride or two.
Hmm. NAMBLA’s motto of ‘Sex before eight or it is too late.’ might give a hint on how they think things actually work in that dept.
As recently as the second half of the 19th century, ethnologists reported ritual homosexuality occurring in primitive tribes (in Africa or in Pacific Islands, i dont remember) whereby adolescent boys were required to perform fellatio on married older men. It was thought that the sperm itself somehow transmitted to the young the adult’s wisdom and strength.
By that brilliant logic, we should all be michrochimerized as fuck with cows, chicken, pigs, sheep, fish, trees and vegetables DNA we are eating every few hours… Oh and don’t forget the billions bacteria colonizing our mucosa.
But yeah, very credible.
Hey, this site looks down on intelligent remarks. Cut it out.
This is a fascinating area of research. And of course the experiment should be repeated several times a day with multiple women to ensure a decent sized population sample for statistical analysis.
Everyone’s heard of the “1000 Cock Stare.” This is something you can tell is just obvious from observing a women whose slutted around. It literally damages her brain from all the foreign sperm/dna that’s corrupted her body.
I like that…The 1000 cock stare. I’ll have to incorporate it into my lexicon.
A visual illustration of the “1000 Cock Stare”:
They’re not looking for boyfriends. That word for single mothers means “provider”…it’s single mother code.
They’ll still ride the carousel (if they can) but they’ll gladly take a “boyfriend” to foot the bill and help pay for shit (while riding the carousel on the side).
Strong and independent single mothers looking for boyfriends? It just doesn’t sound right.
Right on. And I speak from experience when I tell you that I have many single mother friends around 37 y.o. They look for a provider while keeping youger guys (usually in their 20’s) on the carousel. Another fact that annoys me is that these guys settle for an old bitch who already spawned, when they could be focusing on younger hotties. And yes, I’ve seen good looking guys doing this.
Eeeeccck. She looks like she works at glory hole.
Love the comment on that screenshot from Robert Stephen Lopez Jr. McWhite-Knight Beta boy. Yeah bruh. Cuz we know it’s always some man’s fault…
And in the cases of sluts who used contraception? The physical/mitochondrial damage wouldn’t occur, but I would assume that the psychological damage is still there
sluts who “dont” use condoms? you made LOL
actually no, birth control doesn’t suppress sperm–i’m talking about the pill here–it suppresses the formation of eggs through some action of estrogen. while there is probably some mechanism that enhances the integration of sperm DNA into the genome if conception occurs, it is still possible that the male genetic sample in integrated into her body. Quite likely, actually.
Essentially, birth control influences hormones in such a way that it puts women into a state of pseudo-pregnancy so she can’t actually get pregnant. The sugar pills at the end of each package make the woman’s body kind of snap back to reality and bleed, but it’s not what her natural cycle would or should look like, at all.
Can’t imagine what kind of damage this must cause the body in the long-run (not to mention that increased estrogen also increases appetite, for obvious reasons among pregnant females, but unnecessarily in healthy, non-pregnant ones, meaning weight gain, and brings on a slew of unpleasant side-effects long term, most notably and commonly the higher risk of deep vein thrombosis/stroke)… all to be able to sleep around “with freedom”, allegedly just as a man can do.
Billy , I have something to tell you… My first love wasn’t your father it was a Zebra. That’s why you’re a freak boy zebra hybrid, not because I work at the nuclear plant.
now we know how the elephant man came to be.
The girl that slept with an elephant must been one worn out woman.
Any ideas as to whether the pill would affect this..microchemirisation?
I thought everyone knew this already?!?!?
Well yes with animals.
A well known phenomenon in animal husbandry for 100s of yrs. and a reason breeders try to maintain pure bloodlines. If a purebred Jersey cow is mated with a Holstein bull once many pregnancies later even when mated with a Jersey Bull she can throw a calf with Holstein genetics!
its very interesting indeed… I’m wondering if the cow has to be impregnated for the telegony to take effect. This is an important distinction and should be a fulcrum point for future research.
Are you trying to say the teleological purpose of sex is reproduction? What nonsense! We all know that sex is nothing but self expression and freedom; this science is obviously false.
Yeah, women don’t want to hear that they evolved to find fulfillment as wives to the men in their tribe, so that their children will look like them and not stand out in the tribe as aliens.
Some theories about the shape of the penis (as a plunger) suggests that females in our genus evolved having multiple partners. Compare this to your “belief” about women’s evolution, rooted in… what? Myth? Religion? Your own factoids that you pulled our of your arse? Not science, surely.
Maybe the penis evolved into a plunger shape so it would be good for plungering females’ vaginas?
Bet you never thought of that.
Yeah that was “Sex at Dawn.” Roosh has some dodgy sources in here – Heritage Front – and is deliberately cherry picking some other ones – ignoring that the guys in the fruit fly study specifically said they could not prove it applied to humans – so I’m taking him with a boulder of salt. I know there was some criticism of “Sex at Dawn”‘s basic thesis that men orgasm more quickly than women, remain fertile for longer than women, and can enjoy pornography because the original mode of human reproduction was for all the men in the band to run a train on the fertile women in the band – so men evolved to be aroused by the sight of another man penetrating a woman. Then along comes the agricultural revolution, sparked according to some by human thirst for alcohol – why else give up the mobility and protein of hunting and gathering for the stasis of farming? You’d have the same life expectancy and until irrigation a greater chance of dying in a famine – see the study on “the people who do the least work in the world” – and there is a need for clear paternity – and therefore monogamy – in order to determine inheritance. I had a friend with whom I discussed this that argued that it felt wrong to him because – and I had no heart to argue it back on him – human nature has always been selfish, possessive and so on and the group-hug faux-Native American Noble Savage utopia is a projection of the Age of Reason onto the past. (Don’t recall what other criticisms of it were.) That said, polyandry doesn’t seem to be as common as polygamy – and the system works fairly well so long as you have a large number of men actually dying in hunting accidents and so on. (This is perhaps replicated by the prison system for some American populations. Please pardon my slothful refusal to correct my slipping coherence from this point forward.) The conservative argument about gay marriage being an attack on marriage as an institution in some ways makes some sense – I’ve heard it said the way the settlement with feminism was reached was that men generally had to give up the acceptability of sexual outlets outside of marriage – prostitutes and affairs – which had been unacceptable for women according to the sexual double standard. Certainly men who can have their cake and eat it too continue to do so – which could be a return to the days when aristocrats could and did have as much sex outside of marriage as possible – early modern elite marriage being about creating legitimate children in order to preserve and combine property. (This would segue neatly into a dirty ad hominem fallacy directed at the author for which I have no heart.)
Errr, that was the precise point. The plunger was to remove competitor’s sperm, so as to benefit your own. If so, the underlying point is that women clearly evolved to have many partners, not to be monogamous.
You should learn about the lost art of paragraphing.
The underlying point leaks logic like a sieve leaks water.
That’s a very “cute” answer, but do you think you could maybe be more specific? In what way does the hypothesis fail? If females didn’t have multiple partners, then a plunger shape wouldn’t confer a reproductive advantage to a male. We don’t tend to evolve attributes that don’t give us some kind of competitive advantage…. The size of the human penis (large!) also suggests that female chose males, rather than vice versa. (And it wasn’t because the guy was the alpha.)
You make assertions without providing proof. Furthermore, you suggest that men would have sex with a woman immediately after another guy has finished. Unlikely.
Haha. So in this imaginary world, men have NEVER had sex with a woman who’s slept with someone else. Haha. You have your head so far up your MRA ass that it’s amazing you have a light source by which to type.
You’re an idiot. Try reading my post again but this time activating your brain.
I’ve read. You make claims (eg, that it’s unlikely that a man would have sex immediately after another guy has finished) that have no bearing in reality. Furthermore, I’m just discussing anatomy and theories of why some aspects may have evolved. You say that I’m making unsubstantiated assertions. Like what, that the penis is shaped like a plunger or acts as a plunger? Google ‘why is the penis shaped like that’. Sperm remains viable in the vagina for a few days (not just “immediately”, although men have had sex “immediately”, despite your disgust about sperm and your personal. terror that touching a man’s sperm will make you gay. (That’s the main reason you MRAs hate cum even more than you hate women, right?)
No bearing in reality? Maybe you only run raw dog trains on chicks to see which of you can make the bitch pregnant but for most of us, this is pretty repulsive. Several days? Again, I am not messing with a slut. If that’s your speed, best of luck to you.
Btw, this is what a plunger looks like… does your dick look like this because mine doesn’t. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4cf95e620baca5f3975371ee7c75d06f915d1e5961b0886e751c552124c1312d.jpg
So you didn’t even bother to google and read the studies. Instead, let’s just simplify the past hundreds of thousands of years of evolution into YOUR personal anecdotal experience, because YOU’RE clearly the smartest man in the world. And while we’re at it, let’s make sure we slap some slut shaming in there. Nothing makes for a better MRA read than lack of science, personal anecdotes, and hated of women. Golly!
The enter key posts on some commenting plugins – but thank you for your dicklessly passive aggressive non-response nevertheless. 🙂
It’s what I’m here for brother.
No I didn’t bother to do your research for you. He who asserts must prove.
The research was already done. It was a link, you lazy lying piece of shit. (“Lying” because you *pretend* to ask for information, but you have no actual desire to actually learn and potentially change your point of view.)
Well lets look at the good news. If you’ve ever had sex with a woman then assuming she later has children, your genes will be passed on. Job done, go back to Call of Duty.
Indeed, it seems sometimes that the majority of the American population has forgotten that sex is the means by which babies are made.
This does not come surprising – I have read about cellular pleomorphism, biological magnetic fields which all support and help explain also what is happening via epigenetics and microchimerism. Currently all those concepts are in contrast to the germ theory and the absolute belief in genetic purity so a further influence of genes & health by exterior factors is not acceptable to the current dogma.
Anecdotally, this research finding does not surprise me in the least bit. I have noticed a big difference in women, both physically and emotionally, I have dated once I started “implanting” my seed in whatever manner (usually oral or unprotected vaginal sex). The change rarely occurs with women that I have exclusively had sex with while wearing a condom even after being in a relationship, sometimes exclusive, for many months. Those women tend to stay about the same whereas the others change over the course of a few months.
Please describe the changes you notice.
Dog breeders have always believed in Telegony. I remember a dog breeder who lived nearby me bred Golden Retrievers. He was out walking one of his bitches that was in heat. A local mutt sniffed her out and came around all excited. He gave the mutt a hard kick and was ready to kill it. He told me if she was impregnated by a mutt her future litters would be ruined even if she mated with a prize winning male.
I think there is a lot of things we use to believe that have been swept away by Leftist who have called it pseudo-sceince merely because at the time it couldn’t be proven. The Left is the old Catholic church now refusing to let real science be practiced and quieting down studies that prove or suggest realities they refuse to believe in.
yup. Can’t allow ugly facts to ruin their pretty ideology.
You blame the church? Go read the Bible and tell me what it says about violating a virgin. If anything, this would be supported BY the church.
You’re a boob!
Roosh, I just want to thank you for sharing this. I’ve had maybe one life-changing moment that I’ve been conscious of while I’ve lived so far, but I think this makes two. Incredible
“They seek the life essence…”
That “Good Lord” at :20 pretty much sums it up! LMFAO.
hah, need to watch that one again. Kubrick is such a master… you pick up subtleties time after time…
damn.
a lot more to explore in this field. is the effect only from previous pregnancy, or does any load of cum in the vag have an effect? does birth control/condoms prevent this? is the effect the same/more/less with oral/anal? This, if given its due research, could be a monumental scientific breakthrough in genetic study.
That’s what I want to know. I can understand a pregnancy programming the womb with the first father’s DNA, but how strong is the effect from non-pregnancy inducing ejaculations? The child is only going to be 50% your DNA anyway, so if previous partners had a minor effect on the mother, it might not be that big of a deal. Fascinating stuff.
Hmm.. Are you postulating that the woman’s 50% DNA may actually be *improved* by the male DNA she absorbed? That’s an interesting thought.
So I guess I do have some little me’s running around out there.
Very interesting stuff, but a distinction needs to be made.
Telegony caused by an earlier pregnancy (aborted or not) is one thing, and is more plausible since there’d be a lot of opportunity for DNA exchange between mom and fetus. This is what animal breeders have anecdotal experience of.
It’s quite another thing though to assert that just getting cummed in or on can make a woman (and a man, presumably) absorb and integrate small amounts of DNA. If that’s the case, there’s no reason though why sperm would be special. Pretty much all biomass contains DNA, you’d for example literally become what you eat. That brings to mind cannibalism practiced by some primitive tribes. Among some such tribes, there’s a belief that you actually gain some of the properties of the person you eat. Maybe they’re right, disturbing thought.
a. I think you’re right re: telegony being more likely in the event of an actual pregnancy.
b. either way, it’s changing HER DNA, not the man’s. Since both parties contribute precisely 50%, I’m not sure how this would result in the father’s child being any less “his”.
It could go something like 48% guest mixed with 2% colleg boy she Fucked a year before she met you.
it would also apply to sublingual absorption through the mouth, which would also affect men……
Just think of all the newborn lambs in Wales and New Zealand that are just a little bit smarter and more urbane than their siblings. Or at least they can instinctively kick a ball with their front hooves
Good points Roosh. Noting how mothers absorb some of their son’s ‘Y’ is interesting. Come to think of it, I do notice now how the soccer moms with a few boys on the team do seem to take on a masculine trait and appearance themselves. I can’t recall any extremely effeminate soccer moms with multiple sons who retain the degree of femininity they had on their wedding night.
Their hips remain wide and unchanged but the face and build of a big ‘boy-producing’ mama gets looking a little more like lady liberty with each additional son. Nothing bad about that so long as she was nice and feminine in the beginning when her genetic zipper opened up to producing males and the environmental adapto toggle switches get thrown.
Dad never seems to notice she’s becoming more masculine. He gets used to the rough tone she takes on. It matches the favorite wooden table she bends over. Everything is fine so long as she keeps producing fine fresh progeny for the republic.
With the established soccer mom, you can almost hear the eggs of future players rattling in their cages when she sits her thoroughbred cushion on the bleachers. Once a mom gets intoxicated from carrying same sperm males (from the same sire), she walks with the swagger of her master and even takes on mannerisms of her lifetime male mate. The male hue she takes on is un erasable and she morphs into a true semblence of her genetic purpose, to sire and comb over increasingly refined offspring from the same male.
Subsequent males produced being the leader, the middle diplomat, and the little firecracker all do their part to make their mom a little better of a thoroughbred male producer with each sqbsequent child.
I doff my hat to your poetry, that should go viral on every public toilet stall wall in the western world.
Fucking lols.
“…There are existing sociological studies that show a marriage is far more likely to fail when a woman had more than two prior sexual partners…”
Confirmed. I fucking hate this culture.
There are also existing sociological studies that show men are Satan incarnate. Still hate this culture?
You can’t let yourself be stupid enough to believe everything that claims to be a sociological study. Roosh is Mud People btw, according to many existing sociological studies.
even if Telogony proved to be true, it would alter the woman’s DNA, not the male’s. Thus, the male is still contributing his 50%. The author is making some pretty big leaps here.
He says “research” if you haven’t noticed
I realize that. But suggesting that altering a woman’s DNA somehow results in a genetic cuckolding makes no sense. The male has always contributed 50%, he continues to do so. Besides, all kinds of external pressures can alter DNA: viruses, pollution, environmental stressors. DNA is being altered all the time, it still belongs to the individual until such time as it passed on to the next generation at a 50/50 ratio.
Obviously, he was pointing out the SEMEN is also one of those factors
This terrifies him.
Yup
Come on Roosh you are kidding, right? Or is ROK now officially promoting pseudoscience?
Drives the feminazis and SJW’s crazy.
Great….I’m, like, my kids half dad now. Thx
No, brother, you are the gatekeeper whose penis, sperm and woman’s egg unleashed the demon seed trapped in her from previous rides on the carousel and imbibed “cocktails” in seedy restrooms or perhaps glory holes and now will raise those chimeras to adulthood if they don’t lead to your demise, first.
These are the articles love songs are written from
“women with high notch counts exhibit more masculine traits, something that any international playboy can anecdotally confirm.” – great observation, and a good tell during the screening process.
So this is the reason why I would find it a turn off to know a girl Fucked another dude before me ever since I started wanting to fuck women. I told myself I would only marry and have a family with a virgin, no questions asked. I’m so glad and thankful to always have listened to my instincts and not what society tells me.
How the Fuck could any man stomach knowing his wife Fucked another man before him? I never got it and never will. I applaud the men who never settled for the filthy women and went and found a virgin. The ones who settled; well I guess you were meant to be bred out of the gene pool for denying your own masculine instincts.
If I’m seeing a girl, and I even get the slightest gut feeling she’s banging another dude while she’s with me, or in close time frame, I’m not only subconsciously less attracted, but I’d swear there’s a natural biological disconnect as well. Maybe it’s the sense that her genetic code was slightly altered since the last time we had sex. Don’t know, but I think there are other implications stemming from the basis of this article for sure.
“I’m not only subconsciously less attracted, but I’d swear there’s a natural biological disconnect as well”.
I know that feeling exactly. The deeper implications to this article is a GENETIC GENOCIDE. Breeding out a group or race of people by pumping their women with a vast amount of different varieties of cock. And who are the sluttiest of women generally speaking?
Now do you see why women were so treasured and protected back in biblical times? If you Fucked a virgin girl without marrying her, you were not only forced to marry her and keep her forever, you had to pay her father a huge sum of money.
“this means that the children a man has with a promiscuous woman could possess genes from previous sexual partners he has never seen or met.”
Or, even worse, ones he has seen and met.
Ergo, little Tommy looks like the Mexican pool boy and has the intellect of your dumb cousin.
…or worse, could be the secret sauce behind that funky flavour in her french kisses after you’ve been out to sea for a few months.
Studies show that the average American woman has about 1500 sex
partners in a lifetime including many men (sometimes more than one at a time)
but also same sex couplings and animals like dogs and goats. The average American woman has incontinence due to too much a nal sex and has a number of problems due to the large number of abortions she has had (between 15 and 25 average). Also the average American woman is about 50 pounds overweight and as aprt of sex enjoys eating f eces and drinking u rine.
1.5k average seems way too high. Some promiscuous women in their 30’s I’d believe, but average of all american women? Citation please.
Dude. Your brains are leaking out your ears, errr, sorry, I mean you ass.
No real man would want to be with a woman who has licked another man’s balls and a sshole. This is the American woman – A filthy pig, a dirty w hore. American women are good for sex only and only if you are desperate and wear 5 c ondoms.
I’ve thought that some feminists and SJWs may start referring to microchimerism as a misogynistic and white supremacist hoax if knowledge about it spreads.
This goes to show why radical life extension, if that ever becomes a thing some day, doesn’t make sense for women. Assuming that you could really rejuvenate a high-mileage woman, restock her ovaries with fresh eggs and make her fertile like an 18 year old girl again, how could you de-experience her to undo the psychological damage from all her previous sexual encounters?
Better to let the women die on schedule and let the men get the treatments for “living forever.”
Interesting shit.
The fruitfly argument is bunk, they made the males large by different feeding, then the offspring turned out big, and with no DNA testing they declared it was caused by genetics!(hey wait…weren’t they able to make the first males large just by feeding??). The zebra and horse would be the strongest proof if true. Still, I’m sure the father who impregnates her, donates the vast majority of DNA.
Roosh, I would expect better scientific judgement coming from a former microbiologist.
“The promiscuous girl becomes more masculine because various masculine genes are being inserted into her genome and affecting her phenotype.” What do you mean by “her genome” exactly ? Which cell’s genome are you talking about ? The genome of her brain cells ? Are you seriously suggesting sperm DNA could travel from a female vagina and somehow end up fused inside neurons ? Or maybe in some endocrine gland cells ? This is beyond ridiculous.
Residual jizz.
Gives new credence to the term ‘semen dumpster’
Thanks, that kind of rolls off the tongue so much more gently than, “cum dumpster”.
Maybe we should just use “Cdump” for short:
“Hey bro, I here you are going out with fine ass Trish”
“Nah dude, I squashed that. Word on the street is that she Cdump”
“Word?”
“Word!”
“[…]having a baby with a single mom is essentially giving the father of her first child a bonus prize in the game of evolution.”
Well, according to a previous article by Roosh evolution does not apply to modern human beings… So, we are fine here, right? Right?!
You wrote, “evidence now shows that female animals can incorporate sperm DNA from her prior sex partners”. This is a gross misunderstanding of the science. What happens in flies is vastly different from what happens in vertebrates. For starters, flies generally mate once and store the sperm for later use. This gives male DNA access to infest and overtake – basically rape – the female’s genome. (See what I did there?)
Ok, kidding aside and dropping the politicization of science that YOU so eagerly (and incorrectly) embraced in order to smear your childish misogyny, humans do nothing of the sort. Your sperm is naturally flushed out of the vagina and has no further effect. However, your memory remains as a sharp disagreeable image that only years of counseling can erase, due to how much we women are disgusted by MRAs and your vile hateful attitudes.
Die. Oh, before you do, please become scientifically literate, if you’re going to PRETEND to even understand the crap you publish.
Maybe you should try reading. The studies obviously point out that semen is not just “flushed” out. The have found MC male DNA in the brains of females who never had male children.
Errr, what paragraph? It says nothing of the sort.
It is in the provided links to the studies, not in the body of the article itself.
I call bullshit. I’ve read them. It happens from fetuses, not from sperm. (We’re taking humans, or other mammals, not flies, right?) If you think I’m wrong, provide the exact link and I’ll reread it and concede your point.
That’s fine, you can call bullshit. The truth does not require your permission.
Wow. Another clueless response. My calling bullshit was because Ragnor made a claim about what was stated on the content. If it is TRUE that it is stated in the content, you should be able to supply the link, not handwave like a spastic baby.
One of two women without history of having sons was also positive for male Mc in her brain and without neurologic disease; the negative individual had AD.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045592
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16084184
Male microchimerism was not infrequent in women without sons. Besides known pregnancies, other possible sources of male microchimerism include unrecognized spontaneous abortion, vanished male twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, or sexual intercourse.
Maybe Roosh did not provide the links in his article, but nonetheless they are available. Are you tingling? Calm down and keep your desire in check.
Keep deluding yourself with that wishful thinking, cupcake.
Who gives a fuck that fetal antibodies float around a woman’s bloodstream during pregnancy (and eventually end up somewhere)? Probably helps the fetus by keeping the mother healthier.
What do you interpret this to mean? Oh, right. That a woman should never ever have sex except with a “true” man, an MRA who will hate her and probably beat and rape her if she doesn’t toe his line. Because that’s who you are.
Yes that’s exactly what I mean. Don’t worry Juden, your mangina trembles at your anger and hate, he will never give you the crack in the mouth you deserve. I thought you were leaving. MRA’s were not worth your attention?
You can’t read, obviously.
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/177/troll.jpg
Oh, we have a salty party girl here…
Accept the facts, don’t be another semen dumpster.
For all the misogyny you spot, you MRAs are actually so full of self-loathing. Your biggest insult is that women might have cum inside her, because cum is the grossest thing possible? I actually love my man and see nothing disgusting about him or his cum. Grow the fuck up.
Not the biggest insult in general, just the one that gets to you the most as it apparently has the ring of truth in your case.
Ad hominem fallacy. Not only is the author scientifically illiterate, but you can’t even post a cogent argument.
What a bunch of morons.
You’re just mad because no one WANTS your DNA.
Heh, ad hominem implies that I insult you because it bolsters a point. I’m actually insulting you because your raving makes it funny.
I think most of us here are glad “your mangina” is the object of your love and not one of us. Is this article pissing you off because of the number of different males that have dumped their cum in you? Why the anger?
The article is “pissing me off” because it’s a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the science.
The MRAs are pissing me off because the hatred you all have for me, because of my gender, is abhorrant.
You’re all about using women and then hating us when we fall for it.
You MRAs are mentally ill. I’m done with you illiterate idiots.None of you deserve a woman’s love OR attention, so I’m leaving. Bye.
Speaking for myself, I don’t hate women. I hate what has become of them, and the terrible psychological brainwash they have internalized. I wish we did not have to take this hard stance with today’s woman. But facts are facts. Men simply cannot trust the “modern strong independent” woman for reasons that have been enumerated a thousand times on this website.
I don’t use women, but boy have I been used by them in my previous life. I’m just not going to have that occur again. Actually, I don’t consider sex a recreational sport. But if you are getting so pissed off it’s best you take your leave of us. Take out your frustration on your mangina. You can Cuck him or spend his money, whatever you do to abuse him, don’t worry until he comes around to our way of thinking he will put up with your shit.
Terrible brainwashing such as believing that we are fully human and that our bodies belong to ourselves? Yes, how horrible.
Anger because you are an ugly ugly human being that should have been aborted. Your mind is tiny and perverted. Do the world a favour, Ragnor, and die. You will never be loved. You will never be wanted. Why prolong the pain?
Gentlemen, I give you the typical feminist, wicked harpy.
The study of flies, by the way, speaks of molecules in the seminal fluid by the way, not DNA. The original study compares two matings, the first with a male who was large, the second with a make who was small, and their sizes were specifically determined because of diet. the study is about epigenetics, not genetics.
So ANY claim in the above article that is made about DNA is incorrect and is not supported by any science, including the studies he links.
Here’s the thing that most commenters are overlooking. Women (Feminists) don’t give a shit about men, so the fact that *MEN* are disadvantaged by their promiscuity wouldn’t bother them in the slightest. They might even get a chuckle out of it.
It’s *MEN* who are being disadvantaged, if true– and thus it would be in the interests of MEN to do something about it, and enforce it.
*** Think about it. ***
I wonder if this is why old married couples tend to look alike?
you just lost a lot of credibility with this pile of shit, roosh..i thought you had a science degree.
PZ Myers, the cognitive creationist who denies the evidence for human cognitive biodiversity (in other words, that human populations in the tropics evolved dumber than northern Eurasian populations), addresses Roosh’s post here:
MRA “Science” madness!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/09/09/mra-science-madness/
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/09/09/mra-science-madness/
Hmm, too bad scientists (and people who have even a tiny grasp on reality) disagree wholeheartedly with the insane rantings of one person’s misinterpretation of data.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16084184
“Male microchimerism was not infrequent in women without sons. Besides known pregnancies, other possible sources of male microchimerism include unrecognized spontaneous abortion, vanished male twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, or sexual intercourse.”
So, this PZ is making a false claim that male MC is solely the result of fetal tissue, because clearly what little research that has been done proves otherwise. And the emerging field of Epigenetics would indicate that it is not necessary for the male MC to be absorbed directly into her DNA. IMP’s which are constantly probing the environment CAN AND DO make immediate changes to the cell based on stimuli they come into contact with. More research needs to be done, but as it is politically incorrect to put forth an idea that sex is something more than a recreational sport, especially for women, I doubt it will be. Women and their innate nature to follow have been led to believe that having as many dicks as they can have shoved into them is good clean fun. Maybe the government, media, and the toxic school system don’t have your best interests at heart. Let men do the critical thinking. Women are not made to think, they feel, and that would be an asset if they were feminine mothers and wives instead of masculine hop a dick whores.
I’m not actually planning to go to China any time soon, but thank you so much for telling me the price of tea there, cupcake.
Too much for your tiny brain? You don’t have this PZ to answer for you. All you can do is post his article. Now go gargle with some splooge it will make you feel better.
She will feel much better if she swallows it.
Quoting PZ Myers? Sorry, there goes all your credibility. This is the same Myers that, when asked about the 100+ baby boys who die from botched circumcisions in the US every year, basically said “aww the poor boys with their boo boos”.
Besides, the guy doesn’t even know the difference between an MRA and the people who inhabit this website. Now fuck off.
This is not possible. Your genes can’t be altered this way.
Genes are mutable. That is what epigenetics is the study of. Even emotional trauma or beliefs can alter you DNA. There is a hard coding that does not change, but there is a soft coding that does make changes based on many different factors.
Interesting, but it is much more likely that their hormone systems have been so fucked by their promiscuity that they show different phenotypes. It can be demonstrated the effects of hormones on the human body, when men lacking androgen receptors develop as phenotypically female.
explains why infants are autistic at an epidemic rate. Fetal cell lines used to produce vaccines were used from aborted fetuses that were discovered to be autistic. If a woman can absorb a mans dna from his sperm, and incorporate it into her genome then that could go for all humans. Fascinating concept.
“explains why infants are autistic at an epidemic rate. Fetal cell lines
used to produce vaccines were used from aborted fetuses that were
discovered to be autistic. If a woman can absorb a mans dna from his
sperm, and incorporate it into her genome then that could go for all
humans. Fascinating concept.”
And, fetal cells aren’t just in the vaccines, they’re in the food and beverage supply as well.
Obama agency rules Pepsi’s use of aborted fetal cells in soft drinks constitutes ‘ordinary business operations’:
http://www.naturalnews.com/035276_Pepsi_fetal_cells_business_operations.html
You are what you eat. And what Mystery Babylon eats is Soylent Green.
There is no escaping the curses that God said would fall upon anyone who commits such and such sins (fornication, adultery, sodomy, cannibalism, creating GMO foods and animals, etc) and any people/nation that permitted these things to be done openly among them.
Russia has banned GMO food for many good reasons.
Why put fetal cells in soft drinks? What is the purpose? Thanks.
Heh. Even if true, hardly as bad for women as many here think. It would increase genetic variation in offspring, which is a good thing, all-over. The need for a woman’s reproduction to be reserved for only one man who is supposed to be super-awesome-special to her, is just *your* need. Not her need, not the “need” of the specie. If women “absorb” genetics from men, it will for the most part be accepted as a feature, not a bug, and a natural part of her sexuality and reproduction – because it would be.
Seriously. Women would not go back to second-class citizen status and being sexually controlled, just because her having a previous sex life would make *your* cum less genetically special.
I think what is more relevant is what intelligent men, given the information, will be willing to be a part of.
In other words women won’t have a choice in the matter, it will be forced upon them by being unable to find a mentally sufficient, financially stable, well educated men etc
regardless of women or the species, it could well be something that decreases a womans reproductive fitness, if men decide that actually they DO care. In my country, Lots of these women who pride themselves on not being second hand citizens, many of them highly educated, ALREADY will die childless.
And perhaps they damn all that multitude of diverse sperm to share their barren grave
saliva and sublingual absorption
could also apply to men
Women don’t do anything for anybody. No red pill man would even think a woman would voluntarily go to second class for the sake of a man, civilization of even a child. Abortion the killing of a helpless child is legal because women want it so. Don’t flatter yourself it’s unseemly.
Met a lady in my early business career, a single mum. we started getting real cozy and shit like that, and things were getting, you know, sort of hot.
A quick rundown of her sexual history, according to her under reported estimates, was
1) Six past sexual partners ( more like 60, i think)
2) THREE Different abortions for a coworker who promised her marriage, but wisely dumped her later on (blamed it on her “excessive fertility”.no kidding)
And she had the guts to ask me to take her home!!!
Balls. I still admire the balls. don’t you?
“You can’t hold my previous decisions against me!” they actually believe that
hahaha. reminds me of sth i saw round these parts
Say it with me people, “Hell No, Ho!”
“Yeah, I can’t hold it against you, but can you just forget we ever met pls?”
Seems a good reply that avoids a sexual harassment allegation
“it’s the only thing I’m holding against you”
The fact that she didn’t grasp the concept of birth control makes her a no go.
Moral of the story: Don’t be a Captain Save-a-ho, you can’t turn a ho into a housewive. Women who fuck around are damaged goods. Period.
No hymen, no diamond.
It’s a very simple and solid rule that a man should always stick to. Non-virgins are strictly for fun.
Feminism is great huh. With out it we would all still be in the dark pedistalizing sluts. Science now backs up religion and culture.
Now, women are fucking dogs and horses. It is all over the internet blogs. I think fairytales of centaurs and mermaids have a large truth behind it. Women fuck anything.
Women fuck anything? Same can certainly be said for men.
I would really love to see the original research for this, if possible do you have any of the references handy?
After doing some reading into the subject I want to give you a short summary of the actual scientific knowledge:
Women incorporate a very tiny amount of fetal CELLS into their bodys during pregnancy.
Although there is no evidence for it, another possible origin of male CELLS in the female body could be sexual intercourse. In any case these cells are not sperm cells though but somatic cells.
The DNA in those male cells DOES NOT somehow take over and gets incorporated into the female genome, changing it!
And btw, if sexual intercourse should turn out to be another origin of cells from a different body, it is very likely that males also incorporate female cells into their bodys during intercourse.
An even tinier amount of the CELLS that a women incorporated into her body during a previous pregnancy can wind up in the body of her new child – no matter who the father of the new child is.
Again though – the DNA in those cells does not take over the genome of the child and dilutes it in any way. 50% of the genome of the child comes from the male, 50% comes from the female. Just a very tiny amount of the childs somatic cells will have its origin from a possible other male.
Compared to this a kidney transplant would incorporate a GIGANTIC amount of foreign cells into your body or the body of anbody who gets such a transplant. If you know somebody with such a transplant: Do you worry that the DNA in the cells of the kidney somehow takes over the original genome of the person? Changing the appearance of that person? No? Then don’t worry about female microchimerism either.
Roosh simply confused CELLS and DNA in this one.
Excellent! Our bodies also host bacteria, viruses, retroviruses, mites, etc., most of which only secure lodging and do no harm. Sperm would require a retrovirus vector to incorporate its DNA into a somatic host cell. While sperm may prove able to breach a somatic cell as it can breach a haploid meiotic cell (egg), there’s no evidence of DNA fusion in somatic host cells.
What about this:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/health/russian-man-claims-his-skin-turning-black-after-liver-transplant-african-american-man
That’s a funny claim but I need more evidence than the sole testimony of a guy named Semen to believe it…
Um, yea, Roosh is correct, you are wrong… read this. It helps explain why they believe that the child’s genetics may actually be affected.
http://time.com/3461485/how-previous-sexual-partners-affect-offspring/
See my response to this in your post above. There I explain in detail where you get confused. I won’t do it here again.
LOL. You just don’t like the fact that studies show cells including dna are absorbed directly from semen, and that the fly studies show (see Time’s article) that it is indeed thought that those DNA strands are inherited and even demonstrated by subsequent offspring. What part of the Time article did you not understand?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/09/09/mra-science-madness/
Fruit flies wow way to compare. I am so thankful that I am governed and held by Spirit and Truth…a little bit of truth and much mish mash.
“This means that men can be genetically cuckolded without being traditionally cuckolded, and that having a baby with a single mom is essentially giving the father of her first child a bonus prize in the game of evolution.”
I am a big fan of Biology but am a bit rusty in my knowledge. This quote confuses me a bit. If by taking this study as fact when translating to the human species, the male wouldn’t be “cuckolded”. Since the DNA of the previous consort is effecting the female DNA, the sexual reproduction would still be a combination of the male and female gametes. The male gametes coming from the father, female gametes from the mother. We all know the Y chromosome can only be passed to the female through the male who is copulating with her. The only genes affected by this apparent phenomenon, however severe the influence we do not know, would be the female genes. Meaning, the male involved in the sexual reproduction act would still have his genes passed on to his children. Just my interpretation, do not know if correct or not.
I saw the actual scientific study to this and it is very compelling. Talk about a good argument that “count” DOES indeed matter…. this puts the nail in the coffin for these women that claim it doesn’t matter that they had 300 partners in their 20s that they’re now ready to settle down… the fact is, if you are dumb enough to impregnate one of these chicks you’re kid is carrying some other alpha’s DNA.
Except that no such study exists… Not wanting to impregnate a woman with 300 sexpartners? Fine. But even if you do the child’s DNA will come from you and the mother with no contribution from a previous sexpartner.
So you’re saying this study doesn’t exist?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16084184/
or this
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3458919/
or this
Hmm… interesting… because you can read the peer reviewed published study at those links even though it doesn’t exist. /s
I’m saying that theses studies in no way support the claim that a woman’s body incorporates DNA from the semen of her casual sex partners, yes.
If you read these studies you will see that the only known cause of microchimerism in the female body is the incorporation of cells from the fetus during pregnancy. Microchimerism IS NOT caused by the semen of other men during sexual intercourse. Or at least there is no evidence for this.
A tiny amount of fetal cells gets incorporated into the female body – and an even tinier amount of these cells can get incorporated back into a subsequent fetus during a new pregnancy. The DNA in these few cells DOES NOT change the overall genetic makeup of the baby nor the mother, diluting their genome or even changing the appearence of a person. That’s why this whole article is so ridiculously wrong.
No, actually in the conclusion, and in the study proper, it states “sources of male microchimerism include unrecognized spontaneous abortion, vanished male twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, or sexual intercourse” ***PLEASE NOTE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE (added by me in all caps)
It also states the following on their Group D subjects:
“and Group D were nulligravid (n = 48)”. Nulligravid means that the woman has never been pregnant. The study specifically states that women do absorb DNA from sperm through sexual intercourse where no pregnancy occurs although women who had abortions had significantly higher numbers.
Now that we know you can get it from semen alone and not a fetus, here is the study that shows how this DNA may affect future offspring.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11133203/Could-previous-lovers-influence-appearance-of-future-children.html
Now. Please provide something that says this is not true other than, “I say so”.
Please quote the whole sentence. It says:
“Besides known pregnancies, other possible sources of male microchimerism include unrecognized spontaneous abortion, vanished male twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, or sexual intercourse.”
–> It says POSSIBLE sources. Not KNOWN sources. Sexual intercourse as a cause of microchimerism is a legitimate speculation by the authors, not a known fact.
And besides: Nowhere do the authors make the claim that SPERM is the possible source of microchimerism (somatic cells from the penis would be a much more likely cause in my opinion).
And the authors also do not make the claim that the DNA from the microchimeristic cells somehow intermingles with the DNA from the rest of the body.
The authors list “unrecognized spontaneous abortion” as a possible cause and that would explain the small group of supposedly nullgravid woman with microchimerism.
By all means we do not know that you can get microchimerism “from semen alone” like you claim.
EDIT: Oh, and the last link you provided is a newspaper article, not a study. It’s about fruit flies, not humans. And the proposed mechanism is not linked to sperm-DNA but other molecules.
The last reference, the newspaper article, references the study, with full detail. The reason I didn’t list the study, is because there are like 5 of them, so I listed the article which names them all, with their university and the author or the study for each. I agree it is about fruit flies but the authors of the study hypothesize it to be true in humans and what it explains is how dna not found in the father winds up in the baby.
Also, the study DOES say from insemination where NO pregnancy existed. At this point, it is simply your conjecture that there may have been some “unrecognized abortion” causing it. As far as they know, the DNA got there from SEMEN because they do not believe the women to have ever been pregnant or miscarried.
Do you have ANYTHING that says this doesn’t happen? Anything at all? Because I have provided many references now and you only will say what *you* don’t think they say or mean rather than providing evidence backing up your claims.
I suppose this is really pointless unless you have some evidence, because I find the study more dependable than you, since I don’t know your credibility and you have provided proof at all of your claim against mine.
Further, I’m pretty sure that most guys would just as soon not take the risk of their wife having the DNA of a 100 or so guys floating around in her body that *might* affect their child…
Oh, btw, another point of interest is they think that her collection of this nastiness can also now may play a factor in Alzheimer’s although there has been research that shows it can reduce risk while other research shows it increases risk .
Anyway here is another Time Magazine article, with a link to yet another study, which specifically says that the woman can absorb DNA from the non sperm part of the Semen and then goes into how yet again that could effect the egg and/or offspring. I’m sure you’ll reject this one too, so I look forward to seeing the evidence you put forth.
http://time.com/3461485/how-previous-sexual-partners-affect-offspring/
“Cool, or really disturbing. The implications of the study are that any mates a female has had may leave some legacy—in the form of physical or other traits that are carried in the semen (but not the DNA-containing sperm)—that could show up in her future offspring with another mate.”
“The reason I didn’t list the study, is because there are like 5 of them, so I listed the article which names them all, with their university and the author or the study for each.”
–> As far as I can see, there is only one study mentioned in the article. The rest are comments from other persons of that field of science. Those people say things like:
““I think it’s impossible to say whether this could apply to humans without further studies in a more related species like a mouse,” said Associate Professor John Parrington, Lecturer in Cellular & Molecular Pharmacology at Oxford University.”
And:
“This particular mechanism would be unlikely to apply to mammals such as humans because of differences in reproductive physiology compared to insects.”
“[…]what it explains is how dna not found in the father winds up in the baby.”
–> No, the newspaper article simply does not make such a claim. Please provide a specific quote from the article for that claim.
“Also, the study DOES say from insemination where NO pregnancy existed.”
–>Now you are talking about the 2005 study, right? Please quote the specific line in that study that makes that claim.
“At this point, it is simply your conjecture that there may have been some “unrecognized abortion” causing it.”
–>No, the authors of the study name it as a possible cause.
Quote: “Besides known pregnancies, other possible sources of male microchimerism include UNRECOGNIZED SPONTANEOUS ABORTION, vanished male twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, or sexual intercourse.”
Well, and another cause might be that the 10% of nullgravid women with microchimerism simply lied to the researchers about not being pregnant ever before…
“As far as they know, the DNA got there from SEMEN[…]”
–> They make no such claim. I think they don’t even mention the word semen… Where do ou think they claim this?!
“Do you have ANYTHING that says this doesn’t happen?”
–>Of course not. There is no study that says: “Microchimerism in females in NOT caused by semen.”
You can’t prove a negative. That’s like saying: “Show me a study that says the Easterbunny does NOT exist. If you fail to do so, that means the Easterbunny does exist!”
“Anyway here is another Time Magazine article, with a link to yet another study, which specifically says that the woman can absorb DNA from the non sperm part of the Semen[…]”
–> Ok, NOW I’m beginning to understand where your confusion comes from! You are right in so far that something gets absorbed into the fly’s eggs besides the DNA from the sperm. But here’s your mistake: You assume that this other factor is also DNA but from the non sperm part of the semen. It is not. What is absorbed are other factors like proteins (what exactly it is in this specific case is not known so far). These factors have the ability to switch on specific genes in the DNA. Or to turn them of. For example, they switch on some genes related to growth and the fly gets bigger offspring. Or they turn them off and the fly gets smaller offspring.
Now, these gene on-or-off-switching factors can come from a previous sexual partner of the fly, not from the current father of the flys offspring.
However, these factors do not change the DNA. The DNA stays the same, only the genes on the DNA are activated or deactivated in a specific way that may lead to charakteristics of the offspring resembling those of a previous sexpartner of the female. Again, in flies:
“And while flies aren’t people, what are the chances that the same phenomenon is occurring in human reproduction? “It’s something we definitely don’t want to speculate about yet with humans,” she says. “There is no direct scientific evidence for that at all.””
I don’t assume that, the authors of the study assume that. Did you read the Time article?
This is a fascinating study. It suggests that couples who have lots of sex before a child is born will be able to offset this effect as his DNA further dominates the children offsetting the mother’s natural traits as well as any previous mates.
roosh v incorporated much more adn and viruses from the panoply of casual sex he boasts about having – yet he speaks.
hahahah
Roosh:
This is the best article in the history of Mankind, since Deutoronomy.
Congratulations Roosh. – You`ve just prooved God`s existence.
http://biblehub.com/akjv/deuteronomy/22.htm
American King James Version
.Marriage Violations
13 If any man take a wife, and go in to her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name on her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity to the elders of the city in the gate:
16 And the damsel’s father shall say to the elders, I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he hates her;
17 And, see, he has given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not your daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18A nd the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the damsel, because he has brought up an evil name on a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 BUT IF THIS BE TRUE, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she has worked folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house:
so shall you put evil away from among you.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shall you put away evil from Israel.
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbor’s wife: so you shall put away evil from among you.
25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26 But to the damsel you shall do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man rises against his neighbor, and slays him, even so is this matter:
27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give to the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Firewing, is that you?
Whether or not this is science or bullshit, it’s yet another reason you shouldn’t be casually raw-dogging a woman for any reason.
IF I understand the legend correctly, Odysseus and his men stayed on the island a full year after they recovered from being pigs.
Odysseus still managed to father three CONSECUTIVE children with the GODDESS of sorcery, Circe.
Telegonus was the third of those children. Circe gave birth, was pregnant AGAIN, gave birth and was pregnant AGAIN despite Odysseus having been gone two years. Were the second two “telegonic” pregnancies?
I guess when Odysseus ‘hit that’, it STAYED hit!
This is how a species EVOLVES! The BEST of EACH is taken and the APEX OFFSPRING is BORN! It is GOOD to get with a woman who has had a variety of sex partners. WOMEN are naturally supposed to have sex with MULTIPLE men during her ovulation cycle, and the strongest sperm gets to the egg! Now imagine, if she’s absorbing all that sperm DNA to make the ULTIMATE CHILD!?? This is AWESOME!!! 🙂 Like SUPER KIDS!!! 🙂 Lesson to be learned, GET with a PROMISCUOUS WOMAN to raise the APEX CHILD! 🙂 Your sperm is the SPARK that IGNITES continued EVOLUTION of the SPECIES!!! 🙂
You are more likely to reach the apex by breeding with only the best people. I don’t think you can handpick the best genes from all these people, just make a super woman and a super man breed, than make their offspring breed with another breeding etc…
Genetics is an interesting albeit complex subject, as I experienced while taking college courses. I’ll certainly be reading through some abstracts in the scientific literature to investigate this matter further. One thing is for sure though; experience tells us that a promiscuous sexual history is definitely incorporated into a woman’s MIND, and ROK fans know exactly what this leads to… (baggage… or in the case of many American women, FREIGHT).
Oh dear, my promiscuous past strikes again! Wondering if the presence of condoms makes a difference to this.
Same here. I inferred through the article that the semen was absorbed internally, therefore if condoms were used, the chances would be very low of passing on DNA to the slut receiving the penile thrusting, but this could be incorrect.
The more we learn how much we do not know about the human genome, the more the teachings of the Bible make sense.
Because everything we don’t understand is caused by God! No energy wasted to brain activity with this explanation. I like it!
What if people use preservative?
This is not proven on humans yet…
“The second implication stems from the fact that it’s scientifically conclusive that single mothers have DNA of their bastard children residing permanently within their bodies. Any man who reproduces with a single mom will have a child that contains DNA from the bastard spawn, which of course includes DNA from the absentee father. ” ~ So… It’s my understanding that DNA paternity tests come back as either 99.9% confirmed or 0.01% and “you are not the father”! Q: do DNA tests show percentages varying from 25% to 50% to 75% and 99%…? Does Microchimerism show up in DNA tests?
Yep, that’s it – we are fucked as a species.
Why should any of this matter?
Nobody thinks about this crap while they’re boinking.
You might listen to the Bock Saga (oldest Saga ever told), by Jim Chesnar or/and Ior Bock, for it relates that our first ancestors enjoyed a honeymoon of one month in which the male gave every day his sperm to drink to his female partner, before inseminating her vaginally after 30 days, for the exact reasons you mention in this article.
According to Creationist and Information Theorist Werner Gitt, the epigenetics mentioned here is a cell membrane-based mechanism of heredity transmitted from generation to generation independently of the genome. In effect, a second genetic code.
Website like those of Dr. Joseph Mercola also state that epigenetically, you are not just the result of the genes you inherited from your parents, but also the environmental (diet, etc) and social (beliefs, etc.) conditions under which your parents and grand-parents lived.
What does this portend for this generation (dubbed the Garbage Generation by more cynical social commentators)? Nothing good if these trends (junk food-based diets, drug use, etc.) keep up.
Imagine the impact on populations in the past that had entire generations of rape victims due to war, plundering and invasions.
And the impact of those societies that let kings and noblemen have “sexual rights” to the women of peasants.
Maybe to some degree it has been a factor in diversifying the species into ethnicites under the rule of certain, very sexually active male monarchs?
I heard for instance that 20% of the current population of China are related to Djinghis Khan…
What is the result of this mechanism on the relation between two populations where one of those populations protect the virginity of their women ferociously and the other one does not (I think you know which ones I mean)?
This is great news! It means, we – alpha males, can transfer our genes without getting married and coping with all that bs to be a loayl and loving husband with only one wife. I feel pleased reading this article and I believed in telegony before. I think women like to have many partners because then they construct best babies out of all that DNA material. Nature is wise
Spread this like wildfire. Pretty sure the media will not pay attention to this.
Confirmed.
Gee, it sure seems like mankind already knew this since ancient times and we conveniently forgot about it. #nohymennodiamond
You know, I believe studies have said that women who have sons tend to be more tough/ masculine. A connection here?
Let’s start genetically testing promiscuous men.
Assuming you are an upstanding, virtuous woman, why should this bother you?
If anyone believes this, I have one question for you: why are you so stupid?
If this was true imagine this, a pure Aryan white girl sleeps with the darkest black guys since the age of 16..
Are 25, she settles down and marries a white dude. In theory (according to this article) the baby should be a little black. Isn’t that what DNA is??? The baby may also have nigger lips or nappy hair. It’s possible amirite????
Pro tip: women like dick. no one will wait to exclusively bang you. you ain’t special. you’re just another male with a dick. if she is a virgin when you marry her, she was either too ugly to be laid or is brainwashed by the Bible. Or is Muslim. You just got lucky.
Interesting stuff. I have long had suspicions about this. One of my ex’s children looks a lot like me. I hadn’t banged her in at least two years when she had the kid, so it wasn’t mine. But then, if this theory is correct, maybe she was mine (partially). Weird. This is another great reason why women should keep their legs closed.
I came across this site while reading this article reblogged at:
http://birthofanewearth.blogspot.com/?m=1, and while I found it to be quite interesting, I was somewhat surprised by some of the other content of this site. Reality is that the author of this site, and others like him, have very little chance of marrying a virgin woman, because a woman with the self respect and dignity to retain her virginity untill marriage will probably not be interested in a man who hasn’t done the same, or at least have been quite discerning in his sexual encounters. A man who openly broadcasts himself as someone who randomly spreads his bodily fluids around the planet, is NOT someone who would be found attractive by an hounorable wonan, and is therefore highly likely to wind up with children who are a mishmash of the past sexual partners of his impure wife, whether she discloses this information to him or not. Just something to think about.
That’s what I have been trying to tell them for about 7 months now (more or less). Welcome to the battle of minds.
Jim Johnson, you are a wise man!
Hahaha, fuckin hilarious. What a load of bullshit
Do you have an scientific evidence?
Jeez, if this is true i’m screwed!
In a culture of narcissism and incentivized whoring.
I can see why the Men-Going-Their-Own-Way (MGTOW) philosophy is gaining so much traction.
This confirms Gen 2:24, Deu 24:1-4, Luke 16:18