Haha not sure if this is satire, but I did look up the actual medical journals on it. The clawing in behind the eyes wasn’t in there haha but the persistent dna was.
You are literally a fucking idiot. It was an editorial based on an actual published study. You can disagree with it all you want. And you can state as much. But the only stupid thing here is you.
Why are you calling people a “fucking idiot” because they don’t agree with you and FYI just because it’s a “published study” doesn’t mean it’s factual. If all published studies were true then we would all be dead from global warming right now. There’s also published studies about big foot and aliens, not saying it’s not true but “studies” are exactly that it’s not proven science.
If you throatpie a chick hard enough she could cough with a dick in her mouth and it would force the semen into her sinuses like coughing milk thru your nose, so yes, it could go behind the eyes and make your retinas pregnant. That's science
Not really. I get Lymes floaties in my eyes. Your brain is also technically behind your eyes. They were specifically concerned with the blood-brain barrier in the study, but assuming the hypothesis, the McDNA would travel anywhere in the body that blood flows.
There is a reason why virtually every culture throughout history has had a strict ban on women not having premarital sex - at least, not with any man but her intended husband.
This article is a bit much - the DNA received through unprotected sex is thought to affect only the ovaries and is a factor with the first partner the woman has - but it sure does explain why high-ranking people through history demanded that a woman be a virgin at marriage. Even having been married before was a no-go, and this is why.
In the the thousands of years before blood tests and DNA tests became available, these people must have been observing something - observing that women who had had earlier partners sometimes had kids that somewhat resembled another man, either physically or mentally or both. This explains why.
It's mostly about men not wanting to end up unknowingly supporting children that are not theirs.
But it's also about the idea that a woman's later children can be affected by earlier male sex partners.
Ancient people have always been very concerned about this. If it was simply about making sure the prospective bride was not already pregnant, they could just isolate her for six months or so (and they did.)
But even when it was certain the woman was not already pregnant, she would often be rejected as a wife simply for being married before.
When virtually every culture around the world insists that there's something to this - maybe there is. A number of animal breeders tend to believe it as well.
Researchers did not posit in the original study that sex partners could be a cause, though in a subsequent study it was suggested as a by-the-by hypothesis (at the end) for some of the cases (where prior male-pregnancy was thought to have not occurred; these were a minority of cases).
Research totally refutes the suggestion that women collect DNA from 'every' partner. Research suggests that it 'could' be just from pregnancies / unknown miscarriages, but there isn't enough data to definitively say none of it is from sex partners (though a lot of supposition provided elsewhere as to why this is thought unlikely). Nor is it crystal clear that any of it is. The conclusion based on the data is, either: Its possible to collect DNA from 'some' sex partners in some cases (conditions and prevalence unknown, but not 'every partner'). OR, Women have unknown miscarriages 'not infrequently' (a truth based on our best information... certainly more common than polite society acknowledges) and in others cases carry the DNA forward from older brothers (the majority of cases can be explained by the 'easier' explanation of having been knowingly pregnant with a male baby at some point prior to testing).
I don't draw a conclusion either way, but Occam's razor suggests there isn't anything definitive here to draw the more controversial conclusion.
Fascinating in any case, and something for people to think about (either way) before sharing our bodies with strangers.
Forbiden premarital sex/solo marital partner has arisen in many cultures. It's a biological function that some animals also have discovered. If you lock in one partner you have a better chance of doing it for life.
But if you expose your self to many partners that capacity can be lost.
I don't think sperm DNA living in a chicks mouth will change her ability to be serious about future relationships but I do think many cultures have learned via experience that whores raise whores for kids and motherly women raise motherly women.
Quite simple on the cultural side. I don't think we need a biological explanation for why whores raise whores.
I did my best over several years of marriage to fuck some common sense and conservative principles into my now ex-wife. Therefore I believe I can say as a matter of fact that the premise of this article is false.
Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson has a whole sperm being used to do biological computation section in the story. At least I thinl that was part of the story. Or was that Snow Crash? Any cyberpunk pedes remember?
I think you're all vastly overestimating the impact of microchimerism.
Our ancestors didn't ban premarital sex because of microchimerism.
Microchimerism upsets you because it forces you to acknowledge that women sleep with other men. Men's desire is to be his woman's only sexual partner because that's the only way to guarantee paternity.
Came here to say both comments above. I have a b.s. in biology and a masters in genetics and reading all this gave me cancer of the ass. I dont want to dive into this or argue at all but the sample size was so ridiculously small you couldn't draw a single conclusion from any of it. And for the record is mtDNA not McDNA, people just making shit up.
What about all the other genders!
This is the stupidest fucking thing that I have ever read.
Haha not sure if this is satire, but I did look up the actual medical journals on it. The clawing in behind the eyes wasn’t in there haha but the persistent dna was.
https://f.maga.host/OVN7LYr.pdf
You are literally a fucking idiot. It was an editorial based on an actual published study. You can disagree with it all you want. And you can state as much. But the only stupid thing here is you.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16084184/
Why are you calling people a “fucking idiot” because they don’t agree with you and FYI just because it’s a “published study” doesn’t mean it’s factual. If all published studies were true then we would all be dead from global warming right now. There’s also published studies about big foot and aliens, not saying it’s not true but “studies” are exactly that it’s not proven science.
Cry more
I mean... You are literally telling him to cry more with tears in your eyes.
Is that what is happening? I suppose you believe the part about sperm living behind a womans eyes? Fuck off retard
If you throatpie a chick hard enough she could cough with a dick in her mouth and it would force the semen into her sinuses like coughing milk thru your nose, so yes, it could go behind the eyes and make your retinas pregnant. That's science
Inb4 barackobama2 comes to tell us he has sperm crawling out of his ass
i think he's cried exactly the right amount, thank you.
Too many partners?
Sperm living behind their eyes? You believe that?
living behind their eyes is what you took away from this? yikes
Yes. That stupid ass comment makes it all bullshit.
Lol starting to think it is more the homosexual than too many partners for you.
Can’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
That line was off and I don’t think that’s true, but the proof is there about dna of males persisting with only intercourses.
Not really. I get Lymes floaties in my eyes. Your brain is also technically behind your eyes. They were specifically concerned with the blood-brain barrier in the study, but assuming the hypothesis, the McDNA would travel anywhere in the body that blood flows.
But it has a single source!!!! It must be maximally true!
It is known that rna from multiple males can end up in the fetus of a currently pregnant female, but this story is a stretch.
Look up something called "telegony"
There is a reason why virtually every culture throughout history has had a strict ban on women not having premarital sex - at least, not with any man but her intended husband.
This article is a bit much - the DNA received through unprotected sex is thought to affect only the ovaries and is a factor with the first partner the woman has - but it sure does explain why high-ranking people through history demanded that a woman be a virgin at marriage. Even having been married before was a no-go, and this is why.
In the the thousands of years before blood tests and DNA tests became available, these people must have been observing something - observing that women who had had earlier partners sometimes had kids that somewhat resembled another man, either physically or mentally or both. This explains why.
Eh. Not buying this lol.
"powerful people want virgins" is not some mystical dark art.
i want virgins.
...and it's for damn sure not about mixing of DNA, i just don't want to eat the pussy of the town whore.
Oh yeah that's totally why, definitely no other reason
It's mostly about men not wanting to end up unknowingly supporting children that are not theirs.
But it's also about the idea that a woman's later children can be affected by earlier male sex partners.
Ancient people have always been very concerned about this. If it was simply about making sure the prospective bride was not already pregnant, they could just isolate her for six months or so (and they did.)
But even when it was certain the woman was not already pregnant, she would often be rejected as a wife simply for being married before.
When virtually every culture around the world insists that there's something to this - maybe there is. A number of animal breeders tend to believe it as well.
I went down the rabbit hole and read the study.
Researchers did not posit in the original study that sex partners could be a cause, though in a subsequent study it was suggested as a by-the-by hypothesis (at the end) for some of the cases (where prior male-pregnancy was thought to have not occurred; these were a minority of cases).
Research totally refutes the suggestion that women collect DNA from 'every' partner. Research suggests that it 'could' be just from pregnancies / unknown miscarriages, but there isn't enough data to definitively say none of it is from sex partners (though a lot of supposition provided elsewhere as to why this is thought unlikely). Nor is it crystal clear that any of it is. The conclusion based on the data is, either: Its possible to collect DNA from 'some' sex partners in some cases (conditions and prevalence unknown, but not 'every partner'). OR, Women have unknown miscarriages 'not infrequently' (a truth based on our best information... certainly more common than polite society acknowledges) and in others cases carry the DNA forward from older brothers (the majority of cases can be explained by the 'easier' explanation of having been knowingly pregnant with a male baby at some point prior to testing).
I don't draw a conclusion either way, but Occam's razor suggests there isn't anything definitive here to draw the more controversial conclusion. Fascinating in any case, and something for people to think about (either way) before sharing our bodies with strangers.
God told us the punishment for adultery. We are living the nightmare of not obeying God.
Forbiden premarital sex/solo marital partner has arisen in many cultures. It's a biological function that some animals also have discovered. If you lock in one partner you have a better chance of doing it for life.
But if you expose your self to many partners that capacity can be lost.
I don't think sperm DNA living in a chicks mouth will change her ability to be serious about future relationships but I do think many cultures have learned via experience that whores raise whores for kids and motherly women raise motherly women.
Quite simple on the cultural side. I don't think we need a biological explanation for why whores raise whores.
Literally living in their heads rent free.
kek.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16084184/
Sumerian gods?
As far back as history allows us to look, i believe, is what they mean.
Makes sense.
I did my best over several years of marriage to fuck some common sense and conservative principles into my now ex-wife. Therefore I believe I can say as a matter of fact that the premise of this article is false.
ROASTIES BTFO (LITERALLY)
How much of my jizz to brainwash my woman?
Love this conspiracy shit. Its beautiful.
Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson has a whole sperm being used to do biological computation section in the story. At least I thinl that was part of the story. Or was that Snow Crash? Any cyberpunk pedes remember?
Yep. I read about this a long time ago.
Bahahahahahah, cool story bro.
I think you're all vastly overestimating the impact of microchimerism.
Our ancestors didn't ban premarital sex because of microchimerism.
Microchimerism upsets you because it forces you to acknowledge that women sleep with other men. Men's desire is to be his woman's only sexual partner because that's the only way to guarantee paternity.
Found the slut
Ya.... I want any proof of swarming sperm cells burrowing into nasal cavitys from a BJ lmao. This is beyond pseudoscience
White dragon search should satisfy your nasal sperm scepticism
I'm just gonna not guzzle semen thanks though
This place is becoming a joke.
Came here to say both comments above. I have a b.s. in biology and a masters in genetics and reading all this gave me cancer of the ass. I dont want to dive into this or argue at all but the sample size was so ridiculously small you couldn't draw a single conclusion from any of it. And for the record is mtDNA not McDNA, people just making shit up.
liberal posting to screengrab and act appaled