A Woman’s Body May Incorporate DNA From The Semen Of Casual Sex Partners

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.

micro2

 

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.

fruitflies

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.

micro3

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.

micro4

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.

This article was originally published on Return Of Kings.

Read Next: The Most Reliable Way To Tell If A Girl Is A Slut

Related Posts For You

83
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
avatar
  
smilegrinwinkmrgreenneutraltwistedshockunamusedcooleviloopsrazzrollcryeeklolmadsadexclamationquestionideahmmbegwhewchucklesillyenvyshutmouth
Photo and Image Files
 
 
 
33 Comment threads
50 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
50 Comment authors
VanaAllister CollinsCharlotte GrayRobCharles Martel Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Крум Безстрашни
Guest
Крум Безстрашни
Offline

Which is why the human male spends the longest time thrusting during sexual intercourse and his large penis head is designed to clean the vagina from other men’s sperm and other foreign bits and pieces. Plus, there are foreign energy (entities) that get trapped inside woman’s vagina and the man cleans those too during sex. So obviously the bigger the head the better it cleans the chimney (as I call it LOL).

I’d say there’s also a relation between one man’s testosterone levels and the size of his penis head.

jared thompson
Guest
jared thompson
Offline

We get some pretty high T guys today who are very big. But they only exist due to a manipulated society. When this banking shit collapses, I am betting that men with an intermediate level of T will make it – with very or no high T males. High T males are selectively bred in a society like this as they are more selfish as well as low T giving males to be workhorses. Intermediate T males thrive in a co-operative society where government control is low; there is no place for high T as selfishness conflicts with group harmony – as a result high T males are nonexistent; they are merely an artefact of a society with a high level of totalitarian control where society is divided-and-conquered – they cannot thrive nor exist in any other environment.

Kisse Ellis
Guest
Kisse Ellis
Offline

No. High T guys become and are usually. Warriors.

Lee
Guest
Lee
Offline

Warriors/risk takers die young. Hence, there is more of an incentive for women to reproduce with alpha warriors since the warriors numbers are so few.

proudowner
Guest
proudowner
Offline

actually the helmet is designed as a squeegee to shovel the woman’s lubrication to the shaft

having a big head is over-rated, i myself am an owner of an 8 incher with a girthy helmet, and no woman is tight too much wetness and you can put your entire head in there

bear
Guest
bear
Offline

Then my T -level is sky high

ryan
Guest
ryan
Offline

Very interesting topic.
There is a problem with the “horse” and colt picture, though. The “horse” mare looks more like a mule or perhaps a zebra hybrid. Look at those ears and the shape of the head and the coloration, fer Pete’s sake.
So, it is no surprise that the colt has stripes. The mother is probably a zebra hybrid.
And who knows what the father was. If the “expert” who used the photo for an example is this ignorant about horses, why would we want to believe what he says about the alleged sire of the colt? (he said the sire was a ”horse”.) How would he know?
That pretty much destroys the credibility of the other evidence. (although the main gist may still be true)

CoffeeCrazed
Guest
CoffeeCrazed
Offline

I’m pretty sure the picture is not from the anecdote told. The way the article is written, the story seems to be at least one hundred years old.

Allister Collins
Guest
Allister Collins
Offline

Come on guy, don’t be a retard. The anecdotal story was from 100+ years ago and the pic was gleamed off the internet by the author 2 years ago just for illustration purposes. Geeeeez…

Grody
Guest
Grody
Offline

So you’re telling me… I am genetically successful after all? BOOYA!

Wald
Guest
Wald
Offline

That’s grody.

jared thompson
Guest
jared thompson
Offline

You and the other 50 cocks she’s had – not so special after all !

But with the way things are – do you think western offspring are going to survive??

Fathercoughlin
Guest
Fathercoughlin
Offline

I hate nigger lovers even more

taylor13
Guest
taylor13
Offline

Aww. You thought you were special.

CoffeeCrazed
Guest
CoffeeCrazed
Offline

An interesting correlative study would be to compare the sexual histories of moms/parents of gender-queer people.

Allister Collins
Guest
Allister Collins
Offline

Exactly. Although I believe 90%+ of homosexuals aren’t born that way — it’s either caused by environmental toxins that affect hormone production or some type of child abuse (sexual, physical, emotional) — the idea that a person born of a promiscuous mom could inherent genes from individuals from the opposite sex is very intriguing! I believe that could theoretically cause gender / sexual confusion if enough genetic material was present.

Allister Collins
Guest
Allister Collins
Offline

In a related vein, some observational evidence suggests that blood / organ transfusion recipients take some personality traits and even physical traits from their donors. Mounting anecdotal evidence gathered by parents of child recipients tend to support this. But the secrecy behind organ / blood product donors stands in the way of better research.

Conrad Stonebanks
Guest
Conrad Stonebanks
Offline

Didn’t I read this article before on ROK?

Edit: I missed the “This article was originally published on Return Of Kings” hehe

jared thompson
Guest
jared thompson
Offline

Yeh – they share articles sometimes between both sites.

Vincent Vinturi
Guest

Interesting research!

But I have a few contentions with this article:

1. It doesn’t necessarily follow that if future offspring can acquire DNA from the mother’s prior male sex partners that such a child is less preferable than offspring from a relatively chaste woman.

Certainly, that *may* be the case. It’s too early to say one way or the other.

But if the female body incorporates exogenous DNA from previous mates into the makeup of future offspring I propose that it’s more reasonable to assume this is beneficial than it is harmful.

Mother nature knows what she’s doing, though we may not yet understand why. If this phenomenon exists throughout the animal kingdom, I’m inclined to believe it’s probably a ‘good’ thing.

The question is: good for whom?

However, our task as intellectually honest beings is to objectively determine whether or not it is to the benefit or detriment of various parties involved without taking either position prematurely.

2. You made the parallel that men who have children with promiscuous women are cuckolded on a genetic level much as a man is cuckolded by another man in the bioevolutionary sense if he unwittingly raises another man’s child.

However, raising another man’s offspring that you believe to be your own, and which has NONE of your genetic material is not comparable to fathering a child whose genes *primarily* come from you.

Humans seek out ‘exotic’ mates to fill genetic “holes”. This microchimerism phenomenon could well be a mechanism by which the mother’s body produces children with more robust genetics.

3. Sherlock Holmes said that it is a capital mistake to draw conclusions before you have sufficient data.

We don’t understand this phenomenon sufficiently well to be able to point to it as evidence of the superiority of monogamy. All the more so since we aren’t a monogamous species!

Although to be fair, you wrote “For thousands of years, a woman’s purity was cherished above all else when it came to creating a family”. That presupposes that we should be creating families.

The family is a relatively recent phenomenon. For most of history we lived in bands and tribes. It can be argued and has been argued, that the nuclear family is the *cause* of much of our misery as a species.

I’m all for procreation with a fertile young wench and the cultivation of a “tribe”. But monogamy and the nuclear family are not required for this.

jared thompson
Guest
jared thompson
Offline

If you want advanced society you need monogamy.

Polygamy is how tribes in the rural third world live, mostly…

Conservative_Conspiracy
Guest

Agree. Monogamy isn’t “natural”, but neither is wearing clothes, living in houses, reading books, going on the Internet etc. The whole premise of civlisation rests on controlling and channeling our natural instincts, not just giving into them.

bossmcghee
Guest
bossmcghee
Offline

That my friend is what the bible is all about . People think God is just some big party pooper but science continues to prove why it’s beneficial. Now I see why sex before marriedge and multiple sex partners can be a disaster.

Rob
Guest
Rob
Offline

Conservative boss mcgee bible-jacking the conversation

sky
Guest
sky
Offline

yep. So I also dont want a man who sticks his dick in everything that moves, spreading his DNA to other women. Too bad other woman have such low standards.

Toudoutr
Guest
Toudoutr
Offline

No, it’s a total different thing. The jokes people make about women being called sluts, while men can get as many as they want are true after all. Women are on the receiving, men don’t absorb shit from the other sex. It is impossible for women to change properties of sperm men’s testicle are going to produce.

Charlotte Gray
Guest
Charlotte Gray
Offline

How do you know they don’t? Maybe they do. You’re swapping fluids during the act. It’s not a one way street.

Kisse Ellis
Guest
Kisse Ellis
Offline

“Humans seek out ‘exotic’ mates to fill genetic “holes”. This microchimerism ‘phenomenon could well be a mechanism by which the mother’s body produces children with more robust genetics.”

Exactly.

Untergang07
Guest
Untergang07
Offline

I guess someone here is trying to justify the existence of bastards (the bad kind of bastards that is) ignoring the mountains of wisdom and evidence of how “well” bastards and broken families do /sarcasm off.

It can be argued and has been argued, that the nuclear family is the *cause* of much of our misery as a species.

Quoted from ignorants who for the most part, had a hand in dismantling everything and that would have no real chance in a real savage world.

Vincent Vinturi
Guest

Untergang07 – First, if you’re going to hit reply to a comment I made then be a man and show me the courtesy of addressing me directly. I’m Vincent, not “someone here”; that’s how passive aggressive SJWs communicate, you can do better than that.

Second, writing “/sarcasm off” is redundant. The backslash already indicates the discontinuation of the statement. I hope nobody’s hired you as their developer.

Now to your point: you start with the premise that it is the nuclear family which has been responsible for most of our progress as a species and the lack of it the cause of many of our ills.

However, there are many facets to consider that may invalidate that hypothesis. Yes, it’s a hypothesis. We have a relatively short history as ‘civilized’ humans, before which we lived in bands since time immemorial.

Recalling and operating from the principle that nature is wise, this may well indicate that our ideal state is that of the larger, extended family, or community, NOT the manufactured, insular nuclear family of 1950s American suburbia.

As an example, you might not consider a country like Thailand “advanced” (although we’ve yet to establish an objective definition of the word), but it imminently more livable and pleasant in most aspects than is the United States.

And the family structure here is more akin to the tribal organization that the nuclear family departs from. So it is, to varying degrees, in China, Italy (quoth Tony Soprano: “FAMILY.”), Russia and many of the societies whose traditional cultures are based around a communal support structure.

The same societies after whose lifestyles and morals the neomasculine movement seems to pine, by the way.

Consider also that dividing a small tribe into a series of nuclear constellations, as is encouraged in the US, makes it more difficult to resolve personal issues and more likely that an appeal to the government is necessary.

Divide and conquer the tribe, turn it into consumers ever more dependent upon the welfare state, promote the nuclear family is the ideal via aggressive advertising and contentious studies.

Whereas if you have a tribe and community whose interests and investments are intertwined with each other, they have the strength and resources to solve issues on their own.

The children of these communities are exposed to a more diverse milieux. In a sense, your son will have several mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters and grandparents in such an organization. They will not be psychologically pigeonholed with reference to only one pair of people and all the Freudian baggage thereof.

I believe men should be striving to “build a tribe” rather than “start a family”.

OrthodoxChristian
Guest
OrthodoxChristian
Offline

“The children of these communities are exposed to a more diverse milieux.In a sense, your son will have several mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts,brothers, sisters and grandparents in such an organization. They will not be psychologically pigeonholed with reference to only one pair of people and all the Freudian baggage thereof.”

Thank you, Hillary Clinton.
comment image

“I believe men should be striving to ‘build a tribe’ rather than ‘start a family’.”

The tribe is just your extended family/religion/race/nation against outsiders. One starts a family by marriage and children, they inherit or join a tribe. New tribes almost always fail, and the ones that don’t are really just a regrouping within an older existing tribe.

Untergang07
Guest
Untergang07
Offline

Hmmm, thanks for the correction in reference to the /. No, I am not a developer.

In reference to your points, first, I am not American and I am not defending the American type of nuclear family, itself a byproduct of the destruction of the extended family. Second, the nuclear family is a phenomenon of the 19th and 20th centuries, when industrialization took hold and massive urbanization tore apart many families that had for generations, dwelt in the fields, far from the great and dirty cities…

Second, the tribe is a result of the family. No family (union of a man and woman or his women and their descendants) no tribe. My critique was towards the notion that you seemed to spouse that legitimacy, the certitude of man’s fatherhood is not so important and that “Mother” nature is so wise and we are dumb for having created anything and elevated ourselves beyond the animal kingdom. If that is not what you wanted to express, my apologies for the misunderstanding.

The extended family is the network that supports everyone in absence of a government in a more traditional world but only in extreme cases it has to replace the direct family (mother, father). People of yesteryear would be bewildered at your vision, even though these people would have lived in an environment that has many of the things you praise (extended family, close relationship with your neighbors which in many cases would be relatives with varying degrees of closeness). But in no way would these children not be viewed as a product of a marriage or a union, between a woman and a man, and thus, even though the children are part of the tribe, the utmost responsibility for their well beiing fell on their parents, not on the tribe.

OrthodoxChristian
Guest
OrthodoxChristian
Offline

“Mother nature knows what she’s doing, though we may not yet understand why. If this phenomenon exists throughout the animal kingdom, I’m inclined to believe it’s probably a ‘good’ thing.”

There is no “mother nature,” there is no (macro)-evolution, there is only adaption faster than evolutionists believed possible, and the consequences of defying the Law of God. Women are supposed to get married as virgins and have sex (and thus children) only with their spouse. Not doing so means the Lord won’t prevent the curses (including corrupted DNA) from afflicting the bloodline even unto the tenth generation.

Deuteronomy 23:2:

“No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD.”

Remember the Lord Jesus only promised forgiveness of sins (allowing you to inherit eternal life and not burn in Hell), never removal of the consequences of your sins upon your earthly life (or even rewards/status in Heaven).

Radnom
Guest
Radnom
Offline

Why does this have any likes at all?

bossmcghee
Guest
bossmcghee
Offline

Every sin in the bible has a consequence , almost every problem on this planet is caused by some form of sin from STD’s to mental retardation ( even from genetic mutation) , murder, hate, feminism, LGBT , bastard children, racism, morales societies. It’s all connected . We’ve systematically rejected God from our society when all he was trying to do was save our life from sins choke hold . Now America is suffering the consequences. Not a coinsidence this country enjoyed its greatest blessings when God was a still a major factor in American identity.

Charlotte Gray
Guest
Charlotte Gray
Offline

The onus is on the man as well. He too should be chaste.

Gweilo66
Guest
Gweilo66
Offline

“It doesn’t necessarily follow that if future offspring can acquire DNA
from the mother’s prior male sex partners that such a child is less
preferable”

Especially if previous partners had beneficial characteristics in their DNA.
A lot of ego involved in some of the assumptions in the comments here.

Of course, if concerned about this, makes a good arguments for women to insist on use of condoms..quite sensible for other reasons, by the way.

But has extended kissing been explored regarding this issue?

Anon.
Guest
Anon.
Offline

Keep things in perspective. This matters if your goal is to have a family and children right now.

If you want fun or even a short-term mini-relationship, sluts can certainly provide that. It is not a negative experience in the slightest.

jared thompson
Guest
jared thompson
Offline

What if almost all the girls are sluts by the time marriage comes around. Does that make for a stable society?
Its a negative experience when others take your place.
Our ancestors knew sluts killed civilisation for their future children.
Like now we are past the rubicon and its too late…

sky
Guest
sky
Offline

That mindset that men should sleep with as many women as possible has helped create all these “sluts”.
I have only been with one guy- my husband, and the same goes for him. I don’t want a guy who spreads his seed all over.

SacJP
Guest
SacJP
Offline

No, these men don’t create these sluts… There you go blaming men for the choices of women. As they like to point out women are the gatekeepers of heterosexual sex. If they didn’t have sex with these women some other man would and the woman would be just as slutty in the end, whether sluttin’ it up with 50 dicks taken from 20% of the male population or with 50 dicks taken from 1% of the male population. The women are sluts either way, the only difference is whether the 20% men get some when the gettin’ is good or wait until the women are all used up by a small group of slutty alpha males by their mid-30s before they go in for some sloppy seconds.

In other words the womens’ virtue is getting squandered either way due to the choices of the women, so the males response is one of mere division of sexual resources, preserving their access to women in their sexual prime in the only way that’s available to them. It’s not the nation’s men that have abandoned meaningful commitment, it’s the women, and the difference is most of these men would LOVE to meaningfully commit to their first decent quality woman, there is just no such offer being made by most American women. The mindset that these sluts can find a quality man in their mid 30s is the problem.

There is a double standard between the sexes when it comes to the ‘filth burden’ of promiscuity, but it’s one imposed by biology and not by society (though being especially slutty is bad even for a man, as long as there is no disease or pregnancy a man having some moderate amount of sexual experience is generally not considered as much of a negative factor by prospective mates, even relatively chaste ones.)

taylor13
Guest
taylor13
Offline

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.

Obviously, your feelings would be hurt.

Charles Martel
Guest
Charles Martel
Offline

DIVERSITY IS YOUR STRENGTH, GOYM

jared thompson
Guest
jared thompson
Offline

Whilst possible – i think this is bunk science I have often seen.

Still, whether true or not, the idea that your woman fucked an excessive number of guys is gross. It also does NOT benefit society as we can see that other ‘tribes’ that do not promote slutdom and bring up children in a nuclear family will replace western ones.

jared thompson
Guest
jared thompson
Offline

I’m pretty sure if men keep concentrating on trivia like this instead of discussing and working on real solutions to today’s problems – we are going down like the Titanic in the west real soon. I understand this site needs to reel in many men whom this kinda stuff interests. Sadly, the wanton ignorance of the masses is the problem why evil thrives and ends up destroying those very same masses in the process. Btw, if you look at every civilisation in history, mass immigration (not the immigrants’ fault necessarily) was the end-point of each civilisation, which ended with a total collapse of society and war. This pattern is repetitive throughout history.

On another note – this i’ll have my back, fuck you paradigm is false individualism – hence why so many females look out only for themselves. In fact, the easiest way to fix society’s impending collapse (=mass deaths of western populations) is to have feminism outlawed along with having women work less and have more children/be supportive to their partners.

greyghost1
Guest
greyghost1
Offline

That is what we had big guy. The women given the vote voted it out. Death and large scale suffering is what we have coming to us. make sure you are in good shape and own a rifle. Looks like you may be employed in a death squad. Enjoy the Decline.

Clark Kent
Guest
Clark Kent
Offline

This is what happens to you if your mom has had 10,000 cocks in her… It aint pretty…

Robert What?
Guest
Robert What?
Offline

Wondering if something similar happens to promiscuous homosexual men who absorb a lot of sperm? Maybe that is the origin of “gay face”?

Kisse Ellis
Guest
Kisse Ellis
Offline

Lordy !!!

splooge
Guest
splooge
Offline

no hymen no diamond became a thing for a reason.

Hell the backlash at it is no shock.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/nohymennodiamond

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3252018/No-hymen-no-diamond-Male-activist-Facebook-group-mocked-demanding-women-virgins-married.html

With ‘no hymen, no diamond’ mantra, men’s rights activists hunt for the perfect virgin

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/misogynistic-facebook-group-no-hymen-no-diamond-trending-article-1.2379775

they are get keepers to sex and we are to commitment.
they are free to sleep with who they want fine, but we choose who can spend our lives with and who we want kids with.
bad boys arent marriage material and neither are bad girls, leave those degenerates.

sky
Guest
sky
Offline

Thank you for being fair about it. This is how I feel and why I would never go after a man whore.

Anomalocaris of the North
Guest
Anomalocaris of the North
Offline

In my opinion, this goes for both men and women:
If you’re a virgin, you deserve a virgin-if you’re a slut/man whore, you deserve a slut/man whore.

greyghost1
Guest
greyghost1
Offline

Another reason to relegate easy lays to booty calls. no hymen no daimond makes logical sense

Remo
Guest
Remo
Offline

Many of the “old fashioned” and hence not good enough for moderns rules about life are true. Its sad that it took us thousands of years to realize that yes – what the bible said is the way things should be. There is a genetic taint to a girl who has had other dick insider her. And I expect the first cries from the feminists will be at first denial, then its not their fault – “like um… I was raped… by 37 different guys at various times over the last 10 years…” finally outright lies. Expect those re-hymenization surgeries to surge. Thank goodness facebook doesn’t forget.

Homine
Guest
Homine
Offline

It is evidenced genetically already, that women can’t imitate men sexually:

– Promiscuity, cuckoulding, hypegamy does not turn a monkey into a human, because then natural selection is not effective at all.

– Without females as virgins and polygyny, we would not be humans, because then the female does not bond properly with him nor his children. Cheating means the offspring dies, because then the male would abandon her, or maybe even kill her, because evolution is all about genes, good genes.

– So we have the female brain depending on oxytocin, vasopressin, etc. Our precious government makes the female free of any responsibility, she can murder his offspring, she can steal his money, she can use contraception to imitate men sexually, artificially, but men are forced to pay the consequences.

splooge
Guest
splooge
Offline

men are simple, women are complex.
if youre a woman and cant figure out a man, youre an idiot.
a man would be a genius for figuring out the rubix cube that is a woman.
men have to be made and to get better. Women at puberty get everything they need and its a game of not fuck up.

splooge
Guest
splooge
Offline

man that gives his time and resources away aka a time whore or beta orbiter or whatever you wanna call the friendzone guy is the equivalent to the slut. Since sex like time money and resources is a commodity that is in demand.
girls are free to sleep with, men are free to choose to commit with. A girl getting a mans commitment is hard like a stud trying to get laid.

slut(bad girl) and time whore(good boy)=easy
stud (bad boy)and wife material (good girl)=hard

when i say wife material being hard as in they must resist temptation. But its actually easy in the sense they dont have to do anytihing, dont over east, dont smoke drink and stay chaste.
Hard part is learning the domestic skills,feminine charm(like a latin or japanese girl) and perhaps learning to have a cool head for them that we find attractive.

Yraba
Guest
Yraba
Offline

As a woman who’s only been with one man (and is still with him) I can agree. Promiscuous men and women are both off but the women are more offensive to me. The woman acts highly unstable, aggressive, unfeminine, and threatening to other women. It’s often that promiscuous women try to have an “Alpha” position with women and manipulate men either sexually or financially.

You can even see in their eyes and their body language. It is sad, but common.

Allister Collins
Guest
Allister Collins
Offline

You hit the nail on the head. Good comment and observations.

Terry "Death to Equality" Xu
Guest
Terry "Death to Equality" Xu
Offline

But isn’t chimerism only limited to a few cells? I know you’ve got a background in microbiology, but I’m not sure about this one Roosh

Caprizchka
Guest
Caprizchka
Offline

This is exciting research. I also suspect that the DNA of bacteria in the soil and water supply also gets into our own genome. By this logic, Elizabeth Warren might not be quite the Fauxcahontas the evidence suggests. The mitochondrial DNA of the mother (of which 75% of the fetus’s mitochrondria originates, with the remaining coming from the father) might also contain diverse genes from all of these sources (including other sexual partners). Perhaps even sharing a hot tub or mud bath with other people causes such a transference.

The ecology of the skin and hair is also a bacteria-rich environment.

Gweilo66
Guest
Gweilo66
Offline

Besides, it’s how Liz “identifies” that’s important wink

Anomalocaris of the North
Guest
Anomalocaris of the North
Offline

Another science nut; I love it!

Caprizchka
Guest
Caprizchka
Offline

I don’t believe in AGW.

Anomalocaris of the North
Guest
Anomalocaris of the North
Offline

I don’t either; I think it’s overhyped.

Jeigh Di
Guest
Jeigh Di
Offline

It’s not just sex. As mentioned above it was first noted in the case of blood transfusions. Anyone who has had a blood transfusion or organ transplant has been genetically changed. Sometimes this will actually change the recipient’s personality. I recall a case a few years ago where a lesbian received an organ transplant from another woman who was described as “boy crazy”. After a while she began telling her friends that she was no longer attracted to other women. Last I heard she was engaged to be married to a man.

MCGOO
Guest
MCGOO
Offline

Large christian homeschooling families start with young fresh spring free range eggs. Note the consistency of the siblings in appearance and traits when mom started when she was cracklin’ fresh and good ol’ dad was the one and only sire ever:

http://theurbanrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BIG-FAMILY2.jpg

http://top-10-list.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Vassilyev-Family.jpg

Now drive by the projects and go eye shopping at the poarches and balconies with their single mothers set like they’re posing for ‘Time Life’ photographers doesn’t it seem? The ‘mix it up’ genes of the single mother brood looks like the village people. I can’t find any project pics now but here’s the famed ‘Village People’. What a motley bunch:

http://s2.dmcdn.net/JJ6RJ/1280×720-IiP.jpg

LEONITA ALBINA was once the world record holder for being the most prolific mother and she too started young, in fact criminally insanely young by modern feminist standards. She was a 12 yo Argentine chaste when she married 30 yo Chilean mule driver Gerardo Albino in the 1940’s and the rest is history. This family sticks together through the years quite well when the mom ‘sticks’ to the same sire:

http://www.catholicarrogance.org/+Artwork/Catholic_liberalism/Motherwithmostkids.jpg

Gweilo66
Guest
Gweilo66
Offline

Yeah..posed photos where all are dressed and groomed identically are not exactly scientific. And you can find “consistency” in the inbred wink That “National Geographic” crack was really a bit much.

Gweilo66
Guest
Gweilo66
Offline

“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.”

Hmm..Or it could mean inherently more aggressive women seek rather than wait.

Mynayme Isnoturbizniss
Guest
Mynayme Isnoturbizniss
Offline

Perhaps this is evolutionary and has something to do with genetic diversity? Just an interesting thought. The more diverse a gene pool a child has the less at risk it is at from various birth defects and it will have a stronger immune system. This would also ensure the males who are able to get laid are all able to pass at least some of their DNA onto women’s children. Maybe nature has done this for a reason. I would imagine though that any changes to the child’s DNA would be very slight and would not be detectable on a paternity test.

Wouldn’t this however open up the possibility that we also absorb the DNA of those that are regularly around us? I know people who are adopted and they actually grow up to look like their adoptive parents and nothing like their birth parents who many have showed me pictures of. Couples also begin to look like each other after sometime.

SacJP
Guest
SacJP
Offline

This is actually a common misconception (that more genetic diversity necessarily leads to healthier offspring and better immune function.) The ‘kissing cousins’ research showed that it’s just not true, as the genetically optimum ‘sweet spot’ for offspring immune function turns out to be reproduction with an equivalent of second-cousin relatedness (with closer relations resulting in inbreeding depression, but further genetic distance resulting in outbreeding depression.) It makes perfect sense given the conditions of most of anthropological history, and may help explain why mixed race children tend to have health that’s worse than either of their parents’ racial groups. A little stirring of the gene pool is healthy, but completely up-ending it is not.

And no, just being around other people (and not having their semen spilled into one’s fertile womb) isn’t going to lead to this chimerism, as it just doesn’t result in any appreciable number of viable dividing cells passing the immune barriers of any individual, especially in cases where their immune function hasn’t already been modulated to facilitate carrying a pregnancy to term. This effect likely would only affect fertile female recipients of unprotected vaginal sex with a man, or much less likely receptive anal sex by a man or women (though the immune response in this case is almost certainly going to reduce the effect of that substantially over that of the chimeric half-mother/half-father fetal cells, if not altogether eliminating it.)

Philalethes
Guest
Philalethes
Offline

Female chimpanzees copulate only when fertile (once or twice a year I believe), but then they “entertain” all the males in the community – to keep the peace, I suppose (male chimps are rough customers), and also, it is surmised, so that no male can know he is not the father, thus all males are motivated to take care of the resulting offspring (and not kill them). (Humans and bonobos are the only species I know of who copulate regularly when not fertile – bonobos to keep the peace, humans to pair-bond, or at least that’s the theory, as explained by anthropologist Helen Fisher in The Sex Contract.)

Also I believe I’ve read somewhere that female chimps can select and somehow set aside and save sperm from their own favorite males (I know there are females of other species that do this) to use for the actual fertilization. I wonder if human females have a similar ability (all on the subconscious level, of course).

Gweilo66
Guest
Gweilo66
Offline

That last bit about segregating desirable sperm needs a link!

buzzfiesta
Guest
buzzfiesta
Offline

lololhulhl

Ezra Pound
Guest
Ezra Pound
Offline

Some people are going to accuse you of “Lysenkoism” Roosh, but don’t listen. Anytime we encounter a seeming hard either/or distinction, like “genetics OR environment (but not both)” we can be reasonable sure that the distinction has been introduced by human cognition; viz., the distinction between “genes” and “environment” is not as perfectly clear as we would like to imagine. Rather than the causation flowing one way, it is rather mutually interdependent. Genes influence environment and environment influences genes.

nathan
Guest
nathan
Offline

I’m just not buying this. Even if it were true, most women don’t have unprotected sex and certainly don’t let a man ejaculate inside of them during casual sex.

Also, why would a woman who has sex with a lot of different men develop a “slut face?” When women are in long-term relationships, they are more likely to not use protection. So, wouldn’t a woman who has been with 1 man 1000 times over the course of 10 years be just as likely (if not more likely) to develop masculine traits than a woman who has been with 500 different men over that same 10 year period?

SacJP
Guest
SacJP
Offline

Some women are just nasty… Once they’ve already got herpes and HPV, and have a planned parenthood down the road, why not just go bareback? They can always just get an abortion, and the odds of AIDS isn’t that high, plus it feels better….

Slut face probably has more to do with bad self-care overall and with social/psychological/endocrine modulation involved with certain lifestyle and behavior patterns and/or certain hormonal birth control methods than chimerism (though chemierism gets a sinister tone when there are chimeric cells from more than one father literally going to war within the woman’s body, which can’t be good…)

Vaughn
Guest
Vaughn
Offline

What if some day science is able to determine what % of a mans dna is in the child, and require child support micro payments from men based on that percentage? Players who raw dog could end up paying child support to hundreds of women.

Nasty Nomad
Guest

Valuable information ..

Misti
Guest
Misti
Offline

Another reason for females to abstain/ be more careful. That’s fine and all, I’m just confused as to how the “game” is supposed to work for men, or why men would even want to play the game if they do not want to promote female promiscuity. Wouldn’t this also lead to more sexual frustration and rape, or does rape only exist as a product of female irresponsibility, in your opinion? At what point is a man responsible for his actions towards a woman? It’s just hard to wrap my head around females are entirely responsible for themselves and for men’s behavior, yet somehow (from reading your other articles) males should also dictate their choices… so then.. huh? If anyone could elaborate, that would be much appreciated! I’m surely missing something :-p

James
Guest
James
Offline

I guess that wouldn’t be a problem if you’re wife is virgin. Right?!
I guess girls need to do anal more now.

Allister Collins
Guest
Allister Collins
Offline

In all honesty, this was one of the most fascinating articles I’ve ever come across. If true, either entirely or even just partially, it explains so many of the social phenomena that we see all around us in the modern world.

Vana
Guest
Vana
Offline

This is why I insist on the man using a condom. You can’t deposit DNA through rubber.