Women Absorb And Retain DNA From Every Man They Have Sex With

Women retain and carry living DNA cells from every man with whom they have sexual intercourse, according to a new study.

Women retain and carry living DNA from every man with whom they have sexual intercourse, according to a new study by the University of Seattle and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

The study, which discovered the startling information by accident, was originally trying to determine if women who have been pregnant with a son might be more predisposed to certain neurological diseases that occur more frequently in males.

But as the scientists picked apart the female brain, the study began to veer wildly off course. As it turns out, the female brain is even more mysterious than we previously thought.

The study found that female brains often harbor “male microchimerism“, or in other words, the presence of male DNA that originated from another individual, and are genetically distinct from the cells that make up the rest of the woman.

fake-news-websites

According to the study: “63% of the females (37 of 59) tested harbored male microchimerism in the brain. Male microchimerism was present in multiple brain regions.”

So 63% of women carry male DNA cells that live in their brains. Obviously the researchers wanted to know where the male DNA came from.

Anyone care to guess? From the women’s fathers? No. Your father’s DNA combines with your mother’s to create your unique DNA. So where else could it come from?

Through the study the researchers assumed that the most likely answer was that all male DNA found living in the female brain came from a male pregnancy. That was the safe, politically correct assumption. But these researchers were living in denial.

Because when they autopsied the brains of women who had never even been pregnant, let alone with a male child, they STILL found male DNA cells prevalent in the female brain.

At this point the scientists didn’t know what the hell was going on. Confused, they did their best to hide the evidence until they could understand and explain it. They buried it in numerous sub studies and articles, but if you sift through them all you will find the damning statement, the one line that gives the game away and explains exactly where these male DNA cells come from.

What are they so afraid of?

CONCLUSIONS: 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. Male microchimerism was significantly more frequent and levels were higher in women with induced abortion than in women with other pregnancy histories. Further studies are needed to determine specific origins of male microchimerism in women.

So according to the scientists, the possible sources of the male DNA cells living in the women’s brains are:

  1. an abortion the woman didn’t know about
  2. a male twin that vanished
  3. an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation
  4. sexual intercourse

Considering the fact that 63% of women have male DNA cells residing in the recesses of their brain, which of the above possibilities do you think is the most likely origin of the male DNA?

The first three options apply to a very small percentage of women. They couldn’t possibly account for the 63% figure. The fourth option? It’s rather more common.

The answer is 4. Sex.

This has very important ramifications for women. Every male you absorb spermatazoa from becomes a living part of you for life. The women autopsied in this study were elderly. Some had been carrying the living male DNA inside them for well over 50 years.

Sperm is alive. It is living cells. When it is injected into you it swims and swims until it crashes headlong into a wall, and then it attaches and burrows into your flesh. If it’s in your mouth it swims and climbs into your nasal passages, inner ear, and behind your eyes. Then it digs in. It enters your blood stream and collects in your brain and spine.

Like something out of a scifi movie, it becomes a part of you and you can’t get rid of it.

We are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourse.

Sources

Male Microchimerism in the Human Female Brain

Male microchimerism in women without sons: quantitative assessment and correlation with pregnancy history

Baxter Dmitry

Baxter Dmitry

Baxter Dmitry is a writer at Your News Wire. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.
Email: baxter@yournewswire.com
Follow: @baxter_dmitry
Baxter Dmitry
  • Uncle Fuck Stick

    Feminism. Another creation of the Judeo/Zio/Khazarian cabals to break apart the sancitity of the family unit. In other words, fuck whoever you want whenever you want and while your at it if you don’t want the kid from a 1 night stand murder (abort the fetus and now in some states full 9 months in) it so we can harvest its body organs and sacrifice it name of Satan/Baphomet/Baal…

    • Mollie Norris

      BabylonianTalmudist Kabbalistic sex magic.

    • Oily Mirrors

      And just a cursory review of their S@t@nic Talmudic teachings explains why they are such evil mofos: http://vikingalthing.org/article/quotes-holy-talmud-hell-anyone-want-expel-people/

      • Uncle Fuck Stick
      • David A Query

        What in the actual fuck? This shit is for real? Is there an actual literal interpretation of the Talmud online that you’d have a link to? I’d like to review the actual source material without having to learn Hebrew.

        • Oily Mirrors

          If you scroll down this link there actual quotes from the Talmud in English each with their specific Talmudic reference http://vikingalthing.org/article/quotes-holy-talmud-hell-anyone-want-expel-people/
          There are English translations of the Talmud online against which you can cross reference these heinous quotes.
          The Talmud is pure evil. In fact, many knowledgeable scholars of the Talmud – both Jewish and not – have acknowledged that COMMUNISM essentially equals TALMUDISM.

          • Allister Collins

            Talmudism = communism / liberalism / feminism / pedophilia. Talmudism + Cabala = satanism. Not really accurate to call OUR enemies Jew$: better to call them satanic pedophiles. KNOW THEM BY THEIR ACTIONS.

          • Oily Mirrors

            Indeed. TRUTH.

          • UncleB

            Communism is NOT inherently evil! Only the particular practitioners are? China as done very well with communism?

          • Liam

            And yes Communism in China has only killed 50 to a 100 million people! Uncle B get your head out of your butt!.

          • Oily Mirrors

            WTF??!!! Communism is the most openly Satanic of all forms of government no matter where it has been implemented.
            China is probably the most viciously brutal example of Communism. During the ‘cultural revolution’ of the 1960s alone over 100 MILLION Chinese Christians, intellectuals, and ordinary people were viciously slaughtered – often tortured to death – for resisting Mao’s version of Communism. And untold TENS OF MILLION more continue to perish to this day through forced imprisonment where they are starved, tortured, and often subjected to MURDER BY LIVE ORGAN HARVESTING WITHOUT ANESTHETIC.
            There is NO intellectual or religious freedom in modern Communist China. Christians and followers of Falun Gong are subjected to particularly inhuman persecution and death.
            The globalist masters created the economic transformation of China by forcing Nixon to commit transferring its manufacturing wealth to China in exchange for buying up US Treasury $$$ to subsidize America as they transition the US to a debtor welfare state.
            Despite the economic transformation, modern China remains the most brutally repressive Communist state on Earth.
            TALMUDISM INDEED = COMMUNISM.

          • Holly Baby Catkiss

            Lol. Yet, there’s no religious freedom under Christianity either.

          • fnulnu40

            Dufus, The U.S. was founded by Christians.

          • Azuka Osakwe

            Christians fleeing European Christian imperialists.
            What does that tell you?

          • CaliGal

            They fled from a form of Catholicism, learn some facts

          • Holly Baby Catkiss

            Actually, it wasn’t. http://www.alternet.org/story/153727/5_founding_fathers_whose_skepticism_about_christianity_would_make_them_unelectable_today
            http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/12/30/the-founding-fathers-religion-and-god http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/04/35-founding-father-quotes-conservative-christians-will-hate/ http://www.alternet.org/story/155985/5_reasons_america_is_not_–_and_has_never_been_–_a_christian_nation
            This nation was never a “Christian” nation and it never will be. If you want a religious nation go to the Middle East. There’s plenty of religious countries you can choose. Yes, some of our founding fathers were “Christians”, but some were “deists”. Meaning they believed in a higher power, but not necessarily the “Christian” god. If they wanted this to be a “Christian” nation we would of been a theocracy. We wouldn’t have freedom of religion (or no religion) in fact, we would only be allowed to be “Christians” right? Of course we would. No other religions or even atheism would be allowed. Duh. And besides, they were fleeing from Europe because they were being religiously persecuted were they not? Of course they were. So if we were a “Christian” nation then of course they would be persecuting other religions and not only that they would say to future generations that it would be ok to persecute other religions. Hel-lo. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

            In English, the exact term is an offshoot of the phrase, “wall of separation between church and state”, as written in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

            The Bill of Rights was one of the earliest examples in the world of complete religious freedom (adopted in 1791, only preceded by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789) but it was interpreted as establishing a separation of Church and State only after the letter of Jefferson (see section United States for more details). At the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, many states acted in ways that would now be held unconstitutional, some of them with official state churches. All of the early official state churches were disestablished by 1833. Separation of church and state” (sometimes “wall of separation between church and state”) is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

            The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….” and Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase “separation of church and state” in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another … in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’ … That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.

            Dufus

          • Oily Mirrors

            Hey TROLL – you don’t see Christians or Falun Gong or even Muslims being imprisoned or tortured to death in Western democracies and you certainly don’t see minority religious groups imprisoned or killed in predominantly Catholic/Christian countries either.
            It’s the totalitarian regimes – particularly Communist – that torture and kill if anyone deviates from the anti-christ party line.
            Pretty lame attempt at misdirection on your part.

          • Holly Baby Catkiss
          • Oily Mirrors

            LOL. Are you for REELZ??!!!
            If you are so frustrated with life in a western democracy that was founded – and once tried to exemplify – Christian principles and ideals, then by all means please pick up and emigrate to Communist China or, say, ISIS-controlled Libya. Then please report back as to the level of tolerance with which these regimes treat gays, witches, or any ordinary citizen who dies not tow the official hard line.
            BTW Perhaps if Satanists/witches didn’t practice human sacrifice – particularly the torture and murder of babies and children – they wouldn’t find themselves the targets of such righteous anger that sometimes results in their burning at the stake.
            The God of the Bible tested Abraham to see if ge was willing to sacrifice his only son, but held back his sword and spared the child whereas Satan/Baal/Baphomet constantly screams for the blood sacrifuce of the innocent.

          • thetagal

            That is true. Follow their moral code or else. Remember Torquemada?

          • Holly Baby Catkiss

            Yep

          • Paul Smith

            Fortunately we do not have a Christian government.

          • Holly Baby Catkiss

            True, but with Trump and Christian Republicans in charge you never know.

          • kay-ra

            CHINA IS A FACIST dictatorship masquerading as communism.

          • kay-ra

            Oops caps.

          • MKulnir

            Communism wherever it has existed always seems to operate as a fascit dictatorship.

          • Paul Smith

            The only difference between Communism and Fascism is that in the former the State owns the means of production and in the later the State controls the means of production leaving the headaches to the owner. Beyond that they are totalitarian forms of government.

          • Oily Mirrors

            Please. Modern Chinese Communism is probably the purest expression of what Marx and Engels had in mind: a purely materialistic society where free thought and religion are completely outlawed – where less than .01% control everything.
            Without freedom of thought or religion, ‘free markets’ do nothing to free the human spirit.

          • Ignatz

            “Communism is the most openly Satanic of all forms of government”

            They’re atheists. They don’t believe in Satan at all.

          • Azuka Osakwe

            They may be right, because Satan, or its opposite, exist only in the minds of those who conceive it or are brainwashed into believing.

          • Oily Mirrors

            LOL – yet those ‘atheists’ are the ones who behave in the most brutally inhuman S@t@nic ways imaginable.

          • Ignatz

            They could be pretty bad, but this “Christian” nation has spent a lot of money dropping bombs on children.

          • Oily Mirrors

            Well at least we allow freedom of religion and speech and don’t subject our own citizens to LIVE ORGAN HARVESTING WITHOUT ANAESTHETIC simply for following Christian teachings.

          • Oily Mirrors

            FYI – Marx, Engels, and Lenin were all hard core Talmudic Luciferians. They would address eachother and others of their ilk in letters as ‘Dear Devil’ which is a well known, long standing practice of Satanists

          • Ignatz

            “FYI – Marx, Engels, and Lenin were all hard core Talmudic Luciferians.”

            Talmudic Luciferians. Holy crap.

            By the way, Jews don’t believe in the Christian concept of Satan either, even though that’s where the word originated. Their “HaShatan” is a very different concept.

            And “Lucifer” is a Latin word that, for some reason, wound up the way the King James translated the Hebrew for “light-bearer” or “morning star” in Isaiah. It was actually the word for Venus – the morning star. Isaiah uses it as a reference for the King of Babylon, not the angel HaShatan.

          • Oily Mirrors

            LOL you’re so full of CRAP your eyes must be brown!
            Satanic evil is real. Saying that you don’t believe in it is like saying you don’t believe in architecture – it’s an objective reality that exists independently of your acknowledgement.
            The TALMUD is the most Satanic, vile, racist, anti-human, anti-Christian set of HATE teachings on the planet. And if Christ weren’t real, then there woukdn’t be such hideous vitreolic opposition to him. The word ‘satan’ literally means ‘adversary’.

          • fnulnu40

            Mao killed 10s of millions you idiot and you say they have done well? Where ever it is tried there are piles of skulls. How come you keep wanting to try it? heir economy only picked up when they tried a hybred of free market, including a stick market. We know how to create wealth. The l;eft just keeps trying to kill the golden goose which has created more wealth then any other system in history.

          • Azuka Osakwe

            Neither Hitler, nor Leopold, was communist. They were Christians. Know how many they killed? Don’t even talk of Spaniards who ravaged South American tribes in the name of God!!

          • fnulnu40

            “Hitler’s remarks to confidants, as described in the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Albert Speer, and transcripts of Hitler’s private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann in Hitler’s Table Talk, are further evidence of his anti-Christian beliefs; these sources record a number of private remarks in which Hitler ridicules Christian doctrine as absurd and socially destructive.[3]Goebbels wrote in April 1941 that though Hitler was “a fierce opponent” of the Vatican and Christianity, “he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons.”[15] Stalin, another communist killed 30 to 50 million peope. As to the spaniards,
            actually, it was the deseases the spanards brought, especially small pox, that historians believe killed 80 to 90 percent of the indigious people. Also, I don’t think you actually believe the spanish explorers traveled to the americas because of religious reasons. They were soldier adventurerers willing to risk their life for wealth and fame. The only reason they were able to defeat many of the great native societies, like the Aztecs, with only a hand full of men is other tribes helped them. Forty tribes helped Cortez fight the very brutal Aztecs, and not one was doing it for the Christian God.

          • fnulnu40
          • Azuka Osakwe

            My references show Hitler may have used Christian sentiments to wage his wage on the Jews and others; that may be in pretence.

            But the Spanish conquerors actually fought and acquired native territories in South America, in the name of the Pope, and the king of Spain. Francisco Pizarro couldn’t forgive the Inca’s Atahualpa for throwing the bible off the table, he burnt him alive, in spite of the bags of gold he had offered. A friar recorded the incidence as Francisco’s secretary. It’s bizarre!!

            In MexMexico, Francisco’s cousin, Herman Cortes massacred millions of Aztecs, certainly for their own rewards, but also in the name of the king and pope.

            In those days, even to this day, it is difficult to separate tribal wars and personal conquest from religious influence; Christian or Muslim.

          • fnulnu40

            Jesus healed people and died for mankind. Mohammed was a warlord and a conqueror who ask you to die for his God. Jesus never told anybody to kill. He taught us to love your neighbor. Muhammad specifically orders his people to kill. As bloody as islam is and the NAZIS were, communism makes both of them (and Cortez ) look like rookies. But hey let us let them teach in our universities.

          • Azuka Osakwe

            Plus it was the pope who literally drew the line to partition the South American continent for Spain and Portugal.

          • http://www.stephenjardent.com/ Stephen J. Ardent

            Yeah. Real good.
            The 49 to 78 million people Mao slaughtered however, not so much.

          • Paul Smith

            Communism is as inherently evil as any other form of government but, by necessity, resides at the evil end of the repression scale. Representative republics are better than others because they dilute the absolute power (the gun) to the maximum extent possible while still maintaining rule of law. Communism concentrates that power to the inevitable detriment of the people..

          • infowolf1

            I have read the Talmud in English and checked for such scandalous remarks. almost invariably they are out of context a classec example is where it is said that it is nothing for a man to have sex with a four year old girl but that is NOT what the Talmud said, it says it is nothing FOR HER STATUS AS VIRGIN because her hymen will grow back. and she could then marry a priest who could only marry a virgin. another accusation was that a man who raped his daughter only got a fine. Wrong. the argument was whether the bride price was a fine against him in which case SINCE HE WAS TO BE PUT TO DEATH he shouldn’t be punished twice but if a restitution to her then pay her. and so forth.

          • Oily Mirrors

            Oh please – you’re splitting hairs on S@t@n’s tail for crying out loud!
            Since when is it EVER even conceivable to think of sex with ANY child – let alone a 4-year old girl – acceptable??!!! The fact that the hymen might grow back is irrelevant – the act itself is beyond monstrous and it robs the child of their innocence.
            Jesus Christ consistently taught that children are to be protected, cherished, and taught well in the ways of righteousness. The TALMUD reveals its S@t@nic character in its teachings condoning pedophilia.
            And the racist, hateful, anti-Christian nature of the TALMUD is undeniable – you can’t put any spin on verses that teach all ‘goyim’ are non-human cattle to be used and abused as the Talmudic Jew sees fit. It is elitist supremacy at its worst.

          • CaliGal

            Thank you my brother, it will be a pleasure to meet you one fine day on the other side of the pearly gates when we get there.

        • Paul Smith

          Like the Bible or the Quran or any other interpretive tome, it is impossible to ‘review the actual source material’ without reading the originals in the language written and even then you’ll get it wrong.

    • Allister Collins

      A rather crassly written comment, but I believe accurate nonetheless.

    • Ann

      Well, I certainly hope there are no women with your DNA in their brains! This article could certainly explain why some women voted for Butt Brain tRump!!

      • Uncle Fuck Stick

        What makes you assume I voted for anyone? Haha did you vote for Killary CLITon!

        • Ann

          Your assumption made an ass of you. Read the comment again.

          • Flowers Darrin

            No, it explain why all you demoncrats are so mentally challenged. You are all offspring of the fallen.

          • Scott Davis

            I prefer Science over bronze age stories and myths.

      • Jeff

        You are an ass

        • CaliGal

          A donkey’s ass at that

      • Mulengro

        “…Butt Brain tRump!!”

        Really? What are you twelve? I don’t care if you insult politicians, but jeez, try to sound like a grownup.

      • Deno Canellos

        Bingo! If one seeks to act in ways which are clearly antithetical to their autonomous self-interests, like being a female of the species and voting for T-rump, then one may be wise to seek the perspectives of one’s father and the men with whom one has slept.

      • http://nusabet188.com Nusabet188

        you are a monkey

        IDNPLAY POKER

    • HARAMBE

      It makes sense why one like you would find fucking your own sister to keep your lineage “pure” a wise move.

      • CaliGal

        You must know why did your father do you?

    • Holly Baby Catkiss

      Hell, men can fuck whomever they want and if they don’t want the child they can just walk away. Bye asshole!

      • Uncle Fuck Stick

        A key that can open many locks is a master key… A lock that is opened by many keys is useless.

        • mrspinky85

          Every key can fit every hole so this analogy has always been dumb. Men can be whores too.

          • Uncle Fuck Stick

            Would you like if someone else also had the key to your house?

          • Edith Boehm

            A woman is a human being, NOT a house.

          • Uncle Fuck Stick

            Who takes care of the house then while the man is out working to bring bread to the table? Who nurtures the offspring?

          • CaliGal

            More the reason why she ought to be careful who she opens her legs to!

        • Holly Baby Catkiss

          Lol. Typical sexist male double standard bullshit that shames women, but justifies male sexuality.

          Women shouldn’t fuck a lot of men, but men can fuck as many women as they can. http://www.nerdyfeminist.com/2013/02/the-stupidest-metaphor-of-all-time.html

      • thetagal

        Not so in the US anymore. They pay child support.

        • Sonia Ess

          Only if they choose to pay child support.

          • Paul Smith

            The law is on the woman’s side if she chooses to use it. It takes a LOT of work to avoid child support orders and one risks going to prison if caught.

        • Holly Baby Catkiss

          Well yeah, they do now, but still they aren’t scrutinized like women are.

    • Finis Dailey

      Coming from a guy with the handle “Uncle Fuck Stick,” I don’t see where you have any room to talk about the destruction of the traditional family structure.

    • Anomander

      Feminism, the struggle of humanity to use the full potential of all of the members, not just 50%. Everybody who tries to subdue the opportunities of another human being, is doing a disservice to humanity itself.

      I’m just wondering:
      Do you approach your niece openly with that name, or do you hide it within your fantasies?

    • Brittany Neville

      No states allow nine month abortion what are you talking about?!? Read a book for once in your life, Jesus Christ.

      • pheonix

        Actually they do now, abortion at 36 weeks gestation, 9months. Its horrible and sad and gruesome and i dont understand how they get away with that. Im all for womens rights because i am one, but it pushes it too far because that baby is a fully developed baby, its not longer the womens body to decide upon.

    • Marie Isaacson

      At least your name is accurate.

  • Mollie Norris

    I’m skeptical about this. There have been recent attempts to discredit PCR, which is a precise and accurate qualitative DNA identification technique, solely on the basis that it’s not a quantitative technique .I’ve read a recent attempt to discredit f-MRI, a technique that detects lying through observation of regions of the brain that show electrical activity during lying, based on a similar bogus pretext. IEEE recently published an article discrediting remote viewing; which has been well-documented now that CIA RV programs have been declassified. AAS published an article in 2014 on the transmission of ‘life force’ (not HGH – human growth hormone) through ingestion of ‘young blood’. And then there’s AGW psyence.
    The research implies that this foreign DNA is functional, but there’s no evidence that the DNA is transcribed. DNA is a template for the synthesis of proteins, and has no function if it’s not transcribed to produce those proteins.
    Unfortunately, US government science agencies, including NIH, have lost credibility through massive corruption to support the War on Drugs and support for vaccines in addition to pseudoscience to support the global warming scam. NASA is currently displaying at least some satellite data with a flat earth graphic, and videos posted on youtube show NASA astronauts performing satanic rituals and using Baphomet hand signs.

  • Wrong_Century

    The paper at the topmost link labelled ‘study’ says “Limited pregnancy history was available on the subjects; pregnancy history on most subjects was unknown.” So it seems they were only aware if the women in their study had sons.

    The conclusion you quote says “Besides known pregnancies other possible sources…include…”. So actually I think the top of the list possible source for male DNA in women without sons is known pregnancies, that didn’t result in a son, i.e. abortions and miscarriages of male children.

    Still, it is interesting that they mention sexual intercourse as a possibility.

  • Angela
  • Virgin

    So this is why women who sleep around are considered unclean ?

    • Allister Collins

      No not really, just fucked in the head — all the different signals from competing cells with different DNA / programs.

      • Holly Baby Catkiss

        Are men fucked in the head too when they fuck every woman they meet or is this simply to bash women?

        • DocDoc

          Both men and women experience a psycyological toll from having multiple sex partners, something commonly only attributed to women.
          That being said, it has been found that men, on average, have to sleep with 19 women before they feel the same emotional distress that women feel after just one man.
          And stop making this about “bashing women.” There are young women who still have time to learn the very real and uniquely female consequences of sex BEFORE they experience distress, but someone like you, an easily offended coward, would strip that knowledge away from them to satisfy your own ego.

          • SayWhat

            Interesting. I never felt distressed after having sex. I always felt the exact opposite, regardless of how many guys i slept with.

          • Bruce

            Probably due to lots of mind numbing DNA

          • DocDoc

            Either you are unique, in which case good for you, or you are lacking self awareness.
            Sometimes people end up in a state of mediocre feeling, like depression without despondency, and they just think “that’s just how I am.”
            Either way, you are no longer a viable candidate for marriage or motherhood. If you’ve slept with 3 guys chance of divorce is 55%. If it’s with 10, chance is 82%. If you were a virgin or only with one guy, chance of divorce is 17%. It flips.
            And just so you understand: when men reject you (commitment-wise) because of your notch count and concurrent inability to pair bond, it’s not just out of worry for their bank account or even for their wish to have an eternal union with a woman – it’s out of care for their future children. Divorce is painful and traumatic to a child, and so are the epigenetic effects from having a slutty mother. Gross.

          • Nanci

            Because SayWhat isn’t distressed after casual sex, she lacks self-awareness? That’s a bit of a pompous know-it-all conclusion! And your statistics are ridiculous.

          • DocDoc
          • jagragg

            So, continuing the percentage count, a woman with over 25 men, her chances of a marriage is virtually 0%.

          • DocDoc

            http://www.medicaldaily.com/sex-marriage-premarital-sex-divorce-rate-sex-partners-first-comes-loves-then-390269
            This study has been replicated several times with barely different results, but this one stops at 10 partners.

          • CaliGal

            Well maybe a low-life loser will take her if she supports him and his habits

          • dorrie

            Wow!! When you go low you go LOW!!

          • Andy Miller

            so what do people call you?

          • Tracy Shields

            Yea… Never have I felt distress and I rarely hear of it from any if my friends unless they were raped or molested. Sex is great and relaxing… And danm it it feels good too. I hate when people make a beautiful natural human act and demonize it. Everyone should stop fighting and go have sex, I promise it will help your mood. 😉

          • Bimbo Smithe

            What a turd.

          • Barbara Saunders

            LOL – “That being said, it has been found that men, on average, have to sleep with 19 women before they feel the same emotional distress that women feel after just one man.” That’s an awfully specific number. Citation?

          • DocDoc

            Here is that statistic along with numerous others (links in the description).
            https://youtu.be/oxHIftZVfrQ

          • Scott

            “Good men tend to get married off fast.” The implication by the unsaid inverse? “Men who get married later in life, or perhaps never marry…especially due to lack of ability to attract a suitable partner…are not good men. They are pieces of shit to be avoided at all costs. To all you confirmed bachelor men out there in your 50’s and beyond: YOU are not good. You are bad, worthless pieces of human shit.”

          • Holly Baby Catkiss
        • Justin Cloutier

          doubtful since you arent injecting living cells into our bodies when we sleep with you

          • infowolf1

            there are living cells in the female vaginal and oral mucosal slime that get against the mucosal lining of the penis opening. some are likely absorbed before they can be flushed with ejaculation.

          • jagragg

            You are grasping at straws there.

          • Holly Baby Catkiss

            lol. He literally said women are fucked up in the head if we have sex with multiple partners. Meanwhile, men are praised when they have sex with multiple women.

        • MKulnir

          Women do not have sperm. They have one egg that stays inside them during the sex act. They do not inject their partner with 40 million to 1.2 billion living sperm cells in one ejaculation.

          • Sara

            Think before you speak. Women might not have sperm; a living organism but that doesn’t mean that the body fluids exchange that happens when you kiss or perform oral sex for a woman is not putting you at risk to absorb their DNA hence diseases. If it was the case STD would have been only been contagious to women who slept with men. And Gay men would have been safe and more free from diseases because they don’t absorb DNA of any bacteria, virus or fungus. God danm it THINK!

          • jagragg

            Nobody is even discussing diseases, just the NORMAL function of NORMAL sexuality.
            You present an issue of irrelevance to the discussion at hand.

          • Martha Cortez

            While that is true, the female doesn’t penetrate the male body. The male penetrates the female body. Our one ovum doesn’t travel through the male body like his semen travels in the female body and our ejaculate doesn’t go inside his body unless he’s performing oral sex.

          • Holly Baby Catkiss

            Yes, women have eggs.

            I was talking about how women are held to a different standard than men because you know boys will be boys.

        • Allister Collins

          Well, it takes 2 to fuck, my dear. And although there are negative ramifications to men who “sleep around” excessively, the main point is that it’s MUCH WORSE (both psychologically and physiologically) to women. But how hard is it to either close your legs or insist on a condom???

          • Tracy Shields

            You can’t just say that without scientific evidence. It is YOUR personal belief only. It could be that the SMALL number of women who feel bad is because society shames them.

          • Allister Collins

            Tracy, you’re a mere child with little real world experience and likely an underdeveloped intelligence, so don’t be silly with your calls of “scientific evidence.” Women SHAME themselves in the modern world with their sluttyness, obesity, tattoos and delusional behavior — and it sure as hell not a small number of them. Many American men are degenerate also, but the point is they are not as badly harmed by their actions as corresponding women. That is obvious for anyone with eyes to see — at least those who aren’t retarded millennials, that is…

          • Holly Baby Catkiss

            Lol. Condoms break and birth control fails. How hard is it for a man to keep his sick in his pants? Or is it always the woman’s responsibility?

    • Uncle Fuck Stick

      Not necessarily because then they might as well get into prostitution and get rich. But now a days you can barely have a decent conversation with a female whilst being a gentlemen.

      • Valerie Finnigan

        My guess, given your attitude, is that you’ve never actually tried to be a gentleman.

      • Holly Baby Catkiss

        Lol. Your name says it all…

      • Anomander

        “Manners Maketh Man”.

        If you start with this principle, you might get a better response.

    • David Williamson

      MEN ARE MORE OF A WHORE THAN A WOMAN COULD EVER BE — THIS ACT WAS PINNED TO THE WRONG GENDER!

    • CaliGal

      Yup and slutty

  • florida1

    Women also carry cells from the babies they carried for up to 22 yrs after giving birth…I think that is so sweet…of course unless they had those babies slaughtered….

  • Agnes Day

    Which is why it’s important to stay abstinent until you get married. Unfortunately, due to feminism and the state of the world, women would rather be c*m dumpsters than actual wives. Pathetic times we live in.

    • Holly Baby Catkiss

      Yet, when men do the same thing are they held are they held by the same standards that women are held? Nope.

      But you know men are sooo innocent right?

      • Paul Smith

        If you watch the animal kingdom, it is almost universal that the male seeks to mate (procreate) with any available female while the female chooses the best mate. I believe that we are genetically programmed that way and it is only society that has overcome those instincts for both sexes.

        • Anomander

          Well, back to the animal kingdom you go. Unless you would acknowledge that we have in more than 1 way moved away from the animal kingdom idea.
          The whole “when we were primates” argument is biologically flawed. We have evolved.

          • Paul Smith

            Yes, we have evolved which is why we can overcome those basal instincts when we choose. Life proves that they still exist however.

          • Anomander

            So there you have a choice. Do you want to follow some instinct from the time of primates, or do you accept evolution and let your intellect guide you.

        • Melanie Fincham

          Word

      • Azuka Osakwe

        It’s said that IT’S MORE BLESSED TO GIVE THAN TO RECEIVE.

    • thetagal

      I’m sorry, that is such a dumb idea. What if you stay abstinent then find out you are not sexually compatible? A married couple where the sexual relationship is poor is are going to have a very rough time keeping the “family” together. Divorce is guaranteed, unless you are a martyr.

      • CaliGal

        Millions of people around the world marry when they are virgins and enjoy marital sex, I know I did and we produced four beautiful healthy intelligent children. We did it in our orchard, in our vineyard, in a lake, in the ocean, shower, jacuzzi, in an airport shower (go figure), and many other interesting but very private places. Westerners, especially Americans are sex starved mentally unstable people and no wonder men become impotent here more than in other cultures and women well what can I say they become plain old bats. Just visit a couple of places where old folks are stored in your city.

    • Brittany Neville

      There is no reason to stay abstinent before marriage other than being seriously dedicated to Christianity or Islam which many like myself are not. There is nothing wrong with falling in love and having sex, nothing whatsoever. Many people who believe this get married just to have sex with that person and wind up divorced. Sex can teach you a lot about a person and that is stuff you NEED to know before you marry them.

    • Yesfir

      Even if the article is correct – and really, it is drawing several unfounded conclusions – why would having DNA from sex partners you’re not married to be any worse than having DNA from children, older siblings or your husband?

      Seriously, genetic material is not magical. It doesn’t change the structure of your own DNA. It doesn’t change who you are. It’s not some kind of mind-controlling substance. IT DOESN’T MAKE YOU A WORSE WIFE. Nothing in the study says it’s bad for you. That is just your misogyny speaking.

  • https://www.facebook.com/BonnieHuLibertarian/ Bonnie Hu Libertarian

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16084184

    “Group A had only daughters (n = 26), Group B had spontaneous abortions (n = 23), Group C had induced abortions (n = 23), and Group D were nulligravid (n = 48). Male microchimerism prevalence was significantly greater in Group C than other groups (8%, 22%, 57%, 10%, respectively).”

    If “Women Absorb And Retain DNA From Every Man They Have Sex With” then only 8% of women with only daughters and 10% of women who’ve never been pregnant have ever had sex with a man? How many of these women have an older brother or male twin (some who are unknown because they died in the womb) or miscarried (spontaneously aborted) a male child and didn’t know it? A better headline would be “Women Absorb And Retain DNA From Every Fetus They’ve Ever Aborted”.

  • Word Onfire

    Just one of many reasons God sanctified sex for marriage (a relationship between man and woman with vows of lifelong commitment). Jesus Christ only permitted divorce under one circumstance: sexual infidelity (Matthew 10:31-32).

    It also brings to life the Bible verses that say that man and woman become one flesh (Mark 10:6-12):
    “6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
    7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
    8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
    9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
    10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
    11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
    12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”

    • Holly Baby Catkiss

      I’m so glad I’m Pagan and don’t give a fuck about your bible bullshit.

      Which was written by fallible men and plagiarizes many Pagan stories.

  • osikdart

    sex is supposed to be more than recreation i think everyones instincts can tell them that

  • dd

    What about men who sleep with other men? Seriously. What’s the context of him having (another man’s) DNA swimming inside his head?

  • Blenda Richter

    “Every male you absorb spermatazoa from becomes a living part of you for life”

    That sentence above is pure chaos in a blender. I think it should read (or the writer meant for all that matter) “Every spermatozoa you absorb from a male becomes a living part of you for life”

    • DocDoc

      That’s basically the same thing, but he was emphasizing that the very men you sleep with leave a piece of themselves in your brain and body.

      • Anomander

        There are these interesting things called condoms.

        • MKulnir

          Which million of little microscopic swimmers have an uncanny ability to penetrate or swim around. Condoms are not foolproof.

          • Anomander

            Only if the condom is damaged, swimming through latex is possible. The structure of latex is such that it does not let even water pass. A spermazoid is much larger than that.
            If a spermazoid swims around, you are not using it properly. Either too big of a condom, not rolled out completely, not removing yourself before the erection is over.

          • CaliGal

            3 percent failure rate and if the girl gets pregnant she can’t sue the manufacturer since it states on the wrapper or it used to.

        • Paul Smith

          Is that still sex? (Yes, I know what the law says)

          • Anomander

            Yes it is. If you think otherwise, you are probably doing it wrong.

        • jagragg

          The use of condoms does not allow sperm to pass, hence condoms have no part of this discussion.

          • Anomander

            No, they are very well a part of the discussion. We are talking about sex. The use of condoms and other preservatives are an inherent part of that.

      • Paul Smith

        That has not been established, only theorized.

        • DocDoc

          *Sure, I suppose it could be caused by an unknown abortion in 63% of those women.

          *that was sarcastic

          • Yesfir

            Unknown abortions happen in up to 50% of the cases when an ovum is fertilized. As in, the zygote is ejected and the woman never even knows she was pregnant. This is extremely common.

  • Steve Furches

    Baxter, you’re a shitty science writer. You completely misrepresent what the article says. Find a new job.

  • Hallelujah49

    “Considering the fact that 63% of women have male DNA cells residing in the recesses of their brain, which of the above possibilities do you think is the most likely origin of the male DNA?”
    “The answer is 4. Sex.”

    Whoa, hold up. Wait a minute. Sure, I’d intuitive think that number 4 is the likely answer as well, but that is not how science works. Intuition will lead you to the wrong conclusions quite often.

    The CDC as well as the March of Dimes and several fertility experts have conducted studies to see exactly how hard it is to carry a pregnancy to term. In general, less than 70% of all fertilized eggs will even implant into the mother’s womb causing pregnancy to continue.

    More study will have to be done, but leaping to conclusions based on intuition is a bad idea. Other likely possibilities exist, including ones which have nothing to do with sex.

  • Takashi Mitsuya

    Where the hell is “the University of Seattle”??? No such university exists. The study is done by the University of Washington, Seattle.

    • MKulnir

      You caught that too, eh?

  • Ana Saballos

    This is a great example of people purposely taking research results out of context and using it to promote an agenda. The subliminal message? Don’t have (casual) sex, you don’t know what DNA you are absorbing! And even insinuate it may be relayed to neurological diseases. Reality: they cite 2 different papers and combine the results to make it look scary. Paper 1, the one that found 63% micro chimerism. They did not quantified how many of their subjects have had a son. Only one person was described as never having a live child. Did not report on spontaneous or induced abortions. So if all but one the women had have children, it is expected that at least 50% may have boys. Add that to the percentage of women that may had aborted (spontaneous or not) a male fetus, 63% does not require other explanation more than pregnancy. And the study found that women with microchimerism had LOWER levels of Alzheimer’s than the ones without. Second study (different set than the first): they separated the subjects according to whether they had female kids, abortions or no reported pregnancy (keep in mind that the rate of spontaneous abortion among all fertilization events is about 30-50%, most without the woman ever realizing she was pregnant). The over all rate of microchimerism on this group of women without male children was 23% , not 63% as in the previous study. And the level for women never pregnant or only daughters was 10 and 9% respectively. The only group that had a level comparable to the previous study was the women that had had an abortion, and since we would expect that 50% of the fetuses would have been male, that is not surprising. So what about the 10% in the never pregnant woman? Again, while it is impossible to say for sure, it could be explained if they had miscarriages that never knew about. None of this supports the sensational title of this article. Sorry for the long comment, it just drives me crazy when valid scientific research gets twisted to promote ideologies, specially if they are damaging to women’s rights.

    • Chris Brock

      Only intelligent comment on here…

      • jagragg

        Sounds like you blindly follow the politically correct agenda. Meaning you will agree with anyone that shares your own beliefs.

        • Sarah

          That was literally the dumbest thing ever written – of course you are going to AGREE with someone who shares your BELIEFS! That’s what beliefs are: shared ideologies. Agreements, if you will. This world is dying of stupidity.

          • jagragg

            So rather than agree with my obvious observation, you would rather insult & demean me, just to show your feminest ego. Politically correct egos are destroying the world. Get over yourself!

          • April Kendrick

            And being offensive to others somehow makes the world a better place? GTFOH!

          • jagragg

            I’m only “offensive” towards that attack me or presume to know what I’m all about.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3131a7d390469b81f9c819dac3892eb8b0de79630450c45b47dcf87aa1c2a310.jpg

          • JP

            Translation of that meme: “Waaah!!! Other people are to blame for my shitty behaviour. Other people FORCE me to behave this way!!!” Lol. Such character. Such integrity. And also known as the Number One attitude of an abuser. Thanks for slipping up and revealing your true colours. And so easily, too 😉

          • LZZ

            wow jp, you have the typical victim mentality (the usual cover of bullies and abusers). that’s why the world is sick of leftards. they lie to your face and twist the obvious, crying that they’re the victims right as they stab others

          • Chris

            MAYBE IF YOU ACTUALLY STATED AN OPINION WE CAN DISAGREE .

            At this point were annoyed you’re still posting .

          • CaliGal

            You mean “we’re”? Get an education please!

          • Steve Peak

            Dude. Either back up the conversation with facts and information (or even a damn opinion!) that is useful or please don’t participate. Labeling people and pointing fingers is a worthless waste of everyone’s time. The original comment sought to create debate, and cited actual statistics FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. She wanted to make conversation. You, on the other hand…

          • jagragg

            Dude; You may not agree with me, but you don’t tell someone to shut up
            while defending them self from attack. SO, take your controlling PC
            attitude someplace else. Your insistence on facts, means facts that you
            like, while MOST of the article centers around the authors OPINION! If
            you don’t like MY opinion, grow up! You are being an opinion fascist,
            shutting anyone down you disagree with.

          • Operator99

            If you spent less time taking everything personally, and more time offering/explaining/defending a position- any position- you’d probably get a better response. The world is just not all about you & your feelings here. You are doing exactly what the whack-job SJWs do…

          • CaliGal

            Soon they’ll legislate conservative opinions so they can arrest us, almost happening in California

          • Thomas Jones

            So, Jagragg… I get that you think that you have been treated unfairly here. I am a little late to the conversation, but I would appreciate your point of view on this. I’m not baiting you or calling you names, I just really would like to hear from you. I have my preconceptions and ideas, but without a contrary view I can not bake a true and logical position. I’m not saying that we will agree but without your input I can’t be sure of my ideals. So please by all means explain o me your position.

          • Al No Mor

            Um I’m pretty sure over population and global warming are doing far worse to this planet than PC. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not PC, however I do like to be FC, Factually Correct: meaning I actually try to understand facts, and how they’ve been established instead of risking being factually incorrect because I’m politically stupid.

          • Donna Norcom Milich

            There you go making sense again. I like the FC term. I think I’m going to use it!

        • Malicex

          Oh look, a redneck obsessed with politics who immediately jumps in with a logical fallacy (i.e. ad hominem) rather than saying anything intelligent, and then bitches about someone being condescending after being condescending themselves. I must be on the Internet.

          • jagragg

            Oh wow, another mindless hater, I must be in the internet.

          • Malicex

            Haha, “hater”, “feminist ego”, and “political correct agenda”. You crack me up man.

            Try quoting a single proposition that Ana stated and tell me why it’s false or was arrived at by invalid logic. Or continue with your cliche responses, whatever floats your boat.

          • jagragg

            You don’t know me at all. But the first words out of your mouth was, “Oh look, a redneck obsessed with politics,”
            You’re obviously a pompous ass, full of your own ego.

          • Michelle

            Yes, he described himself rather succinctly.

      • Emerald Azure

        i would say the agenda is particularly that WOMEN shouldn’t have casual sex!!!

        • Shiva Jones

          Which would force men to do the same if every woman actually followed that advice. But eh

          • Nina Trimbath

            And the converse is true as well, but they are both really stupid what ifs. Why are men constantly trying to put the responsibility for everything in the world on women?

          • Shiva Jones

            With great power comes responsibility. Women are incredibly powerful. Which is ironic, they rule the world and don’t even realize it. Men also have a great deal of power and responsibility, but they can easily be influenced by the subtle power women possess. Women have just as much to do with the world burning as their male counterparts.

        • Kathleen Marion

          Or don’t have sex with stupid men. It will affect your brain!

          • Stephen Walter Howard Crane

            That’s the right idea. It goes both ways.

          • ramses

            So where are the opposite ‘studies’? Since men are usually more promiscuous than females- EVERY woman’s vaginal lining cell DNA would be absorbed by them too. We wont see that study anytime soon, I’m sure. . More politically motivated junk science.

          • Kathleen Marion

            What body fluids from a women get injected into the man? Think about that and apply it to what you said.

          • Kathleen Marion

            Yes I suppose it does, but men don’t absorb the DNA of men.

          • Linda Pottle

            lol lol I like the way you think 🙂

          • Alex Wong

            The opposite holds true as well.

          • Kathleen Marion

            Except that men don’t absorb the DNA of women.

        • margaretlsc

          That was pretty clear. An age old “Women will have consequences” without ever mentioning that men are entirely involved in the the act of sexual intercourse or have any role to play.

          I propose the possibility that women with Male microchimerism in the brain actually have evolutionary potential, not diseased, irreversible damage. As a woman who acknowledges my complex sexuality, I would consider this an advantage, a new kind of complexity in how intimacy and the human body collaborate and are far beyond what we assume or have decided we KNOW about existence.

        • Adrienne Elys

          I’ve said this for over 10 years since I was a teenager this is pretty horrifying and disgusting to me. I stand MY VIEWS…should not sleep around

        • Philippe Andurand

          no. it says “use a condom”…

        • Baz | What Should Baz Do

          I viewed it as absorbing the power of all the mates! Have as much sex as possible with as many strong, intelligent men as possible and absorb their powers like a goddamn succubus! #SuperWoman 😀

      • Michelle

        Of course…..you can’t as easily get between the legs of women who understand the ramifications of casual sex….so-called…lol…”women’s rights”….actually, a man’s right to an abundant supply of easy sexual encounters while convincing women it is an indication of freedom and power to be promiscuous…despite the many negative repercussions . Nice scam bought by millions of gullible, women.

        • Al No Mor

          What are these ramifications you speak of? Women’s rights include the right to be free from having sex pushed on them against their will, it’s funny how the same people who hate on women’s rights and push chastity are the same people who blame women for a man having sex with them when they were incapacitated.

          • Stephen Walter Howard Crane

            Michelle wasn’t pushing any of those children’s blocks around, but thanks for playing!

        • Jennifer Lee

          Conservative women are much more “promiscuous” than liberal women. The proof is in the state-by-state statistics.

          • Joe Coogans

            Upper class women (Conservative) are just having a good time if they sleep around, working class (LIberal) are described as sluts if they sleep around. So you will find that more male DNA (if true) will be in Republicans

          • pissed Amrican

            Working class liberals bahahaha, I don’t believe collecting welfare and rioting in a George SOROS funded activities is considered work.

          • Rick Kocher

            As opposed to Koch Bros. funded activities?

          • Steven Berry

            Yes as opposed . they don’t pay people to riot, or did that fly by your bird brain? You’re just a no mind liberal sheep following the herd without a f**king clue, like 99% of liberals, brainwashed morons.

          • Kevin Titus

            “Brainwashed” he says. Lol. More like open-minded. Unlike you who have been brainwashed by Faux Noise.

          • Pat Cannon

            or russia

          • CaliGal

            Soros is your guy

          • Alejandro Moreno S.

            Do you always regurgitate Fox News drivel, or is this just you on a good day?

          • Stephen Walter Howard Crane

            You would know if you studied history that the ultimate goal of the Left is to have poverty stricken hordes on welfare, to be wielded as a bludgeon against the patriotic ruling class, by international forces. It happened in France, Russia, Germany, Venezuela, Brazil, etc.. You might stick up for the Left, but the commissars will shoot all the horde in the back of the head when the project of America’s overthrow is complete. History. HISTORY,

          • CaliGal

            Amen!

          • friendly libertarian commie

            funny, it’s usually democratic nations that end up using the poverty stricken hordes against the domestic incumbent. pinochet, contras, duvallier, libya, kuwait, iraq…..those are just off the top of my head.

            me thinks your history is missing some local, non western elements (“boots on the ground” kind of research) and some international relations lol

          • Julián

            Where did you study history, Trump University? because what you are saying is beyond moronic

          • Julián

            im an actual historian btw

          • warriorgoddess

            Spell much?

          • redjelly39

            Your name speaks for itself concerning your hatred & discontent. My friends are liberal and they are teachers, college professors & professional working people along with myself. The brainwashed sheeple are the ones collecting welfare.

          • CaliGal

            Yup, the brain-washers of the Utopian society full of rubbish, so were mine until they grew old and mean and ugly and alone in senior homes pulling their own hair out cursing at the nurses and the staff. Their spawns didn’t want anything to do with mommy and daddy since they were too busy fixing the world….

          • Melanie Silver

            stfu

          • Kevin Titus

            Typical arrogant, selfish Republithug who thinks the world revolves around them and feels that everyone who isn’t a gun-toting, hillbilly redneck have no life and no job. GTFOH.

          • Greg

            I get that you’re pissed, and you’re pissed because you’re hurt. Your hurt is not due to an aggregate of unknowable liberals but at people whom you know and love. You redirect that hurt through anger at people whose names you’ll never know, and you grow passionate in an effort to avoid confronting yourself. Idk, dude. Think about what I’m saying sometime.

          • CaliGal

            What bull-cockey?

          • Karen Scott Hansell

            Conservative does not mean upper class, and liberal does not mean working class. You are assigning ideology to income levels, and it is an inappropriate generalization. That being said, I see what you are trying to say, but it would be hard to prove. I actually think that a woman’s sexual promiscuity is not influenced greatly by class or partisan politics. Wealthy women are just as likely to be called “sluts” behind their backs as lower income women.

          • Valdoria

            What if you are an upper class Liberal? I am pretty sure most of the liberal women I have run across are at the top of the income and education bracket (Ivy League Schools, Executive Level positions) and monogamous as opposed to the convervatives.

          • CaliGal

            And most of them are slutty–I have worked with many such Ivy league liberal women, they are not monogamous by a long shot. Many were closet lesbos

          • Kitty Phillips

            So what? Humans should be allowed to healthily fuck anyone they choose as long as that person is an adult and consents to the act. There are billions of people in the world, if you are single why confine yourself to one person, unless you love them?

            Its idiotic.

          • Jamie Brahm

            Bonding and oxycotin. Bonding with the problems inherent in that bond, leads to less ability to bond. You can see this in studies showing the more sexual partners a woman has, the less likely she has a long term successful relationship. Sex and orgasm released oxytocin, its a bonding actitivity.

          • Sakeeta Rosen

            Oh yes because a relationship is the most important thing? Worry about yourself, take care of yourself, more stuff for you if you don’t have to share with some twat! Seriously so much more in life is enjoyable than a relationship, sex and cuddles can come from friends and aren’t friendships relationships too? You don’t have to be monogamous to be happy either.

          • CaliGal

            No moron conservative women get married and have sex, as much as our heart desires with our spouse since he isn’t carrying STDs or other women’s scents or underwear or bullshit!

          • brazos

            Conservative women are more classy, but are working class. Liberal women are more of the welfare class….

          • Marge

            Reference?

          • Stephen Walter Howard Crane

            There will be no reference. It’s likely a misrepresentation of a recent survey that showed conservative women get laid more per week than liberal women. It doesn’t mean liberal women aren’t the vilest, lowliest Jacobin crud in the gutter.

          • Greg

            WOW, man. WOW. You’re a rude person, and your opinion isn’t worth consideration because you don’t know how to show other people respect. Ouch.

          • Stephen Walter Howard Crane

            WHOA, man. Whoa. Good argument. Someone, please, start the slow clap! I don’t always hate liars but I never hate the guttural form of argumentation. Ouch, oow, plop, poop. No refutation. Just unbridled liberal mentacide. Worth consideration? I wish you had an opinion.

          • Greg

            What good would it do for me to share my opinion with you? You’ll only disparage me. I have no opportunity to persuade you. Your mind is already made up, and you defend yourself with vitriol. You stopped learning — stopped listening — years ago. What happened to you? Have you considered what is funding your pain? You present yourself as a lay historian, but who I see is a hurting child. I wish you peace of mind.

          • Lamia

            I wish you’d have your hands blown off so you couldn’t keep typing retarded comments.

            Get off the internet senile old man.

          • Diane Moffatt

            Judge not lest ye be likewise judged.

          • CaliGal

            By their fruits they shall be known.

          • Stephen Walter Howard Crane

            Judge what? She straight out lied and misrepresented a SURVEY.

          • Kathleen Marion

            You might want to read all of the scriptures rather than misquote one single passage out of context!

          • Paul Chaney

            Woah . . .

          • Amy Doss-Andres

            Have you seen liberal women? gag

          • Cam McRae

            Congratulations on rising above the spew of this thread and setting yourself apart with the most ridiculous and childish comment. Maybe you should post a photo to show us your conservative beauty? Edit: no need to post that photo. I found one. Maybe you shouldn’t be throwing stones from that glass house of yours. PS – nice haircut!

          • E Lindquist

            Studies show that conservative, married women have the most sex per week. They are also more likely to rate their sexual satisfaction as higher too.

          • Lamia

            Studies also show they are lying bitches.

          • Lamia

            Like they are gonna admit they aren’t happy with sex and risk getting beaten by their husbands? They gotta be good little housewives ya know!

          • Yuvi S

            I will not date Liberal women anymore. They are trash, baby killing, emotionally confused cretan sluts. Were fun in my younger days, but can’t listen to them whine 24/7 anymore.

          • Cam McRae

            At least they can spell.

          • Amy Unruh

            Now that’s just ignorant. You’d have to break it down into voting regions and then separate the married from the unmarried in regard to statistics that show number of partners. Women who’ve been widowed and therefore had more than one partner shouldn’t be considered promiscuous.

          • Diane Moffatt

            NO-ONE should be considered promiscuous.

          • Paul Chaney

            Palms, especially those in the dioecious Phoenix genus, are notoriously promiscuous.

          • Sunflowergirlntx

            Oh. Does that make it easy for ya to look at yourself in the mirror? ?

          • CaliGal

            Someone with intelligence in this sea of morons

          • Joseph Stone

            Not in my neighborhood.

          • Tengrii Tiamat Pfefferseele

            Sorry whoever I’m replying to, just wanted to jump into this thread

            Why the fuck are you all fighting

            Hyper hyper rich people are stealing your fuck damn lives

            Shut the fuck up about liberal and conservative you fucking idiots

            Even the smug dude name dropping “Jacobin” cuz he read like one book

            Stop fighting with each other morons

            Stop fighting with each other morons

            You’ll live and die fighting with each other

            Love one another

            Love thy enemy too (plank in yer eye mote in yer neighbors m8)

            But fuck the real, super fucking evil people, none of which the people in this thread are, so why are any of you fighting????

          • Kim Thomas

            And you must be a liberal….

          • BooBooBaby

            She is probably Fat Gross and Ugly like most Libt4rds too! Lolz!
            ;-D

          • Diane Moffatt

            Not judgmental and rude like you?

          • BooBooBaby

            You are so full of BS!

            However, you are obviously an Ugly Gross Libt4rd…..because most Liberal women are…..and they are very Jealous too!

          • Diane Moffatt

            I notice your picture and weight aren’t included.

          • Amy Doss-Andres

            Where might we find those statistics?

          • Notbuyingit3337

            got a source?

          • fluffylucy

            Promiscuity statistics – lol

        • Amelia Earhart

          I’m an older feminist am curious about your response. Is this a common feeling with you and your friends? I’m not criticizing… I partly agree, but was a lone voice among hetero women in my gen. Just wondering if your militancy is widespread. BTW, Feminism is not limited to whatever iteration appears in the media. The point for us was to enjoy sex, maybe for the first time. What it became was not our doing. Don’t be afraid of Women’s Rights. It’s much bigger than that. What we do now has significant implications for the next millennia.

          • Stephen Walter Howard Crane

            What a positively creepy response. “Just wondering if your militancy is widespread.” Niet, commissar! Michelle’s comment is the observation what the salt of the earth-people have made on feminism from the swinging 60s to today. It’s the same as what scholars who’ve studied the sexual revolutions nee women’s rights would comment. There is the “can’t as easily get between the legs of women who understand the ramification of casual sex” group of women and the “what we do now has significant implications for the next millennia” minority, manufactured group. AND, sometimes, even when the latter group is ragging in the ecstasy of the -ism’s kant, the former, numerous, life-sustaining group of women say, no. No. No. —that is all Michelle is saying. …. Frankly the implication of the article is that chimerism is passed along and only a dolt would not find it likely is bi-directional; therefore, consider who you have unprotected sex with since the effects abide. Which, funnily, is the moral implications of Michelle’s perspective, one normatively stable over time periods and populations. But, the feminists high jack a conversation again with a “what about the women!” cry, when real women are accessing true information.

          • Diane Moffatt

            And what exactly ARE the effects? What IS male DNA? This article is pure rubbish – there is no science saying out vaginae somehow suck up male sperm and send it to the brain – this only happens when we have male babies.

          • David Willhite

            You didn’t read the article. It talks about oral sex placing sperm into a woman’s mouth, nasal cavity, etc.

          • ee

            No, it doesn’t. Probably your mind wandered to that! Read it again. Or you can search for the word “oral”, and see it is not in the article.

          • David Willhite

            Here you go, since you can’t read, “If it’s in your mouth it swims and climbs into your nasal passages, inner ear, and behind your eyes. Then it digs in. It enters your blood stream and collects in your brain and spine”

          • Lamia

            Lmfao my god, learn how the reproductive system works you dumbass

          • fluffylucy

            sperm entering your mouth is not going to embed male DNA into your brain, any more than eating toast is going to embed wheat DNA into it. This is completely nonsensical.

          • David Willhite

            Toast isn’t designed to release DNA, whereas sperm most definitely is.

          • Cam McRae

            Creepy? I’m not sure I agree, but we’d have to wait for Amelia to respond. My feeling was that there was no negative connotation in the question about widespread militancy. A militant response to something worth fighting for can surely be seen as positive, and since Amelia agreed with Ana (and felt she had been a lone voice in her youth) it seems that, while militancy may not have been the best word choice, her comment may not be creepy at all.

          • Willie Rhodes Fess

            I stopped reading after your use of the word “ragging” which proves you are not really a thinking person.

          • ee

            Beyond your slanted view of all involved, and your venom toward “feminists”, it sounds like you actually believe this ridiculous article has anything to do with science! Wow.

          • some dude

            EE – are you a Nimby? “not in my backyard!!” – for your sakes. Science is open ended/minded. One day, every ‘belief’ is different from what it used to be. The original ‘cures’ for Scurvy? Read up. Secondly, where did SWC’s feminist venom come into this? Right next to the valid information of “If It’s In Your Mouth” ? Which by the way, by association, to any straight thinking female – would either mean you’re gargling it for nutritional reasons or some dude’s just really enjoyed your facial expression.

          • Sue Hoger Siegmund

            Michelle has a very valid point. All the so-called sexual revolution did was take away a woman’s right to say no. And yes, I was there.

          • ee

            It is such a shame woman don’t have a right to say “no”, like they did in 1950. Thanks for the history lesson.

          • Lamia

            Since when could a woman say no 100 years ago? The fuck you been? Not paying attention to anything in history apparently… And no, you weren’t there. Arrogant cunt.

          • ee

            People wouldn’t know how widespread our political opinions are, because we self select into like minded groups. For instance, I don’t know many people who think “womens rights” was a mistake, but I don’t talk to just anyone!

        • Pan Dimensional

          Giving women the freedom to say yes means giving them the freedom to say no… your comment makes absolutely no sense.

          • HerrinSchadenfreude

            Finally someone talking some sense here. One can’t claim independence of thought and decision should have been a given while at the same time running to some haven where one’s legs flying open was some telekinetic side effect of society’s “professor X” style willpower thrust. If you don’t want to do it just don’t nobody “tells” you to run out and get laid like there’s a secret toy surprise in the bed and “obey”. The power of Christ does NOT compel you.

        • Diane Moffatt

          If this were true you might have a point but it isn’t.

        • HerrinSchadenfreude

          We were speaking about taking research and whittling it into an agenda, were we not? Just checking given yours.

        • ee

          But the article doesn’t show any new “ramifications”. Most women know pregnancy comes from intercourse, and that the mother shares blood with the embryo. For any that don’t, I don’t think you can blame feminism.

        • Lamia

          Can’t fix stupid.

        • lena

          I feel so sorry for the White race, they never seem to have the wisdom to see the ratifications of of their actions even when the evil result stares them in the face. To makes matters worse bad company corrupts good people, meaning the indigenous people learn this diviant behavior or have it thrust upon them. Then everyone gets sick from it then here comes the little scientists with a pill to make millions off the suffering. Its an evil scheme. When all we had to do was look at the track record of these lost people (world war 1&2) and all the destruction brought on the earth and we will see one common thread; a people who neither wants the laws of God or common sense. Not surprised by the rejecting of the findings of the report. The feminist movement has plunged human society into a cesspool of living affliction and because of it babies are murdered, adultery abonds and every evil under the son. Rejecting anything that blocks them from the trial and error of their minds. It is written, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom”. Try some……

      • Shawn Dunham

        Not to mention the only wall sperm burrows into is an ovum(if the ovum lets it in). It also dies fairly quick. They should be able to test the DNA from the chimerism. If it’s from a pregnancy or or from sibling, than it should show as a relation to the female whether it’s male or not. It wasn’t mentioned if they did this or not, which seems odd to me. If it’s in the brain could it possible be left over DNA from their father, that didn’t merge with their mother’s DNA?

        • WiseOldUnicorn

          They didn’t do any of that because the researchers don’t even think sex is an option for how it got there. This article contains a lot of lies regarding the actual study.

        • https://youtube.com/GoddardsJournal Goddards Journal

          One sperm is allowed in the ovum. So no sperm burrows in.

      • Jason Willis-Esq

        Agreed.

    • Robbyn

      I don’t think it’s a “woman’s rights” thing…I just think it’s a pathetic click-bait title…

      I get incredibly pissed with people who want to attempt scientific discussions with an incredible lack of scientific understanding…

      The main article – the published article, that is (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045592#s4) – states that it is a speculation and that the women would have to have fallen pregnant with a male fetus…

      Microchimearism is the presence of foreign cells within the body – it includes viral and bacterial cells, but I’d assume the researchers took that into account…

      WRT the possibility of that 10% unknown having miscarriages they never knew about – the chances of a miscarriage under 8 weeks is roughly 10-25% (I stand to be corrected on the statistics) – you wouldn’t even know since it’s still an embryo…according to some Doctors, 50% of pregnancies result in a miscarriage within the first few weeks, where less than 25% of those woman knew they were pregnant…(again, this is gathered from discussions with Doctors in the field, not a research article – I stand to be corrected on the numbers)…

      I think the author of this article needs to re-read it, and change his title…or just stick to politics, business and entertainment – NOT Science…

      • thetagal

        But it is an interesting subject, right? What about blood transfusions? I’ve always wondered if that left some DNA in my system.

        • Teresa Gemellaro

          Blood donations are frequently separated into blood components before being used for transfusions. A lot of the parts of blood do not contain any DNA; red blood cells, plasma and platelets for example. This is what most people get from a transfusion. There is DNA in the white blood cells, and this is generally given to immune-compromised patients such as cancer patients. However, they only last about a week, until they have done their job. A bone marrow transplant is different. Then, the DNA will remain in the bone marrow of the recipient, and will also keep producing new white blood cells containing the DNA of the donor.

          • jagragg

            A nice try young man. Everything from a human contains the DNA of that human. That is the very basis of criminal forensics, or Ancestry.com for that matter, I’ve found two 1st cousins through them.

          • JP

            Red blood cells don’t carry DNA. You can look it up. Plasma doesn’t either.

            Interestingly this whole Chimeraism thing came up because of forensics. In the 90’s this whole thing was considered impossible, then someone demanded a DNA retest for something and got different results. IIRC the person was to be let off based on DNA when all the other evidence pointed to them being guilty.

        • jagragg

          Good question.

        • Al No Mor

          blood transfusion are actually mentioned in the study, that paragraph is doctored, the original study has no mention of sexual intercourse.

          • Marge

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518667/

            “Microchimerism can also occur following allogeneic blood transfusion in traumatically injured patients, where donor cells have been observed decades after transfusion. To date, transfusion-associated microchimerism (TA-MC) appears confined to this clinical subset, most likely due to the immune perturbations that occur following severe trauma that allow foreign donor cells to survive.”

            Also, the quote isn’t from the initial study quoted, it’s from the second study linked at the bottom of the article. They’ve conveniently implied that the quote is from the former study, not the latter and which is merely the speculation of the writers of that second article – nothing in their actual research supports it.

        • Marge

          Perfectly possible… depending on the type of transfusion. Does it matter? The study linked in the article (which doesn’t mention sexual intercourse as a source at all!) suggests lower rates of Alzheimer’s disease in women with more foreign DNA in their brains!
          “Our results suggesting women with AD have a lower prevalence of male Mc in the brain and lower concentrations in regions most affected by AD were unexpected.”

          More on transfusions and microchimerism:

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518667/

          “Microchimerism can also occur following allogeneic blood transfusion in traumatically injured patients, where donor cells have been observed decades after transfusion. To date, transfusion-associated microchimerism (TA-MC) appears confined to this clinical subset, most likely due to the immune perturbations that occur following severe trauma that allow foreign donor cells to survive.”

          • AHH!!!

            That first paragraph should be condensed into a pickup line for us single males. Give free Anti-AD injections..lol

          • OrchidGrowinMan

            Interesting… but go all the way: is there a detectable CORRELATION between women with high microchimerism and diseases, particularly ones that have a correlation with gender?

            What about gay men? If there is a sexual contribution, it would be interesting to know!

          • Huntress

            After reading the article my first thought was that the contributions made by sexual encounters could easily be proven or rejected by studying gay males brains. In theory if the woman absorbs the DNA through sperm so should a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a man, unless there’s a purpose for a woman to be able to do this that science just hasn’t figured out yet. In that case a man may not be able to because his body was not created for that purpose. So I would be really interested to see them do a study on gay males as well.

      • jagragg

        The author never claimed to be a medical researcher, just a reporter that told what he read. His article, as reported in another comment (fiveHats), is supported by other medical research papers.

        • Kae Oz

          He read SOOOOO wrong. What he reported was NOT the conclusion of the original findings. Which they spell out pretty clearly in the discussion
          http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045592

          • jagragg

            WOW! You really do your your research well. I don’t want to read through such a pile of medical papers tonight. So PLEASE share the “conclusions” you found that those of the article author’s shows is inaccurate, misleading or false.

          • JP

            There is nothing that refutes the premise that a woman permanently gets DNA from her child, rather it confirms the premise right in the introduction:
            “During pregnancy, genetic material and cells are bi-directionally exchanged between the fetus and mother , following which there can be persistence of the foreign cells and/or DNA in the recipient”

            This is really the core claim of the writer of this article. He overstated the case when he said ‘every man’ which is a sensationalizing error on his part. But the crux of the issue, that women do in fact get DNA from the men they have sex with on a fairly regular basis, stands.

            Meant to reply @Kae, but you’d be interested anyway.

          • Marge

            Pretty much only if they are impregnated though, so practising safe sex would prevent that. Women can also inherit microchimerism from their own mothers who may have male DNA themselves from male foetuses themselves which end up in the daughters. It’s actually more plausible than intercourse without impregnation leading to women receiving male DNA as it the vagina isn’t usually permeable to DNA.

          • JP

            People don’t really practice ‘safe sex’ consistently anyway. And honestly getting off to to latex should be considered a kind of perversion in and of itself.

            If you’re getting off to someone you arn’t willing to share body fluids with you’re not in a good position to be forming any lasting, meaningful relationships in the first place.

          • AJ

            Your not making sense. You act like your so educated on the subject, yet you specifically say, ” WOW! You really do your your research well. I don’t want to read through such a pile of medical papers tonight. So PLEASE share the “conclusions” you found that those of the article author’s shows is inaccurate, misleading or false.” How can you have any of your opinions taken seriously if your basing everything on the opinions of all these comments. Try reading everything before you state an uneducated opinion.

      • Al No Mor

        No you’re wrong, it’s definitely agenda based, but probably also click bait. You definitely know he’s intentionally lying because if you read the study and then the article again you’ll notice that the paragraph he quotes to make the basis of his article has been altered to leave out a few potential sources, and he has added the word sexual intercourse which is not mentioned in the original study. The author is intentionally trying to mislead people, seems kinda malicious.

        • Marge

          Of course it’s malicious, it’s misogynist, conservativist and patriarchal bullshit designed to judge women who may have multiple sexual partners.

          • nells

            Where you see misogynistic, I see empowerment. Male DNA in the female brain? No surprise. Multiple partners? Big deal. My body. My mind. In fact, I’ll take more DNA for $400 Alex.

      • LOLGovernment

        “The genetic tests showed that even though the second male fertilized the eggs, the offsprings’ size was determine by the condition of the first male,” she says of her findings, published in the journal Ecology Letters. “The cool thing is that the non-genetic effects we are seeing are not necessarily tied to the fertilization itself.” https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/3461485/how-previous-sexual-partners-affect-offspring/

    • Boomboompow

      Thank you

    • thetagal

      Good points.

    • Michael Pannell

      Ana nails it in one, factually inaccurate and sensationalist reporting that ignores what the scientific data is actually telling us.

    • Isaac

      thank you for pointing out what you saw

    • fiveHats

      after looking around the web, your claims do not appear to mean anything. There are no articles supporting you – none, but I did quickly find two research publications supporting the article.

      • pat

        This s well known nd true

        • Sean Richardson

          Well known by who? ‘True’ by what standard? Please do educate me.

          • Ana

            Mr. Richarson, the numbers I cited came from the two research papers the article above cites as their source. I read the papers and looked at their material and methods to find out what subjects their used, the tests they performed and their conclusions. The only number I did not get from those papers was the number of spontaneous miscarriages in early pregnancy. I used the rate reported in several sources, including the CDC and baby center. This rate has been accepted for some time know, and it is the reason parents are advised to hold on on telling the news of a pregnancy until after the first trimester. I had to dig a little to find actual studies on the topic, it is an old topic so not a lot of new research on it. But here is one citation if you want to check it: Incidence and timing of pregnancy losses: Relevance to evaluating safety of early prenatal diagnosis http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajmg.1320350205/full

          • Sean Richardson

            I agree with your post – I was actually challenging fiveHats and pat who seem to be defending the article (although looking at it again, it’s sort of ambiguous to me whether pat is agreeing or disagreeing with you).

      • Bishop

        The “claims” are legitimate data from the sources presented

        • NME666

          no they aren’t, butt then I don’t expect you to understand “research methods”

        • Jenna D

          Actually no it’s not. His second source proves the opposite:

          “We investigated male microchimerism in women without sons… Male microchimerism was found in 21% of women overall… Group A [of women] had only daughters, Group B had spontaneous abortions, Group C had induced abortions, and Group D were nulligravid [never pregnant]… Male microchimerism prevalence was greater in Group C than other groups (8%, 22%, 57%, 10%, respectively.”
          https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7676297_Male_microchimerism_in_women_without_sons_Quantitative_assessment_and_correlation_with_pregnancy_history

          So male microchimerism is only present in 8-10% of women who have never knowingly been pregnant with a son. If “all women retain and carry living DNA cells from every man with whom they have sex,” then it’d be a majority of women who have it, not such a low number.

          The 8-10% probably unknowingly had miscarriages of male fetuses. It’s not uncommon that women miscarry early enough that it seems like a menstrual period.

          • jagragg

            I see your point. But I disagree, because, your conclusion would suggest that most women have had multiple sexual relationships. Well, with all of the “tramp stamps” going on today, that’s possible too I guess.

          • Kevin Smith

            jagragg, people like to assume that most women fit the virginal archetypes that men try to superimpose on them. The truth is that all through history, many women have enjoyed multiple partners. Maybe not as many as men, but enough are having premarital sex, affairs, and flings to be significant. To call them “tramps” for doing something that most men do even more is sexist. Even back in the 50s, Kinsey was finding that 25% of women had had extramarital affairs. The number of course was higher for men. The idea of puritan sexual values is a myth.

            At at some point, if enough people are doing it (men and women) then it ceases to be abnormal. By all accounts, sexual puritanism seems to be what is truly abnormal. I’m not saying sleeping around is healthy or a good idea, but it certainly seems much more common than you realize.

          • Al No Mor

            I get the feeling that you haven’t had a lot of sex with women. Apparently the average number of sexual partners for a woman age 15-44 is 4.3, over 10% have had 15 or more.
            https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm#numberlifetime

          • Marge

            You’re correlating tattoos to sexual promiscuity? Wow. That’s a leap!

          • Marge

            There’s also the possibility of blood transfusions and of course, maternal microchimerism… which could contain male DNA from one’s older brothers or mother’s aborted male fetuses…

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?cmd=Search&doptcmdl=Citation&defaultField=Title%20Word&term=Gammill%5Bauthor%5D%20AND%20Pregnancy%2C%20microchimerism%2C%20and%20the%20maternal%20grandmother

            The single sentence about “sexual intercourse” in that second link has obviously led to a massive obsession by *those* sort of people that somehow sexual promiscuity makes women dirty…

        • Al No Mor

          No he doctored the conclusion paragraph of the cited study. The original study has no mention of sexual intercourse, he intentionally added that to mislead read here:
          “The most likely source of male Mc in female brain is acquisition of fetal Mc from pregnancy with a male fetus. In women without sons, male DNA can also be acquired from an abortion or a miscarriage [22], [23], [38]–[40]. The pregnancy history was unknown for all but a few subjects in the current studies, thus male Mc in female brain could not be evaluated according to specific prior pregnancy history. In addition to prior pregnancies, male Mc could be acquired by a female from a recognized or vanished male twin [41]–[43], an older male sibling, or through non-irradiated blood transfusion [44].

          • Elexsor

            That is incorrect Al.
            The paragraph was taken from the second paper:
            “Male microchimerism in women without sons: Quantitative assessment and correlation with pregnancy history”

            “Conclusions:
            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. Male microchimerism was significantly more frequent and levels were higher in women with induced abortion than in women with other pregnancy histories. Further studies are needed to determine specific origins of male microchimerism in women.”

      • fiveHats

        this discovery could help solve rape investigations

        • Marge

          No, it couldn’t. Please learn some science.

      • Ana

        Mr. Hats, the numbers I cited came from the two research papers the article above cites as their source. I read the papers and looked at their material and methods to find out what subjects their used, the tests they performed and their conclusions. The only number I did not get from those papers was the number of spontaneous miscarriages in early pregnancy. I used the rate reported in several sources, including the CDC and baby center. This rate has been accepted for some time know, and it is the reason parents are advised to hold on on telling the news of a pregnancy until after the first trimester. I had to dig a little to find actual studies on the topic, it is an old topic so not a lot of new research on it. But here is one citation if you want to check it: Incidence and timing of pregnancy losses: Relevance to evaluating safety of early prenatal diagnosis http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajmg.1320350205/full. By the way, I made a typo in my earlier comment. One of the percentages reported is 8%, not 9%. Just a slip of the finger when typing.

    • Paul Smith

      Methinks she bitches too much. Remember that writers, especially journalists, want page clicks so they sensationalize. There is good science there which resulted in good questions that need to be explored. Why? Science. Would you not want to know if all those stray bits of male DNA in your brain were having some negative impact? Do they affect fertility? Are they implicated in breast/cervical/etc. cancers? Who knows but they’re there and science wants to know why and what are the effects. So should you.

      • Ana Saballos

        I did not say it should not be investigated. I think it is facinating we carry DNA from our children. By the way, we carry DNA from daughters too, it is just that it is easier to detect the Y chromosome since it is not part of the mother genome, so it is distinguishable. This is not a new thing, woman have always carried DNA from their offspring, only rather recently (10-15 years) have been investigated. It is not a threat, it’s part of being a human female! I myself carry DNA from my beautiful sons. The more children the woman have, the more foreign DNA she carries. Personally, I like the idea my kids are part of me, but that is not a scientific opinion. What I object to is using scientific research and purposely twisting the facts to support conclusions that were not there in the original papers. It was very apparent to me to me when the article said: “the answer is clear: sex” No, that is not at all what the actual studies cited in this article say. They are mixing the numbers is one study (63% among all the women in their sample, nothing weir there) with the fact that they found male DNA in women never pregnant (and fail to mention that in that group the percentage carrying male DNA is only 8%) to claim “women carry DNA from every man they have sex with”. Maybe it was lack of technical knowledge, as other commented said, but seems too deliberates to be done by mistake.

        • William Washington

          The question was not whether women carry DNA from sons or daughters, but where the unidentified DNA came from!

          My only question now is “Does men have DNA in our brains that did not come from mom nor dad?”

          Wonder why that wasn’t explored…

          • Sara

            Tht s also what I want to know. The article would have been completed if they had come with a funding on a research for man as well and it would have been less subjective to woman.

          • Rachel Fox

            because men don’t get pregnant. have you read the first paper at all
            ?

          • Sonja

            why would it not apply to men who have sex with men?

            “Sperm is alive. It is living cells. When it is injected into you it swims and swims until it crashes headlong into a wall, and then it attaches and burrows into your flesh. If it’s in your mouth it swims and climbs into your nasal passages, inner ear, and behind your eyes. Then it digs in. It enters your blood stream and collects in your brain and spine.”

          • Rachel Fox

            the above statement is simply not true

          • Rachel Fox

            I was referring to the first scientific paper, not the made up nonsense written by Baxter Dmitry

          • Linda W. Kutzer

            Because this was accidental research. They were not researching this but came across it through other study.

          • Martha Cortez

            Exactly! Our children’s DNA is not foreign; it is similar to ours. I’m guessing this has something to do with oral sex and swallowing of semen. Just a wild guess, as not all women perform oral sex. They should redo the study using women who know who all their sexual partners have been (and who are around to test their DNA) and if they performed and swallowed during oral sex. This way, they would have all the DNA they need for testing. If DNA is not present in women who don’t perform oral/swallow, that would narrow things down.

        • Michael B

          ‘Personally, I like the idea my kids are part of me’ – Thank you for pointing out that you have your own personal agenda and bias, as well, which inspired you to ‘research’ the topic.

      • Sara E. Vilier

        It is surely is a question of beliefs or preference of practices. The article didn’t suggest anyone’s conduction. I don’t know what some people are feeling offensive

      • Al No Mor

        Paul, the problem with this line of thinking is that you’re missing the underlying thing here. This article isn’t sensationalized, it’s a lie, fake news. Second this article isn’t aimed at changing peoples behavior: it’s part of an agenda to stigmatize and marginalize women’s sexuality. Most semi intelligent people can detect an agenda when it’s concurrent with their own, thats true, but even some actually intelligent people seem to totally buy into a lie that’s agenda that’s concurrent with their currently held beliefs. This is what’s dangerous, I read the actual study, this author intentionally altered quotes: he added sexual intercourse to one of the concluding paragraphs. He’s opinion is that the study authors are trying to be PC and deny the true primary source of this DNA sexual intercourse when the study doesn’t even mention it as a potential source. These sorts of tactics are the same way that the Koch brothers and other scoundrels have persuaded the american public that climate change is a hoax, and that scientists are politically motivated when their findings threaten a companies bottom line.

    • MKulnir

      And then you throw in your agenda at the end! So if the conclusion(s) interfere with your agenda, they need to be 1) explained away, or 2) ignored – “specially if they are damaging to women’s rights.”

    • Jim4146

      Your comment alone has reaffirmed my faith in the human species. Your parents did well.

      • Ana Saballos

        Thank you, your words are very kind.

        • dainz

          How is anything in this article damaging to women’s rights?

          • Al No Mor

            To understand the answer to your question you must first understand how propaganda is generated to sway popular opinion and change laws.

            You see, this article takes a couple quotes from a scientific paper, and removes all the other information from the paper, then takes one of the quotes deletes a few words and adds the words sexual intercourse to it. This new lie is purported to be the original quote, and builds this anti-PC argument from it. Meanwhile the format of the article is such that many readers will believe it’s a news story instead of the OpEd based on a lie that it actually is.

            So now we have this fake news article, and in the future someone will write another article here or somewhere else decrying casual sex, which will maybe try to veil itself subtly as being against the practice in general but what the article actually states how bad casual sex is for women and presents that opinion as by being factually based citing this article. So then a bunch of people will read and believe that article, and women who are promiscuous will be shit upon by those people, this is called “Slut shaming.” Also women who are not promiscuous will be labeled as such by men to marginalize them because by logical extension one would assume given this (non)fact about how bad casual sex is for women, any woman who engages in that behavior must not care about her body, and if she doesn’t care about it why should anybody else.

            This line of thinking leads men who believe in it to the conclusion that the drunk girl in the short dress passed out upstairs is fair game because she’s assumed to be a slut. Then when she wakes up and cries rape the perpetrator calls her a slut and says she’s lying and all his friends, and his sister and his mom believe him ’cause Jimmy is such a sweet boy who would never do a thing like that. So now our poor young rape victim is having her character attacked for trying to seek justice against this sexual predator and the whole town including the cops and district attorney all calling her a liar and a slut; and buckling under the social pressure she just gives up on justice and accepts the fact that she as a woman has fewer rights than a man.

            You see a man can with reasonably assume that he may get super drunk at a party and pass out, and the closest thing to a penis entering his body will be the one drawn upon his face. If a penis did enter his body then he knows that he can goto the police and report a rape and not be called a slut liar and that fag is going to jail. Not being raped while passed out is a man’s right and a man’s only, because women who get raped in their sleep are sluts. Women don’t have so many rights, they have the right to do what men tell them they can do, think what men say they can think, say what men allow them to say. They’re not capable of knowing what’s best for them, unless it’s what a man says is best for them. Science says so.

            You get it now?

          • CaliGal

            Women might think for themselves and quit slutting around.

    • Bruce

      The subject is rather technical and deep. I could understand a journalist type not fully understanding it. Trying to be generous and not seeing the women’s rights agenda being trampled on

      • Andy Miller

        What women;s right have they trampled on?

        • CaliGal

          One conjured up in a feminist mind

    • piccolit

      worng men carry both female and male genes, this does not necessarily mean the pregnancies will split in 50-50 on a small sample

    • Sara

      I’m seriously wondering what pourcent of male microchimerism DNA that they would find on someone who never perform oral sex let alone swallow sperm and who never have sex without a condom.
      What I hate about the article is the fact that it’s only targeting woman
      What if men also absorb and retain DNA of all the women that they have been sexually mingling with. When the article said woman it is suggesting that only it doesn’t happend to man. If they are talking about the one side, you should also talk about the opposite.

      • Al No Mor

        Ana this article is bullshit, the DNA comes from pregnancy, women also have female DNA microchimerism. There is no mention of sex as a vector for this DNA getting into the woman’s body anywhere in the cited article, it does cite blood transfusions and prior born siblings whose DNA was transferred while the woman was an fetus in her mother’s womb. According to another study by age 44 only 0.3% of the population is still a virgin, which would mean some how 36.3 percent of woman are immune to male DNA infiltration… Or what about 36.3% as being the % of women who will never become pregnant with a male fetus? This seems a lot more likely. Most families have a male child, but not all, and the statistics on how many woman will never have children seem pretty difficult to pin down, but various less than solid sources all seem to be between 18 and 35% sounding like a pretty solid bet to me.

      • dorrie

        I don’t have any concrete evidence of all of what happens in the body during intercourse, (i’m no scientist) but i do know women are the receivers, so saying that they should look at what men receive also is irrelevant.

    • Brittany Neville

      Exactly!

    • jagragg

      And which college did you earn your medical research degree from? All I’ve read from you, is a conviently political & radical feminist opinion.
      Without any such personal credentials, you present yourself and your views no other way.

    • NME666

      I’ll shorten your negative comment ( and I support it) , the methodology they used to arrive at this conclusion sucks

      • Ian Cook

        It’s not a negative comment, it’s a realistic one.

    • Devan

      Read lifes instruction manual called the Bible.

      • Scott

        That book is nothing more than a collection of stories and mythology. It’s not an “instruction manual,” ffs.

        • CaliGal

          Says you?

      • CaliGal

        LOL! I have been waiting for someone to bring the TRUTH into this convo. The Creator already said so and science is barely discovering the tip of the iceberg.

    • Gabriel Bush

      How is this damaging to women’s rights? The only thing damaging to women’s rights is women. I don’t believe a group of people got together and compiled the information in this article with the sole purpose of toppling feminism one internet news story at a time. You are ridiculous. Whether or not the validity of this research is proven valid is irrelevant. Some of it sounds about right. Sperm gets absorbed by women. Period. It doesn’t matter if it is retained from every man you slept with the point is every time a woman sleep with a man she is allowing a piece of him to be left behind with or without this research we all know the thought is nasty regardless. But hey who cares? Men aren’t looking at women saying I bet she has retained DNA from a hundred dudes so i probably should not put my penis in her. Stop always thinking someone is out to destroy femininity. You can sleep with whoever you want the fact remains society will always judge men and women differently. If you are looking for a way to negate the fact that the world will call you a slut for sleeping with too many people and letting them blast in you then you are wasting too much time thinking and not enough time living your life.

    • BlanKanvass

      I was thinking the same thing. Its sounds like someone is promoting an agenda. I was expecting the last senrence to be. STOP HAVING SEX. smh

    • Yesfir

      Yeah, there IS a clear political agenda here. “A small percentage of women have unknown male DNA in them which MAY come from sexual intercourse” turned in the headline to “WOMEN HAVE DNA FROM EVERY MAN THEY EVER SLEPT WITH”. That is just plain conjecture, and very far-fetched.

      And the fact that the scientists, as scientists do, explored every option and didn’t assume one explanation over another without further studies and evidence? This was by the writer of the article described (without anything to back up this claim) as a conspiracy to cover up what the article writer WANTED the conclusion to be. Rather than, you know, good science. Mocking the the scientists when they didn’t immediately go with the conclusion that matched up with the writer’s world view gives away a clear agenda – and poor understanding of science. Science adapts its views to what is being observed and what can be proved. Not to what matches your biases.

      The author wants to imply that it’s dangerous to have sex with multiple partners, despite nothing in the study suggesting that multiple partners or how much sex you have plays a role in retaining male DNA. Hence the “every man you sleep with” wording. Hence the description of sperm specifically as some kind of invasive parasite. Hence the cries of “political correctness”.
      It’s painfully obvious.

      • Al No Mor

        it’s worse than that, if you actually read the study you find that there is absolutely no mention of sexual intercourse, he doctored up that quote, by removing blood transfusions, and prior born male siblings then added sexual intercourse.

        • Breanne Quigley

          I keep seeing you state this, but that is actually incorrect. The issue is that the author took the 63% from the first article and applied that “large group” amount to the possible cause being sexual intercourse stated in the second article (which only found 21% with Mc). Which is pretty interesting because their application of “63% of people…well, not that many people are pregnant with boys but that many people ARE sexually active” doesn’t hold water when you use the 21% statistic.
          The author definitely distorts these studies to their own gain and makes a gravely incorrect conclusion that neither cited sources supports. I am amazed at how many people would rather fight this than just go and read the cited sources and use their own brains to make the conclusions.
          Based on the logic of the offending author, we might as well have a headline that states “More sex reduces your risk for Alzheimer’s!” since the first study shows people with AD are less likely to have Mc.

    • Katrina

      Another possibility is that it came from the mother before birth. 99% of men have cells with XX chromosomes, and given that lots of women have Y chromosomes as explained in the study, you could pick up some of them via that route.

    • Keith Muracz

      Well said Ana!

    • dawn

      Consider vaccines in this equation. Injected with DNA from aborted fetal tissue as well as DNA from animals and so on. Certainly worth a look.

    • John Gresham

      People are invariably misinformed if they intend to spend their time looking up research articles without quoting them. Let me put this out there for you all. In the article cited this was the conclusion to the response within the quoted study “At present, the biological significance of harboring Mc in the human brain requires further investigation…. Lastly, a few studies have reported an association between parity and decreased risk of brain cancer, raising the possibility that Mc could contribute to immunosurveillance against tumorigenic cells as has been suggested for some other types of malignancy”. This directly evidences that people of whom have shared said DNA substrates are actually in a BETTER place for immuno response then those without. You’re ridiculous agenda based off the fact that you’re probably still upset that you haven’t had much casual sex, assumedly because of how unreasonably unattractive you are, is directly countered in the article you cited. Game, set, match unhappy little man.

    • Patrick

      The first thing that made me skeptical about the article was when they mentioned political correctness. I literally wasn’t even thinking that there was anything politically incorrect about it to begin with, because it is science and facts are facts no matter who they offend. The thing that really got me was when they referred to them as “DNA cells”. DNA… cells… DNA is not a type of cell, it is a molecule that exists within every cell. Reading that just makes me feel the the author of this article just has no idea what they are talking about. Furthermore, other (legitimate) studies would be required to find the reason that the DNA gets stored in the brain to begin and what effect it has, if any, before you can make such childish claims as “men’s semen digs into your flesh and becomes a living part of your brain, blood stream, and spine”. The lack of professionalism these days astounds me. Like most, they just want clicks. This stuff never mattered to anyone before, why would it matter to anyone now? This just gives people one more thing to make pseudoscientific, sensational fear mongering claims to try to manipulate the gullible and uneducated part of the population. Or, you know, they don’t even care what they post, they just want their ad revenue.

    • Patrick

      For the record, when I said “because it is science and facts are facts no matter who they offend”, I wasn’t implying that anything written in the article is fact, I don’t know enough about it to say one way or another. My only point was that political correctness should stay out of scientific research. I was agreeing with you that they shouldn’t be unscientifically promoting an agenda.

    • Jennifer

      Regardless of the validity of the study, you really shouldn’t have casual sex anyway. Sex isn’t to be taken lightly, & it can be damaging to a person’s self-esteem at times… People are too casual with sex these days, that why less people are making a strong commitment to another person… It’s sad really…

      • Al No Mor

        The study is fine, this article is a lie and the part where the study mentions sex. It doesn’t. This is your opinion, maybe casual sex is bad for your self esteem but not everyone feels that way. Don’t forget that a strong commitment might also mean that you can’t leave someone who no longer treats you well, and would rather watch TV and drink beer in the garage then pay attention to or fuck you, sure he pays the bills but on that one night in the past 6 months when you actually had sex; you had made this spent all day preparing his favorite meal and setting the mood, he never said thank you, there was no foreplay, it lasted a minute and thirty seconds and he didn’t make you cum, and he didn’t really seem to notice or care. Same as valentines and your anniversary before that, and then the valentines before that and so on and so forth back for almost a decade. Oh nevermind the fact that whenever you disagree with something he tells you that you’re stupid and don’t know what you’re talking about. Thank god for that strong commitment you made oh so many years ago when he still tried to impress you, or you might god forbid be single, so depressing.

        People don’t make such strong commitments these days for reasons that have nothing to do with casual sex, it’s because women have more power. Most divorces are initiated by women. People these days don’t commit so easily because a lot of people suck, if your parents did it and they’re unhappy, and so did your grandparents and they’re unhappy, and you want to be happy, why would you do it?

        • Tasha Halphen

          You just described my ex.

      • dorrie

        We are taught that as women because of the emotional experience, and fluid transfer/receives, women carries the spirit of all her partners for ever. Same can be describe as DNA. we all have our different beliefs that we live by, (free will)

    • Kae Oz

      God damn, this article is dumb.

      From the original study –

      “The most likely source of male Mc in female brain is acquisition of fetal Mc from pregnancy with a male fetus. In women without sons, male DNA can also be acquired from an abortion or a miscarriage [22], [23], [38]–[40]. The pregnancy history was unknown for all but a few subjects in the current studies, thus male Mc in female brain could not be evaluated according to specific prior pregnancy history. In addition to prior pregnancies, male Mc could be acquired by a female from a recognized or vanished male twin [41]–[43], an older male sibling, or through non-irradiated blood transfusion [44].”

      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045592

    • Candaloo

      women’s rights???? LOL The right to slut around? okay.

      • Al No Mor

        The right to make your own sexual decisions, and not have someone who is not your doctor tell you that you’re not taking care of your body.

        • Candaloo

          I am pretty sure no one is trying to prevent women from having multiple sexual partners. But with that said. I’m pretty confident that having multiple sexual partners will increase your risk of contracting diseases. Which any doctor would tell you is not recommended.

    • SirGladiator

      It doesn’t seem like you’re worried about the article being ‘damaging to women’s rights’ since no one was proposing, or even suggesting, taking away anyone’s rights. It seems like you’re afraid the article would lead to women sleeping with fewer men, by their own choice. Why that would offend you I do not know, but clearly no one is taking away a woman’s right to sleep with all the men she wants, they’re just being educated that it’s a really bad idea. If they choose to do it, or not do it, either way it has nothing to do with ‘rights’, only morals and decency, but nobody’s forcing anybody to be a good, or healthy, human being either way.

      • Al No Mor

        Well first the author actually changed the paragraph he quotes, he deleted a few likely causes and added the words sexual intercourse which is not mentioned in the actual study. What about the right to not have ignorant people who have no idea what they’re talking and who are not your doctor tell you that you’re unhealthy. This is kinda like say if you were going blind, and somewhat walked in on you masterbating then told you that you don’t care about your body and deserve to be blind because you did it to yourself. Totally not scientifically based. The problem with this kinda fake news is lots of people believe it because it re-enforces their ideals, and they think that their beliefs are supported by science when in actuality they’re not. This popularly believed lie about science then becomes the basis of someone writing a law which then does force people to do something which in actuality stems from religious belief / male chauvinism and has no basis in fact.

      • CaliGal

        Thank you SirGladiator. You are a gentleman–very rare in this day and in this country.

    • JP

      Paragraph breaks are a thing.

      You understand that women with daughters may still have chimeraism with their daughters DNA right? The tests where specifically looking for male DNA.

      The only way this could damage womens rights is if sleeping around is a fundamental womans right to you. Probably it is, and that’s a good chunk of why modern feminism is getting to be a laughingstock.

      • Anomander

        Actually, the option of sleeping around is a human right. It actually happening is something else.

        • JP

          Your view of what constitutes a human right is absolute nonsense. Sleeping around is in no way a natural right, and the fact that people could be so ignorant as to think it is give a bad rap to people who actually have a concept of natural human rights that is worth defending.

          • Anomander

            So you disagree that individual humans have the right to have consensual sex.
            Please tell me more about where you put the limits.

    • dainz

      Ana, you wrote, “specially if they are damaging to women’s rights.” How is anything in this article damaging to women’s rights?

      • CaliGal

        A liberal always thinks and jumps way into the could be, maybe, lalala.

    • akmediascope

      Had a different effect on me! well first I thought . . . my children are doomed– the creepy guys . . . and then I thought OMG! Tony and Conrad, these wonderful men are with me forever

    • Thomas Jones

      Ana Saballos Please don’t get bogged down with the facts… facts just are irrelevant in this instance! They were not trying to prove anything just to make people believe horseshit! It’s click bait and fake news, they aren’t trying to inform they are trying to indoctrinate! You are the thinker and must be purged from society! We can’t have you informing the masses with truth!

    • Martha Cortez

      If the son’s DNA is what makes up the male microchimerisms found in a woman’s brain, it would be similar to the mother’s DNA. The report states the DNA is distinct from the cells that make up the rest of the woman, meaning not related, correct?

      • Al No Mor

        No martha, men have a chromosome that women don’t have, the study if you read it states that women have foreign female DNA in them as well. The reason that this was done on male DNA is because it’s much easier to differentiate from the woman’s DNA because of that extra chromosome, to try to do the study on foreign female DNA would have been much more time consuming and expensive.

      • Ana

        Half the child DNA is from the mother, the other half from the father, so that father’s half is the one that is different. When identifying the DNA, it can not be distinguished the half that is identical to the mother from the mother’s and fetus cells, we can only tell apart what it is not shared between her and the child. The easiest way to tell it is not maternal DNA is finding DNA sequences only found in Y chromosomes, since a female genome would not (usually, except in some genetic disorders) contain a Y chromosome. That is why researchers look for Y chromosome DNA, it is easier to identify michochimerisms that way. Mothers will also carry cells from the daughters, but identifying DNA from them would require knowing the genome of the father of the daughter or the daughter herself to be able to differentiate it from the mother’s DNA (we all carry the same genes in the rest of the genome that is not in the X and Y chromosomes, just with little differences in the sequence here and there) . Way more work and costly. So easier to just look for genes not present in the female genome, such as those in the Y chromosome. So yes, it is distinct from the mother’s DNA, because it came from the father.

    • Amelia Earhart

      Thank Ana for your reassurance! I was so worried,,,

      • CaliGal

        WHY?

    • Jennifer Lee

      I don’t see the agenda for abstinence anywhere in this article. Use a condom if you don’t want the guy’s DNA crawling around in your head. I’ve seen other articles about this that only talk about the phenomena as a way to explain births in which a couple have a baby that doesn’t look anything like the father, and may even be another race. These mothers have been accused of having affairs, even with the couple vehemently deny infidelity was a possibility. I would much prefer to have this information than to remain ignorant of it.

      • Colleen

        Environment like diet can alter DNA of the parents thus affect phenotype of the offspring. I’ve seen numerous millennials of immigrant families who are way taller than their parents. I’m guessing because the parents and kids’ diet are better or in bigger portions than where the family originated from.

        • CaliGal

          Taller or shorter matters very little in the big scheme but whose DNA is an offspring carrying is most important if i was to father a child which I can’t since I’m a female, however I would want to know if my grandchild was my son’s or someone else’s. I sure as hell am not going to leave an inheritance to a bastard since his mother could not keep her legs crossed prior to marrying and having a child with my son–you see even in this day and age there are people like me who have morals and ethics and standards of expectations since I myself restrained my sexual urges until I was married to the man I let father my children.

    • Elzon1

      Yeah, I can agree the title is a bit click-baity and technically false in that a woman wouldn’t absorb genetic material from all male sexual partners. The research articles cited certainly point to this being false. However, the second article cited clearly states that sexual intercourse can account for some of the male DNA present in the female body. And yes most of the male DNA integrated into the female body would be due to male abortion as the material would be reabsorbed into the female body. This would contain a much greater quantity of male DNA than sperm. Although sperm would be a minor contributing factor to male DNA integrated throughout the female body it would still be a factor. Other studies conducted on other species in the animal kingdom have found similar cases of male microchimerism in females. So I don’t see how the idea of a woman’s body absorbing and integrating male DNA from previous partners would be in any way far-fetched. As an aside, there have been studies done on flies that prove that female eggs can be genetically influenced by previous sexual partners while later being fertilized by the last partner. While studies have not been done on humans towards this end, eventually there will be. I find that it would likely be the case that this also occurs in humans. However, no study has been done for this in terms of humans so we don’t yet know if this is the case. If it is later discovered that in fact this does occur in human females then that would be quite the social bombshell. I know I wouldn’t want to have a child with a woman whom is carrying DNA from other previous sexual partners. It could also be emotionally devastating for men whom already have children to know that their children aren’t entirely their’s. Perhaps depending on the number of previous partners the mother has been with the father may have contributed fairly little in terms of genetic traits to his children. That would be a huge blow to most fathers. Also, if tests can be carried out to determine the extent to which a woman’s eggs have been affected by previous male sexual partners it could dramatically effect her “sexual market value”. The effects of such research would be quite interesting to observe. Who know’s what the future brings.

    • Siri M. Kalla

      Thank you for your sanity!

    • Eric Brodrick

      Ana a Genuine question.
      Can you please explain how these studies “are damaging to women’s rights” ? I honestly can’t see any mechanism where the findings could be used in any way to suppress women.

    • AJ

      I don’t claim to be the smartest person here, you all seem to be very educated, but my question is, If woman are in fact maintaining DNA from men by whatever means, would that also suggest that her offspring would also carry that DNA. ESPECIALLY in female births since they are suggesting it’s woman who carry the DNA? I hope you all followed me 🙂

      • Ana

        Well, the DNA from the father of a woman’s fetus is recovered from clusters of tissue where those fetal cells traveled inside the mother’s body. For those cells to end up in the body of another (subsequent) fetus carried by that woman, it would required for those cells from previous fetus to travel back to the uterus, and somehow enter the developing body of the new fetus. Remember, we are talking here about small clusters of cells of non-maternal origin embedded in the maternal tissues. So although I can think it could be hypothetically possible, I think is highly, highly unlikely. it would not become part of the germline, though, as the cells that make the eggs of a woman get formed very early in her own fetal development, so all the DNA she will pass to the genome of her kids is already determined before she is born. This is not my area of expertise, though, so if any developmental biologists are in this thread, please comment. I am a geneticist.

    • Amy Unruh

      Women’s rights shouldn’t include the propaganda of having sex with whomever they want. That is simply brainwashing by men who don’t want to take responsibility. But there’s always more risk for women, both physically and emotionally, and God wanted so much better for us. He wanted our bodies to be honored and our hearts to be cherished. He intended covenant marriage to be the only place for sex.

    • Steve Lawrence

      What about blood transfusions? I agree with Ana, this article seems off.

    • Judy Costigan Caracheo

      Good arguement!

    • Donna Norcom Milich

      The problem is Ana, first you got to understand how the scientific method works, basic principles and theories science and how the world works to even understand the question. Then still not enough, you have to know how to interpret the data. One of the most useful college-level courses I took was probability and statistics, essential to read research critically. Long explanations chock full of sciency words & data, data, data don’t make for interesting reading for most. Certainly not good clickbait. Research published in respectable scientific journals is difficult reading. It’s intimidating and people don’t like to admit when something’s over their head. To defend themselves against feelings of intellectual inadequacy they argue the merits of their ideology. All the while ignoring tedious details like science and facts. They’re ignoring it cuz they don’t understand it. So no, they’re not going to give you the logical path they took to arrive at their position, not going back it up with facts and scientific principles. Just going to tell you how you’re and moron because your liberal or too PC or whatever.

    • LOLGovernment
    • Robert Curtis

      You don’t like the prospect so you down the argument, facts and reasoning. Ana most women would shutter at such a thing being true…time and research will tell. I’m hoping your right, but highly doubt you are!

    • Anna

      Very intelligent response. you seem like you really know what you’re talking about. I feel much better after reading your response. they do this all the time with research studies where they pick the information they want out of the study and say that everything went according to the way they wanted it to go from the beginning.

    • Mark Cogley

      I thought it was saying sucking dick goes to your head

      • CaliGal

        And may cause ALZHEIMER’S in your old age if you slut around

        • Mark Cogley

          That’s funny, maybe the old woman will have some of the old guys memories

    • Nina Trimbath

      THANKS YOU FOR THIS COMMENT! THIS ARTICLE CAME UP ON MY FEED AND SCARED ME TO DEATH!

      • CaliGal

        WHY?

    • AJ Melvin

      Thank you! While normally I’m all for scientific research, it seems lately “science says” has been used more and more to promote an agenda. When I start seeing emotional or judgemental, persuasive language in what is supposed to be a scholarly article, it automatically becomes propaganda in my book.

    • bettyeboo777

      show me a ‘report’ where ‘casual sex’ improved anyone’s life..It seldom does..

    • Joe Pasuit

      “Women’s rights”…to engage in sexual promiscuity? Yes, liberals have always fought for the right to avoid reason and common sense!

    • Giovanelo

      “it could be explained if they had miscarriages that never knew about.”

      Yeah, that will cut it…

      • Cashius Stackynion Papyrus

        someone did take human bio and anatomy…or sex ed it seems. but if you’re bright curious mind was wondering, it happens frequently enough; body starts to produce the zygot but then aborts it for w.e reason.

    • Martin Barker

      For the most part your correct and i agree however your inferred none link is incorrect the second study cited and used the first study ( as reference 23) so they were causally linked so the author is correct to link the to however inferring that one option is the most likely without evidence to show it is incorrect.

    • David Willhite

      “Women’s rights” is your ideology that is twisting your interpretation of the very same studies.

    • https://www.facebook.com/nek0b0y/ Brandon

      How on earth does this damage women’s rights?

    • DoubleBlazzed

      shut the fuck up ana you whore!!!!

    • David Mowers

      Numbers, facts, logic, rhetoric, analysis; all progressive lies…obviously.

    • Bruce Regael

      >drives me crazy when valid scientific research gets twisted to promote ideologies

      You’re basically summing up 100% of science these days lol. Although I do like how you’re going out of your way to valid being a whore. There’s a reason why chastity was considered highly valuable in our civilization and why the (((elites))) spent countless amounts of energies to break it down. The truth is you are what you fuck.

    • ee

      100% – that’s how much I agree with this statement. The article ignores the science to hint that their (almost certainly wrong and definitely unsupported) conclusion may be possible, and then the title of the article states that conclusion as fact!

    • fluffylucy

      Thanks, you saved me the effort of replying to this nonsense article myself.

    • Jamie Brahm

      Don’t agree with either the article, or this. The researchers themselves proposed four causes and left it uncertain. No one knows. Science is sceptical it doesn’t follow an agenda. “Women’s rights” is also btw, an agenda.

    • Aidan Brexit

      Typical feminist “logic”….
      You want sex but with no consequences. It doesn’t work that way. And so you attack the writer.
      We already know that telegamy is real. Farmers and Bio chemists know it. Sluts need to know it too as do men searching for a good mate.

    • Aidan Brexit

      Telegony. It’s real.
      Russian scientists have known of it for over almost a century.

    • BG

      thank you :)!

    • John Dozier

      overreacting much?

  • Jd Carter

    Dude this is so inaccurate its scary, I read the study itself then the article as I generally dont trust science reporting from anywhere and it leads me to believe you scanned over the abstract and didnt understand it so you made up a bunch of crap, if you read the study you will notice a couple of things immediately the study had 59 women, 63 percent of 59 is 37, sex, sexual intercourse and sperm are not even in the study at all
    The study you linked at the bottom was with 120 woman in this study 97 percent of women had male dna and 3 percent did not 8% + 22% + 57% + 10% or 12 women without cause which is quite unrealistically aways from 63 percent of ALL woman even tho the second article does say it CAN come from sexual intercourse ONCE at the end I would be more inclined to think that even if this study where statistically valid as proof(which its not) that it would be rare if it did happen as the biological pathways for transference are different if it is even possible in the 1st place
    So in short while these are VERY interesting findings its not even a logical possibility to take these to study’s and say as fact your title “Women Absorb And Retain DNA From Every Man They Have Sex With” as just taking these to study’s into account the possibility of just ONE male dna from sperm is possible but not plausible

  • mrspinky85

    Whats the point of this? So what?

    • Paul Smith

      the answer to your first question is. . .science.
      the answer to your second question is. . .unknown.

  • Chuck Robey

    This is why you should wait till you are married and once married only have sex with your spouse..

  • Paul Smith

    It seems to me that if the women had multiple partners then the microchimerism in the brain would have different chromosomal patterns. No?

    • pheonix

      Thats the question i think really needs to have answered to make a clearer conclusion.

  • Jane Jones

    Vaccines!

  • Tracy

    Or through vaccines. They do have fetal cells. Research the vaccines, maybe thats where the DNA comes from.

  • Cindy

    I believe it. My 4th child looks more Caucasian than my third, my 3rd looks more Caucasian than my second, my 2nd looks more Caucasian than my first.

  • Martine Bouillir

    did anyone bother to look into the female DNA in men’s bodies? I imagine the same DNA is absorbed through female secretions and essences also (orally in particular) I doubt it…

    • Paul Smith

      Not yet, I expect that this study will lead to such study. Maybe humanity is destined to be hermaphroditic?

  • YouGuysAreIdiots

    Idiots. “Besides known pregnancies, other possible sources of male microchimerism include…” Number on your list of reasons should be birthing of a male son, which is way more likely to be the case because close to 100% of women have had intercourse, but not nearly as many have had male children.

  • Treasure

    This article is crap. 1st of all I read the study and came to none of the same conclusions. 2nd of all unrecognized spontaneous abortion is VERY common smh. 3rd of all sperm dies within 7 days if it doesn’t come in contact with an egg and male sperm or sperm that carries the y chromosome dies even faster. He basically just made up his own incorrect interpretations of the study.

    • Paul Smith

      Sperm death does not destroy the DNA. Much left to learn.

  • Robbyn

    You need to re-read the article please – it is a speculation and your click-bait headline is a fallacy…women do not retain male DNA from every male they’ve had sexual intercourse with…the “speculation” is that the most likely source is from pregnancy with a male fetus…

    • Paul Smith

      As the study makes clear, we do not yet know that.

  • Synda Izaro Nyx

    It’s a complete bullshit piece.
    Sperm is a SINGLE cell, like an amoeba, not “living CELLS”.
    Firstly, sperm does not burrow or climb wo swim anywhere but towards the egg – it then does burrow into the cell – and ONLY the cell.
    It doesn’t burrow into the womb wall or vagiina wall… it doesn’t burrow into your nose or behind your eyes.
    In most cases, sperm doesn’t even survive being in the mouth, saliva is the wrong environment for it – and swallowing drops the sperm into acid.
    The tiny amount left in the mouth dies very quickly.
    “A woman’s cervical fluid provides the sperm with the nutrients they need to survive during their journey to the ovum.”
    Without those nutrients the spemies die quickly.
    And sperm does NOT “enter your bloodstream”.

    • Paul Smith

      You state a number of non-facts. While all may be true, there is no research to support them. And remember, killing the sperm does not eliminate its DNA. Lots of questions but then without them there would be no science.

  • Dennis

    Why would a woman have sperm in her mouth? Does it climb up her torso? Somebody really doesn’t understand biology, here.

  • Richard Monyer

    It’s amazing how scientists continue to prove what’s been recorded in the Bible. 1st Corinthians 6:16 Paul is talking about sexual immorality and says, “Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”” This is how in a marriage the man and woman become one flesh in their union which is supposed to only take place after they take their covenetial vows before God and man. This is how God ordained marriage to reflect His union with us by being joined with us and becoming one spirit with Him. We were created to contain His life inside of us and experience His life through us. This is why Jesus came to earth as a human being to remove our sins that prevented God from making His home inside us, but now that all our sins have been removed and we are completely forgiven, God Himself can become one with us. Only if we allow Him and believe in the work that Jesus did on the cross to already remove our sins. It’s a real experience that has changed my life and I am not the same person. I truely see His character traits in the things I do, how I talk, how I look at life and others, and it seems like everything in my life and family is blessed instead of cursed. I know I may get ridiculed on here for sharing my love for Jesus, but He has seriously impacted my life and set me free.

  • Ignatz

    Starts interesting, and then…

    “they did their best to hide the evidence …They buried it… the damning statement,
    the one line that gives the game away ….What are they so afraid of?”

    Veers into idiocy, conspiracy, and paranoia. The scientists wanted to HIDE THE TRUTH about intercourse! Because…of something, who knows what?

    • Paul Smith

      Science leads to questions which lead to science. Scientists often hold information close until further research can clarify questions, especially those with the possibility of such explosive ramifications. People shout ‘BAD SCIENCE’ but, like the fact that there is no bad question, there is no bad science, only unanswered questions (Caveat: There is EVIL science which is ‘science’ which provides paid for results – like water fluoridation. I don’t think this falls into that category.)

  • Sonia Ess

    MEN ABSORB AND RETAIN DNA FROM EVERY ANIMAL THEY’VE EVER EATEN.
    See how stupid that sounds?

    • Paul Smith

      And your scientific research to support the assertion is?

      See how stupid you sound?

  • April Cox

    too bad it doesn’t go the other way around.. then men might understand women just a little bit ,more… LOL – Maybe this is nature’s way to help us know what a man wants.. 😀

    • Paul Smith

      doesn’t it? we don’t know.

  • DAY8293A

    Just a minute.. how many of these women were ever given a BLOOD TRANSFUSION? Just another way to pick up DNA folks… Not sold on this BS just yet…

    • Paul Smith

      You shouldn’t be, science isn’t either.

  • http://www.healthyintuitions.blogspot.com Lauren

    Oh I’m so sure! LOL That’s the most ridiculous article that scientists have come up with yet. You haven’t proved anything with this nonsense. Truth or just gibberish?

  • thYrd_eYe_prYing

    Pretty sure they made a thing called a condom…

  • seekless

    Most gals really can not keep their legs closed, which is why so many gals have kids and the fathers are not there.

  • Gunnermachine

    I wonder if this study can be applied to the receiving partner of a male same sex relationship.

  • H.D. Reed

    What about male on male situations? We see this a lot more in this day and age, so does this mean males that have sex with other males harbor DNA from all of their partners as well? To me it doesn’t sound like just the female is in a bad position. We guys are the ones spreading everything!

  • Nelson Jon Kane

    The writer seems to be saying that for a woman to have sex is like killing a human being, because a “living sperm” is forced to spend the rest of it’s life not turning in to a baby, but being trapped in a woman’s brain. Nope! A sperm is not a human being. And the sperm that don’t impregnate a woman die immediately. They don’t “live on.”

  • Deinse

    What about men that have sex with men? Those ‘swimmers’ get into the bowel and mouth-blood and brain, so if this is true then they have a piece of every man they have sex with in their brain. It could get really weird with men that have sex with animals or children.

  • Hadassah

    I wonder if this would ever be an article if they had ever bothered to do honest research on women who have never had sexual relations. How about the one point that everyone seems to be ignoring here… that Eve was made from Adam straight from his DNA….that being why all women have a bit of male DNA. Seems articles like this only serve to sway people away from the Biblical Truth.

    • Hadassah

      Adam’s rib being complete with his DNA.

  • Kings Solomon
  • Kings Solomon

    Stop Chasing After Your Lovers “Come To HIM Who Love You And Died For You”

    There will never be another “NEXT TIME” in your life. as its “HIGH TIME” you repent from your sins and come to the LORD who is waiting to take you into HIS arms, but you are running into the arms of your lovers but you will not find them as mentioned in Hosea 2:7

    She will chase after her lovers but not catch them; she will look for them but not find them. Then she will think, ‘I might as well return to my husband, for I was better off with him than I am now.’

    Proverbs 7 : The Immoral Woman 6 Once I was looking out the window of my house, 7 and I saw many inexperienced young men, but noticed one foolish fellow in particular.8 He was walking along the street near the corner where a certain woman lived. He was passing near her house 9 in the evening after it was dark. 10 And then she met him; she was dressed like a prostitute and was making plans. 11 She was a bold and shameless woman who always walked the streets 12 or stood waiting at a corner, sometimes in the streets, sometimes in the marketplace.

    13 She threw her arms around the young man, kissed him, looked him straight in the eye, and said, 14 “I made my offerings today and have the meat from the sacrifices. 15 So I came out looking for you. I wanted to find you, and here you are! 16 I’ve covered my bed with sheets of colored linen from Egypt. 17 I’ve perfumed it with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. 18 Come on! Let’s make love all night long. We’ll be happy in each other’s arms. 19 My husband isn’t at home. He’s on a long trip. 20 He took plenty of money with him and won’t be back for two weeks.” 21 So she tempted him with her charms, and he gave in to her smooth talk.
    Proverbs 5 : 3 The lips of another man’s wife may be as sweet as honey and her kisses as smooth as olive oil, 4 but when it is all over, she leaves you nothing but bitterness and pain. 5 She will take you down to the world of the dead; the road she walks is the road to death. 6 She does not stay on the road to life; but wanders off, and does not realize what is happening.7 Now listen to me, sons, and never forget what I am saying. 8 Keep away from such a woman! Don’t even go near her door! 9 If you do, others will gain the respect that you once had, and you will die young at the hands of merciless people. 10 Yes, strangers will take all your wealth, and what you have worked for will belong to someone else.

    Ecclesiastes 7:26 I discovered that a seductive woman is a trap more bitter than death. Her passion is a snare, and her soft hands are chains. Those who are pleasing to God will escape her, but sinners will be caught in her snare.
    Proverbs 5 : 11 You will lie groaning on your deathbed, your flesh and muscles being eaten away,12 and you will say, “Why would I never learn? Why would I never let anyone correct me? 13 I wouldn’t listen to my teachers. I paid no attention to them. 14 And suddenly I found myself publicly disgraced.”15 Be faithful to your own wife and give your love to her alone.16 Children that you have by other women will do you no good. 17 Your children should grow up to help you, not strangers. 18 So be happy with your wife and find your joy with the woman you married—

    19 pretty and graceful as a deer. Let her charms keep you happy; let her surround you with her love. 20 Son, why should you give your love to another woman? Why should you prefer the charms of another man’s wife? 21 The Lord sees everything you do. Wherever you go, he is watching. 22 The sins of the wicked are a trap. They get caught in the net of their own sin.23 They die because they have no self-control. Their utter stupidity will send them to their graves.

    Proverbs 12 : 4 A good wife is her husband’s pride and joy; but a wife who brings shame on her husband is like a cancer in his bones.

    Jeremiah 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you and I am your husband: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: 13 Only acknowledge your guilt. Admit that you rebelled against the LORD your God and committed adultery against him by worshiping idols under every green tree. Confess that you refused to listen to my voice. I, the LORD, have spoken! 12 This is what the LORD says: “O Israel, my faithless people, come home to me again, for I am merciful. I will not be angry with you forever. Jeremiah 3:22 “Return, faithless people; I will cure you of backsliding.” “Yes, we will come to you, for you are the LORD our God.

    Please share and encourage others in your country as mentioned in in Hebrews 10:25…encouraging one another–and all the more as you see the Day approaching… to open their eyes, so they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of satan to God. Then they will receive forgiveness for their sins and be given a place among God’s people, who are set apart by faith in me.’ Acts 26:18

    Romans 10:14 But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them?

  • Brittany Neville

    Sketchy. This article is some bullshit, lol. All of these theories are just that, guesses and theories. No credible sources and no proof or anything like that. Basically they’ve got an agenda against casual sex.

  • Nanci

    This article sounds to me like a non-scientist trying to draw a scientific conclusion from research that does NOT support his position. Drivel.

  • Yesfir

    Apart from the context issues that Ana so elegantly pointed out, even if some of the male genetic material came from sexual partners, the conclusions drawn from it in this article are illogical, unscientific and sensationalistic. Describing sperm like something out of Alien, I mean really?

    Why would DNA from a sexual partner be any more harmful than the DNA retained from sons, miscarriages, spontaneous abortions, siblings, etc? Why the assumption that sperm ALWAYS makes its way to the brain at every sexual contact? If that was the case, wouldn’t almost ALL women in the study have had male DNA in them – unless they somehow managed to get their hands on an unprecedented number of old ladies who were either lesbians or spinsters? Women who have daughters sleep with men too. Is there a difference between husband sperm and casual sex sperm, somehow? Don’t people in committed relationships tend to wear condoms less than casual sex partners?

    Don’t even get me started on the whole, “sperm can bury into a body from your mouth”. Sperm can survive inside a woman’s body up to five days BUT ONLY WHILE IN CERVICAL FLUID. Cervical fluid provides nutrients for sperm during the long swim to the ovum. Without cervical fluid present, sperm dies within a couple of hours. If your little swimmer is super fast, it can reach the ovum in half an hour – otherwise it might take days. But in a hostile environment to sperm – no cervical fluid, different bacteria that in the vagina, possibly acidic – and while apparently BURROWING THROUGH FLESH (something sperm isn’t made to do), I think it’s safe to say that sperm would die before it found your mind.

    What the study actually says is that traces of male DNA in women’s brains is not uncommon. Human DNA is not some kind of poison. And since the scientists apparently couldn’t tell where the DNA came from or even if it was from different sources, just that it was male, that sounds like the genetic material in question was fragmental. Y’all acting as if this is significant somehow, as if women are slowly turning into mutants the more people they fuck, when this appears to bra completely natural occurrence.

    In conclusion, PLEASE leave science to actual scientists. Don’t draw your own conclusions, because this shit is “impatient toddler in a dark room”-level, drawing-wise.

  • Peter

    What about gay men? Do they also carry dna from other males?

  • Adam Roger Kearley

    Okay, and? Clearly there’s an agenda here, but there isn’t much of a point. How is this at all a negative thing?

  • Nadav Lahat

    As ridiculous as this article is, its conclusion should actually be the opposite even if we assumed it was correct. Genetic diversity is very important for health. If we could get genes from 100 people or 1000 rather than a pathetic 2, we’ll be like supermen (or women…). If our kids inherit this (doubtful…) – even better news! Therefore the conclusion off this article SHOULD be to try to “consume” as much semen as possible, preferably on a daily basis. Good luck

  • chelsea

    Hold on! Sperm buries into your nasal passaged and behind your eyes!!! Please tell me thats not true!

  • Nicole

    By the logic in this article any man that has had gay sex would have foreign DNA in their brain too. If sex was the reason that the DNA existed there, obviously research would’ve been done on men too to see if that is, in fact, the cause.

  • Chuck B

    They discovered this by accident. Not because it was causing a problem. It is likely since it exists there is a survival advantage. It may well be a good thing. So – ladies I am at your disposal 🙂

  • lighteredknot

    Male Microchimerism in the Human Female Brain
    William F. N. Chan , Cécile Gurnot, Thomas J. Montine, Joshua A. Sonnen, Katherine A. Guthrie, J. Lee Nelson
    Published: September 26, 2012https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045592
    Article
    Authors
    Metrics
    Comments
    Related Content
    Abstract
    Introduction
    Methods
    Results
    Discussion
    Supporting Information
    Acknowledgments
    Author Contributions
    References
    Reader Comments (3)
    Media Coverage (3)
    Figures
    Abstract

    In humans, naturally acquired microchimerism has been observed in many tissues and organs. Fetal microchimerism, however, has not been investigated in the human brain. Microchimerism of fetal as well as maternal origin has recently been reported in the mouse brain. In this study, we quantified male DNA in the human female brain as a marker for microchimerism of fetal origin (i.e. acquisition of male DNA by a woman while bearing a male fetus). Targeting the Y-chromosome-specific DYS14 gene, we performed real-time quantitative PCR in autopsied brain from women without clinical or pathologic evidence of neurologic disease (n = 26), or women who had Alzheimer’s disease (n = 33). We report that 63% of the females (37 of 59) tested harbored male microchimerism in the brain. Male microchimerism was present in multiple brain regions. Results also suggested lower prevalence (p = 0.03) and concentration (p = 0.06) of male microchimerism in the brains of women with Alzheimer’s disease than the brains of women without neurologic disease. In conclusion, male microchimerism is frequent and widely distributed in the human female brain.

  • Arwhat

    This digital mansized Kleenex is so wrong in so many places that it’s hard to pick a start. The “journo” has no understanding of either science or women’s reproductive health – example, “unrecognized spontaneous abortion” obviously refers to MISCARRIAGE, not “an abortion the woman didn’t know about”… I mean hello? 1 in 4 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage, often without the woman’s knowledge, so 63% is not outlandish at all…. ETC ETC

    Science: We have some ideas but the reason is unknown; more research is needed…
    Journo: IS DEFINITELY SEX
    World: so your jizz has the power of a zombie bite… k.. #fragilemasculinity

  • Susarie Coetzee

    Hi all, I read most of the comments but not all but here is a spanner in the works. Have they tested this theory on female prostitutes? Can you imagine a prostitute that has sex on average with 2 or 3 men a day so in a month it will be around 90 men if they are all different men. Then take this over just 10 years – an average total of 10 800 men she had sex with.

    What would the outcome be for such an individual, it appears that her death sentence was felled in the first year or so of having had sex with +- 1080 men (presuming she had sex on average with 3 men a day). Hopefully prostitutes do take precautions such as using condoms or this research will present them with a nightmare. It could throw someone into a total depression to think what can happen and what diseases you may be faced with maybe sooner rather than later.

    I am no scientist but this doesn’t make too much sense to me. The sperm goes into the womb supposing the woman still has a womb – so the sperm literally hit a “brick” wall and have to make a U-turn or swim in circles until it dies. It is those individuals who no longer have a womb that may have to be concerned or women that has oral sex if this is all true. This is just my humble opinion so jaggrag please don’t crucify me, I am no feminist, just a logical thinker with an inquiring mind- so I think.

  • rjh4elohim

    THE SCRIPTURES SAYS THIS, But not in these same words.
    1.When YHWH(GOD) JOINS two, they “Become” One.
    [Become, Beget, Begat, Knew her & she … , Are Words of sex and reproduction]
    2.When a man leaves his father’s house, he “cleaves unto his wife who he Became ONE with … ” And if you look up a few Biblical words in a “STRONG’S Concordants Reference Book,” you will find that the Scriptures SAY A Lot More when you know some expanded (Hebrew) definitions {{marked with”H,” – the “G” means Greek & are Less Correct, BC the Scriptures ARE HEBREW!}}. Afterall, the Scriptures ARE HEBREW, and there IS a LOT of man-made changes (esp. Catholic), mistranslations (like 10 Commandments, {{which SHOULD BE 10 CATEGORIES -that the laws “fit” under to make “THE WORD OF YHWH!}}, etc.
    3.Bipolar people: Mostly Women & Gay/ Molested Males [recipients of The Seed] have have so many partners, they are Permanently affected. Where? The brain!
    4.Sex, and the “Oneness” it brings the two people, is a Spiritual Transaction, as evidenced by these Scientific research – is just as Real as the Female Hormones, Oxytocin and likely others, the “cuddle hormones” that are produced during sex (specifically during female orgasm) and their effects are Powerful, Sometimes life-changing!
    THERE’S SO MUCH MORE TO LEARN THERE!
    And You thought You knew So much about S-E-X.

    • rjh4elohim

      And BTW: To speak to the female body topic —
      1.Many females can conceive easy enough, but their body Sometimes doesn’t produce enough pregnancy hormones to Sustain the pregnancy. They can lose it before they even know they are pregnant, or soon after, yet some carry for 2 months or a bit more.
      2.A number of BC pills work by Not allowing the Implantation of the fetus, So the Women DO CONCEIVE, but the fetus CAN BE ABSORBED into the mother’s body, or kicked out during the next monthly cycle, spontaneously aborting it, {besides the possibility of regular spontaneous abortion, of course}. Most of these women Never knew they conceived. In fact, most women are Never told, in lay terms they can understand, this is how their BC PILLS WORK. MANY ARE VERY UPSET OR ANGRY WHEN THEY DO LEARN. Just FYI.

    • https://youtube.com/GoddardsJournal Goddards Journal

      A fake-news test is jibing with the Bible. lol

  • Gabriel Anibal Toribio

    Interesting theory.

  • scibionerd

    For fuck’s sake, this is not true. This is fake journalism intended to make women feel bad about having sex. It’s male FETAL DNA, not DNA from some dude! And just so you know, sperm doesn’t leave the female reproductive system and can’t “dig in” nasal and mouth passages to where its DNA gets into your blood. Lol. Here’s the science article: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0045592 And here’s a more digestible summary of it: http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2012/10/25/male-dna-in-female-brains-revisited/

  • Rapaz Ainda

    That’s why it’s important for a man to know the history, you know what I mean.

  • http://photos.wildernessvagabonds.com/ Mike Lewinski

    Quoting from the linked PLOS article:

    Limited pregnancy history was available on the subjects; pregnancy history on most subjects was unknown. Nine women were known to have at least one son, eight with AD and one without neurologic disease. Two women were known to have no history of having sons, one with AD and one without neurologic disease.

    Two is an awfully poor sample size and there are multiple competing explanations.

    • https://youtube.com/GoddardsJournal Goddards Journal

      Sample size isn’t an issue. There are many studies finding male cells in females. But no study conclude it’s by way of sex, and there’s no reason to believe it’s by way of sperm.

  • LadyC

    This website is the ultimate in fake news. And anyone who thinks this is true is a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

  • Barbara Butcher Meidlinger

    I don’t see how this is against women’s rights. It’s a question biology not women’s rights. Plus the fact it said if you have sperm in your mouth etc. Ok so my question is I wonder if they did the same examination on men’s brains who are gay and use their mouths and anuses to transfer sperm between them if you would also find MC spots in THEIR brains? If they are invasive and leave behind their DNA in the host’s brain it seems to me you’d find them in the sex partners of the gay men too. Since they found this by accident in the first place I doubt they ever checked for it in men but if it works the way they said isn’t that a logical conclusion they’d have it too? Then try to say it’s a women’s rights issue and not just an oddity that happens with the exchange of fluids between any two sex partners involving sperm.

  • Deplorable William

    Yet another excellent reason not to mudshark, ladies.

  • Shadowstrike

    I don’t know if this I really true or not , but I really hope ignore isn’t because the thought of my abusive exes DNA living inside me for the rest of my life, terrifies me…..

  • jagragg

    I stated “Normal” functions of sexuality. Your remark centers on “disease,” which is generally NOT considered
    to be normal. If you take your position to an extreme, your saying that 62% of women are now, or have been “diseased.” That really does not flatter the female gender. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/974294dbd34b65c6a9d75453f47b3436a4931eadf29846f19a7b52b41cc0c971.gif

    • Sara

      Listen I was replying to mkunir who seems to be thinking and believing that: because supposedly women don’t have living organism like sperm therefore men cannot retain or absord Women DNA as well. I point out that even if obviously the article was biasing towards women and can be considered incomplete for the simple fact that it only presented the research done on women; all that doesn’t mean that men don’t absord women DNA. I bring the std example to point out that indeed if it was the case than men wouldn’t get any diseases from women.
      Now you twisted my words and putting words in my mouth. I never said the women have diseases but come to think about it those 63% of women might as well carried all the diseases tht their partners have on their DNA.

      • jagragg

        Thank you for some normal conversation for a change. Your point is well taken, I just think that what you bring up, effects a very small percentage of women, as far as diseases goes. Diseases do not have compatible human DNA, to facilitate the observations being made by the author, of the original article. I was not twisting your words. I was responding to the absurdity that there could even BE any matches between disease & human genome.

      • Martha Cortez

        The reason they tested only females is the following:

        The study, which discovered the startling information by accident, was originally trying to determine if women who have been pregnant with a son might be more predisposed to certain neurological diseases that occur more frequently in males.

  • WhySoMuchDrama

    This article is a horrific example of slutshaming, not to mention terrible writing and so-called journalism. What respectable article includes sentences like, “which of the above possibilities do you think is the most likely origin of the male DNA?”?!? Since when do we ask the opinion of the reader, let alone lead that opinion? Absolutely unprofessional. Next time, try actually reporting the facts instead of perpetuating your opinion on sexually mature and independent women.

  • http://www.wiselaws.com mike ahuja

    im living in other ppl ..wow cool stuff…

  • Christen Stovall

    I’m probably gonna get slammed for this, but I hope it’s true. I’m a widow, was widowed at 28, and if this is true then in some small way my husband is still with me. Okay, maybe that sounds creepy to people, but I had so little time with him, this is comforting in a weird way..

    • SirGladiator

      Doesn’t sound creepy, sounds totally normal, and it probably is true.

      • Christen Stovall

        That’s kind of you to say, thank you.

  • ezwalker

    This is bullshit. Sperm dies. End of story.

  • JP

    Minutia aside, women absorb DNA from their children brought to term or not, and thus tend to get permanent parts of their sexual partners. This is very deeply heartening news for many women who love their husband and children and love the fact that they really are all part of each other through her. Quite an amazing thing!

    Obviously, for the woman who has been used a lot and failed to establish meaningful, long-term relationships this is rather offensive. One may even speculate that this bit if data may be related to the correlation between relationship instability and mental disorder and a womans number of sexual partners.

    Either way, this isn’t particularly new news. For whatever reason it isn’t widely publicized, even though this and chimeraism in general is quite interesting.

  • Alice Sennott

    I kind of like the idea that I carry a bit of every man I’ve been with. I mean let’s face it I would have never been in that position if I didn’t love him or at least really like him. Also my husband died last November so it’s nice to think that part of him is with me. That is if it really true.

    • JP

      That’s quite sweet.

      My wife quite loves the idea that I and our children are part of her forever. I also love not being an isolated individual but a part of my family and people, though I understand that kind of thinking is considered the greatest evil in the current year.

    • https://youtube.com/GoddardsJournal Goddards Journal

      The research also shows women with male cells in them have lower mortality risk. So it seems to be a good thing.

  • Dominic

    I support this line of argument especially when you borrow from the Holy Bible;sex was meant to be between married people;after marriage,the two become one inseparable union until death does them apart.Moreover,Adam donated part of his ‘rib’ in creating Eve;it makes a lot of sense to me

  • Kaira

    This is complete and utter BS. Women do NOT absorb male DNA from every partner they have sex with. The sperm die off and leave the same way it comes in, after 7 days. They stay to defend any other male lover’s sperm from getting to the egg. This is the most absurd “study” out there. Studies aren’t conclusive. They’re hypothesis or theories. They’re not actual fact. Read an anatomy book.

  • Sayira Esther Bultrón

    After reading this article I was left with more questions than answers my graduate degree is not in medicine I decided to contact a friend of mine who’s a doctor of Microbiology, Genetic and Infectious disease and works for NIH. He welcomed reading the article this was his response:

    The original article is very interesting article and appears in PlosOne which is now a well regarded journal. Such a study needs to be replicated to eliminate the possibility of results from contamination. I don’t think that is what happened here due to the observed difference in Alzhimers patients. The news wire article quotes a long section from the conclusion section. What is in the published article is a little different and doesn’t mention the most intriguing cause.

    The most likely source of male Mc in female brain is acquisition of fetal Mc from pregnancy with a male fetus. In women without sons, male DNA can also be acquired from an abortion or a miscarriage [22], [23], [38]–[40]. The pregnancy history was unknown for all but a few subjects in the current studies, thus male Mc in female brain could not be evaluated according to specific prior pregnancy history. In addition to prior pregnancies, male Mc could be acquired by a female from a recognized or vanished male twin [41]–[43], an older male sibling, or through non-irradiated blood transfusion [44].

    I really strongly doubt that the your news wire people just made up the quote though. I suspect that either the published article has been changed (easy to do in the all online format) or that the journalist were shown an earlier draft of the paper which was then changed due to reviewer comments. Since the paper was published in 2012 and the article in 2017, I bet the online version was memory holed, although they haven’t made a record of that. You can imagine the push back the authors and the journal got on this. Without spending a lot of time on this, it seems that the sexy interpretation is a reasonable, albeit circumstantial, interpretation of the data.

  • Thomas Jones

    Wait doesn’t feminism tell us that there is NO DIFFERENCE between a man and a woman???? So I have female DNA in my brain from the women I have slept with?

  • Joe Neckbone

    The Quote of the Day:

    “Through the study the researchers assumed that the most likely answer was…”

    Nuff said!

  • Al No Mor

    FAKE NEWS!
    If women retain DNA from everyman they have sex with, then how come on 63% of women have this DNA in them, when only 0.3% of adults report being virgins by age 44? http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v48/n6/full/ng.3551.html

    All bold faced lies! it’s clear from the quote used to build the entire crux of your argument the study says:
    “The most likely source of male Mc in female brain is acquisition of fetal Mc from pregnancy with a male fetus. In women without sons, male DNA can also be acquired from an abortion or a miscarriage [22], [23], [38]–[40]. The pregnancy history was unknown for all but a few subjects in the current studies, thus male Mc in female brain could not be evaluated according to specific prior pregnancy history. In addition to prior pregnancies, male Mc could be acquired by a female from a recognized or vanished male twin [41]–[43], an older male sibling, or through non-irradiated blood transfusion [44].”
    Not
    “CONCLUSIONS: 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. Male microchimerism was significantly more frequent and levels were higher in women with induced abortion than in women with other pregnancy histories. Further studies are needed to determine specific origins of male microchimerism in women.“

  • Maryjane William

    Old News. Check out this thread from 2013: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2299543/pg1

  • Al No Mor

    FAKE NEWS THE STUDY DOESN’T MENTION SEXUAL INTERCOURSE AUTHOR ADDED THIS TO THE QUOTE

    • https://youtube.com/GoddardsJournal Goddards Journal

      Ya, this is fake news, but the quote speculating sexual intercourse is accurate. It comes from a second study (PubMed # 16084184). I also found another study that speculates sexual intercourse might be how young girls have male cells inside them (PMID 27623703). Neither study suggests how sex would cause that, they just drop that speculation in w/o any further comment on mechanism.

  • Siri M. Kalla

    This article is written by someone very badly educated on reproductive physiology.

    If every act of intercourse transfer DNA, does that mean that the 34% who DID NOT have male DNA in their brains had never had sex? Sounds quite unlikely to me.

    The researchers conclusion is this: “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. Male microchimerism was significantly more frequent and levels were higher in women with induced abortion than in women with other pregnancy histories. Further studies are needed to determine specific origins of male microchimerism in women.“
    The author is making grandiose statements about the scientists trying to hide evidence of male DNA from intercourse, but how about that they are just being scientific about it and stating exactly what it says: THAT WE DON’T KNOW THE REASON.
    The author is trying to make it sound like an “unrecognized abortion” would be a strange thing to claim – but since about 25% of all pregnancies ends in spontaneous abortion (=miscarriage), often with the woman believing it’s just a regular menstruation, this is not a weird claim at all.
    So, here’s how the physiology of it really works:
    Most of the woman’s monthly cycle the entrance to the uterus from the vagina is CLOSED. Sperm ejaculated in the vagina during this period will die within a couple of minutes from the sour environment created by the healthy bacteria in the vagina. The dead remains will end up as discharge from the vagina.
    IF an ejaculation takes place during the approximately five days when the cervix is open and there is cervical mucus present, it can swim up to find the egg/s. Sperm that do not become the lucky winner will be disintegrated by female immune cells and absorbed be the body. In these cases it’s possible that the male DNA end up circulating the woman’s body – but then it probable also left another trace, in the form of a pregnancy…
    And no, sperm DO NOT just randomly penetrate any membrane of the body (how would the male body then be able to store them?) . Swallowed sperm would be digested in the stomach and the intestines – and we will not absorb that DNA anymore than we will absorb DNA from an animal we eat. Sperm without cervical mucus present is actually not very fast swimmers, so it is unlikely that they would have time to swim off before being swallowed.

  • Jennifer Roberts

    So do gay men have other men’s DNA? I am not following. Do men who use pubic toilets have other men’s DNA through accidental osmosis? Doorknobs? Thrift stores? Hot tubs? Taco bell? Used cars? Are sperm cells little mutant aliens taking over brains like Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Can people with sperm just look at me and I will be infected?!!!!! This should be every where on Fox News and the President should be informed immediately.

  • simon

    This ‘discovery’ is all bullshit and exposes the level of ignorance of the so called scientists who carried out his research. We all know that the genetic make up of an individual compromises of genes inherited from the mother and the father and that genes are located on chromosomes and it is only from there that they can get expressed through a complex process of gene transcription. These scientists only prove that they lack basic knowledge in biology. On what will the sperm that migrates to the brain be feeding on since we know that they depend on seminal fluids for nutrition. Again is the sperm immortal to live in the brain for the entire woman’s life? What is the role of the immune system if not kill such foreign bodies?

  • http://jonathanleighton.org Jonathan Leighton

    The headline and article completely misrepresent the actual research findings. The source article with the figure “63%” states, “The most likely source of male Mc (microchimerism) in female brain is a woman’s acquisition of male DNA from pregnancy with a male fetus.” From there to the headline “Women retain and carry living DNA from every man with whom they have sexual intercourse”…?? This is just hype to grab readers’ attention, not based on fact and not “speaking truth to power” as the journalist claims in his byline.

  • poodle

    “Results also suggested lower prevalence (p = 0.03) and concentration (p = 0.06) of male microchimerism in the brains of women with Alzheimer’s disease than the brains of women without neurologic disease.” The more guys you bang: the less brain damage! They say semen is good for the brain (“nature’s prozac”) so it makes sense…

  • David Garrard

    What a complete load of absolute non-scientific shit. Why are you even debating it? Baxter Dmitry has NO scientific credentials and the articles referenced have no peer review, and neither were they they published in a reputable scientific magazine. I have a PhD (albeit in the maths/physics arena as opposed to biology) but come on people – get real and use some common sense.

  • Pinyi Zhang

    Why was this article on Pornhub!?

  • William Burden

    It never ceases to amaze me how questionable science can put people into attack mode to the point where healthy debate becomes non-existent. Then only rights issue here appears to be an excess of freedom to spew bile. Time to look at human rights as a single entity where society becomes the only beneficiary. Let all the hair splitting, waring, me me me camps go pound sand! In the final analysis, you add nothing to the debate…

  • DirkHardPec

    Most of the comments seem to be generating heat because of fixed, clashing world views, but little light. I think the point is, male DNA is a foreign body. So if it is found in a woman’s tissues, e.g., brain tissue, it was introduced into her. The published articles referenced by the writer discuss a variety of possible vectors, but sex with previous partners as a vector clearly is not the focus of the articles. It appears that research has yet to be carried out. On the other hand, there have been studies on other animals, notably fruit flies, that seem to suggest that sperm from a previous partner can influence certain characteristics in a female fruit fly’s progeny from a current partner. Admittedly, it’s a long step from fruit flies to humans, but sex with previous partners ought not be dismissed out of hand as a possible vector among humans.

  • seekless

    Too many gals can not keep their legs close, sad.

  • Canuck

    This is nonsense, no references at all. Don’t believe everything you read people.

  • Antsoup

    Utterly ridiculous.

  • Carrie Straub

    How about we have someone with just a shred of scientific background actually write this article!! Totally misinterpreted the article!! Only correct analysis was Ana’s below.

  • Valdoria

    Thank you for sharing this information and a different way of seeing this from a scientific vantage point.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02jPkg5AhEc Eduardo Especial

    Ewww.

  • John Boyt

    Consider for a moment, putting aside the cell aspect of this discussion. I have for many years often wondered how come many long married couples begin to look alike as they get older. For years this thought would come and go, until the advent of medical patches. It is now a medical fact that since the biggest organ of the human body is indeed the skin, many medications are absorbed into the body via patches.

    Now when one considers intercourse with such intimate contact, it is not hard to understand how this transference of DNA could take place through the skin, after many years and occasions of sexual relations.

  • http://www.scoutbuffalowebdesign.com drastikk

    This is one of the most intellectually irresponsible articles I have ever read. So the study DIDN’T conclude what your headline says it does, you are just making up your own conclusions from it? So people wouldn’t read your article for good reason if you put that in the headline? I hate to use this term, but this is “fake news” at it’s fakest.

  • Noah McNeill

    1. This is not proven, only a potential explanation for women with MC who haven’t had sons.
    2. Even if true, it’s not necessarily the case that it transforms your mental faculties or brain activity in any way. DNA can be present in the body without it being incorporated into permanent bodily function (e.g. every organic material you eat).
    But, that doesn’t mean either are impossible. A bit creepy and cautionary to say the least!

  • Mike

    May as well have said: “This is why women can be called sluts and men can’t.” What a very biased and poorly-written article; Baxter Dmitry departs almost immediately from sharing a portion of empirical data to stating wild speculation as if it were fact, using sci-fi movies as justification. I’ll concede that the subject in question, although poorly represented here, is rather interesting and worth considering further. Unfortunately you only get half of the factual story and are then left to sift through the remainder of Mr. Dmitry’s narrow worldview and thinly-veiled chauvinistic rhetoric.
    Sperm burrows into your brain once it’s in your body? Are you freaking kidding me? I didn’t realize Baxter was such an authority on the unsubstantiated “science” of sperm behavior in non-sexual regions of the body. By his own logic, his brain must be riddled with sperm, seeing as how he presumably has testicles with only a flimsy barrier of flesh for them to easily burrow through and get into his bloodstream. Anyone with blood transfusions is now at risk for foreign sperm brain parasites! How comically stupid.
    And of course, I love how this study is only applicable to heterosexual women, because that cross-section is bound to give you the most comprehensive data for the entire human species… That informational deficit didn’t phase Baxter from reporting his own hypothesis as the established conclusion, however.
    Mr. Dmitry, please try again. Or better yet, do us all a favor and put your pen down for good. Biased writers such as yourself are half the problem with this world, the other half is people who accept what you write as fact without questioning it.

  • PN8891

    I find it somewhat speculative when this article claims that only a small percentage of women have had an “abortion* [they] didn’t know about.”

    For starters, they’re calling miscarriages “spontaneous abortions,” which is like calling natural death “spontaneous murder,” but I digress. This article’s statement doesn’t hold water when you realize that by definition, WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING how many women have had a miscarriage they didn’t know about.

    As for the don’t-have-casual-sex angle, the truth is a bit more two-sided…

    We don’t know whether the DNA is coming from males with whom the woman has had sex. The reason the scientists “tried to hide” the evidence (or at least didn’t publicize it much) is that observational scientists are VERY careful to avoid publishing things they don’t know for sure. This article paints a picture of sperm swimming until they get lodged in the woman’s uterus, become part of the bloodstream, or swim into some other areas. Observational scientists would NEVER say that this happens, even if they want to believe it, unless they’d literally proven that it happens in this exact way.

    However, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t other scientific reasons to avoid casual or serial sex–reasons which are independent of DNA. You see, there’s this hormone called oxytocin (which also functions as a neurotransmitter) that is responsible for human bonding and attachment; it causes feelings of trust and safety when you’re around someone you love, and it inhibits the release of the stress hormone cortisol. At lower levels, we release this hormone when we spend time with people we love, especially when that time involves physical contact (oxytocin is involved in ALL human bonding, not just in sexual relationships).

    Oxytocin, like most hormones, serves more than one function. It actually is the hormone that stimulates childbirth. In one of the few positive-feedback mechanisms in the human body, oxytocin stimulates labor contractions, which stimulate the release of more oxytocin, etc., until the birthing process is complete. That is why women who have just given birth vaginally can feel an immediate, strong maternal bond with their babies. (My Human Anatomy and Physiology professor, a woman who has given birth herself, advised the class that if a woman is upset following the pain of childbirth and says she doesn’t want to see her baby again, a good midwife will say, “Why don’t you just hold the baby for a moment,” or, “We need someone to feed the baby for now,” trusting that the woman’s high levels of oxytocin will cause her to change her mind.)

    You know what else oxytocin is responsible for stimulating? Ejaculation in males. Now are you starting to see where this is going? It might not be quite as strong as a maternal bond, but orgasm actually causes a large degree of bonding between the participants. Could it be possible that desensitizing yourself to this bond by moving from one sex partner to another repeatedly can actually desensitize you to human bonding and attachment in general, since oxytocin is responsible for all of it?

  • bcrivers

    The study says this very specifically: “In this study, we quantified male DNA in the human female brain as a marker for microchimerism of fetal origin (i.e. acquisition of male DNA by a woman while bearing a male fetus).”

    The DNA they are discussing is from the make fetus into the mother. Stop using science to shame women.

  • Stephen Walter Howard Crane

    This explains how my girlfriends become more like me and I become more like them, even years after separation.

  • Robert Jackson

    This makes it sound like some horrible affliction, but there’s clearly no real side-effects. This has been happening since the dawn of time. It’s not going to suddenly become a problem now.

  • Madlilith

    Why would anyone want or try to “get rid of it?” It’s DNA not an STD…

  • alainpadron

    This post had anything to do with american political afections… if the mentioned study is somehow truth, which I dont think so, because, it looks like another internet scam thing, then I would say that what really matters is that we,men, have been inseminating women’s brains with our DNA for how long? So the fact that women have more brain cell is due to their whoresomeness ? So the bitcher a women is the smartest? LOL this internet things and the people.who believe on them …

  • DirkHardPec

    It’s a fascinating topic. I just spent a half hour looking for other studies and reports, and there are several dealing with the phenomenon among animals other than humans. It is called telegony or “the sire effect” in the literature. Darwin, among many others, was convinced of it. Apparently, many highly experienced animal breeders are convinced it is real. But when the possibility is raised in connection with humans, all civil discourse breaks down. In the past it was used to justify laws forbidding interracial marriages and there are likely those today who would use it to justify the coercive control over the sex lives of others. It is not a matter likely to be investigated with any rigor.

  • saganhill

    This is the most moronic thing I have read all year. Next to the flat Earthers nonsense.

  • LOLGovernment
  • A. Smith

    Stop disfiguring the scientific process by jumping to conclusions that were only listed as mere possibilities so you can get a click bait-worthy headline. This is not science. Making your own conclusion from a study without due scientific process isn’t science. That is fake news.

  • Nicole Price

    “So 63% of women carry male DNA cells that live in their brains”… There is no such thing as a “DNA cell” Theres brain cells, sperm cells, egg cells, skin cells, etc.. DNA itself is a large molecule that is contained in every living cell. Learn some basic biology before writing about it @baxter_dmitry.

  • https://twitter.com/Kenzibit Kenzibit

    Jeez, this is a lovely study. Makes me wonder the number of things we don’t know about the things we think we know.

  • Marcia Thomas Howard

    If the DNA was from Sperm, would it not have only 23 chromosomes? This is more likely being caused by Fetal cell line MRC-5.

    • Marcia Thomas Howard

      I read parts of the study and could find no part in the study that said it was caused by sexual intercourse and sperm entering the brain.

  • ackeegrl

    don’t swallow..lol

  • Clark Kent

    Does it have an impact on her child when she finally has one?

    • CaliGal

      They are saying that in some cases the child may inherit the previous men’s DNA

      • Clark Kent

        Wow that’s fucked.
        I need to go find myself some third world virgins then.

  • Shirley Carter

    Maybe it is our bodies way of protecting the future of the species. If it ever came down to it, maybe women would evolve to become asexual. Just a thought.

  • Hanh

    Lol, Is that why old married couples look alike?

  • ncmathsadist

    This story is absolute rubbish.

  • BooBooBaby

    So what does this mean…..is this something that can harm you, help you, or N/A!?

    • CaliGal

      Alzheimers, that would explain why Asian-Indian women don’t go nuts when they old, matter of fact they get wiser.

  • Joshua Mims

    Sorry article. Your amusing concept that women somehow retain male partners DNA was amusing, but, as anyone with even a passing degree of biology will tell you, DNA is not foreign DNA. That’s not how DNA and the brain works. That’s not even how sex works.

    And if you are doing the type of sex where somehow DNA ends up in your brain, then you are clearly doing it wrong, and while I applaud your efforts and enthusiasm, would also beg you to consult a physician, because you are also most likely introducing other, more harmful systems, into your body.

    Male and female DNA are essentially the same, with only minute differences. The same can be said of humans and pigs. Fun fact, we’re actually more closely related, genetically speaking, to swine then we are apes or monkeys. Anyway, back to DNA. Basically, if you have DNA in your body that does not match up with your biological gender, then it’s one of two concepts: It’s your DNA, just switched from FEMALE to MALE or it’s male DNA that was absorbed into your body.

    Being that it’s in your brain, it’s most likely a part of your own genetic make-up. Just little pieces of your genetic make-up that didn’t get the memo, or did get the memo and made little paper airplanes. This can be proven or disproven by genetic testing. Which, likely, would also show a very clear relationship to the original host’s DNA, thus likely giving credence that it’s male DNA which was reabsorbed.

    And before you jump on me about how absorption proves the sex point, while it is statisically possible that some genetic material from a partner might end up in your system, the chances of it ending up in your brain, a place where even BRAIN PARASITES have a tough time entering your brain. Now, once there, they can Batman themselves onto your brain, because that’s what parasites do, but it’s far less likely for DNA in your brain, that’s not specifically to do with something in and around your brain, to actually hang around.

    Your brain is not a watercooler, article, is what I’m saying. DNA needs a reason to be somewhere, and thus, is most likely going to go to places it’s meant to be or collect in a depository like your kidney, liver or stomach. It’s not going to just stick around your brain, waiting to shout LOL! at any passing geneticist who stumbles across it. Unless it does. I never want to immediately dismiss any possible emotional satisfaction your (or foreign) DNA might derive from tormenting scientists.

    Because that would just be silly. As was this article. So, good job, I chuckled.

  • roy

    Imagine the fights going on in there heads …. cray cray diagnosed …. all those men in there

  • Queenie

    It climbs into my nasal passages and behind my eyes? Really? Just like an amoeba. Really. Sperm dies after 6 days. This is slut shaming, nothing more.

    • CaliGal

      Didn’t work on you…

      • Queenie

        The slut shaming? You’re right. It doesn’t work on me.

    • CaliGal

      BTW in 6 days I can travel from West coast to East coast and back!

  • Scwyana E. Smith

    I trust the study, one must remember that sperm is alive and it is a seed planted to populate.The main reason to not have casual sex. Males having to go behind another males seed not good.

  • Amy Downing Loveless

    Seriously.
    How about vaccines?
    They use male and female aborted fetal tissue during development..and both have been proven to have left fragmented DNA uptaken into our own dna.

    • CaliGal

      How does it travel to the brain

  • Tristan

    People please do not believe this dribble disguised as news. Firstly, sperm only carry 23 chromosomes. And the only way to determine if something is male or female is by analyzing 46 chromosomes. Women have XX and men have XY. So there is a 50/50 odd that the dna being carried in the sperm is an X how can they determine it is “male”. And the definition of “microchimerism” is 2 genetically distinct cells. Even if the sperm somehow managed to burrow a hole through your blood vessels (it has no burrowing ability) it would only deposit 23 chromosomes. That would not be enough to createba cell. We nees 46. Hence the reason a egg only has 23 chromosomes and the sperm only has 23 chromosomes. Combined they make 46. Sperm are not the source of these “microchimerism”. A complete male genetic code would need to be somehow injected in to the blood stream of the female. And sperm cannot penetrate mucus membranes that surround all orifices. Sperm don’t penetrate an egg, a single sperm is allowed through the egg wall. And then the rest just die off and come out with your next period. So please do not believe this article or it’s incredibly non scientific leap to a conclusion. Women go have sex with whomever you want. The only thing you’ll carry around is the memory. Or maybe a few diseasea. Perhaps a pregnancy. But not male sperm dna.
    Geez.

    • CaliGal

      And what makes you an expert?

    • https://youtube.com/GoddardsJournal Goddards Journal

      Good comment!

  • Diane Moffatt

    What a load of old cobblers!

  • Bob Wilson

    does this male dna in the female brain help or hurt the recipient? otherwise, so what.

  • Misha Bacardi

    M.O.B.

  • JoKxx

    mmm…

  • Topperon

    Eeew

  • Kusturika

    it reminds me that spiders also build their webs using the fly’s DNA they just ate.

    maybe woman become more manly with unprotected sex…

    what about those beauty creams made out of the sperm of snails? do they become slower on their thoughts too?

  • Betý Ressnerová

    bullshit. in original study it says “The most likely source of male Mc in female brain is acquisition of fetal Mc from pregnancy with a male fetus. In women without sons, male DNA can also be acquired from an abortion or a miscarriage [22], [23], [38]–[40]. The pregnancy history was unknown for all but a few subjects in the current studies, thus male Mc in female brain could not be evaluated according to specific prior pregnancy history. In addition to prior pregnancies, male Mc could be acquired by a female from a recognized or vanished male twin [41]–[43], an older male sibling, or through non-irradiated blood transfusion [44].” nothing about sexual intercourse. and also it says this “A significant limitation of the current study was the inability to distinguish the type and source of male Mc, and further studies that distinguish genetically normal from abnormal Mc would be of potential interest”

    • https://youtube.com/GoddardsJournal Goddards Journal

      There are two studies that speculate sexual intercourse might be an explanation for male cells in young girls and women who never had sons. But this article goes off the deep end in its degree of speculation and asserting that it applies to all sexual partners a woman has had.

      • Betý Ressnerová

        well even though these articles might mention that in the Discussion, it is nothing more than plain speculation. not proven, not worth scandal title ” Women retain and carry living DNA from every man with whom
        they have sexual intercourse, according to a new study by the University
        of Seattle and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.” Well they didn’t find this. they just speculate. They just mention it with one sentence. The aim of the research is not if sexual intercourse causes such a thing. What they found is much more interesting. This is not what they found. This is just one sentence in the Discussion part. If I was the researcher, I would be quite sad that someone took this one sentence and made a scandal titled article from it.

  • Matt Billing

    Not to labour the point, I’m sure Baxter’s got the message, but…well, I’ve had another look at the study and at the article on YourNewsWire their ‘News. Truth. Unfiltered’ strapline seems a bit of a stretch.

    The author Baxter Dmitry may well be a misogynist, his byline reads “Passionate about motor sports, military history and the truth, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one.” whatever he is, he’s a dick.

    The actual, actual study says that they did indeed find male DNA even in women who didn’t have sons, that’s totally true and the scientists he quotes gave three other possible reasons for why this might be.

    1. recognised or vanished male twin
    2. An older male sibling
    3. Through non-irradiated blood transfusion

    The first possible cause is ‘prior pregnancies’ and this could well include missed-miscarriages which (along with recognised miscarriages) are extremely common. Baxter’s not bothered by this, and actually doesn’t mention blood transfusions either.

    What Baxter goes with is

    1. an abortion the woman didn’t know about

    That doesn’t even make any fucking sense! Can you imagine the conversation?

    “Alright Emily, how’s things, are you ok?”
    “Fine thanks, nothing exciting to report”
    “Er… didn’t you have a hoover up your vagina to get rid of a foetus last week, under some sort of anaesthesia, at a hospital?”
    “Shit, bloody hell. I knew there was something, honestly, I’d lose my head if it weren’t screwed on”

    The last possible reason (according to Baxter)

    4. Sexual intercourse

    Dun Dun Dun!!!!!!!

    Nowhere, and I’ve read the study twice, used the search function (only one mention of sex and that’s used as ‘sex-dependent’) does it mention sexual intercourse, partners, mates, nowhere!

    So I’m guessing the ‘scientist’ who came up with option 4 is a little guy Baxter likes to call: Baxter.

    He goes on “Considering the fact that 63% of women have male DNA cells residing in the recesses of their brain, which of the above possibilities do you think is the most likely origin of the male DNA?”

    Well, before he answers, let’s just consider his facts here, 63% of women is a little misleading, what he should have written was ’63% of the 37 women studied” but that’s not going to get the clicks now is it?

    Furthermore, the study, the actual study done by scientists says

    “Limited pregnancy history was available on the subjects; pregnancy history on most subjects was unknown. Nine women were known to have at least one son, eight with AD and one without neurologic disease. Two women were known to have no history of having sons, one with AD and one without neurologic disease.”

    So, out of the known data 80% of the subjects with male DNA were KNOWN to have sons. Of the rest there is no data to suggest one way or another.

    Baxter’s conclusion is of course. SEX.

    The rest of his ‘article’ is either the work of a seriously disturbed mind, or a horny little boy who’s watched to many sci-fi movies.

    Props to him for dropping in spermatozoa to sound proper science-y.

    I especially like the last line.

    “We are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourse.”

    Yes Baxter, unfortunately the rest of the world is understanding the ramifications, it’s morons like you clogging up the internet with your badly written, badly researched pieces of drivel.

    It is an unfortunate necessity of having absolutely amazing work on the internet that you have to put up with this toss.

  • Beau Quarles

    Sounds like absorbing so much DNA makes the women I’ve dated super heroes; cool.

  • Tina Shively Pizor

    Hmm, did. I one ever think this DNA came from having half of your father’s DNA when you were created?

  • Kusturika

    what if I have sexual intercourse with a chicken… will then the chicken become smarter? (because I am very smart person..)
    this is wonderful… hey! will I become dumber on the other hand?

  • Robert Simmons

    If the woman’s body doesn’t destroy these “cells” it must serve some sort of evolutionary benefit. This doesn’t surprise me anyway, women are amazing creatures and take everything else from their men….so why not their DNA? In any case, all us men can say is “yes dear.”

    • Robert Simmons

      This is directed at you Baxter Dmitry. They prescribed those pills for a reason and you should probably be taking them as directed it would help curb your tendency to feel comfortable writing these articles that make you out to be an insane person. Only an insane person wouldn’t feel shame for being as willfully incredulous you. Man up, get your shit right, you’re making us real men look bad.

  • ruidoblanco

    Nobody mentioned that this is a text posted in a webpage that says that there are mummified aliens in Peru… that’s enough reason for not take this “news” seriously.

  • ScienceABC123

    I’m going to have to see this study duplicated elsewhere, several times, before I give it serious consideration.

  • Jeff Swett

    rubbish. pure unadulterated garbage. Who thinks this crap up and why do they insist on posting it? some warped sense of religious intolerance?

  • http://www.webhandler.eu webhandler

    Where is the sperm link in the research? Is this an updated paper? the 2012 paper talks of male foetal dna, not sperm.
    https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2012/10/lee-nelson-male-dna-in-womens-brains.html

  • Emmie Stacy

    This doesn’t sound very scientific to me. Sperm absorbing into your skin and going straight into your brain? Yea, right. If this were true, then even if you didn’t get pregnant by the man, the next child that you had would still have the DNA of the previous man, or men, you had sex with, along with the fathers, and the child would technically havr more than one father, so we know that’s not the case

  • Yakov G

    So the logic of ingesting sperm and it somehow combining with your anatomy is really hilarious. Let’s consider that some people eat clams. They’re alive while ingested. Does that make anyone who has ever eaten a clam, part clam? Is this a joke? There are people in other countries or TV shows who eat worms, bugs, live things etc, are they now part worm? Will they have worm DNA in their brain or whatever? Seriously? I can keep going. The concept of a living cell being ingested or otherwise entering your system and becoming part of your anatomy (beyond the basic blood transfusion or bone marrow donation) is just ridiculous, and doesn’t pass the logic test. Anyone who has ever been bitten by a tick, should by the reasoning of this article be part insect. Come on — is this science or science fiction?

    • David Mowers

      It is the premise of the Ridley Scott Alien movie series.

  • Un HappyCust

    This is easy to determine: Check the brains of gay men. If they have different genetic code “behind their eyes” then this theory would have some merit. Some gay men should have so much foreign genetic material it should be no problem to locate. The farcical use of language in this article does a disservice to the (apparent) theme against oral and/or non-marital sex. It’s so bad I wonder if they are trying to make the agenda seem silly and held by fools.

  • Paula

    Hogwash!!! This is hilarious!!! And stupid.

  • https://youtube.com/GoddardsJournal Goddards Journal

    Aside from this article being extreme speculation, the existence of male cells (microchimerism) in females appears to be beneficial…

    Int J Epidemiol (2014): “male microchimerism presence in peripheral blood of women is associated with substantially improved survival in women.” pubmed.gov/24345850

  • Michael Blackburn

    If the autopsied women were above a certain age, abortions were certainly illegal, and not something they would have been open about, so the figures are at best, bollocks, at worst fabricated to fit their agenda. :smfh:

  • Linda Pottle

    Oh man this is good! Now I have a way of being connected to every man I have ever …. hummm “Loved” in my own brain. Man, is meditation going to take a turn now 🙂 lol lol

  • Chrissy

    “If it’s in your mouth it swims and climbs into your nasal passages, inner ear, and behind your eyes. Then it digs in. It enters your blood stream and collects in your brain and spine.” – So NEVER give a blow job again. Did you hear that men? For my safety and because of science. Got it! 🙂 Bahahaha!!

    • David Mowers

      And yet, a large collection of male sperm from multiple partners would result in a natural sperm antibody increase protecting you from unwanted pregnancy due to rape. Blowjobs, therefore, may protect you from the undesirable consequences of rape.

      BOOM!

  • No Name

    I feel the ending was an opinion, the ramifications aren’t the big deal here. I want to know if this can improve the life of a womans future children. will it take the intelligence of some other males. will it take the lack of disease one man can get improve the child? That would tell us hey casual sex is good.

  • Hydrium

    I would postulate that this is done so the body would be less likely to reject a pregnancy as it can reference the male product to the pregnancy, see it’s not a foreign invader and not attack it.

  • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

    This is an excellent example of dishonest distortion of a limited scientific result to make a click-bait target. The relevant quote;
    “However, the number of subjects tested was modest and, as discussed previously, pregnancy history was largely unknown.” The scientific authors only knew that 3 of the 59 women in their study had had a male fetus. They concluded;
    “The most likely source of male Mc in female brain is acquisition of
    fetal Mc from pregnancy with a male fetus. In women without sons, male
    DNA can also be acquired from an abortion or a miscarriage.
    The pregnancy history was unknown for all but a few subjects in the
    current studies, thus male Mc in female brain could not be evaluated
    according to specific prior pregnancy history. In addition to prior
    pregnancies, male Mc could be acquired by a female from a recognized or
    vanished male twin, an older male sibling, or through non-irradiated blood transfusion.”

    The incompetent, or fraudulent claim made here was “Women Absorb And Retain DNA From Every Man They Have Sex With” which is no where supported, and the so-called “quote” was a total lie by Mr. Dmitry.

  • Anonymous

    STOP. LYING. TO. WOMEN. IN. 2017.
    Try again. This article didn’t work. Try saying that sex makes women lose their arms and knees. Your misogyny is showing whack asses!

  • Doctor Nikkii

    The title of your article and conclusions are patently false and misleading. What are you hoping to gain by spreading this misinformation? As a Geneticist, I take exception to someone who would purposefully alter the conclusions of a research study and bend it to fit some twisted narrative. The authors specific in the statement, ‘the most likely source of male Mc in female brain is a woman’s acquisition of male DNA from pregnancy with a male fetus” the origin of the microchimeric, male DNA yet you chose to ignore their scientific findings and claim otherwise. Shame on you and shame on yournewswire.com for allowing this article to be published.

  • Petra Jacobino

    Did they study any virgin??? Beause if a virgin get male dna, than could’t be thru sex!! Right???

    • David Mowers

      Oral sodomy is not legally defined sex. Ask Bill Clinton.

  • Rachel Taylor

    The idiocy of this article is actually astounding. There’s no proof to back up anything claimed. Sexual intercourse is never mentioned in the study. Nothing in this article makes sense in regards to the study. I’m actually flabbergasted right now. Gotta love it when idiots spread misinformation and call it “the truth”.

  • Whatever

    The million dollar question is can any of these male DNA in a woman’s brain contribute to
    the DNA of the fetus when she wants to get pregnant?
    Does a husband raise a milkman’s baby?

    • David Mowers

      Brain sperm’s unite to form a tentacled Spermatron?

  • David Mowers

    Okay so women get smarter, potentially, the more c ock they suck but only if they swallow? It also implies that their children could be more genetically diverse if they are whores, liberally having sex with every man they meet, literally.

    So this study vindicates pornography as a teaching tool for young women to advance our species.

  • leevitowt

    5. The residual effects of gestation. What do autopsies of non-sexually-active youngsters brains show?
    Anyway, this is ‘fake news’ to arm the feminists with a ‘sperm is toxic’ meme – it won’t stop…it breaks through walls…that’s what it does…that’s all it does.

  • tbill618

    Also, the more sexual partners a woman has the more likely she will divorce when she eventually gets married.

    Don’t wife up sluts.

  • Bagus Wirayuda

    Sounds like pseudo-science to me. Exciting though, will be better if you put more references and further study

  • Apparition

    Did they swallow?

  • Disqus-helpsGOVTbreaklaws&kill

    how are the females going to cash in on this ?

  • Disqus-helpsGOVTbreaklaws&kill

    planned parenthood can now demand twice as much taxpayer funding ?

  • WhoMe

    I interrupted the conclusion as the reason that some women are more promiscuous is because they thinking like a man.

  • Bruno

    “Right to consensual sexual intercourse” in the Human Rights Statement now!

  • https://gab.ai/HWR HWR

    “the female brain is even more mysterious than we previously thought.”

    I could have told you that for free.

  • X90

    Dirty whores, full of semen. I knew it.

    • http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/ Dr. GS Hurd

      All of your semen is in whores, or your fingers. (I’ll protect the honor of your dog).

  • phwinmd

    Not from sex. From the actual PLOS article from 2012 – “The most likely source of male Mc in female brain is acquisition of fetal Mc from pregnancy with a male fetus. In women without sons, male DNA can also be acquired from an abortion or a miscarriage.”

  • simona38

    hogwash

  • John Willson

    Oxymoron: “settled science.” Rarity: Feminist with a sense of humor.

  • Ethel Anderson

    I’ll have to call BS on this one.

  • Aidan Brexit

    Part of Why men must demand virtue and vicinity.
    NO hymen. NO diamond

  • RoHa

    What is this crazy stuff about scientists being afraid and trying to hide the evidence? They published it, they offered possible explanations, and they made it clear that they didn’t actually know what was happening. That is straightforward, honest, science.

  • Tommy King

    Oh, really. I suppose homosexual intercourse will also result in DNA material from sperm cells lodging themselves in the recipient’s brain as well.

  • sauron’s eyeballs

    unless they test gay males and test their brains aswell to know whether there was some other mans rna up in there ,this whole research article is moot.

  • Joe Kemple

    Please explain the phrase “male pregnancy” – that really threw me.

  • Bastet11

    What about certain vaccinations, that can contain human DNA? Has this been considered? I know the cell lines were from a few decades ago, but I wonder if this could be something. One of the vaccines is for shingles, which many older women have had. I believe the MMR also contains these fetal cell lines in its Rubella component. Just a thought..

  • John

    I am unclear of what the ramifications of this is. OK, does this mean that say a white woman who has only ever had sex with black men, say 20 of them, and then is married to a white man. Could she have a black baby when there is no black in the history of the two white people?

  • Todd Dunnican

    New Pick Up line for you young guys …. “Lets Screw … I’ll make you smarter”

  • Nurd

    Interesting idea, but the original study doesn’t mention anything about sexual contact.

  • Nirpa Rawal

    i read the article and the comments — funny how people in general are highly perceptional and opinionated hence can’t accept new thinking trends. It happens in every geenration and happened over million times in medical history especially. Over 17 years since into my medical profession- I have seen and read and practised now thousands of changes that has happenned-often contrasting , which were never initially accepted. This article actually echoes the idea of Vedic philosophy–wherein every particle in the universe is conceptualised with certain characteristics and programming . This is more so in living matter and cells. Sperm is most potent cell or programming that a body can design. In a way its seed of God. in its microstructure and geometric specification are hidden the blueprint of that life. It can’t be created by man , but becomes a channel wherin this powerful sperm cells carrying the dense biomemory can penetrate cell. Sex as per Osho and VEdic thought is a physical -biological -spritual alchemy of male and female energy. Hence , the transfer.

    • Nirpa Rawal

      READING THE ARTICLE, i don’t think it is promoting anything moral or cultural thing . It is a scientific observation which is still being validated.

  • chris

    ROFLMAO nice piece of garbage here. lol

  • Zack TheBongRipper

    Women are in denial.

  • gem39

    I am looking forward to the study of female DNA in the male brain. If all the male to female routes of creating chimerism are valid, then exposure of the naked penis to the walls of the vagina should induce some transfer to the male. Oral sex, the same. Where is the article on male chimerism? I really want to read the “facts” of that one, too.

  • Aaron Dunlap

    Can’t researchers just sequence the DNA to find out where it came from?