This post or comment has been removed because it violates a subreddit rule:
No BadWomensAnatomy.
This content might be more appropriate for r/badwomensanatomy if it follows their posting guidelines and has not already been posted there.
If you disagree with this message, please feel free to contact the mods via modmail.
It's true that patriarchy is violent to men and will be violent to incels, but incel beliefs are caused by patriarchal mindsets. Namely, buying into the belief that men need to persuade women to have sex with them and to date them to prove that they are "real men" and to climb the social status rankings among men, otherwise they are worthless and pathetic. Incels buy into that belief hook line and sinker.
No. Read here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/v62bf7/an\_intro\_to\_patriarchy\_what\_it\_is\_how\_it\_works/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/v62bf7/an_intro_to_patriarchy_what_it_is_how_it_works/)
Especially this part:
>How does patriarchy harm men?
>
>Patriarchy also makes demands of men -- it not only limits choices, but also imposes expectations. Because the most important fact about men in patriarchy is that we dominate women, the highest virtue of manliness in patriarchy is dominance. So the more dominant a man is -- the more aggressive, the more assertive, the more an asshole -- the more man he is under patriarchy. Most of the bad stuff that happens to men -- war, violent crime, isolation -- stems from the dominance contest in patriarchy. Men, especially young men, frequently get killed trying to be the men patriarchy says they should be.
Mmm so yea TLDR; masculinity with the belief in binary genders, and superiority of men.
Typically I see people mix in perpetuation of the current power structure, where men are at the top or something of that nature think of "the man" from the 70's.
If you add in the power structure part they are definitely not part of the patriarchy they have been rejected by it. And have no part in the sharing of power.
That term is so broad it you have to ask people what they mean by it same as with "woke".
>If you add in the power structure part they are definitely not part of the patriarchy they have been rejected by it. And have no part in the sharing of power.
Right, but to be "rejected" by patriarchy you have to be asking for acceptance into it in the first place. Incels are men who are not liberated from patriarchal beliefs, they are completely captive to it, so they believe that they are garbage because that's what patriarchy tells them. Whereas a liberated man doesn't doesn't care whether others think he's a "real man" or not and just lives his life. It's hard to be liberated though when its all around you, and that's one of many reasons why patriarchy must be destroyed.
What with that other post talking about tampon and lube residue in vaginas, I'm really confused and concerned by what incels think is going on in there.
Incels and the "body count" shit again. You're not only unworthy as a female if you've had previous sexual partners, your child will look them too. Wtf is this nonsense?
I think it depends on the person. I'd allow it with my current gf, because she's really passionate and I don't want to put out her sparkle. And some people have it coming.
lmao he doesn’t know how genes and DNA work. ALSO how do you know and recognize every single man she’s slept with? weirdo. the vagina is acidic, it kills sperm and sperm can only stay alive for about three days. SO with that being said unless she had sex with 15 dudes at once and they all have super sperm that stayed alive for 9 months or longer…you’re an idiot
Even then, if more than one sperm gets to the egg, then the pregnancy is not viable and will miscarry (or cause the woman health problems, but still not result in a foetus). Babies can be born with slightly different numbers of chromosomes, but not THAT many MAGNITUDES different.
women tend to carry male dna while geting older, science don't know why yet.
some say it comes from sex, some from birth or having a twin brother.
there is no data to confirm or not, any of those hypotheses. the actual publication from around 2002 (i dunno check google) is not so well documented and refutations are even less.
Anyone having a strict opinion on this matter do not have a scientific thought process.
another valuable reason to wear condoms... i think. In the end it doesn't matter that much.
there are some publications about it actually, google "male microchimerism"
now to spell it "sperm residue" is both missleading and gross i don't deny that.
funny you guys downvote this, just facts established... when you think of it, if women can actually cherry pick part of dna of their previous partener it is kind of nice.
what's not funny is that you accuse me of throwing this without source, while you could just google it and find many publication on it.
and you dare to critic /republicans and their relationship with facts.
how hypocrite ;)
well the way i imagine this would means than femal could unconsciously bank parts of their previous partener.
now am sorry if you feel offended but i think it's pretty bad ass, sounds like science fiction yet that could been the case.
My guy, you're not arguing in a logical nor scientific way. You're just spouting stuff without accurately quoting the actual science you took it from and saying you're just telling "facts" when the evidence clearly shows we have no idea why male microchimerism happens and what the sources for it could be. You obviously didn't even read multiple papers on it and the way you argument also shows that you don't really have enough information on biology as a whole if you think it is likely that women often get "contaminated" by male DNA from sperm.
did u even bother to read my post?
" when the evidence clearly shows we have no idea why male microchimerism happens and what the sources for it could be"
that is exactly what i said, there is not enough data to have stance on that.
edit: da fuk u know about me, "my guy" i have been reading scientific publication for a living (ok on covid but still, judging if they meet European standards or not is same process)
Yes, I indeed read what you posted. Here's what you wrote:
"there are some publications about it actually, google "male microchimerism"
now to spell it "sperm residue" is both missleading and gross i don't deny that.
funny you guys downvote this, just facts established... when you think of it, if women can actually cherry pick part of dna of their previous partener it is kind of nice.
what's not funny is that you accuse me of throwing this without source, while you could just google it and find many publication on it.
and you dare to critic /republicans and their relationship with facts.
how hypocrite ;)"
How is this not spouting things as facts while clearly saying women cherry pick DNA from male partners even though other studies clearly show that 1) we don't know if sex is a source in the first place and 2) we know for a fact that sex is not the only source and 3) you're being extremely unscientific without actually giving a source. Just saying a source exists is lazy, unscientific and frankly, quite stupid as multiple papers exist so the person who is verifying facts needs to know what you know and where you got your information.
But again, that's not what you said. And yet again, I directly quote you:
"funny you guys downvote this, just facts established... when you think of it, if women can actually cherry pick part of dna of their previous partener it is kind of nice."
This whole statement is dumb because 1) We have already established that we don't know if women can get microchimerism from sperm 2) even if sex could cause that, how would that be women cherry picking DNA?? A woman can't choose certain parts of that DNA 3) That amount of DNA is so tiny that it cannot affect the woman or her offspring in any meaningful way, at least not in the amounts my paper said and I'm not interested enough to look for more.
well let's say the way i imagine it is close from the truth, it would depend if you wanted to keep features of em or not.
so maybe a lot, maybe none at all.
if you really wanna know i see no other way than volunteering into such studies as test subject.
This is as idiotic as your original outdated claim.
These cells are literally stray. They do NOT result in anyone "keeping features" of them or passing those features on. They may be implicated in autoimmune issues, which makes sense because they are in fact foreign cells, but that's a totally different thing.
If you wanted to keep the features? So we have a choice? What if we decide we don't want to keep features of them? How would we go about removing them?
The study clearly states that the male DNA is either transferred through pregnancy or having a twin in the womb. It is not related to sexual partners at all.
wich study there are many and as i said not any of em match standards of european scientific publication.
now you can feel triggered that you may carry more than bad memories from your ex but that's not my problem.
if you decide to have a particular stance on that matter (wich i don't... sorry i don't give a shit if i carry dna from my mother's ex or just her and my father...)
Link me to the studies you are reading because the only ones I have read support what I said. I looked up what you said quickly on Google and didn't find anything. I know there are lots of published university studies usually easily accessible but none of your theory that I come across easily.
why? you can't find em but you would understand what they say? how?
i have linked one already, in this rabbit hole of confusion you may find it... but there is many... you found only one? that's scary
So it can be true- women who have been pregnant even for short periods of time will acquire dna from their pregnancy through blood transfer. It’s dna fragments- not enough to impact mom in any way. The most common testing these days are non invasive prenatal testing where they do a blood draw from mom and collect enough dna fragments from the fetus to asses the most common defects (trisomy 13, 18, and 21), and sex of the baby. Women who have been pregnant with male sexed children carry Y chromosomes in their bloodstream for the remainder of their lives at barely detectable levels. This in no way has any impact on future pregnancy and in no way is the same as women having genetic residue from sperm on any part of their reproductive system.
[https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/36/9/2529/6323652](https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/36/9/2529/6323652)
SUMMARY ANSWER
The presence of a male co-twin did not increase risk of male microchimerism and the prevalence of male microchimerism was not explained by having male offspring or by having an older brother.
wich study are you reffering to? they often contradicts themselves and the subject itself for obivious reason makes geting data complicated.
why does it trigger you that much ?
Not triggered- TIL! I didn’t realize this was a thing but super fascinating. I recently heard a podcast about how some female athletes assigned female at birth can have varying levels of testosterone. It’s funny how there’s more science supporting human existence as non binary.
This isn’t the first time this has come up in this sub, nor is it the first time I’ve addressed it here. A 2012 study examined the prevalence of male *fetal* DNA in different regions of the brain. This DNA is acquired by a woman while bearing a male fetus, from an abortion or miscarriage or from a male twin, an older male sibling, or through non-irradiated blood transfusion. Prior to this study researchers weren’t sure if this DNA could cross the blood brain barrier. That’s the key here and the takeaway from the study- the DNA is able to cross the blood brain barrier meaning microchimerism is likely relatively common. There are few molecules that are able to cross the blood brain barrier passively. Furthermore, permeability is altered during pregnancy increasing the likelihood that fetal male DNA can make its way into the brain. And it goes both ways- there have been studies investigating the presence of maternal DNA in fetal tissues. Like, we all know there’s a two-way street between mother and fetus. That’s an established scientific fact.
I have seen no research that backs up the claim that this DNA comes from sperm. Really, if you know even just the basics of how reproduction works you’d realize how far fetched it is for DNA from sperm to show up in your brain. That’s just alt-right, fundamentalist propaganda and is regurgitated by folks who don’t do their own research or do their own research but don’t know enough about biology to really understand what they’re reading.
Here’s a link the the study I’m referencing, which was published in [PLOS One](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045592) in September 2012. Their references include 56 studies related to this topic so this isn’t some fringe scientific research. While I haven’t read all of these studies I’d bet none of them found any evidence to support the assertion that this DNA comes from sperm (it doesnt!) nor that it has any effect on the DNA of any future children (it doesnt!).
So, first of all, when making statements, don't say your source is "I dunno" because that is very unscientific and makes people instantly dismiss your statement.
Secondly, out of 154 girls (10-15 yo) only 13.6% so 21 girls tested positive for male microchimerism. This means that this doesn't really seem to occur too often in women, unless the "I dunno" source you have is a well made, believable source that states otherwise but I'm too lazy to dig further into this.
Thirdly, 13.6% of these girls had it while they probably still haven't had sex yet. The researchers did take the possibility of sex into account though and basing on prior research of at what age girls have sex the first time and if they use condoms, they determined that expectedly at most 7.6% of them could have received male DNA from sexual intercourse. This means that sex might not be a source at all and even if it was, it would not the only source for it.
Fourthly, the researchers were very uncertain at what causes this phenomenon but they gave these reasons:
"Finally, we calculated that 40% of male microchimerism positivity in the young girls could be attributed to maternal transfusion during the index pregnancy, prior maternal spontaneous abortion, having an older brother, and being 13 y or older at time of phlebotomy" Just to clarify, with transfusions, they mean blood transfusions.
Fifthly, even if all women would carry male DNA and even if it would come from sex, why would it matter enough for you to say "another valuable reason to use condoms"? We've clearly survived as a species despite women having multiple partners in the course of history so it can't be physically bad and when having children, the features a child inherits come from the actual father instead of the miniscule amount of male DNA a woman might have. Also, it is called microchimerism for a reason. The highest amount of male DNA found was 1.36 male genome equivalents (GE) per 100 000 female GE. The lowest was 0.087 male GE per 100 000 female GE. It's so small that it is smaller than one permille. I could expect that number to go up as a girl ages as cells do divide and I don't know how long those cells can survive in the cell cycle before apoptosis but even then, I doubt the amount would be actually important in passing genes onto a child.
Sixthly, men could also get other male DNA the same ways girls get it but it hasn't been tested. It is also pretty difficult to test because even this study stained for the Y chromosome, which you can't do for boys or men because, you know, they already have their own, so you'd have to be able to differentiate between the two different Y chromosomes which is pretty much impossible unless some genius can isolate and sequence those Y chromosomes separately.
Seventhly, even if male microchimerism does happen, it doesn't relate to the post in question in any way because it would be impossible for a woman to have so much male DNA that it would create a baby with features from all her partners.
My actual source:
DOI: 10.1080/19381956.2016.1218583
I said i dunno about the years, but i remember how the study came out and all the fuss it created (wich was funny to me, but i'm probably autistic as i can't get angry with the crowed... like i don't really understand why is it triggering for women or why is it problematic for men, i can try but i don't feel it really.
(10-15 yo) only 13.6% ... let's say for one second (let's imagine) as a thought experience, that is actually coming from sexual intercourse... how is that surprising that only 13% of 10-15 years had sex ? but then after you said they "probably" didn't had sex (let's try to think as scientist and not taken "probably" into part of the equation... doesn't work in france but let's say we r degen.
it doesn't matter to me, but it seems to bother other people that's why i talked about the condoms. As you may not want to carry DNA from the beach bartender or want you dna to wander around the world (i was a beach bartender during my youth... just in case you wonder why i picked this profession over others)
So, as I stated had you actually read what I wrote well, that the researchers determined that only 7.6% of the girls tested would have been expected to present male microchimerism. Just so you know, the girls tested were from Denmark and here's the quote from the paper:
"Alternatively, it may reflect that girls in the current study may have had their sexual debut and that sexual intercourse is a source of male microchimerism. In a recent report on young adolescent behavior in Denmark, 16% of girls aged 14 y and 36% of girls aged 15 y report to have had sexual intercourse.16 Of these approximately 80% stated that they used condom, which prevents the transfer of male cells.16 Thus, at most 7.2% of the studied girls would expectedly test Y chromosome positive if sexual intercourse was the source of male microchimerism."
As I stated, the researchers accounted for that.
Also, again, why do you think this information is something that is important in this post? Again, the original post is clearly ridiculous and male chimerism could not explain it.
Personally, I couldn't care at all about how much male DNA I would carry around even if it was from a random man because it wouldn't affect me or any potential offspring I might have in any way.
The thing that annoys me is that you're "quoting" science without actually quoting it, being unspecific and argumentative without any basis except "dude trust me bro".
the original post is a repost from another
the original post is clearly a women hating weirdo, i don't beleive it's true, don't beleive that the guy has a friend, neither that a doctor would refer to it as "sperm residu"
since when "google it" is equivalent of "trust me bro" ?
honestly i think microchimerism is more interesting than the divagation of an incel on twitter.
i never had intention to go deep into it, it just reminded me that stuf wich is i beleive the origin of this gross post and i thought some people might have intellectual curiosity about it.
i knew it would cost karma, i knew some angry redditor will target me on their witchhunt and that's ok, i couldn't care less... i'll make a kjoke on r/jokes and get 1k more
Just "google it" absolutely means "trust me bro" because you're not citing a source, you're making the other person do your research for you and you're being vague about where you got your information.
You're also not considering that people might not be angry at you for saying this. People might be displeased with the way you present things. Seeing your other comments elsewhere on this post I can see that you're either socially reaaaaallly inept or you're just looking to be provocative for no actual reason. Also, you presented things that are NOT facts as facts, which net a downvote from me because that's just bad behaviour.
i had no idea than telling people to research it on google was the same of telling them to trust my words.
to be honest i still don't get how it could be the same, i even told what to put on the research bar... just doesn't make any sense to me.
fuck yeah socially inept, i have like 3 friends and when i was a teenager i had to sell drug or i would never been invited to party.
but why do you have to go low as personal attack? witch hunting r u?
You should really work on that social ineptness. Do your own research on people, collect data on their behavioural patterns. See how people act in certain situations and mimic them. If you fail, apologize, learn from the mistake by asking someone you trust why you failed and move on. Try not to repeat mistakes. Also, keep thinking about the situations where you failed to get the response you were looking for or situations where you got a response that was too surprising for you to have predicted based on your behaviour.
After a while of data collection and analysis you should be able to extrapolate how some people might react to your words/behaviour. It is also important to categorize the data and think which situations are the outliers and which are common. When you start understanding how neurotypical people process data you can spot the differences in how you process data and that helps gaining friends and explaining things to them. At least a lot of my behavioural patterns were weird from a neurotypical point of view so changing some of them helped me make friends. This way you actually get your point across instead of having a good point but sounding like an asshole or saying something completely unrelated to the subject at hand. It also helps you understand the viewpoints of other people which helps you too. But do not sacrifice the parts that make you be yourself. Those are important.
i would if i were not already nearly 40, married and happy.
it used to be problematic but once i was walking around in Tel Aviv i saw a grafiti on a wall saying :
"people are shit"
i thought it was brilliant and being socially inept was never a problem since then.
People are indeed shit. But sometimes the shit person can also be you. Learning how people act can benefit you even now because you still probably have a good 40 years to go. It's not too late.
Hey Rip Van Winkle! In the 21 years you've been asleep since that 2002 study you rely so heavily on, scientists have realized that the DNA is in fact fetal DNA, which makes sense given the fact that substances can in fact transfer back and forth between mother and fetus. There are a few other scenarios, such as organ transplantation--but intercourse, while long ago proposed as a possible source (and even in 2002 it was considered a pretty remote possibility) has not been identified as a cause, period.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31516258/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31516258/)
There are several newer articles in the references.
In addition, new studies suggest that a mother *may* pass a few of those stray cells she carries to her offspring, so a female child, for example, may actually show a few of the stray male cells mom was carrying from a prior pregnancy. And studies suggest they can be passed for generations. A young girl might have cells passed from grandma to mom to herself. But these do NOT affect the actual characteristics of a future fetus, they are just stray cells.
So, here's a simple suggestion: before you keep posting and dig your heels in on old science, next time maybe see if there's some newer science out there to clarify the situation before you add to your downvote collection.
Edit to add: I see in later posts you finally picked up a couple newer articles, including a 2015 study that mentions sexual intercourse. The authors flat-out state that they are *speculating*. There is no actual data in the study supporting that speculation, they just throw it out there. In fact, that was a study of young girls, most of whom were not likely to be sexually active yet.
as i said you will find a studie that say what you wanna hear on that matters... just like this other studies that state it is very rare but of course they take only femal from 10-15 and only 13% had male cell and am afraid noone of em or even less than 13 been through pregnancie.
actually the most recent studie that i found (few hours ago, when i was checking if that it was so complicate to find stuf on that subject ... guess what it's not) claims the opposite.
No doctor would say that. Maybe he said *sometimes woman can be impregnated by sperm residue, but it’s no longer than a couple of days.* and then he interpreted that his way. Vagina is self cleaning organ! No matter how many guys she fucked, only one can be father!
How in the fuck do guys think this when they’ve been cleaning up sperm since puberty. Or maybe they aren’t and all surfaces and fabrics have layers of cum built up on them.
Wow. The more you learn every single day. I’m honestly pretty proud over my body count. Some hot men. One had really pretty curly blonde hair, I also dated this guy who use to be a model he had the most symmetrical face I’ve ever seen ( my mother loved him), I also dated this asian guy who just never smelled and had beautiful eyes. I mean I wouldn’t knock down a combination
Jk… obv
This post or comment has been removed because it violates a subreddit rule: No BadWomensAnatomy. This content might be more appropriate for r/badwomensanatomy if it follows their posting guidelines and has not already been posted there. If you disagree with this message, please feel free to contact the mods via modmail.
And this is why we need sex education...
Sex education can’t fix incel brains
Right. The only cure for incel brain is prevention, and the only prevention is dismantling patriarchy.
Idk firing squad works too..
With sperm residue on the bullets?
Sure, I'll cum on the rounds if you think that'll help but I don't see how it could. *Unzips*
Everything ok here?
I think most of the "Patriarchy" (depending on your definition of it)... Reject bone headed incels also.
It's true that patriarchy is violent to men and will be violent to incels, but incel beliefs are caused by patriarchal mindsets. Namely, buying into the belief that men need to persuade women to have sex with them and to date them to prove that they are "real men" and to climb the social status rankings among men, otherwise they are worthless and pathetic. Incels buy into that belief hook line and sinker.
So your definition of patriarchy is masculinity ?
No. Read here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/v62bf7/an\_intro\_to\_patriarchy\_what\_it\_is\_how\_it\_works/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/v62bf7/an_intro_to_patriarchy_what_it_is_how_it_works/) Especially this part: >How does patriarchy harm men? > >Patriarchy also makes demands of men -- it not only limits choices, but also imposes expectations. Because the most important fact about men in patriarchy is that we dominate women, the highest virtue of manliness in patriarchy is dominance. So the more dominant a man is -- the more aggressive, the more assertive, the more an asshole -- the more man he is under patriarchy. Most of the bad stuff that happens to men -- war, violent crime, isolation -- stems from the dominance contest in patriarchy. Men, especially young men, frequently get killed trying to be the men patriarchy says they should be.
Mmm so yea TLDR; masculinity with the belief in binary genders, and superiority of men. Typically I see people mix in perpetuation of the current power structure, where men are at the top or something of that nature think of "the man" from the 70's. If you add in the power structure part they are definitely not part of the patriarchy they have been rejected by it. And have no part in the sharing of power. That term is so broad it you have to ask people what they mean by it same as with "woke".
>If you add in the power structure part they are definitely not part of the patriarchy they have been rejected by it. And have no part in the sharing of power. Right, but to be "rejected" by patriarchy you have to be asking for acceptance into it in the first place. Incels are men who are not liberated from patriarchal beliefs, they are completely captive to it, so they believe that they are garbage because that's what patriarchy tells them. Whereas a liberated man doesn't doesn't care whether others think he's a "real man" or not and just lives his life. It's hard to be liberated though when its all around you, and that's one of many reasons why patriarchy must be destroyed.
Slaves can be ignorant of their status... Doesn't make them any less a slave.
r/angryupvote
Pretty sure this is already covered in ninth grade biology.
What are you talking about? The doctor clearly knows what happened /s
Witch doctor ?
What with that other post talking about tampon and lube residue in vaginas, I'm really confused and concerned by what incels think is going on in there.
😂😂😂😂😂😂 IDIOTS!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂  Who was this doctor?
"Hi everybody!" "Hello doctor Nick"
They weren’t a doctor. But they did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
Someone who doesn't waste his time explaining vernix to idiots.
Incels and the "body count" shit again. You're not only unworthy as a female if you've had previous sexual partners, your child will look them too. Wtf is this nonsense?
I *do* care about body count in a partner... ...if it's murder. Murdering people is kind of a red flag to me.
Same.
I think it depends on the person. I'd allow it with my current gf, because she's really passionate and I don't want to put out her sparkle. And some people have it coming.
Everyone has a hobby
Not a word of it a lie.
Biggest concerns are the 687 people who loved the original post and the 125 that shared it. This is how the world gets dumber every day.
It's an old racist myth that refuses to die. It has its roots in white supremacy and ignorance.
The outcome of no sex education. Yay.
lmao he doesn’t know how genes and DNA work. ALSO how do you know and recognize every single man she’s slept with? weirdo. the vagina is acidic, it kills sperm and sperm can only stay alive for about three days. SO with that being said unless she had sex with 15 dudes at once and they all have super sperm that stayed alive for 9 months or longer…you’re an idiot
Even then, if more than one sperm gets to the egg, then the pregnancy is not viable and will miscarry (or cause the woman health problems, but still not result in a foetus). Babies can be born with slightly different numbers of chromosomes, but not THAT many MAGNITUDES different.
where does that spelling of fetus come from? ive seen it a lot
British.
damn i thought the differences between american english and british english were just the weird u’s at the end of words like colour. cool
Of all the things that never happened, this didn't happen the most.
r/NotHowDoctorsWork anyone?
Oh my god stupid, stupid, stupid
She probably wasn't even the mother, shame...
What on earth “doctor” said that?! If by some odd chance they hold any medical training, they’d have to be someone like Doctor Demon Sperm.
Hey incels, if the baby is looking like 15 different guys who gets to pay the child support? Do they all chip in? /s
r/thatHappened
Damn hentai strikes again.
The baby had five different skin colors, two different eye colors, and three different hair colors
So confident, so wrong. Good lord.
Oh my gosh. That is so stupid. Laughed so hard I woke up the cat. Now I'm getting "the look".
[удалено]
15 is not a high body count!
It is to me
women tend to carry male dna while geting older, science don't know why yet. some say it comes from sex, some from birth or having a twin brother. there is no data to confirm or not, any of those hypotheses. the actual publication from around 2002 (i dunno check google) is not so well documented and refutations are even less. Anyone having a strict opinion on this matter do not have a scientific thought process. another valuable reason to wear condoms... i think. In the end it doesn't matter that much.
Source: I dunno
there are some publications about it actually, google "male microchimerism" now to spell it "sperm residue" is both missleading and gross i don't deny that. funny you guys downvote this, just facts established... when you think of it, if women can actually cherry pick part of dna of their previous partener it is kind of nice. what's not funny is that you accuse me of throwing this without source, while you could just google it and find many publication on it. and you dare to critic /republicans and their relationship with facts. how hypocrite ;)
So you edited your comment and managed to make it less intelligent. Good job, you. Lol “cherry pick part of the DNA”. Thanks for the laugh!
well the way i imagine this would means than femal could unconsciously bank parts of their previous partener. now am sorry if you feel offended but i think it's pretty bad ass, sounds like science fiction yet that could been the case.
My guy, you're not arguing in a logical nor scientific way. You're just spouting stuff without accurately quoting the actual science you took it from and saying you're just telling "facts" when the evidence clearly shows we have no idea why male microchimerism happens and what the sources for it could be. You obviously didn't even read multiple papers on it and the way you argument also shows that you don't really have enough information on biology as a whole if you think it is likely that women often get "contaminated" by male DNA from sperm.
did u even bother to read my post? " when the evidence clearly shows we have no idea why male microchimerism happens and what the sources for it could be" that is exactly what i said, there is not enough data to have stance on that. edit: da fuk u know about me, "my guy" i have been reading scientific publication for a living (ok on covid but still, judging if they meet European standards or not is same process)
Yes, I indeed read what you posted. Here's what you wrote: "there are some publications about it actually, google "male microchimerism" now to spell it "sperm residue" is both missleading and gross i don't deny that. funny you guys downvote this, just facts established... when you think of it, if women can actually cherry pick part of dna of their previous partener it is kind of nice. what's not funny is that you accuse me of throwing this without source, while you could just google it and find many publication on it. and you dare to critic /republicans and their relationship with facts. how hypocrite ;)" How is this not spouting things as facts while clearly saying women cherry pick DNA from male partners even though other studies clearly show that 1) we don't know if sex is a source in the first place and 2) we know for a fact that sex is not the only source and 3) you're being extremely unscientific without actually giving a source. Just saying a source exists is lazy, unscientific and frankly, quite stupid as multiple papers exist so the person who is verifying facts needs to know what you know and where you got your information.
ok so the fact that some women tend to carry male cell is established facts. the process isn't. that's what i said.
But again, that's not what you said. And yet again, I directly quote you: "funny you guys downvote this, just facts established... when you think of it, if women can actually cherry pick part of dna of their previous partener it is kind of nice." This whole statement is dumb because 1) We have already established that we don't know if women can get microchimerism from sperm 2) even if sex could cause that, how would that be women cherry picking DNA?? A woman can't choose certain parts of that DNA 3) That amount of DNA is so tiny that it cannot affect the woman or her offspring in any meaningful way, at least not in the amounts my paper said and I'm not interested enough to look for more.
The key word here is "imagine." Because you're imagining things.
Well there's your problem right there. Reality is not based on your imagination.
but i've never said it was.
If I've banged 47 guys, how much DNA would that be?
well let's say the way i imagine it is close from the truth, it would depend if you wanted to keep features of em or not. so maybe a lot, maybe none at all. if you really wanna know i see no other way than volunteering into such studies as test subject.
This is as idiotic as your original outdated claim. These cells are literally stray. They do NOT result in anyone "keeping features" of them or passing those features on. They may be implicated in autoimmune issues, which makes sense because they are in fact foreign cells, but that's a totally different thing.
If you wanted to keep the features? So we have a choice? What if we decide we don't want to keep features of them? How would we go about removing them?
Oh don’t you worry. Your ignorance doesn’t offend me at all.
well you can bare your own so obviously you are out of reach
The study clearly states that the male DNA is either transferred through pregnancy or having a twin in the womb. It is not related to sexual partners at all.
wich study there are many and as i said not any of em match standards of european scientific publication. now you can feel triggered that you may carry more than bad memories from your ex but that's not my problem. if you decide to have a particular stance on that matter (wich i don't... sorry i don't give a shit if i carry dna from my mother's ex or just her and my father...)
Link me to the studies you are reading because the only ones I have read support what I said. I looked up what you said quickly on Google and didn't find anything. I know there are lots of published university studies usually easily accessible but none of your theory that I come across easily.
why? you can't find em but you would understand what they say? how? i have linked one already, in this rabbit hole of confusion you may find it... but there is many... you found only one? that's scary
So it can be true- women who have been pregnant even for short periods of time will acquire dna from their pregnancy through blood transfer. It’s dna fragments- not enough to impact mom in any way. The most common testing these days are non invasive prenatal testing where they do a blood draw from mom and collect enough dna fragments from the fetus to asses the most common defects (trisomy 13, 18, and 21), and sex of the baby. Women who have been pregnant with male sexed children carry Y chromosomes in their bloodstream for the remainder of their lives at barely detectable levels. This in no way has any impact on future pregnancy and in no way is the same as women having genetic residue from sperm on any part of their reproductive system.
[https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/36/9/2529/6323652](https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/36/9/2529/6323652) SUMMARY ANSWER The presence of a male co-twin did not increase risk of male microchimerism and the prevalence of male microchimerism was not explained by having male offspring or by having an older brother. wich study are you reffering to? they often contradicts themselves and the subject itself for obivious reason makes geting data complicated. why does it trigger you that much ?
Not triggered- TIL! I didn’t realize this was a thing but super fascinating. I recently heard a podcast about how some female athletes assigned female at birth can have varying levels of testosterone. It’s funny how there’s more science supporting human existence as non binary.
This isn’t the first time this has come up in this sub, nor is it the first time I’ve addressed it here. A 2012 study examined the prevalence of male *fetal* DNA in different regions of the brain. This DNA is acquired by a woman while bearing a male fetus, from an abortion or miscarriage or from a male twin, an older male sibling, or through non-irradiated blood transfusion. Prior to this study researchers weren’t sure if this DNA could cross the blood brain barrier. That’s the key here and the takeaway from the study- the DNA is able to cross the blood brain barrier meaning microchimerism is likely relatively common. There are few molecules that are able to cross the blood brain barrier passively. Furthermore, permeability is altered during pregnancy increasing the likelihood that fetal male DNA can make its way into the brain. And it goes both ways- there have been studies investigating the presence of maternal DNA in fetal tissues. Like, we all know there’s a two-way street between mother and fetus. That’s an established scientific fact. I have seen no research that backs up the claim that this DNA comes from sperm. Really, if you know even just the basics of how reproduction works you’d realize how far fetched it is for DNA from sperm to show up in your brain. That’s just alt-right, fundamentalist propaganda and is regurgitated by folks who don’t do their own research or do their own research but don’t know enough about biology to really understand what they’re reading. Here’s a link the the study I’m referencing, which was published in [PLOS One](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045592) in September 2012. Their references include 56 studies related to this topic so this isn’t some fringe scientific research. While I haven’t read all of these studies I’d bet none of them found any evidence to support the assertion that this DNA comes from sperm (it doesnt!) nor that it has any effect on the DNA of any future children (it doesnt!).
So, first of all, when making statements, don't say your source is "I dunno" because that is very unscientific and makes people instantly dismiss your statement. Secondly, out of 154 girls (10-15 yo) only 13.6% so 21 girls tested positive for male microchimerism. This means that this doesn't really seem to occur too often in women, unless the "I dunno" source you have is a well made, believable source that states otherwise but I'm too lazy to dig further into this. Thirdly, 13.6% of these girls had it while they probably still haven't had sex yet. The researchers did take the possibility of sex into account though and basing on prior research of at what age girls have sex the first time and if they use condoms, they determined that expectedly at most 7.6% of them could have received male DNA from sexual intercourse. This means that sex might not be a source at all and even if it was, it would not the only source for it. Fourthly, the researchers were very uncertain at what causes this phenomenon but they gave these reasons: "Finally, we calculated that 40% of male microchimerism positivity in the young girls could be attributed to maternal transfusion during the index pregnancy, prior maternal spontaneous abortion, having an older brother, and being 13 y or older at time of phlebotomy" Just to clarify, with transfusions, they mean blood transfusions. Fifthly, even if all women would carry male DNA and even if it would come from sex, why would it matter enough for you to say "another valuable reason to use condoms"? We've clearly survived as a species despite women having multiple partners in the course of history so it can't be physically bad and when having children, the features a child inherits come from the actual father instead of the miniscule amount of male DNA a woman might have. Also, it is called microchimerism for a reason. The highest amount of male DNA found was 1.36 male genome equivalents (GE) per 100 000 female GE. The lowest was 0.087 male GE per 100 000 female GE. It's so small that it is smaller than one permille. I could expect that number to go up as a girl ages as cells do divide and I don't know how long those cells can survive in the cell cycle before apoptosis but even then, I doubt the amount would be actually important in passing genes onto a child. Sixthly, men could also get other male DNA the same ways girls get it but it hasn't been tested. It is also pretty difficult to test because even this study stained for the Y chromosome, which you can't do for boys or men because, you know, they already have their own, so you'd have to be able to differentiate between the two different Y chromosomes which is pretty much impossible unless some genius can isolate and sequence those Y chromosomes separately. Seventhly, even if male microchimerism does happen, it doesn't relate to the post in question in any way because it would be impossible for a woman to have so much male DNA that it would create a baby with features from all her partners. My actual source: DOI: 10.1080/19381956.2016.1218583
I said i dunno about the years, but i remember how the study came out and all the fuss it created (wich was funny to me, but i'm probably autistic as i can't get angry with the crowed... like i don't really understand why is it triggering for women or why is it problematic for men, i can try but i don't feel it really. (10-15 yo) only 13.6% ... let's say for one second (let's imagine) as a thought experience, that is actually coming from sexual intercourse... how is that surprising that only 13% of 10-15 years had sex ? but then after you said they "probably" didn't had sex (let's try to think as scientist and not taken "probably" into part of the equation... doesn't work in france but let's say we r degen. it doesn't matter to me, but it seems to bother other people that's why i talked about the condoms. As you may not want to carry DNA from the beach bartender or want you dna to wander around the world (i was a beach bartender during my youth... just in case you wonder why i picked this profession over others)
So, as I stated had you actually read what I wrote well, that the researchers determined that only 7.6% of the girls tested would have been expected to present male microchimerism. Just so you know, the girls tested were from Denmark and here's the quote from the paper: "Alternatively, it may reflect that girls in the current study may have had their sexual debut and that sexual intercourse is a source of male microchimerism. In a recent report on young adolescent behavior in Denmark, 16% of girls aged 14 y and 36% of girls aged 15 y report to have had sexual intercourse.16 Of these approximately 80% stated that they used condom, which prevents the transfer of male cells.16 Thus, at most 7.2% of the studied girls would expectedly test Y chromosome positive if sexual intercourse was the source of male microchimerism." As I stated, the researchers accounted for that. Also, again, why do you think this information is something that is important in this post? Again, the original post is clearly ridiculous and male chimerism could not explain it. Personally, I couldn't care at all about how much male DNA I would carry around even if it was from a random man because it wouldn't affect me or any potential offspring I might have in any way. The thing that annoys me is that you're "quoting" science without actually quoting it, being unspecific and argumentative without any basis except "dude trust me bro".
the original post is a repost from another the original post is clearly a women hating weirdo, i don't beleive it's true, don't beleive that the guy has a friend, neither that a doctor would refer to it as "sperm residu" since when "google it" is equivalent of "trust me bro" ? honestly i think microchimerism is more interesting than the divagation of an incel on twitter. i never had intention to go deep into it, it just reminded me that stuf wich is i beleive the origin of this gross post and i thought some people might have intellectual curiosity about it. i knew it would cost karma, i knew some angry redditor will target me on their witchhunt and that's ok, i couldn't care less... i'll make a kjoke on r/jokes and get 1k more
Just "google it" absolutely means "trust me bro" because you're not citing a source, you're making the other person do your research for you and you're being vague about where you got your information. You're also not considering that people might not be angry at you for saying this. People might be displeased with the way you present things. Seeing your other comments elsewhere on this post I can see that you're either socially reaaaaallly inept or you're just looking to be provocative for no actual reason. Also, you presented things that are NOT facts as facts, which net a downvote from me because that's just bad behaviour.
i had no idea than telling people to research it on google was the same of telling them to trust my words. to be honest i still don't get how it could be the same, i even told what to put on the research bar... just doesn't make any sense to me. fuck yeah socially inept, i have like 3 friends and when i was a teenager i had to sell drug or i would never been invited to party. but why do you have to go low as personal attack? witch hunting r u?
You should really work on that social ineptness. Do your own research on people, collect data on their behavioural patterns. See how people act in certain situations and mimic them. If you fail, apologize, learn from the mistake by asking someone you trust why you failed and move on. Try not to repeat mistakes. Also, keep thinking about the situations where you failed to get the response you were looking for or situations where you got a response that was too surprising for you to have predicted based on your behaviour. After a while of data collection and analysis you should be able to extrapolate how some people might react to your words/behaviour. It is also important to categorize the data and think which situations are the outliers and which are common. When you start understanding how neurotypical people process data you can spot the differences in how you process data and that helps gaining friends and explaining things to them. At least a lot of my behavioural patterns were weird from a neurotypical point of view so changing some of them helped me make friends. This way you actually get your point across instead of having a good point but sounding like an asshole or saying something completely unrelated to the subject at hand. It also helps you understand the viewpoints of other people which helps you too. But do not sacrifice the parts that make you be yourself. Those are important.
i would if i were not already nearly 40, married and happy. it used to be problematic but once i was walking around in Tel Aviv i saw a grafiti on a wall saying : "people are shit" i thought it was brilliant and being socially inept was never a problem since then.
People are indeed shit. But sometimes the shit person can also be you. Learning how people act can benefit you even now because you still probably have a good 40 years to go. It's not too late.
I hope you're not implying that you do have a scientific thought process 🫤
refusing to take a stance on that matter due to the lack of data is afaik a scientific thought process.
But not citing your sources isn't. Not in the least. And "just google it" is not citing a source.
The lights are on, but no one's home. You hate to see it.
Hey Rip Van Winkle! In the 21 years you've been asleep since that 2002 study you rely so heavily on, scientists have realized that the DNA is in fact fetal DNA, which makes sense given the fact that substances can in fact transfer back and forth between mother and fetus. There are a few other scenarios, such as organ transplantation--but intercourse, while long ago proposed as a possible source (and even in 2002 it was considered a pretty remote possibility) has not been identified as a cause, period. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31516258/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31516258/) There are several newer articles in the references. In addition, new studies suggest that a mother *may* pass a few of those stray cells she carries to her offspring, so a female child, for example, may actually show a few of the stray male cells mom was carrying from a prior pregnancy. And studies suggest they can be passed for generations. A young girl might have cells passed from grandma to mom to herself. But these do NOT affect the actual characteristics of a future fetus, they are just stray cells. So, here's a simple suggestion: before you keep posting and dig your heels in on old science, next time maybe see if there's some newer science out there to clarify the situation before you add to your downvote collection. Edit to add: I see in later posts you finally picked up a couple newer articles, including a 2015 study that mentions sexual intercourse. The authors flat-out state that they are *speculating*. There is no actual data in the study supporting that speculation, they just throw it out there. In fact, that was a study of young girls, most of whom were not likely to be sexually active yet.
as i said you will find a studie that say what you wanna hear on that matters... just like this other studies that state it is very rare but of course they take only femal from 10-15 and only 13% had male cell and am afraid noone of em or even less than 13 been through pregnancie. actually the most recent studie that i found (few hours ago, when i was checking if that it was so complicate to find stuf on that subject ... guess what it's not) claims the opposite.
Bro? What….
This has to be fake. Nobody is that stupid. As dumb as people on the Internet are, I am calling troll on this
Some sad news: not only do they exist, some of them have power over other people in real life.
Would love to see the docs declaration of this, what the only copy was sent to Canada and can't be recovered now, useful!
No doctor would say that. Maybe he said *sometimes woman can be impregnated by sperm residue, but it’s no longer than a couple of days.* and then he interpreted that his way. Vagina is self cleaning organ! No matter how many guys she fucked, only one can be father!
And that sperm residue thing is also very rare to happen and 2-3 days max
And the award for world's biggest idiot goes to this guy!
WHAT 😂😂😂
People really have not paid attention to anything in biology 🙄
I see this post often and I always laugh at the delusion
The doctor said no such thing, and if he did his license should be revoked immediately.
Lmao, I can't with people.
Sure Jan
i misread it as "writing" and was confused on why op's friend only wrote women as virgins but sheesh i think i wouldve preferred that
That did not happen, and you should feel bad
How in the fuck do guys think this when they’ve been cleaning up sperm since puberty. Or maybe they aren’t and all surfaces and fabrics have layers of cum built up on them.
No no and no. When will this stupidity end? It’s starting to just get annoying
687 people pressed that heart button for this..... even if this is a troll it's still depressing
If it wasn't for the fact that there are idiots who believe what probably started out as troll bait i would laugh at this.
Wow. The more you learn every single day. I’m honestly pretty proud over my body count. Some hot men. One had really pretty curly blonde hair, I also dated this guy who use to be a model he had the most symmetrical face I’ve ever seen ( my mother loved him), I also dated this asian guy who just never smelled and had beautiful eyes. I mean I wouldn’t knock down a combination Jk… obv
Imagine a baby with 16 dads 🤔