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.

          • Holly Baby Catkiss

            Lol. Since you want a theocracy why don’t you go back to the Middle East?

            Dude, you seriously in need of an history and science lesson. So here’s your history lesson.

            http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/02/the-us-founding-fathers-their-religious-beliefs/ 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.

          • Oily Mirrors

            Oh just f&ck off and move to Communist China or Libya already – or better yet, black-ruled South Africa where there’s an all-out white genocide in progress.

          • Holly Baby Catkiss

            Lol. Wow, so touchy.

            Did I touch a nerve to sad little Christian? Poor baby. You’re just have to deal with it.

            What’s the matter? Truth hurts huh?

            You are the one who should move. I’ll even help you pack.

          • Oily Mirrors

            Wow you really are a typucal libtard nutter! LOL!!

            You were the one going on about how awful it is here – I happen to appreciate luving in a western democracy that, despite the varying religious beliefs of its founders, was built on Christian principles such as the Ten commandments.

            The door to the world is open for you luvvie – take flight and keave this oppression! LOL.

            Buh-bye. NUT. JOB.

            LOL

          • Holly Baby Catkiss

            Lol. Not a liberal, but you should like you would vote for someone like pussy grabbing Trump.

            Fyi, the Ten Commandments
            In the Bible, the Ten Commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sinai, and were written on stone tablets, allegedly by the hand of God himself. This was thought to take place around 1490 B.C. However when one examines chapter 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead (around 2600 B.C.), it seems he may have had a little help. The Egyptian Book of the Dead reads like the Ten Commandments written in the Negative Confession. Some examples are:
            Book of the Dead: “I have not blasphemed.”Exodus 20:7: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain.”
            Book of the Dead: “I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men.”Exodus 20:14: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
            Book of the Dead: “I have not stolen.”Exodus 20:15: “Thou shalt not steal.”
            There is also some similarity between the story of the Ten Commandments and the Code of Hammurapi, dated around 1772 B.C.
            Isaiah
            There is an interesting correlation between the Gathas of Zarathushtra Yasna(the sacred texts of the Zoroastrians) and the chapter of creation and book of Isaiah in the Old Testament. Strangely, the book of Yasna asks questions which are answered directly in the book of Isaiah. There are countless other examples of influences from Zoroastrianism, but this one is very compelling. Some examples of these similarities texts are:
            Yasna 44.3 :4-5: “who made the routes of the sun and stars? By whom the moon waxes and wanes?”Isaiah 40:26: “Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created these things: who bringeth out their host by number, and calleth them all by their names: by the greatness of his might, and strength, and power, not one of them was missing.”
            Yasna 44.4:1-3: “who fixed the earth below and kept the sky above from falling?”Isaiah 40:12: “Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and weighed the heavens with his palm? Who hath poised with three fingers the bulk of the earth, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?”

          • Holly Baby Catkiss

            Oh and by the way it’s loving not luving and typical not typucal. At least spell right, but then again people like you are against education.

            If the founding fathers had varying religious beliefs then I’m sure they would want a secular country instead of agreeing with just one religion (Christianity).

            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.

            Funny how I can provide evidence that this country isn’t a Christian country, but you haven’t provided any.

            Bye bye

            Teatard

          • Holly Baby Catkiss

            Satanists and witches don’t practice child sacrifice. I know a lot of Satanists and witches and they never harmed a child. Can’t say the same for Christians who were documented to be child molesters.

            Shall I name a few?

            Fyi, the Bible isn’t a reliable source because it was written by fallible men and plagiarized many Pagan stories.

          • 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.

          • fnulnu40
          • 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
          • DocDoc

            Appeal to Nature Fallacy
            It’s also natural for humans to wage wars, drink alcohol, lie, etc. Those all have negative consequences though.
            Dumb argument.

          • Holly Baby Catkiss

            No, it isn’t natural to wage wars, drink alcohol, or lie. The lower animals don’t do it then it ain’t natural. Sorry.

            Dumb argument.

          • DocDoc

            Lower animals do, in fact, wage wars (chimpanzee tribes – “Demonic Males”), drink alcohol (fermented fruits, high-alcohol nectar, man-made beer), and lie (animals lie both to other species, but recently it was discovered that they’ll lie to their own to get what they want).
            Not that your “counterargument” was valid, anyway. Behaviors that are natural are not inherently good or “best”.
            The only women who get upset about people being opposed to promiscuity are promiscuous women. You’re damaged.

          • Holly Baby Catkiss

            Any solid source of this? Just asking.

            We are both naturally practice polygamy and monogamy.

            Being polygamous doesn’t necessarily mean you’re promiscuous.

        • 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?

          • Allister Collins

            His “sick in his pants”??? Baby, you’re too obtuse to even respond to anymore.

          • Holly Baby Catkiss

            Wow. Let’s point out the typos instead of the point, but you know keep trying.

    • 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!

          • olf

            Gods ordnances cover all of the human creation perfectly. There are no accidents in His work.

        • 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.

          • Steven Berry

            yeah the typical response ,haha, where’d you get that “original” response? hahaha.
            another bird brain . Haven’t watched “TV” news in years. Why don’t you respond to the jest of the statement? Because you’re just another clueless moron.

          • 1bestdog

            yeah I think you mean the gist of the statement, dear.

          • 1bestdog

            No they buy elections and republican politicians, you fuckin idiot.

          • 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

          • 1bestdog

            yeah your version of history is mighty selective…read up on fascism

          • Betty Eyer

            I think he was referring to fascism, see also “ruling class”.

          • 1bestdog

            Honey you don’t have a clue about history. You cannot even spell.

          • Betty Eyer

            the patriotic ruling class? Whoa. A little white male supremacy there, ya think?

            And, dude. Commissars don’t go around shooting people in France, Germany, etc. You don’t leave home much, do you?

          • 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.

          • Betty Eyer

            The shower massage can cause orgasm and release oxytocin. A committed relationship is not the only place to find an orgasm.

          • 1bestdog

            wtf?

          • 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.

          • 1bestdog

            he is not old…just a good ole boy arrogant fool

          • 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!

          • Cutter

            In my experience, this is fairly true, although I can’t say that I’ve had a full scientific sample. Those numbers would be off of the charts if I did. But the conservative women that I know are more bright and intelligent, more empowered, love their male and female gender roles and make great partners in and out of bed. Before you say that I haven’t been with liberal women, I have to refute that. I often did when I was younger, attending a very liberal state school which was known for their programs in music, dance, art, theater and the like. So, I’ve been there and dipped my toes in that water more times than I should admit.

          • 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.

          • 1bestdog

            and who the fuck are you asshole?

          • Betty Eyer

            I think she’s referring to the single mother birth ratio and the teenage mother birth ratio. Jacobin? Lordy, what century is it?

          • Betty Eyer
          • 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?

          • 1bestdog

            are u 8?

          • 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

            The sperm does not dig in or pass into the blood stream or do any other magic tricks. The man’s DNA does not combine with the woman’s DNA, except where an egg is fertilised.

          • 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.

          • fluffylucy

            Thats not how it works. Sperm can fertilise an egg under specific conditions, thats it. The sperm can survive for a short time after ejaculation and then it dies and is disposed of by the body. This is not a mystery to science. As the authors of the study report say, the male DNA has come from pregnancies. there is no mystery and no other mechanism is considered or needed.

          • francois

            read my comment, you are wrong.

          • Ulrich Malloy

            Scientists DO say ” you are what you eat ” buwahahah.

          • francois

            sperm cells can stay alive in a human body for 7 days. for those 7 days, it will squirm around every nook and cranny until it finds the womans egg to fertilize it. Its eventually goes through passage walls in your body because sperm cells are very tiny. it then gets in your bloodstream which travels to your brain and the sperm cells die but the DNA left behind can last for about 500 years, after that the amino acids deteriorate and the dna is gone, that’s why we can harvest any dna from dinosaur bones because it wasted away

          • fluffylucy

            Sperm can live up to five days if nourished in cervical fluid, otherwise they will die much sooner (20 minutes or so). They will swim until they are trapped by mucous or run out of nutrients or are killed by the body’s immune system. The sperm are not that small and they don’t get into your blood vessels unless you have a legion of some sort and even then, they will be destroyed by white blood cells. Sure some foreign DNA material may be present in our bodies at time of death, due to what we ate, breathed, were infected with or from that contained in seminal fluid, but this is not what chimerism is. Chimerism refers to foreign DNA which is part of the genetic material of the body’s living cells. This author’s suggestion that sperm can cause chimerism is either based on misunderstanding of biology or is a disingenuous attempt to misrepresent it.

          • thorverine
          • 1bestdog

            Yeah the research doesn’t really say that, the writer extrapolated rather creatively.

          • Josh

            Do you have a PHD or Masters in human biology> Are you some kind of intern at a lab? If not Diane shut up. You have no idea what and what can’t a vaginae do. We can’t find the cure for the common cold, we only explored 60% of the ocean and They don’t even know what causes most decises. You think you know every single fact about your body. If you knew anything. You would know this isn’t a new study. This study came out back in 2012!!!!!

          • http://www.sliceofkenslife.blogspot.com/ Ken Musson

            The real question about disease is not what causes it, or even how to cure it. The question is what is it that allows us to resist disease? With all the bad germs and things out to kill everything else, what is it that makes health so healthy?

          • Jess

            One doesn’t need a PhD or a Master’s in human biology to find that an article doesn’t match the information provided in the studies that are its sources; reading comprehension and a good vocabulary are all that is required. Furthermore, not knowing everything about every topic in all of science doesn’t equate to knowing absolutely nothing. For instance, those who paid attention in basic elementary school science classes may not understand quantum mechanics, but do know that the problem with finding a cure for the “common cold” is that rhinovirus (the virus that causes the true “common cold”) evolves more quickly than humans are capable of manufacturing drugs. Those who paid attention in grade school are probably also aware “diseases” is not spelled “decises,” while those with any exposure to Latin (the language most medical terminology is taken from) are aware that using the phrase “a vaginae” is like saying, “a airplanes” — you are attaching a singular article to a plural noun.

          • Commerce_Party_Advocate

            Thank you Diane for clarifying. I read the studies cited. In my assessment, the article’s author, Baxter Dmitry, misrepresents the findings and applies erroneous logic (too long to detail here). I would not trust anything posted on yournewswire.com. A review of Baxter Dmitry’s articles reveals he earns money by writing sensational tabloids. Regarding affects of male microchimerism (Mc) in the female brain, from my reading of the studies, Mc was at least correlated with lower Alzheimers and brain cancer (suggesting immunosurveillance), while concerns have been raised regarding autoimmune responses.

          • 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.

          • Ulrich Malloy

            Like I always say your brain spills out of your open mind.

          • You Ain’t No Sanjaya

            Reading your comment is EXHAUSTING.

          • http://www.sliceofkenslife.blogspot.com/ Ken Musson

            At one time there was a popular saying. “if it feels good, do it.” Women have been compared to men in the ‘sex drive’ department and it has been confirmed: Women have a sex drive as strong as, or stronger, than men because biology assigned them the ability to reproduce through duplication. If a woman aint fuckin’ then she aint producing. If a man isn’t fucking, he just isn’t fucking….Again, the entire subject of reproduction revolves around, and between, making a choice based on biology, making one based on self awareness, and one based on thousands of years of religious and moral manipulations in the attempt to mold the human condition and to control how one thinks. Can a bull rape a cow? Does the dog rape the bitch? How is it that in nature the only species on the planet that reproduces through rape also happens to be the one at the top of the food chain? And can someone then tell my why fucking, and getting fucked in return, feels so good? Where is the study that places a relationship with procreation and sex for pleasure. No where in nature do the lower animals fuck for fun…except…..

          • 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.

          • Edward Laughlin Adderley

            what are you talking about ???

            since when has a women’s right to say no
            been taken away – what a stupid fucking statement

            FFS, please comprehend the content
            of the article !!!

          • Alexandria Schaefer

            Agreed. The ability to say “no” is there in anyone and everyone. Now granting a person’s request or demand by saying no is where the rights of a person is affected.

          • Wally15

            Do you think you make your point in a better way with such language? I don’t think so! But, its your choice.

          • Betty Eyer

            I know, right? Never any problems with slut shaming rape victims back in the good old days. No, sirree.

          • 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.

          • Shannon

            LOL

          • Alexandria Schaefer

            Were women unable to verbally speak? I know and understand the (actual)fact that women were not taken seriously and thought of as equals or having a “figurative” voice on such matter.

          • Wally15

            Another dose of language that only serves to destroy your point.

          • jojowa

            100 years ago a woman was not even allowed to turn down a marriage proposal if her father agreed to it

          • Wally15

            Perhaps you missed my point.

          • hanover boxer

            So an article that basically posits the theory that women are slutty repositories of male DNA doesn’t offend you, but someone using some salty language appalls you. You need to climb out of that sterile oxygen tent you dwell in now and then, Bubble Boy.

          • Wally15

            This looks like a good site to stay away from, given the toxicity of a number of comments. I can live with out such language – and enjoy life as a result – and still help people on need.
            Of course I am sufficiently offended to be concerned about such inhumane theories – but, I won’t further the cause against such bad action by jumping into the gutter with such people.

          • Betty Eyer

            Yeah, why listen to feedback from other people? Why change or question yourself even. The problem is people who want to confront you with how your prejudices against women and sex harm other people, not you.

          • Wally15

            I will give it one more shot. I have merely drawn attention to language – from that you have assumed all manner of things about me which I have neither given indication of, nor do I hold such views. Your judgmentalism is seriously in error – because you got it all wrong about me. I am more than happy to listen to feedback, to engage in conversation, to deal with the prejudices you mention, but you have cut me down with a wrong judgment. I am sad about that. It is that very feature which makes it very hard to join with people in fighting the issues of our society.

          • Jess

            You have merely done a thing which is known as “trolling” — distracting from discussion of an important issue by introducing an inflammatory and petty argument in a passive-aggressive manner. Back under the bridge with you.

          • Jess

            As I said, your arrogance is so great that you will decline an opportunity to exchange information and learn if others do not bow to your personal rules for language. It’s clear others lose nothing from your lack of participation, as all you are able to contribute is outrage that the world does not cater to your desires. Or, to put it in more common terms, #ByeFelicia.

          • Jess

            Your point appears to be that you are so arrogant you will miss an opportunity to learn because you do not understand or like a turn of phrase.

          • lajaw

            That’s B.S. 100 years ago was 1917. Both of my grandmothers were alive then…….and neither was forced into marriage.

          • Betty Eyer

            It does not destroy her point. Unless you are slut shaming dinosaur from the past.

          • Wally15

            Given your own resort to similar poor language, I am not surprised by your conclusion.
            Surely it is possible to make a good case without such derogatory language. When one resorts to the gutter level, it is difficult to consider the matter with integrity. I have only sought to draw attention to the poor choice of language, not to reflect on the point.

          • Betty Eyer

            No you did not, Wally15. You said it “serves to destroy your point’. You did in fact “reflect on the point”. And you think “slut shaming” is gutter talk? Do you live in a cave?

          • Wally15

            There is little point in further response, but, when I said it “serves to destroy your point” I simply mean that it results in that, ie, people are more likely to dismiss a point that is being made, albeit wrongly so no doubt, because of the language that is used. Given your level of language use, I intend to say no more, because I don’t wish to get down to your level. Oh, and I live in an ordinary house.

          • Betty Eyer

            “people” are not particularly likely to dismiss me over my “level of language” because I don’t spend my time in a backward religious community, but rather out in the rest of the world.

          • Wally15

            Thank you Betty – so kind of you.

          • Betty Eyer

            “slut shaming” is the name for a social technique in which you devalue a woman by focusing on her sexuality and blaming her for any reaction anyone might have to her sexuality. It’s not cursing, it’s describing.

            You’re welcome.

          • panzrwagn

            Wally15, perhaps if you were to climb down from your lofty Victorian equine you might learn a thing or two. The adjectivinal power of words you deem ‘poor language’ and ‘gutter’ are indeed the most powerful words in the English, or for that matter, most any modern language. But apparently they threaten
            you, and so you feel it necessary to a tempt to mute them, to deny language it’s full power to express. This seems to speak volumes about you. And as for the reference to living in a cave, only a dull buffoon would fail to recognize that as metaphor for the intellectual cave / prison you have built for yourself and are dearly, if ineffectually, trying to defend.

          • Wally15

            Well, looks like I am really the target of more than a few. It seems the heckles are really up – which says much of itself.
            I have merely expressed a view about the kind of language used. As a result, all kinds of things have been assumed about me – without any foundation. I will not even begin to attempt to correct all those.
            I am amused by your contention, panzewagn, in regard to the “adjectivinal power of words . . . . ” when a dictionary does not even give existence to the word. “adjectivinal”.
            To then suggest that I am denying “language it’s full power to express” when I raise a concern about poor language and gutter language, is indeed a long bow. It seems, by your standard, that the lower it gets the better it is. In the mean time, the real issue that was the subject of this article, has al but disappeared. Perhaps that proves my point.
            Oh, and finally, I said I live in a house – someone else raised the cave idea. On that note, I bid you a good evening.

          • Jess

            Your view of language reveals little more than a lack of priorities.

          • Jess

            Wally, it only destroys a point if you aren’t very intelligent.

          • Jess

            There’s another study you should look at Wally… It showed that people who curse more often are both more intelligent with larger vocabularies AND more honest and trustworthy. Your pedantic obsession with language suggests you fit neither category. Asshole.

          • olf

            A heart of bitterness destroys. The answers are easy, ask the Lord of the universe. Truth will set you free.

          • John Mcgrath

            Bull. The women’s rights movement made misandry the norm.

          • Betty Eyer

            Bull. The women’s rights movement is not responsible for your bad relationships.

          • jamis72

            So some bullshit article gets written about some fake DNA story and you make that about saying no? Idiots

          • Jess

            Funny how I’ve never had trouble saying no if I didn’t want to have sex in the 20 years since I lost my virginity… Also funny how one of the things feminists are concerned about is men acting as if they deserve sex for being nice to us.

          • 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!

          • Ulrich Malloy

            All that FEMINAZI bluster just so you can enjoy promiscuity?? Are you saying that waiting until marriage and MARITAL sex can’t be satisfactorily be enjoyed?? That is a Christophobic bigoted view.

          • Josh

            Valid point, But now the feminazi’s brought out the relignazi’s

          • Betty Eyer

            What’s wrong with enjoying promiscuity? Men have been doing that since the beginning of time.

            Nothing wrong with someone waiting or with an exclusive sexual relationship, IF It is actually chosen. If your whole family and community will shun you if you stray from sex in marriage, then you aren’t choosing at all. That’s coercion. It’s also difficult to turn off sexual response and then turn it back on at the socially acceptable moment. A lot of women from my generation and my mother’s generation had trouble enjoying sex because of shame or fear of pregnancy.

          • Russ Reed

            Very interesting position & well said.

          • Cornish girl

            I am the daughter of a 60s/70s women’s libber. the pressure my mother put on me to be sexually “liberated” was appalling! She couldn’t care less if I was seeing guys when I was under age and even put me on the pill at 14! So, her choices had a very negative impact on me personally. More generally, however, I can see that we still don’t have equal pay, yet we have round the clock pressure to be dynamic and accomplished breadwinner, mother, sexual athlete and full DIY-er, because many men now expect us to do absolutely everything since the advent of our supposed empowerment! In Britain, many younger women are turning to Islam because that’s one of the few cultures where a woman can still choose to be a mother and reasonably expect financial support from the father of her children, without being perceived as somehow deficient because she has chosen motherhood and marriage above a career. And where she has the chance of finding a man who doesn’t resent or outright reject marriage, fatherhood and paying some bills for his family. I get why women fought for rights, I get why my great grandmother fought for the vote, but all this 1960s/1970s emphasis on women choosing the same type of sexual supposed “freedoms” as men have has, in my opinion, backfired to a degree and placed women under even more pressure. Now not only do we have to do everything, like paying the mortgage, raising the kids and doing most of the chores, we also have to pretend (for those who fall into free and easy sexual roles not from true free will but out of peer pressure and the like) that we don’t mind being “loved” and left. In all honestly, as I have got older, my celibacy is probably the most empowering sexual choice I have made, next to having my children. I certainly don’t feel empowered by the fact it would be seen by some as liberated for me to go out and have sex with any number of different men. Whilst I take my hat off to those of my sex who genuinely feel liberated by the ability to adopt promiscuity, I can’t actually say I have met any in my circle, either in London or in more rural areas who feel liberated deep down. Sure, you get the act, the “I can cope emotionally wth sleeping around, just like a guy can”, but a few drinks later and then you get the tears about how they feel used and abused by the men who have taken their pleasure and walked away. So, I think we will find that there will be a backlash, and that will be born out by the numbers of women choosing Islam, which is growing steadily. For every action there is a reaction.

        • 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.

          • Virginia L Stone

            I have lived long enough to know that No One gave me freedom to say anything. I make my Own choices, and always have!

        • 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……

        • Yuvi S

          Feminists are the biggest sluts. None of them are wife material. With all the rape hoaxers nowadays, they aren’t even worth the casual sex.

        • Cornish girl

          I couldn’t agree more!

        • Anonymous Gal

          You should learn to read, write, and use ellipses.
          Casual sex can be done in a safe way with women who chose to do so for themselves and not for other people.
          Women’s right just gives them the choice to, that is all.
          This study was a load of crap, a dump on science, and a blatant lie. I posted a comment earlier.
          I’m sorry you’re so ignorant abo

        • DrumminD21311

          Women have the freedom to be promiscuous or to not be promiscuous. That’s the point of women’s rights. Just like men have the right to be promiscuous or not be promiscuous. There is no power in promiscuity. There is power in being able to choose your own actions.

      • 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.

      • Amy

        You sure have that right!

    • 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 injectio