You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

4
36

[–] ChippyTubes 4 points 36 points (+40|-4) ago  (edited ago)

No it means I'm NEVER DONE SLUTTING AROUND...some time in the future she might 'slut around' a bit less and that's the time she wants to hook up and get a wedding ring from old lonely beta halfwit nice guy to go out work his ass off to pay for her expensive shoes and medical bills... and another reason you should avoid these women like the plague... they are withered and dried up by " microchimerism " How Previous Sexual Partners Affect Offspring, Study suggests chemicals from previous partner's semen could pass on DNA from ex-partners, Women can sometimes Carry DNA of Casual Sex Partners https://newspunch.com/women-dna-man-sex/ & https://phoreveryoung.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/the-phenomena-of-male-microchimerism-in-women-and-homosexual-men/ ...males have a natural reaction to this behavior...its why most men are first and foremost attracted by vitality, loyalty, attractive fit women and youth.... very few men want to marry some old shriveled floozy tramp

0
13

[–] kneo24 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Here are direct links to the studies in question:

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

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

At the end of the day, we aren't entirely sure how this happens.

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.

The last sentence is important. We aren't entirely sure how this happens.

Don't let a bunch of articles tell you what is said, since the first one doesn't give links to it's assertions later on.

0
4

[–] 9-11 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The study doesn't say what you are implying, but only confirms something science has know for sometime: that mother/fetus share blood during a pregnancy and that in the case of a male CHILD the cells are detectable for sometime. **The only new thing here is that the male dna (from her son not tyrone) has been shown to cross the blood/brain barrier - after an autopsy of the dead mother. ** The articles from @ChippyTubes are popsci bullshit that are written to expound on the unsurity of some of the cases involving women with no live male children - micarries/lost twins etc.

0
1

[–] cosmic_climb 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It's also hard to determine what - if any - evolutionary advantage this gives females with multiple sexual partners.

0
0

[–] hardshaft 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Silly girl, doesn't get the fundamental difference between appreciation and depreciation assets :) Oh well I'm sure she'll learn that the hard way soon enough.