Homesteading Forum banner

Getting frisky and giving it up to the man

1K views 9 replies 6 participants last post by  Darren 
#1 ·
Or men depending on how many you've had sex with. Now we know it is in women's heads.

"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."

http://yournewswire.com/women-dna-man-sex/
 
#3 ·
I'm unsurprised.
Years back, I was reading a gamefowl breeding manual that stated something similar... Never expose your prize breeding hens to any roosters except what you want to breed to, because the dna from unintended or less than ideal breedings can show up from time to time in the offspring. Hopefully Barnbilder will be along to help clarify this from the chicken perspective at least... He always has good insight.
 
#5 ·
I have heard this from chicken breeders, from dog breeders, and discussed with dairymen. Never thought it was biologically possible for previous offspring to have any genetic effect on subsequent matings. Still don't.

Looks like a couple different studies here, and whomever used the study to write the article is trying very hard to explain it away as the dna coming from all previous partners, when it is much more likely that male DNA present in females is more placental in nature.

Some of the descriptions of the behavior of sperm in the article are fairly deceptive, we know that sperm are much more delicate than they are letting on, and don't have a very long lifespan when they are somewhere they don't belong. They can last quite long in a hen's sperm receptacle, up to at least 21 days, no doubt leading to the belief that prior breedings have a lasting effect on the hen, which they do, because she can store sperm for fertilizing eggs for quite some time. Mammal sperm behaves a little differently though.
 
#7 ·
I think that Snopes has a biased and incomplete view of the scientific findings on microchimerism. Hardly qualified to report on (or dispute) science, I would say.

Despite the fact nobody really knows what is happening or where the male DNA comes from, there is *still* something happening that you, or I, or Snopes doesn't understand. The thing that gets me the most is that this theory dates back to the time of Aristotle. That's just incredible to me, and this fact alone merits attention. Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it. . .
While the OP's article may not be the most scientific source ever, the published studies cited in said article are pretty valid, regardless of when they were published.

I seriously doubt that NIH is going to outright lie. . .
 
#8 ·
I think that Snopes has a biased and incomplete view of the scientific findings on microchimerism. Hardly qualified to report on (or dispute) science, I would say.

Despite the fact nobody really knows what is happening or where the male DNA comes from, there is *still* something happening that you, or I, or Snopes doesn't understand. The thing that gets me the most is that this theory dates back to the time of Aristotle. That's just incredible to me, and this fact alone merits attention. Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it. . .
While the OP's article may not be the most scientific source ever, the published studies cited in said article are pretty valid, regardless of when they were published.

I seriously doubt that NIH is going to outright lie. . .

Just because something is published in NIH doesn't mean it is accurate.

They even say so themselves.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
 
#9 ·
Did anyone else actually read the study linked to in the article?
http://yournewswire.com/women-dna-man-sex/
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.
The article also says:
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 first problem is that the "CONCLUSION" quote is nowhere in the study; if it's from a related study, a reference should be cited.
(Here's another link to the study, see if you can fin the word "intercourse" in it...
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0045592#s2)

Further...
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.
The second problem I see is the article's statement "The first three options apply to a very small percentage of women." Since the first option is "an abortion the woman didn’t know about", and since the National Institute of Health estimates that half of all fertilized eggs may spontaneously abort, often before the women realize they are pregnant, I don't see how they can support their claim.
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/pregnancyloss/conditioninfo/Pages/risk.aspx
The estimated rate of miscarriage is 15% to 20% in women who know they are pregnant, but as many as half of all fertilized eggs may spontaneously abort, often before the women realize they are pregnant. Women who have had previous miscarriages are at a higher risk for miscarriage. The risk of miscarriage also increases with maternal age beginning at age 30 and becoming greater after age 35.
The third problem is that male microchimerism was NOT found in 37% of the women studied. Since the ages of the women studied were all over 31, it seems strange the over one third of the women had not had sexual intercourse that resulted in microchimerism, if that was the cause.
Age at death ranged from 32 to 101
As one of the comments to the article stated
This is a great example of people purposely taking research results out of context and using it to promote an agenda.
 
#10 ·
What we're seeing is a conundrum of sorts without a solid explanation at this point in time. Science isn't there yet. Have they done similar studies on male brains? Did they examine the immature eggs in the females for comparison? Until science makes further progress in that area, we have an answer that leaves questions. Until more information comes from research no one can say with certainty, Snopes included, what happened. But, something did happen.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top