Theory on NRE between m/f relationships

tbrock

New member
Induction Phase
I have developed over time a prevailing theory I call the induction phase. In a polyamorous relationship, when the wife begins to deal with her new partner sexually, there are direct changes in the biochemical processes that go far beyond New Relationship Energy NRE in general. For one there is already a size difference no matter if it is smaller or larger. There are different smells, sites, touch senses that exemplify the differences that charge sexual intercourse. Sure these can be summed up under the umbrella of NRE, but I'd rather take a closer look at the actual biochemical processes that occur here.

For one only 95% of ejaculation is plasma, and there are over 50 compounds found in ejaculation plasma which when coming from a healthy male have pronounced benefits. These compounds including, but not limited to, neurotransmitters, endorphins, hormones and immunosuppressants which all have tremendous potential for health. Semen itself makes up only 5% of ejaculation and contains fructose, ascorbic acid, zinc, cholesterol,protein,calcium,chlorine,blood group antigens,citric acid,DNA,Magnesium,vitamin B12, phosphorus,sodium,potassium,uric,acid,lactic acid, nitrogen and other nutrients. Not only can semen be ingested for its benefits, but one really needs to understand that during sexual intercourse your wife will become permanently bonded for life with her partner if she does not use a condom. What I'm referring to is the direct infusion of DNA from her partner into her bloodstream which literally fuses with her body and becomes a part of her DNA for life. The plasma during ejaculation will actually bind to the inside vaginal walls forming dozens of biochemical processes that attach and fuse with your wife so that she and her partner become one. Ejaculation plasma will go through different phases as her partner orgasms. The semen/plasma liquefies over time and is absorbed ether through the cervix or the vaginal walls. Also during this time oxcytocin another powerful sex hormone is released during sex and even greater quantities of up to 20% more are released post orgasm known as the cuddle phase. Oxcytocin is extremely powerful. One should take note that this is the time when the wife is most vulnerable to falling for her new partner and if one desires to keep only bonded emotionally and psychologically only to her husband then after orgasm it would be a great idea to avoid the "cuddle time".

This effect can indirectly confuse her body and this bonding phase she will go through will cause her to crave her new partner in various ways over her husband. Most people will assume this as part of NRE, but one needs to be aware here that there is actually a difference between what the rational mind wants and the body is requiring from her new lover during this period. During this induction phase she may even resist her husband's dick or choose her new partner over husband fucking her in order to acclimate to her different and yes sometimes larger counterpart. This is a natural part of the philosophy of evolution. For procreation sexually a woman will seek out the more dominant alpha male and her body will automatically start to build a desire for him. Size here also could become a real issue. In some cases I've observed in the community smaller men will seek out slightly larger men (bulls) in order to felicitate the increased sexual gratification for their wife. What ends up happening is that the wife's sexual chemistry will literally crave and desire only the larger counterpart to stretch and often go deeper during sexual intercourse. The act of sex can but not always be more gratifying by having a larger size. I have been told also that it isn't a better thing, but a different thing by various women. There are times when a woman will crave the pure raw power of being fucked and push her over the edge and other times when she will want a more romantic slower deeper connected effort from her husband or lover instead. Variety is good here. And having a slightly different or a smaller and a larger cock oftentimes is what a woman will want. It's the choice option. Having both vanilla and chocolate ice cream at anytime is always better than no choice at all.

In general terms this also means that sex with a 3'rd party with a condom means you are more isolated from this experience and this also goes for couples not married who have sex. I do wonder if this is also why when women who jump many partners during their life have a hard time bonding long term to one person, because their bodies literally are confused by the constant changing of partners and infusion of constant different DNA. The context of this also would obviously not necessarily involve LGBT partners if they were not born with the original equipment that produce the dozens chemical compounds in semen plasma only created and come together and absorbed through the vaginal walls. This also means in my opinion that sex between male and female is quite a bit more risky and biochemically the body will in general terms thrive, desire and demand that which doesn't often make sense psychologically. I'm not saying that NRE cannot happen between gay and lesbian couples, of course it can from a psychological perspective, but what I am saying is that normal and healthy male female couples have that extra biological component and that biochemistry only makes sense in terms of evolution and procreation.


Plateau Phase
Take note though that if during the induction phase which can last from a couple weeks to several months, if your wife has a much greater desire for her new male and to have sex with him, this will pass and she will eventually move to a plateau phase. During this phase the NRE effect will normalize and she will begin to see the benefits of having the choice of both men when she desires. And in an open marriage where there are a multitude of psychological and physiological factors, often times she may move to take in another partner or search for a replacement NRE. I've noticed that there really are no set rules here. The human body is insanely complex. A woman may not go through these phases at a specific time or even in that order, but from my experience it sheds light on a more rational and scientific approach to what happens during NRE.
 
Last edited:
So where did you c+p this hogwash from?
 
So where did you c+p this hogwash from?

I wrote it and if you have a problem with it, maybe you should explain why or move along and shut your trap. Have a nice day!

Oh... by the way I can cite the scientific studies on the compounds on semen/plasma as well as the bonding with partner for life through DNA infusion transfer as well as psychological bonding statistics if you would like. But this is just a bit of what I've already researched and written. If you have a different opinion and can cite scientific literature I would also be willing to dialogue further.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I can't decide if this is thoroughly offensive or just plain ludicrous. In any case, this was definitely written by a man who doesn't understand women even a little bit. All kinds of tiresome locker room assumptions, i don't even know where to begin.
 
Your welcome to challenge my assertions from a scientific standpoint. That would at least start from logic and rationality. would you like me to link the scientific studies on chemical bonding, DNA infusion through seminal fluid? How about breaking down your understanding of NRE and why so many women join this lifestyle in order to facilitate a sexual need that they could automatically get from a monogamous relationship but yet choose poly? Do you really think it is just head games and there is no biochemical component to all of this despite medical research saying otherwise? NRE is not just psychological it is VERY MUCH physical and peer bonding on a whole different level. And there is a very real element of danger inherent in living this lifestyle no matter if it is cuck, poly or ???
 
It's not the science of DNA and oxytocin and chemical compounds of semen and bareback sex I have issue with. It's the way you're addressing your post to married men, talking about "your wife," the stuff about penis size and "alpha males," and how one should lessen oxytocin effects to avoid bonding by refusing to let your wife cuddle another man.

Your views on "LGBT" relationships also seem very confused.

I don't think you know where you are. This is a board for polyamory, not for swingers or cuckold men and their wives.
 
It's a fairly standard Red Pill/Menist/MGTOW/unaffiliated misogynist theory. You'll find abbreviated versions of it in the comments for articles or blog posts that have anything to do with relationships that don't revolve around absolute female sexual fidelity (ie divorces, custody issues, etc). This guy is just using more words to say the same old thing.
 
Not only can semen be ingested for its benefits, but one really needs to understand that during sexual intercourse your wife will become permanently bonded for life with her partner if she does not use a condom.What I'm referring to is the direct infusion of DNA from her partner into her bloodstream which literally fuses with her body and becomes a part of her DNA for life.

H-H-HOLY MOLY. "Your wife will become permanently bonded for life" if a male gets semen into her. Do you mean that any woman will permanently bond for life with the first person who gets semen into her? Or is this just for some women? Can you show me the link to this scientific study? I'm interested in this stuff. I'd previously always thought it was just fiction on literotica.com. But if it's real, I mean... wow. Just wow.

By the way, I have never heard of DNA from semen entering the bloodstream intact. I always thought that there just weren't any proteins on the vaginal, cervical or uterine cell wall that could do that and the size of DNA prevents diffusion through the lipophilic cell wall. Again, if you've found something that the mainstream biologists are unaware of, can you show me the research? It would be a groundbreaking discovery. Nobel prize material even, I think. Thank you.

Best regards,
Shaya
 
It's not the science of DNA and oxytocin and chemical compounds of semen and bareback sex I have issue with. It's the way you're addressing your post to married men, talking about "your wife," the stuff about penis size and "alpha males," and how one should lessen oxytocin effects to avoid bonding by refusing to let your wife cuddle another man.

Your views on "LGBT" relationships also seem very confused.

I don't think you know where you are. This is a board for polyamory, not for swingers or cuckold men and their wives.

Well, since I'm a married man involved deeply into a poly relationship myself I can certainly give first hand experience in this role quite adequately. And sense most poly relationships are by far the husband pushing the wife into having a 3'rd person he actually has the greatest control in the arrangement and is the most likely to experience burn out. And sense usually in a poly relationship he is the one least likely to be involved sexualy other than to his wife, he is also the one most likely to fall out of the NREness because he is not experiencing it at all physically only psychologically from a kink perspective. I'm talking in general terms, not for all relationships. And yes... if you don't believe in evolution then you don't have to believe in alpha/beta male roles or alpha female roles. My post is about giving fair warning to men as they should realize that infusion of DNA is imminent in a bare back situation and permanent. If they don't want that they should make sure they apply and communicate that in the relationship. In a poly relationship, the men have far more control of the situation than they realize and they are getting the least out of it from a physical and psychological perspective. The vast number of most poly relationships statistically fail when the husband can't take it anymore and it gets to them. I will right a post and study on this later. If you're offended then go read another post that is more suitable for your liking. I'm a male and speaking from a male perspective of course.
 
It's a fairly standard Red Pill/Menist/MGTOW/unaffiliated misogynist theory. You'll find abbreviated versions of it in the comments for articles or blog posts that have anything to do with relationships that don't revolve around absolute female sexual fidelity (ie divorces, custody issues, etc). This guy is just using more words to say the same old thing.

Nope! Actually I've yet to see a biological component to any of those articles.
 
H-H-HOLY MOLY. "Your wife will become permanently bonded for life" if a male gets semen into her. Do you mean that any woman will permanently bond for life with the first person who gets semen into her? Or is this just for some women? Can you show me the link to this scientific study? I'm interested in this stuff. I'd previously always thought it was just fiction on literotica.com. But if it's real, I mean... wow. Just wow.

By the way, I have never heard of DNA from semen entering the bloodstream intact. I always thought that there just weren't any proteins on the vaginal, cervical or uterine cell wall that could do that and the size of DNA prevents diffusion through the lipophilic cell wall. Again, if you've found something that the mainstream biologists are unaware of, can you show me the research? It would be a groundbreaking discovery. Nobel prize material even, I think. Thank you.

Best regards,
Shaya

Nope! Actually the DNA size has nothing to do with infusion through the cell wall. I have no idea where you got that information. DNA is actually one of the smallest components of cellular make-up.

I'm happy I can provide info for you.

Crean AJ, Kopps AM, Bonduriansky R. Revisiting telegony: offspring inherit an acquired characteristic of mother’s previous mate. Ecology. 2014

University of New South Wales. "Semen secrets: How a previous sexual partner can influence another male's offspring." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 1 October 2014.

Angela J. Crean, Anna M. Kopps, Russell Bonduriansky. Revisiting telegony: offspring inherit an acquired characteristic of their mother's previous mate. Ecology Letters, 2014; DOI: 10.1111/ele.12373

I can cite about a dozen other medical studies on this topic. Just let me know since you're apparently unaware of this information. You obviously don't speak for the majority of biologists.

"Conducted by immunologists at the Fred Hutchinson Caner Center in 2004, the study took samples from 120 women who had never had sons. They found that 21% of these women had male DNA. The women were then categorized into four groups, according to pregnancy history: Group A had had only daughters, Group B had had one or more miscarriage(s), Group C had induced abortions, and Group D had never been pregnant before. The prevalence of male michrochimerism was considerably greater in Group C, although it was still present in each group: Group A showed 8%, Group B showed 22%, Group C showed 57%, and Group D showed 10%.

From these results, researchers hypothesized possible sources of male michrochimerism as known pregnancies, miscarriages, vanished male twins, or sexual intercourse. This means that through intercourse alone there is a potential for women to hold onto male genes and DNA within their organs and bloodstream for their entire life!"

"The evidence now shows that female animals can incorporate sperm DNA from her prior sex partners. This foreign DNA winds up in future children after the woman successfully reproduces with a completely different male. In the human world, this means that the children a man has with a promiscuous woman could possess genes from previous sexual partners he has never seen or met.

There are existing sociological studies that show a marriage is far more likely to fail when a woman had more than two prior sexual partners (1, 2, 3, 4), but now renewed support for the once-questionable field of telegony is showing that there are also genetic reasons not to start a family with a promiscuous woman: children you have with her may have their gene pool polluted by her random affairs and one-night stands."

"This was first noted to happen in the case of blood transfusions. If you have received blood while in a state of trauma, your donor’s DNA can become incorporated into your genome."

"The above study has two seismic implications. The first is that a woman can absorb enough DNA during her lifetime that it changes her phenotype (i.e. her appearance and overall health state). There could be some truth to the phrase “slut face” in which highly promiscuous women suffer a change to their appearance because of all the variable sperm from different males that have been deposited inside them."

"Microchimerism has also been noted in dogs, where older siblings pass on their DNA to younger siblings, suggesting that first-borns possess the highest genetic purity, a suspicion perhaps suspected by the royalty of old. Not only that, but the mother dogs incorporated Y-chromosome material from her male children. The mother dog essentially becomes more masculine by having sons."

"If a woman absorbs Y-chromosome genes from male sperm via casual sex, this would easily explain why women with high notch counts exhibit more masculine traits, something that any international playboy can anecdotally confirm. The promiscuous girl becomes more masculine because various masculine genes are being inserted into her genome and affecting her phenotype."

"Microchimerism is on the leading edge of genetic research that has lately included epigenetics, which is the switching on and off of certain genes due to environmental cues. Epigenetics has raised questions against evolutionary theory because it shows genetic adaption can occur within individual organisms without the need for natural selection. New research is revealing how little we actually know about how the human genome works, suggesting a more complex picture than we’ve imagined."
 
I don't have time to get into this with you, but I just wanted to point out that here you have cited the same academic paper twice, and linked to a media report of the same paper. So. Three citations. One piece of research. On flies.

Skimmed the abstract. Looks interesting, but it's a long way to go before you can say this study supports telegony a) actually happening here (unless we are willing to re-define telegony - me thinks the authors just wanted a provocative article title), and b) actually happening in other species. In any case, what they are describing are *non-genetic* transmission factors, as opposed to what telegony in it's original formulation was thought to be. It's interesting that the proteins contained in sperm can act as a 'nuptial gift' in species that don't normally do that kind of thing. Humans, as I'm sure you know, in having relationship structures that encourage the male to stick around, would seem to either have no need, or simply be less reliant, on such mechanisms. It seems likely that any nutritional or hormonal boost that you could get from healthy high quality sperm would be vastly outweighed by actual provisioning that an invested partner could make. As the same lead author points out in another short article, there is a long way to go from showing that there are possible mechanisms of Non-Genetic inheritance, to showing that those mechanisms actually do anything useful/real (Crean AJ & Youngson NA (2015) Both negative and positive data are needed for understanding non-genetic inheritance. Non-Genetic Inheritance 2: 2084-8846).

I'm happy I can provide info for you.

Crean AJ, Kopps AM, Bonduriansky R. Revisiting telegony: offspring inherit an acquired characteristic of mother’s previous mate. Ecology. 2014

University of New South Wales. "Semen secrets: How a previous sexual partner can influence another male's offspring." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 1 October 2014.

Angela J. Crean, Anna M. Kopps, Russell Bonduriansky. Revisiting telegony: offspring inherit an acquired characteristic of their mother's previous mate. Ecology Letters, 2014; DOI: 10.1111/ele.12373

I can cite about a dozen other medical studies on this topic.
 
"Conducted by immunologists at the Fred Hutchinson Caner Center in 2004, the study took samples from 120 women who had never had sons. They found that 21% of these women had male DNA. The women were then categorized into four groups, according to pregnancy history: Group A had had only daughters, Group B had had one or more miscarriage(s), Group C had induced abortions, and Group D had never been pregnant before. The prevalence of male michrochimerism was considerably greater in Group C, although it was still present in each group: Group A showed 8%, Group B showed 22%, Group C showed 57%, and Group D showed 10%.

From these results, researchers hypothesized possible sources of male michrochimerism as known pregnancies, miscarriages, vanished male twins, or sexual intercourse. This means that through intercourse alone there is a potential for women to hold onto male genes and DNA within their organs and bloodstream for their entire life!"

You don't say where this gem of a quote comes from, but my humble suggestion is that unless those in Group D had NEVER ACTUALLY HAD SEX (impossible, else they couldn't then say it was unprotected contact with sperm that was the key factor), there is no way to know whether they had ever been pregnant. The number of early doors miscarriages a woman has is very high. Period delayed by a few days? Get a particularly grotty period that month? Possibly a miscarriage. This can all happen before a woman even has a chance to start producing pregnancy hormones, and we do know that any foetal DNA can and is reabsorbed into the female body. To me, this seems like a much more convincing mechanism than 'sperm DNA get sucked into the vaginal wall' - which really does sound like a load of untested bollocks. To be clear, this doesn't prove your point about m-f NRE in any way, but foetal cell absorption could account for why women live longer than men.
 
"The evidence now shows that female animals can incorporate sperm DNA from her prior sex partners. This foreign DNA winds up in future children after the woman successfully reproduces with a completely different male. In the human world, this means that the children a man has with a promiscuous woman could possess genes from previous sexual partners he has never seen or met.

That's certainly not what the Crean et al 2014 article is saying. In Fig 1 they specifically talk about 'Offspring exhibit genetic effects of the sire (second male) and nongenetic effects of the first male '. NON-GENETIC EFFECTS. And they don't scale their study on flies up to speculating about humans at all. So, where is this coming from?
 
"This was first noted to happen in the case of blood transfusions. If you have received blood while in a state of trauma, your donor’s DNA can become incorporated into your genome."

"The above study has two seismic implications. The first is that a woman can absorb enough DNA during her lifetime that it changes her phenotype (i.e. her appearance and overall health state).

I can't believe you cited this study! That's hilarious! Firstly, you do know that the effect a) wears off over a matter of months, and b) has no functional effect whatsoever. This short debunk from Scientific American will explain: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/donor-blood-transfustion/

Secondly, it's not just women that experience DNA absorption from blood transfusions, it's just that the only way we can study it cost-effectively is to look at man to woman transfusion, because it's much easier to look for rogue Y chromosomes which couldn't otherwise have gotten there, than it is look for 'foreign' X chromosomes that women might get from other women, or 'foreign' X or Y chromosomes a man might get from another man (or women). I really hope you are not a professionally trained biologist, as that much should be super obvious.
 
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141001090238.htm

There is a link to the study by Crean and Kopps. Done on flies. The immature eggs of immature females may have absorbed DNA from the female flies' first mating... it doesn't say it was sucked into the vaginal walls, affecting the female herself, but was absorbed by the eggs themselves. I can only guess that the seminal fluid traveled thru her sex organ to her ovaries directly, not through her bloodstream. The female flies' first mating was done when she was immature (not sure how you get a sexually immature fly to mate, btw), and her larger mating partners were larger from a superior diet as maggots, not genetically larger.

The researchers themselves say they don't know if this happens in other species.

Certainly it's a large jump to imagine a sexually mature human female who "jumps" many males will over time attain to a more masculine "slut face." LOL Nowhere in this study was this suggested.

In other news, the "majority" of poly relationships are not instigated at the suggestion of men. Modern polyamory is found to be suggested by women just as often, if not more often, than by men. Many polyamorous people are unmarried and independent.

Many if not most polyamorous people use condoms regularly, thereby allowing the women to avoid slut face from absorbing male DNA lol :eek::rolleyes::D:p
 
"If a woman absorbs Y-chromosome genes from male sperm via casual sex [...]

No evidence from this at all. Possible evidence that it occurs as a result of undetected pregnancies. But see my caveat at the end of my post here.


[...] this would easily explain why women with high notch counts exhibit more masculine traits, something that any international playboy can anecdotally confirm. The promiscuous girl becomes more masculine because various masculine genes are being inserted into her genome and affecting her phenotype."

I suspect the 'masculine traits' one is referring to here go part in parcel with having a high sex drive in general. Yes, women with higher levels of testosterone exhibit high sex drives. This is why men are traditionally 'promiscuous' too. The 'anecdotal confirmation' here is simply observing that women that like to fuck a lot tend to act like men do in order to fuck a lot. If you need to posit a biological underpinning to this behaviour, then testosterone is your best bet. You don't need to be invoking magical sperm absorption to justify your slut shaming.

Listen. If you find male DNA in a woman's body, there's absolutely no evidence that this DNA is actually used by her body. Like with the blood transfusion study cited earlier, this foreign DNA seems to simply float around until it's broken down (unless it's stem cell DNA, which wouldn't be present in sperm, but might be in a foetus, or actual whole functioning white lymphocyte cells, which could step up and do a job within the immune system until it naturally breaks down, to be replaced by the woman's own lymphocytes with her own DNA). Finding foreign DNA in a body doesn't mean that DNA is being used. Every bit of bacteria in our system has it's own DNA. It is not OUR DNA. Likewise, the DNA they are finding is NOT the woman's actual DNA. I cannot stress this enough.
 
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141001090238.htm

There is a link to the study by Crean and Kopps. Done on flies. The immature eggs of immature females may have absorbed DNA from the female flies' first mating... it doesn't say it was sucked into the vaginal walls, affecting the female herself, but was absorbed by the eggs themselves. I can only guess that the seminal fluid traveled thru her sex organ to her ovaries directly, not through her bloodstream. The female flies' first mating was done when she was immature (not sure how you get a sexually immature fly to mate, btw), and her larger mating partners were larger from a superior diet as maggots, not genetically larger.

The researchers themselves say they don't know if this happens in other species.

Certainly it's a large jump to imagine a sexually mature human female who "jumps" many males will over time attain to a more masculine "slut face." LOL Nowhere in this study was this suggested.

In other news, the "majority" of poly relationships are not instigated at the suggestion of men. Modern polyamory is found to be suggested by women just as often, if not more often, than by men. Many polyamorous people are unmarried and independent.

Many if not most polyamorous people use condoms regularly, thereby allowing the women to avoid slut face from absorbing male DNA lol :eek::rolleyes::D:p

I agree with you Mags, particularly with regards to condom use rendering most of this utter bullshit. However, I want to correct you on your summary of the article. There is no DNA transfer or absorption going on here. The article makes it very clear that this is a non-genetic transmission. Basically, previous contact (as in, literally last fly shagged) with high quality sperm encourages eggs that haven't quite matured in the lady fly to step up, effectively, and help produce bigger and better larvae. None of the first flies DNA is in the offspring, they are just bigger and stronger like he was. So, a super indirect link between different male partners, in a super-unrelated species to us, and with no actual DNA transferral.

Men of polyamory.com, rest assured that your female partner can fuck as many men as she likes: your DNA (and hers) will be the only DNA in your baby. But if that good old fly-mechanism persists in our species still, her eggs will be super ripe and juicy and your baby will be bigger. Sounds like a win to evolution, and future baby health, to me!
 
I agree with you Mags, particularly with regards to condom use rendering most of this utter bullshit. However, I want to correct you on your summary of the article. There is no DNA transfer or absorption going on here. The article makes it very clear that this is a non-genetic transmission. Basically, previous contact (as in, literally last fly shagged) with high quality sperm encourages eggs that haven't quite matured in the lady fly to step up, effectively, and help produce bigger and better larvae. None of the first flies DNA is in the offspring, they are just bigger and stronger like he was. So, a super indirect link between different male partners, in a super-unrelated species to us, and with no actual DNA transferral.

Men of polyamory.com, rest assured that your female partner can fuck as many men as she likes: your DNA (and hers) will be the only DNA in your baby. But if that good old fly-mechanism persists in our species still, her eggs will be super ripe and juicy and your baby will be bigger. Sounds like a win to evolution, and future baby health, to me!

Well her offspring will only be larger, if her directly former lovers were also larger. Correct? Either genetically larger or larger from a nutritious diet?

I know humans have become larger than in the past from better diets.

From the link: "molecules in the seminal fluid of the first mate being absorbed by the female's immature eggs and then influencing the growth of offspring of a subsequent mate." So those molecules aren't DNA, but some other factor? So the superior diet of the first mate affects his sperm some days or months later, causing it to have some kind of growth factor in offspring (which offspring are not his own) of his female mate, again, some days or months later? The well fed fly's sperm actually somehow nutrifies his mating partner's eggs? Odd.

Therefore if a female fly mates with an underfed male fly, his sperm will have no effect on her immature eggs.

But at any rate, there is no DNA transmission, as per the OP's assertion. So it's all moot.
 
Back
Top