Theory on NRE between m/f relationships

[tenK]

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.

Odd, but yes, you've nailed it. His jacked up nutritionally superior sperm (not his DNA) encourage her as yet un-ripe eggs to develop better than ordinary run-of-the-mill sperm would. It makes sense evolutionarily speaking because in a normal mating scenario, he would be the one reaping the rewards of that, in that he would be able to stick around and fertilise those eggs. The manipulation in the experiment prevents this of course, and instead hands her (and her lovely eggs) over to a male who has been lacking nutrition.

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

His sperm doesn't elicit large larvae, no, but it's still more than capable of fertilising that egg. There's nothing wrong with his DNA, so fly babies ensue. If the under fed fly is the one mating first, his sperm doesn't trigger her eggs to strongly develop, so even when the over-fed fly is the one to impregnate her on that cycle, the babies resemble the weaker fly in stature. This is additional evidence that whatever is going on here, it is not the DNA in the sperm that is responsible.

Here's a super simplified explanation of what the study shows in each of it's conditions. Note that since flies don't differ much in features, but do in relative size, that's why the authors are making the claim that they physically resemble the previous donor. They are bigger or smaller than the genetic father. Which as you say, can be due to things like better diets, and apparently also this protein-transfer mechanism with the sperm.

under fed fly > regular eggs + well fed fly DNA = regular fly babies (don't look like dad)

well fed fly > super-charged eggs + under fed fly DNA = super-charged babies (don't look like dad)

under fed fly > regular eggs + under fed fly DNA = regular fly babies (look like dad)

well fed fly > super-charged eggs + well fed fly DNA = super-charge babies (look like dad)

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

Yup. Pretty much!

 

[Magdlyn]

Odd, but yes, you've nailed it. His jacked up nutritionally superior sperm (not his DNA) encourage her as yet un-ripe eggs to develop better than ordinary run-of-the-mill sperm would. It makes sense evolutionarily speaking because in a normal mating scenario, he would be the one reaping the rewards of that, in that he would be able to stick around and fertilise those eggs. The manipulation in the experiment prevents this of course, and instead hands her (and her lovely eggs) over to a male who has been lacking nutrition.

When you say "sperm" above, you mean "semen," right? The sperm cells contain the DNA. The fluid, the semen, is what contains, perhaps, extra vitamins, etc., from his superior diet, which is somehow (not sure how) nutritious to the immature ova of the sexually immature female.

 

[tbrock]

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 can post more studies if you would like. There is a fair amount of research going on this area right now.

"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."

It's actually not the semen as men generally only carry roughly 1-5% semen in ejaculation. The real benefit comes from the 95%ish plasma which contains far better chemical compounds that are actually absorbed into the woman's blood stream and effect her just as the DNA becomes permanently bonded and infused for life. But I do get what your saying about time invested. I just thought it was interesting.

 

[tbrock]

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

That's because flies don't have vaginal walls. shesh. But yes in woman DNA along with all other compounds ARE absorbed through the vaginal walls and cervix directly into the bloodstream. There are literally reams of information on this. You can find all kinds of topics on woman absorbing various chemicals through intercourse. How the hell do you think HIV and STDs are transmitted? Duhhh!

 

[tbrock]

Odd, but yes, you've nailed it. His jacked up nutritionally superior sperm (not his DNA) encourage her as yet un-ripe eggs to develop better than ordinary run-of-the-mill sperm would. It makes sense evolutionarily speaking because in a normal mating scenario, he would be the one reaping the rewards of that, in that he would be able to stick around and fertilise those eggs. The manipulation in the experiment prevents this of course, and instead hands her (and her lovely eggs) over to a male who has been lacking nutrition.


His sperm doesn't elicit large larvae, no, but it's still more than capable of fertilising that egg. There's nothing wrong with his DNA, so fly babies ensue. If the under fed fly is the one mating first, his sperm doesn't trigger her eggs to strongly develop, so even when the over-fed fly is the one to impregnate her on that cycle, the babies resemble the weaker fly in stature. This is additional evidence that whatever is going on here, it is not the DNA in the sperm that is responsible.

Here's a super simplified explanation of what the study shows in each of it's conditions. Note that since flies don't differ much in features, but do in relative size, that's why the authors are making the claim that they physically resemble the previous donor. They are bigger or smaller than the genetic father. Which as you say, can be due to things like better diets, and apparently also this protein-transfer mechanism with the sperm.

under fed fly > regular eggs + well fed fly DNA = regular fly babies (don't look like dad)

well fed fly > super-charged eggs + under fed fly DNA = super-charged babies (don't look like dad)

under fed fly > regular eggs + under fed fly DNA = regular fly babies (look like dad)

well fed fly > super-charged eggs + well fed fly DNA = super-charge babies (look like dad)



Yup. Pretty much!

You're not fighting me on this. You re fighting the scientific community and plenty of research journals written up on this. Good Luck with your endeavour. I would be glad to post more studies if you would like. By the way what is your degree in?

 

[tenK]

When you say "sperm" above, you mean "semen," right? The sperm cells contain the DNA. The fluid, the semen, is what contains, perhaps, extra vitamins, etc., from his superior diet, which is somehow (not sure how) nutritious to the immature ova of the sexually immature female.

Yes, I do mean semen. Sorry. I've been writing this all on the bus! The researchers themselves haven't figured out the precise mechanism, but have proven that contact with semen is important, and that the composition of semen is known to vary based on the nutritional health of the male.

 

[tenK]

I can post more studies if you would like. There is a fair amount of research going on this area right now.

"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."

It's actually not the semen as men generally only carry roughly 1-5% semen in ejaculation. The real benefit comes from the 95%ish plasma which contains far better chemical compounds that are actually absorbed into the woman's blood stream and effect her just as the DNA becomes permanently bonded and infused for life. But I do get what your saying about time invested. I just thought it was interesting.

Show me the studies that show DNA from male sperm become 'permanently bonded and infused for life' as part of a woman's DNA, because this is the part of your theory that I think is in most dispute.

 

[tenK]

That's because flies don't have vaginal walls. shesh. But yes in woman DNA along with all other compounds ARE absorbed through the vaginal walls and cervix directly into the bloodstream. There are literally reams of information on this. You can find all kinds of topics on woman absorbing various chemicals through intercourse. How the hell do you think HIV and STDs are transmitted? Duhhh!

I'm not contesting that viruses (and their DNA) can pass into a woman's body through sex. I'm also happy that other 'compounds' (terribly vague term, but hey ho) could enter the bloodstream. I mean, cocaine can be absorbed via mucous membranes. Many other substances can too. What I query is how that changes a woman's genome. The fly study was a good case in point. The compounds in the sperm changed the environment for the female, indicating that now was a good time to produce quality eggs. It didn't change her DNA and the offspring that resulted didn't contain any of her previous partner's genetic material.

 

[tenK]

You're not fighting me on this. You re fighting the scientific community and plenty of research journals written up on this. Good Luck with your endeavour. I would be glad to post more studies if you would like. By the way what is your degree in?

I'm not fighting the academic literature or the scientific community. The authors of the studies discussed so far are not claiming DNA transferral: you are.

My PhD had an evolutionary component, but biology is not my background. I'm a published scientist though, although that shouldn't necessarily add any weight to my comments.

 

[Magdlyn]

That's because flies don't have vaginal walls. shesh.

I don't have a working knowledge of this fly's reproductive organ design. I assume male flies have penises and female flies have something like
a vagina to allow the penis to introduce semen to reach her eggs. Please provide diagrams of both sexes of the reproductive organs of this particular fly. Thank you.


At any rate, you are claiming human male DNA transmission to the human female's body during intercourse in your posts, causing permanent changes to the woman's physical makeup, and the study about flies you cited did not back it up.

But yes in woman DNA along with all other compounds ARE absorbed through the vaginal walls and cervix directly into the bloodstream. There are literally reams of information on this. You can find all kinds of topics on woman absorbing various chemicals through intercourse. How the hell do you think HIV and STDs are transmitted? Duhhh!

No need to curse or diss me with "duh." You come across as a schoolyard bully. As a new member here, you may not have read the guidelines which prohibit disrespectful conversation. I said I found your premise hogwash. I did not attack you personally.

I also said your theories about MM and FF sex are unfounded. You know some gay or bi males do anal intercourse. Chemicals are absorbed when introduced into the rectum/intestine as well... How does that impact your hypothesis?

If you'd like us to take your "scientific theories" seriously, there is no need to ask if we want more studies to back up your claims about male DNA from semen absorbed into the vagina, making promiscuous women (who "jump" a lot of guys ) more male, and giving them "slut face." You also claim that unprotected sex with many partners is a biological component to NRE. We already know hormones produced in glands which travel to the brain, in the beginnings of a relationship affect libido, mood, attachment, bonding, obsessive thoughts about a new partner. If you think actual semen during unprotected sex increases NRE, please share your data. It seems to me, enough is going on in the endocrine system during NRE. Not sure how the semen, assuming unprotected sex in the beginning stages (which is not often practiced in poly) plays a role.

Again, most poly people use condoms continuously. Some become fluid bonded in stable non-promiscuous relationships, usually after NRE has abated at least somewhat. You've provided no data showing a promiscuous woman's DNA is permanently changed from the sperm in her vagina during unprotected intercourse, making her more male, and giving her "slut face," while also making her "one" with every one of her lovers.

 

[Magdlyn]

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.

If your idea of poly is 2 men, one woman, you have no knowledge of V arrangements of one man dating 2 women, which is also common. And each of those women might be dating another guy, and so on.

And sense [sic] most poly relationships are by far the husband pushing the wife into having a 3'rd person...

This is just incorrect. A little reading here of people practicing poly will show you are wrong.

... he actually has the greatest control in the arrangement and is the most likely to experience burn out. And sense...

You mean "since."

...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.

Polyamory isn't "kink." And again, many poly men have more than one lover, either 2 women (or 3 or 4...) or a male as well as female lover, if he is bi.

I'm talking in general terms, not for all relationships.

It seems you are speaking as a cuckold.

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.

Try telling that to the happily polyamorous (non-cuckold) men on this board...

The vast number of most poly relationships statistically fail when the husband can't take it anymore and it gets to them.

Cite some data, please.

I will right [sic] a post and study on this later.

I await with bated breath.

I'm a male and speaking from a male perspective of course.

If you're talking science about DNA and NRE and polyamory in general, you should leave your gender and particular lovestyle (cuckolding) out of your hypothesis.

 

[Shaya]

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.

Wow. This thread's just become too much to read tbrock. Admire your dedication though. Like I said before, I'm just interested in the part where the woman will be bonded to the man for life if he ejaculates in her. The implications for rape are breathtaking. What do you think will happen in this context?

I read an article on the news recently about a law in many countries that forgives the rapist totally if he marries his rape victim and stays married for 3 years. The article was writing it saying that the country of Jordan was trying to remove the law and that the removal of the law was good thing. Other countries that have removed similar laws include Italy in 1981, France in 1994, Peru in 1998, Romania in 2000, Uruguay in 2006 and Costa Rica in 2007. The article goes on to say that Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Palestine and Syria, as well as several countries in Latin America and Asia still have similar versions of this law. This blows my mind especially when I read what you write. My question to you is, do you feel that laws such as this could be evidence of human evolution trying to give women who are raped the chance to bond with their alpha male in the context of your theory?

 

[tbrock]

Show me the studies that show DNA from male sperm become 'permanently bonded and infused for life' as part of a woman's DNA, because this is the part of your theory that I think is in most dispute.

Well that's easy to do. All you have to do is spend 5 minutes googling microchimerism or male microchimerism. Here is one of many non scientific journal articles giving the basics. http://www.returnofkings.com/70425/...dna-from-the-semen-of-her-casual-sex-partners

and

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/aristotle-...can-influence-another-males-offspring-1468015

And no you have hardly dealt with or debunked the medical literature connecting fruit flies.

"It was already observed that the human female body acts as a sponge for foreign DNA placed within it."

It is possible that Mc [microchimerism] in the brain is able to differentiate into various mature phenotypes or undergoes fusion with pre-existing cells and acquires a new phenotype, as suggested by murine and human studies in which bone marrow-derived cells circulated to the brain and generated neuronal cells by differentiation, or fused with pre-existing neurons.

Women are the carrier of DNA from every partner they have ever had sexual intercourse with when condoms were not used.

There are many laboratories doing experiments and studies as we speak across the world on microchimerism. It shows a lot of promise for various reason including stem cell research. I don't know what field of study you are into but here in biochemistry and biology this very well known.

 

[Emm]

Here is one of many non scientific journal articles giving the basics. http://www.returnofkings.com/70425/...dna-from-the-semen-of-her-casual-sex-partners

You're seriously citing Return of Kings? Any last vestiges of credibility you may have had just went firmly out the window.

For anyone unfamiliar with the website, it's run by a pro-rape (yes, actually pro-rape, not just a rape apologist; he has publicly advocated for a law making rape legal on private property) PUA known as Roosh V. It is heavily misogynistic and is populated by sad little men who think the only way women have value is for their fuckability, and then only the first time as after that they're not virgins anymore and so have lost their worth.

 

[vinsanity0]

You're seriously citing Return of Kings? Any last vestiges of credibility you may have had just went firmly out the window.

For anyone unfamiliar with the website, it's run by a pro-rape (yes, actually pro-rape, not just a rape apologist; he has publicly advocated for a law making rape legal on private property) PUA known as Roosh V. It is heavily misogynistic and is populated by sad little men who think the only way women have value is for their fuckability, and then only the first time as after that they're not virgins anymore and so have lost their worth.

I think it's obvious that the OP's hypothesis (it can hardly be called theory) is tainted by a certain cultural attitude. The whole thing sounds like an argument for a One Penis Policy for life.

 

[powerpuffgrl1969]

I read a couple of the articles on that Return of Kings site. I'm glad to know that, by giving women the right to vote, Western Civilization has gone to Hell in a handbasket.

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS

 

[Magdlyn]

http://www.returnofkings.com/70425/...dna-from-the-semen-of-her-casual-sex-partners

Ah, there's the article you cut and pasted in post #11. "Slut face" and "notch count."
"International playboy can confirm."
So scientific!

and

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/aristotle-...can-influence-another-males-offspring-1468015

And a 3rd rerun of the fruit fly experiment.

"It was already observed that the human female body acts as a sponge for foreign DNA placed within it."

Her body may be influenced by her own fetus, which resides in her body 9 months. Blood transfusions last a few days. Semen from a one night stand affecting a further baby from a different sperm donor? Ridiculous.

There are many laboratories doing experiments and studies as we speak across the world on microchimerism. It shows a lot of promise...

Your return of kings, virgin loving, rape positive article says there is surprisingly little research being done on this theory. Maybe because it's a dead end.

 

[Tinwen]

Thank you so much, tenK, Magdlyn, Shaya and others for going through the references This thread gave me a good laugh yesterday evening.

Anyway... just a stream of thoughts... science not supervised by ethical values gets cruel, science supervised by ethics to much get's fake. Science in the hands of the ignorant get's misused, science in the hands of the experienced is liable to get rigid (paradigm locked). Science not connected to culture can arrive at far-fetched conclusions (not to mention is impossible), science tied to culture has always bias. Misinterpretation is omnipresent.
A lot of really bad science is being done nowadays all over the globe. A lot of great science too. A little skepticism even towards science itself is healthy.

I'm a scientist too, of course

 

[JaneQSmythe]

Show me the studies that show DNA from male sperm become 'permanently bonded and infused for life' as part of a woman's DNA, because this is the part of your theory that I think is in most dispute.

Yes, this is certainly the most obviously refutable tidbit in the whole mess! Show me the study where they run chromosome analysis on a cohort of retired prostitutes and compare that with a chromosome analysis of pubertal female children.

Thank you so much, tenK, Magdlyn, Shaya and others for going through the references

I second the thanks to the others for fact-checking. I thought initially that I was going to have to drag out my scientific/medical soapbox to post a rebuttal so that other innocent readers of this atrocious pseudo-science rant wouldn't be inadvertently influenced by this drivel.

 

[Magdlyn]

Yes, this is certainly the most obviously refutable tidbit in the whole mess! Show me the study where they run chromosome analysis on a cohort of retired prostitutes and compare that with a chromosome analysis of pubertal female children.

Don't most prostitutes use condoms for intercourse these days though? I guess it depends...