I keep seeing lies about biology like this on social media. This is all wrong.
A man’s DNA can stay in a woman for years sometimes. The DNA of other men can even affect her next child’s physical features or mental traits especially if the women had a child with another man or even a miscarriage or abortion. This was probably well know by the ancients or modern day religions like Islam which is why they would strongly prefer to marry and have children with virgins. So let it be known fellas, the more your girl slept around before you met her the more men’’s DNA is flowing through her like ghosts of the past, and her 🐱 is the cemetery gates
I have embryology textbooks all over the place, and this is what they have to say.
Sperm can survive in a man’s testicles for a few months. That’s a pleasant environment for a sperm cell, but even there they’re undergoing a slow process of maturation, and are eventually going to be broken down and resorbed. That’s the maximum longevity for these cells.
A woman’s reproductive tract is warm and moist and allows for limited survival, but is adapted to protect her from infections by maintaining a mildly acidic environment. It’s a somewhat hostile place that has to tolerate foreign cells, but not for long — sperm will last for 3-5 days, not years.
You may have heard of a phenomenon called microchimerism, in which fetal cells, shed during pregnancy, persist for years. These are somatic cells, not sperm cells. Sperm cells are highly specialized and have minimized their cytoplasm and cannot survive for that long.
The textbooks usually mention that sperm can survive for about an hour outside of a human body. That’s optimistic (or pessimistic, if you want to avoid pregnancy). Evaporation or absorption of the surrounding fluid is going to kill the little fuckers pretty fast.
It’s clear how these bad ideas get around — the hint is in the text. The “ancients” or “religion” are terrible sources of information, since none of them had anything but the vaguest notion of how reproduction or inheritance work, and didn’t even know about the existence of cells until, at best, three hundred years ago. Another obvious source is a cultural bias favoring virginity (a bogus concept already), and this is an attempt to rationalize that belief with made-up “facts”.
Don’t redact the stupid. Let the world know. That’s one way nonsense persist.
The first sentence is true! If the woman is the man’s daughter. She will get a portion of his DNA and it will stay with here throughout her entire life.
After that, it gets pretty crazy.
These weirdos have some strange delusions. They’ve started to sound to me as if they think we’re living in Tolkien’s Middle Earth, or something much like it. A society that’s much degraded from a prior one where people were wise and far more knowledgable. Somehow. But magically without education because they obviously hate that stuff.
Wake me when they start looking for hobbits. Or get a real idea in their heads and start talking about how stupidly wrong ideas can linger in someone’s mind for years instead of bizarre sperm fantasies.
I strongly resemble my maternal uncle, grandfather, and great-grandfather. And my niece. We could all be quadruplets–that’s how strong the resemblance is. Does that mean that my mom had sex with her brother, father, and grandfather before I was born, or that my sister had sex with our uncle or grandfather? How ridiculous. The “look” simply runs in the family–sometimes.
You know… Even if it were completely true, why should it even matter?
Ampphiox @5: Because these weirdos are obsessed with female “purity.” Which is just another word for slut shaming and treating any women who aren’t virgins as if they’re the worst thing ever.
At least this idiot got something right.
He is too stupid and ignorant to marry anyone.
It would be best for the world and himself if he doesn’t reproduce.
They teach the basics of human reproduction by the third grade in most places. They obviously missed out on that and never bothered to read a few paragraphs from a Google search.
Hmm, English kings had to marry virgins because non-virgins were considered ‘tainted’. So if that if they’d followed modern knowledge back in the 1930s we’d have had the (apparently) Nazi loving Edward VIII instead of George VI. Didn’t the kennel club(s) follow such principles once?
Before any current religions existed, humans learned about the birds and the bees and about how human reproduction works. But before any of that, primitive humans thought the theory of partible paternity was plausible. Under this logic, a woman could choose to make love with half of the villager men one night, and everyone believed that the resulting baby would inherit traits from all of the men involved. So if you want your child to be smart and strong and a good leader, then a woman is morally obliged to invite a smart man, a strong man, and a man in leadership to visit her on the night she chooses.
Of course, in these cultures, the logic would require that inheritance and relationships and power would all descend in a matriarchal hierarchy. This might have existed in Europe at the time the statuette of the Venus of Willendorf was made and probably worshipped.
So these modern incel bros are actually wishing for a traditional society in which the leadership decisions were probably mostly made by women.
Well, it’s probably better than our current government.
re: #8, no, English kings were not required to marry virgins. Two historical instances that disprove that assertion are Eleanor of Aquataine married to Henry II after her marriage to Louis VII of France, with whom she had two daughters, was annulled and Elizabeth Woodville the widow of John Grey, with whom she had two sons, who married Edward IV.
There was a theory that had sperm living thousands of years (in matryoshka doll men back to Adam), but I don’t know if proponents ever imagined homunculi from past couplings influencing later ones.
Wikipedia – Homunculus, Preformationism
Wikipedia – Preformationism
Bruce @9:
Ah. That’s the term I needed.
Wikipedia – Telegony (inheritance)
“This is why I won’t marry until I find a virgin.”
Also note, he’s saying nothing about staying a virgin himself.
Of course there are many species in which females can store sperm for years. We just don’t happen to be one of them.
“Also note, he’s saying nothing about staying a virgin himself.”
Though it seems very likely.
Every day it seems comes new evidence of a world heading at breakneck speed back to the Dark Ages and beyond.
I don’t get why they are so obsessed with sexual reproduction.
The obvious reproductive peak is to 3D print a whole human body as a vessel for an AI, like in William Gibson’s Idoru.
And in the opposite direction, I want to get uploaded. That way I can deal with boring stretches by reducing the clock speed.
Birger, I’m pretty sure it’s not about reproduction as such.
Or even the nookie.
It’s about ‘mine mine mine all mine’ thinking.
Ownership. Proprietary purity.
(Don’t want to be ‘cucked’, do we?)
@13 John Harshman
Ha! That may have been true before the invention of cryogenic storage.
Welcome to Cryos – the world’s largest sperm and egg bank
@17 Spot on John.
@submoron #8:
Edward VIII got into trouble for wanting to marry a divorcee. It was divorce which was seen as scandalous at the time, because it meant that the divorcing couple had broken their marriage vows made in the sight of God and that at least one of the two had done something terrible to cause that, while their partner wasn’t held entirely blameless either because they had failed to forgive the culpable one.
Modern British society doesn’t see it like that, fortunately, although some churches still do. One of my friends has been divorced twice; his second marriage couldn’t take place in the church his fiancee had grown up in and he was refused access to a church celebration for his third marriage. If he’d had a more liberal taste in churches he could have found somewhere less fastidious, leading to my remark that it was the architecture of the location that really appealed to him (fortunately he saw the funny side of that).
@5. Amphiox : “You know… Even if it were completely true, why should it even matter?”
Yup – good question and good to see you commening here again.
@6. microraptor
All whilst they themselves are keen to make as many attractive young ladies NOT virgins as possible whilst not being anywhere near as keen to marry them. Nor to stay virgins until marrriage themselves.
@18. John Morales : “Birger, I’m pretty sure it’s not about reproduction as such. Or even the nookie. It’s about ‘mine mine mine all mine’ thinking.”
Yup. Don’t want to share and think of women as property or lesser and not independent people who might want to have experiences and likely an element of insecurity in fearing such comparisons wouldn’t be in their favour.
submoron@8, Rich Woods@21,
Andrew Lownie (British author of a number of books about British royal scandals) believes Edward VIII’s Nazi sympathies* were the real reason he was manoeuvered into abdicating, with his wish to marry Wallis Simpson being used as a convenient lever. He also says Wallis would have been quite happy to have remained his mistress – she enjoyed the parties and perks, but had no wish for the official and public role of queen consort, and it was Edward who insisted on marriage.
*After the abdication, during WW2, there is clear evidence that Edward actually committed treason by passing military secrets to the Nazis, and conspiring with them to replace his brother on the throne following a German victory – although many of the key documents are still being kept under wraps if they haven’t actually been destroyed.
@23
“believes Edward VIII’s Nazi sympathies* were the real reason he was manoeuvered into abdicating”
I’m curious, manoeuvered by whom? (I’m not too up on this bit of history)
@24: We may never know: There was rather wide agreement among the anonymous People Who Really Ruled Things (all men at the time) that Edward Had to Go, not least because he had screwed many of their wives. Also many of the PWRRT had fought (and lost friends) in WW1 and considered that a pro-German fascist monarch was one up with whom they would not put.