Talk About Marriage banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Body Count - What’s your limit?

Jump to Latest
281 - 300 of 938 Posts
#281 ·
Frithy said:
That's cute and all, but I'm saying, and this is science mind you, I'm saying if you have children with a woman which had previous partners, those children are not completely yours and hers. Those previous partners are part of your children. You are, to some degree, being cucked in the truest sense of the meaning; you'd be rasing another man's children.
Click to expand...
Sorry but this is crazy talk.
 
#284 ·
Jakobs said:
I "sound insecure and triggered" because I told you that not everything is about your wiener?

The only reason you opine the way you do is because you have a penis-centric opinion on everything. To the likes of you, life is a lot easier if your day starts with "what would my penis do?" I bet you're the type to sit there on the couch watching TV, alone, endlessly caressing your privates just in case they decided to take a Caribbean vacation and forgot to tell you.

Jokes aside, the way men tend to think about body count has as of recently been backed up by poll data: Body count is a predictor of relationship success. Holly sh-t! Who would've thunk it huh? Boy oh boy, turns out all those millions of years of evolution and the genetic load acquired in the process DO COUNT after all. The higher the body count in a female, the lower their capacity to bond with males, hence the lower the ability to stay in a long term committed relationship. These are FACKS.
Click to expand...
I run more than one company, I can't sit around and do anything, heck I can't even get a reasonable lunch break, but nice try..

You have what 1500 plus posts to come up with a single one to substantiate your assertion...You should have plenty to pick from...Go ahead and knock yourself out...

And BTW, thank you for confirming my last assertion...but seriously...sorry you get so triggered, maybe take a break for a while and get some fresh air..the weather is getting nice now..
 
#285 ·
I am surprised those articles were published. Judging by the fact that the text is available to everybody and not behind the paywall, this happens to be an open access journal. Meaning people likely pay to publish in it. Unless it was an invited review, in which case I am deeply disappointed with the editors.
I give it to the authors - they do propose some mechanism. But I still find the paper pretty sloppy. Lot of references to 19-th century papers to boost the claim of "widely known facts". Using mice or rabbit models without addressing their applicability to humans or alternative explanations for observations.
"Male cells were found in women who were not pregnant with boys before"... What type of cells, in what concentration, in what organs, how long after sexual contact? For telegony to be a thing (i.e being more likely explanation fro some oopses than people lying about cheating) one has to have huge concentrations of former partner's genetic material persisting in female reproductive organs for long times. Unless we are talking about fresh sperm, this stuff propagates by diffusion. So statistically the most of the new man's sperm cells will not have a chance to encounter the previous male's genes if there are just a few of those "uterosomes" floating around...

OK, threadjack off...
 
#287 ·
umbluu said:
I am surprised those articles were published. Judging by the fact that the text is available to everybody and not behind the paywall, this happens to be an open access journal. Meaning people likely pay to publish in it. Unless it was an invited review, in which case I am deeply disappointed with the editors.
I give it to the authors - they do propose some mechanism. But I still find the paper pretty sloppy. Lot of references to 19-th century papers to boost the claim of "widely known facts". Using mice or rabbit models without addressing their applicability to humans or alternative explanations for observations.
"Male cells were found in women who were not pregnant with boys before"... What type of cells, in what concentration, in what organs, how long after sexual contact? For telegony to be a thing (i.e being more likely explanation fro some oopses than people lying about cheating) one has to have huge concentrations of former partner's genetic material persisting in female reproductive organs for long times. Unless we are talking about fresh sperm, this stuff propagates by diffusion. So statistically the most of the new man's sperm cells will not have a chance to encounter the previous male's genes if there are just a few of those "uterosomes" floating around...

OK, threadjack off...
Click to expand...
I noticed similar errancies in different articles.
 
#288 ·
Frithy said:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Uterosomes: The lost ring of telegony? - PubMed

Telegony refers to the appearance of some characteristics of the female's previously mated male in her subsequent offspring by another male. According to evidence, telegony may occur either through the infiltration of sperm into the somatic tissues of the female genital tract or the presence of...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Revisiting telegony: offspring inherit an acquired characteristic of their mother's previous mate - PubMed

Newly discovered non-genetic mechanisms break the link between genes and inheritance, thereby also raising the possibility that previous mating partners could influence traits in offspring sired by subsequent males that mate with the same female ('telegony'). In the fly Telostylinus...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Well, here are two studies exploring it with results showing it to be factual. Where is a post epigenetic scientific rebuttal? Calling something a hoax without evidence is quite condescending. Are you sure you aren't calling it a hoax because it would hurt your ego too much otherwise?
Click to expand...
So then this article is postulating that humans, like some other animals, such as dogs, can actually partially retain sperm from a previous mate to mix withe current one and produce mixed off spring??
If so, then there are probably billions of chucked men on earth!
 
#289 ·
TinyTbone said:
So then this article is postulating that humans, like some other animals, such as dogs, can actually partially retain sperm from a previous mate to mix withe current one and produce mixed off spring??
If so, then there are probably billions of chucked men on earth!
Click to expand...
Wonder how this affects paternity tests?🤣
 
Discussion starter · #290 ·
ConanHub said:
Your kids, assuming no paternity fraud took place, have access to your ancestry as well as your wife's when it comes to expression as well as environmental influences.

Anything genetic came through you and your wife.

Environmental influences are pretty significant some times.
Click to expand...
So, cool. I can stlll blame ancestors long gone by now.

On her side, of course.
 
#294 ·
These telegonic studies and positive results go all the way back to the time of Darwin. The results were only dismissed as they didn't seem possible with Mendelian genetics. With our modern understanding of how genes and characteristics can transfer somatically and epigenetically, the results can not simply be wished away. Further, while there have been studies done on Mice, neither of the studies I provided were. The first study was a recap of the available research and speculation on an explanation for how it is happening. The second was a study on insects. Again, more lies from the peanut gallery.

Look, the truth is that those opposing what I've written have provided no evidence at all and have only tried to attack the credibility of the papers as somehow not being up to snuff and lambasted the idea with nonsensical insults and hand-waving. This will be my last post in response to these intellectually dishonest "men" until such time as any can respond with evidence and reason and not magical-thinking that appeals to our human desire to hide from unfortunate news.
 
#295 ·
Frithy said:
These telegonic studies and positive results go all the way back to the time of Darwin. The results were only dismissed as they didn't seem possible with Mendelian genetics. With our modern understanding of how genes and characteristics can transfer somatically and epigenetically, the results can not simply be wished away. Further, while there have been studies done on Mice, neither of the studies I provided were. The first study was a recap of the available research and speculation on an explanation for how it is happening. The second was a study on insects. Again, more lies from the peanut gallery.

Look, the truth is that those opposing what I've written have provided no evidence at all and have only tried to attack the credibility of the papers as somehow not being up to snuff and lambasted the idea with nonsensical insults and hand-waving. This will be my last post in response to these intellectually dishonest "men" until such time as any can respond with evidence and reason and not magical-thinking that appeals to our human desire to hide from unfortunate news.
Click to expand...
I also do not have to provide evidence that the moon is not made of cheese.

While it would be easily debunked, it isn't worth the time to work to show evidence of every foolish claim.

You should definitely be against paternity DNA tests.
 
#296 ·
There's actually some peer reviewed published academic research on this topic involving real people/marriages.
The research didn't address morals but rather the impact on satisfaction in long term relationships and health.

You can find the study in Google Scholar for sure. I read a summary but can't recall where.

They found that beyond 10 partners there was a greater likelihood of being dissatisfied in a long term relationship.
And with respect to women, more than 10 partners is associated with a greater incidence of cancer.
 
#297 ·
Body count kinda matters in terms of health to me and that my husband and myself were using precaution with other partners and following up with checkups. I do have a male cousin who cares that a female's body count should be little to none, but the problem is my cousin is well over one to two hundred! He's close to 40 years old, single, and always has one night stands. If he's in a relationship. It is short lasting because the woman is always at fault. One of the past women, he told me the qualities that were his "red flags" and guess what?! Body count was one of them.
 
#299 ·
TinyTbone said:
So then this article is postulating that humans, like some other animals, such as dogs, can actually partially retain sperm from a previous mate to mix withe current one and produce mixed off spring??
If so, then there are probably billions of chucked men on earth!
Click to expand...
Not quite. It isn't that actual sperm remain. They only have a life of a few days to a week. The idea is that sperm that didn't fertilize and egg find there way into the cell of the uterus and actually change the DNA.
 
#300 ·
LisaD: where we agree: post 255. If Frithy truly believes he is implanting his genetic matter in virgins and thereby contaminating later men's off spring - having sex with them is unethical. Full stop. Is he disclosing to the virgins this "fact" so they can make full consent (I want that transcript) ? In theory, knowingly tampering with another persons offspring might even be actionable if I researched long enough.

Where we disagree: post 254. I think the general finding is that men are hypogamic. They don't mate for status as much as fertility (i.e. looks...i.e. hotness) . Women mate for many reasons too, but the consensus is, on average, women mate more for status (however our species defines that) . So, yes, some guys have a maddona/403 complex and want a "good" wife. Not sure that's the norm.

Years ago there was a TAM thread on the perennial "she did it for him but not for me" topic. It was enormous and heated. No shock to anyone who reads Ev Psych books, but apparently a never ending mystery to posters - the posts divided on gender lines. It was remarkable how many women posters thought that telling a guy he was a "good father" or a "great provider" some how stroked a man's ego. Pro Tip - it generally doesn't. One poster made a memorable post (for me) that resonated on your point. I'll just snip it and say that i think his post is a proxy for many (not all) guys.

There is a subtle difference between feeling loved and feeling desired. While those things are very often related to each other and occur simultaneously in a relationship, they are also mutually exclusive, One is not necessarily predicated on the other.

Being completely honest and speaking for myself, though I know a lot of men, and many right here on TAM feel the same way...

If it came down to it, and we could only be either one or the other...

A great husband, father, listener, supporter, provider, fixer of things, while only being mediocre in bed, and ok to look at...

or...

A weak knee inducing, panty dropping, smoking hot, best ever in the sack, while only being an OK husband...

I'd take the second every single time.

If it came down to it, and my wife could only tell her friends one thing about me, I'd rather her say I'm hot and great in bed than say I'm a good listener and provider every single day of the week.

Our naked insecurities laid out for all to see. But I don't think it's a pathology or disorder. I'd suggest this is in the wiring. Does not make it "right." But explains a ton.
 
281 - 300 of 938 Posts
About this Discussion
937 Replies
87 Participants
Last post:
2ntnuf
Talk About Marriage
posts
5.1M
members
109K
Since
2007
A forum community dedicated to married life between you and your spouse. Come join the discussion about love, romance, health, behavior, conflict resolution, care, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Coping with Infidelity General Relationship Discussions Sex in Marriage Going Through Divorce or Separation The Men's Clubhouse