So PUA nimrod and would-be philosopher-king Roosh Valizadeh has put on his “science” hat again, reporting what he describes as the “two seismic implications” of a recent study of flies.
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.
Wat.
The second implication stems from the fact that it’s scientifically conclusive that single mothers have DNA of their bastard children residing permanently within their bodies. Any man who reproduces with a single mom will have a child that contains DNA from the bastard spawn, which of course includes DNA from the absentee father. This means that men can be genetically cuckolded without being traditionally cuckolded, and that having a baby with a single mom is essentially giving the father of her first child a bonus prize in the game of evolution.
Now I’m no biologist, but this seems like a giant stinky pile of horseshit to me. I mean, what the hell?
In the interests of actual science — as distinct from PUA “science” — I sent Roosh’s post along to actual biologist PZ Myers.
His first reaction was “ick.” And then he sat down and wrote a post in which he declared that “there’s literally nothing correct in any of that mess” from Roosh I just quoted.
Nothing. Roosh has imposed his faulty, biased interpretation on the work in a way that would certainly horrify the authors.
Naturally, the conclusions that Roosh draws from his completely wrong premises are also completely wrong:
For thousands of years, a woman’s purity was cherished above all else when it came to creating a family. Now the scientific community is confirming the validity of that practice. Until the science is settled, men who insist on reproducing with a promiscuous woman should at least demand to interview her previous sexual partners so he can become familiar with the men whose genes may be passed on to his future children.
I think it’s fairly safe to say that the only DNA Roosh will be passing along to future generations will be found on the kleenex on the floor next to his bed after he dies alone and unloved in whatever obscure country he ends up in because he thinks it’s the least feminist on earth.
You can see PZ’s full takedown here.
Also, slut faces? Physical appearance was completely irrelevant in the original study Roosh referenced. It was studying the effects of brain function and developing Alzheimer’s in a pregnant woman that fetal microchimerism had. Your bias is showing, Roosh.
Just learned that microchimerism is an incorporation of cells from a genetically different individual into the host body, but it is NOT an actual incorporation of cells filled with that individual’s DNA (that’s cloning, big difference). Here’s the reference.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/09/09/mra-science-madness/
I love GamerGating PUA maggots and rebutte their BS with this stuff, thank you!
@Dana Pelligra
Actually telegony is real. At least in fruit flies there is a reward for being the first male with a female. Some of characteristics of the 1st male fly’s genes get passed onto the subsequent offspring even thought they were sired by a 2nd male fly. So basically the female fruitfly’s young reproductive system is influenced by the first male that injects semen into her and the 1st male fruit fly, even if no offspring are sired, gets the consolation prize that many of his epigenetic attributes will be passed on for as long as the female has offspring. 1st place stays with the female. There was an article in the Telegraph about this. They DO suspect this works in mammals as well since fruit flies share 75% of our genes.
If confirmed for humans, what this means for the social status of women, paternity rights and the willingness of men to accept being 2nd or 3rd or 10th place genetically will remain to be seen. Indications are that it will merely increase the competition between men for the youngest of women as the payoff appears to be incredible. The 1st male inside a young female will have his attributes in her offspring as long as she has children, meaning genetically that male is a part of the female reproductive system and her children indefinitely. The payoff is way too huge to be ignored by men.
Socially I believe this will have an affect on male temperament of female promiscuity, as Roosh’s blog shows that it triggers male outrage. And like it or not I think that is a natural response to discovering threats from other males. From the female point of view I doubt this would stir much ire as it is a biological variant of the whole multiple males contributing to their children idea, however, it does reveal how valuable virginal females are from a genetic point of view. And explains a lot of the ancient tribal customs to ensure virgin brides. And with that the male desire for 1st place status.
Blogs like the Mammoth can attempt to write off the effect it will have on the male ego but in the larger scheme men will be forced to confront the fact that many of the guarantees they rely on to make sure the children are theirs (marriage, paternity rights etc.) might be sabotaged by this epigenetic shadow. This information may also upset some of the institutions we rely on to assign parentage: consider a woman could potentially name every man she slept with as owing child support to her. What will probably happen at first is it will simply increase the pressure for men to claim females as early as possible lest you lose out in the genetic sweepstakes. Meaning more angry blogs at women who attempt to seek alphas and burden betas with their spoiled bodies etc. etc.
Wait…what happens with women who have multiple female sex partners? Oh wait, this is Roosh we’re talking about here. Lesbians don’t real! Right…my bad, I’ll see myself out.
“Now I’m no biologist, but this seems like a giant stinky pile of horseshit to me. I mean, what the hell?”
You don’t SEEM to like it? Who cares what you seem to like…
.. actually this theory explains a lot, including Prince Harry’s red hair.
Yeah, wait a year for the thread to clear out before trying to get the last word in with your horseshite Sammy. No one likes horsehite nor should be obliged to like it.
And Prince Harry’s red hair? WHAT OF IT? I know you’re trying to accuse some whore of infidelity, but I’m sure DNA would love to prove you wrong… as usual.
It’s clear that you don’t like this site but… then again….. who cares, huh?
@Sam
None of Roosh’s theory is true.
And if it were?
BFD. If you don’t want to raise a child who’s partly some other guy’s child(!), then DON’T HAVE SEX WITH WOMEN.
I understand that some lovely new sex dolls will be coming on the market at any moment now.
Harry’s hair is not a mystery, or a hint at some scandal. Diana’s brother was a redhead as a young man.
Good grief.