Fenrir_Odal
Iron
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2026
- Posts
- 73
- Reputation
- 44
There are certain things that you hear and intuitively know to be true what I am going to present today is one of those things.
Microchimerism “is the presence of a small number of cells in an individual that have originated from another individual and are therefore genetically distinct”
While telegony “is a pseudoscientific theory of heredity holding that offspring can inherit the characteristics of a previous mate of the female parent”
Google puts forth that this is pseudoscientific and for most individuals this is enough to write the idea off entirely. However, my own experiences, temperament, and understanding of nature ensured I was not satisfied with such an answer. And so I looked into it scouring through PubMed and so on. And it came as no surprise when my initial intuition was confirmed.
Attached are some of the most damming quotes from the studies I found:
Revisiting telegony: offspring inherit an acquired characteristic of their mother’s previous mate
“The transgenerational effect reported here is not a paternal effect because it affects non-offspring, but it can be regarded as a type of maternal effect whereby the phenotype of a female’s previous mate influences her future offspring sired by another male. Interestingly, however, this effect occurs in a species in which the male transfers a tiny ejaculate that does not appear to contain any conventional form of nuptial gift (Bonduriansky & Head 2007). Hence, this effect could be taxonomically widespread.”
Y-chromosome DNA Is Present in the Blood of Female Dogs Suggesting the Presence of Fetal Microchimerism
“Retrospectively, nine of the dogs with banked blood samples and a positive result were discovered to be nulliparous at the time of sample collection. The known sources of microchimerism in the dog, organ transplantation and blood transfusion, were ruled out using an owner survey prior to sample analysis. Interestingly, approximately 20% of women with no history of a male birth have male microchimerism in their peripheral blood.”
Male microchimerism in women without sons: Quantitative assessment and correlation with pregnancy history
In the results section of the Male microchimerism in women without sons “Group A had only daughters (n = 26), Group B had spontaneous abortions (n = 23), Group C had induced abortions (n = 23), and Group D were nulligravid (n = 48). Male microchimerism prevalence was significantly greater in Group C than other groups (8%, 22%, 57%, 10%, respectively). Levels were also significantly higher in the induced abortion group.”
The smoking gun is Group D how do you explain the presence of male DNA in a female if she has never produced an offspring. Well the answer is telegony, and the study concludes the same albeit as the last but frankly most likely explanation.
“Male microchimerism was not infrequent in women without sons. Besides known pregnancies, other possible sources of male microchimerism include unrecognized spontaneous abortion, vanished male twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, or sexual intercourse”
Up to this point, the evidence I found was circumstantial it all pointed in the direction that telegony was indeed real, but I had yet to find what proved x and y were connected. It wouldn’t be till many months later when I revisited this topic that I indeed found out how.
I believe it was late fall when I put the pieces together; I was looking up the components of the MRNA Covid Vaccine and diving into how it modifies the DNA to continuously produce the spike protein and something in me wondered if sperm performed a similar albeit different function. And indeed I was correct; sperm contained the MRNA necessary to modify DNA and a quick google search later demonstrated it also carried the reverse transcriptase necessary to transform RNA into DNA. And that was it folks. We had not only demonstrated in the above studies that male DNA was present in females, but we also now had the necessary biological component's to explain the process for MRNA to integrate its code into the DNA of the host.
Telegony also provided a biological explanation for the preference for virginity and younger mates. I never bought the idea that lower body count equaled a higher likelihood of being faithful (not cheating) and we know once a female is pregnant the male biological imperative has been completed and only depending on whether the male chooses R or K selection would the body count, as an indicator of faithfulness, really matter. Basically under the current premise, a lower body count would really only be relevant to K selection with R selection only looking to inseminate without caring to rear the offspring. However, the essence of telegony provides a universal explanation for both mating strategies, where short term (R) and long term (K) mating strategies both dictate a preference for virgin and younger women thereby fulfilling the universal preference for a low body count.
Under the current framework:
Low body count → low risk of cheating → R selection → irrelevant
Low body count → low risk of cheating → K selection → relevant
High body count → high risk of cheating → R selection → irrelevant
High body count → high risk of cheating → K selection → relevant
According to selection theory, a preference for R selection would dictate that a high body count should be irrelevant however we know this not to be the case with the male preference for virgins being applicable regardless of theory.
Let substitute the above for telegony:
Low body count → low excess male DNA → R selection → relevant
Low body count → low excess male DNA → K selection → relevant
High body count → high excess male DNA → R selection → relevant
High body count → high excess male DNA → K selection → relevant
Substituting the second step with male DNA regardless of K or R suddenly the universal male preference is relevant to both.
Other circumstantial evidence includes the fact that women after 5/6 partners lose the ability to pair bond (they become more like men), increasing mental disorders as body count increases (different male DNA in the body causes different personalities), and the old adage of the man is the paint brush and the women the canvas.
Now the conspiratorial side of me believed the reason this wasn’t common knowledge was due to certain cliques knowing this would uproot many of the major movements including female empowerment, sexual liberation, birth control, and so on. Naturally I concluded that if a large cohort of the population were to find out about this, massive social upheaval would ensue. I imagine many men and fathers would be quite displeased with the fact the kids were never 100% theirs; I cant imagine that not being a revelation of sorts.
Citations:
Microchimerism “is the presence of a small number of cells in an individual that have originated from another individual and are therefore genetically distinct”
While telegony “is a pseudoscientific theory of heredity holding that offspring can inherit the characteristics of a previous mate of the female parent”
Google puts forth that this is pseudoscientific and for most individuals this is enough to write the idea off entirely. However, my own experiences, temperament, and understanding of nature ensured I was not satisfied with such an answer. And so I looked into it scouring through PubMed and so on. And it came as no surprise when my initial intuition was confirmed.
Attached are some of the most damming quotes from the studies I found:
Revisiting telegony: offspring inherit an acquired characteristic of their mother’s previous mate
“The transgenerational effect reported here is not a paternal effect because it affects non-offspring, but it can be regarded as a type of maternal effect whereby the phenotype of a female’s previous mate influences her future offspring sired by another male. Interestingly, however, this effect occurs in a species in which the male transfers a tiny ejaculate that does not appear to contain any conventional form of nuptial gift (Bonduriansky & Head 2007). Hence, this effect could be taxonomically widespread.”
Y-chromosome DNA Is Present in the Blood of Female Dogs Suggesting the Presence of Fetal Microchimerism
“Retrospectively, nine of the dogs with banked blood samples and a positive result were discovered to be nulliparous at the time of sample collection. The known sources of microchimerism in the dog, organ transplantation and blood transfusion, were ruled out using an owner survey prior to sample analysis. Interestingly, approximately 20% of women with no history of a male birth have male microchimerism in their peripheral blood.”
Male microchimerism in women without sons: Quantitative assessment and correlation with pregnancy history
In the results section of the Male microchimerism in women without sons “Group A had only daughters (n = 26), Group B had spontaneous abortions (n = 23), Group C had induced abortions (n = 23), and Group D were nulligravid (n = 48). Male microchimerism prevalence was significantly greater in Group C than other groups (8%, 22%, 57%, 10%, respectively). Levels were also significantly higher in the induced abortion group.”
The smoking gun is Group D how do you explain the presence of male DNA in a female if she has never produced an offspring. Well the answer is telegony, and the study concludes the same albeit as the last but frankly most likely explanation.
“Male microchimerism was not infrequent in women without sons. Besides known pregnancies, other possible sources of male microchimerism include unrecognized spontaneous abortion, vanished male twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, or sexual intercourse”
Up to this point, the evidence I found was circumstantial it all pointed in the direction that telegony was indeed real, but I had yet to find what proved x and y were connected. It wouldn’t be till many months later when I revisited this topic that I indeed found out how.
I believe it was late fall when I put the pieces together; I was looking up the components of the MRNA Covid Vaccine and diving into how it modifies the DNA to continuously produce the spike protein and something in me wondered if sperm performed a similar albeit different function. And indeed I was correct; sperm contained the MRNA necessary to modify DNA and a quick google search later demonstrated it also carried the reverse transcriptase necessary to transform RNA into DNA. And that was it folks. We had not only demonstrated in the above studies that male DNA was present in females, but we also now had the necessary biological component's to explain the process for MRNA to integrate its code into the DNA of the host.
Telegony also provided a biological explanation for the preference for virginity and younger mates. I never bought the idea that lower body count equaled a higher likelihood of being faithful (not cheating) and we know once a female is pregnant the male biological imperative has been completed and only depending on whether the male chooses R or K selection would the body count, as an indicator of faithfulness, really matter. Basically under the current premise, a lower body count would really only be relevant to K selection with R selection only looking to inseminate without caring to rear the offspring. However, the essence of telegony provides a universal explanation for both mating strategies, where short term (R) and long term (K) mating strategies both dictate a preference for virgin and younger women thereby fulfilling the universal preference for a low body count.
Under the current framework:
Low body count → low risk of cheating → R selection → irrelevant
Low body count → low risk of cheating → K selection → relevant
High body count → high risk of cheating → R selection → irrelevant
High body count → high risk of cheating → K selection → relevant
According to selection theory, a preference for R selection would dictate that a high body count should be irrelevant however we know this not to be the case with the male preference for virgins being applicable regardless of theory.
Let substitute the above for telegony:
Low body count → low excess male DNA → R selection → relevant
Low body count → low excess male DNA → K selection → relevant
High body count → high excess male DNA → R selection → relevant
High body count → high excess male DNA → K selection → relevant
Substituting the second step with male DNA regardless of K or R suddenly the universal male preference is relevant to both.
Other circumstantial evidence includes the fact that women after 5/6 partners lose the ability to pair bond (they become more like men), increasing mental disorders as body count increases (different male DNA in the body causes different personalities), and the old adage of the man is the paint brush and the women the canvas.
Now the conspiratorial side of me believed the reason this wasn’t common knowledge was due to certain cliques knowing this would uproot many of the major movements including female empowerment, sexual liberation, birth control, and so on. Naturally I concluded that if a large cohort of the population were to find out about this, massive social upheaval would ensue. I imagine many men and fathers would be quite displeased with the fact the kids were never 100% theirs; I cant imagine that not being a revelation of sorts.
Citations:
