/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

When you have sex with someone you become one flesh with them, but it is only the sacrament of marriage that can truly unite two persons as one in a manner reflecting the Trinity. Unless you receive the sacrament of marriage from the Church, or the Church affirms the natural marriage you had contracted earlier, don't worry about this.

Premarital sex is a sin because it is indulging in a passion. Furthermore, just as you can't receive the Eucharist without having confessed, you can't have sex without being married.

Also, you must not only save yourself for the person who'll be your wife, you must actually be married to this person. Having sex with somebody you've been engaged to for years and unable to marry yet for some reason is as sinful and degenerate as screwing some hooker in a dark alley.

From what i read, the brain releases chemicals to help you bond with people you have sex with, via repeated exposure every time it happens(and sleeping around destabilizes that bond, mentally, since you are "reinstalling drivers" on top of existing ones).

Of course, given "your first time" has a stronger bonding mentally, and culture attaches great significance to that moment, the guy/gal you did it first with is a huge imprint.

Also, the whole "women store genes from everyone she's ever had sex with, and that can result in your kids also being partly not your own" is retarded 19th century bullshit that has debunked even then, designed to appeal to male cuckoldry fears(it seems to be working, even today).

Though pregnancies, even terminated ones, do tend to leave some cells from the kid as scaffolding in various parts of the body(no, that doesn't apply to reproductive cells, since a woman is born will all the eggs she will ever have). Pretty cool stuff.

>>660139

oh yeah, also found the link.

https://aeon.co/essays/microchimerism-how-pregnancy-changes-the-mothers-very-dna

>>660202

…but fake.

>>660220

is it?

>>660226

Yeah.

This is the sexual version of maternal impressions, which is 19th century pseudo-science.

>>660232

Note:

Microchimerism from pregnancy past a certain stage is a thing.

That part was true.

The part about spermatozoa goa'ulding the female body is extra-retarded on so many levels.

>>660232

>this sounds like this, which is wrong, therefore it is wrong

???

>>660139

>>660140

I don't really understand your argument at all.

So, a woman has some breast tissue cells in her breast and there's nothing wrong with the kid's cells ending up there but the woman also has some egg cells and there's something wrong with the idea of the kid's cells arriving there? You need to talk a bit further because reading your posts, the only impression I'm getting is "PFFT. THIS IS JUST VICTORIAN-ERA SILLINESS. ALREADY DEBUNKED. DISREGARD IT" and it's just not really all that persuasive. I mean, after all, this is the exact argument used against Christianity.

>>660772

>>660805

I was just saying its descended from a long line of quackery.

But if you want to detail why its idiotic biologically, ill tell you.

Sperm doesnt work that way.

Its pretty fragile, and it can only survive for some days at best in the vagina(you know, where its supposed to be)

It has some trouble penetrating a single dense protein wall, so it cant go through cm thick tissues, mucuous membranes, bones, made of a gazillion cells.

Not that it wouldnt make your immune system go into hyperdrive if it happened(it already causes an immune reaction from good old ejaculating inside her, which is why its important to do that multiple times. Ditto for microchimeric cells)

Also, a spermatozoa contains only half a genome, so if tests detect male dna in a gal, its from a previous pregnancy, not from sperm.

So no, dna from a previous relationship cant knock up your miss, unless she's been getting filled up by him within the past few days(but then thats good old unprotected cheating)

Now, some of you might wonder:

"But cant cells from the previous sibling gets swapped back into my kid?"

Yeah, that sometimes happens, as the article says, but we are talking about homeopathy tier dilution(there would be a higher concentration if you immediately knocked her up after she had just aborted another guy's child, but we have waaaay bigger issues in that case)

There are plenty of good, legit reasons why you shouldnt have kids with the town bicycle and/or a girl that has a town of abortions, but "Chad is gonna biologically cuck me through space and time" is pseudo-scientific stupidity.

>>660816

Oh, okay. So another man's sperm cell can't hide out in a woman's brain and then, when the time is right, rush in and fertilise the egg before your own sperm. That's nice to know. There are some things that still bother me though:

Like, the article says that breeders observed that the most genetically pure offspring was always the first one. The rest were closer to that first child than their own parents. Even if it's untrue that the sperm of a previous partner can affect the egg, is it not true that the cells of a previous kid from a previous pregnancy with a previous partner can affect the current child of the current pregnancy with the current partner?

>>660835

Also, adding onto this: my idea was always that the leftover sperms cells would "influence" the woman's base DNA such that this previous partner really does become a part of her and thus, a part of all future offspring. I remember seeing this really disturbing picture of Donald Trump and his wife Milena early on in their relationship and then their picture again years later. As time progressed, Milena's face started to look more and more like Trump's face. It was really disturbing. Like he really did just Wham himself into her on some metaphysical level.

>>660835

>She has sex with some guy, gets pregnant, aborts, now she has "scaffolding" in her system.

Yeah.

She has cells with recombined DNA from the pregnancy, not from sex itself, thats what im getting at.

>Raw materials and loose Dna.

That get excreted, eaten up by leukocytes, etc.

We should be 80% bacteria by the amount of dead dna we have on and in us(Dont bring up phages. Those are another, special thing)

>Fun Fact: Did you know bacteria can change their genome by incorporating DNA floating around near them in a process called transformation?

Yeah.

Are you a bacteria, yeast, or plant, though?

>The studies I've read say the genetic material finds its way to her cerebrospinal fluid for some reason and stays there.

Yeah.

Rogue cells, nothing more.

>I'm just saying the whole "one flesh" thing is probably true and there's probably a good reason virgins were prized since the dawn of humanity.

The reasons are mundane and simple.

We have a ton of motives to want that.

>>660839

>Even if it's untrue that the sperm of a previous partner affect the egg, is it not true that the cells of a previous kid from a previous pregnancy with a previous partner can affect the current child of the current pregnancy with the current partner?

In theory, and very dilluted, yes.

Though we arent sure how this works.

There is both a helpful and selfish influence upon future kids, from preliminary research.

Sidenote:

The face thing seems to be epigenetic and/or self-fulfilling, and applies to all persons and collective you spend most of your time with.

livescience.com/8384-couples-start.html

https://www.rd.com/advice/relationships/why-couples-look-alike/