any article that states: "When it is injected into you it swims and swims until it crashes headlong into a wall, and then it attaches and burrows into your flesh. If it’s in your mouth it swims and climbs into your nasal passages, inner ear, and behind your eyes. Then it digs in. It enters your blood stream and collects in your brain and spine.
Like something out of a scifi movie, it becomes a part of you and you can’t get rid of it..."
should be taken with a grain of salt.
Now I'm not disputing microchimerism, but we have to be careful when we interpret findings from studies.
He follows this up with a link to a RooshV article. I don't have a huge problem with Roosh, but I wouldn't cite a dating guru as proof of these claims, and that link was a red flag when I was reading this thread.
The roosh article starts out sane enough, more or less referencing the studies, but then it goes off the rails with a claim that women's phenotypes might be changed if they absorb enough male DNA, also that women who have a lot of sex with many casual male partners might somehow adopt more masculine traits. I think that second bit is backwards. I think (but can't say for certain in the absence of hard data), the causal relation is flipped incorrectly in that article by proclaiming lots of casual heterosexual sex causes more masculine, dominant personality traits in women. I think it is usually more the opposite case, that women who engage in a lot of casual sex were already more "dominant," outgoing and possessing traits considered more masculine, however I do not mean to imply that all women with those traits engage in a lot of sex with multiple partners. Here's an example, I knew a girl in college who had her share of partners. She was a "one of the guys" sort of girl, had a husky voice, liked to curse a lot. But I don't think any of this was a side effect of having a lot of sex. Also, guess what, she happened to be a heavy smoker. That shit will make your voice huskier.