While this might have some value in, uh, persuasion, Gallup is off his rocker. For one thing, if "unfamiliar" semen in a woman's body (what semen would be "familiar?") caused morning sickness, then women would get morning sickness every time they were exposed to it.
This guy is a psychologist? I thought so. It sounds exactly like the bullshit which one+ of them would say. Although if she gives head enough she may be able to better control her gag reflex; but, even then, if you have to throw up you have to throw up. End of story.
I think this guy's just hoping to convince his woman. Still, I wouldn't have minded having this analysis during the pregnancy era in my house. It could have been important.
Ridiculous. Why, if it's a woman's body's reaction to the presence of semen does it only happen when pregnant? Also, wouldn't it happen to every woman from day one? Not every woman gets morning sickness after all and it can take weeks to months before it starts. He really must think people are complete morons to float this "theory".
The article might have more credibility if the guy had a background in biology rather than psych, though he does cite biotech sources. I'll go with "possible," here, particularly since he specifies not just any sperm, but the sperm of the impregnator. It's a fact that the pregnant woman's body initially perceives the fetus as a foreign invader, especially in the first trimester. This may be why the incidence of miscarriage is greatest then. It is most decidedly why women with Rh-negative blood whose partners are Rh-positive need infusions of blood factors to prevent complications and possible loss of the pregnancy. Sperm is almost pure protein, and the purest form of male DNA - DNA with the identical biological "signature" that was donated to create the fetus. If it helps to "inoculate" or acclimate the woman's body to the presence of the fetus, it's quite possible it can mitigate morning sickness, among other things. Now, why some women get morning sickness and others don't is something that needs further study, but in the meantime, on the surface, at least, this seems plausible, IMO.
Plausible, but still sounds like BS... though I'm sure some of us will still try to use this 'trick'. I know at least one of our member's wife is pregnant (not sure if this is Blue Room material, so I'll leave it at that); that member should try this and report back
There was an evolutionary biologist who claimed that morning sickness was the body's way of rejecting foods which might be harmful to the fetus during the early stages of development.
OKAY! IT'S SETTLED! I'm going to go on MythBusters where Kari Byron and I will find out exactly how much semen she can tolerate under various conditions. That's how much I am willing to sacrifice for science.
