Then you might want to read the results of a new study published this morning in Trends in Ecology and Evolution: “Does the Contraceptive Pill Alter Mate Choice In Humans?”
Dr. Alexandra Alvergne and Dr. Virpi Lummaa of the University of Sheffield review “emerging evidence suggesting that contraceptive methods which alter a woman’s natural hormonal cycles” may be messing up straight peoples’ sex lives and married lives. It may also raise “evolutionary questions and concerns,” write Alvergne and Lummaa. It goes like this: the type of man a woman finds attractive varies pretty widely according to her menstrual cycle. Women who are ovulating prefer men who are more masculine and “more… genetically unrelated,” like the guy on the right, above; women who aren’t ovulating prefer guys who are more feminine and genetically more similar, like the guy on the left. Since the pill suppresses ovulation, and since many women are on the pill when they’re dating and sleeping around—or “selecting a mate,” as the docs put it—women may be marrying men they find attractive on the pill but not so much once they’ve gone off the pill.
Which women tend to do once they’re married and want to have children.
Alvergne and Lummaa theorize that all those suppressed ovulations may have dire consequences where sexual compatibility and long-term marital success are concerned. It can’t be pleasant, after all, to realize you’re not as attracted to your spouse as you thought you were once you stop taking the pill. And couples who are genetically similar—the kind of pairings the pill promotes—are more likely to have infertility issues. Which is, um, also bad. And then there’s this: since men have been shown to find ovulating women more attractive, “…the use of oral contraceptives may influence a woman’s ability to attract a mate by reducing attractiveness to men, thereby disrupting her ability to compete with normally cycling women for access to mate.” While their study is sure to be cited by religious nuts waging war on the pill, Alvergne and Lummaa cite all the good the pill has done for women:
Any such effects should be weighed against the multiple benefits that the invention of the pill has brought. This revolutionary contraceptive method has given women unprecedented control over their fertility with the possibility to sample different partners before reproduction, to control their number of children, to reach optimal birth spacing given circumstances or to end reproductive career before menopause if desired, which has had a considerable impact on their social life. For instance, a sharp increase in college attendance and graduation rates for women was observed after the pill was legalized.
Giving women control over their fertility, allowing them to sample different partners, more women going to college—you can see why religious conservatives have problem with the pill. You can download a PDF of the study here. I’ve also sent a some questions to the study’s authors—should women switch to the IUD? should an engaged woman go off the pill to make sure she’s not marrying a too-genetically-similar swish? and what does all of this mean for gay marriage? and the ballot booth that is their [RSVP] envelopes?—and I’ll share their answers with you when I hear back.
proof that women need to fuck different men throughout the month.
Sometimes I think women literally are from Venus. Everything about chicks, from their immensely complicated sexuality to their unquenchable love of consumerism, is deeply strange.
This explains so much. Having never taken hormones, I picked a husband who it turns out is VERY geneticaly disimilar to me. And maybe that’s why I can’t stand him while I’m pregnant (not ovulating)…
Does the fact that I’m more attracted to the lady-man on the left make me more gay or less gay?
sounds like the guy on the right has all the bases covered.
More scientific evidence of the advantage of postponing sexual activity until marriage.
We like to think that there’s something magical about love, but it really all comes down to math and science.
Suuuuuuurre, 6. That’s precisely what it means.
I’m confused. Most pills still have you ovulating. There is still a cycle. You still get your period. It just prevents the egg from ever attaching to the placental wall.
@4: I don’t know if either is possible.
OH SNAP!
@6 Or plural marriages… Enough women around to have the emotional connection with and a brute neanderthal with whom to procreate.
Dan – remember that there are two different kinds of IUDs, hormonal (like Mirena, that slowly releases hormones) and non-hormonal (like Paraguard, where the copper creates an “inhospitable environment” for sperm. or something).
I met me husband while not on hormonal birth control and was instantly, crazy attracted to him. I eventually went on, and then even more eventually off the hormones, and I haven’t noticed a difference in “how attracted I am” to him or in our compatibility.
I wonder if anyone’s studied the different types of men that a woman not on the pill find attractive throughout the month. Based on these findings, you’d think it would vary based on when they’re ovulating / not ovulating.
@9 erm wrong. The point of hormonal birth control is to prevent ovulation. They might also prevent attaching to the placental wall if that screws up (its what the labels always say, probably as a warning to the life-begins-at-conception camp).
My gf doesn’t take hormonal birth control, since ovulation is what drives her entire sex drive (we found out). So these results don’t surprise me too much.
It’s always a bit freaky to see the “divine free will” myth cracked a bit, since its so easy to think in terms of mind/body separation, even if intellectually you know its all one thing.
@6 **Of course** it’s much better to find out whether you’re sexually compatible after you’re legally bound to someone.
@7 Yes, then, we could choose different husbands according to our cycles 😉
@9 – you are mistaken. The contraceptive pill does prevents ovulation and thins the lining of the uterus so that even if an egg were to be released it probably wouldn’t attach. The “period” that occurs is not true mentstruation. In fact, it can be skipped altogether by simply starting the next cycle of pills instead of taking the placebo pills (or skipping the week of no pills, if it is a 21 pill pack)
What you described is how an IUD works. Ovulation still occurs, but the lining has been thinned down and made hostile to implantation.
The 50% lady-man is way cuter.
@13 They have. There was a really interesting special on Discovery about the science behind sexual attraction. Women are generally more attractive to men during their ovulation (fuller face, brighter cheeks, slighter larger breasts). Women also find different men attractive during different times of their cycles. When they’re ovulating, women are attracted to wider faces, firmer stances, “manly men”. When not ovulating, they prefer men more like themselves: kind, gentle, sweet… “wusses”.
Maybe the pill has helped more poets marry and procreate than would otherwise happen.
Good point, Allyn.
My ex was using those contraceptive sponges, so she wasn’t on the pill when she met me.
by the way, you’re not on SGW on FB, are you?
I’m having a hard time buying into the seriousness of these implications. So many other factors come into play when it comes to who turns you on. I was on the pill for most of my life, have been off it for a few years, and throughout it all I’ve been attracted to a VERY diverse group of males (and the odd female). The one I chose was right for many reasons other than pure sex appeal.
Two things, off the top of my head, that make me take this whole study with a grain of salt. First, sex drives and compatibility change throughout a marriage, regardless of birth control method — familiarity, distractions, exhaustion with work and kids, and the typical boredom of the middle-aged rut. Tiny differences in perceptions of the guy’s masculinity or femininity would just pale in comparison to larger life events and changes. Hell, just a partner’s willingness to try something new can make that old familiar face seem a lot sexier.
Second, this — “the use of oral contraceptives may influence a woman’s ability to attract a mate by reducing attractiveness to men, thereby disrupting her ability to compete with normally cycling women for access to mate” — implies some kind of “mating pool” that is completely divorced from a real-world situation. Where is this place where personality, style, intelligence, sense of humour, and common life experiences have zero bearing on attractiveness? Where is this place where a woman who is just right in every other way — confident, vibrantly healthy, sexy — loses out because she’s not ovulating? I’ve never been to this place.
Interesting study. Explains a lot about that minuscule population of women that find men with feminine features attractive. Nature is very clear in her intentions, lets not mess with it.
I’m pretty sure the the United States would have to hold a lot more than 5% of the world’s population for any of this alter the course of evolution. And you’d need reason to believe that the pill will not be replaced with some other technology in a generation or two anyway.
@20, Irena – you should look up that special Discovery did, they cited many studies. It’s not that your initial attraction means you’ll be married, but it determines who you’re willing to get to know. If you start with 100 menin a room, your brain narrows the group down to the twenty or so you find attractive at that moment, then it weeds out those who are out of your league (above or below) and settles on the one or two you would like to get to know more. So even before you get to know this guy and whether or not you can spend the next decade, lifetime, two months, one night, whatever, with him, your brain has already cancelled out the 98 other men in the room as potential mates. So no, this study doesn’t take long-term compatability into consideration, but it’s very important to note that without consious thought, your brain/sex drive has eliminated 98% of your potential mates without getting to know them first.
21, So is flying wrong? Nature’s intention that we are not flying beings is very clear.
I’m generally not attracted to “masculine” men at any point during the month and I’m not on the pill.
Only the cute nerdy boys will do it for me (I’m absolutely crazy about them in all honesty) and the ones that I’m attracted to tend to look more “feminine” than “masculine.”
I wonder if they controlled for the women’s sexual orientation. Would bisexual women be more attracted to the fem-boy than straight women even when they were ovulating? Did they have lesbians in the mix at all?
You know all this research is thrown out the window if a man is playing the guitar or bass. A man and his ax, oh my ….
I have often wondered if the rise in Autism was directly related to this issue. People selecting mates that are not a good genetic match generally lead to more genetic problems, like autism and other forms therein. I haven’t found a study researching that link, but maybe it is out there?
@27 Kim, I thought the sax was the sexiest instrument. Or the accordian (so says Wierd Al).
@12- Julie, yes, many people have studied how preferences cycle during the menstrual cycle. Read that pdf Dan attached. Burly, big-jawed dudes when ovulating, less so when not fertile. That’s the generality, of course.
Another point some people are overlooking is that “choice” of mate in this case can mean one of two things – a long term partner, who might help you raise your babies, or a sperm donor, basically, a guy who will father your offspring. Regardless of whom you’re in a LTR with. The point here is that a woman might get pregnant by a guy with “good genes”, but have a guy with good fathering instincts around to help raise the baby.
The paper linked suggests there’s only a 3.5% rate of extra-pair paternity (i.e. cheating resulting in kids) in humans, but I seem to remember studies showing this to be a lot higher… and a story about a town that was being tracked on a number of health metrics … the researchers found that quite a large number of guys weren’t the fathers they thought they were.
As for whether this would fuck up “the course of evolution…”. Evolution doesn’t have a course it follows. Don’t think like that. No one “deevolves”; the population would just evolve to be fit in the current environment. However, currently, the problem is that poor mate choices by women can lead to crappy life situations, perhaps, no? Would you want to be involved with someone that you liked while on the pill but found repulsive when you went to go have kids?
@25 Biology is full of variation.
@26 Lesbians will ruin your p-values in science.
It would make an interesting study, though, expanding the sample to include all sexual preferences. Probably not too many lesbians on the pill, though…
That is so fucking stupid. I’m on the pill, and I prefer the more masculine dude.
Allyn @ 29,
The sax is sexy sounding, and a man into making music is a lovely sight. But, an ax needs to come with a lifetime supply of condoms. It’s not just the sound, it’s those hands and how they use them …
@22, this study took place not in the US, but in the UK — and Sheffield at that. And not even God could make a pill that made an Englishman attractive.
Dan,
This is interesting. But, far more problematic for ALL is when science discovers something “politcally incorrect” (that’s usually the trouble with science). You are correct to scrutinize them (the data and the scientists). BTW, I did read once that Charles Darwin was against artificial birth control (though I admit I can’t verify that but it does stand to resason as it apparently interfers with natural selection). That said, I believe the “pill” to be possibly the most important discovery since the wheel. It altered human populations. It gave women a relatively safe choice of when to reproduce or not. I believe it is the 50th anniversary of it’s discovery (and eventual FDA approval) by Dr. John Rock.
@29, @33: are you high? Saxophones are repulsive-sounding.
The sexiest instrument is the Hammond B-3. Or the snare drum. Or the human voice.
14
of course.
because people who discover
they are
“sexually compatible”
never never ever ever
split up or divorce.
they enjoy lifelong bliss-
just like swans.
And how would that compare to societies where people have NO choice in whom they marry, which would include ours up to 100 years ago?
There’s good evidence to suggest that autism used to be misdiagnosed as mental retardation, and that’s one explanation for the “sudden” rise in autism rates.
@36,
No love for the cello?
@ 32 and others…
Folks, this is science. Biology, at that. There’s a statistical difference in preferences shown by samples of women as to which face they prefer in relation to their menstrual cycle. That doesn’t mean the difference is large or absolute.
RE #30 – I had forgotten about that aspect of the study(ies)- You’re quite right. I think it’s all part of the humans aren’t designed to be monogamous belief. The man a woman wants to mate with is not necessarily the man she wants to raise her kids with. So for three and a half weeks a month, a woman unconsciously want to spend her time with a man similar to her, or who may exhibit more “feminine” physical and emotional traits, a man who may make a good Dad. But for the few days she’s fertile, she’s generally attracted to men who will produce strong offspring, a man who will make a good father, but a not-great Dad.
@28 – Monique – interesting thought. That should be looked into.
How large is the difference between ovulating and not ovulating preferences? I bet it’s tiny compared to the variation in preference that exists overall.
This is a classic statistical error. We hear about a small difference between two very overlapping distributions, and we leap to the conclusion that it is a large difference with no overlap. ALL non-ovulating women ADORE girly-men! ALL ovulating women ADORE neanderthals! In fact, there is a slight change in preference that is only detectable when you average over lots and lots of women. The implications for human reproduction and success of marriages is probably nil.
@36, Fnarf, as a singer, I want to believe the voice is the sexiest… I’m not sure my husband agrees, however.
All the more reason to switch to IUDs really. Not sure what the point of expounding on the political significance of the pill was though. Its the pill, not all of birth control in general.
Fnarf @ 36,
Sorry, you lovely thing, but I’m sober. I’m betting Allyn is sober as well, seeing that she is expecting.
You’re welcome to your opinion on which instruments are sexy, but unlike Allyn and I, you don’t ovulate. Perhaps, Mrs. Fnarf would like to give her $0.02? She has good taste, you won the lottery when she claimed you as her prize. You lucky, lucky man…
hm, I wonder if lesbians are more attracted to butcher womyn when they are ovulating? cant we do a SLOG study? Dan, who do you know that could help the stranger sponsor a companion study of lesbians?
So you are saying less masculine men are by default genetically similar to everyone…this is a poor summary of the study. Woman who are not ovulating are not attracted to genetically similar men, they are still attracted to genetically diverse men. That attraction increases during ovulation. The word choice and correlation of the two attributes in the sentence “women who aren’t ovulating prefer guys who are more feminine and genetically more similar” is misleading. This is how misinformation gets started.
I don’t get how any woman can say that she’s not attracted to masculine men but still likes guys. If you’re not attracted to the essence of what makes a man a man hence masculinity, then what are you attracted to? If you’re a woman that without the side effects of the pill or any other drug find feminine traits sexually attractive then you’re dealing with a lesbian attraction cause the men you’re finding attractive are outwardly identical to women.
Same with guys who find women with masculine traits attractive.
Allyn @ 43,
You sing and that rocks.
@30: “Would you want to be involved with someone that you liked while on the pill but found repulsive when you went to go have kids?”
But see, this is my point. That’s how this sort of study gets played in a magazine or on a blog, but that’s not how it works. The pill’s effects are not nearly that dramatic.
Allyn @23, I haven’t seen the show, but it sounds like that study only looked at initial attraction. Lots of people become attracted to someone only after getting to know them — after working with them for awhile, or seeing them in a different context from the one in which they formed their first opinion.
And thank you, elenchos @22. I just can’t see blowing this information up into something that predicts “dire consequences” or raises “evolutionary concerns”. But because evolution is a sexy topic right now, and research grants and publications follow sexy topics, the evolutionary biology angle continues to be way overblown.