October 9, 2009 4:35 PM
Birth control pills skewing mate selection
Taking the pill for past 40 years 'has put women off masculine men'By David Derbyshire
08th October 2009It ushered in the 1960s sexual revolution and gave women control over their own fertility.
But the Pill may also have changed women's taste in men, according to a study.
Scientists say the hormones in the oral contraceptive suppress a woman's interest in masculine men and make boyish men more attractive. Although the change occurs for just a few days each month, it may have been highly influential since use of the Pill began more than 40 years ago.
50sIf the theory is right, it could partly explain the shifting in tastes from macho 1950s and 1960s stars such as Kirk Douglas and Sean Connery to the more wimpy, androgynous stars of today, such as Johnny Depp and Russell Brand.
Dr Alexandra Alvergne, of the University of Sheffield, says the Pill could also be altering the way women pick their mates and could have long-term implications for society.
Read more at the UK Daily Mail
this study is actually mentioned on a .gov site - Department of Health and Human Services:
Birth Control Pills Might Alter Mate Selection: Study Review suggests it could hinder reproduction in the future.WEDNESDAY, Oct. 7 (HealthDay News) -- Could birth control pills be taking human evolution in a whole new, and possibly detrimental, direction?
A review of past research finds that, by altering hormonal cycles, the pill might affect choice of mates among members of both genders in a way that could hinder successful reproduction in the future.
"The use of the pill by women, by changing her mate preferences, might induce women to mate with otherwise less-preferred partners, which might have important consequences for mate choice and reproductive outcomes," said Alexandra Alvergne, lead author of a study appearing in the October issue of Trends in Ecology & Evolution.
Read more here.
This does make so much sense. And also makes me wonder if this explains the uptick in kids with more ambivalent sexuality.
Posted in Gender differences, Mothering, Pro-Life Issues | Permalink
Comments
So that explains why I picked my manly-man husband. lol. No hormones for me.
Your last line on this post was really profound. I really wonder if there's a connection. Those hormones are scary, scary things.
Posted by: Margaret | October 9, 2009 5:31 PM
Extremely interesting. Would explain why I chose a mate that scoffs at the idea of a "metrosexual" man and has no problem being a man.
Posted by: dirtdartwife | October 9, 2009 6:28 PM
Sounds like the perfect way to raise the IQ of the gene pool a few points.
[Not sure there's a correlation between looks and intelligence. I have four very masculine sons who are very intelligent - including one National Merit Scholar.
Sounds like maybe you're not so hot? And console yourself with thinking you're smarter than more handsome guys? You may be mistaken, my friend :) ]
Posted by: Devo | October 9, 2009 10:37 PM
I think we are moving from the "isn't this great?" phase and into the "how were we supposed to know?" phase very rapidly. The mutations in fish spawning in streams filled with hormone laden wastewater is very frightening. When will the environmentalists demand an end to oral contraceptives? Not holding my breath ... The wisdom of the Catholic Church is proven once again - you mess with God's plan and there are always unintended consequences.
Posted by: Anne | October 9, 2009 11:15 PM
Devo, it just might raise the IQ of the gene pool, but not in the way you think.
Women who use contraception aren't reproducing at a rate high enough to replace both them and their husbands. Our reproduction rate is influenced significantly by our Hispanic citizens who have enough children, on average, to pull up the overall birth rate to slightly over replacement rate.
What that means, is that all those women on birth control who choose a more feminine man are not going to have the same impact as the women who AREN'T on birth control who choose a masculine man.
The women who aren't on birth control will determine what our society ultimately looks like. Because of this, it is likely that future generations of men will be more masculine than our current generation.
Hate to burst your liberal utopia, but the conservatives are out breeding you. The women using hormonal birth control are just taking a more feminine subset of men out of contention.
Posted by: Lauren | October 10, 2009 10:09 AM
Is there not also the possibility that women who are not on the pill are influenced in their mate selection by hormones in the water? THAT would be scary, because we have much less control over the water we drink than the pharmaceuticals we take. I have read that hormones are present in drinking water, not just waste water. Answering this question would require a study of matched populations with different (contaminated vs. non-contaminated) water supplies, which would be tricky to set up.
Posted by: marisa | October 10, 2009 10:21 AM
Indeed, I am not so masculine (don't know about "hot") :o) But since this article about birth control speaks in small changes in a very large population, your statistical population of two is not meaningful (other than to you, of course, as their mother). While I am sure there are peer-reviewed studies about the relationship of masculinity to IQ (or other measures of intelligence), the caricature of the "dumb jock" did not originate in a vacuum.
[Devo, when you say that the caricature of "dumb jock" didn't exist in a vacuum, does that mean you think all stereotypes are legitimate - like dumb blondes, stingy Jews, stupid "colored people"? Just wondering.
Women on this blog have spoken for years about how time is on our side when it comes to conservatism, because we are having a lot of kids and liberals aren't.]
Posted by: Devo | October 10, 2009 12:23 PM
I agree that hormones are having unintended effects on our culture, in many ways, but I also wonder if there are more "metro" guys anyway because today there are more children/boys raised by single moms, or without a consistent male influence shaping their character. It seems like a lot of influences working together.
Posted by: Addie | October 10, 2009 1:08 PM
Um.... interesting article, but I think that Jonny Depp AND Sean Connery are both hot! ;-) And I took the pill YEARS ago. Maybe that's why I find them both attractive?
~B
Posted by: B | October 10, 2009 4:08 PM
If the pill indeed has this effect, then our meat contributes to it. Cattle and chickens are given estrogen to cause them to gain weight faster. Giving soy products (like the soy baby formula) at a young age also contributes to the body producing higher levels of estrogen. However, I think there is also a lot of merit in the single mom home theory. Nature vs. Nurture. It takes both.
Posted by: Theresa Johnston | October 10, 2009 11:57 PM
I wonder if this may have something to do with why my husband took up more "manly" sports like shooting sporting clays and hunting everything that moves in Michigan after I went off the pill and started NFP during our engagement:).
Perhaps since my hormones are normal, I'm encouraging him more in his manliness?
And by the way, I find him much more appealing now when he's pursuing his "manly" hobbies than I did before. Is it hormones or a good marriage? Who knows!
I'm with Theresa on the whole nature + nurture idea. I think it takes both to form the asexual male children we're seeing now.
Thank goodness my husband hunts and will be teaching our little boy the joys of the outdoors:).
Posted by: Sarah | October 12, 2009 8:13 AM
My last thoughts on this subject:
In support of my tongue-in-cheek "argument" - remember that since the twentieth century, IQ scores have increased at an average rate of around three IQ points per decade in most parts of the world. This phenomenon has been named the Flynn effect (aka the "Lynn-Flynn effect") named after Richard Lynn and James R. Flynn.
But also remember - before you pat your he-man on the back - that coincidence equaling causality is a logical fallacy.
[And back at ya, my friend - as in your "dumb jock" stereotype.
And my final thought is that underlying your remarks is the idea that IQ is the most important factor in our humanity. It's not.]
Posted by: Devo | October 12, 2009 9:38 AM
Indeed but neither is virility. Sorry for the retort.
Posted by: Devo | October 12, 2009 1:02 PM
Devo, if you had read the entire article you would have seen that when fertile women choose men who are masculine in appearance, they are choosing men who genetically dissimilar to themselves in order to decrease the risk of genetic problems in their children:
On these fertile days, women are also more attracted to men who are 'genetically dissimilar', Dr Alvergne said. Picking a partner whose genetic make-up is unlike their own increases the chances of having a healthy child.
On days when women are not fertile, their tastes swing towards more feminine, boyish faces and more caring personalities, researchers have shown.
However, if women are taking the Pill they no longer have fertile days.
That means they no longer experience the hormonal changes that make them more attracted to masculine men and those with dissimilar genetic make-up.
This means that women who are on the Pill and choose more feminine or boyish looking men, they are increasing the risk that any children they have with those men will have genetic problems that cause learning disabilities or mental retardation. So while your stereotype suggests that having kids with the smart girly-men will increase the child's IQ, science says it's more likely to *lower* your child's IQ.
(I had a hard time figuring out if I was phrasing that in a way that might be offensive to anyone. Please know that it's not intended to be. I know that moms of special needs kids would never trade their child for any other.)
Posted by: Michelle Potter | October 12, 2009 3:28 PM
PS, obviously marrying a masculine man does not GUARANTEE genetic dissimilarity. I married a very manly guy -- who, btw, is also very smart with a lucrative career as a computer geek -- but recently found out that we BOTH have the genetic disorder ADD. And so do at least two of our kids. Oh well. ;) The preference for manly men instilled in us by God (or evolution, if you prefer) only makes your odds better.
Posted by: Michelle Potter | October 12, 2009 3:45 PM
Michelle,
I am sorry but I do not think genetics works this way. The issue of inbreeding is what leads to genetic weaknesses and associated problems in offspring. Kind of like weak hips in pure bred Irish Setters - it comes from poor breeding practices. However, the size of the gene pool does not have to be very big in order for those genetic deficiencies to disappear. The human gene pool is plenty big to ensure no problems in this regard - as long as we don't marry our cousins too often. That being said, I CAN accpet that this may be one of those left over phenomenons from our evolutionary past programed in our DNA...maybe... But it has nothing to do with reducing the likelihood of genetic inbreeding expressing recessive genetic adnormalities today, imo. In other words, it is no better for our species for women to choose virile men over those less so.
Posted by: Devo | October 12, 2009 4:45 PM
Sorry, Devo, but I do think genetics works that way. Two people who have the same genetic problems marrying each other DO increase the odds of their children having said genetic problem, regardless of whether those two people are biologically related. Certain genetic problems are still more prevalent in certain populations, for example, Jews are more likely to have Tay-Sachs Disease (and at least 12 others listed on http://judaism.about.com/od/health/a/geneticdisorder.htm). Of course, Jewish men and women are encouraged to marry other Jews. In cultures without that limitation, women tend to pick men who are genetically different, and lessen the chance of passing on those same genetic disorders again and again. At least, before the Pill, apparently.
Posted by: Michelle Potter | October 12, 2009 9:41 PM
