40% of babies born to unmarried women !!!

[Ridgerunner]

That link please. BTW, how does the use of condoms support this theory?

I read about it in The National Catholic Register. Another poster, whom I wish to thank, sent me this by PM:

The studies severus68, JimG, and others are looking for:

scientificamerican.com/ar…-with-the-pill

blogs.scientificamerican.com/…ontraceptives/

scientificamerican.com/ar…t-womens-taste

---

“The results showed that the preferences of women who began using the contraceptive pill shifted towards men with genetically similar odours.”

Relationship satisfaction and outcome in women who meet their partner while using oral contraception
S. Craig Roberts, Kateřina Klapilová, Anthony C. Little
J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care January 1, 2012 38 1 29
doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1647 1471-2954

 

[Ridgerunner]

The “Register” article is here: ncregister.com/site/article/want-to-find-a-good-husband-and-have-a-family-dont-use-the-pill

 

[Ridgerunner]

Hmmm. Looks like the citations, if they’re long, get shortened in the process of posting them. Regardless, if a person goes to the National Catholic Register home page and searches “pheromone”, it pops the article up.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That link please. BTW, how does the use of condoms support this theory?

I don’t know that use of condoms is anything but irrelevant to the conclusions about pheromones. I have read articles suggesting that condom use might have a negative effect on vaginal chemistry and flora. But that’s not what this particular article was about.

 

[Ridgerunner]

:dts:Now the blame is on the “contraceptives” !!!
Where is GOD’s fear, where is our faith !!!

None of this makes morality irrelevant. It only suggests that there are reasons why even a total secularist might not be as sanguine about contraceptives as many often are.

It is interesting, though, that Pope Paul VI issued warnings about contraceptives that at least bordered on this, saying that the contraceptive mentality distorts relationships. Sometimes moral precepts have natural underpinnings, rather like the ancient Jewish precepts against eating pork…something that was hazardous to health at the time but was couched as a moral precept.

 

[JaneGrey]

Hmm, so contraception can result in maladaptive marriage, divorce, and unhealthy children?

Why do I not expect to find this information greatly publicized on MSNBC or in Cosmo or Playboy?

Maybe because there isn’t a widespread pandemic of unhealthy children created by contraceptives?

 

[JaneGrey]

I posted the following somewhere, but i don’t think it was in this thread. please forgive me if I did.

A recent study done in the UK appears to establish some interesting things about pheremones; barely perceptible or even imperceptible chemical signals people emit and to which members of the opposite sex are receptive. Among the findings were:

-Ovulating women are more attractive to men than non-ovulating women. But the attraction is mutually selective. Ovulating women prefer, during that time, men who are more different from themselves in physiognomy. Both tend, at such times, to choose members of the opposite sex whose DNA and immune systems are complementary, not terribly similar.

-The respective pheremones of men and women normally lead to immune system complementariness in their choices of mates; that is, genetic differences that, acting in concert, bolster the immune systems in their children and minimize the chances of genetic defects.

-Contraceptives alter the normal pheremone signals, so that women on contraceptives are attracted to men to whom they would not be attracted if they were not on contraceptives, and whose DNA and immune systems are close to their own, with the same strengths and defects.

-The same is true of men. Their pheremone perceptions are “off” with women using contraceptives, and they are attracted to women who they would not be attracted to if they were not taking contraceptives, and who have immune systems and DNA much like their own.

-As a result, women on contraceptives have an enhanced likelihood of choosing “Mr. Wrong” instead of Mr. Right. Men have an enhanced likelihood of choosing “Ms Wrong”, and the chances of their children having immunological disorders or birth defects is increased if they conceive a child. Their chances of later disillusionment with their chosen mates is greatly increased.

-After sufficient time using contraceptives, even after women stop taking them, their systems do not ordinarily “reset” to normal.

So, does this affect the 40% rate?** Is it possible that the sexes make a lot of mistakes in their relationships and attractions because of contraceptives; mistakes that lead to less marriage, more divorce, possibly more abortions and, simply, bad choices in mating and family formation all the way around?**It seems possible. It also seems possible that some of the maladies that seem to be on the rise (like asthma, for instance, which is an immune disorder) are caused by contraceptive use; not directly, but by people choosing mates with the same immune system defects, thus enhancing them in their children. Oh, and another UK study strongly supports the proposition that the autism rate among people with highly similar DNA is much higher than among the population at large.

Who decides that these are ‘bad choices’ in mating? What is the criteria?

It is interesting that you bring up asthma and autism. I know of a few high functioning autistics who are like myself, terribly offended at the idea that ‘their malady’ is a curse that should be wiped out.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Who decides that these are ‘bad choices’ in mating? What is the criteria?

It is interesting that you bring up asthma and autism. I know of a few high functioning autistics who are like myself, terribly offended at the idea that ‘their malady’ is a curse that should be wiped out.

Well, I did not mean to offend, and I don’t see that what I said is offensive. Obviously, the individuals are the ones who “decide” that their relationship (marital or otherwise) is no longer attractive to them. scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=birth-control-pills-affect-womens-taste

And, lest you continue in your sense of being offended, as you surely know, the Aspergers/Autism spectrum is quite a broad one. i recall reading, for example, that a study done on persons of various vocations showed that 1/3 of physicians are somewhere on the spectrum and 60% of engineers are. So you’re in good company. Obviously, her autism has given Temple Grandin an advantage in her occupation. But there are others with autism whose situations are extremely bad, both for their parents and for themselves.

Studies like these may tell us things that are of no value to particular individuals. But they may be of value to people who wish to optimize the chances of avoiding avoidable problems, whether for them or for their children. There’s nothing wrong with that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Maybe because there isn’t a widespread pandemic of unhealthy children created by contraceptives?

With all due respect, you don’t know that. Certainly, you have not demonstrated it here with a reliable study source.

 

[PRmerger]

She was referring to a particular post I believe.

Could you cite the post that limned what Ms. Grey objected to: “now families where the parents are not married to each other produce unhealthy children and do not love each other.”

I haven’t seen any post that proclaimed that, so if you could point us to that post, that would be helpful.

Now, as there are some posters that I have on “ignore”, it’s possible that this sentiment came from that source, and that is why I missed it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I believe that the increase in autoimmune diseases is due to pollution of the environment and food.

Possibly, and there are studies that seem to show it. But this subject is extremely difficult because autoimmune disorders vary and because, with the most common symptom; asthma, it’s possible that non-exposure has as great a role as exposure. I recall reading, for example, that country-raised kids are less affected by asthma than city-raised kids. Are the city kids exposed to something the country kids are not exposed to, or do the country kids’ systems adapt early to more allergens because they are exposed to a wider array of them when the immune system is more adaptive? I don’t think we know.

 

[severus68]

Hmmm. Looks like the citations, if they’re long, get shortened in the process of posting them. Regardless, if a person goes to the National Catholic Register home page and searches “pheromone”, it pops the article up.

I found it, thanks. So, its an article in the American NCR referring to a UK article. I am not sure why you posted this but since you did, I would like to comment. The title of this article in the NCR was about telling Catholic women who want a good husband and a family not to take the pill. So, the article is biased from the start. Further, advice on not taking the pill should just be about the teachings of the Church. Finding a good husband should be a topic on its own. If the Church teaches something is wrong, then the reason given should be the reason given by the Church. There should not be grabbing at straws to support the ant-ABC position.

From the article:

“The study, conducted over a 10-year period, found that female pill users are drawn to men who are less masculine, less symmetrical-looking, and who are genetically similar to themselves. In contrast, ovulating women look for chiseled-featured, masculine men who are genetically dissimilar to themselves.”

I know for a fact that not all women go for the manly man, the muscle bound man. Tastes vary and that is all that it is about - tastes.

My apologies, I am continuing this digressing.

 

[Walking_Home]

I posted the following somewhere, but i don’t think it was in this thread. please forgive me if I did.

A recent study done in the UK appears to establish some interesting things about pheremones; barely perceptible or even imperceptible chemical signals people emit and to which members of the opposite sex are receptive. Among the findings were:

-Ovulating women are more attractive to men than non-ovulating women. But the attraction is mutually selective. Ovulating women prefer, during that time, men who are more different from themselves in physiognomy. Both tend, at such times, to choose members of the opposite sex whose DNA and immune systems are complementary, not terribly similar.

-The respective pheremones of men and women normally lead to immune system complementariness in their choices of mates; that is, genetic differences that, acting in concert, bolster the immune systems in their children and minimize the chances of genetic defects.

-Contraceptives alter the normal pheremone signals, so that women on contraceptives are attracted to men to whom they would not be attracted if they were not on contraceptives, and whose DNA and immune systems are close to their own, with the same strengths and defects.

-The same is true of men. Their pheremone perceptions are “off” with women using contraceptives, and they are attracted to women who they would not be attracted to if they were not taking contraceptives, and who have immune systems and DNA much like their own.

-As a result, women on contraceptives have an enhanced likelihood of choosing “Mr. Wrong” instead of Mr. Right. Men have an enhanced likelihood of choosing “Ms Wrong”, and the chances of their children having immunological disorders or birth defects is increased if they conceive a child. Their chances of later disillusionment with their chosen mates is greatly increased.

-After sufficient time using contraceptives, even after women stop taking them, their systems do not ordinarily “reset” to normal.

So, does this affect the 40% rate? Is it possible that the sexes make a lot of mistakes in their relationships and attractions because of contraceptives; mistakes that lead to less marriage, more divorce, possibly more abortions and, simply, bad choices in mating and family formation all the way around?

It seems possible. It also seems possible that some of the maladies that seem to be on the rise (like asthma, for instance, which is an immune disorder) are caused by contraceptive use; not directly, but by people choosing mates with the same immune system defects, thus enhancing them in their children. Oh, and another UK study strongly supports the proposition that the autism rate among people with highly similar DNA is much higher than among the population at large.

---

Since you have brought up pheromones – just practicing hygiene as we know today – interferes with pheromones. Frequent bathing – soap, body washes, – deodorants, antipersperants-- scented products etc. Anything that washes off/masks/changes impedes our “natural” body odor – will interfere with pheromones.

 

[severus68]

Possibly, and there are studies that seem to show it. But this subject is extremely difficult because autoimmune disorders vary and because, with the most common symptom; asthma, it’s possible that non-exposure has as great a role as exposure. I recall reading, for example, that country-raised kids are less affected by asthma than city-raised kids. Are the city kids exposed to something the country kids are not exposed to, or do the country kids’ systems adapt early to more allergens because they are exposed to a wider array of them when the immune system is more adaptive? I don’t think we know.

Studies now appear to show that children exposed early to animals have a lesser chance of developing asthma. So country - farms, land - animals.

 

[severus68]

Could you cite the post that limned what Ms. Grey objected to: “now families where the parents are not married to each other produce unhealthy children and do not love each other.”

I haven’t seen any post that proclaimed that, so if you could point us to that post, that would be helpful.

Now, as there are some posters that I have on “ignore”, it’s possible that this sentiment came from that source, and that is why I missed it.

I guessed, you should really ask her.

 

[robotsarecool]

I found it, thanks. So, its an article in the American NCR referring to a UK article. I am not sure why you posted this but since you did, I would like to comment. The title of this article in the NCR was about telling Catholic women who want a good husband and a family not to take the pill. So, the article is biased from the start. Further, advice on not taking the pill should just be about the teachings of the Church. Finding a good husband should be a topic on its own. If the Church teaches something is wrong, then the reason given should be the reason given by the Church. There should not be grabbing at straws to support the ant-ABC position.

From the article:

“The study, conducted over a 10-year period, found that female pill users are drawn to men who are less masculine, less symmetrical-looking, and who are genetically similar to themselves. In contrast, ovulating women look for chiseled-featured, masculine men who are genetically dissimilar to themselves.”

I know for a fact that not all women go for the manly man, the muscle bound man. Tastes vary and that is all that it is about - tastes.

My apologies, I am continuing this digressing.

Ya, I have to agree that women have different tastes. My husband is thin and wiry, non chiseled features, he is really symmetrical, with a baby-face, and when people look at him they don’t consider him “masculine”. I have known him many year and long before we started dating, I thought he was attractive.

 

[PRmerger]

I guessed, you should really ask her.

Huh?

You are saying that there is a post on this thread that says that " “now families where the parents are not married to each other produce unhealthy children and do not love each other.”

Yes?

If so, then please cite the post# and I will look it up.

My guess is that not a single person has expressed that view on this thread.

 

[Walking_Home]

Posted by severus68
I found it, thanks. So, its an article in the American NCR referring to a UK article. I am not sure why you posted this but since you did, I would like to comment. The title of this article in the NCR was about telling Catholic women who want a good husband and a family not to take the pill. So, the article is biased from the start. Further, advice on not taking the pill should just be about the teachings of the Church. Finding a good husband should be a topic on its own. If the Church teaches something is wrong, then the reason given should be the reason given by the Church. There should not be grabbing at straws to support the ant-ABC position.

---

I agree too.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I found it, thanks. So, its an article in the American NCR referring to a UK article. I am not sure why you posted this but since you did, I would like to comment. The title of this article in the NCR was about telling Catholic women who want a good husband and a family not to take the pill. So, the article is biased from the start. Further, advice on not taking the pill should just be about the teachings of the Church. Finding a good husband should be a topic on its own. If the Church teaches something is wrong, then the reason given should be the reason given by the Church. There should not be grabbing at straws to support the ant-ABC position.

From the article:

“The study, conducted over a 10-year period, found that female pill users are drawn to men who are less masculine, less symmetrical-looking, and who are genetically similar to themselves. In contrast, ovulating women look for chiseled-featured, masculine men who are genetically dissimilar to themselves.”

I know for a fact that not all women go for the manly man, the muscle bound man. Tastes vary and that is all that it is about - tastes.

My apologies, I am continuing this digressing.

Obviously, a Catholic paper is going to have a point of view, and ought to. But that doesn’t mean the information is incorrect. They, after all, did not perform the study, and were not the first to publish it. Nor did Scientific American, which is not a Catholic publication but cites some of the same information. One should critique the study if one doesn’t buy into it, not the publication, just because it’s Catholic.

And why should a Catholic publication avoid reporting on things that support its own position in other ways? If contraceptives are harmful morally, it doesn’t mean they should not be allowed to say they can be harmful in other ways. In fact, it’s probably best that they do. If contraceptives are unnatural in some ways, they could be unnatural in many ways.

I don’t think the article suggested that ovulating women are attracted to “muscle bound” men at all. And, of course, people, being of free will, can make choices. They are talking about what are essentially physiologic reactions. People are not cattle, and do not require pheromones to make them attracted to the opposite sex. They are simply saying pheromones have an effect on relationship choices and that pheromones are altered by chemicals that change womens’ body chemistry. Nothing strange in that.

Men, as we know, are often attracted to women with certain physical characteristics. Women often complain about this; particularly the breast size one. But that does not mean all men have this attraction particularly or that they will throw over a fine woman for one who is simply more generously endowed in that way. But it is absurd to claim that no man is ever affected by certain physical characteristics. Otherwise, there would be no well-endowed blonde women in ads or on Fox News. Right?

One can quibble with information like this all day long. But the real question is whether it’s true and if so, what should responsible human beings do about it. And, relating to the topic, responsible people would do well to ask whether any of the relationship dysfunction that is so prevalent in this society is in any manner affected by such things. Many people question whether, e.g., the pill puts estrogen in the ground water supply, causing damage to downstream fauna. If we are going to worry about, e.g., the effect of contraceptives on frogs, why not worry about its effect on people as well?

 

[severus68]

Ya, I have to agree that women have different tastes. My husband is thin and wiry, non chiseled features, he is really symmetrical, with a baby-face, and when people look at him they don’t consider him “masculine”. I have known him many year and long before we started dating, I thought he was attractive.

Yes, attraction is not that simple. You can’t put some criteria in a table and tick them off…