M
The Pill Makes You Hate Sex and Want to Leave Your Milquetoast Man
- Status
A
Aviatrix
Guest
That article does not accurately represent the Royal Society’s paper.
Here are some other things that same paper says:
“However, the same women were more satisfied with their partner’s paternal provision, and thus had longer relationships and were less likely to separate. These effects are congruent with evolutionary predictions based on cyclical preference shifts. Our results demonstrate that widespread use of hormonal contraception may contribute to relationship outcome, with implications for human reproductive behaviour, family cohesion and quality of life.”
There are problems with hormonal birth control, but inaccurately representing it isn’t doing the cause any favors.
Here are some other things that same paper says:
“However, the same women were more satisfied with their partner’s paternal provision, and thus had longer relationships and were less likely to separate. These effects are congruent with evolutionary predictions based on cyclical preference shifts. Our results demonstrate that widespread use of hormonal contraception may contribute to relationship outcome, with implications for human reproductive behaviour, family cohesion and quality of life.”
There are problems with hormonal birth control, but inaccurately representing it isn’t doing the cause any favors.
A
Aviatrix
Guest
Also, (this isn’t directed at the OP) this article comes off as derogatory towards men who don’t meet the author’s standard of masculinity. I find that sort of thing reprehensible. Saying that one type of man is lesser than another type based on arbitrary standards is ridiculous. We are all God’s children.
M
maryjk
Guest
Stephen168
New member
Yes, very interesting
K
kozlosap
Guest
100 percent agree!
Very true. I hate when people try to scare others into being good.
M
markeverett49
Guest
Really? That’s interesting, as it’s such a common feature of our lives: smoking will kill you; a bad diet will kill you;if you don’t support same-sex marriage, you must be a hater and a bigot; the world is doomed unless we act on climate change NOW; I could go on.
Thing is, sometimes this is a good way to go. I was too scared to stick a fork in a light socket as a kid because I heard about another kid who had that bright idea. Many a smoker has quit because of the health risks. (But for the fact that it is really bad for you to smoke, why WOULD anyone quit?) I remember seeing the “Scared Straight” documentary as a kid. (Mouthy teens taken to a prison and ‘scared straight’ by cons----worked for me!)
M
maryjk
Guest
That would be fine if it were TRUE. The problem is when people make up things to scare you.
It is like telling teen boys that “it” will fall off if you masturbate. Or you will have hairy palms. Cross your eyes and they will stay like that. I think you get the point.
In the article, as quoted by Aviatrix
Heck, just tell me the TRUTH, and let me figure out what I am going to do.
M
manualman
Guest
Seriously? The study authors said that with a straight face? I guess we can’t tell since it’s typed… Uh, sure guys. Families were frequently broken and factured left and right until the pill became widespread in use and contributed to better relationship outcomes. Now that this has happened, most marriages last a lifetime and children are raised by both parents…That would be fine if it were TRUE. The problem is when people make up things to scare you.
It is like telling teen boys that “it” will fall off if you masturbate. Or you will have hairy palms. Cross your eyes and they will stay like that. I think you get the point.
In the article, as quoted by Aviatrix
"However, the same women were more satisfied with their partner’s paternal provision, and thus had longer relationships and were less likely to separate. These effects are congruent with evolutionary predictions based on cyclical preference shifts. Our results demonstrate that widespread use of hormonal contraception may contribute to relationship outcome, with implications for human reproductive behaviour, family cohesion and quality of life. "
Heck, just tell me the TRUTH, and let me figure out what I am going to do.
Except that this has NOT been the result. Quite the opposite, no?
M
maryjk
Guest
And “no fault divorce” had nothing to do with it.
The Pill may have been part of the cause but you can’t blame the entire breakdown on it. There were and are other things going on in society that have harmed the family unit.
M
manualman
Guest
I think you are misinterpreting the author rather badly. Worse than he could be accused of misinterpreting the findings, actually!
He’s not implying that women aren’t naturally attracted to men that don’t bench press constantly, have a chiseled chin or an agressively selfish attitude. He’s saying that women not hormonally altered are more likely to appreciate men who take initiative, who are inclined to lead, who set goals and work to achieve them. By contrast, I think he’s saying that women on the pill are more likely to be tolerant of coach potatoes (and let’s not pretend we don’t have a lot of those sorts of men these days or that being that way is “normal” for them).
See the difference? No? Let me put it this way then. I have a male relative with a slight build, is artistically inclined, prefers to do the cooking, is uninterested in pro sports, doesn’t know a wrench from a pliars and yet is happily married with 5 kids. He’s extremely successful in business and is a fountain of leadership, energy and ideas for his whole family. He’s got plenty of quirks, but his wife adores him. He’s a real man.
By contrast, I have another male relative who is classically good looking, is a great athlete, has a phd and has no interest in ever having kids or doing anything more significant than having a good time. He and his wife used the pill, before they divorced. She couldn’t stand his purposelessness anymore (not that I endorse divorce, mind you). Get it yet?
A
Aviatrix
Guest
I think you misunderstand me. I’m not disputing the relevance of hormones to mate selection. In fact, I have seen several studies that indicate that the type of man (high T vs. low T) that women are most attracted to varies during the cycle. Since hormonal birh control effects the cycle, it makes sense that it women on the pill would choose mates in the same manner as women during the infertile part of their cycle. Women tend to be more attracted to high T, chiseled jaw manly man types with physical indicators of fertility when they are most fertile, and low T men who are theoretically better partners and fathers during the infertile parts of their cycle. In your example, the first man would be an example of low T and the second high T. Here is a couple quote from the study.
"OC…thus leading to a maintained preference (during a woman’s actual partner choice) for markers of high-quality paternal investment that characterizes low fertility phases of the menstrual cycle ". So women on oral contraceptives “OC” choose mates with indicators of paternal investment similarly to how women do during their non fertile times.
“OC users would maintain a higher level of preference for traits such as wealth and intelligence”
“Similarly, weaker preferences for facial masculinity in OC users [4–6] could make for more stable relationships, since men with less masculine features (indicative of low testosterone levels) are perceived to be [18], and may actually be [19], less likely to be unfaithful.” So women on OC (who choose mates similarly to women on the infertile times) choose men with less masculine features, which can signify low T.
If the author of this blog IS saying that OC causes women to choose couch potatoes, that isn’t really an accurate portrayal of the study either. I think your estimation of which is a true man is indicative of yor priorities, which is my preference as well. In regards to the types of men we prefer, we seem to agree. Regardless, I’m sure we can agree that denigrating certain types of men as “not good enough” based on physical markers of masculinity is silly. Who a man chooses to be is more important, and both high t and low t men can, and do, act in ways contrary to the average of their respective populations.
My issue issues with this article are twofold. He doesn’t accurately include the positive effects of the choice of mate (less likely to cheat, longer relationships, “better” fathers). He also writes about “low T” men as though they are less worthy in general, and less worthy of being with a woman in particular. Surely this world is large enough for all types of men, the “high t” ones the author prefers, and the “low t” ones like your cousin, and the many in between.
In summary, I understand what the author is saying, but he doesn’t accurately represent the study, and I find his use of the word “milquetoast” an objectionable way to describe “low t” men.
Even if I were misunderstanding this article, I am not deliberately misrepresenting it to push an agenda. I’m advocating for understanding of the science, and for respect towards men of all stripes.
A
Aviatrix
Guest
I realize that I could have been more specific in the ways in which the article misrepresents the study. My apologies for two long posts.
" The pill makes you hate sex": An exaggeration. Women on the pill experience less satisfaction with sex.
“The pill makes you…want to leave your milquetoast man”: The study actually says that women on the pill are in relationships that are two years longer on average, although in relationships that had ended, the female was the more likely to have initiated the separation. So saying it makes you want to leave your man isn’t really correct, it makes you less likely to leave your man.
“the pill causes women to be attracted to lower testosterone men who lack passion and drive leading to a lower potential for conflict.” The pill does cause women to choose low T men, but women do the same when they are in the low fertile phase of their menstrual cycle. Correlating low-t men to lacking passion and drive is the author’s own estimation of low-t men. Sexual passion isn’t solely regulated by being a “high T” man, career based passion and drive are much more complicated and linked to other personality traits. Lower potential for conflict can also be related to different communication styles, learning to cooperate, etc, not exclusively to testosterone.
“it is easier to teach a manly man to wash a dish than it is to teach a milquetoast man to be passionate”. That the preference for low T men exhibited by women in their infertile state, whether naturally or on OC is related to performing household chores such as washing dishes is…silly. Dishes are irrelevant. Anyone can learn to wash a dish. Women choose low t men because low t can be indicative of better parenting and partnering traits. Again, passion isn’t solely related to testosterone.
“So, ladies, if you want passion and partnership, you might want to rethink that resistance to doing Natural Family Planning” Certainly there are good reasons to use NFP as opposed to OC. Both high t and low t men are capable of both passion and partnership.
Like I said, there are problems with OC, but we’d be better to counter its use with truth, not exaggeration and misrepresentation.
" The pill makes you hate sex": An exaggeration. Women on the pill experience less satisfaction with sex.
“The pill makes you…want to leave your milquetoast man”: The study actually says that women on the pill are in relationships that are two years longer on average, although in relationships that had ended, the female was the more likely to have initiated the separation. So saying it makes you want to leave your man isn’t really correct, it makes you less likely to leave your man.
“the pill causes women to be attracted to lower testosterone men who lack passion and drive leading to a lower potential for conflict.” The pill does cause women to choose low T men, but women do the same when they are in the low fertile phase of their menstrual cycle. Correlating low-t men to lacking passion and drive is the author’s own estimation of low-t men. Sexual passion isn’t solely regulated by being a “high T” man, career based passion and drive are much more complicated and linked to other personality traits. Lower potential for conflict can also be related to different communication styles, learning to cooperate, etc, not exclusively to testosterone.
“it is easier to teach a manly man to wash a dish than it is to teach a milquetoast man to be passionate”. That the preference for low T men exhibited by women in their infertile state, whether naturally or on OC is related to performing household chores such as washing dishes is…silly. Dishes are irrelevant. Anyone can learn to wash a dish. Women choose low t men because low t can be indicative of better parenting and partnering traits. Again, passion isn’t solely related to testosterone.
“So, ladies, if you want passion and partnership, you might want to rethink that resistance to doing Natural Family Planning” Certainly there are good reasons to use NFP as opposed to OC. Both high t and low t men are capable of both passion and partnership.
Like I said, there are problems with OC, but we’d be better to counter its use with truth, not exaggeration and misrepresentation.
M
manualman
Guest
The devil lurks in the details of studies. The fact that women on the pill take longer to give up on losers (which I assert has more to do with manhood as I defined earlier than anything one can measure with a testosterone reading) doesn’t impress me.
What impresses me is that married couples that never use contraception (pill or any other form) rarely break up while couples that do can barely beat a coin toss for predicting the outcome of the marriage. Surely we can agree that this is a rather more impressive statistic than making comparisons among failed relationships about which one took longer to fail?
I’m neither a doctor not a statistician, but it seems eminently logical to me that women who retain the natural hormonal cycles that women historically have had might not see any hormone - induced changes in decision making when compared to women who have massively changed their hormanal cycles.
Granted that correlation isn’t necessarily causation, but the fact that marriage success rates drastically plummeted in close correlation with societal acceptance of the pill sure is suspicious to me, whether the association is spiritual, physical or a combination of factors. Coincidence seems rather a lame excuse, no?
What impresses me is that married couples that never use contraception (pill or any other form) rarely break up while couples that do can barely beat a coin toss for predicting the outcome of the marriage. Surely we can agree that this is a rather more impressive statistic than making comparisons among failed relationships about which one took longer to fail?
I’m neither a doctor not a statistician, but it seems eminently logical to me that women who retain the natural hormonal cycles that women historically have had might not see any hormone - induced changes in decision making when compared to women who have massively changed their hormanal cycles.
Granted that correlation isn’t necessarily causation, but the fact that marriage success rates drastically plummeted in close correlation with societal acceptance of the pill sure is suspicious to me, whether the association is spiritual, physical or a combination of factors. Coincidence seems rather a lame excuse, no?
A
Aviatrix
Guest
Losers? But how you defined manhood earlier (slender build, not athletic, great partner and parent) is the typically “low-T” man that those women are with, according to the study. You think low t men who are family men are real men, so I’m not sure where the “losers” comes from. I think you are subscribing traits to low-t men, such as couch-potato, incapable of leading, etc that don’t belong. Those are personality traits, not genetic ones. Men that are either low t or high t can be couch potatoes or poor leaders, and “losers”.
You accused me of not understanding the author, I was just explaining how he is misrepresenting the study, and why I am correct in my viewpoint that he misrepresented the study.
I agree with you that anything that messes up a natural body function that much isn’t a wise thing to engage in without serious need. It has been observed though, that women who don’t and haven’t taken OC do still have cyclical shifts in their mate selection coincidental with their ovulation.
Coincidence is a “lame excuse” for attributing causation. Perhaps societal factors that resulted in fewer successful marriage also resulted in the pill becoming widely available. It is a very complex topic. Many things were occurring at the same time including no fault divorce, women being less dependent on their spouses as well. To blame all of the changes in society on one aspect of the change, especially with no proof isn’t called for. Although you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
A
aux1
Guest
Evolutionary psychology 101.
High-testosterone males (i.e. alphas in the pack) are good gene donors.
Low-testosterone males (i.e. betas in the pack) are good providers.
An optimal reproductive strategy for a female is to form bond with a beta male and cheat with an alpha male in her fertile period. This way her children get both good genetic material and good support growing up. Human females actually have evolutionary adaptations to this strategy – they are the only mammals which send no obvious fertility signals.
If all females did this consistently and with a full success rate, then 100% of children would be fathered by alphas and none by betas. In reality, it is somewhere in the middle. Good statics on how much women cheat are very hard to get
Oral contraceptive eliminates the drive to seek alphas during the fertile period. Which means more children of beta males in the next generation. In other words, selection against the alphas. Alpha status in the pack is usually associated with leadership and performance. So this can have a very interesting impact on social structure of humans.
High-testosterone males (i.e. alphas in the pack) are good gene donors.
Low-testosterone males (i.e. betas in the pack) are good providers.
An optimal reproductive strategy for a female is to form bond with a beta male and cheat with an alpha male in her fertile period. This way her children get both good genetic material and good support growing up. Human females actually have evolutionary adaptations to this strategy – they are the only mammals which send no obvious fertility signals.
If all females did this consistently and with a full success rate, then 100% of children would be fathered by alphas and none by betas. In reality, it is somewhere in the middle. Good statics on how much women cheat are very hard to get
Oral contraceptive eliminates the drive to seek alphas during the fertile period. Which means more children of beta males in the next generation. In other words, selection against the alphas. Alpha status in the pack is usually associated with leadership and performance. So this can have a very interesting impact on social structure of humans.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
The trend for broken families traces back to the pill which started it all. The pill made it convenient for people to fornicate, cheat on each other, and made abortion seem necessary to people when the pill failed in it’s purpose of blocking new life. The higher rates of infidelity led to higher divorce rates. And the result is a high proportion of kids being from broken families.
A
Aviatrix
Guest
Do you have any data, whatsoever, to support that?The trend for broken families traces back to the pill which started it all. The pill made it convenient for people to fornicate, cheat on each other, and made abortion seem necessary to people when the pill failed in it’s purpose of blocking new life. The higher rates of infidelity led to higher divorce rates. And the result is a high proportion of kids being from broken families.
- Status