• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

The Tricky Chemistry of Attraction

steve

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
check this out;
Much of the attraction between the sexes is chemistry. New studies suggest that when women use hormonal contraceptives, such as birth-control pills, it disrupts some of these chemical signals, affecting their attractiveness to men and women's own preferences for romantic partners.


Researchers say birth control pills are upending the natural influence of hormones on attraction. WSJ's Shirley Wang reports on a new study in lemurs that show how contraceptives may influence the way the primates pick and choose their mates.
The type of man a woman is drawn to is known to change during her monthly cycle—when a woman is fertile, for instance, she might look for a man with more masculine features. Taking the pill or another type of hormonal contraceptive upends this natural dynamic, making less-masculine men seem more attractive, according to a small but growing body of evidence. The findings have led researchers to wonder about the implications for partner choice, relationship quality and even the health of the children produced by these partnerships.

Evolutionary psychologists and biologists have long been interested in factors that lead to people's choice of mates. One influential study in the 1990s, dubbed the T-shirt study, asked women about their attraction to members of the opposite sex by smelling the men's T-shirts. The findings showed that humans, like many other animals, transmit and recognize information pertinent to sexual attraction through chemical odors known as pheromones.

The study also showed that women seemed to prefer the scents of men whose immune systems were most different from the women's own immune-system genes known as MHC. The family of genes permit a person's body to recognize which bacteria are foreign invaders and to provide protection from those bugs. Evolutionarily, scientists believe, children should be healthier if their parents' MHC genes vary, because the offspring will be protected from more pathogens.
. When women are ovulating, they tend to be drawn to men with greater facial symmetry and more signals of masculinity, such as muscle tone, a more masculine voice and dominant behaviors.
.
What happens to a woman during her most fertile days?

Her voice becomes higher pitched.
Men are more attentive to her, with behavior ranging from thoughtful to jealous.
Her scent becomes more attractive to men.
She seeks men with more masculine features.
Her social behavior changes, including increased flirting.
She tries to look more attractive and may choose more-revealing clothing.
If she is with a less masculine man, she may feel less attracted to him.
.More than 92 million prescriptions for hormonal contraceptives, including pills, patches and injections, were filled last year in the U.S., according to data-tracker IMS Health.

Researchers say their aim isn't to scare or stop women from taking hormonal contraceptives. "We just want to know what we're doing" by taking the pill, says Alexandra Alvergne, a researcher in biological anthropology at University College London in the U.K. "If there is a risk it affects our romantic life and the health status of our children, we want to know." Dr. Alvergne last year published a review detailing the existing literature on the topic in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution.

Both men's and women's preferences in mates shift when a woman is ovulating, the period when she is fertile, research has shown. Some studies have tracked women's responses to photos of different men, while other studies have interviewed women about their feelings for men over several weeks. Among the conclusions: When women are ovulating, they tend to be drawn to men with greater facial symmetry and more signals of masculinity, such as muscle tone, a more masculine voice and dominant behaviors. The women also seemed to be particularly attuned to MHC-gene diversity. From an evolutionary perspective, these signals are supposed to indicate that men are more fertile and have better genes to confer to offspring.

Women tend to exhibit subtle cues when they are ovulating, and men tend to find them more attractive at this time. Women try to look more attractive, perhaps by wearing tighter or more revealing clothing, says Martie Haselton, a communications and psychology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. Research on this includes studies in which photos that showed women's clothing choices at different times of the month were shown to groups of judges. Women also emit chemical signals that they are fertile; researchers have measured various body odors, says Dr. Haselton, who has a paper on men's ability to detect ovulation coming out in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science.

Such natural preferences get wiped out when the woman is on hormonal birth control, research has shown. Women on the pill no longer experience a greater desire for traditionally masculine men during ovulation. Their preference for partners who carry different immunities than they do also disappears. And men no longer exhibit shifting interest for women based on their menstrual cycle, perhaps because those cues signaling ovulation are no longer present, scientists say.

Some women using birth-control pills have long reported changes to their libido and mood. Research is still in the early stages to explore the implications of taking hormonal contraceptives for women's choice of mates and for fidelity in relationships. Researchers speculate that women with less-masculine partners may become less interested in their partner when they come off birth control, contributing to relationship dissatisfaction. And, if contraceptives are masking women's natural ability to detect genetic diversity, then the children produced by parents who met when the woman was on the pill may be less genetically healthy, they suggest.

"We don't have enough research to draw a firm conclusion yet," says Dr. Haselton. "It is certainly possible that if women don't experience that little uptick in [desiring] masculinity that they end up choosing less masculine partners," she says.

That could prompt some women to stray, research suggests. Psychologist Steven Gangestad and his team at the University of New Mexico showed in a 2010 study that women with less-masculine partners reported an increased attraction for other men during their fertile phase. Women partnered with traditionally masculine partners didn't have such urges, according to the study of 60 couples.

In another study, the researchers analyzed MHC gene samples of 48 couples. Women partnered with men with whom they shared the least genetic diversity reported being less sexually responsive to their mates. The study was published in 2006 in the journal Psychological Science.

There is also accumulating evidence indicating men react differently to women when they are on birth control. A 2004 study in the journal in Behavioral Ecology used the T-shirt study methodology but instead put the shirts on 81 women. A panel of 31 men, smelling the T-shirts, experienced the greatest attraction for the non-pill-using women when they were ovulating. Twelve women on the panel didn't detect any difference.

A study on primates appears to support the idea that hormonal contraceptives change mating preferences. Duke University researchers studied hormones secreted by female lemurs before and after the animals received a hormonal contraceptive. They also studied males' preferences for these scents.

The findings, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences this year, showed that the injection of Depo-Prevara, a long-lasting contraceptive that is approved for use in humans, dramatically altered the chemicals that female lemurs give off to indicate their identity and how genetically healthy they are.

The females given the contraceptive became overall less appealing to the males than before getting the injection, says Christine Drea, a professor in Duke's evolutionary anthropology department and senior author on the study. The contraceptive erased all the normal information the odor signals conveyed, she says.

Though the study would need to be conducted in humans to draw direct conclusions, there are potential parallels to people, Dr. Drea says. Birth control "could be mixing up your own [signals] and others aren't smelling the real you," she says.
 
Where did you get this from Steve?

Hormones freak me out, I would never take them but that is because I don't want to mess with my body, not because I want to be more attractive to men! Wow, talk about vanity research! Don't we have enough problems in the world due to vanity?


B
 
Well, I'm trying to form a comment on this but my brain is stuck on 'low buzz frequency'.

Is one of the underlying points here that men who arent 'the most manly' are sorta out of luck if women stop taking the pill because they'll not be desireable? Are we to form our relationships by physical appearance for the most part?

I'll personally attest that I have taken bc pills contionusly for many years without even the gap pills and there is no lack of 'physical attraction or expression' in our relationship. In fact, there is more freedon to be close because we don't have to worry about expanding our family when we don't want to.

On a professional point- I choose to take bc pills because I travel a lot and prefer not to have to deal with monthly issues. It works for me and my hub is very happy too.

What's next, the study on how women are emotionally unstable during their cycles and should not be out in public or allowed to work like in some 'olden better era?' I mean really.

Sorry to get so ticked off this early in the morning, but this sorta stuff just drives me nuts.
 
donnag said:
Sorry to get so ticked off this early in the morning, but this sorta stuff just drives me nuts.

:lol: I am still reeling from the not so subtle 'the pill makes you uglier' message, I did not process the 'men with less macho looks are doing better than they should' and 'non ovulating women don't flirt as much gosh darnit!' messages also.

B
 
I'll personally attest that I have taken bc pills contionusly for many years without even the gap pills and there is no lack of 'physical attraction or expression' in our relationship. In fact, there is more freedon to be close because we don't have to worry about expanding our family when we don't want to. On a professional point- I choose to take bc pills because I travel a lot and prefer not to have to deal with monthly issues. It works for me and my hub is very happy too.

Donnag,

There are indeed plenty of solid medical studies that show the benefits of medicinal means to regulation of a woman's cycle and/or hormones. One scientist, medical doctor, and theologian who I worked with as a professor/ colleague has shown that in some cases some women are even better off for using some medicinal means than not. As he once said to me, "every medicine has the potential for some negatives to it. But, not taking medicine too has its own set of negatives if other problems exist. In our fallen world medicine is merely an effort to return back to pre-fall states to the best that we can this side of eternity. Thus the key is to examine as much of the data as possible and then make a decision that best reflects one's goals as well as one's faith."

Another scientist from Florida at a bioethics conference even discussed how some forms of medicine to regulate a woman's cycle is really a return to an Edenic like estate in the sense that it does what you noted, it eases the pain of monthly cycles which he believes did not exist before and prior to the fall.

Furthermore, as numerous medical scientists attest, some forms of medicinal hormonal regulators actually decrease the odds of getting cysts on one's ovaries, which if left unchecked can be highly destructive if one bursts.

Sorry to get so ticked off this early in the morning, but this sorta stuff just drives me nuts.

lol....Those type of one-side studies often do indeed do more to agitate than to educate. For example, a study such as that has no percentage levels to it. Hard science is a field that seeks to establish clear percentages that can truly be measured. One key to studies like this is to analyze it carefully to see if there can be a specific measurement given.

In other words, this study offered here a conclusion but not a percentage as to how much of a difference it made. Did it decrease the scents or draw factor by 25%, 50%, or 75%? or was it very minuscule like 10%, 5%, or even lower like .3%?

Other points of scientific data too are important, such as would a certain type of cologne or perfume offset the decrease in what the "pill" might do? Does one's physical health play into it? Does the body pick up on this decrease in scent and after a certain time alter itself to adjust accordingly? If someone is aware of it can personal awareness compensate for the factors of change? Things like that are important yet apparently not a part of this research.

As the article itself said:
researchers to wonder about the implications

Indeed this study is not sufficient to make a pro or con position and even the researchers are still left with many questions that would need hard science verification before this could be used as a decisive and strong scientific case against all forms of medicinal hormonal regulators.

To make an educated choice something else beyond this study would have to influence the decision.

In many cases it is the prior theological or faith assumptions that lead people one way or the other with the data. Those who oppose all forms of what are so-called non-natural medicines will often use any source they can to bolster the idea that all forms of hormonal regulators are bad. On the other side those who are all for it will often other data for their own purposes and positions.

In my opinion is likely boils down to a conscience issue covered and governed by Romans 14 as prescribed by the head of each family as they all walk together in faith.

Yet as for medical studies I am in favor of studies that are done by hard scientists with a holistic study where both the positives and negatives are listed. In those studies one is able to be better educated than in studies where many factors are left unknown to the readers, such as with percentage issue with this study
 
Hormones have a much deeper effect on people than they realize. If hormones were not involved then puberty would not happen and we know what happens to men when they are made Eunuchs at a very young age. That is in the bible. This line of study is more about how hormones affect mate selection which affects the population at large and even people's individual ives. Especially since women and girls are straing them younger and younger. Once you are married that is a different story. There are other factors besides hormones of course that help mate or pair bonding. Also different women are affected differently perhaps according to their natural hormone levels and the activity of hormone receptors.

For example if you have a biological child and a relatively natural birth then there are certain hormones that flood a woman's brain and bloodstream during labor, delivery and breastfeeding that assist the mother bonding to her baby. When there is a c-section or traumatic/medically difficult birth or long seperation between mom and baby then this is altered a bit and the mom may be at a higher risk for things like post partum depression and have a harder time bonding with the baby. Now does this mean that a mother that adopts a baby cannot love the baby just as much as a bio mom, sometimes more? of course not! Now, the adoptive mom did not have "assistance" from the natural hormones occuring at birth. Many kinds of apes will COMPLETELY reject a baby if it is delivered by a c-section! Of course we are not animals but also spirit beings so we transcend hormonal effects (or we can when we are not acting in our animal natures!) This assistance, however, is a mechanism that God has put in place to encourage this bonding similar to the pleasure of marital relations. This "assistance" was also put in place for young men and women to choose "suitable' mates. Suitable in terms of health, strength, etc. God wants the best for you so why mess with it in ANY way.

How could a hormonal change that "fools" a woman's body into thinking she is forever pregnant not affect her at all even in some small way? When birth control pills were first introduced the studies done on them preliminarily caused some women's deaths because the dosages were so high. At the time they didn't consider them high becasue they didn't know how women would be affected. Once the # of deaths, strokes, blood clots etc were down to an "acceptable" # then they introduced them to the public at large. It is really still a big experiment. There are women today who die from hormonal birth control. They are MANY more women today who's libido is lowered, suffer depression etc. when on these hormones.
 
I reccomend a really good book I read about hormone therapy:

http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Experime ... 0786868538

this book is not written by a christian but by a regular journalist "modern" type of lady.

and there is Napro technology which is something that lots of people don't know about. It is a new modality that attempts to help women's hormonal imbalances (which is not the main reason the VAST majority of women use hormonal birth control anyway!) without altering the actual reason awoman has her hormones and reproductive organs.:

http://www.naprotechnology.com/
 
I know at least two women who are permanently on hormonal birth control because that is better than dealing with such extreme mood swings every month. One woman has three children and the other has none. The one without children has no libido whatsoever and she doesn't mind, she actually saw it as a fairly good trade off.

One woman's dream is another's nightmare.

Bels
 
steve said:
check this out;
Women also emit chemical signals that they are fertile; researchers have measured various body odors, says Dr. Haselton, who has a paper on men's ability to detect ovulation coming out in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science.

Wonder how good ole' soap and water affects 'the scratch-and-sniff' quality of mating?
 
I'm pretty sure, in spite of my name, that soap and water and a bit of perfume is preferable ;) but then again, scratch and sniff may have cost advantages... :lol:
Maddog
 
wow, interesting responses! i thought that it was more intriguing than it was controversial. maybe we were created a little more complex than we have room for?
i wonder how deodorants, perfumes and musks etc. effect us?
the article was in the Wall Street Journel.
 
i wonder how deodorants, perfumes and musks etc. effect us?

Ya know sometimes even if something is hard on the body it sure is the right thing to do, especially if we are to love our neighbors. :p Thank God for those inventions! :lol:
 
I definitely think fragrances, cosmetics, etc cover up pheromones that are released by the body. I have never actually seen a study about this. I think because there is not money in it and maybe cosmetics/toiletry associations would sue for slander like the beef people did with Oprah. Anyway I have seen evidence where a baby will go through a "nursing strike" meaning he/she will stop eating because the mother has changed deodorant/detergent or some fragrant product that she uses. When mom quits a specific product or switches back then baby will be ok and stop fussing. Maybe it has something to do with the familiarity that the baby had to the scent?

Of course there are the "nursing pad" studies where they actually take babies, all newborns and in similar conditions and put nursing pads with different mothers' breast milk on them near the babies and each baby will invariable move toward and try to sniff/suckle their own mother's nursing pad while mother is not even in the room! Washing/wiping a baby's hands immediately after birth will impare him finding his mother's breast when laid on her chest because her amniotic fluid has a similar scent to her breast milk and it is beleived that this assists baby in finding her breasts and latching on unnassisted. Almost every baby can do this barring medical problems and too much intervention.

Scent is a very important thing for humans. The studies Steve cited just show that hormones (and interfering with them) affect your sense of smell and the purpose of your sense of smell (among other things).
 
are we not fearfully and wonderfully made :!: :D

in this plastic, glass, stainless steel society it is easy to lose sight of the fact that our quality of life is effected by things that we never see.
the medical profession, as good as it is, will never catch up with the understanding of our Creator.
 
the medical profession, as good as it is, will never catch up with the understanding of our Creator.

Very true indeed.

I am sure glad for both, our wonderful physiological construction by the Creator and the brains of those who serve us through mercy ministries in helping to put us back together or to help us stay together until we are glorified in new bodies.

Praise God for both!
 
Ok i don't mean to beat a dead horse. I just finally found the links to the monkey studies I had been searching for. So for those of you interested here it is. This guy was doing this in the 70's! All this is fascinating:

The text at bottom is same as in video but a bit longer and has the whole smelly t-shirt thing in it!! Can you imagine being the guy picked to wear the "loser" t-shirt? :oops: :
http://www.worldcat.org/profiles/Geremi ... ws/1313050
I think it's hilarious that the guy who studies animal behaviour is name Lionel Tiger! :D

This is smart Catholic lady:
http://www.youtube.com/user/ofwc#p/u/28/Bevk4s1I0XM

She also does this talk which I love!:
http://catholicaudio.blogspot.com/2007/ ... y-not.html
 
The speaker is Janet Smith. It is a very good presentation but again it's just audio. Very calm and reasoned approach to why we shouldn't participate in contraception but instead use "family planning" without chemicals. I liked the idea that she presented that sex is for babies and bonding. She does cite the Pope so if that's an issue maybe fast-forward or something. It is dated so her stats may be a bit skewed but not negated. Food for thought.

maddog
 
Back
Top