The Pill Makes Women Pick Bad Mates

[belgareth]

The Pill Makes Women Pick Bad Mates


Jeanna

Bryner (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/livescience/sc_livescience/byline/thepillmakeswomenpickbadmates/28578525/SI

G=11nsdukp6/*http://www.space.com/php/contactus/feedback.php?r=jbr)
Senior

Writer
LiveScience.com (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/livescience/sc_livescience/byline/thepillmakeswomenpickbadmates/28578

525/SIG=10sog4vj6/*http://www.livescience.com)Tue Aug 12, 8:21 PM ET




Birth-control pills could screw up a woman's ability to sniff out a compatible mate, a new study finds.



While several factors can send a woman swooning, including big brains and brawn, body odor can be critical in

the final decision, the researchers say. That's because beneath a woman's flowery fragrance or a guy's musk the

body sends out aromatic molecules that indicate genetic compatibility.

Major histocompatibility complex (MHC)

genes are involved in immune response and other functions, and the best mates are those that have different MHC

smells than you. The new study reveals, however, that when women are on the pill they prefer guys with matching MHC

odors.

MHC genes churn out substances that tell the body whether a cell is a native or an invader. When

individuals with different MHC genes mate, their offspring's immune systems can recognize a broader range of

foreign cells, making them more fit.

Past studies have suggested couples with dissimilar MHC genes are more

satisfied and more likely to be faithful to a mate. And the opposite is also true with matchng-MHC couples showing

less satisfaction and more wandering eyes.

"Not only could MHC-similarity in couples lead to fertility

problems," said lead researcher Stewart Craig Roberts, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Newcastle

in England, "but it could ultimately lead to the breakdown of relationships when women stop using the contraceptive

pill, as odor perception plays a significant role in maintaining attraction to partners."

Sexy scents

The

study involved about 100 women, aged 18 to 35, who chose which of six male body-odor samples they preferred. They

were tested at the start of the study when none of the participants were taking contraceptive pills and three months

later after 40 of the women had started taking the pill more than two months prior.

For the non-pill users,

results didn't show a significant preference for similar or dissimilar MHC odors. When women started taking birth

control, their odor preferences changed. These women were much more likely than non-pill users to prefer MHC-similar

odors.

"The results showed that the preferences of women who began using the contraceptive pill shifted towards

men with genetically similar odors," Roberts said.

Pregnant state

Based on the work by Claus Wedekind, a

University of Lausanne researcher who preformed similar studies in the 1990s, Roberts suggests a likely reason for

the pill's effect on a woman's odor preferences. The pill puts a woman's body into a hormonally pregnant state

(the reason she doesn't ovulate), and during that time there would be no reason to seek out a mate.

"When women

are pregnant there's no selection pressure, evolutionarily speaking, for having a preference for genetically

dissimilar odors," Roberts said. "And if there is any pressure at all it would be towards relatives, who would be

more genetically similar, because the relatives would help those individuals rear the baby."

So the pill puts a

woman's body into a post-mating state, even though she might be still in the game.

"The pill is in effect

mirroring a natural shift but at an inappropriate time," Roberts told LiveScience.

The results are detailed in

the current issue of the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
Video: Sex and the

Senses 10 Things You Didn't Know About You The Sex Quiz: Myths, Taboos and Bizarre Facts Original Story: The Pill

Makes Women Pick Bad Mates LiveScience.com chronicles the daily advances and innovations made in science and

technology. We take on the misconceptions that often pop up around scientific discoveries and deliver short,

provocative explanations with a certain wit and style. Check out our science videos, Trivia & Quizzes and Top 10s.

Join our community to debate hot-button issues like stem cells, climate change and evolution. You can also sign up

for free newsletters, register for RSS feeds and get cool gadgets at the LiveScience Store.

[Pagodeiro]

I always instictly knew

that....:trout:

Pago

[DrSmellThis]

By the same token, this

creates opportunities for those totally inappropriate "bad boys". ;)

If you date a woman who is pregnant or on

the pill, you just have to realize you are probably getting into something time limited.

You also have to know

that if you "let" your girlfriend or wife get on the pill, you are exposing your relationship to possible stress,

especially in the sexuality department. And it helps explain why pregnancy is often a difficult time for

couples.

This all certainly fits my personal experience, in both cases.

Every woman and man should be taught

this.

Nice post, Bel. We've known this for a number of years, but it's nice to see another study supporting the

conclusion.

[koolking1]

I read about this on

another site (nothing at all related, a financial advisor type who comments about lots of things) and I though to

myself, Love-Scenters have known about this for years.

Isn't it kind of ironic that pheromone wearers are

running the same risk, attracting someone who ordinarily wouldn't be interested in us.

I don't recall it

ever mentioned here, guy wears mones and attracts gal, stops wearing them and she heads out the door, has it

happened to anyone?

Speaking of birth control pills, I got an email today from a female acquaintance who is

telling me that the US Government is moving towards a position that birth control pills are a form of abortion and

will eventually be banned.

[Mtnjim]

...I got an

email today from a female acquaintance who is telling me that the US Government is moving towards a position that

birth control pills are a form of abortion and will eventually be banned.

And capitol punishment is

retroactive abortion, think they'll ban that too?

[belgareth]

That's interesting about the

thought that birth control pills will be banned. I read in another place that there is some pressure to make them

available over the counter. That only makes sense as birth control pills have such a strong safety record. They are

statistically far less dangerous than tylonol.

I can't really see them ever being banned and am speculating

that it was either some religious group spouting nonsense or somebody trying to stir up panicked indignation. All

that will really happen if they are banned is a huge black market will spring up.

[koolking1]

but I'll find

that email and paste it here.

Personally, I think they should ban everything, we'd have a very robust

economy.

[idesign]

Personally, I think they should ban everything, we'd have a very robust

economy.

That's very funny and very astute KK! We might actually have a truly free market and a nice

fluid underground economy.

Of course the downside would be that it would give the Feds all the more reason to

crack down and suck more life from us citizens, like they aren't already.

BC pills and abortion will never be

banned here in the foreseeable future. They're part of our culture now, for better or worse, 'til death do we

part, like taxes and self-serving politicians.

The only religious group invested in anti-BC pills are Catholics,

even since Vatican II, but they've never had the political clout the Evangelicals have had, who are pretty much on

the fence on this issue, hence the political disinterest.

[idesign]

By the

same token, this creates opportunities for those totally inappropriate "bad boys". ;)

If you date a woman who is

pregnant or on the pill, you just have to realize you are probably getting into something time limited.

You also

have to know that if you "let" your girlfriend or wife get on the pill, you are exposing your relationship to

possible stress, especially in the sexuality department. And it helps explain why pregnancy is often a difficult

time for couples.

This all certainly fits my personal experience, in both cases.

Every woman and man should be

taught this.

Nice post, Bel. We've known this for a number of years, but it's nice to see another study

supporting the conclusion.

This explains a lot of what we've been "up against" for a long time as male

partners in relationships with women, and I agree that men and women both should be aware of the pitfalls.

Doc,

could a parallel be drawn with men using steroids?

It seems that messing with something as fundamental to

behavior as hormones we're asking for trouble, or at least a more difficult situation.

Could you think of

hormonal manipulation as a lie? A chemical "lie" to your body which affects a physical cause, but also subtly (or

obviously) affecting your behavior, albeit tangentially? Perhaps if women are physically and emotionally "tricked"

into a non-mating behavior, they fall into the habit of not desiring men, emotionally or physically.

I think

there's a body of experiential evidence that could make a case for a trend toward "division" of the sexes in recent

history. I don't think I need to expand on that. Of course a lot of it has to do with "enlightenment" (I Am

Woman), but I wonder if there is some cause and effect going on. I'm clueless as always, but its interesting.

:)

[koolking1]

"It seems unbelievable,

but the Bush Administration is quietly trying to redefine "abortion" to include birth control. The Houston Chronicle

says this could wipe out dozens of state laws that protect women's reproductive freedom and protect rape victims.

This "rule change" doesn't need congressional approval. "

Well, it's not a religious organization but a

political one,

MoveOn.Org

http://pol.moveon.org/contraception/?r_by=13468-4428369-mMehx6x&rc=comment_pasteT

[Rbt]

And capitol

punishment is retroactive abortion, think they'll ban that too?


Actually they pretty much have. The

death penalty is pretty much gone nationwide.

We are seeing quite a stir on the local news about some

pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for the morning after pills based on religious beliefs, with some talk

that some pharmacists are also sometimes refusing to fill BC prescriptions as well.

It is evident to me the

Republicans and some religious groups are working toward the elimination of the First Ammendment (that covers

freedom of choice and freedom of/from religion).

And I can't go along with those who say "the people" won't

let it happen. Just look at the dismal voter turnouts in this country. There are quite a few sheep, quite a few...




(Don't be suprised if along with bans on "suppliments" like vitamins etc we see a move to ban pheromone

products as well.)

[koolking1]

It's kind of refreshing to

spend some time in a country that doesn't have so many "laws against this or that" or has laws on the books but

doesn't enforce them very well. It takes a few weeks but then you begin to notice a feeling that you are "free".

Alas, when go back home and your plane lands ............. .

[belgareth]

While still a stupid idea and

worth fighting against, it isn't quite a ban on birth control. The proposed rule changes would redefine birth

control as a form of abortion and allow caregivers and pharmacies to opt out of providing those products/services.

The penalty would be the loss of federal funds for refusing to allow them to make that choice.

To be clear, I am

completely opposed to the proposed rule changes. However, I have to ask the question: Is it not also wrong to force

somebody to provide a service or product in violation of their personal beliefs?

[Rbt]

While still

a stupid idea and worth fighting against, it isn't quite a ban on birth control. The proposed rule changes would

redefine birth control as a form of abortion and allow caregivers and pharmacies to opt out of providing those

products/services. The penalty would be the loss of federal funds for refusing to allow them to make that choice.



To be clear, I am completely opposed to the proposed rule changes. However, I have to ask the question: Is it not

also wrong to force somebody to provide a service or product in violation of their personal beliefs?




To quote Superchicken: "you knew the job was dangerous when you took it Fred."


If you take a job dispensing

medications, then IMO that is what you are to do. Make judgements on the basis of your professional knowledge and

training (eg drug interactions), but judgements based on personal (religious) beliefs maybe not. I'd tend toward

telling someone who didn't agree to find a new line of work.

Thought: A vegetarian butcher?

[belgareth]

To quote

Superchicken: "you knew the job was dangerous when you took it Fred."


If you take a job dispensing

medications, then IMO that is what you are to do. Make judgements on the basis of your professional knowledge and

training (eg drug interactions), but judgements based on personal (religious) beliefs maybe not. I'd tend toward

telling someone who didn't agree to find a new line of work.

Thought: A vegetarian butcher?
I agree

completely. That was just playing devil's advocate and anticipating a form of the argument I expect to hear. Tiring

how all special interest groups expect us to be sensitive to their beliefs but none are expected to be sensitive to

ours. They want to outlaw birth control pills because of their beliefs and everybody is supposed to follow and abide

by their belief system.

In my mind each person has the right to act and believe as they see fit so long as they

are not harming another or interfering with that person's right to do the same. Perhaps there should be pharmacies

that advertise their refusal to sell birth control products? Then you would be free to do business there or not as

your personal beliefs dictate. (does this sound a lot like the argument over smoking and non-smoking bars or

resturants?)

[koolking1]

I don't see it as a big

problem in that most pharmacies these days in the USA are corporate owned. They aren't going to ban anything they

can legally sell. What's next, condoms? All in all pretty silly if you ask me and who needs more unwanted babies

that could wind up on welfare. We need an impartial government, not one that bends to the wishes of any oddball or

mainstream group.

IDesign, you might want to move this thread if it keeps going, I apologize for bringing

another side of birth control into this thread, certainly wasn't meaning to change the subject.

[belgareth]

I'd already been considering

moving it. The topic was borderline when I originally posted it and has gone way off from attraction. Since I would

do the same with any other off-topic thread I moved this one.

Yes, we do need an unbiased government but who is

to decide what unbiased is? Should we take the word 'god' out of everything because it offends somebody? Should we

allow convicted sex offenders to live next door to an elementary school because they have paid their debt to

society? Should we take all guns away from honest citizens? Should we outlaw cheeseburgers and force physical

excersize on everybody? Do we outlaw unwed sex or same sex couples or do we accept it as is? Do we have the right to

force or disallow medical care to somebody? Or should the government and all the squeeky wheels be told to butt out

of private matters?

Do we serve the government or does the government serve us? And who is the 'US' the

government serves or that serves the government? The majority? The squeeky wheels or the individual? If and until

these matters and many similar ones are resolved we cannot even come close to what anybody could call an unbiased

government, if it is even possible at all.

Most of you know where I stand. The government is far too busy

meddling in matters that are none of its business while failing completely to do the things it should do like

providing education, protecting our borders and the citizens from various abuses. Birth control is just one of many

matters the government needs to get out of. It is a private matter and nobody's business except the individual's.

That is what the law should say, plainly and simply.

Perhaps we should have a new ammendment to the

constitution. At no time and under no circumstances shall the government be allowed to interfere in personal

matters. Yes, I do know how big a can of worms that opens. Is it any worse than the one which is already open?

[idesign]

"Current federal law

prohibits health-care providers and organizations from discriminating against people who won't provide abortions or

birth control.

The Bush administration's new draft proposal would require these agencies to certify in writing

their compliance with the law before getting funding from HHS.

The Health department released a brief statement

arguing that it's looking into various options in an effort to enforce anti-discrimination laws.

"Over the past

three decades, Congress has passed several anti-discrimination laws to protect institutional and individual health

care providers participating in federal programs. HHS has an obligation to enforce these laws, and is exploring a

number of options," the statement reads.



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5397146&page=2

Without hyperbole, how could

this be seen as a "ban on BC pills"? It seems the ban sought by some would be on divergent opinions concerning what

could be termed "health care".

Its a little Orwellian that a segment of our society as important and deeply

personal as health care would seek to dominate thinking (based not on science, but their own beliefs) to the

exclusion of other thought or belief.

That's my largest concern with nationalized health care, and not

economics. A federal bureaucracy will ultimately limit both practice and access to care. A slippery slope, but

that's another discussion.

Dos centavos.