By: demesne

demesne — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:29:52 +0000

“As compared with normally cycling women, pill users show no or weaker preferences for facial and vocal masculinity. For instance, the preferred face shape is more masculine during the high conception-probability phase of the menstrual cycle in non-pill users, but pill users do not show similar preference.”
Â
Alright, but so what is wrong with dating or having children with men who have more feminine features? Beauty ideals for both genders have been fluctuating for centuries. Â Look at Renaissance depictions of male beauty…many of the men are painted having non-masculine features: a boyish figure, lovely long locks of hair, plump lips, and big lovely eyes. What is or is not attractive is determined far more by cultural beauty standards than by minor shifts in hormones. There is no reason to believe traditionally masculine men are more healthy; what if Mr. Manly Man has cancer, an STD, or diabetes, is mentally unstable, is a heavy drinker or smoker. There’s seriously nothing wrong with more feminine-looking men.Â
Â
The idea that the pill is starting some kind of “unnatural” version of natural selection is completely illogical. Mate selection all throughout human history has been fairly unnatural to begin with. In the past, arranged marriages were the norm, where parents and sometimes the man (practically NEVER the woman) got to choose who to marry off their children to. Most of the time, these were for strategic reasons- making an alliance with another family, ensuring economic security through a dowry. Whether or not the other person was attractive was a bonus, not the reason for the marriage. For most of human history, women had very little choice of whom they were allowed to marry. So I doubt the pill *slightly* altering their perception of sexual attraction is somehow going to lead to some downward spiral of increasingly genetically defective offspring. The alarmist language of this article is downright silly, given an ounce of common sense.Â
Â
I don’t see what your alternative would be, if the ideal is to promote “natural” selection. Eugenics? Tell people who don’t fit what speculative science tells us is the “right”, genetically superior beauty ideal, to not reproduce? What ounce of difference does it make if women find the feminine-featured Leonardo diCaprio more attractive than the manly Brad Pitt? This article is more or less viewer-baiting pop science.Â
Â
I’ve been on the pill for years and haven’t noticed ANY change in the types of men I am attracted to. Even if it does have an effect on my levels of attraction, it is probably only marginal. Most people choose their marriage/sex partners based on personality, compatibility, how good they are in bed, sometimes financial security. Attraction is important, too, but so much of attraction is psychological and varies widely from person to person.Â
Â
PS. The pill is a perfectly legitimate form of birth control. I understand that it is not for everyone, and some people do get negative side effects, and should probably use alternatives. However, I have never experienced anything negative with using the pill. Condoms break all too often, you know.Â

By: D Carlton

D Carlton — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:44:48 +0000

I think this is so interesting. I’ve never been an advocate for birth control. Mainly because of all the changes women experience when first starting them. It just doesn’t seem natural. Now, I am even more convinced that it is not a good practice. One thing your article didn’t mention that I’ve read elsewhere is that birth control also effects the males selection. Biologically speaking, a man’s goal is to impregnate a woman. If she is taking birth control, which makes her seem pregnant (chemically), the man will choose another mate. Interesting!

Comments on: Un-natural selection: birth control pills may affect choice of mate

By: demesne

By: D Carlton