I figured this was about risk aversion. Risk averse women are on the pill. Risk averse women will also pick less adventurous (or whatever) sex partners.
You will understand the hormonal reasons for this report's findings by remembering one simple, well-proven fact: Taking birth control pills lowers the testosterone level of most women.
With a lower testosterone level, a woman is less likely to look for the same kind of sex that she will look for with a higher level.
More about this simple idea, explanations, and ways of dealing with this fact can be studied at Training for Sex dot com.
QUOTE: "Preferences in mates shift over the menstrual cycle, according to Roberts. When women are ovulating they might be more interested in someone they find sexually attractive, and when women aren't ovulating they are more interested in men who possess fatherly traits." "It's part of the subconscious 'chemistry' of attraction between men and women," Roberts told The Guardian."
Oh? I wonder if these "researchers" (probably grad students doing the grunt work for their professor who will inevitably take all the credit) ever gave a thought to the earliest days of "The Pill"? I bet they're too young to remember the "sexual freedom" of the 1960s, but lest I digress ...
Beta males may offer comfort and solace (if they have a clue) to the partner when much is needed by her. On the other hand, we Alpha Males do much the same, but with elan. To be an Alpha entails structural/functionalism. "There's somewhere out there for everyone", as the old saying goes, but speaking as an Alpha, "many are called, but few are chosen". We can and ARE both.
Note to Beta Males: At least get in shape, read "how-to" books, and pay your child support on time or wind up in jail. (betas at the zoo are so entertainingly self-interested) (wink)
This study is unscientific and just a load of nonsense. Even if it were true, which it isn't, the partners of these women would not be the ones at fault. Nor can it be explained as being because "BC pills fake pregnancy and so sex is useles." This is all just silly hype.
In this analysis (figure 1a), we again found significantly lower sexual satisfaction in women who were using OC when they met their partner (F1,1200 = 7.57, p = 0.006), despite scoring higher in terms of general satisfaction (F1,1206 = 10.07, p = 0.002). Women also scored their partner as less attractive (F1,1203 = 13.98, p < 0.001) if they met while using OC.
0.006, 0.002 and < 0.001 are all more than significant at the standard 5% alpha level.
Yes, skyowner, it's certainly a poor study, even "unscientific" as margroks claimed.
It's amusing that you just spit p-values when challenged, as if a low p-value will escort you to whatever result you fathom. The p-values only show that there was significant signal vs. the noise. What you don't address is the rather obvious potential misidentification of the meaning of the signal, namely that it could represent not an attribute of the men at all, but rather just a change in the mode of perception of these or any men by the hormonally changed women.
What do you expect? You're faking a pregnancy, aka, a time when sex is useless. And this isn't the worst part of hormonal contraception -- suicidal thoughts, depression and self-destructive tendencies become extreme and change a person completely. It's amazing that anyone would think that faking a pregnancy for that long would not destroy a woman physically and mentally. Libido is the last of a woman's worries at that point. But yeah, when I tried the pill (I quit after a month after switching pills 3 times because of extreme depression, constant crying, inability to eat anything, extreme chest and leg pain etc...) I had no interest in having sex. I had never had an issue making myself orgasm but on the pill the thought of anything sexual was frightening. The pill doesn't empower women, it actually takes away not only a woman's enjoyment of sex and attraction to their partner, but it also changes who you are -- for the worst. There needs to be a birth control method that doesn't involve implants, chemicals, hormones and is 100% effective other than abstinence (which would ruin a relationship). I would be just as worried if my boyfriend had to take a hormonal pill because it could be just as dangerous for him. If vasectomies were 100% effective and 100% reversible (and completely affordable on any budget) then it would be worth it. Though I will admit that after 4 years of not getting pregnant without the use of contraception (and we're talking multiple times a day, every day) except good timing, it would be possible to prevent pregnancy with a diaphragm and pulling out combined, which makes me wonder how people who do use condoms end up pregnant if all you have to do is pull out.
I agree. This study appears to ignore the effects of the pill on females behavior. I was on the other end of what you experienced. We had a wonderful relationship until my girlfriend went on the pill. The pill caused intense mood swings and hypersensitivity to external events; If I had met her for the first time while she was on the pill, I doubt we would have gotten together. Fortunately, since we knew the cause, we switched to condoms- took care of the problem. We've been together for more than 30 years and, between kids, we avoided the pill.
This is really dumb. Until this study is replicated several times by different researchers on different groups of women, the results of it mean nothing. It could simply be the study wasn't executed properly or something like that.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
The women taking sex hormones are less satisfied... but it's the MEN's fault.
Good freakin' grief.
With a lower testosterone level, a woman is less likely to look for the same kind of sex that she will look for with a higher level.
More about this simple idea, explanations, and ways of dealing with this fact can be studied at Training for Sex dot com.
"It's part of the subconscious 'chemistry' of attraction between men and women," Roberts told The Guardian."
Oh?
I wonder if these "researchers" (probably grad students doing the grunt work for their professor who will inevitably take all the credit) ever gave a thought to the earliest days of "The Pill"? I bet they're too young to remember the "sexual freedom" of the 1960s, but lest I digress ...
Beta males may offer comfort and solace (if they have a clue) to the partner when much is needed by her.
On the other hand, we Alpha Males do much the same, but with elan. To be an Alpha entails structural/functionalism.
"There's somewhere out there for everyone", as the old saying goes, but speaking as an Alpha, "many are called, but few are chosen". We can and ARE both.
Note to Beta Males: At least get in shape, read "how-to" books, and pay your child support on time or wind up in jail.
(betas at the zoo are so entertainingly self-interested)
(wink)
~(A)~
In this analysis (figure 1a), we again found significantly lower sexual satisfaction in women who were using OC when they met their partner (F1,1200 = 7.57, p = 0.006), despite scoring higher in terms of general satisfaction (F1,1206 = 10.07, p = 0.002). Women also scored their partner as less attractive (F1,1203 = 13.98, p < 0.001) if they met while using OC.
0.006, 0.002 and < 0.001 are all more than significant at the standard 5% alpha level.
It's amusing that you just spit p-values when challenged, as if a low p-value will escort you to whatever result you fathom. The p-values only show that there was significant signal vs. the noise. What you don't address is the rather obvious potential misidentification of the meaning of the signal, namely that it could represent not an attribute of the men at all, but rather just a change in the mode of perception of these or any men by the hormonally changed women.
But yeah, when I tried the pill (I quit after a month after switching pills 3 times because of extreme depression, constant crying, inability to eat anything, extreme chest and leg pain etc...) I had no interest in having sex. I had never had an issue making myself orgasm but on the pill the thought of anything sexual was frightening. The pill doesn't empower women, it actually takes away not only a woman's enjoyment of sex and attraction to their partner, but it also changes who you are -- for the worst. There needs to be a birth control method that doesn't involve implants, chemicals, hormones and is 100% effective other than abstinence (which would ruin a relationship). I would be just as worried if my boyfriend had to take a hormonal pill because it could be just as dangerous for him. If vasectomies were 100% effective and 100% reversible (and completely affordable on any budget) then it would be worth it. Though I will admit that after 4 years of not getting pregnant without the use of contraception (and we're talking multiple times a day, every day) except good timing, it would be possible to prevent pregnancy with a diaphragm and pulling out combined, which makes me wonder how people who do use condoms end up pregnant if all you have to do is pull out.