There was a study done over a decade ago by Claud Wedekind in which 44 men wore the same T-shirt for three days, refraining refrained from deodorants and scented soaps so they wouldn’t interfere with their smell. Thereafter women sniffed the shirts and indicated which ones they felt smelled the best. In this test, the researchers found that women preferred the smell of a man whose MHC (major histocompatibility complex), which is a series of genes involved in our immune system, was most different from their own.
But there was an exception... The MHC attraction for women taking the pill was almost the exact opposite, with women on the pill finding the scent of men with MHC’s similar to their own to be attractive.. The assumption is that because the pill tricks your body into thinking it is pregnant, it chemically alters the sense of attraction. This article is about potential implications of this exception.
First, one has to consider why it is believed that the natural attraction is for dissimilar MHC. It is thought that this is a byproduct of evolution, in that those attracted to dissimilar MHC would have offspring with better immune systems, and thus would have a better chance of surviving, a genetic advantage. This leads to the first potential implication, birth control pills may be leading to weaker immune systems for the human species. I'm not saying they should not exist, or be used, as they certainly make life more convenient. I'm simply making an observation that this could be an implication.
Let's consider another possible implication. Many single women in the industrialized world take birth control pills. They flirt, date, get engaged, get married, and plan families while on birth control pills. Considering the results of this study, however, it would seem that women might be sexually attracted to a person while on birth control pills, only to find this attraction muted when not on birth control. This leads to the second potential implication, birth control pills could increase divorce rates.
I'm not saying birth control pills will increase divorce rates, but it would certainly seem to make sense that they could. As idealistic as someone might strive to be when it comes to their commitment to marriage, sexual attraction still matters. Going even further, many do not strive for any particular ideal, but instead, finding themselves less attracted to their mates, simply head for the exit (or more accurately to another bedroom door). Thinking about it, without looking at actual data, it seems that an increase in divorce rates has some correlation with the inception of use of and growth of use of birth control pills.
This article may cause some controversy. Keep in mind, I'm only making observations about possible implications, I'm not stating these things for a fact, and I'm certainly NOT making any type of moral statement or other statement about society. More than anything, I do now wish to limit anyone's freedom, of any kind.
Comments
As for
I'm certainly NOT making any type of moral statement or other statement about society.
this reminds me of one of my favourite C.S.Lewis quotes:
By leading that [learned] life to the glory of God I do not, of course, mean any attempt to make our intellectual enquiries work out to edifying conclusions. That would be, as Bacon says, to offer to the author of truth the unclean sacrifice of a lie.
Though these days, we seem in addition to have a plethora of people attempting to make their enquiries work out to UN-edifying conclusions. Either way, it is not proper science.
Robert H Olley | 02/26/09 | 09:08 AM
As for testing the hypothesis, it would seem that the following might help determine whether there is any validity to this theory:
- A statistical correlation between birth control pill sales and divorce rates overall
- A comparison of the divorce rates of women using birth control pills before marriage to those that did not
- A statistical correlation between birth control pill sales and illness in offspring, overall
- A comparison of some measure of illness in offspring for women that used birth control pills before marriage or when they met their reproductive mate to the offspring of those that did not
If anyone reading this knows the Freakonomics authors Stephen Dubner and/or Steven Levitt, tell them/him about this. I would think they would be all over this. Please ask them to give me credit. My kids will love it.
As for quotes, let me give Mr. Olley (and others) another that I hope will be appreciated:
"The cleanliness of theory is no match for reality."
~ Unknown
James Hawkins | 02/26/09 | 15:32 PM
I fail to see the connection compared to a much more significant issue of women having more financial and job related freedom.
In addition, why not make the comparison that vasectomies afford males more opportunities for extra-marital affairs? I'm sure that there are some elements for which varying forms of birth-control can mitigate such risks, but they don't strike me as being driving factors for such choices.
Gerhard Adam | 02/26/09 | 15:53 PM
To say, Gerhard, that you "fail to see a connection compared to" doesn't (literally) make sense to me. What I assume you mean to say is that you fail to see why anyone would even want to consider any implications of the use of birth control pills when the benefits of freedom to women are so significant. Is this what you mean?
If so, I would respond that this is for society to decide, not me. I merely posted a hypothesis. Others can decide whether to look into this. I understood that some might get testy at the broaching of the subject, although in all honesty I don't understand why.
I would note that it is disturbingly oppressive for someone to suggest that you can't even consider the possibility - that it is untouchable (again, if I understand you correctly). You have to agree. In this case, divorce is expensive to the individuals and to society, monetarily and otherwise. Is some sort of politically correct oppression that causes hardship and heartache some sort of freedom? This is not to mention that there are similarly effective alternatives to birth control pills. If there was no alternative, although I would still disagree that the subject is untouchable, I could nevertheless understand the point better. It seems that knowledge could only make things better. No? Perhaps you were not thinking of the alternatives at the time you replied?
As for your suggestion that one make a comparison between male vasectomies and extra-marital affairs of men, although I'm guessing that you only are suggesting this as sarcastic jab, I think it soulds like a good hypothesis, as well. I don't know if there would be variances one could correlate on a statistically valid basis, but it would be interesting to look at. Send that one to the Freakonomics guys, as well.
Please don't take this reply to your comments as antagonistic. I appreciate your commentary. I disagree with you, but suspect, again, that you simply did not realize at the time that there are equally freedom providing alternatives available.
James Hawkins | 02/26/09 | 17:17 PM
I don't consider the subject untouchable in the least, I just think it's examine something that has a very small influence compared to the much larger influence of financial independence and the legal system which has granted such rights over time. It's a bit hard to argue about the influence on divorce when women weren't allowed to vote, or hold jobs, or own property ....
In particular, I think that the point is being stretched when it is being suggested that having the freedom from pregnancy, would suddenly change someone's moral perspective to engage in a practice that they weren't already inclined to pursue. Since you aren't talking about the effect of birth-control on a woman's sexuality, but explicitly related it to divorce then it creates the implication that somehow the "commitment" level of the individual is being modified by birth control and I don't see the connection.
Gerhard Adam | 02/26/09 | 18:06 PM
It is hard to judge the effects on divorce rates if, as presumably is the case, the increased used of birth control caused changes in behavior that might instead cause a change in divorce rates. Good point. The only way I can think of to try to isolate that, which would require data likely not available, would be to only look at divorce rates among non working wives. Regardless, even then, society was evolving, such that even this, it could be argued, is tainted data. Perhaps someone else can figure out a way?
This would not, however, seem to cloud any insight into immune systems.
Another problem with the shirt smelling study is the assumption, for the purposes of my hypothesis, that a smell preference for a shirt translates into a long term mate preference. This is kind of like the Coke tastes test years ago. If I recall correctly, Malcolm Gladwell, in his book Blink, noted that Coke changed to New Coke based on tasting test, in which consumers preferred the sweeter taste offered by Pepsi and then New Coke to that of Coke Classic. What they realized, however, AFTER coming out with New Coke, is that they failed to ask people how they liked it after a while, in other words they failed to ask consumers to compare their preference for a month of Coke to a month of Pepsi. Similarly, here, preferring the smell of a shirt is not necessarily indicative of preference of a lifelong partner. But then it may be - thus the hypothesis.
As for commitment, the level of commitment varies from one person to the next, and only is as good as the weakest half of any relationship (commitment wise). Thus, it would seem pretty easy to assume that less desirability for a partner, on average, would have a negative effect on a relationship. It would be great for this to be otherwise, but alas it surely is not.
James Hawkins | 02/27/09 | 12:52 PM
Once you can determine something like that, then it makes sense to ask questions regarding a perceived change in the volume of divorces. My point is that I suspect that as many men/women wanted divorces as do now, but that the societal factors were more limiting than today and as a result there was the impression that more people were committed (rather than simply trapped).
Gerhard Adam | 02/27/09 | 15:08 PM
Suggesting that birth control pills, which obviously have freed women to choose if and when to have children, has had any possibility of having had a negative effect on anything was bound to lead to passionate discussion. Please keep in mind this article only discusses potential implications, not whether this product is "good" or "not good" for society. Even with a negative effect, which there may or may not be, one would still have to consider the benefits vs. this effect. As evidenced by the discussion herein, many if not most would lobby for the positive side of the ledger in a discussion like this. I have no opinion on this whatsoever, but merely find the possible implications to be academically intriguing.
Gerhard, trying to determine what "divorce desire" is would be, it would seem, difficult if not impossible to do. All I'm suggesting is that there seems to be a correlation. I'll leave it to someone else to look into the stats. Any correlation may not be conclusive, but it surely is not irrelevant.
James Hawkins | 08/31/09 | 09:41 AM
taw