HORMONAL BIRTH CONTROL AND THE FUTURE OF THE HUMAN RACE.
Recently I have been seeing more and more instagram ladies posts that insist that birth control changed who they were attracted to. The narrative commonly propagated is that the pill makes you attracted to both more feminine, and genetically similar men. It implied that in the absence of ovulation, you do not have your “hormonal blinders” removed and THEREFORE you might be less sensitive to the genetic quality of your mate.
But is this statement true? What can we ACTUALLY conclude from the evidence?
Nobody claims that women are simple, but my goodness… This level of complexity shook me. So please, ascend with me into elite ball knowledge of the not so simple sex, in which, to quote Nietzsche,
Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman has one solution— that is pregnancy.
Birth controls mechanism of action and hormonal implications
Hormonal birth control consists of synthetic progesterone and estrogen. The progesterone is what directly suppresses LH and stops ovulation– while also changing the composition of your cervical mucus making it a horrible wasteland that no sperm can swim. I ought to point out that the interference of this physiological process is not inert– as hormonal birth control is known to deplete nutrients, impact bone density, and neurosteroid synthesis, as well as many other vital physiological processes that I will cover later.
Some studies find female attractiveness is negatively correlated to salivary concentrations of progesterone. (Puts, Lobmaier) This parallels the finding that women rank the voices, appearance, and smell of other women near ovulation as more attractive. Although studies like this attempting to correlate female facial attractiveness to hormonal levels do also find similar results, the authors recognize the potential methodological errors.(Marcinkowska) Facial attractiveness is correlated positively with E2, which hormonal birth control lowers (Żelaźniewicz). I do want to point out that there is a study seemingly in disagreement to the conclusions I have illustrated (Jones et al), but it was in essence evaluating total hormone levels woman to woman in attractiveness rather than a within woman shift based on cycle timing. “No Compelling Evidence That More Physically Attractive Young Adult Women Have Higher Estradiol or Progesterone.” Psychoneuroendocrinology 98: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.07.026.Studies attempting to quantify attraction + hormones end up being quite noisy, as the effect might be due to behavioral changes (contingent on study design.)
Regardless, from this data we can reasonably theorize that the hormonal implications of birth control could shift the woman into a more unattractive state– signaling to partners that she is non-fertile. However, with this understanding of birth control and the hormonal implications– does it shift female attraction to mates?
Hormonal Cycle and female attraction
Women generally prefer symmetrical and masculine men’s faces– independent of where they are in their cycle. An example being n=6,482 found no correlation of birth control and a decreased preference for facial masculinity– but that women overall preferred masculine faces and even more strongly for short term mates vs long term mates.(Marcinkowska) Masculine faces are linked to a strong immune system as well as other positive genetic markers, the downside being they are also correlated with decreased fidelity and parental involvement. Context changes the strength of this preference; as when the pathogen threat is strong, women seem to preferentially choose masculine men to reproduce with (little). Genetically favorable people maintain symmetrical development under environmental stress, making symmetry an “indicator of phenotypic quality as well as genotypic quality”(Møller) This is bolstered by the fact that asymmetrical men and women are found to have more health problems (Thornhill).
It is hypothesized that during ovulation women seem to be more acutely aware of genetic quality. Around 75% of studies on the matter show certain traits being favored when fertility is maximal– preferring masculine and symmetrical male features during peak fertility.” (Alexandra) A potential complication is that perhaps women only have a shift in her attraction around ovulation– as this meta analysis illustrates cycle position shows an effect on short term attractiveness, but not long term (Gildersleeve). Women at peak fertility show extra interest in extra pair men– and men behave more “mate guarding” during peak fertility days.(Royal Society)
In high progesterone states, however, it seems there is certainly a behavioral shift. In the luteal phase, women seem to have a higher disgust sensitivity– potentially serving an evolutionary role to protect the potential future embryo if a pregnancy were to arise. Progesterone seems to make women more sensitive to faces showing disgust and fear. (Conway)
There are certainly two different fertile vs nonfertile phenotypes of the lady– but her shifts in attraction are less clear. Fertile phase women seem to be more novelty seeking and perhaps slightly more sensitive to genetic quality. Non-fertile phase women seem to display more guarded behavior that would make sense in the context of carrying offspring. We certainly can apply in the context of birth control (as women are in a high progesterone state), but there is nuance that will be covered in the following sections– and it isn’t as clear as “birth control makes you attracted to feminine men.”
The truth about birth control and facial masculinity
A smaller, longitudinal study (n=584) actually took into account salivary hormonal levels and within women changes when contraception changed and asked women to rank short vs long term attractiveness of images akin to this:
The authors found no effect of serum concentrations of hormonal levels on preference of masculine vs feminine faces. They did, however, find that women on the pill more strongly prefer the masculine faces. This is not causal, and the authors point out this is likely due to both lifestyle and personality correlations to pill use (my example would be perhaps more novelty seeking women are more likely to use the pill, and perhaps those women already have a stronger preference for masculine men).(Jones)
Upon reading all of the available evidence on this matter, I will confirm that birth control DOES NOT make you more attracted to more feminine facial features– however this leaves out the fact that contraceptives may influence other aspects of sexual motivation and partner dynamics, lying outside the scope of these facial-preference studies.
Birth control and sexual preferences
Studies show that birth control consistently reduces female libido, lower orgasm frequency, and reduces sexual satisfaction in a relationship (Roberts). But in regards to mate selection Conversely to what is illustrated on social media, people who met their partner on the pill were less likely to break up. (Roberts) Women in higher progesterone phases also report high commitment to existing relationships and lower attraction to novel mates. (Guillermo) My rationalization of this is that women who are on the pill are in essence in a high progesterone “pregnancy simulation” and therefore are selecting their mates based upon parameters for “husband material.” This now leads us to a slightly more expanded view on the pill and its impact on mate selection, going further than the superficiality of facial masculinity. During pregnancy women seem to prefer less masculine features– but obviously evidence has not directly matched that to pill use. (Cobey)
Uh, so, incest or like something?
A very common talking point I have heard is that the pill makes you attracted to men who are more genetically similar to you. I believe this came from smaller early 2000s studies looking at MHC preference. (MHC being the major histocompatibility complex, which is a marker of immune-system genetics and therefore a commonly used proxy for genetic similarity and compatibility in mate-choice research.) Previous studies of women in fertile phases found the scent of MHC dissimilar men more attractive– but during the times of this study there was a VAST array of contradictory evidence on the matter. 2009 Roberts et al. study found a slight within-women shift to MHC similarity on the pill, which mimicked Wedekind’s 1995 shift… but, although it is the best study we have on the matter, I cannot in good faith draw conclusions from a study that size. MHC similarity selection itself is still a very disputed metric (meaning, we don’t know if humans actually select for it). This 2017 meta analysis gives very slight support for MHC-dissimilar pairing, but the evidence is quite weak (Winternitz) In short, the current evidence we have simply does not support this either.
The real negatives of birth control
I am of the opinion that hormonal birth control is overprescribed in the current day and age. It is unfortunately used as a remedy for heavy and painful menstruation, of which is a clear health red flag that could be better solved with diet, supplementation, and lifestyle interventions.
A discussion of hormonal birth control can simply not take place without the discussion of the benefits of ovulation. Despite what I have been told by countless doctors, ovulation seems to have marked benefits for ladies. If you are a lap dancer, normal cycling lap dancers make on average 20$ more per hour in their fertile phases than nonfertile phases. But, assuming my audience does not consist of lap dancers, what health trade offs are you risking by preventing ovulation?
Bone density is one that may seem trivial in your younger years, but suppression of ovulation and thus less bone formation can heavily predispose you to osteoporosis in later years. Osteoporosis is a HUGE risk factor for mortality later in life, and should not be taken lightly!
Women normally ovulating have higher levels of allopregnanolone– a neurosteroid that has antianxiety, stress resistance, and sleep improvement effects. It is extremely important for neurological health as it also supports myelination of neurones. Women who are taking hormonal birth control and thus blunting allopregnanolone can predispose them to anxiety whilst on the pill. Synthetic progestins DO NOT convert to allopregnanolone!
The brain is of importance, but so is the heart. As birth control utilizes synthetic progestins you are unable to reap the positive vascular benefits of natural progesterone rises post ovulation– synthetic progestins also notoriously raise clotting factors. Ladies often graze over this risk as the overall increase in risk is fairly small, but I should emphasize this signals alterations in our physiology that yield clots but could also be dangerous in other ways.
Ovulation is very important for insulin sensitivity, thyroid receptor activity, and stable appetite signalling. Studies of ladies on hormonal birth control, including this RCT, show decreased insulin sensitivity (Piltonin). I cannot begin to explain how devastating this is for women. Great metabolic health is already immensely hard to come by in the modern world, and this future impedes female health! Here are a few more studies hinted at similar metrics of varying size, quality, and metrics (Cortes).
The benefits do not only stop there, as precious ovulatory progesterone also is anti-inflammatory– and we do see studies that seem to convey that hormonal birth control increases inflammatory markers such as c reactive protein (a standard test of inflammation) and interleukin -6 (an inflammatory cytokine) (Menglekoch) This literature review points to a potential increased development of various autoimmune conditions linked to hormonal birth control (Williams) While not definite, certainly worrying. Not everything is risk free, and when you are molesting such ancient and intricate female physiology certainly is it not side effect free.
Better birth control options?
The best option, in my opinion, are condoms and cycle tracking. But if you are not willing to take the risk, I favor a non hormonal IUD copper above anything else. It is NOT side effect free, but it certainly is preferable to the pill. It, at the very least, takes the hormonal impact of progesterone out of the picture. There is no mood blunting, no libido changing, and no synthetic hormones in an IUD– instead, it releases copper ions that drops sperm motility and damages their membranes. It simply prevents fertilization, not ovulation. I must note, that ladies ought to make sure they are supplementing 15-30mg of zinc picolinate 2-5 days a week. Although copper IUDs don’t necessarily overload your body with copper, your body can still react to the copper thus reducing transporters. This inadvertently can cause a zinc deficiency as copper and zinc both compete for the same transporters. Just food for thought!
Here are my TLDR conclusions:
Regardless of anything else, you are modifying a system that evolved over millions of years to calibrate mate choice. This has consequences.
It is reasonable to suspect that women taking hormonal birth control shift their mate selection preferences to men who are more capable of caring for offspring, ie– the less masculine more “beta buck” type of man . The term used in the literature for this is “maladaptive mate selection”.
I think that hormonal birth control affects MALE sexual selection more than it does female. For example, birth control puts ladies in a state that mimics the hormonal profile of pregnancy (high progesterone). There might be a slight psychological effect for women in this state to select men more fit for fatherhood– but men also find women in this hormonal state less attractive. Men are hard wired to select fertile women.
Hormonal birth control we can say for certain is a physiological negative. There is such a broad array of damage putting a lady in a high progesterone anovulatory state does, and this can NOT be understated.
Overall, the evidence is noisy. There are the things I believe we can say:
Birth control does not seem to significantly affect facial masculinity preference.
Birth control’s impact on preference for genetically similar men is inconclusive.
In isolation, there does seem to be a hint that women are more sensitive to genetic quality during fertile periods, and increased sensitivity to kin-like cues in a high progesterone state. But, we lack studies.
Only around 14% of women are using the pill nationwide– but if you are a woman or are dating women this certainly is important to understand so you can make educated decisions.
My personal anecdote.
I recall when I was 14 being repeatedly pressured by my pediatrician to get on hormonal birth control. She was very adamant there were no negative effects– and made it clear to me that I did not have the ability to make an informed decision as I was not a doctor. Funnily enough, the time I spent researching this small compilation of evidence was probably more time than she ever put into this topic, being a busy doctor. I felt very upset that she said I could not properly read studies without medical training– but luckily that frustration turned into a desire to self educate, understand statistics, study types, and what constitutes a good study. I am very grateful, although I still mourn for all the girls who were not as stubborn as me!
I have said it once and will say it again… very, VERY few of us can give informed consent to the vast majority of medications we put into our bodies. Of course, trust doctors. Their expanse of knowledge provides great context. But, this expansive knowledge can be a blinder as there is such a vast depth of human physiology that is simply not taught in med school. Us uneducated autistic “fools” can certainly be of great insight if your IQ permits it!
Citations:
Puts DA, Bailey DH, Cárdenas RA, Burriss RP, Welling LL, Wheatley JR, Dawood K. Women’s attractiveness changes with estradiol and progesterone across the ovulatory cycle. Horm Behav. 2013 Jan;63(1):13-9. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.11.007. Epub 2012 Nov 15. PMID: 23159480.
Lobmaier Janek S., Fischbacher Urs, Wirthmüller Urs and Knoch Daria 2018The scent of attractiveness: levels of reproductive hormones explain individual differences in women’s body odourProc. R. Soc. B.28520181520
http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1520
Marcinkowska, U. M., Jones, B. C., Cai, H., Contreras-Garduno, J., Onyishi, I. E., Orjiakor, C. T., Prasai, K., Pazhoohi, F., Taniguchi, H. & Lee, A. J. (2021). An exploratory, cross-cultural study on perception of putative cyclical changes in facial fertility cues. Scientific Reports, 11(1), Article 16911. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96454-w
Żelaźniewicz A, Nowak-Kornicka J, Zbyrowska K, Pawłowski B (2021) Predicted reproductive longevity and women’s facial attractiveness. PLOS ONE 16(3): e0248344. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248344
Jones, Benedict C., Amanda C. Hahn, Claire I. Fisher, Hongyi Wang, Michal Kandrik, Junpeng Lao, Chengyang Han, Anthony J. Lee, Iris J. Holzleitner, and Lisa M. DeBruine.
2018. “No Compelling Evidence That More Physically Attractive Young Adult Women Have Higher Estradiol or Progesterone.” Psychoneuroendocrinology 98: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.07.026.
Marcinkowska UM, Hahn AC, Little AC, DeBruine LM, Jones BC. No evidence that women using oral contraceptives have weaker preferences for masculine characteristics in men’s faces. PLoS One. 2019 Jan 10;14(1):e0210162. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210162. PMID: 30629658; PMCID: PMC6328097.
Little, A. C., de Bruine, L. M. & Jones, B. C. (2011). Exposure to visual cues of pathogen contagion changes preferences for masculinity and symmetry in opposite-sex faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1714), 2032-2039. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.1925
Møller A. P.& Thornhill R.. 1998 Bilateral symmetry and sexual selection: a meta-analysis. Am. Nat. 151, 174–192.doi:10.1086/286110 (doi:10.1086/286110). Crossref, PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar
Thornhill R.& Gangestad S. W.. 2006 Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evol. Hum. Behav. 27, 131–144.doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.06.001 (doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.06.001). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
Does the contraceptive pill alter mate choice in humans?
Alexandra Alvergne ∙ Virpi Lummaa V.Lummaa@sheffield.ac.uk
Affiliations & NotesArticle Info
Gildersleeve, K., Haselton, M. G., & Fales, M. R. (2014). Do women’s mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(5), 1205–1259. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035438
Changes in women’s sexual interests and their partners’ mate-retention tactics across the menstrual cycle: Evidence for shifting conflicts of interest
Proceedings of the Royal Society B June 2002 269(1494):975-82 DOI:10.1098/rspb.2001.1952
Conway CA, Jones BC, DeBruine LM, Welling LL, Law Smith MJ, Perrett DI, Sharp MA, Al-Dujaili EA. Salience of emotional displays of danger and contagion in faces is enhanced when progesterone levels are raised. Horm Behav. 2007 Feb;51(2):202-6. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2006.10.002. Epub 2006 Dec 5. PMID: 17150220.
Guillermo, C.J., Manlove, H.A., Gray, P.B. et al. Female social and sexual interest across the menstrual cycle: the roles of pain, sleep and hormones. BMC Women’s Health 10, 19 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-10-19
Jones, B. C., Hahn, A. C., Fisher, C. I., Wang, H., Kandrik, M., Han, C., Fasolt, V., Morrison, D., Lee, A. J., Holzleitner, I. J., O’Shea, K. J., Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2018). No Compelling Evidence that Preferences for Facial Masculinity Track Changes in Women’s Hormonal Status. Psychological Science, 29(6), 996-1005. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618760197 (Original work published 2018)
Roberts SC, Little AC, Burriss RP, Cobey KD, Klapilová K, Havlíček J, Jones BC, DeBruine L, Petrie M. Partner choice, relationship satisfaction, and oral contraception: the congruency hypothesis. Psychol Sci. 2014 Jul;25(7):1497-503. doi: 10.1177/0956797614532295. Epub 2014 May 12. PMID: 24818612.
Relationship satisfaction and outcome in women who meet their partner while using oral contraception
S. Craig Roberts, Kateřina Klapilová, Anthony C. Little, Robert P. Burriss, Benedict C. Jones, Lisa M. DeBruine, Marion Petrie and Jan Havlíček Published:12 October 2011 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.1647
Hormonal effects on women’s facial masculinity preferences: The influence of pregnancy, post-partum, and hormonal contraceptive use Kelly D. Cobey∗, Anthony C. Little, S. Craig Roberts
Patterns of MHC-dependent mate selection in humans and nonhuman primates: a meta-analysis
J. Winternitz, J. L. Abbate, E. Huchard, J. Havlíček, L. Z. Garamszegi First published: 17 November 2016 https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13920Citations: 102
Ovulatory cycle effects on tip earnings by lap dancers: economic evidence for human estrus?
Evol. Hum. Behav. 2007; 28:375-381 Full Text Full Text (PDF) Scopus (204) Google Scholar
T. Piltonen, J. Puurunen, P. Hedberg, A. Ruokonen, S.J. Mutt, K.H. Herzig, A. Nissinen, L. Morin-Papunen, J.S. Tapanainen, Oral, transdermal and vaginal combined contraceptives induce an increase in markers of chronic inflammation and impair insulin sensitivity in young healthy normal-weight women: a randomized study, Human Reproduction, Volume 27, Issue 10, October 2012, Pages 3046–3056, https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des225
Cortés ME, Alfaro AA. The effects of hormonal contraceptives on glycemic regulation. Linacre Q. 2014 Aug;81(3):209-18. doi: 10.1179/2050854914Y.0000000023. PMID: 25249703; PMCID: PMC4135453.
Mengelkoch S, Gassen J, Slavich GM, Hill SE. Hormonal contraceptive use is associated with differences in women’s inflammatory and psychological reactivity to an acute social stressor. Brain Behav Immun. 2024 Jan;115:747-757. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2023.10.033. Epub 2023 Oct 31. PMID: 37914104; PMCID: PMC11216059.
Williams WV. Hormonal contraception and the development of autoimmunity: A review of the literature. Linacre Q. 2017 Aug;84(3):275-295. doi: 10.1080/00243639.2017.1360065. Epub 2017 Aug 18. PMID: 28912620; PMCID: PMC5592309.