{"id":1077,"date":"2025-11-24T22:47:57","date_gmt":"2025-11-24T22:47:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lily.show\/?p=1077"},"modified":"2026-02-10T00:40:39","modified_gmt":"2026-02-10T00:40:39","slug":"elementor-1077","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lily.show\/?p=1077","title":{"rendered":"Hormonal Birth Control, The Truth."},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

HORMONAL BIRTH CONTROL AND THE FUTURE OF THE HUMAN RACE. <\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

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 \u201chormonal blinders\u201d removed and THEREFORE you might be less sensitive to the genetic quality of your mate. <\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

But is this statement true? What can we <\/span>ACTUALLY <\/span>conclude from the evidence?<\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

Nobody claims that women are simple, but my goodness\u2026 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,  <\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman has one solution\u2014 that is pregnancy.<\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

Birth controls mechanism of action and hormonal implications<\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

Hormonal birth control consists of synthetic progesterone and estrogen. The progesterone is what directly suppresses LH and stops ovulation\u2013 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\u2013 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.<\/span><\/p>

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 (\u017bela\u017aniewicz). 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. \u201cNo Compelling Evidence That More Physically Attractive Young Adult Women Have Higher Estradiol or Progesterone.\u201d <\/span>Psychoneuroendocrinology<\/span> 98: 1\u20135. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.psyneuen.2018.07.026.<\/span>Studies attempting to quantify attraction + hormones end up being quite noisy, as the effect might be due to behavioral changes (contingent on study design.)<\/span><\/span><\/p>

Regardless, from this data we can reasonably theorize that the hormonal implications of birth control could shift the woman into a more unattractive state\u2013 signaling to partners that she is non-fertile. However, with this understanding of birth control and the hormonal implications\u2013 does it shift female attraction to mates?<\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

Hormonal Cycle and female attraction<\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

Women generally prefer symmetrical and masculine men’s faces\u2013 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\u2013 but that women overall preferred masculine faces and even more strongly for short term mates vs long term mates.(<\/span>Marcinkowska) <\/span>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 \u201cindicator of phenotypic quality as well as genotypic quality\u201d(M\u00f8ller) This is bolstered by the fact that asymmetrical men and women are found to have more health problems (Thornhill). <\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

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\u2013 preferring masculine and symmetrical male features during peak fertility.\u201d (<\/span>Alexandra<\/span><\/a>) A potential complication is that perhaps women only have a shift in her attraction around ovulation\u2013 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\u2013 and men behave more \u201cmate guarding\u201d during peak fertility days.(Royal Society)<\/span><\/p>

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\u2013 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)<\/span><\/p>

There are certainly two different fertile vs nonfertile phenotypes of the lady\u2013 but her shifts in <\/span>attraction <\/span>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\u2013 and it isn’t as clear as \u201cbirth control makes you attracted to feminine men.\u201d<\/span><\/p>



<\/b><\/p>

The truth about birth control and facial masculinity <\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

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: <\/span><\/p>

<\/span><\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

The authors found <\/span>no effect of serum concentrations of hormonal levels on preference of masculine vs feminine faces.<\/span> 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)<\/span><\/p>

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\u2013 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.<\/span><\/p>



<\/b><\/p>

Birth control and sexual preferences<\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

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 <\/span>less <\/span>likely to break up. (Roberts) Women in higher progesterone phases also report high commitment to existing relationships and lower attraction to novel mates. (<\/span>Guillermo<\/span>) My rationalization of this is that women who are on the pill are in essence in a high progesterone “pregnancy simulation\u201d and therefore are selecting their mates based upon parameters for \u201chusband material.\u201d 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\u2013 but obviously evidence has not directly matched that to pill use. (Cobey)<\/span><\/p>

Uh, so, incest or like something?<\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

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\u2013 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\u2019s 1995 shift\u2026 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\u2019t 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. <\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

\t<\/span><\/span> <\/span>The real negatives of birth control<\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

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. <\/span><\/p>

 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?<\/span><\/p>

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!<\/span><\/p>

Women normally ovulating have higher levels of allopregnanolone\u2013 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!<\/span><\/p>

  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\u2013 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. <\/span><\/p>

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).<\/span><\/p>

The benefits do not only stop there, as precious ovulatory progesterone also is anti-inflammatory\u2013 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. <\/span><\/p>


<\/span>Better birth control options?<\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

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\u2013 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\u2019t 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!<\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

Here are my TLDR conclusions:<\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>

Regardless of anything else, you are modifying a system that evolved over millions of years to calibrate mate choice. This has consequences. <\/span><\/p>


<\/b><\/p>