Women, the pill and masculinity....

[MarkyS]

Did you see this study which postulates that ever since women began taking the pill in great numbers, they have tended toward less and less masculine men in their lives.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,562221,00.html

"Study: Women on Birth Control Pill Less Attracted to Masculine Men"

The theory is that the pill’s hormones have suppressed a female’s interest in ‘masculine’ men, making ‘boyish’ men more attractive. Apparently, women are most attracted to masculinity on the days that they are most fertile, but the pill makes them infertile, so they are less inclined to see masculinity as desireable.

The study concludes that this is why man's men like Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster were all the rage in the fifties, before the pill, but now we have devolved to Johhny Depp, Orlando Bloom and Leo DiCaprio - not exactly John Wayne/Kirk Douglas types.

Seems plausible. Do you buy it?

MJ

[Samm]

I don't know about that, but I do know I like that faint mustache that some women get when they are on the pill... :shifty:

[CHUG]

I don't know about that, but I do know I like that faint mustache that some women get when they are on the pill... :shifty:

You find the walrus look appealing?

Must be an Alaskan thing.:think:

[Gabby]

How many women did they study, for how long?

Who decides which men are more masculine and which are less masculine?

"The use of the contraceptive pill may cause women to choose less masculine men as partners, research has found.

The article, published in the Trends in Ecology & Evolution journal, also found that taking the pill may make women less attractive to men.

Scientists have now raised fears that these effects of the contraceptive may impact on future generations by affecting the ability of couples to reproduce.

Previous studies have found that ovulating women prefer partners with more masculine features and are particularly attracted to men showing dominance and male-male competitiveness.

They are also said to prefer partners who are genetically dissimilar to themselves.

Women taking the pill are said not to exhibit these ovulation-specific attractions.

The scientists, from the University of Sheffield, reviewed these studies and also looked at research suggesting that men are able to detect a woman's fertility status and prefer those who are ovulating.

They discussed whether this meant the use of oral contraceptives influenced a woman's ability to attract a mate by reducing her attractiveness to men.

The researchers found that an increasing number of studies suggested that the pill is likely to have an impact on human mating decisions and subsequent reproduction.

They said the fact that women taking the pill did not have an ovulation-specific attraction to genetically dissimilar partners was of particular interest because some evidence has suggested that genetic similarity between couples may be linked with infertility.
"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5ivu6B0G1yBo2OCt-BuPXp2mAczAw

[Gabby]

Here's a more detailed article on the topic.

[curtis123]

I guess I am the last John Wayne in this town.

[BillyBobUSA]

I have always thought that monkeying with womens hormones would have an affect on their feminity.

Seems obvious.

[Gabby]

I have always thought that monkeying with womens hormones would have an affect on their feminity.

Seems obvious.

I agree. I tried the pill a few times... every time it made me have all the pre-menstral symtoms most of the time. So I stopped taking it.

The problems caused by the pill are seldom discussed.

[curtis123]

Okay, so the metro sexual she-men are all dating women on the pill, so they won't reproduce anyway.

Natural selection strikes again.

Problem solved.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

What may have been seen as a Man's man in the 40's and 50's most certainly are not the Man's man of the 80's, 90's and year 2000. Jonny Depp? Gag...Dicraprio? Gag some more...girlie men...Brad Pitt? Gag...Keanu Reeves? Gag cough Gag...come on..these are soft effeminate looking males that are more like an ugly girl friend then a Man's man. :rolleyes:

I highly doubt the 'pill' has made these soft overtly effeminate males more attractive to the main stream female. These are Hollywood make believe men who act a part. Chick flick/Momma movie type stars to feed into a unrealistic romantic comedy. Last time I saw a male acting as a Man's man was Mel Gibson..and he's a raging alcoholic in real life...before him we've got Squint Eastwood...another man playing Man's man and a real handful in real life..none to flattering either from what I've heard. Before Squint we've got the original Bond..Mr. Sean Connery...another real prize in real life (read sarcasm). None of them would get even a cursory glance from me. None of them do a thing for me. None even get my blood pressure up.

Placing so much on the pill...with all it's side affects...it's benefits, ...it's up and downs...is simply a stretch to try and explain a current phenomena which is more attuned to females being valued for more then their uterus's. A woman's role in modern times is a far cry from what is was in past decades. We've left behind the pink ghetto, the old social morays, the arch types of what a woman should be verses what we've become. Women's choices in what type of men they choose will constantly change as they continue to find their ever changing place in society. That's not the pills doing...that's simply evolution of our society and how we value and view one another.

~Mysty

[MarkyS]

What may have been seen as a Man's man in the 40's and 50's most certainly are not the Man's man of the 80's, 90's and year 2000. Jonny Depp? Gag...Dicraprio? Gag some more...girlie men...Brad Pitt? Gag...Keanu Reeves? Gag cough Gag...come on..these are soft effeminate looking males that are more like an ugly girl friend then a Man's man. :rolleyes:

I highly doubt the 'pill' has made these soft overtly effeminate males more attractive to the main stream female. These are Hollywood make believe men who act a part. Chick flick/Momma movie type stars to feed into a unrealistic romantic comedy. Last time I saw a male acting as a Man's man was Mel Gibson..and he's a raging alcoholic in real life...before him we've got Squint Eastwood...another man playing Man's man and a real handful in real life..none to flattering either from what I've heard. Before Squint we've got the original Bond..Mr. Sean Connery...another real prize in real life (read sarcasm). None of them would get even a cursory glance from me. None of them do a thing for me. None even get my blood pressure up.

Placing so much on the pill...with all it's side affects...it's benefits, ...it's up and downs...is simply a stretch to try and explain a current phenomena which is more attuned to females being valued for more then their uterus's. A woman's role in modern times is a far cry from what is was in past decades. We've left behind the pink ghetto, the old social morays, the arch types of what a woman should be verses what we've become. Women's choices in what type of men they choose will constantly change as they continue to find their ever changing place in society. That's not the pills doing...that's simply evolution of our society and how we value and view one another.

~Mysty

Mysty, I am a man and I can tell you definately that DiCaprio, Bloom and Depp could never be called a man's man. A man's man is a man that other men would want to emulate. We WOULD want to have their success with today's women, but not at the expense of being like them. Bruce Willis is a man's man, and a man's man of the fifties is still a man's man in this century. The question is are women today looking for a man's man? Increasingly, the answer seems to be no.

I like your take on the whole debate and it has great merit, but do you really totally discount the physiological component in women's behavior??? There is definately a physiological component in all human behavior, as well as psychological, and the pill definately has an effect on women's hormonal levels.

M

[MarkyS]

Okay, so the metro sexual she-men are all dating women on the pill, so they won't reproduce anyway.

Natural selection strikes again.

Problem solved.

Now, that's funny. Too bad it isn't working fast enough to do me any good.

M

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

Mysty, I am a man and I can tell you definately that DiCaprio, Bloom and Depp could never be called a man's man.

You get no argument from me on that point. In fact, I'm certain I stated such in my previous post on the topic...:rolleyes:

A man's man is a man that other men would want to emulate.

Sounds like a line from the movie 'What Woman Want', explaining exactly this thought. A man's man has actually nothing to do with what a woman actually wants in a man...it has everything to do with what other men think a woman would want..and hold up those men who they think rack up big numbers on their bed posts. :rolleyes: In other words..male envy of supposed other males defined as a mans man due to high notch count. That's not a man at all...that's a sexually permissive male who takes no responsibility for his actions, plays like he's from the old Rat Pack generation..and gee..ain't it cool? No thanks..does nothing for me. Peter Pan little boys trying to act like men...makes me sick.

Now if all other men are looking for is how to be 'that' guy..then hey..have it. Just know that your feeding right into the arch type that modern woman today will exploit and leave far behind once they move onto a real adult life. ;)

We WOULD want to have their success with today's women, but not at the expense of being like them. Bruce Willis is a man's man, and a man's man of the fifties is still a man's man in this century. The question is are women today looking for a man's man? Increasingly, the answer seems to be no.

Bruce Willis is a megalomaniac narcissist who can only define himself by the supposed macho characters he plays. In real life? He's pathetic. Not even close to my definition of a real man's man. Man's man of the 50's? Are you kidding me? Archaic abusive misogynistic males of that time are just that..and most certainly not my definition of a mans man. Those types of men wouldn't even get play in today's world...they'd have restraining orders and mandatory therapy sessions. No, a woman doesn't want a emotionally, physically, mentally dependent weakling,..but what guy wants that either? Some ideal of archaic male female relations that no longer fit into our modern times seems to be pressed farther into this issue then should be. Woman's roles in this modern world have changed drastically over the last 50 or so years. They don't need a man to provide..they provide for themselves...They don't need protection..they can protect themselves...They don't need some guy to have around just to procreate...they now too can do that all by themselves. They don't need to procreate so why marry at all? So what does a woman want with or need a man for? the answer is the same for men...why would they need or want a woman. The situation has risen above procreation allowing both males and females to choose to be with someone for a deeper purpose..an equal footing if you will.

I like your take on the whole debate and it has great merit, but do you really totally discount the physiological component in women's behavior??? There is definately a physiological component in all human behavior, as well as psychological, and the pill definately has an effect on women's hormonal levels.

M

Do I totally discount our physiological behaviors? No..we are hard wired so to speak within the male female sexual drive. Beyond that..I take no other 'psychological or physiological behaviors into consideration. Why? Social environment. Due to our modern society and it's norms. Nature verses nurture plays well within certain environmental debates, such as child raising. Once to an adult age however, and beyond sexual drive...the social norms and progressive evolution of woman takes over. Pill..no Pill...I really think it has no bearing on what type of men a woman chooses based on taking a Pill. I believe there is allot more to it then that.

Males btw, have the same hormonal challenges and in far more rapid secession then females hormonal cycles. About once ever 10 to 14 days. So, really, overtly weak males, overtly alpha brute males and overtly metro sexual males could easily be just having a hormonal response, warding off the woman they believe they wish to attract. Has nothing to do with a pill...;)

Just saying....

~Mysty

[Samm]

You find the walrus look appealing?

Must be an Alaskan thing.:think:

I say no to women with tusks and fish breath. :snooty:

[Samm]

Scientists have now raised fears that these effects of the contraceptive may impact on future generations by affecting the ability of couples to reproduce.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5ivu6B0G1yBo2OCt-BuPXp2mAczAw

Isn't that the whole point of taking the pill? :eh:

[Getty Girl]

Okay, so the metro sexual she-men are all dating women on the pill, so they won't reproduce anyway.

Natural selection strikes again.

Problem solved.
:clap:

[Gabby]

Isn't that the whole point of taking the pill? :eh:

the purpose of the pill is to have control over when a women gets pregnant... not to make her permanently infertile.

[MarkyS]

You get no argument from me on that point. In fact, I'm certain I stated such in my previous post on the topic...:rolleyes:

But you failed to describe what you think a man's man is. All you did was denigrate a number of those you thought were men's men.



Sounds like a line from the movie 'What Woman Want', explaining exactly this thought. A man's man has actually nothing to do with what a woman actually wants in a man...it has everything to do with what other men think a woman would want..and hold up those men who they think rack up big numbers on their bed posts. :rolleyes: In other words..male envy of supposed other males defined as a mans man due to high notch count. That's not a man at all...that's a sexually permissive male who takes no responsibility for his actions, plays like he's from the old Rat Pack generation..and gee..ain't it cool? No thanks..does nothing for me. Peter Pan little boys trying to act like men...makes me sick.

Forgive me, but you seem to have some real issues with men. Let me explain this a little better. A man's man is a man other men would like to emulate in every way - not just in their conquests. Masculinity is not a four letter word, as you seem to indicate. Clark Gable was the epitomy of a man's man, and he was also a faithful and devoted husband. He was an extraordinary hunter, sportsman, horseman and sailor and was physically in great shape, on top of being the king of his craft. He personified all that men aspire to. It is EASY to see why women adored to such a man.

Now if all other men are looking for is how to be 'that' guy..then hey..have it. Just know that your feeding right into the arch type that modern woman today will exploit and leave far behind once they move onto a real adult life. ;)

"That guy" today is George Clooney, who is not considered a man's man by men. Sorry.

Bruce Willis is a megalomaniac narcissist who can only define himself by the supposed macho characters he plays. In real life? He's pathetic. Not even close to my definition of a real man's man. Man's man of the 50's? Are you kidding me? Archaic abusive misogynistic males of that time are just that..and most certainly not my definition of a mans man. Those types of men wouldn't even get play in today's world...they'd have restraining orders and mandatory therapy sessions. No, a woman doesn't want a emotionally, physically, mentally dependent weakling,..but what guy wants that either? Some ideal of archaic male female relations that no longer fit into our modern times seems to be pressed farther into this issue then should be. Woman's roles in this modern world have changed drastically over the last 50 or so years. They don't need a man to provide..they provide for themselves...They don't need protection..they can protect themselves...They don't need some guy to have around just to procreate...they now too can do that all by themselves. They don't need to procreate so why marry at all? So what does a woman want with or need a man for? the answer is the same for men...why would they need or want a woman. The situation has risen above procreation allowing both males and females to choose to be with someone for a deeper purpose..an equal footing if you will.

What exactly has Bruce Willis done to enrage you so much??? Raise a family??? Maintain a successful career? Or, is it that he's a Republican? Jeez, he even handled his divorce, and his wife's subsequent daliance with a man half her age with panache and grace. I'll bet it's because he recently married a younger woman, right? And who are these mysoginistic, archaic men of the fifties you refer to??? Burt Lancaster? Kirk Douglas? What did they do that sets you off?? Emotional weaklings? What is you evidence? Both were married for decades to the same women.

Do I totally discount our physiological behaviors? No..we are hard wired so to speak within the male female sexual drive. Beyond that..I take no other 'psychological or physiological behaviors into consideration. Why? Social environment. Due to our modern society and it's norms. Nature verses nurture plays well within certain environmental debates, such as child raising. Once to an adult age however, and beyond sexual drive...the social norms and progressive evolution of woman takes over. Pill..no Pill...I really think it has no bearing on what type of men a woman chooses based on taking a Pill. I believe there is allot more to it then that.

The point is the pill has drastically altered the physiology of women, and that altered state has to affect their psychological state. You seem to want to pretend that playing around with your hormones, day in and day out, month in and month out, has no effect on your being. Not possible. If you're on it, it is very likely that you only THINK you are who you think you are. The study points to several women who have altered states, (natural states, in fact,) when they are not on the pill, and that makes perfect sense.

Males btw, have the same hormonal challenges and in far more rapid secession then females hormonal cycles. About once ever 10 to 14 days. So, really, overtly weak males, overtly alpha brute males and overtly metro sexual males could easily be just having a hormonal response, warding off the woman they believe they wish to attract. Has nothing to do with a pill...;)

Just saying....

~Mysty

Males do not alter their hormones artificially. Whatever state they are in due to hormones is a NATURAL state, at all times. The pill is not natural for women and that is the point of the study. Methinks that is what worries you. I'm jess sayin'......

M

[BrittleBullet]

I think that's all ********.
The trend is cultural.
Not too long ago, women with junk in the trunk were considered very attractive by men. Now they would be called a flat slob. Maybe 50 years from now it will revert back to what was before.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

But you failed to describe what you think a man's man is. All you did was denigrate a number of those you thought were men's men.

No, I didn't. I merely agreed with you on who were not man's man's types.


Forgive me, but you seem to have some real issues with men. Let me explain this a little better. A man's man is a man other men would like to emulate in every way - not just in their conquests. Masculinity is not a four letter word, as you seem to indicate. Clark Gable was the epitomy of a man's man, and he was also a faithful and devoted husband. He was an extraordinary hunter, sportsman, horseman and sailor and was physically in great shape, on top of being the king of his craft. He personified all that men aspire to. It is EASY to see why women adored to such a man.

Project much? Don't put words or ideas in my posts that simply aren't there. You seem to be pulling Hollywood ideals of what a man's man is...I am merely pointing out those are false personalities ...created if you will...to sell a product. I wouldn't choose any Hollywood types as man's man's type of men...I've many in real life to pull from. I've been married for 25 years to a 'real' man and understand and know what and who they are without reverting to sophomoric analogies or made up men. ;)



"That guy" today is George Clooney, who is not considered a man's man by men. Sorry.

don't apologize..I happen to agree..George Clooney is most certainly not a man's man. He plays one...or tries to..but it's a persona, a character, an act.



What exactly has Bruce Willis done to enrage you so much??? Raise a family??? Maintain a successful career? Or, is it that he's a Republican? Jeez, he even handled his divorce, and his wife's subsequent daliance with a man half her age with panache and grace. I'll bet it's because he recently married a younger woman, right? And who are these mysoginistic, archaic men of the fifties you refer to??? Burt Lancaster? Kirk Douglas? What did they do that sets you off?? Emotional weaklings? What is you evidence? Both were married for decades to the same women.

So you 've met these men personally? Or you know those who do know them personally? Or are you going by what tabloids have sold to the public? Hmmm...thin edge to hang your hat on. As to enraged...no, I'm not enraged. I call them as I see them. That's called being honest. The men you keep bringing up into the debate...you may wish to look a bit further into them before holding them up as high as you do. Oh..and please learn to actually read what I write...not infer ideas into my posts that aren't there.



The point is the pill has drastically altered the physiology of women, and that altered state has to affect their psychological state. You seem to want to pretend that playing around with your hormones, day in and day out, month in and month out, has no effect on your being. Not possible. If you're on it, it is very likely that you only THINK you are who you think you are. The study points to several women who have altered states, (natural states, in fact,) when they are not on the pill, and that makes perfect sense.

The Pill has drastically altered the physiology of women? hmmmm...so much so it affects their psychological state? Once again with feeling...other then limiting procreation the only other effect of the 'pill' has upon a woman can be toxic side affects upon the female body. Her state of mind? or who chooses as a partner? No, I don't have to use the 'pill' as the reason for why some woman choose whom they do for partners. I would perhaps look to the evolution of women in society as to more the reason they choose who they do.



Males do not alter their hormones artificially. Whatever state they are in due to hormones is a NATURAL state, at all times. The pill is not natural for women and that is the point of the study. Methinks that is what worries you. I'm jess sayin'......

M

No, males don't alter their hormones artificially. That wasn't my point...or you're missing it altogether. Males make varied choices based on drive. Those drives are hormonally driven. That fact that males in their peak have hormonal changes every 7-10 days makes them more apt to your theory then females on the pill. ;)

Take a deep breath...re-read my responses to you and your example of what you posts as 'real men' or man's man type of men. You may just see where I pointed out who and what they are verses what you think them to be. I'm far from a man hater...been married long enough to know the difference between little boys playing men, and real men.

Now...let's try this again...No man whose portrayed in Hollywood fits my description of a man's man. They are characters...it's an act...it's not who or what they really are in life. They are usually narcissistic to a fine point, alcoholics or drugs users, play around with far to many woman, marry and divorce as if it is a game, and walk around as if they are the best thing invented since sliced bread. Not what I would want my son's (if I had any) to emulate.


~Mysty

[Samm]

the purpose of the pill is to have control over when a women gets pregnant... not to make her permanently infertile.

The study does not suggest that it will.

The study is bunk... Men are only subliminally attracted to women who are not ovulating. I seriously doubt that most men are capable of "sensing" that a woman is ovulating. The fact is, men are attracted to women at all times regardless of ovulation. And once knowing that a woman is on the pill, the attraction level increases because it suggests to the man that she is predisposed to have sex. In our society, men are not initially looking for someone to bear their children... they are simply looking to get laid.

[MarkyS]

No, I didn't. I merely agreed with you on who were not man's man's types.

And you denigrated those you percieved to be men's men, did you not?

Project much? Don't put words or ideas in my posts that simply aren't there. You seem to be pulling Hollywood ideals of what a man's man is...I am merely pointing out those are false personalities ...created if you will...to sell a product. I wouldn't choose any Hollywood types as man's man's type of men...I've many in real life to pull from. I've been married for 25 years to a 'real' man and understand and know what and who they are without reverting to sophomoric analogies or made up men. ;)

The whole point of the article was that women are today attracted to a different type of man than since before the pill, and the article used male stereotypes from the movies as signposts. I KNOW that men in the movies are actors. It's not whether we think that Kirk Douglas himself was swell guy. It's the TYPE of man he projected - strong, masculine, competent. That type of man is less and less attractive to women, if the article is to be believed, and one of their signposts for this trend is the type of actor who is adored today. For every Russell Crowe there are ten Johnny Depps in public (women's,) favor. There is a reason for that, and it is not unreasonable to see that there can be an actual physiological reason.

don't apologize..I happen to agree..George Clooney is most certainly not a man's man. He plays one...or tries to..but it's a persona, a character, an act.

Of course, but again, it is the type he presents which is being studied - Not George.

So you 've met these men personally? Or you know those who do know them personally? Or are you going by what tabloids have sold to the public? Hmmm...thin edge to hang your hat on. As to enraged...no, I'm not enraged. I call them as I see them. That's called being honest. The men you keep bringing up into the debate...you may wish to look a bit further into them before holding them up as high as you do. Oh..and please learn to actually read what I write...not infer ideas into my posts that aren't there.

Again, it's the type, the type, the type - not these actual guys.Women are no longer going for the type. They are increasingly going for the sensative Orlando Bloom type.


The Pill has drastically altered the physiology of women? hmmmm...so much so it affects their psychological state? Once again with feeling...other then limiting procreation the only other effect of the 'pill' has upon a woman can be toxic side affects upon the female body. Her state of mind? or who chooses as a partner? No, I don't have to use the 'pill' as the reason for why some woman choose whom they do for partners. I would perhaps look to the evolution of women in society as to more the reason they choose who they do.

As I said, how can you know why you have made the choices you've made, if your hormones have been altered from the norm? You can ascribe any reason you choose, but that is like a drug addict saying they commit crimes for social reasons, with no acknowledgement that their current physiology drives their psychological bent. I can't buy it. I'm not saying the pill is the end-all, be-all reason for this trend, but I believe it certainly is a factor.

No, males don't alter their hormones artificially. That wasn't my point...or you're missing it altogether. Males make varied choices based on drive. Those drives are hormonally driven. That fact that males in their peak have hormonal changes every 7-10 days makes them more apt to your theory then females on the pill. ;)

You don't understand the theory then. The theory is that women, who also have a varied hormonal level at times of the month no longer do, because of the pill, and as a result those times of the month when in past they were disposed to see masculinity more favorably, they no longer do. The result is that the masculine guys no longer get their times at bat, so to speak, and the net result of that is the feminization of the culture. So it's not the varying of hormones - It's the LESSENING of the varying, which is the cause.

Take a deep breath...re-read my responses to you and your example of what you posts as 'real men' or man's man type of men. You may just see where I pointed out who and what they are verses what you think them to be. I'm far from a man hater...been married long enough to know the difference between little boys playing men, and real men.

Now...let's try this again...No man whose portrayed in Hollywood fits my description of a man's man. They are characters...it's an act...it's not who or what they really are in life. They are usually narcissistic to a fine point, alcoholics or drugs users, play around with far to many woman, marry and divorce as if it is a game, and walk around as if they are the best thing invented since sliced bread. Not what I would want my son's (if I had any) to emulate.


~Mysty


Again, it's the type they presented, not the actual actors. The TYPE of man they presented - overtly masculine - is out of favor with women today, and masculinity and faithfulness are NOT mutually exclusive.

M

[MarkyS]

The study does not suggest that it will.

The study is bunk... Men are only subliminally attracted to women who are not ovulating. I seriously doubt that most men are capable of "sensing" that a woman is ovulating. The fact is, men are attracted to women at all times regardless of ovulation. And once knowing that a woman is on the pill, the attraction level increases because it suggests to the man that she is predisposed to have sex. In our society, men are not initially looking for someone to bear their children... they are simply looking to get laid.

It's not that men could sense when women were ovulating. It is that women put out more of a come-hither attitude when they were ovulating - perhaps even without knowing it themselves. They just felt more attractive and became more attractive. They put out a vibe, if you will, that was picked up on by men. You know when a woman is on the make and when she feels like she is attractive, and you also know that this is a thing which absolutely varies at certain times. Even the most beautiful women will wake up and feel wholey unattractive one day and very attractive the next. This is ABSOLUTELY a natural thing which can easily be seen in all species. Why would it be different for humans???

The theory is that the pill LESSENS these swings and in the doing lessens a woman's natural tendency towards more masculine men, (that reads as more virile,) at certain times of the month.

M

[Samm]

It's not that men could sense when women were ovulating. It is that women put out more of a come-hither attitude when they were ovulating - perhaps even without knowing it themselves. They just felt more attractive and became more attractive. They put out a vibe, if you will, that was picked up on by men. You know when a woman is on the make and when she feels like she is attractive, and you also know that this is a thing which absolutely varies at certain times. Even the most beautiful women will wake up and feel wholey unattractive one day and very attractive the next. This is ABSOLUTELY a natural thing which can easily be seen in all species. Why would it be different for humans???

The theory is that the pill LESSENS these swings and in the doing lessens a woman's natural tendency towards more masculine men, (that reads as more virile,) at certain times of the month.

M
Perhaps, but nothing says "come hither" like "I am on the pill." ;)

Come to think of it... a woman sitting alone on a bar stool, ovulating or not, on the pill or not, doing her best to look disinterested attracts men like flies. Pheromones... piffle. The only hormones in play are his (theirs.)

[Rurudyne]

While I suppose that the study may have merit, consider for a moment the presentation of a certain Frank Sinatra in old cartoons.... I reason that this is hardly some new phenomenon.

[MarkyS]

Perhaps, but nothing says "come hither" like "I am on the pill." ;)

Come to think of it... a woman sitting alone on a bar stool, ovulating or not, on the pill or not, doing her best to look disinterested attracts men like flies. Pheromones... piffle. The only hormones in play are his (theirs.)


errr, I have never had a woman come on to me by saying, "I am on the pill." Never.

I have no problem accepting that men will look for women regardless of her state, but the study implies that women are the ones who do the looking at certain times of the month, and that when they are ovulating they have a natural tendancy to look for more masculine - whom they see as more virile - men. The pill stops them from ovulating, and therefore stops them from this natural tendancy. The end result is that the metrosexual men are elevated in the long run.

M

[MarkyS]

While I suppose that the study may have merit, consider for a moment the presentation of a certain Frank Sinatra in old cartoons.... I reason that this is hardly some new phenomenon.


I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. What cartoons are you referring to? If you mean by this that women went ga-ga over skinny little Frank, remember that most women heard him long before they saw him, and fell in love with the crooner. Also, remember that Sinatra, despite his slight physical appearance in his youth was clearly a masculine man in his demeanor. Nobody was tougher than ol' blue eyes, and he proved that all his life. But even if you don't buy that, Sinatra was not going to be denied fame, adoration and success, simply by virtue of his talent, which was varied and massive. In that respect he could be said to be the acception to the rule. For every skinny Sinatra, there were 10 Waynes, Lancasters, Douglases, Brynners, Gables, Matures, Mitchums.......

Not so much today.

M

[Rurudyne]

MarkyS ... Sinatra was portrayed as so sickly that he'd be singing from a wheelchair while they would be pumping blood into him.

At the very least it should show what the folks at Termite Terrace thought of him.

[MarkyS]

MarkyS ... Sinatra was portrayed as so sickly that he'd be singing from a wheelchair while they would be pumping blood into him.

At the very least it should show what the folks at Termite Terrace thought of him.

Ahhh, well. You didn't say Termite Terrace. That certainly makes all the dif.;)

M

[Samm]

errr, I have never had a woman come on to me by saying, "I am on the pill." Never.

Who said anything about coming on to you?

I have no problem accepting that men will look for women regardless of her state, but the study implies that women are the ones who do the looking at certain times of the month, and that when they are ovulating they have a natural tendancy to look for more masculine - whom they see as more virile - men. The pill stops them from ovulating, and therefore stops them from this natural tendancy. The end result is that the metrosexual men are elevated in the long run.

M
Considering that women only ovulate 1/7 of the time during their fertile years, I call BS. Most women are ready to mate every day of the month, not just when they are ovulating... just like men. And I still contend that a woman on the pill, a woman who does not fear getting pregnant, is more likely, not less likely to follow through with her urges. The fact that "metrosexuals" have a significant level of "success" says nothing about a woman's selection process, rather it is a societal statement. Metrosexual men are a much newer advent than the pill. Go to any bar that makes metrosexuals uncomfortable and you will find women on the pill picking up men left and right.

The toning down of testosterone dominated masculinity has nothing to do with the pill; it has been going on for many scores, even centuries. It is called civilization. But women who are looking for a mate look for the same things they have always looked for... primarily someone who will be a good provider for a family. Who fits that bill better... a doctor, a lawyer or a cowboy?

[livia]

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. What cartoons are you referring to? If you mean by this that women went ga-ga over skinny little Frank, remember that most women heard him long before they saw him, and fell in love with the crooner. Also, remember that Sinatra, despite his slight physical appearance in his youth was clearly a masculine man in his demeanor. Nobody was tougher than ol' blue eyes, and he proved that all his life. But even if you don't buy that, Sinatra was not going to be denied fame, adoration and success, simply by virtue of his talent, which was varied and massive. In that respect he could be said to be the acception to the rule. For every skinny Sinatra, there were 10 Waynes, Lancasters, Douglases, Brynners, Gables, Matures, Mitchums.......

Not so much today.

M

I would suggest that the distinct lack of Waynes, Lancasters, Douglases Brynners, Gables, Matures and Mitchums in the movies has more to do with the advent of CGI than a change in what women find attractive. Basically, with the advent of CGI, the action movie lead has been largely cast aside, as the "star" of the action movie is now the special effects. Remember than in the 80s and 90s, we still had a plethora of masculine action men in the movies - Arnie, Stallone, Willis, Van Damme, Lundgren etc.
But personally speaking, I find a lot of the A list men such as Gerard Butler - what woman can forget him in 300, Hugh Jackman etc pretty attractive and wouldn't describe them a "girlie men".

Remember as well that those who go for Leo and Orlando tend to be the same teenage girls who would have gone for Rock Hudson or Troy Donahue in the 50s. I don't know any woman over 25 who finds Leo or Orlando appealing.

[MarkyS]

Who said anything about coming on to you?

Are you saying it's been your experience that women try to attract men by saying, "I am on the pill?"


Considering that women only ovulate 1/7 of the time during their fertile years, I call BS. Most women are ready to mate every day of the month, not just when they are ovulating... just like men. And I still contend that a woman on the pill, a woman who does not fear getting pregnant, is more likely, not less likely to follow through with her urges. The fact that "metrosexuals" have a significant level of "success" says nothing about a woman's selection process, rather it is a societal statement. Metrosexual men are a much newer advent than the pill. Go to any bar that makes metrosexuals uncomfortable and you will find women on the pill picking up men left and right.

Nothing in the study suggests that women are not ready to mate every day of the month. The study suggests that they are ready to mate less and less with MASCULINE MEN, whenever they are ready to mate.

Assuming that it is a societal statement, why is it not possible that this physiological change in women is a primary cause of the societal shift??? What causes societal shift? If you suppose that it is simply attitudinal, why is it beyond the realm of possibility that the attitudes are being influenced by hormonal changes wrought by artificialy altering women's physiology?

Metrosexual men have always been with us, as have masculine men. What has CHANGED is society's acceptence of metrosexuality as either equal to or even preferencial to maculinity. This study attempts to find out why, and concludes that there is likely a physiological component to the shift. The study suggests that if you go to that biker bar, a higher percentage of the women there will not be using the pill, and of course it never suggests that to use the pill absolutely makes all women metrosexual fanciers. It simply says that the pill has caused a shift, over time and over a huge number of women.

The toning down of testosterone dominated masculinity has nothing to do with the pill; it has been going on for many scores, even centuries. It is called civilization. But women who are looking for a mate look for the same things they have always looked for... primarily someone who will be a good provider for a family. Who fits that bill better... a doctor, a lawyer or a cowboy?

The study suggests otherwise, and it uses the popularity of masculine actors as its signpost. Masculine actors were the norm for leading men prior to the pill. Not so much now. This is a shift that is clearly of a recent time, if the popularity of a certain type is indicative, and why would it not be? Masculinity is not uncivilized, by the way.

Yes, women have always been looking for a good providor, but your assumption is that masculine men cannot compete in this realm. When it comes to sexuality, masculinity is a sign of virility, and virility is an inately desirable trait in a male mate, just as ferility is in a female mate. If you want to have a family, virility is important, whether you consciously acknowledge that or not. Nobody thinks Alan Alda is more virile than, say Russell Crowe - not even the women who think Alda would treat them better and bring home more money - though why they would necessarily think that is beyond me. So, virility and sexuality and masculinity are all interwoven. If what you want a man to PROVIDE is children, virility is of primary importance, even if you are not aware of it, consciously.

M

[MarkyS]

I would suggest that the distinct lack of Waynes, Lancasters, Douglases Brynners, Gables, Matures and Mitchums in the movies has more to do with the advent of CGI than a change in what women find attractive. Basically, with the advent of CGI, the action movie lead has been largely cast aside, as the "star" of the action movie is now the special effects. Remember than in the 80s and 90s, we still had a plethora of masculine action men in the movies - Arnie, Stallone, Willis, Van Damme, Lundgren etc.
But personally speaking, I find a lot of the A list men such as Gerard Butler - what woman can forget him in 300, Hugh Jackman etc pretty attractive and wouldn't describe them a "girlie men".

Can't buy your thesis. In the first place, even the masculine men of the fifties used stunt doubles most of the time. They HAD to because of insurance restrictions on the studios. Secondly, it is not that we still don't have masculine stars even today. It is that more and more we have metrosexual stars equalling or beating them at the box office. There is now and always will be a place for masculine stars. The difference is the shift in popularity with women. For every Robert Donat in the fifties there were ten Waynes. Not so much anymore.

Remember as well that those who go for Leo and Orlando tend to be the same teenage girls who would have gone for Rock Hudson or Troy Donahue in the 50s. I don't know any woman over 25 who finds Leo or Orlando appealing.

Yes, but you do know women over 25 who found Alan Alda appealing at his peak. Alda - huge metrosexual. Nice guy, but clearly huge metrosexual. Besides, women are capable of learning over time like anyone. It is the woman under 25 that would most be indicative of the theory of this study, because she would be less influenced by her experiences and more influenced by her hormones alone, simply because she has less experiences.

M

[Samm]

Are you saying it's been your experience that women try to attract men by saying, "I am on the pill?"

No... that is not what I said. I said (paraphrasing) when men learn that a woman is on the pill they believe their chances of sex are increased. And I said women on the pill are more inclined to have sex because they have no fear of pregnancy. How that knowledge is communicated was not part of my statement.

Nothing in the study suggests that women are not ready to mate every day of the month. The study suggests that they are ready to mate less and less with MASCULINE MEN, whenever they are ready to mate.

Assuming that it is a societal statement, why is it not possible that this physiological change in women is a primary cause of the societal shift??? What causes societal shift? If you suppose that it is simply attitudinal, why is it beyond the realm of possibility that the attitudes are being influenced by hormonal changes wrought by artificialy altering women's physiology?

Metrosexual men have always been with us, as have masculine men. What has CHANGED is society's acceptence of metrosexuality as either equal to or even preferencial to maculinity. This study attempts to find out why, and concludes that there is likely a physiological component to the shift. The study suggests that if you go to that biker bar, a higher percentage of the women there will not be using the pill, and of course it never suggests that to use the pill absolutely makes all women metrosexual fanciers. It simply says that the pill has caused a shift, over time and over a huge number of women.

The study suggests otherwise, and it uses the popularity of masculine actors as its signpost. Masculine actors were the norm for leading men prior to the pill. Not so much now. This is a shift that is clearly of a recent time, if the popularity of a certain type is indicative, and why would it not be? Masculinity is not uncivilized, by the way.

Yes, women have always been looking for a good providor, but your assumption is that masculine men cannot compete in this realm. When it comes to sexuality, masculinity is a sign of virility, and virility is an inately desirable trait in a male mate, just as ferility is in a female mate. If you want to have a family, virility is important, whether you consciously acknowledge that or not. Nobody thinks Alan Alda is more virile than, say Russell Crowe - not even the women who think Alda would treat them better and bring home more money - though why they would necessarily think that is beyond me. So, virility and sexuality and masculinity are all interwoven. If what you want a man to PROVIDE is children, virility is of primary importance, even if you are not aware of it, consciously.

MHave you seen a dearth of he-men? or a lot of them running around without women? or do you think that all women you see with he-men are not on the pill?

The study is bunk... The pill has only been generally available since the 60s. The changes in society have been going on for at least the last 200 years give or take a few scores depending on which social developments you use to you draw the starting line. This is nothing more than an egg-head study funded by somebody with too much money (probably we taxpayers.) It has no practical meaning or application.

[MarkyS]

No... that is not what I said. I said (paraphrasing) when men learn that a woman is on the pill they believe their chances of sex are increased. And I said women on the pill are more inclined to have sex because they have no fear of pregnancy. How that knowledge is communicated was not part of my statement.

Again, the study is not about the quantity of sex women and men enjoy. It is about the type of partner that women are trending towards prefering.

Have you seen a dearth of he-men? or a lot of them running around without women? or do you think that all women you see with he-men are not on the pill?

Again, the study indicates a trend, not an absolute. The attractiveness of masculinity is normal and natural. It would be impossible to eradicate all vestiges of it, even with the great majority of women on the pill throughout their entire reproductive lives, and they're typically not. Additionally, the study does not say that masculine men are disappearing. It says that women are increasingly prefering metrosexuals. Because there are just so many men, women have little choice but to take what they can get, and that means though they may prefer a metrosexual, they may not have that choice. So, unless women are willing to totally do without, no, you will not see masculine men without partners. But you will see metrosexual men become more celebrated in the popular culture, and that is happening.

The study is bunk... The pill has only been generally available since the 60s. The changes in society have been going on for at least the last 200 years give or take a few scores depending on which social developments you use to you draw the starting line. This is nothing more than an egg-head study funded by somebody with too much money (probably we taxpayers.) It has no practical meaning or application.

Exactly which social development are you using to show that the trend towards celebrating metrosexuality has been there for two hundred years? At least the study was able to show a clear difference between the type of social icon that was more popular before the pill than after. I can't think of any signpost along the social evolution that shows you're correct about this not being recent. What do you base your conjecture on? Wishful thinking, perhaps?

M

[Samm]

Again, the study is not about the quantity of sex women and men enjoy. It is about the type of partner that women are trending towards prefering.

Again, the study indicates a trend, not an absolute. The attractiveness of masculinity is normal and natural. It would be impossible to eradicate all vestiges of it, even with the great majority of women on the pill throughout their entire reproductive lives, and they're typically not. Additionally, the study does not say that masculine men are disappearing. It says that women are increasingly prefering metrosexuals. Because there are just so many men, women have little choice but to take what they can get, and that means though they may prefer a metrosexual, they may not have that choice. So, unless women are willing to totally do without, no, you will not see masculine men without partners. But you will see metrosexual men become more celebrated in the popular culture, and that is happening.

Exactly which social development are you using to show that the trend towards celebrating metrosexuality has been there for two hundred years? At least the study was able to show a clear difference between the type of social icon that was more popular before the pill than after. I can't think of any signpost along the social evolution that shows you're correct about this not being recent. What do you base your conjecture on? Wishful thinking, perhaps?
M

No... I base my opinion on and reading of western history, 60+ years of experience, and the the good sense God gave me. The study is bunk. They could have just as well shown the same clear difference based on the type of music or fashions that this generation likes as opposed to the music and fashions that were popular when the pill first became available. Correlations do NOT indicate proof of anything.

[MarkyS]

No... I base my opinion on and reading of western history, 60+ years of experience, and the the good sense God gave me. The study is bunk. They could have just as well shown the same clear difference based on the type of music or fashions that this generation likes as opposed to the music and fashions that were popular when the pill first became available. Correlations do NOT indicate proof of anything.

I can't agree. The study was the result of more than a decade of research, using many other studies. For instance, one study, conducted at the University of Liverpool last year, found pill users more likely to prefer the odor of genetically incompatible men. Women who were more fertile, on the other hand, made better mate choices, genetically speaking. This is significant because there is evidence suggesting that genetic similarity between couples might be linked with infertility. This was not correlation. This was studying the genetic make-up of the choices of pill-users vs. non-pill-users.

The pill is actually making the choice for them - at the very least, influencing them.

Maybe even more troubling to women should be the aspect of the study which indicates that men are able to discern the subtle differences between ovulating women and non-ovulating (pill-taking) women, and are more attracted to the fertile women.

M

[Samm]

I can't agree. The study was the result of more than a decade of research, using many other studies. For instance, one study, conducted at the University of Liverpool last year, found pill users more likely to prefer the odor of genetically incompatible men. Women who were more fertile, on the other hand, made better mate choices, genetically speaking. This is significant because there is evidence suggesting that genetic similarity between couples might be linked with infertility. This was not correlation. This was studying the genetic make-up of the choices of pill-users vs. non-pill-users.

The pill is actually making the choice for them - at the very least, influencing them.

Maybe even more troubling to women should be the aspect of the study which indicates that men are able to discern the subtle differences between ovulating women and non-ovulating (pill-taking) women, and are more attracted to the fertile women.

M

Bunk. :razz:

[Andrew_980]

Thanks to the hormones from the pills getting into the water we are seeing increased cases of feminized men, with conditions such as gynocaomastia and intersex births getting more common.

[Samm]

Thanks to the hormones from the pills getting into the water we are seeing increased cases of feminized men, with conditions such as gynocaomastia and intersex births getting more common.

It is livestock hormones that are getting into the water table that are allegedly affecting people, not human birth control pill hormones.

[MarkyS]

Bunk. :razz:

Okay, bunk. I spoke to my doctor about it two days ago, in passing. She said there is NO DOUBT that human interaction is governed by our physiology as much as anything, and that messing with that physiology cannot but have an affect that will be seen somewhere in the culture.

I don't think you are giving enough credit to the numerous scientists and doctors who make up the bulk of the compiled studies that comprised this work. This is the result of over a decade of research.

But it's bunk (?)

M