Does this explain why we're suddenly hip deep in SoyBois and betas?

[jamil]

IBTL

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Did you check out the links I posted?

So you think a study is more verifiable proof than firsthand experience that contradicts the studies?

I think my biggest issue with this entire discussion is the unwillingness to discuss any other forms of proof without mentioning the studies like they’re the gold standard. As I said before, you can find a study to verify any outcome you want. I can find studies showing the opposite of pretty much any study that’s published.

If the pill changed people’s desires in a mate, it would change their physical attractions. Cindy explained she didn’t have that happen. I posed the question, do you think a woman that’s attracted to tall muscular men will be attracted to short scrawny men after going on the pill? I’ve yet to receive an answer to that, instead we get metaphors about QB’s passing the ball vs running the ball and totaling vehicles on the way to fast food joints, followed with the studies.

If their physical attraction in a potential mate doesn’t change, and we both know it doesn’t, then quote any study you want, the physical evidence suggest otherwise.

 

[Ingomike]

So you think a study is more verifiable proof than firsthand experience that contradicts the studies?

I think my biggest issue with this entire discussion is the unwillingness to discuss any other forms of proof without mentioning the studies like they’re the gold standard. As I said before, you can find a study to verify any outcome you want. I can find studies showing the opposite of pretty much any study that’s published.

If the pill changed people’s desires in a mate, it would change their physical attractions. Cindy explained she didn’t have that happen. I posed the question, do you think a woman that’s attracted to tall muscular men will be attracted to short scrawny men after going on the pill? I’ve yet to receive an answer to that, instead we get metaphors about QB’s passing the ball vs running the ball and totaling vehicles on the way to fast food joints, followed with the studies.

If their physical attraction in a potential mate doesn’t change, and we both know it doesn’t, then quote any study you want, the physical evidence suggest otherwise.

The studies are studies of many and firsthand experience is anecdotal on a topic like this.

Please post a link to a study that refutes these studies. In 70 years of the study of birth control it should be very easy.

Your question about scrawny and muscular men is an attempt to create a drastic that is not based on the research. The research is more about hormones not just physical attributes.

The recollections of one woman do not supersede the results of 70 years of research.

We both know nothing of a sort that physical attraction does not change with the addition of hormone birth control.

 

[Twangbanger]

The linked articles are full of interesting tidbits:

"...Interestingly, the same study also found that women who were using birth control when they met their partner were more satisfied with their partner’s earnings and intelligence than women who chose their partner will cycling naturally, suggesting that birth control reorients what women prioritize in mate selection. As Dr. Sarah E. Hill puts it: “This [study] suggests that, in choosing these faithful, resource-investing men as partners (and at the expense of sexiness), pill-taking women may be putting themselves at risk for becoming dissatisfied with their relationship due to a lack of attraction and sexual satisfaction if they ever go off of [the pill].” ..."

I mean...I'm not really seeing anything there to indicate The Pill inclines women toward "Soibois and Betas." It seems to just be saying they like intelligent men who earn money. The conflation of those traits with "Soiboi-ness" would seem to be an editorial extrapolation.

 

[BugI02]

I don't see a cause and effect between female birth control and men turning into wussies.

It is called selection pressure

50% of the brains and 100% of the *****

 

[guardman7]

Its a moral decay with both genders. Im not pushing religion, I'm just saying that it was the source of the morality that lead to strong families. Now women want to sleep around, and men are obviously contributing to this, but what man wants to marry a woman who has slept around and is finally ready to settle down? So you have a bunch of deadbeats with baby mommas and single mothers. Alot of these deadbeats drive around in lifted trucks with 3%er stickers and MAGA hats just to be completely fair...... its all about instant gratification, instagram likes and keeping up with whatever is trending

 

[Ingomike]

It is called selection pressure

50% of the brains and 100% of the *****

Don’t confuse them anymore. LOL

 

[jsharmon7]

When we say “pheromones,” are we talking about the ones in Sex Panther? Aside from the bits of real panther, I mean?

 

[BugI02]

It is appropos of nothing, but I can remember early research papers about subconscious factors in mate selection related to the Major Histocompatibility Complex as an undergrad ChemE going through organic chem ('73)

The subconscious action on mating preference was selected for because two MHCs that were too similar would result in offspring with a weak immune system among other undesirable traits, and pheromones were one of the major ways that the information was presented. You guys do know that body and especially facial symmetry is another trait women have been proven to be attracted to and is a proven signifier of the health of the potential mate as well as indirectly indicative of conditions during gestation that took place in the womb so is a stand in for genetic fitness as well

I would expect everyone has at least experience with someone who is good looking but we just don't get along with them or can't seem to light a spark. Arguably that could be subconscious selection at work

You can't really have definitive test, because a person woman would have to be able to precisely define what she is lookin for both while on and off the pill. Most people don't know what they're looking for until they find it, so experiments are left to use a selection of pictures, or more recently subtly morph an array of pictures, and ask the subjects to rate attractiveness on perhaps a 10 scale an then try to draw conclusions based on changes such as ovulating/non-ovulating which could serve as a stand in for not on the pill/on the pill

 

[BugI02]

When we say “pheromones,” are we talking about the ones in Sex Panther? Aside from the bits of real panther, I mean?

No, were talking about the chemicals that allow a male Japanese beetle to find a female from miles away, the chemicals that allow a male polar bear to smell a fertile female from 10 miles away. Because of our unique nature and breeding 'cycle' our pheromones act in a more subtle manner

Like so many other things in life, they allow us to continue believing we have unfettered free will

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Please post a link to a study that refutes these studies. In 70 years of the study of birth control it should be very easy.

Literally the first thing that popped up.

Birth Control Probably Doesn’t Change Who You’re Attracted to, Study Finds

A commonly touted theory about how women’s attraction to men works might be all wrong, suggests a new paper published this week in Psychological Science. Prior, small experiments have found that birth control pills and …

www.psychologicalscience.org

“Prior, small experiments have found that birth control pills and ovulation could change a woman's sexual preferences. Now, a large new study has found that women's preferences for men's faces are reliably stable, regardless of whether they're taking birth control pills or whether they're ovulating.”

 

[Hatin Since 87]

More in depth on that study from another site...

Birth Control Probably Doesn't Change Who You're Attracted to, Study Finds

A commonly touted theory about how women’s attraction to men works might be all wrong, suggests a new paper published this week in Psychological Science. Prior, small experiments have found that birth control pills and ovulation could change a woman’s sexual preferences. Now, a large new study...

gizmodo.com

Some previous experiments have found that women taking hormonal contraceptives or experiencing their period were more likely to favor male facial features that are less associated with testosterone, like a rounder jaw or thinner eyebrows. But these studies may have been flawed from the get-go, according to Ben Jones, a professor at the University of Glasgow’s Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology in the UK and lead author of the new work.

“Researchers have highlighted some potential methodological problems with these studies, like testing only a relatively small number of women,” he told Gizmodo via email. “We set out to address these criticisms by carrying out the largest study of these issues to date.”

“We found no evidence that women’s face preferences tracked changes in hormone levels or changes in women’s use of oral contraceptives,” Jones said. “Instead, we found that women generally preferred masculine men regardless of their own hormonal status.”

Though it’s just one study, Jones noted, it follows a paper published this past March that similarly found that for the women they studied, their menstrual cycle had no influence on how attracted they were to a man’s body overall.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Here’s another study that’s referenced in the previous study...

Fertile women evaluate male bodies as more attractive, regardless of masculinity

Ovulatory cycle shifts in women's mate preferences have been documented for several physical and behavioral traits. Research suggests that, at peak fe…

www.sciencedirect.com

Ovulatory cycle shifts in women's mate preferences have been documented for several physical and behavioral traits. Research suggests that, at peak fertility, women tend to prefer men with characteristics that reflect good genes for short-term sexual relationships. However, existing findings have been criticized for methodological flexibility and failing attempts to replicate core results. In a large (N = 157), pre-registered, within-subject study spanning two ovulatory cycles, we investigated cycle shifts in women's mate preferences for masculine bodies. Using a large set of natural stimuli, we found that when fertile, women's ratings of male bodies increased for sexual as well as for long-term attractiveness. Both effects were partially mediated by the estradiol-to-progesterone-ratio. Furthermore, moderation analyses revealed that both shifts were only evident in women in relationships, but not in singles. Contrary to previous findings, male masculine traits did not interact with cycle phase to predict attraction, indicating that women's preferential priorities do not shift. Taken together, our results do not support women's mate preference shifts, as assumed by the good genes ovulatory shift hypothesis, but are consistent with shifting motivational priorities throughout the cycle.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I think it’s safe to say 70 years worth of studies have been disproven, by firsthand experience of a female member, and by more recent studies.

 

[Ingomike]

More in depth on that study from another site...

Birth Control Probably Doesn't Change Who You're Attracted to, Study Finds

A commonly touted theory about how women’s attraction to men works might be all wrong, suggests a new paper published this week in Psychological Science. Prior, small experiments have found that birth control pills and ovulation could change a woman’s sexual preferences. Now, a large new study...

gizmodo.com

Some previous experiments have found that women taking hormonal contraceptives or experiencing their period were more likely to favor male facial features that are less associated with testosterone, like a rounder jaw or thinner eyebrows. But these studies may have been flawed from the get-go, according to Ben Jones, a professor at the University of Glasgow’s Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology in the UK and lead author of the new work.

“Researchers have highlighted some potential methodological problems with these studies, like testing only a relatively small number of women,” he told Gizmodo via email. “We set out to address these criticisms by carrying out the largest study of these issues to date.”

“We found no evidence that women’s face preferences tracked changes in hormone levels or changes in women’s use of oral contraceptives,” Jones said. “Instead, we found that women generally preferred masculine men regardless of their own hormonal status.”

Though it’s just one study, Jones noted, it follows a paper published this past March that similarly found that for the women they studied, their menstrual cycle had no influence on how attracted they were to a man’s body overall.

Why do they use so many words like probably and may in the reporting? Where is the study?

 

[Ingomike]

I think it’s safe to say 70 years worth of studies have been disproven, by firsthand experience of a female member, and by more recent studies.

You are a scientist unparalleled…

 

[Hatin Since 87]

You are a scientist unparalleled…

Apparently more so than you. I found recent studies that contradicted your gold standard “70 years” of studies.



Fail.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Why do they use so many words like probably and may in the reporting? Where is the study?

The only time “may” was mentioned is when it was giving reasons for past studies faults.

“Probably” wasn’t mentioned anywhere in the text I quoted. If you can point it out, please do, otherwise it seems like a feeble attempt to disregard the study in an effort to continue spouting your 70 years worth of studies being the only evidence worth hearing.

 

[Ingomike]

The only time “may” was mentioned is when it was giving reasons for past studies faults.

“Probably” wasn’t mentioned anywhere in the text I quoted. If you can point it out, please do, otherwise it seems like a feeble attempt to disregard the study in an effort to continue spouting your 70 years worth of studies being the only evidence worth hearing.

They used it in the headline.

“Birth Control Probably Doesn’t Change Who You’re Attracted to, Study Finds”​

 

[Hatin Since 87]

They used it in the headline.

“Birth Control Probably Doesn’t Change Who You’re Attracted to, Study Finds”​

The headline isn’t the content of the study. I would think a self appointed scientist would know headlines and internal content of a study are separate of each other.