It’s not hard to see why the mainstream media loves publishing scare stories about the birth control pill, even when they’re nonsensical or employ shoddy evidence.  These kinds of stories fill much of the criteria to attract eyeballs, since both sex hysteria and counter-intuitive ideas attract readers. The sex hysteria part is obvious enough, but what makes these stories counter-intuitive is that the invention of the birth control pill was such a massive bonus to people’s lives that merely questioning it attracts attention. Saying the pill is bad, or even hinting it at that argument, is a lot like saying the Beatles sucked.  Even if people disagree with you, you’re going to get a lot of attention.

It’s fun to kick around hypotheticals like "What if the pill made me less likely to pick a genetic match, whatever that means?" or “What if the pill deprives me of the 3 days out of the month where my skin is slightly plumper due to ovulation?”, but it’s also silly to think that minor concerns like these even have a fighting chance compared to the major concerns that women who don’t have access to reliable contraception have.  Concerns like, “What if I can’t afford to have 6 children?”  or “Shouldn’t I be with a man for a few years before I get pregnant, to make sure he’s the one?”  Knowing this, media outlets happily run with these stories, because they know that it’s more cocktail party fodder than it is information that could actually influence someone’s decisions and potentially hurt them by causing an unintended pregnancy.

Unfortunately, the forced birth brigade isn’t hemmed in by these ethical considerations, and as such, will take these stories and blow them completely out of proportion in an effort to discourage women from using effective contraception.  For instance, anti-choice blogger Jill Stanek, who never lets facts or understanding get in the way of a hysterical tirade about the evils of contraception and abortion, took one aspect of the Trends in Ecology and Evolution round-up on studies about the pill, and misread it in the most egregious manner, with a side of gay-baiting and pandering to the angry white men who make up much of her audience.  She cast used the Daily Mail’s coverage, which was guaranteed to maximize the misogyny and minimize the understanding of the actual study.

Scientists say the hormones in the oral contraceptive suppress a woman's interest in masculine men and make boyish men more attractive. Although the change occurs for just a few days each month, it may have been highly influential since use of the Pill began more than 40 years ago.

If the theory is right, it could partly explain the shifting in tastes from macho 1950s and 1960s stars such as Kirk Douglas and Sean Connery to the more wimpy, androgynous stars of today, such as Johnny Depp and Russell Brand....

The problem with that interpretation is it makes no sense, on a number of levels. Originally, the research was about comparing women’s choice in photographs during the few days a month they’re ovulating versus the entire rest of the month when they’re not. The researchers wanted to see if women on the pill made similar choices to women not ovulating but not on the pill, and to no one’s great surprise, they did.  But even if there was no pill, most women are not ovulating at any point in time, so this simply couldn’t have a dramatic effect on what Hollywood stars are most popular.  The Daily Mail also retrofitted the evidence to assert that women are emasculating men by not being in a constant state of ovulation, which women never were, even before the pill.   The notion that starts in the past were all rugged while stars today are all pretty doesn’t fit the evidence, unless you’re willing to pretend that Jimmy Stewart could out-square jaw Daniel Craig.

But Stanek isn’t going to let mere logic and facts get in the way of pandering to her audience that wants to believe that women controlling their fertility automatically makes men more feminine.  But I have to admit, I’m intrigued by the anti-choice insistence that their philosophy is a better fit for the glamorous masculinity implied by the picture of Sean Connery that Stanek chose as an illustration.  I’m trying to imagine a “pro-life” version of James Bond, since the argument seems to be that real men abhor contraception and abortion.  I’m not so sure that audiences would swoon over Sean Connery whispering huskily to a woman, “Let’s wait until we’re married, and then have awkward, unpracticed sex a dozen times until we can’t have any more children, when we can quit completely.”  Hollywood images of male virility actually rely on audience assumptions that women have access to reliable contraception and abortion.  Last time I checked, having a dozen children would put a crimp on 007’s style.

 

At Double X, I argued that the picture study can’t really be taken seriously, because you really can’t tell what a woman’s going to find attractive in the real world from what she prefers in a flat image of a celebrity when asked to choose, especially since I’m sure most women in the study would be perfectly happy with either Johnny Depp or Russell Crowe.  

But in general, it’s important to remember that these headlines blaring about the positive effects of not being on the pill are only talking about minor changes that only happen for a few days out of the month.  If women are slightly more attractive around ovulation, or if they are more likely to go for strong-jawed men, the effect disappears as soon as you’re not ovulating any more.  More honest headlines for these studies would be: “Women On The Pill Indistinguishable From Women Not On The Pill Most Of The Time”.  Or perhaps something less unwieldy that sends the same message.  I don’t know about you, but I’m not going to run a higher chance of an unintended pregnancy to buy myself mildly improved looks for 3 days out of the month, especially not when the massive cosmetics industry is happy to help you fake that glow at any time of the month that you please.