Sunday, November 04, 2012

The pill raised divorce rates

Do you think that you know why you got divorced? It could have been a product of instincts that are incomprehensible to men.

Psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa writes:
Pincott mentions studies which show that women on the pill reverse their body odor preferences and actually find attractive the body odors of men who are similar, not different, in MHC genes. So, in a sense, being on the pill would lead women to be attracted to, and possibly marry, “the wrong man,” genetically speaking. ...

I began wondering if the widespread availability and use of the contraceptive pill might be responsible for the rising divorce rates. Historically, in the United States, the pill became widely available in the 1960s, around the same time when the divorce rates started rising. Cross-culturally, in societies like Japan, where the pill is not available, divorce is virtually nonexistent. Could it be that the divorce rate is so high in our society because so many women decide to marry the “wrong” men that they find attractive when they are on the pill?
He cites a study to support his theory.

Other studies show that women are driven by hormones in their male preferences:
The gist of it is that women prefer stable men most of the time for their long term relationships, but when they approach the most fertile part of their cycle they become more dissatisfied with those men and prefer more “sexy” men.

That won’t surprise anyone here, and it is merely the short-term version of the typical carousel-rider’s long-term mating habits: go for “sexy” alpha men when she’s young and fertile, and then settle down with a nice beta provider as her fertility dwindles.

1 comment:

Christoph Dollis said...

He also cites another study that contradicts his hypothesis in the exact same article, and concludes it:

"Thus the question of whether the pill is at least partly responsible for the rising rate of divorce in society still remains."

So while you're conclusion may be right, Kanazawa's article that you cited just does not effectively support it.