Finally! One of the most pressing questions in my life - how on earth did a committed socialist like me end up married to a capitalist finance professional?

- has been answered. British scientists explain that my marriage is due to The Pill. (Cue dramatic music here.) The Times in London summed up a new research study that indicates that the "Pill could also be responsible for skewing their hormones and attracting them to the 'wrong' partner." This could lead not only to fertility problems, but also relationship issues. Moreover:

Psychologists from St Andrews and Stirling universities found that women on the Pill tend to prefer macho types with strong jaw lines and prominent cheekbones.

However, women who are not taking that form of contraception seem to be more likely to go for more sensitive types of men without traditionally masculine features.

This not only explains my bizarre attraction to my "soft" husband (I'd never believe that the scent of money would turn me on), but also why I must fight an intense desire to live any screen which is projecting an image of Daniel Craig, as I do not watch TV or movies with Odorama. Of course, I'm also a bit confused. When I met my husband, I was not taking birth control pills. About a year after we began dating, I obtained my first prescription. The Pill did not seem to change my strange attraction to him, and over the years, as I have been both on and off the Pill, I still remain drawn to the man who became my husband. (Daniel Craig only came to my attention with Casino Royale, and I've been on the Pill since then, so I have no contradictory anecdotal evidence to present on that piece of the puzzle.)

I know it's hard to fathom, but could it be that this study regarding the Pill is - I hate to suggest it, but I must - flawed? (Cue more dramatic music.) Meghan O'Rourke at The XX Factor (a Slate blog) asks:

But do these kind of studies really tell us very much?... I'd love to know what some of our more scientifically trained XXFactor bloggers have to say, because the study and the conclusions being drawn raised all sorts of questions for me. It's times like these when you wish more journalists understood biology, because the pieces I've read on this story seem, in general, very crude.

Ask, and ye shall receive. The study was run with fewer than 100 women who were not on the Pill, but thinking about taking it. The ladies were then given sweaty, shredded shirts worn by various men, and asked to smell them. The conclusion is that the Pill changed how women smelled men, drawing them to males who are "genetically compatible" to them, which in the long term, can lead to problems with fertility (due to similar genes) and dissatisfaction with their partners. PJ at Pyjamas in Bananas debunks the research that went into this stinky birth control pill study:

So is this what the study actually shows? Of course not. Without even getting into the question of whether woman actually choose partners based on the smell of their sweat, in actual fact the study found that women didn't rate the pleasantness, desirability, or intensity of the odour of men with dissimilar MHCs as any higher than men with similar MHCs.

The only significant finding was an interaction on an ANOVA where women on the pill showed a reduction in the amount they favoured MHC dissimilar odours, but there was no statistically significant difference between women on the pill and women not on the pill in the degree to which they favoured genetically dissimilar men. The interesting finding is that women not yet on the pill, but who intended to go on the pill seemed to favour MHC dissimilar men more than other women (presumably this wasn't statistically significant) and this is what is driving the interaction...

Thank you, PJ! (See the full post for a spiffy chart and more scientific analysis.) I would also point out that the being on the Pill probably leads to problems with fertility because, um, the woman is on the Pill and thus not likely to get pregnant. But that is another story.

More important, what is the point of studies like these? The Feminist Peace Network pointedly notes, "How sad that research like this even gets funding–imagine if those funds were used to come up with explanations for wife-beating or dowry killings. Just saying." But, people love scientific studies that prove some sort of preconceived notion about how women and men interact, and thus we are likely to continue to be bombarded with bogus science and the breathless news reports that follow for eternity. (Sorry to be so cynical.) In the meantime, no attention is paid to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry abandoned efforts to create more birth control options for men and the latest anti-reproductive rights ploy by the Bush administration, which is currently re-writing Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) guidelines to re-classify many forms of birth control as "abortions." (You can take action against this insanity at Progressive Future and/or MoveOn.)

So how can we deal with these bogus science reports? Bitch magazine has an excellent article with tips on how to deconstruct "bunk reporting in five easy steps." (The article was written after another British study about gender differences came out a few years ago. I had thought that my potential move to London - due to a job transfer from aforementioned capitalist finance husband - would save me from the crap they research and print in American papers, but obviously I was wrong. This knowledge makes me slightly less said that the move was canceled.) Read it, study the lessons, and become as expert as PJ in debunking crackpot studies.

As for me, I may never know what draws me to my husband other than his intelligence, sense of humor, and generosity towards others, which makes him pretty damn attractive in my eyes. Still, I hope that no further silly studies are done to suss out the answer. Sometimes, women are just drawn to their partners for reasons other than the smell of their sweaty shredded shirts, Pill or no Pill. (Cue the swelling music.)

Suzanne also blogs about life at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants. Her first book, Off the Beaten (Subway) Track, is about unusual things to see and do in New York City. In addition to her husband and Daniel Craig, she is attracted to titles that have words in parenthesis.