This Is Your Brain on Birth Control: How the Pill Changes Everything (2023)

newsroom

Oct 14, 2025 - 06:27

0 1

This Is Your Brain on Birth Control: How the Pill Changes Everything (2023)

When Sarah Hill went off the birth control pill after a decade of daily use, she expected her body to return to its natural state—like stepping out of a costume she’d been wearing. Instead, she discovered she’d been living as a different person entirely. The psychology researcher found herself attracted to different types of men, experiencing emotions she’d forgotten existed, and suddenly passionate about music she hadn’t cared about in years. Her investigation into what had happened to her would reveal that the pill doesn’t just prevent pregnancy—it fundamentally rewires the brain, alters who women are attracted to, changes their stress responses to resemble those of trauma victims, and may even influence whether their future relationships succeed or fail. Yet most women taking hormonal contraceptives have no idea they’re chemically restructuring their personalities, their desires, and potentially their entire futures.

Hill’s research uncovered something that should have been front-page news: women on the pill have stress responses that mirror those of people with PTSD, their hippocampi shrink like those of depression sufferers, and they’re attracted to different types of men than when cycling naturally. Danish studies tracking millions of women found that teenagers on the pill showed 80% higher depression risk and triple the suicide risk. Women who chose their partners while on hormonal contraceptives were more likely to initiate divorce when they stopped taking them, suddenly finding themselves unattracted to men they’d married. The pill changes which genes are expressed throughout the body, alters the gut microbiome, and may contribute to the epidemic of autoimmune diseases that disproportionately affects women. These aren’t rare side effects—they’re fundamental changes to how the brain and body function, affecting millions of women who were never told that their daily pill was doing anything beyond preventing pregnancy.

But there’s another layer to this story that Hill’s research only hints at. The birth control pill wasn’t developed to liberate women—it was created as a tool for population control, funded by the same foundations that promoted eugenics programs. Government documents from the 1970s explicitly describe using women’s education and workforce participation as strategies to reduce birth rates in developing nations. Pharmaceutical companies viewed schools as containing “a captive audience of more than 40 million schoolchildren,” using shock tactics and peer pressure to normalize daily hormone consumption among teenagers. What was sold as female empowerment was actually, as one researcher discovered, a project that delivered women “reduced to their economic function, valued only for productivity.” The pill enabled the destruction of the family wage—doubling the workforce to halve its value—while creating a generation of women who spend their most fertile years chemically sterile, only to face an epidemic of “unplanned childlessness” when they finally want children.

The convergence of Hill’s neuroscience and this hidden history reveals something profound: we’ve been running a massive uncontrolled experiment on human consciousness and society itself. The pill doesn’t just change women’s bodies—it changes who they are, who they love, how they think, and what they want from life. It has reversed educational achievement gaps, transformed marriage patterns, altered the fundamental dynamics between men and women, and may be contributing to everything from rising depression rates to plummeting birth rates across the developed world. Women discovering these effects decades into their pill use describe it like waking from a dream, finally understanding why they felt disconnected from their bodies, their sexuality, their emotions. They realize they’ve never actually known who they are without synthetic hormones shaping their thoughts. This isn’t just a story about contraception or even women’s health—it’s about how a single pharmaceutical intervention reshaped human civilization while the full scope of its effects remained hidden, dismissed, or deliberately obscured for over sixty years.

With thanks to Sarah Hill.

This Is Your Brain on Birth Control: How the Pill Changes Everything: Hill, Sarah

Deep Dive Conversation Library (Bonus for Paid Subscribers Only)

This deep dive is based on the book:

Discussion No.133:

Insights and reflections from “This Is Your Brain On Birth Control”

Thank you for your support.

Analogy

Imagine your brain as a sophisticated music studio where your hormones are the sound engineers, constantly adjusting levels, effects, and mixing tracks to create the symphony of your consciousness. During your natural cycle, these engineers follow a dynamic monthly score—sometimes emphasizing the bright, energetic melodies (estrogen), other times bringing forward the deep, calming bass lines (progesterone). This creates a rich, varied composition with crescendos and diminuendos, each phase bringing different instruments to the foreground.

Taking the birth control pill is like replacing this dynamic team of sound engineers with a single technician who plays the same pre-recorded track on repeat every day. The music still plays—you still function—but the dynamic range is compressed into a monotone. The passionate crescendos that once made you feel vibrantly alive are muted, the subtle harmonies that helped you unconsciously select compatible partners are lost, and the rhythm section that synchronized your stress responses with life’s challenges stops responding to the conductor’s cues. Some women find this consistent, predictable soundtrack a relief from monthly variations that were too intense. Others don’t realize until they stop the pill and their full orchestra returns how much richness had been missing from their daily experience—like someone who’s been listening to music through tiny phone speakers suddenly hearing it through a high-fidelity sound system for the first time.

The One-Minute Elevator Explanation

The birth control pill works by delivering synthetic hormones that trick your brain into thinking you’re already past ovulation, preventing pregnancy by stopping egg release. But here’s what most people don’t know: those same hormones that prevent pregnancy also influence every system in your body, from your brain to your immune system. The pill changes who you’re attracted to—women on the pill prefer less masculine, more provider-type partners and may not be able to smell genetic compatibility. It can reduce sexual desire by suppressing testosterone, alter your stress response system like someone with PTSD, and increase depression risk especially in teenagers.

The pill has revolutionized society by allowing women to control fertility and pursue education and careers, completely reversing the achievement gap between men and women. But it’s also had unintended consequences—possibly contributing to rising autoimmune diseases in women, changing marriage patterns, and even affecting men’s motivation and achievement by altering relationship dynamics. We’re only now discovering that what we thought was just pregnancy prevention is actually whole-body hormonal reprogramming with effects we’re still uncovering fifty years later. Women deserve to know these trade-offs to make genuinely informed choices about their bodies. [Elevator dings]

Want to learn more? Look into the Danish registry studies on depression, research on MHC genes and partner selection, or the fascinating world of evolutionary psychology and hormones.

12-Point Summary

1. Evolutionary Biology Shapes Everything Women’s bodies evolved under dramatically different reproductive pressures than men’s, with pregnancy and childbearing requiring enormous biological investment that could mean death. This fundamental asymmetry shaped every aspect of female psychology and physiology through natural selection, making women necessarily more selective about mating and more oriented toward securing resources and protection. The pill represents humanity’s first successful attempt to hack this ancient biological programming.

2. You Are Your Hormones Sex hormones don’t just influence mood—they fundamentally create who you are by affecting billions of brain cells simultaneously. Every major brain structure has hormone receptors, meaning hormones shape how you think, feel, perceive reality, and behave. When hormones change dramatically, entire aspects of personality can appear or disappear, revealing that what we consider our unchangeable self actually depends heavily on our hormonal environment. The brain literally creates different versions of “you” depending on which hormones are present.

3. The Natural Cycle Is a Complex Symphony The natural menstrual cycle involves sophisticated hormonal fluctuations that influence everything from energy and mood to cognitive abilities and attractiveness. Estrogen rises in the first half, making women more social, energetic, and flirtatious, peaking at ovulation when fertility is highest. Progesterone dominates the second half, promoting rest, hunger, and nesting behaviors. These fluctuations aren’t random but carefully orchestrated to optimize both reproduction and survival across different cycle phases.

4. The Pill Creates Hormonal Stasis The pill prevents pregnancy by delivering synthetic hormones that create “hormonal déjà vu,” tricking the brain into believing ovulation has already occurred. This suppresses the natural hormonal cascade that triggers egg release, essentially putting ovaries into hibernation. Instead of natural monthly fluctuations, pill-taking women experience the same hormonal signal every day, comparable to being stuck in one phase of the cycle permanently, eliminating the dynamic range of natural hormonal experience.

5. Partner Selection Fundamentally Changes The pill alters women’s partner preferences at the deepest levels, changing attraction to physical features, voices, and crucially, scents that signal genetic compatibility. Women on the pill prefer less masculine partners and may choose men with incompatible immune genes, potentially affecting fertility and offspring health. These altered preferences can cause relationship crisis when women discontinue the pill and find themselves no longer attracted to partners chosen while on hormones, contributing to a pattern where pill-choosing women initiate divorce more frequently.

6. Sexual Desire and Function Transform By suppressing testosterone production and increasing sex-hormone-binding globulin, the pill can reduce free testosterone to a fraction of normal levels, dramatically decreasing libido and sexual response. Many women experience complete loss of spontaneous sexual desire, describing sex becoming a chore rather than a desire. The pill acts as a “sexual brake pedal,” potentially damaging relationships and self-identity as women lose connection to their sexuality, often only recognizing the loss after discontinuation reveals what they’d been missing.

7. The Stress Response System Breaks The pill profoundly disrupts the HPA axis, causing blunted or absent cortisol responses to stress, resembling patterns seen in PTSD or chronic trauma. This disruption affects memory formation, emotional processing, and learning, as cortisol normally marks experiences as important for storage in long-term memory. Women on the pill show smaller hippocampal volumes and altered emotional memory processing, potentially making life feel flatter and less meaningful as experiences fail to be properly embedded in memory.

8. Mental Health Risks Are Age-Dependent Danish research tracking over one million women revealed alarming mental health risks, particularly for adolescents who showed 80-120% higher depression risk and triple the suicide risk compared to non-users. The still-developing adolescent brain appears uniquely vulnerable to synthetic hormones, with risks decreasing significantly when pill use begins after age twenty. These findings challenge assumptions about universal pill safety and highlight critical windows of vulnerability during brain development.

9. Society Has Been Transformed The pill revolutionized women’s educational and career achievements, with women now earning 60% of college degrees and dominating professional schools—a complete reversal from fifty years ago. By enabling reliable fertility control, the pill allowed women to sequence their lives strategically, investing in education and careers without pregnancy fears. However, this same technology may have inadvertently reduced men’s achievement motivation by changing relationship dynamics and removing traditional incentives for male status-building and resource accumulation.

10. Multiple Body Systems Are Affected Beyond reproduction, the pill alters digestion, metabolism, immune function, and even gut bacteria composition. It changes gene expression throughout the body, affects bone density, alters blood clotting factors, and may contribute to autoimmune diseases that disproportionately affect women. These whole-body changes reflect the reality that sex hormones coordinate multiple systems—the pill doesn’t just prevent pregnancy but fundamentally reprograms bodily function in ways we’re still discovering.

11. Research Has Been Systematically Biased Women were historically excluded from medical research because their cycling hormones were considered “confounding variables” that complicated studies. This led to medications being tested only on men, with women experiencing dangerous side effects from male-optimized doses. Researching women requires controlling for cycle phase, tripling costs and time, creating practical barriers that perpetuated male-focused medical knowledge. Even basic research used male cell lines, meaning our understanding of biology derives overwhelmingly from male subjects.

12. Collective Blindness Maintains Ignorance Multiple interlocking factors prevent acknowledgment of the pill’s psychological effects: political sensitivity around reproductive rights, billions in pharmaceutical profits, trillions in economic benefits from women’s workforce participation, and individual motivated reasoning. Women experiencing negative effects often blame themselves rather than their contraception, while medical providers dismiss concerns as psychosomatic. This creates a perfect storm where everyone from individual women to entire institutions has reasons to avoid examining what the pill might cost in exchange for its undeniable benefits.

The Golden Nugget

The most profound yet little-known discovery about the pill is that it fundamentally alters women’s ability to detect genetic compatibility through scent, potentially sabotaging one of evolution’s most sophisticated mate selection mechanisms. While humans believe we choose partners based on conscious preferences, we actually possess an ancient chemical communication system where women can unconsciously smell whether a man’s immune genes (MHC genes) would combine well with theirs to produce healthy offspring. Women naturally prefer men whose MHC genes differ from their own, which would give children robust, diverse immune systems. But the pill doesn’t just dampen this ability—it can actually reverse it, causing women to prefer the scent of men with similar genes, the exact opposite of what benefits reproduction. This means millions of women may be choosing life partners while chemically blindfolded to compatibility cues that evolved over millennia to guide successful mating. The implications are staggering: the pill might be contributing to unexplained infertility not just by delaying childbearing, but by disrupting the unconscious chemical signaling that helps women identify genetically compatible partners, potentially explaining why some couples who meet while the woman is on the pill struggle with fertility issues that have no obvious medical cause.

30 Q&As

1. Why did evolution shape women’s biology differently from men’s, and what are the fundamental costs of reproduction for women?

Evolution shaped women’s biology differently because reproduction carries astronomically different costs for each sex. For men, the minimum investment in reproduction is microscopic—just sperm. For women, the minimum investment involves nine months of pregnancy, where they must provide every calorie needed to build a human being from scratch, followed by the life-threatening risks of childbirth that continue to kill women even today. Beyond pregnancy, women historically faced years of breastfeeding, requiring an additional 500-600 calories daily just to produce milk.

This massive asymmetry in parental investment shaped every aspect of female psychology and physiology. Women evolved to be more selective about mating partners because a poor choice could mean death or investing enormous resources in offspring with poor survival chances. Men, conversely, could potentially father hundreds of children with minimal investment, leading to evolved differences in sexual psychology, risk-taking behavior, and partner selectivity that persist today.

2. How do sex hormones influence brain function and create our sense of identity and self?

Sex hormones fundamentally create the version of yourself that you experience as “you” by influencing the activity of billions of brain cells simultaneously. Every major brain structure has hormone receptors, meaning hormones affect how you think, feel, perceive the world, and behave. A profound example comes from a man whose body stopped producing testosterone for four months due to a medical condition—he reported that everything identifying him as himself changed, including his ambition, sense of humor, ability to judge himself, and even the quality of his speech.

Without testosterone, he found himself unable to distinguish between what was interesting and what wasn’t, becoming nonsensical rather than hyper-rational as one might expect. When testosterone was reintroduced, everything returned—his personality, drives, and thought patterns. This demonstrates that what we consider our immutable self actually depends heavily on our hormonal environment. The brain creates different versions of “you” depending on which hormones are present, challenging our fundamental assumptions about identity and free will.

3. What are the phases of the natural ovulatory cycle, and how do hormones fluctuate across these phases?

The ovulatory cycle begins with menstruation on Day 1, marking the start of the follicular phase when estrogen levels begin rising from their lowest point. During this first half of the cycle, estrogen steadily increases, making women feel more energetic, flirtatious, and socially oriented. Around Day 14, estrogen reaches a critical threshold that triggers a surge in luteinizing hormone, causing ovulation—the release of an egg from the ovary.

After ovulation, the luteal phase begins, characterized by high progesterone and moderate estrogen. Progesterone acts like an “Earth Mother” hormone, making women feel hungrier, sleepier, and more focused on nesting behaviors. This phase prepares the body for potential pregnancy by thickening the uterine lining and closing the cervix to protect against infection. If pregnancy doesn’t occur, both hormones drop dramatically around Day 28, triggering menstruation and beginning the cycle anew. These hormonal fluctuations influence everything from cognitive abilities and mood to sexual desire and even how attractive women appear to others.

4. How does the birth control pill work to prevent pregnancy, and what is “hormonal déjà vu”?

The pill prevents pregnancy by creating “hormonal déjà vu”—delivering the same synthetic hormones every day to trick the brain into believing the body is perpetually in the luteal phase of the cycle, when progesterone is naturally high. This constant hormonal signal suppresses the release of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) from the pituitary gland, preventing the hormonal cascade that would normally trigger ovulation. Without ovulation, there’s no egg to fertilize.

The synthetic estrogen and progestin in the pill maintain steady hormone levels instead of the natural cyclical fluctuations. The brain interprets these steady levels as indicating that ovulation has already occurred, so it doesn’t initiate the process again. The placebo week allows hormone levels to drop just enough to trigger withdrawal bleeding that mimics a period, but this isn’t true menstruation since no actual cycle has occurred. This elegant hack essentially puts the ovaries into hibernation while maintaining enough hormonal activity to prevent breakthrough bleeding and other side effects.

5. What are the different generations of progestins, and how do synthetic hormones differ from natural ones?

Progestins—synthetic versions of progesterone—have evolved through four generations, each attempting to minimize unwanted side effects. First and second-generation progestins were derived from testosterone and had masculinizing effects, potentially causing acne, weight gain, and decreased verbal fluency while improving spatial rotation skills. Third-generation progestins were designed to be less androgenic, while fourth-generation progestins like drospirenone actually have anti-androgenic effects and can improve acne.

Synthetic hormones differ crucially from natural ones in their molecular structure and how the body processes them. Natural progesterone can be converted into calming neurosteroids like allopregnanolone, which enhances GABA activity in the brain, providing anti-anxiety effects. Synthetic progestins cannot undergo this conversion, potentially explaining why some women experience anxiety or mood changes on the pill. Additionally, synthetic hormones are designed to resist breakdown by the liver, making them more potent and longer-lasting than natural hormones, but also preventing them from participating in the complex cascade of hormonal conversions that natural hormones undergo.

6. How does the pill affect women’s partner preferences and attraction to masculine versus feminine traits?

The pill fundamentally alters women’s partner preferences by suppressing the hormonal fluctuations that normally influence attraction. Naturally cycling women show increased attraction to masculine features—strong jaws, deep voices, dominant behavior—during high fertility when estrogen peaks. These masculine traits signal good genes that could benefit offspring. However, pill-taking women, lacking these hormonal peaks, show consistent preference for less masculine, more feminine-featured men throughout their cycle.

Research reveals that pill-taking women rate masculine faces as less attractive and show reduced brain reward center activation when viewing them. Instead, they show increased reward activation when viewing money or financial security cues. This shift may reflect the pill mimicking the luteal phase, when naturally cycling women’s bodies prepare for pregnancy and prioritize security and resources over genetic quality. Women who choose partners while on the pill report being less sexually satisfied but more satisfied with their partner’s providing abilities, suggesting the pill fundamentally changes what women value in relationships.

7. What role does genetic compatibility play in partner selection, and how does the pill interfere with detecting immune gene compatibility through scent?

Genetic compatibility, particularly in immune genes called the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), plays a crucial but unconscious role in partner selection. Naturally cycling women prefer the scent of men whose MHC genes differ from their own, which would produce offspring with more robust immune systems capable of recognizing a wider range of pathogens. This preference operates through subtle scent cues that we’re not consciously aware of processing.

The pill disrupts this ancient mate selection mechanism. Studies show pill-taking women either can’t detect these genetic compatibility cues or, even more concerning, prefer the scent of men with similar MHC genes—the opposite of what would benefit their offspring. Couples with similar MHC genes have higher rates of unexplained infertility and miscarriage. This suggests the pill might contribute to fertility problems not just by delaying childbearing, but by interfering with women’s ability to select genetically compatible partners, potentially explaining some cases of unexplained infertility in couples who met while the woman was on hormonal contraception.

8. How does the pill impact sexual desire and arousal in women, and what is the “sexual brake pedal” effect?

The pill impacts sexual desire through multiple mechanisms, with many women experiencing significantly decreased libido. By suppressing natural testosterone production by up to 50% and dramatically increasing sex-hormone-binding globulin (SHBG)—which binds to and inactivates remaining testosterone—the pill can reduce free testosterone to a fraction of normal levels. Since testosterone drives sexual desire in women, this chemical castration effect can dramatically reduce spontaneous sexual thoughts, arousal, and interest in sex.

Beyond hormonal mechanisms, the pill may act as a “sexual brake pedal” by eliminating the estrogen surge that naturally occurs before ovulation, when women experience peak sexual desire. The pill also prevents the release of hormones that specifically promote sexual receptivity. Many women report that on the pill, sex becomes something they rarely think about spontaneously—more like remembering to water a plant than experiencing genuine desire. Some women describe feeling disconnected from their sexuality entirely, only rediscovering their libido after stopping the pill, often with shocking intensity that makes them realize what they’d been missing.

9. What changes occur in relationship satisfaction when women go on or off the pill after choosing their partners?

Women who choose partners while on the pill and then discontinue it often experience troubling changes in attraction and satisfaction. Research shows these women report becoming less attracted to their partners’ faces, voices, and scents after stopping the pill—rating their partners as less sexually exciting compared to women who chose partners while naturally cycling. Conversely, women who choose partners while naturally cycling and then start the pill often experience decreased sexual satisfaction, though they may appreciate their partner’s stability more.

The most striking finding is that women who met their partners while on the pill are more likely to initiate divorce if the relationship ends, doing so 84.5% of the time compared to 73.6% for naturally cycling women. Despite reporting less sexual satisfaction, these relationships show lower overall divorce rates, possibly because pill-taking women prioritize financial security and stability over sexual chemistry. This suggests the pill doesn’t necessarily lead to better or worse partner choices, but fundamentally different ones, with significant implications for long-term relationship dynamics and satisfaction.

10. How does the pill affect the stress response system, particularly the HPA axis and cortisol release?

The pill profoundly disrupts the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, the body’s primary stress response system. Studies consistently show that pill-taking women have blunted or completely absent cortisol responses to stressors that produce robust responses in naturally cycling women. In laboratory stress tests, naturally cycling women show appropriate cortisol spikes, while pill-taking women show little to no response, with some studies finding cortisol actually decreases in response to stress—a completely abnormal pattern.

This disruption appears to result from the pill’s synthetic hormones interfering with the normal feedback loops that regulate stress response. The body responds as if under chronic stress, with the liver producing excess corticosteroid-binding globulins that inactivate cortisol, and the hippocampus desperately signaling the hypothalamus to stop producing stress hormones. This pattern resembles what occurs in people with PTSD or chronic trauma, suggesting the pill puts the stress response system into a dysfunctional state that may have far-reaching implications for emotional processing and resilience.

11. What are the implications of the pill silencing the cortisol stress response for memory, learning, and emotional processing?

The silenced cortisol response has profound implications for how women process and remember emotional experiences. Cortisol plays a crucial role in marking experiences as important and embedding them in long-term memory—it’s how we learn from both positive and negative experiences. Without normal cortisol responses, emotionally significant events may not be properly consolidated into memory, potentially making life feel flatter and less meaningful.

Research shows pill-taking women have smaller hippocampal volumes, the brain region critical for memory formation that’s also damaged in depression and Alzheimer’s disease. They perform worse on challenging cognitive tasks and show altered emotional memory processing. The inability to generate appropriate stress responses may prevent women from fully processing and learning from emotional experiences, potentially contributing to feelings of disconnection or emotional numbness. Some researchers suggest this could make women feel like they’re experiencing life at a remove, unable to fully absorb the meaning from their experiences—living but not fully feeling alive.

12. How might the pill’s effects on inflammation and immune function contribute to autoimmune conditions?

The disrupted HPA axis may dysregulate immune function and inflammation, potentially increasing autoimmune disease risk. Cortisol is a primary regulator of inflammation—without proper cortisol signaling, the body can’t appropriately control inflammatory responses. Chronic inflammation damages DNA, kills cells, causes tissue degeneration, and increases risk of autoimmune diseases where the immune system attacks the body’s own tissues.

Pill use has been linked to multiple autoimmune conditions, particularly concerning since 78% of autoimmune disease sufferers are women. The pill changes how the immune system functions, alters the composition of gut bacteria (which regulate immunity), and may prevent the normal immune adaptations that occur across the menstrual cycle. While not definitively proven, mounting evidence suggests the pill’s disruption of normal hormonal-immune crosstalk could contribute to the disproportionate autoimmune disease burden in women, representing a potentially serious long-term health consequence that deserves urgent research attention.

13. What does the research from Denmark reveal about the pill’s relationship to depression and suicide risk, particularly in young women?

Denmark’s comprehensive national health registries revealed alarming connections between hormonal contraception and mental health, particularly for adolescents. Following over one million women for thirteen years, researchers found pill users had significantly higher rates of depression diagnosis and antidepressant use. The effect was most pronounced in teenagers: 15-19 year olds on combined pills showed 80% higher depression risk, while those on progestin-only pills showed 120% higher risk. The patch and ring showed even higher risks at 100% and 60% respectively.

Most disturbingly, a follow-up study found hormonal contraception doubled suicide attempt risk and tripled actual suicide risk, with the highest risks in the first two months of use. Adolescents again showed heightened vulnerability. The research suggests younger women’s still-developing brains may be particularly sensitive to synthetic hormones. Starting the pill after age twenty significantly reduced these risks, indicating that timing matters enormously. These findings challenge the assumption that the pill is uniformly safe for all women and highlight the need for careful consideration of age when prescribing hormonal contraception.

14. How does the pill affect neurotransmitter systems like GABA, and what are the implications for mood and anxiety?

The pill significantly alters GABAergic functioning in the brain, with potentially serious mood implications. GABA is the brain’s primary inhibitory neurotransmitter—it calms neural activity and prevents anxiety. Natural progesterone converts to allopregnanolone, a neurosteroid that enhances GABA receptor sensitivity, providing anti-anxiety effects. Synthetic progestins cannot make this conversion, potentially leaving women with less effective GABA signaling and increased vulnerability to anxiety and mood disorders.

Research shows pill use changes the expression of GABA receptor genes and may contribute to dysregulation linked to panic disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, and alcohol dependence. Women have among the fastest-growing rates of alcohol use disorders, possibly reflecting self-medication for pill-induced GABAergic dysfunction. The pill’s interference with this fundamental calming system may explain why some women experience severe anxiety or feel “crazy” on hormonal contraception, while others who naturally have less efficient GABA systems might actually feel calmer on certain pill formulations.

15. Why do some women experience improved mood on the pill while others experience depression, and what factors predict these different responses?

Individual responses to the pill vary dramatically based on genetics, age, hormone sensitivity, and baseline mental health. Women with certain gene variants, particularly mineralocorticoid receptor haplotype II, appear protected from negative mood effects and may even experience improvements. Women with PMS or PMDD often benefit because the pill eliminates hormonal fluctuations that trigger their symptoms. The stable hormone levels can provide relief from monthly mood swings, irritability, and physical discomfort.

Conversely, risk factors for negative mood effects include starting before age twenty, having a personal or family history of depression, taking progestin-only formulations, using non-oral methods like patches or rings, and using multiphasic pills with varying hormone doses. The specific progestin type also matters—newer generation progestins may have different mood effects than older, more androgenic versions. This variability means the pill can be either therapeutic or harmful for mood, depending on individual biology and circumstances, highlighting the need for personalized approaches to hormonal contraception.

16. How has the pill changed women’s educational and career achievements since the 1960s?

The pill revolutionized women’s educational and career trajectories by providing reliable control over fertility timing. Before the pill, women faced an impossible choice: pursue advanced education and careers while risking pregnancy that would derail everything, or forgo ambitions to avoid this risk. When the pill became legal for unmarried women in 1972, applications to medical school, law school, and graduate programs skyrocketed. The percentage of women in medical school jumped from under 10% to nearly 50% within a generation.

By 2010, women earned 60% of all college degrees and matched or exceeded men in professional school enrollment. The pill enabled women to invest in lengthy educational paths without fear of pregnancy-related interruption, fundamentally changing labor force participation and leadership representation. Women could now sequence their lives—education, career establishment, then children—rather than having biology dictate timing. This transformation represents one of the most rapid and complete social changes in human history, converting women from educational minorities to majorities in just fifty years.

17. What is the “achievement gap reversal,” and how has the pill contributed to women outperforming men in education?

The achievement gap between men and women hasn’t just closed—it has completely reversed. Women now outperform men at every educational level: they get better grades in high school, graduate at higher rates, earn more college degrees, and increasingly dominate graduate and professional programs. While multiple factors contribute, the pill played a crucial role by allowing women to fully commit to educational investments without pregnancy concerns.

Meanwhile, men’s achievement has stagnated or declined. College enrollment rates for men have barely budged since the 1970s, and men now account for only 40% of college graduates. Some researchers argue the pill inadvertently reduced men’s motivation by changing relationship dynamics—when sex became more accessible without marriage or commitment, men lost a primary incentive for achievement and status-building that historically drove male ambition. The very technology that liberated women to achieve may have simultaneously removed competitive pressures that spurred men’s achievement, creating an unexpected reversal in educational and professional success.

18. How has the pill affected marriage patterns, divorce rates, and the timing of childbearing?

The pill fundamentally transformed marriage from economic necessity to optional choice. Average marriage age increased from twenty-one to twenty-seven, while marriage rates plummeted—only 50% of adults are now married compared to 72% in 1960. For the first time in history, single women outnumber married women. The pill enabled this by separating sex from pregnancy and allowing women economic independence through careers, eliminating the financial desperation that once drove hasty marriages.

The pill also created a “bifurcated mating market”—splitting dating into casual sex with attractive partners versus marriage to stable providers, when previously these overlapped more. Women delay childbearing until their thirties, contributing to a quadrupling of the fertility industry as age-related fertility decline creates demand for reproductive assistance. Paradoxically, while pill-chosen relationships show less sexual satisfaction, they have lower divorce rates, possibly because women on the pill prioritize stability over chemistry. These changes represent a complete restructuring of human mating patterns unprecedented in history.

19. What unintended consequences has the pill had on men’s behavior, motivation, and achievement?

The pill’s effects cascade far beyond women’s bodies, fundamentally altering male behavior and achievement patterns. When sex became accessible without marriage or long-term commitment, men lost a primary motivation for achievement—impressing women enough to gain sexual access. Historically, men built careers, accumulated resources, and competed for status largely to attract mates. The pill disrupted this by making sex available without requiring men to demonstrate value through achievement.

Men increasingly opt out of traditional achievement paths—attending college less, working fewer hours, and showing less career ambition. Video games, pornography, and casual sex provide immediate gratification without requiring the years of effort once needed to attract partners. Some researchers argue the pill inadvertently created a “failure to launch” phenomenon among men by removing evolutionary pressures that drove male achievement for millennia. While women gained freedom to achieve, men may have lost crucial motivational frameworks, contributing to declining male educational attainment, employment rates, and social engagement.

20. How might the pill contribute to infertility through both delayed childbearing and partner selection effects?

The pill contributes to infertility through multiple pathways beyond just enabling delayed childbearing. While allowing women to postpone pregnancy until their thirties or forties—when natural fertility has declined precipitously—is the most obvious mechanism, the pill may also impair partner selection in ways that reduce fertility. Women on the pill show altered or reversed preferences for genetic compatibility cues, potentially choosing partners with similar rather than complementary immune genes.

Couples with similar MHC genes experience higher rates of unexplained infertility and miscarriage. If women spend their peak fertile years on the pill, they miss critical windows for detecting genetic compatibility through scent and other unconscious cues. Additionally, some research suggests long-term pill use might affect fertility even after discontinuation, though this remains controversial. The combination of delayed childbearing, potentially incompatible partner selection, and possible direct effects on fertility has contributed to making the fertility industry a $3.5 billion business, with demand growing as more couples struggle to conceive naturally.

21. Why have women been historically excluded from medical research, and what are the consequences of this gender bias?

Women have been systematically excluded from medical research due to a combination of paternalism, practicality, and scientific bias. Researchers considered women’s cycling hormones a “confounding variable” that complicated studies, making male subjects preferred for their hormonal stability. Including women requires controlling for cycle phase, tripling research costs and time. The medical establishment also excluded women to “protect” them and potential pregnancies from experimental treatments, ironically resulting in women taking medications never tested on female bodies.

This exclusion has deadly consequences: 80% of drugs withdrawn from market were removed for causing unacceptable side effects in women that weren’t detected in male-only trials. Ambien required dosage adjustments after women experienced dangerous side effects from doses tested only on men. Heart disease research focused on male patterns, missing that women present completely different symptoms. Even basic pain medications work differently in women. This systematic bias means most medical knowledge derives from male bodies, leaving women’s health poorly understood and women themselves receiving treatments optimized for male physiology.

22. What makes researching women’s hormones particularly challenging and expensive compared to researching men?

Researching women requires accounting for cyclical hormonal changes that can affect every biological system. A study examining immune function must control for cycle phase since immune activity varies across the cycle—requiring researchers to schedule sessions precisely, confirm ovulation through temperature or hormone testing, and recruit multiple times more participants to ensure adequate numbers at each phase. What takes two months and $12,000 with male subjects requires nine months and $30,000 with females.

Beyond human research, even studies using female mice face similar challenges. Researchers must perform daily vaginal smears to determine cycle phase, stressing the animals and requiring more than twice as many females as males to achieve comparable sample sizes. Many journals still consider female data “mechanistically inconclusive” due to hormonal variation. These practical barriers created a vicious cycle: excluding females made research easier, generating male-focused knowledge that justified continued exclusion. Until recently, even cell lines used in basic research were predominantly male, meaning our understanding of biology from cellular to organism level derives overwhelmingly from male subjects.

23. How does the pill affect non-reproductive systems like digestion, metabolism, and the gut microbiome?

The pill’s effects extend far beyond reproduction, altering virtually every body system. Research links long-term pill use to inflammatory bowel disease and Crohn’s disease complications, suggesting disruption of digestive function. The pill changes gut microbiome composition—the trillions of bacteria that regulate digestion, immunity, and even mood through the gut-brain axis. These changes may contribute to the pill’s mood effects and alter how women process nutrients and medications.

Metabolically, the pill affects lipid profiles, glucose tolerance, and insulin sensitivity. Some formulations increase blood clot risk by altering coagulation factors. The pill changes liver function, kidney function, and even influences what genes are expressed throughout the body. It affects bone density, particularly concerning for adolescents still building peak bone mass. These whole-body changes reflect the reality that sex hormones coordinate multiple systems—reproductive hormones are really whole-body hormones, and altering them pharmaceutically has cascading consequences we’re only beginning to understand.

24. What changes occur in women’s cyclical behaviors—such as beautification efforts, mate attraction displays, and competitive behaviors—when on the pill?

Naturally cycling women show predictable behavioral changes across their cycle, with dramatic increases in beautification efforts near ovulation. They wear more makeup, choose sexier clothing, spend more on appearance-enhancing products, and even wear more red—a color that increases attractiveness ratings. These behaviors peak when conception is possible, representing unconscious mating effort driven by hormonal fluctuations. Women also become more competitive with other women, more flirtatious, and more interested in novel experiences during high fertility.

The pill eliminates these cyclical patterns by suppressing hormonal fluctuations. Pill-taking women show no monthly variation in appearance enhancement, competitive behavior, or mate attraction efforts. Many women report losing interest in their appearance after starting the pill—shopping less, caring less about their hair, wearing less makeup. While some interpret this as liberation from beauty standards, it may reflect suppressed mating motivation. The pill essentially eliminates the hormonal fuel for mate attraction behaviors, potentially affecting not just how women present themselves but their fundamental motivation to attract partners and compete intrasexually.

25. How do women at high fertility appear more attractive to men, and what role do visual, vocal, and scent cues play?

Despite the myth of “concealed ovulation,” women at high fertility are measurably more attractive to men across multiple sensory channels. Studies of exotic dancers found they earned $70/hour near ovulation versus $35 during menstruation, with pill-taking dancers earning a flat $37 regardless of timing. Men rate photographs of women’s faces as more attractive when taken during high fertility, perceive their voices as more appealing, and find their body movements more enticing when fertility peaks.

Scent provides particularly powerful fertility cues. Men’s testosterone levels increase after smelling t-shirts worn by ovulating women, and they rate the scent of women at high fertility as more pleasant and sexy. These effects occur unconsciously—neither men nor women typically aware fertility status is being communicated. Women emit different chemical signatures across their cycle, with ovulation producing scents that trigger hormonal and behavioral responses in men. The pill eliminates these attractiveness peaks by suppressing ovulation, potentially making pill-taking women less desirable to partners and disrupting ancient signaling systems that coordinate human mating.

26. What organizational effects do hormones have during critical developmental periods, and why might adolescence be a particularly sensitive time for starting the pill?

Hormones don’t just activate behaviors—they organize the brain during critical developmental periods, creating permanent structural changes. During puberty, sex hormones sculpt the brain’s architecture, establishing patterns for adult emotional regulation, stress response, and social behavior. The adolescent brain remains highly plastic until the mid-twenties, with hormones directing the pruning of neural connections and the maturation of brain regions controlling emotion and decision-making.

Starting the pill during adolescence may interfere with this crucial organizational period. Danish research found teenagers on the pill showed 80-120% higher depression risk compared to 20% for adult starters. The still-developing adolescent brain appears uniquely vulnerable to synthetic hormones, which may disrupt normal brain maturation. Some researchers worry that pill use during this critical window could have lasting effects on stress response, emotional regulation, and mental health that persist even after discontinuation. The brain expecting natural hormonal fluctuations to guide development instead receives synthetic signals, potentially altering developmental trajectories in ways we’re only beginning to understand.

27. How can women make informed decisions about birth control given the complex trade-offs between benefits and potential psychological effects?

Making informed decisions requires understanding that no choice is risk-free—unintended pregnancy carries far greater risks than any pill side effect. Women should consider their individual risk factors: age (waiting until after twenty reduces mental health risks), family history of depression or blood clots, relationship status, and career goals. The decision involves weighing reproductive autonomy and career opportunities against potential effects on mood, sexuality, and partner selection.

Practical strategies include keeping a mood journal before starting any hormonal method to establish baseline, informing trusted friends about changes to watch for, and being willing to try different formulations or methods if problems arise. Women might consider being off hormonal contraception while selecting long-term partners, then starting it once relationships are established. Those with depression history might prioritize IUDs or barrier methods. The key is recognizing that responses are highly individual—what devastates one woman’s mood might stabilize another’s. No choice is universally right, but women deserve full information to make personally optimal decisions.

28. What alternative contraceptive methods exist, and how do IUDs, barrier methods, and fertility awareness compare to hormonal contraception?

Copper IUDs provide highly effective, hormone-free contraception by creating an inhospitable environment for sperm. They last 10-12 years but can increase menstrual bleeding and cramping. Hormonal IUDs release progestins locally, minimizing systemic effects while preventing pregnancy for 3-7 years, though some women still experience mood changes. Both require insertion procedures that some find uncomfortable but offer “set and forget” convenience.

Barrier methods like condoms, diaphragms, and cervical caps prevent sperm from reaching eggs without altering hormones but require consistent use and have higher failure rates. Fertility awareness methods involve tracking cycles through temperature, cervical mucus, and calendar monitoring to avoid sex during fertile windows—effective when used perfectly but requiring dedication and regular cycles. Each alternative involves trade-offs: IUDs offer convenience but require procedures; barriers preserve natural hormones but need disciplined use; fertility awareness maintains natural cycles but demands extensive tracking and periodic abstinence.

29. Why has information about the pill’s psychological effects remained largely unknown despite decades of use?

Multiple factors conspired to keep psychological effects hidden. The medical establishment prioritized preventing physical dangers like blood clots over understanding subtle mood or attraction changes. Pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to fund research potentially revealing negative effects. The political sensitivity around women’s reproductive rights made researchers hesitant to publish findings that might restrict access. Many worried that acknowledging hormonal influences on women’s behavior would fuel sexist arguments about women’s inherent instability.

The research itself is extraordinarily difficult—mood and behavior are influenced by countless variables, making it hard to isolate pill effects. Women starting the pill often simultaneously experience life changes like new relationships or leaving home for college. Individual variation means effects that devastate one woman leave another unaffected, making patterns hard to detect. Additionally, motivated reasoning affects everyone: women want reproductive control, doctors want to provide it, and society benefits from women’s educational advancement. This collective investment in believing the pill is unambiguously positive created blind spots that prevented serious investigation of psychological effects.

30. How do political, economic, and social factors contribute to our collective blind spots about the pill’s effects on women?

The pill became so symbolically linked to women’s liberation that questioning it feels like questioning women’s rights themselves. Feminist movements rightfully fought for reproductive autonomy, making any criticism of the pill seem aligned with patriarchal control. Economically, the pill generates billions in pharmaceutical profits while enabling women’s workforce participation worth trillions to the economy. Universities, corporations, and governments all benefit from women’s pill-enabled career contributions, creating institutional resistance to acknowledging downsides.

Social dynamics also maintain ignorance. Women experiencing negative effects often blame themselves rather than their contraception—thinking they’re depressed because of life circumstances rather than synthetic hormones. The normalization of pill use means most women lack hormone-free comparison periods to recognize pill-induced changes. Medical providers, trained to see the pill as safe and essential, often dismiss women’s concerns as psychosomatic. These interlocking political, economic, and social forces created a perfect storm of motivated blindness, where everyone from individual women to entire institutions had reasons to avoid looking too closely at what the pill might cost in exchange for its undeniable benefits.

I appreciate you being here.

If you’ve found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While 99% of everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I’m always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com