Easy BenK. I had no intention to offend you but I have so I apologize. I specified mainstream, peer reviewed, etc to look at some hard data not propaganda by people with an agenda (ie. abortion/breast cancer, autism/vaccines, etc). My PhD is in pharmacology and I am also a pharmacist. “Proper bonding” was not the best choice of words. What I meant was relationship cohesiveness/closeness/intimac­y/etc. Now onto your post…

Thank you for the interesting references. When the article was available for free I read it otherwise I read the abstract. The human data I came away with is as follows: there are some benefits to a female being exposed to sperm (ie. decreased depression however see Contraception. 2007 Jan;75(1):27-31. Epub 2006 Sep 18 which concludes no effect), MHC dissimilarities can influence choice of mate and OCs negate this effect (very interesting), female mate preferences can change over the course of her cycle and fertile woman are more sensitive to social odors in contrast the non-fertile woman who are more sensitive to environmental odors.

Warning: I will probably piss you off further since I do not agree with your statements based on the references provided.

Barrier contraception would (of course) prevent chemical communication between partners. The bigger question is what effect this has and how important the effect is. The public safety statement, while correct, came from the Levin article which discusses the benefits of sexual activity (coitus and masturbation) not chemical communication. The article about the impact of OCs on choosing a mate based on MHC differences was fascinating but I didn’t see anything remotely conclusive in regards to messing up relationships or intimacy problems.

While the concepts you bring up are interesting and, I agree, warrant further research the statements that something is “now recognized” and “known” presented as fact is a major reach based on the references provided.

This is an interesting topic and I look forward to your response.