You're Teaching My Child What? (7 page)

The eighteen women who volunteered for a research study
¹²
at the University of Pennsylvania thought it was about the scent of a “natural extract,”
¹³
and its effect on female hormones.

In the first month of the study, their morning temperatures were recorded, and urine samples tested, to determine the time of ovulation. The second month, each woman spent twelve hours at a research center, where a drop of the “extract” was applied with a cotton pad every two hours to the area between her upper lip and nose. Some women were daubed with a control substance (like water), while others had the substance that was being tested. Blood was then drawn, and each woman rated her mood. The third month was the same as the first.

The results: the extract—and not the control substance—shortened the subjects' menstrual cycles, causing ovulation to occur sooner. Its scent was also mood-altering: women felt more relaxed after the application.

Now here's the amazing thing. The mystery elixir was neither lavender nor vanilla—it was male perspiration. It was a concoction of the sweat of six men who had shunned deodorant for a month, while wearing cotton pads to collect their underarm secretions. In the lab, an extract was created and disguised. At the end of the study, none of the women could identify its source.

The researchers concluded that a pheromone is produced in the male underarm.
¹⁴
Pheromones are molecules that act on the brain but bypass conscious thought, escaping awareness. A woman inhaling this male pheromone, the study indicates, responds in two ways: her reproductive hormones are altered, affecting ovulation, and her level of tension is decreased.

Are you following this? Let's take it back to Kayla and David. His mere closeness—one night together might do it—sends a signal to her brain: relax and prepare for reproduction.

Who would've imagined? Babies were the last thing on Kayla's mind. But don't misunderstand the science. The point is not that David's scent makes conception more likely. Rather, the lesson is that Kayla's female physiology is extraordinarily complex. The intricate processes going on beneath the surface are all but unfathomable. In addition to condom lessons and assurances she is “safe,” or at least “safer,” Kayla has the right to know that—notwithstanding pills, patches, diaphragms, and latex—those nights with David may affect her in ways she wouldn't imagine.

This University of Pennsylvania study expanded on previous research that demonstrated significant sex-specific reactions to the substance in question, whose chemical identity still eludes us. Earlier studies had already shown male pheromones to have psychological effects on women,
¹⁵
like increased attention and a feeling of well-being.
¹⁶

Compelling business, huh? And the sort of thing Kayla would want to know? I would think so. I don't expect her to understand neuroendocrinology in all its complexity, of course; that's up to the experts. But her sensitivity to pheromones—in particular male pheromones—should be discussed in sexuality education, especially when she's promised “comprehensive” information about sexuality. In the process, Kayla might develop some respect, perhaps even awe, for the elaborate, hardwired circuits that are activated when she gets cozy.

Even before birth, Kayla's brain structure differed from David's.
¹⁷
Hers was more skilled at communication, observation, and the processing of emotion. She was adept at gathering information from faces and tone of voice, and unlike him, would infer from this knowledge meaning about her own self-worth. Connecting with others and having their approval were priorities for her female brain from early in life.

Then came puberty. Kayla's brain matured, becoming even more “female”;
¹⁸
more intuitive, and more averse to interpersonal conflict. When her estrogen surged, she thrived on interpersonal connections: hanging out with friends, chatting with them on the phone for hours, or IMing and texting them throughout the day. This is her special “girl reality.”
¹⁹

Testosterone is the hormone controlling sex drive: not for cuddling and connection, but for release—as often, and with as many different people, as possible. When she reached her teens, Kayla's testosterone increased somewhat, but David's soared to twenty-five times higher. As one specialist explains: “Surges of testosterone marinate
. . . boys' brains . . . sexual pursuit and body parts become pretty much obsessions.”
²⁰

In contrast to David, Kayla's hormones were in constant flux. The structure of her brain was changing from day to day and from week to week.
²¹
Depending on the phase of her menstrual cycle, she might feel outgoing and self-confident, or irritable and fat. End result of Kayla's intense attachments, dread of dispute, and seesaw of moods? High drama,
²²
24/7.

Are you getting the picture? Are you wondering, as I am, how SIECUS—remember, that stands for
Sexuality Information and Education
Council of the United States—foists its feminist drivel about socially constructed gender differences on kids as young as five? They're stuck in the past. They think it's still 1970. Time to wake up—the bikini approach to male/female differences has no place outside of a history book. In fact, psychiatrists predict that, due to the significant differences in brain structure and function, we'll soon treat depression and schizophrenia differently in men and women.

Kayla has sensitivities that David does not, and we do her—and him—no favor in denying them. To the contrary, being unaware of her vulnerabilities only makes her
more
vulnerable, and the pair more likely to experience misunderstandings and conflict. Better to educate them both,
comprehensively
, about the distinctive wiring of male and female brains. Isn't that what sex education is supposedly all about—making informed decisions about relationships? Our kids must know about pheromones and hormones before they begin to “experiment” with and “explore” their sexuality. They must also know what neuroscience has taught us about the power of touch.

Okay, guess who gave females this advice: “Don't let a guy hug you unless you plan to trust him.”
²³
Dr. Laura? Some priest? Try again. The speaker is LouAnn Brizendine, M.D., a neuropsychiatrist at the
University of California, San Francisco. She's discussing the hormones of love and attachment in her bestselling book,
The Female Brain.

If anyone's an expert on female brains, it's Dr. Brizendine.
²⁴
Fifteen years ago, when few researchers were interested in the neurochemistry of girls and women, she founded the Women's Mood and Hormone Clinic in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco. She's scrutinized women at every stage of life, from girlhood and adolescence to young adulthood, motherhood, and menopause. And she's used every tool available to do so, from genetic studies to in-depth interviews and questionnaires, body scans, and MRIs. Perhaps more important, this scientist didn't only study pregnancy and the postpartum period, she survived them.

Dr. Brizendine is also a woman of courage. When she learned early in her career of the two-to-one ratio of depression in women compared to men, her explanation for the discrepancy was influenced by feminist thought. As she herself says, “I took the typical 1970's stance that the patriarchy of Western culture must have been the culprit. It must have kept women down and made them less functional than men.”
²⁵
But Dr. Brizendine's insights evolved through the years with more research, and now she explains that it's usually hormones, not husbands, wreaking havoc on women's emotions. And she underscores the differences between the male and female experience:

Kudos to the doctor for describing these politically incorrect truths. She's been attacked for saying these things, but she copes with the backlash. “Some days,” she says, “I need ovaries of steel.”
²⁷

Again, the brain expert's advice to girls is, “Don't let a guy hug you unless you plan to trust him.” Dr. Brizendine is speaking of a serious embrace here: one that's at least twenty seconds long. And in case you're wondering, her recommendation still holds if said hug is consensual, non-exploitative, honest, pleasurable, and “protected.” That's because, as with pheromones, practicing “safer sex” is no obstacle to the effects of what some call “the cuddle hormone.”

What could be wrong with a hug, even a drawn out one? The doctor's recommendation is based on the power of
oxytocin
, a hormone identified one hundred years ago as a brain substance that facilitates labor, delivery, and nursing. Today we know it has many other functions, and science recognizes that any meaningful examination of sexuality, especially female sexuality,
²⁸
must consider them.

Like pheromones, oxytocin is part of an elaborate structure involving many neuro-chemical messengers, specialized cells and receptors, delicate feedback systems, and other control mechanisms. I promise you, the New York City subway system pales in comparison. It's worthwhile, for a moment, to dwell on this notion: the intricacies of our structure and function exceed our power of observation and understanding, at least for the time being. Nevertheless, while acknowledging the risk of oversimplification, it is possible to focus on a few essential points.

Oxytocin promotes social bonds. We first learned this from a cute little animal called a prairie vole.
²⁹
These mouse-sized rodents, found in the Midwest, caught the attention of scientists because they display an unusual mating pattern: lifelong monogamy. A breeding pair share a nest, sitting side by side most of the time. They attack intruders of either sex. Even after weeks of separation, they prefer their mates to any other companion. When one dies, the widow or widower prairie vole accepts a new mate only about 20 percent of the time.
³⁰
Both male and female are active parents, and newborns crave contact with them. The study of voles in love provided the preliminary data for a new field: the biochemistry of attachment.

In contrast, Montane voles, found in the Rockies, are cousins to prairie voles, but their social lives differ. Montane voles are loners, and when mating time arrives, they play the field. They're not into their kids either: males show little or no interest, and females often abandon their pups within two weeks after birth. The babies don't seem to mind.
³¹

What makes one vole loving and the other aloof? It turns out the brains of these cousins differ as much as their behaviors: in monogamous voles, oxytocin (in males, vasopressin
³²
) acts powerfully on the reward center, the same area that produces the euphoric effects of drugs like cocaine. The reward center of the montane vole does not respond to oxytocin. Oxytocin (or vasopressin) is released during mating, so the prairie vole, and not the montane vole, experiences a reward when intimate with her mate. This system creates her preference for him, and only him. And it works both ways: sex bonds him to her, too.