Stable or Sexy? It Depends on Ovulation

A women who settles down with what she considers to be a stable man might not find him all that attractive while she is ovulating. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

When the time comes to make a baby, a woman may regret her decision to marry Mr. Steady instead of Mr. Sexy.

New research finds that women tend to be more critical of and less attracted to a mate during ovulation if they consider the man to be stable but not that sexy. The study is in the journal Hormones and Behavior.

Researchers asked 108 women to rate their partners by answering questions like: How sexy would women say your partner is compared to most men? And they also asked them to rate the stability and loyalty of their partner.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The subjects’ level of commitment to their relationship remained stable throughout their fertility cycles. But when asked specifically about levels of intimacy and sexual attraction to their mates, there were significant differences.

As they went from low fertility to high fertility, women partnered with less sexy men lowered their attraction ratings. They also found more faults with their stable men.

But women with the most sexually attractive men had precisely the opposite experience.

The authors note that a woman’s feelings for her man can vary day by day. But few probably realize that variations are in part determined by their own fertility hormones.

—Christie Nicholson

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe