Nose Job: Loss of smell with Covid-19 could have bad consequences for sex lives
Covid-19, especially long covid has been associated with anosmia (loss of smell). Let's hope that this effect is short term because it is, understandably enough, being treated as much less severe than (say) heart problems. However, loss of smell can impact drastically on quality of life and sexual relationships because a lot of sexual desire is mediated through that sensory modality, especially in women.
One of the much-reported effects of SARS-Cov-2, including the effects of so-called 鈥榣ong covid鈥�, is a change in smell perception. The effects of this, if they are truly long-term, might be more profound than people appear to realise. Smell is not just some amusing spice added to life, it鈥檚 a reminder that humans are just another critter, and live by the same rules.
Just another critter...
Smell matters to sex in other mammals, and we are no exception. As Jennifer Anniston memorably put it, 鈥淭he best smell in the world is that man that you love.鈥� True as that is, the effect of partner smell goes beyond mere pleasure, and anyone with even a passing knowledge of how evolution works, knows that nature doesn鈥檛 hand out free lunches. When comparing men and women, the average density of the bit of the brain that processes smell is hugely denser in women. The brain is expensive real estate. What is going on?
The great biologist, Amotz Zahavi, died a couple of years ago. I meant to write something at the time, but life has a way of getting in the way. One of Zahavi鈥檚 key insights was that if you see anything in nature that is baroque, larger than it appears to need to be, seemingly unnecessarily complex, or just plain weird, the likely answer is Sex. Specifically, sexual selection. The well-known example is the magnificent peacock鈥檚 train but humans have other signals.
When I was just starting my PhD I was incredibly lucky to be able to present my first year of work to the great Professor, who happened to be visiting London. At the time, my working hypothesis, still the dominant one in the field, was that female orgasm was a by-product of male orgasm. I鈥檝e repeatedly said why I now don鈥檛 think that this is true鈥攔oughly that anatomy, behavior, and physiology all argue against it. A by-product can鈥檛 be more complex that the thing that it鈥檚 a by-product of. But it was Amotz Zahavi who put the idea in my head. After my talk he took me aside and said 鈥淒on鈥檛 tell anyone, but we call something a 鈥渂y-product when we can鈥檛 think of anything to test鈥�.
Once you start thinking of things to test, then patterns start to emerge. Now鈥攜ou have to be careful here, because humans are notorious for seeing patterns where there are none. That鈥檚 why we look for surprising predictions, ability to replicate the studies (especially by people who don鈥檛 agree with the hypothesis and all the other accoutrements of scientific method).
Picky, picky, picky...
When we first started studying female orgasm one of the first things that we did was ask women what scientists should be asking them about its nature. The surprising answer came back 鈥渁sk about partner smell鈥�. 鈥淩eally?鈥� we said. 鈥淩eally鈥�, they replied. Whenever I give talks about our work, and mention the smell finding the women in the audience nod and say things like 鈥淥f course鈥� and 鈥淲ell, duh!鈥� while the men look astonished (the smarter ones take notes).
In our research we found that partner smell predicted a vigorous, deeply felt, and energetic orgasmic responses better than any other partner characteristic. Better than dominance. Better than masculinity. Even better than partner skill and sensitivity. Why might this be?
Recent research has revealed that women鈥檚 olfactory bulbs鈥攖he part that is sensitive to smell is fully 40% larger in women鈥檚 brains than men鈥檚. Imagine finding that women鈥檚 eyes were 40% larger than men鈥檚 or they had tongues with 40% more taste buds. Nature doesn鈥檛 give free lunches鈥攏ot even to those with taste buds to spare. What is all this extra hardware for? Recall the principle I started with. We think the likelihood is that it鈥檚 about sex. We have known for a while now that smell changes, apparently caused by oral contraception can lead to changes in perceived partner attractiveness, and that helps answer one question鈥攊s it likely that humans exude pheromones? The likely answer is 鈥榥o鈥�, but this doesn鈥檛 mean that smell doesn鈥檛 matter鈥攊t means that targeted smell probably matters.
Scent of attraction?
There鈥檚 a lot of talk about pheromones鈥攂ut strictly speaking pheromones advertise general sexual receptivity. But humans are choosy鈥攂oth sexes鈥攂ut especially women on who the costs of any mistakes fall the most heavily. What does smell advertise? Well, we are only beginning to understand this but one theory with growing empirical support is that our smell advertises our major histocompatiblity complex. This is the part of our genome that advertises our immune systems. We talk grandly of 鈥渢he immune system鈥� as if it was an organ with a simple function鈥攍ike heart or lungs. But, in fact, the immune system is an incredibly complex set of interlocking defences that draw on lots of disparate bodily resources. Scientists devote whole careers to studying sections of it鈥攕o I鈥檓 not going to do much more than scratch the surface of its importance here.
One crucial balance is between being immune to those pathogens that are local but, at the same time, not indulging in inbreeding (which has problems of its own). What this amounts to in practice is wanting a smell that鈥檚 a bit like daddy鈥檚, but definitely not daddy. And what that means, is that the amount by which we differ on six key markers of the MHC predicts how sexy a woman will find a man鈥檚 smell.
This has been tested in various ways but probably the most entertaining is the smelly T-shirt paradigm. In this, the males supply some appropriate DNA (via saliva鈥攄on鈥檛 be filthy) and also wear a T-shirt at night for a few days (no deodorants or perfumes allowed). Said T-shirts are placed in sealed containers and then women come along, break the seals, and rate the attractiveness of the smells. It works the other way around too鈥攚ith female smells and male smells鈥攁s demonstrated here:
Work is still ongoing but seems to point to the idea that it is immune system compatibility rather than just random mixing (technically called 鈥渉eterozygosity鈥�) that we find attractive. Although Wedekind and F眉ri (1997) did not find women to be more sensitive than men in their particular study, others have. For instance, the work of Allen, Cobey, Havl铆膷ek, and Roberts, (2016) found not only found that women were more sensitive to odour than men, but that this sensitivity was more susceptible to disruption by perfume. The corollary is also true鈥攚omen are more likely to be disgusted by all sorts of stimuli鈥攊ncluding smell鈥攖han men are (Fleischmann, 2016). Disgust is a protection against potentially dangerous interactions and we ignore it at our peril. There is thus a real chance that we may be getting in our own way by not allowing ourselves to be led by the nose.
If all of this is being disrupted by the effects of Covid, then the effects on relationships could be severe.
For more on this story contact:
Dr Robert King r.king@ucc.ie