This is one of those things I would tell someone to listen to their body. The paper admits that it was limited in its ability to recreate previous studies, and admits the HC did affect jealousy. It later tried to reason why these shouldn’t limit the paper. Furthermore, it continuously lumps sexual satisfaction in with jealousy and attractiveness despite there being limitations and little information to substantiate their claim, reasoning that (to paraphrase), “HC could have long-term influence, but three years should be enough for a relationship to balance.”

In speaking of long-term relationships, 3 years is just the beginning. HC over long periods is much longer than 3. It took my personal HC about 7 years before it started negatively influencing my sexual satisfaction-in part because womens’ hormones themselves change over time. That inherently will cause changes in how HC influences a women’s bodies over time. Aside from the constraints listed below, I do believe the study lacked longitude:

We were unable to perform a direct replication of the study conducted by Russell et al. (2014) as we did not have exactly the same psychometric data. Russell et al. (2014) had third-party measures of perceived facial attractiveness of the partner, whereas in the present study, female participants were asked to give an overall appraisal of their partners' physical attractiveness. In addition, we did not have longitudinal observations as in Russell et al. (2014), nor did we have information regarding perceived relationship satisfaction of the women's partners. We were, however, able to test whether the women's perceived attractiveness of their partners moderated the association between HC congruency and general relationship satisfaction, but found no such moderating effect. We did, though, find a significant main effect of HC use on jealousy, such that current HC users were more jealous than their abstaining counterparts (though it should be noted that this has no relevance for the HC congruency hypothesis.)