RSS

A new problem with ‘The Pill’

21 Jan

I’d heard about this not long ago, but it was reiterated again in this recent ‘What Men Are Saying About Women’ post, where Christian J. discusses some new findings, that the Pill may change the type of body odour that women find attractive, and that such may be disastrous, once they go off the Pill, because they may no longer be as physiologically attracted towards the kind of man they got with, while on the Pill.

Now, those of us here at Patriactionary who are Roman Catholic, don’t believe in taking the Pill or any other artificial forms of contraception (only Natural Family Planning allowed), if living and believing, according to Church teachings.  As for Protestants like myself, we don’t necessarily oppose contraception per se, but those of us who are historically minded, know that until the Anglican Church conference at Lambeth in 1930, where the Anglican Church changed its historic anti-contraception position, most Protestants hitherto then had been fairly anti-contraception as well.

But even those of us who aren’t completely opposed to contraception itself, may have problems with the method of the Pill; I certainly do.  For one thing, in fact the most important thing: part of how it works is abortifacient, because not every sperm is killed or stopped from reaching the egg by the biochemical changes it induces in the uterine environment, and so it ensures regular shedding of the uterine lining regardless of whether implantation of an embryo has already occurred.  A lot of people don’t know this about the Pill, but it is so; that’s why women on it have regular periods; it artificially induces them.  *Update: deery claims I am misinformed as to how the Pill works; I will for now, take her at her word, assuming good faith on her part where she assumed bad faith on mine (accusing me of misinformation), and will investigate further.  Nevertheless, I don’t think my argument is significantly altered by this, though.

The Pill does nothing to stop the spread of STDs, and while I may make jokes about them as if I were a moralistic prig (just for fun), I don’t really think increased prevalence of STDs is a good thing.  Contraction of STDs may be a consequence of fornication and promiscuity, but that doesn’t make their existence desirable.

And now, we learn this, that the Pill can potentially have a huge impact on the type of man a woman finds physically and sexually desirable.

Another good reason for Christians to consider staying well away from the Pill…

As for heathens, women who want to slut around should do themselves and us a favour, and just get their tubes tied.  They won’t reproduce and make more lax-values offspring; if they do have a long term relationship eventually, they’ll not go through any attraction loss from having been on the Pill.  Win-win! 🙂

 
43 Comments

Posted by on January 21, 2012 in religion, Sex, The Decline

 

43 responses to “A new problem with ‘The Pill’

  1. deery

    January 22, 2012 at 7:27 am

    So much misinformation…The Pill works by suppressing ovulation, not by killing sperm. The Pill does not cause the uterine lining to shed, the placebo pills in the pack do that. Many, many women skip the placebos and go straight to the next pack so that they won’t get their periods. They sell formulations where there are no placebos to cater to those women. If an egg is already implanted, it is unlikely to get swept away, as millions of women who accidently got pregnant on the pill could tell you.

     
  2. Will S.

    January 22, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    Perhaps I’ve been under some misunderstandings, but I thought that the way the Pill worked was multiple actions, one of which was changing the pH of the environment of the uterus in such a way as to denature the sperm partially; killing some, and rendering some sluggish, as well as forcing the shedding of the uterine lining. I did not willfully distribute misinformation, I resent that implication; I will take your word for it for now, and do some more reading up on the precise manner in which the Pill works. Nevertheless, I don’t think my argument is significantly altered by this, though.

     
  3. Svar

    January 22, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    Hahaha look, it’s Deery.

    Hej Will, het lijkt erop dat de vrouwen komen voor de tintelingen, ja? 😉

     
  4. Svar

    January 22, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    @ Deery

    Btw, this is your first time commenting here. Welcome.

     
  5. Will S.

    January 22, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    Indeed, Svar. 🙂

     
  6. Svar

    January 22, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    You know what I like about you, Will? You understand me, haha.

     
  7. Will S.

    January 22, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    Thanks! 🙂

    I should have answered you in Dutch, though; instead of ‘Yes, indeed’, saying ‘Ja, inderdaad.’ 🙂

     
  8. Will S.

    January 22, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    If millions of women on the Pill have accidentally gotten pregnant anyways, doesn’t sound like a good contraceptive method, at all…

     
  9. samsonsjawbone

    January 22, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    If millions of women on the Pill have accidentally gotten pregnant anyways, doesn’t sound like a good contraceptive method, at all…

    Well, the medical literature generally generally gives the Pill a perfect-use efficacy of ~99% but a real-world (women forget to take their pills, etc.) effectiveness in the low-mid 90s.

    However, I would say that *nothing* besides abstinence is a “good” contraceptive method, otherwise we wouldn’t have widespread abortion.

     
  10. Joycalyn

    January 22, 2012 at 8:47 pm

    Will: Deery’s explanation is the standard physician/pharmaceutical explanation for how the pill works. However, women on the pill can have breakthrough ovulation and pregnancy can result but can’t continue due to the hostile hormonal environment. There’s also aggressive, deliberate misinformation about how Plan B (morning after pill) works. I think there’s enough question about BCPs for Christian women to stay well away.

     
  11. Carnivore

    January 22, 2012 at 9:46 pm

    As someone who tries to avoid doctors and the “wonderful, modern miracle products” of Big Pharma, I can’t imagine women rushing to take that crap, for years on end, from a health perspective, I mean.

     
  12. Svar

    January 22, 2012 at 10:18 pm

    @ Will

    “assuming good faith on her part where she assumed bad faith on mine (accusing me of misinformation)”

    Standard behavior on her part. Just ask David Collard or Deti.

    @ Joycalyn

    “However, women on the pill can have breakthrough ovulation and pregnancy can result but can’t continue due to the hostile hormonal environment.”

    That’s interesting in light of the “misinformation” charge that Deery laid upon Will.

    “I think there’s enough question about BCPs for Christian women to stay well away.”

    In general, the best idea is NFP. Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians are only allowed to use NFP.

     
  13. Will S.

    January 23, 2012 at 6:18 am

    @ SJ: Well, abstinence is surely the best method for avoiding pregnancy, always has been.

    @ Joycalyn: I see. Thanks. Yeah, I agree, that it makes sense for Christian women to stay away from BCPs.

    @ Carnivore: Oh yeah; on the face of it, even without this new knowledge, you have to figure, years of being on a hormone-altering drug can’t be good for one’s body. Anabolic steroid use is banned for athletes; why do we then permit BCPs? Oh yeah, because ‘fucking is an entitlement’…

     
  14. Laceagate

    January 24, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    I don’t want to gross anyone out but…

    I think it is also important to note that the pill is often used for medical treatments, such as menstrual problems, treating hormonal issues, etc. Unfortunately, the pill’s effects purely mask, and do not treat a darn thing.

    Many women take the pill thinking that it will “cure” their chronic cramps and too-long periods into these magical 28-day cycles. The bleeding women experience isn’t a true period; it’s a fake period because a true “period” is part of a complex hormonal cycle that requires certain surges in FSH (follicle-stimulating hormone) in conjunction with LH (luteinizing hormone). When a woman takes the pill, there are no surges in the hormones because the natural processes have been replaced with synthetics. These same hormones also cause the physical changes in a woman when she is ovulating and helps her appear more attractive to men.

    A lot of women are duped into thinking that taking the pill will resolve their health issues, and it won’t by any means.

     
  15. Laceagate

    January 24, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    Many, many women skip the placebos and go straight to the next pack so that they won’t get their periods

    You never get a real period when you take the contraceptive pill. There is nothing significant about that bleeding other than the fact it was designed to help women taking the pill feel more “normal”! It exists purely for psychological reasons.

     
  16. Will S.

    January 24, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    I’ve heard that some teenage girls get prescribed birth control pills to help with their acne; I’ve also heard warnings not to use certain acne medicines if trying to conceive, because they interfere with that capacity. Weird…

     
  17. samsonsjawbone

    January 25, 2012 at 12:35 am

    I’ve also heard warnings not to use certain acne medicines if trying to conceive, because they interfere with that capacity.

    Certain acne medications (Accutane especially) are *extremely* teratogenic; that’s the reason for that.

     
  18. Will S.

    January 25, 2012 at 7:07 am

    Yes, Accutane I knew about.

     
  19. Joycalyn

    January 25, 2012 at 9:15 am

    The use of BCPs to “regulate” a woman’s period is intrinsically tied to careerism, even if the girl is a teen. Many women experience significant enough pain and/or aggravation with their cycles that they have difficulty showing up for work or school or sports activities. Girls as young as 10 are put on BCPs so they don’t miss school or outside activities and the reason many women choose the option of continuous BCPs (skipping the placebo week) is so their period doesn’t interfere in their life (this includes sex on demand.) It’s about making women more like men instead of working with the miracle inherent in a woman’s reproductive capacity. All women are to be freed from the impact of menstruation, pregnancy and mothering.

     
  20. Will S.

    January 25, 2012 at 10:43 am

    If feminists really cared about women, they’d be against such unnatural manipulation of the natural menstrual cycle. But of course, feminism isn’t about what’s best for women (and society), but penis envy.

     
  21. deery

    January 25, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    “Girls as young as 10 are put on BCPs so they don’t miss school or outside activities and the reason many women choose the option of continuous BCPs (skipping the placebo week) is so their period doesn’t interfere in their life (this includes sex on demand.) It’s about making women more like men instead of working with the miracle inherent in a woman’s reproductive capacity,”

    If a girl is 10, already getting her period, it is so painful that she can’t lead a normal life 25% of the time, and the normal painkillers aren’t working for her, then yes, I absolutely think the Pill should be an option. While I would be hesistant to put someone so young on such hormones, what are the other choices? We obviously don’t want her to get pregnant, and a hysterectomy is also out of the question. So in this case, the Pill might be the best out of some very bad options.

    It’s a “miracle” until you are the person who is balled up screaming in pain for about a week every month. Then its just misery. I’ve seen some girls who had a very hard time enduring their periods, and the Pill freed them from that incessant pain. It has its uses, and not all of them will be about sex. I don’t know if wanting not to miss school, going outside to play, and being generally pain-free really constitute “penis-envy”, but if so, I can’t say that it’s wrong.

     
  22. Will S.

    January 25, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    I suppose there can be helpful, non-prophylactic uses for the Pill, deery, given your example; same as I don’t begrudge women who want to deliver their children under partial anaesthesia at a hospital, rather than by a midwife at home.

    But such cases are surely outliers, not common…

     
  23. Joycalyn

    January 25, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    Putting a 10-year-old on BCPs because she has menstrual pain for 2 days out of 30 is criminal. We don’t have any idea about the consequences of starting little girls on BCPs, yet it is done all the time.

     
  24. Will S.

    January 25, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    It does seem extreme, agreed, Joycalyn… There are other painkiller medications out there, after all…

     
  25. deery

    January 25, 2012 at 6:16 pm

    The average period lasts anywhere from 3-7 days. Five days is about standard. Most little girls don’t start their periods at age 10 (12-13 is the average age in the US). Of those few 10 year olds, only a very tiny percentage would have menstrual pain which could not be managed by pain relievers. Of that tiny percentage of a percentage who have to endure extreme pain that the Pill can alleviate, what do you suggest that they do? Miss a quarter of their schooling? Leave them in agony? Give them a hysterectomy? The Pill is not optimal for someone that young, but in some cases it may the best solution out of some grim choices.

     
  26. Joycalyn

    January 25, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    As Will said, extreme outliers…………

    However, It’s pretty common for doctors to start 10-13 year old girls (menarche at 10 isn’t all that uncommon – 12 is the average age, not the lowest age) on BCPs for irregularity or normal menstrual pain (which on average lasts 1-2 days) or because it interferes with their lifestyle.

    Anyway, sorry to participate in derailing your thread, Will. Past experience leads me to believe that it’s pointless to posit facts about BCPs; they’re untouchable, no matter what mischief they may inflict on female bodies. They are the agents of our freedom and, as such, must remain sacred.

     
  27. Will S.

    January 25, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    Hey Joycalyn, no need to worry about derailing the thread; it’s an interesting subject, worth considering. Besides, we derail our threads all the time. 🙂

    Yes, the attitude of many in our society is that “fucking is an entitlement”, as one liberal put it, and so any concerns that interfere with such an attitude are to be tossed aside, regardless of the consequences. Birth control pills can’t start early enough for some extremists, and they’re not happy unless as many abortions as possible are happening. That’s why Rush Limbaugh invented the term ‘feminazi’ for them, years back, though as Vox Day has wryly remarked, that’s a slur on National Socialists. 😉

     
  28. Laceagate

    January 25, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    If a girl is 10, already getting her period, it is so painful that she can’t lead a normal life 25% of the time, and the normal painkillers aren’t working for her, then yes, I absolutely think the Pill should be an option. While I would be hesistant to put someone so young on such hormones, what are the other choices?

    deery, this is the drivel that the pharmaceutical companies and feminist doctors are banking on. I have PCOS so I do have an idea of what not being able to lead a normal life from time to time means. Doctors have attempted to push the pill on me as a permanent solution, or get my uterus destroyed (yay for solutions! NOT) in order to address my symptoms.

    The pill is really a quick fix that doesn’t address the root cause of the problems. A 10 year old girl or any teenage girl, or any woman, should not go on the pill because it is not a long-term, lifelong solution providing true benefits. The best solution is a combination of diet changes, losing weight, tracking hormonal changes, or the use of medications such as Metformin. Most 10 year olds getting their periods are most likely getting them because they have too high body fat (which can trigger menstruation), so they should be losing weight and staying active. There is also the phenomenon of young girls reaching puberty too soon, and I suspect the bad diets children are fed along with the hormone-injected meat we consume aren’t helping.

    The idea that there are “average periods” and 28-day average cycles is a product of the BCP movement. Many women fluctuate but what moves away from what is average for that woman are extremes in hormonal changes. There is a reason why NFP treats each month as standalone, because you cannot always consider menstrual cycles as truly cyclical and predictable.

     
  29. Will S.

    January 25, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    Ah yes; we know Big Pharma is fond of inventing ‘problems’ / ‘conditions’ that is has the ‘solution’ / ‘cure’ for; not surprising that this could be another case of it…

     
  30. Laceagate

    January 25, 2012 at 7:53 pm

    I also found out through research that historically, women have been known to have a variety of fluctuations within age groups that were considered “normal.” It’s when you try to package everyone’s hormones into a neat cycle that doesn’t really exist within healthy females that you have the invented cure. I should dig up where I found this information, because it was quite telling of how things have changed since Margaret Sanger’s time and now.

     
  31. Will S.

    January 25, 2012 at 8:05 pm

    That is interesting indeed, Lacey.

     
  32. deery

    January 25, 2012 at 8:06 pm

    The best, and permanent solutions for extreme menstrual pain, not caused by other secondary reasons, and not controllable by pain medications are pregnancy and hysterectomy. Which obviously aren’t recommended for 10 year olds. Most of the 10 year olds will grow up, and become pregnant, and find their symptoms much alleviated after that.

    It is true that higher body fat is strongly associated with a younger age of menarche. I personally think it is always a good idea for people to maintain a healthy weight. Some females may find that that losing weight helps with their extreme pain. For others, it won’t. And in the meantime, what should those females do to control their symptoms, and participate in life? Your recommendations are great advice for women with PCOS, but somewhat useless for females with primary dysmenorrhea, not secondary ones caused by things like PCOS, fibroids, and endometriosis. I don’t believe it is unthinkable for some girls to go on birth control to manage those symptoms under those circumstances. Not optimal, but everything in the medical field has some trade-offs.

    “The idea that there are “average periods” and 28-day average cycles is a product of the BCP movement.”

    Well, no. I think that would be a product of simple math, and some number crunching. Women vary, of course. But there is a reason it’s called “menstruation”. Even the ancients noted how closely the periods correlated with the moon’s 28 day cycle. Modern medicine didn’t make that up.

     
  33. Laceagate

    January 25, 2012 at 8:20 pm

    The best, and permanent solutions for extreme menstrual pain, not caused by other secondary reasons, and not controllable by pain medications are pregnancy and hysterectomy.

    No, they’re not. The role prostaglandins have in menstrual pain should be investigated, along with the causes to fibroids and endometriosis. Hormones are easy to disrupt, and most doctors don’t investigate all the causes the the symptoms. Giving someone a pill to reduce the pain doesn’t resolve the issues.

    There was a study done in the late 1960’s which found that most women have cycles closer to 30 days, and there was variance of days (about 4) from that. Of course cycles correspond closely with the moon’s cycle but what the BCP does is create an artificial and predictable cycle that does not always exist within nature.

     
  34. Will S.

    January 25, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    I’ve always been fascinated by how, apparently, women’s cycles can end up coming into sync with each other if they’re roommates, as I’ve been told by some female friends, has happened to them with theirs. I don’t know, though, if they were on the Pill or not…

     
  35. Laceagate

    January 25, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    They were most likely not on the pill. The pill creates an artificial cycle where as long as you take the pills, hormones rise and fall virtually the same way every month. Cycle syncing most likely happens because of pheromones…which the BCP alters. In 1971 this phenomenon was researched at the University of Chicago.

     
  36. Will S.

    January 25, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    Ah. Interesting.

    The reason I brought it up, was because, it occurred to me that cycle syncing like that can’t happen if, naturally, a cycle is exactly a certain number of days, always; it can only happen if a given cycle can be shorter or longer. I figured it would be difficult for such to happen with the Pill, and what you’ve said, Lacey, backs that up.

     
  37. deery

    January 25, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    “No, they’re not. The role prostaglandins have in menstrual pain should be investigated, along with the causes to fibroids and endometriosis. ”

    One of the first things doctors will recommend to women with severe menstrual pain are the NSAIDS (Alleve, Motrin, etc.), which will help lower the level of prostaglandins. In most cases that is all that is needed. In other cases that doesn’t solve the problem, and as with anything which disrupts hormones, they have their own side effects, including causing spontaneous abortions.

    “I’ve always been fascinated by how, apparently, women’s cycles can end up coming into sync with each other if they’re roommates, as I’ve been told by some female friends, has happened to them with theirs. I don’t know, though, if they were on the Pill or not…”

    I’ve always heard that was a myth. I think the Straight Dope did a column about it a few years back. But if you are on the Pill, and at different weeks, there is no way to actually catch up to each other, unless someone starts or stops taking them at a different time than directed.

     
  38. Will S.

    January 25, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    Hmmm. Here’s the SD article you’re likely referencing, deery:

    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist

     
  39. deery

    January 25, 2012 at 8:38 pm

    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2429/does-menstrual-synchrony-really-exist

    …•Apparent clustering of menstrual onsets doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Assuming an average cycle of 28 days, the maximum time between two women’s onsets is 14 days. Since the minimum is zero, the average difference — what you’d expect purely by chance — is seven days, and half the time would be less. (In 1971 McClintock said she’d observed a decline in the average difference from seven days to five.) What’s more, women recording their onsets after the fact often misremember or are influenced by the recollections of their friends, skewing the data.

    •Menstrual synchrony in any meaningful sense is impossible when the women have cycles of different lengths. (Cycle length varies considerably among women not using the pill.) Though a woman with a 27-day cycle might initially have her onset on the same day as a woman with a 29-day cycle, the next month she’d be two days earlier, the month after that four days, and so on. No one has shown that supposedly synchronized women have cycles of the same length — or that their cycles, if of different lengths at first, diverge less than they should over time.

    •Methodological errors can easily bias a data set to show menstrual synchrony where none exists. To demonstrate one common problem: Suppose a study starts on October 1. Subject A, with a 28-day cycle, has an onset on September 27, another on October 25, and a third on November 22. Subject B, with a 30-day cycle, has an onset on October 5 and another on November 4. A naive investigator could report that these subjects were 20 days apart at the outset (October 25 vs October 5) and 18 days apart at their second onset (November 4 vs November 22). Ergo, the two are synchronizing. In fact, the two subjects were eight days apart to start with (September 27 vs October 5) and are diverging. Of course you can set up the numbers to arrive at the opposite conclusion; the point is that given the small samples commonly used in studies of menstrual synchrony, it’s easy to lead oneself astray. One skeptic (H.C. Wilson, 1992) has claimed that when you correct all the errors, including McClintock’s, the evidence for menstrual synchrony evaporates.

     
  40. deery

    January 25, 2012 at 8:40 pm

    Or what Will linked to. 🙂

     
  41. Will S.

    January 25, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    I’ve restored it, having deleted it initially, so as to make sense. 🙂

     
  42. Laceagate

    January 25, 2012 at 10:09 pm

    This website also has a lot of quality resources:

    http://onemoresoul.com/downloadable-pamphlets/alternatives-to-the-pill.html