Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

broadly.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#41

Post by watwut »

ben1 wrote: post #21
devoply wrote: post #10

> The invention of the pill was one of the most significant advancements in the fight for reproductive agency; it allowed us, as a society, to dramatically reconceptualize sexuality and gender relations. Taken a step further the invention of the in vitro breeding chamber finally frees the genders from each other. Now men or women can decide when they want a child and on what terms. The course that society is headed o…

> Now men or women can decide when they want a child and on what terms Women currently have much more choice which gives them an unfair advantage. If a woman becomes pregnant by accident then she can abort or not abort without the man having any say in it. So if you make the argument that it's her body and the man shouldn't have a say (which is fine, I agree), then at the very least the man should have the equal opti…

When someone contribution to child raising is money and nothing else, that someone is still better off then their partner.

The impact on livestyle, socializing or ability to he part of society, hobby options, career options, free time or regular fun, possible achievements etc etc is quite large for the other partner.

Regardless of gender.

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#42

Post by toyg »

benj111 wrote: post #22

Something else not mentioned is that the pill gives you regular periods. Polycystic ovaries can cause erratic periods, so some women might like it because it gives them a period regularly.

s/might/do

I’ve had a partner with that problem and she greatly benefited from the pill. A few times we had problems procuring it (for one reason or the other, cannot remember), and she was in huge pain for weeks.

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#43

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

newnewpdro wrote: post #26
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you link any science showing that "hormonal birth control promotes the growth of fibroids (and cancer)."?

This is not something I've spent much time looking into. When my friends mentioned their health problems to me, which happened roughly all at the same time as I was visiting family and friends in another state, I was motivated enough to read up on what the heck fibroids are (I had never heard of them) and at least do some plausibility checks on what they were saying the doctors told them. What I came up with in my cu…

> I think there's a lot of mixed information out there and probably a lot of suppression from the industry going on, because of course there's a lot of money to be made in prescribing hormonal birth controls.

This is of course your choice, which, as a grown adult you are forced to make sometimes.

But it seems there is no scientific data showing this way or the other way.

It just seems very ill-advised in general to claim that birth-control are somehow causing fibroid then.

You write that "there is a lof of mixed information", but by backing unsubstantiated claims you are adding to the mix and confusion, - not clearing it up.

> a lot of money to be made in prescribing hormonal birth controls

There is also a lot of money to be made on traffic from spreading confusion and publishing controversing articles, as well as ultimately "alternative" "natural medicine" remedies, which people will naturaly will be drawn towards if they would be made believe that normal ones are dangerous. Just simple possibility of financial gain of some parties is just not a good analysis tool, it's just too circumstantial and rarely brings any real information.

I hope of course that the science will catch up soon and we can figure this out definitevely. (did not downvote).

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#44

Post by ben1 »

corvallis wrote: post #36
ben1 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now men or women can decide when they want a child and on what terms Women currently have much more choice which gives them an unfair advantage. If a woman becomes pregnant by accident then she can abort or not abort without the man having any say in it. So if you make the argument that it's her body and the man shouldn't have a say (which is fine, I agree), then at the very least the man should have the equal opti…

> Women currently have much more choice which gives them an unfair advantage. Men are free to choose to abstain from PIV intercourse, get vasectomies, or wear condoms, depending on their level of risk acceptance. They can also choose to have sex only when they are on the same page as their partner about what to do in the case of unplanned pregnancy. This requires a pre-coital conversation, and the acceptance that one…

You didn't even try to understand the viewpoint of men objectively here. You are telling men that they should be choosing to abstain from PIV intercourse, get invasive surgery or wear condoms which can all fail anyway which destroys your point anyway, but even if it didnt then a woman has to do none of these things and she still gets a choice of whether she wants to become a parent or not. Always. A man needs this choice too or it is not fair.

> Child support or co-parenting is not a punishment for the father

The millions of unwilling fathers who have to pay massive amounts of money would violently disagree with that statement. How can you even make such a statement without the alarm bells going off in your head? Just put yourself into their position, you didn't want a child, you still don't want one but now you have to pay money into it. It takes some breathtaking mental gymnastics on your part to shoehorn your ideological beliefs (fatherhood = never bad) into this objectively bad situation that has no equivalent for women. I suspect you are fighting an ideological battle here, trying to convince everyone and maybe most of all yourself that fatherhood must never be seen as negative when reality just disagrees with you.

> men do not have to carry a pregnancy and go through childbirth and any resulting complications, and breastfeeding

Neither do women, they have the right to an abortion. Again, this just shows that you didn't even attempt to understand what my point was.

> Let's accept that biology makes this situation unequal and not try to equalize it.

Absolutely not, what kind of cruel joke is this? We see an obvious discrepancy with a very fair solution for both sides and you say no. One is inclined to think that there is a profit motive behind this for you if you are arguing like this.

> Let's focus on managing the reality and making sure children grow up with the support of both parents when possible

aka. forcing men into parenthood and an 18 year long huge financial burden against their will, not to mention the emotional burden.

> mental gymnastics to force the idea that any potential consequences of sex should not fall on men

Again: Women do not have to face these potential consequences of sex, so why should men?

Isn't it funny, you say we have to accept these biological differences but only if men suffer for it. What about the biological reality that the baby is 50% the father's so why should the woman not have to accept this biological reality and be forced to ask the father for permission if she wants to abort it? But no, of course not. Equality is only something good if it's in favor of women and bad for men. Did I get that right? I think I did even if you deny it.

I'm going to very quickly bottom line this: Women have the right to refuse motherhood whether they abstain from sex or not, men do not have it. This has to be fixed, whether you personally like it when men suffer or not.

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#45

Post by kaffeemitsahne »

INTPenis wrote: post #7

>From this point on, the specter of women's "forgetfulness" stubbornly attached itself to the discourse around birth control. A slew of ads targeted at physicians encouraged a paternalistic approach, depicting women as "scatter-brained, incompetent, and in need of guidance," Gossel writes. I'm aware that the times were unjust to women but whenever you're marketing a product at a massive scale, like 51% of the populat…

> I remember in the early 2000's meeting some women who were using a staff instead. But at least one stopped because she felt she became too hormonal with the staff under her skin.

What do you mean by "staff"?

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#46

Post by treis »

mdasen wrote: post #13

While John Rock was involved in the development of the pill, calling him "the man behind the pill" is a bit disingenuous. Gregory Goodwin Pincus and Min Chueh Chang are the two that probably closer to that description. It should also be noted that John Rock was a vocal proponent of birth control long before the pill. In 1931, he was the only Catholic physician to sign a petition asking Massachusetts to end its ban on…

>specifically because withdrawal bleeding would reassure the women that they weren't pregnant.

It would also be an additional thing you'd have to prove was safe and effective. Menstruation is a natural process and it would have been reasonable to assume that it was necessary for long term reproductive health. Turns out that's not the case, but we only know that because of additional studies.

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#47

Post by treis »

INTPenis wrote: post #7

>From this point on, the specter of women's "forgetfulness" stubbornly attached itself to the discourse around birth control. A slew of ads targeted at physicians encouraged a paternalistic approach, depicting women as "scatter-brained, incompetent, and in need of guidance," Gossel writes. I'm aware that the times were unjust to women but whenever you're marketing a product at a massive scale, like 51% of the populat…

>So I just don't see the reason to paint a picture of a paternalistic conspiracy against women here. It's rather sensible marketing to a massive audience.

It is kind of striking that the pill is the only medication that comes this way. Not because it's paternalistic against women, but because it's such an obviously effective tool against forgetting your pills. I transfer my pills to a calendar container because I'd forget otherwise. So does seemingly every old person in the country. It's a bit of a wonder why the pharmaceutical industry hasn't innovated.

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#48

Post by dekhn »

kaffeemitsahne wrote: post #45
INTPenis wrote: post #7

>From this point on, the specter of women's "forgetfulness" stubbornly attached itself to the discourse around birth control. A slew of ads targeted at physicians encouraged a paternalistic approach, depicting women as "scatter-brained, incompetent, and in need of guidance," Gossel writes. I'm aware that the times were unjust to women but whenever you're marketing a product at a massive scale, like 51% of the populat…

> I remember in the early 2000's meeting some women who were using a staff instead. But at least one stopped because she felt she became too hormonal with the staff under her skin. What do you mean by "staff"?

birth control implant is a thin rod size of matchstick, I'm gonna guess "staff" is a colloquial term refrring to it.

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#49

Post by jcoffland »

gambiting wrote: post #33
watwut wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that argument against what he said? He is talking about back then and you are talking about now. But when we switched to speaking about contemporary ads, Uber has one where woman wonders "how come he is always on time and able to find any place in city"? So women are still in ads in position of stupid people.

>>How is that argument against what he said? Because he said he doubts someone would make an ad where someone talks down to a man. So I gave an example of exactly this happening right now on British TV. This is not me saying that portraying women as stupid is ok - far from it. Just that there are ads which are equally patronizing towards men too.

> Because he said he doubts someone would make an ad where someone talks down to a man.

Well actually I didn't say that and I didn't know that all replies on HN were required to be arguments against but it does make sense now that I think about it.

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#50

Post by klyrs »

plainOldText wrote: post #11
Spoom wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The pill causes a lot of problems later in life; something only discovered recently, since it is a relatively new creation. Could you be specific here (ideally with links)?

Here you go: Does the contraceptive pill alter mate choice in humans? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19818527 Oral contraceptive use in women changes preferences for male facial masculinity and is associated with partner facial masculinity https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23528282 Edit: Oops, I posted studies linked to mate choice and not issues later in life as you requested. Arguably, choosing the wrong mat…

The evolutionary selection aspect is curious. Is "natural" always "better"? Facial masculinity is correlated with higher testosterone production in response to competition [1]. Higher testosterone levels are also correlated with aggression and violence [2]. Could birth control steer evolution towards a less aggressive, less violent society? Is that a bad thing? You argue that choosing the "wrong" mate could be an issue -- is a less-violent partner the "wrong" choice?

[1] https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2008...

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/

Post reply on HN