8 ms·

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

63 points by apsec112 8y ago

Latteland 8y ago
They give another reason that seems reasonable because the religious acceptance hope, that it would freak people out to stop having periods. That seems like a reasonable thing too. I know no one wants to have a period, but keeping close to natural behavior could make people accept it more easily.
- chris_mc 8y ago
  Clearly, that didn't work, so it's not very reasonable.
Nasrudith 8y ago
Huh interesting I thought the reason was more precautionary principle like they thought that disrupting the cycle entirely would cause other problems. That or being left in as a general health indicator given that disruption is itself occasionally a hint that something is wrong. I have no personal experience in that department to know how tolerable that would be for a generally fringe 'benefit'.
patrickg_zill 8y ago
The pill causes a lot of problems later in life; something only discovered recently, since it is a relatively new creation. It also changes mate preferences, and what that means for the future is unknown.
- Spoom 8y ago
  > 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)?
  - plainOldText 8y ago
    Here you go: Does the contraceptive pill alter mate choice in humans? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19818527 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 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 mate could be considered an issue in the long term, but I assume you referred specifically to medical ones.
    - klyrs 8y ago
      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.2008.0990 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2008... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/
      - patrickg_zill 8y ago
        When does nature ever give us anything for free?
- abledon 8y ago
  ""It also changes mate preferences, and what that means for the future is unknown."" Genepool collisions with suboptimal pairing enghhh. who is willing to give up 'sxxy time' all the time any time they want it.
newnewpdro 8y ago
Two women I know suffer from Uterine Fibroids [1] and their doctors both have said in so many words "the uterus is good for two things, growing babies and growing tumors". Both of these women took hormonal birth controls for most of their lives, and learned only after being diagnosed with fibroids that hormonal birth control promotes the growth of fibroids (and cancer). They're both pissed, and have both been advised to have hysterectomies. Through this lens, I get the impression that giving the uterus a break and letting things shed regularly is probably not a bad idea. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uterine_fibroid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uterine_fibroid
- ukulele 8y ago
  The article you link to literally says the cause is not known and does not mention any links to birth control... > The exact cause of uterine fibroids is unclear. However, fibroids run in families and appear to be partly determined by hormone levels. Risk factors include obesity and eating red meat.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    Hormone levels are impacted by birth control, maybe that's the mechanism.
  - newnewpdro 8y ago
    Reading comprehension fail; nowhere in my comment did I use the word 'cause'. The hormones involved in hormonal birth control are growth factors. If you have uterine fibroids (or a fetus), the hormones help them grow.
- Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
  Can you link any science showing that "hormonal birth control promotes the growth of fibroids (and cancer)."?
  - newnewpdro 8y ago
    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 cursory reading is hormonal birth control increases levels of the very hormones complementary to the growth of a fetus which also happens to help other things like fibroids/polyps/tumors whatever in the area to grow. I don't know that one can make the claim that the hormonal birth controls cause fibroids or cancer, as in increases the probability of these things developing. The trouble is once something like this is present, the birth control hormones make them grow larger and faster. After a quick google search just now I found [1], which states: "To help prevent more growth of the fibroid, your doctor may recommend that you stop taking birth control pills or hormone replacement therapy. But in some cases, your doctor may prescribe birth control pills to help control the bleeding and anemia from fibroids, even though the hormones may cause fibroids to grow." 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. If I had a teen-aged daughter, given what I've come to understand about hormonal birth control, I'd consider a copper IUD. [1] https://www.webmd.com/women/uterine-fibroids/understanding-uterine-fibroids-treatment https://www.webmd.com/women/uterine-fibroids/understanding-u...
INTPenis 8y ago
>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 population, you should be as simplistic and as helping as possible. Simply because you're dealing with all kinds of people, not just the smart ones. 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. How come we've gone 60 years with these pills? There are women who have entire careers behind them in biology and medical science and we're still using these pills. 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.
- jcoffland 8y ago
  > 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. Yeah, but try turning it around. "Easy. For you to explain… for him to use." I doubt they would have used this language for a male product. Either way, it sounds terribly patronizing.
  - ericand 8y ago
    Some of the other examples were advertisements to doctors. Would you still feel this way if that were the case on this one?
  - adrianN 8y ago
    Advertisements depict men as bumbling idiots all the time.
    - benj111 8y ago
      In the UK (at least) this seems to now be banned https://www.asa.org.uk/news/harmful-gender-stereotypes-in-ads-to-be-banned.html https://www.asa.org.uk/news/harmful-gender-stereotypes-in-ad... Edit: Wording
devoply 8y ago
> 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 on these days is in essence to destroy the concept of gender... and it is so far succeeding on this mission.
- ben1 8y ago
  > 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 option of "financial abortion" so that he has the same after-the-fact choice to not have a child that he didn't plan on having. It is best for society when children grow up with parents who both wanted them.
  - corvallis 8y ago
    > 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 party may change their mind. > at the very least the man should have the equal option of "financial abortion" No. Child support or co-parenting is not a punishment for the father, it is support for a child that exists. Also, men do not have to carry a pregnancy and go through childbirth and any resulting complications, and breastfeeding (if chosen). Let's accept that biology makes this situation unequal and not try to equalize it. > It is best for society when children grow up with parents who both wanted them. Possibly/probably. But growing up with two parents who both wanted a child is not the case for many existing people. Let's focus on managing the reality and making sure children grow up with the support of both parents when possible, and not focus on trying to do mental gymnastics to force the idea that any potential consequences of sex should not fall on men.
mdasen 8y ago
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 birth control (including teaching about it). However, it was in fact Pincus that suggested a 20-day regimen to Rock in their first collaborative study, specifically because withdrawal bleeding would reassure the women that they weren't pregnant. When the pill was new, pregnancy tests weren't easily available at drug stores for cheap. The pill was approved as birth control in 1960 and it wasn't 1977 that at-home pregnancy tests were available in the United States. Having a period was an assurance that the pill was working. Rock did a lot for the pill and was a huge force behind it. He did want the Catholic Church to see it as a variant of the rhythm method. However, the reason behind the withdrawal bleeding is more likely to be about the reassurance that one isn't pregnant. Given the lack of at-home pregnancy tests for the first 17 years of the pill's existence, withdrawal bleeding meant that you weren't pregnant. Event today, many people think skipping periods is weird or unnatural without any religious overtone to it.
- treis 8y ago
  >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.
exactly 8y ago
Exactly.
benj111 8y ago
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.
- nightfly 8y ago
  Less "some women might like it" and more it's often explicitly prescribed to help women with irregular cycles.
  - watwut 8y ago
    Regular period is more likable then irregular one. As in, if pill turns irregular to regular, women will like it.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  Not just regularly, but less painful and with fewer other undesirable side effects (mood swings, hot flushes etc) Source: My wife.
- toyg 8y ago
  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.
djsumdog 8y ago
I thought this was know for quite some time? I remember women taking about skipping the placebos back in the 2000s, and there were even adverts for FDA approved pills that limited the placebos to only four times a year.
k__ 8y ago
I know a few women who take the pill non-stop because they don't want to have their period ever again.

63 points by apsec112 8y ago

They give another reason that seems reasonable because the religious acceptance hope, that it would freak people out to stop having periods. That seems like a reasonable thing too. I know no one wants to have a period, but keeping close to natural behavior could make people accept it more easily.

chris_mc 8y ago
Clearly, that didn't work, so it's not very reasonable.

Nasrudith 8y ago

Huh interesting I thought the reason was more precautionary principle like they thought that disrupting the cycle entirely would cause other problems. That or being left in as a general health indicator given that disruption is itself occasionally a hint that something is wrong. I have no personal experience in that department to know how tolerable that would be for a generally fringe 'benefit'.

patrickg_zill 8y ago

The pill causes a lot of problems later in life; something only discovered recently, since it is a relatively new creation. It also changes mate preferences, and what that means for the future is unknown.

Spoom 8y ago
> 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)?
- plainOldText 8y ago
  Here you go: Does the contraceptive pill alter mate choice in humans? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19818527 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 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 mate could be considered an issue in the long term, but I assume you referred specifically to medical ones.
  - klyrs 8y ago
    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.2008.0990 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2008... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/
    - patrickg_zill 8y ago
      When does nature ever give us anything for free?
abledon 8y ago
""It also changes mate preferences, and what that means for the future is unknown."" Genepool collisions with suboptimal pairing enghhh. who is willing to give up 'sxxy time' all the time any time they want it.

newnewpdro 8y ago

Two women I know suffer from Uterine Fibroids [1] and their doctors both have said in so many words "the uterus is good for two things, growing babies and growing tumors". Both of these women took hormonal birth controls for most of their lives, and learned only after being diagnosed with fibroids that hormonal birth control promotes the growth of fibroids (and cancer). They're both pissed, and have both been advised to have hysterectomies. Through this lens, I get the impression that giving the uterus a break and letting things shed regularly is probably not a bad idea. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uterine_fibroid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uterine_fibroid

ukulele 8y ago
The article you link to literally says the cause is not known and does not mention any links to birth control... > The exact cause of uterine fibroids is unclear. However, fibroids run in families and appear to be partly determined by hormone levels. Risk factors include obesity and eating red meat.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  Hormone levels are impacted by birth control, maybe that's the mechanism.
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  Reading comprehension fail; nowhere in my comment did I use the word 'cause'. The hormones involved in hormonal birth control are growth factors. If you have uterine fibroids (or a fetus), the hormones help them grow.
Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
Can you link any science showing that "hormonal birth control promotes the growth of fibroids (and cancer)."?
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  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 cursory reading is hormonal birth control increases levels of the very hormones complementary to the growth of a fetus which also happens to help other things like fibroids/polyps/tumors whatever in the area to grow. I don't know that one can make the claim that the hormonal birth controls cause fibroids or cancer, as in increases the probability of these things developing. The trouble is once something like this is present, the birth control hormones make them grow larger and faster. After a quick google search just now I found [1], which states: "To help prevent more growth of the fibroid, your doctor may recommend that you stop taking birth control pills or hormone replacement therapy. But in some cases, your doctor may prescribe birth control pills to help control the bleeding and anemia from fibroids, even though the hormones may cause fibroids to grow." 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. If I had a teen-aged daughter, given what I've come to understand about hormonal birth control, I'd consider a copper IUD. [1] https://www.webmd.com/women/uterine-fibroids/understanding-uterine-fibroids-treatment https://www.webmd.com/women/uterine-fibroids/understanding-u...

INTPenis 8y ago

>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 population, you should be as simplistic and as helping as possible. Simply because you're dealing with all kinds of people, not just the smart ones. 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. How come we've gone 60 years with these pills? There are women who have entire careers behind them in biology and medical science and we're still using these pills. 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.

jcoffland 8y ago
> 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. Yeah, but try turning it around. "Easy. For you to explain… for him to use." I doubt they would have used this language for a male product. Either way, it sounds terribly patronizing.
- ericand 8y ago
  Some of the other examples were advertisements to doctors. Would you still feel this way if that were the case on this one?
- adrianN 8y ago
  Advertisements depict men as bumbling idiots all the time.
  - benj111 8y ago
    In the UK (at least) this seems to now be banned https://www.asa.org.uk/news/harmful-gender-stereotypes-in-ads-to-be-banned.html https://www.asa.org.uk/news/harmful-gender-stereotypes-in-ad... Edit: Wording

devoply 8y ago

> 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 on these days is in essence to destroy the concept of gender... and it is so far succeeding on this mission.

ben1 8y ago
> 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 option of "financial abortion" so that he has the same after-the-fact choice to not have a child that he didn't plan on having. It is best for society when children grow up with parents who both wanted them.
- corvallis 8y ago
  > 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 party may change their mind. > at the very least the man should have the equal option of "financial abortion" No. Child support or co-parenting is not a punishment for the father, it is support for a child that exists. Also, men do not have to carry a pregnancy and go through childbirth and any resulting complications, and breastfeeding (if chosen). Let's accept that biology makes this situation unequal and not try to equalize it. > It is best for society when children grow up with parents who both wanted them. Possibly/probably. But growing up with two parents who both wanted a child is not the case for many existing people. Let's focus on managing the reality and making sure children grow up with the support of both parents when possible, and not focus on trying to do mental gymnastics to force the idea that any potential consequences of sex should not fall on men.

mdasen 8y ago

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 birth control (including teaching about it). However, it was in fact Pincus that suggested a 20-day regimen to Rock in their first collaborative study, specifically because withdrawal bleeding would reassure the women that they weren't pregnant. When the pill was new, pregnancy tests weren't easily available at drug stores for cheap. The pill was approved as birth control in 1960 and it wasn't 1977 that at-home pregnancy tests were available in the United States. Having a period was an assurance that the pill was working. Rock did a lot for the pill and was a huge force behind it. He did want the Catholic Church to see it as a variant of the rhythm method. However, the reason behind the withdrawal bleeding is more likely to be about the reassurance that one isn't pregnant. Given the lack of at-home pregnancy tests for the first 17 years of the pill's existence, withdrawal bleeding meant that you weren't pregnant. Event today, many people think skipping periods is weird or unnatural without any religious overtone to it.

treis 8y ago
>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.

exactly 8y ago

Exactly.

benj111 8y ago

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.

nightfly 8y ago
Less "some women might like it" and more it's often explicitly prescribed to help women with irregular cycles.
- watwut 8y ago
  Regular period is more likable then irregular one. As in, if pill turns irregular to regular, women will like it.
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
Not just regularly, but less painful and with fewer other undesirable side effects (mood swings, hot flushes etc) Source: My wife.
toyg 8y ago
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.

djsumdog 8y ago

I thought this was know for quite some time? I remember women taking about skipping the placebos back in the 2000s, and there were even adverts for FDA approved pills that limited the placebos to only four times a year.

k__ 8y ago

I know a few women who take the pill non-stop because they don't want to have their period ever again.