Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on "This is a real war on women, and a war on children."

1

My girlfriend was on that period-once-every-three-months pill and it killed her libido completely. I doubt one that shuts down periods forever would do better for women so affected.

Posted by the nameless | May 24, 2007 8:16 PM
2

I want more babies, more babies

Posted by Vooodooo84 | May 24, 2007 8:26 PM
3

I'm all for it, as long as it doesn't kill my sex drive. I'm on the mini-pill right now and I love it. No side effects like so many of the others have. But no periods? That'd be a fucking wet dream! And I know I could just get my tubes tied, but I'm a cheap bastard. There's also that copper ring IUD they could insert. But it's copper...in your body....so who knows what it's gonna do to ya!

Posted by faux show | May 24, 2007 8:37 PM
4

Um, guys, you can do this with your regular birth control pill too, ya know. My lady doctor clued me in years ago. Just skip the placebo pills at the end and start a new pack. No period. For three months. Then take the placebo and presto, red letter days are back for one week. The only hassle is sometimes your health insurance doesn't want to give you a new pack because it "isn't allowed yet." Other than that, it's a wonderful life.

Posted by jessiesk | May 24, 2007 8:56 PM
5

It sort of amuses me, the fact that, in general, the far left is united against modern medicine - the pharmaceutical industry in particular - and deeply suspicious of any pill or procedure that offers any effect deemed in the least bit "unnatural." But that as soon as something comes along that helps advance their agenda (in this case the cause of women being less like women) they deem anyone who opposes it a "luddite."

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't blame women at all for wanting something like this. Spending one week a month bleeding out of your junk sucks, I'm sure. But I'm sort of surprised that there's not more suspicion of something this drastic. Especially given the not-so-great history of women's pharmaceuticals (or have we forgotten flipper babies already?)

Posted by R | May 24, 2007 8:56 PM
6

FYI, this pill is really nothing new. The FDA has essentially approved the idea of MARKETING a pill to be taken continuously. But women have been doing that with the regular old pill for years, on the advice of their doctors.

I've had a prescription for the past year for a generic birth control pill, with doctor's instructions to just throw away the placebo week and take the active pills continuously. No periods. It is awesome. (And has done nothing to my sex drive)

People making a big deal out of this don't understand that when you're on the pill, the "period" you get is in no way a period. Doctors don't even call it a period, they call it a "withdrawal bleed" or "pill-period." There is no medical reason that you should have a period once a month, once every three months, or ever, when on the pill. Your menstrual cycle is already stopped, and having women continue to have a "period" every month was basically a marketing decision back in the 60s, becuase they thought women wouldn't want to take it if it seemed too different from their natural cycle. (Also, it can make it hard to notice if you're pregnant, but isn't it easier to take a pregnancy test every month than have a period?)

Posted by Jessica | May 24, 2007 8:57 PM
7

I can tell you don't have to buy 'em for your girlfriend, Dan (and aren't ya glad!). That's Tampax. Tampax Brand tampoons. Adorable.

Posted by Bauhaus | May 24, 2007 9:05 PM
8

I love the sight of a bleach-blonde maniac who looks like she put her makeup on in the car chanting "I want more babies. I want more babies!"

It means that my decision to not leave the house today was a good one. Everyone is still completely insane.


...seriously though, I don't need to pop a kid out to be a woman. And anyone who's been on the pill for more than a month knows that you don't need to take a week off a month. People up in arms about this should really be given more encyclopedias and discovery channel specials for christmas, because they're not really educated enough to have a say about it.

Y'know my birth control method of choice? Paragard Intra-Uterine Device. No pills, no patch, no nonsense, and it works for TEN. YEARS.
I get my period, but it's worth it to pay $300 up front for ten years of no-babies.
And in 2016 I'm gettin my tubes tied. Someone tell this crazy blond chick, NOT EVERYONE CELEBRATES THEIR FIRTILITY. And that does not make me any less of a woman.

Posted by Monique | May 24, 2007 9:16 PM
9

sp - Tampax

Kotex is better, said my sister, great to shine the car as well

Posted by Essex | May 24, 2007 9:36 PM
10

@6 The reason why the pill included the unneccesary bleeding was because the inventor was actually a devout Catholic. He thought that if women still had to suffer the "curse" of menstruation, the Catholic Church might approve of it. Alas, it was not to be.

Additionally, there's nothing natural about the number of periods women currently have. Menstruation used to be a much less frequent event in a woman's life. Since being well nourished was less common prior to the modern era, many women were commonly amennorheic for long periods, and when they were fertile, they were popping out babies and breastfeeding with such regularity that it wasn't so much a monthly as a biannually.

And blurring the genders? Last I noticed, women who take this will still have tits and vaginas. A no period pill doesn't blur genders. David Bowie and Grace Jones blur genders.

Posted by Gitai | May 24, 2007 9:47 PM
11

Yes, women need to be protected from this pill, because all women are retarded.

That seemed to be that awful blonde's point.

Posted by blondes have less brains | May 24, 2007 10:08 PM
12

Women who take this pill need to think carefully about it...as they should with any birth control method. Many seem to think of the pill as a no-brainer. But it does change your hormones. Personally, it wiped out my libido completely, so I'm off it now. But if I had no side effects, I would consider taking this one. No cramps? Are you kidding?

Posted by Dianna | May 24, 2007 10:46 PM
13

OMG that blonde woman had no effing idea what she was talking about. You know your argument's bad when your only comeback is to start chanting "more babies, more babies!!". About 2/3 of the way in, the brunette woman gave the camera a look that was pure "Do you believe this shit?!".

Posted by genevieve | May 24, 2007 11:37 PM
14

I'm all for birth control, and the pill is fantastic, I took it myself for a time. However, many doctors don't tell their patients how many problems can arise from not having a menstrual cycle. The risk of cervical cancer rises astronomically if you have fewer than four periods a year. Preventing a healthy cycle can be a physically damaging thing, if the prescribing physician doesn't inform the patient of the "need to bleed" every three months.

For the women who have difficulty with their cycles, or who just don't want 12 of them a year, this is a wonderful thing, but I'm always nervous about putting my health in the hands of doctors, who often know less about the female anatomy than I do. I just hope people do their own research, and keep themselves healthy, while still avoiding all those babies that crazy women wants.

Posted by BeerBunny | May 25, 2007 12:57 AM
15

I want no periods. I still maintain it's the worst thing about being a woman. Maybe mine are particularly bad, or maybe I'm just in the middle of it today so I'm particularly feeling it, but it sucks. I'll welcome it leaving...

Posted by Abby | May 25, 2007 1:15 AM
16

Well clearly, the pill isn't for everyone. But it should definitely be available to anyone who wants it.

As for the left not being critical of it, *some* lefty feminists actually have spoken out against it, claiming that periods are a natural part of being a woman. Of course that's a hypocritical viewpoint, since if women have the right to terminate the "natural event" of a pregnancy, they sure as hell have a right to this drug, especially if they have extremely painful periods.

Posted by Jay | May 25, 2007 2:16 AM
17

playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god playing god

Posted by Giffy | May 25, 2007 3:20 AM
18

@ 3,4,5,6,10 & others

If you have any links to articles or studies I would love to be better informed.

Posted by student of the vagina | May 25, 2007 3:34 AM
19

i just wanted to thank all the women who posted here (especially you Monique). After i saw this video i had a panic attack.

The host outright states that he opposes the pill because it would allow women to have lots of sex without the fear/risk of pregnancy. Isn't that the fucking point? And when that woman started chanting "More babies!" at the end, i really lost it.

Hasn't ANYONE heard of a thing called "overpopulation"? We need much, much less babies. And i'd like to ask that host why girls shouldn't be allowed to fuck as much as they please without risk, we men have had that privilege for millenia.

i'm just sick over this whole thing. i'm sick and i'm shocked that a respected pundit can state the true motive of anti-abortionists (to stop women from enjoying sex) without compromising the feigned moral integrity of the anti-abortion cause.

Posted by coolidge | May 25, 2007 4:06 AM
20

If women not having periods means stopping people from spouting "Bitch must be PMSing!" for every little thing women do, then thank fucking God.

Posted by Gloria | May 25, 2007 5:40 AM
21

What's with the men cleaning the toilet on their hands and knees? Would that mean the end of western civilization to have a man help clean the house? Is that why fundies hate gays because it means that men are doing house work? The truth comes out, perhaps... If men pee standing up they get it everywhere no matter how careful, I think its only fair for them to clean the toilets- ask my son- you sit or you clean.

Posted by nelbot | May 25, 2007 7:20 AM
22

I saw a bumpersticker recently (or a t-shirt, I forget). It said "How can you be against children? That's like being against flowers!" I guess the point of it was, like the maniacal blonde in the video, we should all be making as many babies as we can pump out, all the time.

Hidden behind that though, is the very complex problem of unwanted pregnancies, accidental pregnancies, young mothers (and fathers), and just-plain-too-stupid-to-be-parents parents. Like that Vegan couple.

How would that maniacal blonde and people of her ilk address the problem? Really?

p.s. the brunette was hot. I'd hit it.

Posted by Dr_Awesome | May 25, 2007 7:31 AM
23

It's really hard to take the lady from the Abstinence Clearinghouse seriously as she gleefully chants "lies lies lies" and babbles about celebrating fertility and "more babies, more babies." From white upper income married hetero couples only, of course.

Here's what I'm celebrating: insurance that covers the Mirena IUD, and the freedom to get nailed by my husband six ways to Sunday without getting knocked up.

I used to be on the pill, and it killed whatever libido I had. The greatest part of the IUD is the chance that my periods GO AWAY for 5 years AND I got back my sex drive. Hot damn!

Posted by Jessica 2 | May 25, 2007 7:32 AM
24

Hey! I can pee standing up!

And gosh darn it, those pills are so wrong and evil because who knows what I'd do without those near-crippling cramps popping up in the middle of exams! I think my integrity would be totally ruined.

On a serious note, however, I don't believe in actually using hormone-based birth control for myself, because I've heard many studies that it can permanently damage the sex drive.

I wish that Indian drug "Centchroman" would get imported over here. No hormones, but it makes the period out of sync with the egg-release so you're infertile.

Posted by Juliet | May 25, 2007 8:11 AM
25

"IT IS ALWAYS A PERFECT TIME TO HAVE CHILDREN"

BITCH IS CRAZY

ALSO, BITCHES FORGET THAT EVERYONE'S PERIOD IS DIFFERENT. MINE = NO BIG DEAL, MY ROOMMATE = 2 FuCKIN WEEKS A MONTH. NEW PILL = JuST A DIFFERENT OPTION TO SERVE DIFFERENT BODIES.

Posted by hurrk | May 25, 2007 8:14 AM
26

There's no way that "woman" is a real woman. And, Bauhaus, "tampoons"? Yikes. I don't like that tang of that.

Posted by Fnarf | May 25, 2007 8:24 AM
27

Gender barriers will be blurred when prestigious CATHOLIC private medical institutions in my fucking country start prefering me (a female doctor) to my male colleagues to prescribe the magic pill to our lady patients.

Posted by tinydoc | May 25, 2007 8:36 AM
28

@2 - there's a dissertation defense next week at the UW on guys who really want to get their gf's preggers.

Now, if it was the Grey's Anatomy star in Knocked Up, I am so down with that!

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 25, 2007 8:50 AM
29

women COULD pee standing up if they were willing to use their hands to do some labial manipulations.

in theory. my lady won't even try when we're out in the middle of the NF.

Posted by maxsolomon | May 25, 2007 9:06 AM
30

@8: Oh god there are 2 Moniques on here. Weird. I am going to have to get a new handle. Or maybe I can be Original Monique, like Original Andrew?

...

Posted by Monique | May 25, 2007 9:13 AM
31

>Preventing a healthy cycle can be a physically damaging thing, if the prescribing physician doesn't inform the patient of the "need to bleed" every three months.

On the standard hormonal birth control pill, there is no "need to bleed." The pill prevents the lining of the uterus from being built up in the first place, so there is no reason to have to shed it.

Someone asked for links. I'm having a bit of trouble finding valid medical articles that are available to the general public, because the only way I know to search for those is through the university library and most people won't have a subscription to those journals. But you can find lots of sites that explain this stuff:


http://www.womhealth.org.au/healthjourney/pill_myths_misconceptions.htm

Highlights from that site:
"The rapid decline in the artificial hormones which occurs in the pill-free interval results in a 'withdrawal bleed', which somewhat resembles a menstrual period and is often still referred to as a 'period' for simplicity. It is important, however, for women to understand that when they take the Pill the bleeding which occurs during the pill free interval is not a menstrual period.

Similarly, women should be aware the current packaging of the Pill (21 active pills, seven day pill free interval) was developed primarily for acceptability reasons and not because of any physiological reason. "

[On a completely separate topic, why do I have to type in an email address every time I post? Its kind of a pain.]

Posted by Jessica | May 25, 2007 9:15 AM
32

I've always known you can just start taking your new pill pack early to skip a period. Unfortunately, my health insurance only allows for 12 packs a year. And I can't refill my prescription that often. So damn picky! At least they're not having to pay for me to raise a kid!!

Posted by faux show | May 25, 2007 9:27 AM
33

You know what's sad? I have been on The Pill almost half of my life and no one no where can ever tell me anything concrete about it. Yes, it lowers libido, no it doesn't. Yes it causes breast/uterine/cervical cancer. No it doesn't. Yes I will grow a 3rd breast. No I won't. Yes I am doing premanent damage to my body. No, I am 'preserving' my body. Why can't any doctors out there come up with some concrete facts about this pill that more people take than any other pill? You know why? Cause it's a pill for women, and unless women are having babies, who gives a shit about them. No matter what it's doing to me, I'd rather what it does than have a baby.

Posted by Diz | May 25, 2007 9:33 AM
34

You know what's sad? I have been on The Pill almost half of my life and no one no where can ever tell me anything concrete about it. Yes, it lowers libido, no it doesn't. Yes it causes breast/uterine/cervical cancer. No it doesn't. Yes I will grow a 3rd breast. No I won't. Yes I am doing permanent damage to my body. No, I am 'preserving' my body. Why can't any doctors out there come up with some concrete facts about this pill that more people take than any other pill? You know why? Cause it's a pill for women, and unless women are having babies, who gives a shit about them. No matter what it's doing to me, I'd rather what it does than have a baby.

Posted by Diz | May 25, 2007 9:34 AM
35

@ 30 - You can keep the Monique handle if you're actually in Seattle! God knows I'm reading this blog every day and I'm not even local...

Posted by Monique from Boston | May 25, 2007 10:19 AM
36

I personally don't use bc pills and would not want to do away with my periods, but I AM ALL FOR women having options.

The real point: Women should be trusted to make their own medical decisions in consultation with their doctors.

There was no debate like this when VIAGRA came out for men. People weren't yelling about how it could be "dangerous" for them. And how we should "protect" them. Or how it would be so "unnatural" or "unhealthy" for men to trigger hard-ons with pills whenever they felt like it.

The point is not whether a variety of bc pills (or ed meds) are good/safe or bad/problematic. The point is that these are personal medical decisions. A public policy debate is inappropriate.

We've got a long way to go... :(

Posted by lila | May 25, 2007 11:49 AM
37

have you noticed most anti abortionists are people that you wouldn't want to fuck anywho?

Posted by opus23 | May 25, 2007 12:08 PM
38

coolidge,

Niel Cavuto is many things, but respected pundit is not one of them.

Posted by Giffy | May 25, 2007 12:15 PM
39

Man, what a war! All these women who voluntarily seek these pills out and take them sure are victims of this horrible holocaust of children that nobody wants!

Posted by Gomez | May 25, 2007 12:58 PM
40

> @6 The reason why the pill
> included the unneccesary
> bleeding was because the
> inventor was actually a
> devout Catholic. He thought > that if women still had to
> suffer the "curse" of
> menstruation, the Catholic
> Church might approve of
> it. Alas, it was not to be.

Um, while Dr. Rock was certainly a Catholic, the Catholic Church was never going to approve birth control (or life control, when you get down to it), period or no period. And I suspect he knew that.

When the Pill was being developed fifty years ago, suppression of all periods all the time was thought to be potentially dangerous. And it may be for some women - a few studies have associated complete suppression of periods with cancer.

I've been on and off the Pill at least twice in my life, and had to get off it due to the fact it raises my blood pressure. The Pill isn't all things to all women. Luckily, my husband got a vasectomy years ago, so it hasn't been a problem over the long haul. Men, too, can take responsibility for birth control!

Posted by Laurie D. T. Mann | May 25, 2007 1:17 PM
41

@22,

And some people are allergic to flowers.

@29,

Sure, if they also want to risk getting pee all over their hands.

Posted by keshmeshi | May 25, 2007 1:29 PM
42

"No, the war on women is about these new fangled birth control pills that eliminate a woman’s periods for as long as she takes ‘em."

Funny thing is, the fewer periods you have, the slower the attenuation in fertility: each cycle wipes out a few more eggs, and the best eggs go through the ripening cycle first. So if you think you're gonna wait 'til you '30s to breed, this is a far better option than the conventional pill or rhythm method or whatever the blonde on fundy wingnut welfare is pushing, at least until the technology for freezing eggs or ovary tissue is perfected.

Posted by Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | May 25, 2007 2:41 PM
43

Wow, there are a lot of misconceptions on here about female physiology. I can't hope to address them all, but here are a few:

#3, you made it sound as if you thought getting your tubes tied would stop your periods. No such luck. I had mine tied when I was 31. I'm 47 and still getting periods, goddammit.

#5, way to use a broad brush to assume everyone on "the left" is a monolithic pod person with a single opinion. Everyone knows that's "the right."

#10 has it just right; it's actually extremely unhealthy for women to have the number of periods over the course of their life that some of us now do. I started having periods at 12, and since I've never been pregnant or amenorrheic, that means I've had nearly 500 periods in my life; far more than women used to have. This greatly increases risk of breast cancer, among other cancers.

#14, where do you get the information that not having periods increases risk of cervical cancer? That's precisely the reverse of everything I've ever read on the subject. There is actually no biological reason why a woman needs to accumulate and then shed uterine lining.

#17, um, yeah, whatEVER.

#26, I think that's a Southernism. My mother always pronounced it that way. Made me scared as hell to use them at first. I didn't want to be tampooned like a whale!

#33, no one can ever tell precisely what effects ANY drug will have on ANY of us - because we're all completely unique chemical mixing vessels. We each have unique blood chemistry, and are altering it with our own unique additions to it through what we ingest and are exposed to. In my case, the regular pill caused me to have virtually no periods, no cramps, no problems, and no reduction in libido. YMMV.

And any woman can pee standing up if she's willing to practice a little and use her hands to direct the flow.

Posted by Geni | May 25, 2007 2:48 PM
44

You know what else is really dangerous, Aspirin. It can cause this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reye%27s_syndrome
in our precious children and its sold OVER THE COUNTER (and at gas stations). Oh wait it doesn't let you fuck more (unless you really think headaches are an excuse) so no harm no foul.

Posted by Giffy | May 25, 2007 3:25 PM
45

>Funny thing is, the fewer periods you have, the slower the attenuation in fertility: each cycle wipes out a few more eggs, and the best eggs go through the ripening cycle first. So if you think you're gonna wait 'til you '30s to breed, this is a far better option than the conventional pill or rhythm method or whatever the blonde on fundy wingnut welfare is pushing, at least until the technology for freezing eggs or ovary tissue is perfected.


You might be right about the rest of this, but you said this is "a better option than the conventional pill" becuase it stops ovulation. You should be aware that the conventional pill also stops ovulation.

Posted by Jessica | May 25, 2007 3:47 PM
46

How are babby formed?

Posted by Jay | May 25, 2007 5:06 PM
47

I've done this for years, on the advice of my gynecologist, to avoid my painful periods. Never had a moment's trouble.

A female med student I knew years ago said many female med students do this, because they just don't have time for down time.

Posted by suzie | May 27, 2007 6:47 PM
48

cvutbixo sdfukc urti iwknf pnazt ycqtxhngp nroqjhmuv

Posted by tikxguyop ahevdnfzq | June 2, 2007 1:34 PM
49

lzsd eznt akgeqm qaley eytvknl ygcq tcewqflu mlceoijy fazrjkh

Posted by gklvd erasu | June 2, 2007 1:36 PM
50

xtzhrk exlb gjrbosw spfkygvc mfztcowse kwxrgiajt weqznrl [URL=http://www.ydabs.lhpy.com]wilanqex qspjewbu[/URL]

Posted by kocbz ahlmkst | June 2, 2007 1:37 PM
51

xtzhrk exlb gjrbosw spfkygvc mfztcowse kwxrgiajt weqznrl [URL=http://www.ydabs.lhpy.com]wilanqex qspjewbu[/URL]

Posted by kocbz ahlmkst | June 2, 2007 1:38 PM
52

afdmhvtyx iaqn onmsjfq yrdvbgl grabhfc rdmkgitln bmdguekl [URL]http://www.hbsynp.nirx.com[/URL] tgwlu spjx

Posted by ruid pdnv | June 2, 2007 1:39 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).