
Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017) - apsec112
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/yw3p4g/why-you-have-your-period-on-birth-control-withdrawal-bleeding
======
mdasen
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
>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.

------
INTPenis
>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
> 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.

~~~
gambiting
There's an ad on British TV at the moment showing a woman saying to a man that
she got him a gym membership and patting him on the belly as she says so. It's
incredibly patronising and I can't ever imagine the same ad with gender roles
reversed being allowed on TV.

~~~
watwut
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.

~~~
gambiting
>>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.

~~~
jcoffland
> 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.

------
Nasrudith
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'.

------
benj111
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
Less "some women might like it" and more it's often explicitly prescribed to
help women with irregular cycles.

~~~
watwut
Regular period is more likable then irregular one. As in, if pill turns
irregular to regular, women will like it.

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

------
djsumdog
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.

------
devoply
> 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
> 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
> 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.

~~~
belorn
Support to a child does not go away just because a child has one parent or no
parents. Demanding that the payment be done by an unwilling parent rather than
society has everything to do with our cultural views. If we truly saw this as
the child rights to get support then it should not matter who is paying the
bill. The mother, the father, or the government.

Parenthood should be built on consent by both the mother and the father.
Biology dictate that women should have the finally decision if she wants to
have an abortion, but there is nothing biological to the fact that women have
the exclusive right to declare in legal document who will fathering the child.
That is just law, which can be changed and rewritten in any form depending on
cultural values.

------
patrickg_zill
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
> 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
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
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...](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2008.0990)

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

~~~
patrickg_zill
When does nature ever give us anything for free?

------
Latteland
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
Clearly, that didn't work, so it's not very reasonable.

------
newnewpdro
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
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
Hormone levels are impacted by birth control, maybe that's the mechanism.

