Davina McCall’s new special, Pill Revolution, starts with an eye-catching visual: McCall, wearing a red dress and a megawatt gameshow host’s grin, spins a giant roulette wheel labelled with all the potential side effects of hormonal birth control. A dizzying array of horrors flies across the screen — HAIR LOSS! BLEEDING! WEIGHT GAIN! BLOOD CLOT! — before the camera pans to the “contestants”, a trio of stuffed animals sitting above nametags that read: GUINEA PIG.
It’s not exactly subtle. And it’s not exactly misguided, either: in the Fifties, when Dr Gregory Pincus began testing an early prototype for the pill, his test cases were incarcerated, institutionalised, and impoverished women. In other words, women whose incapacitation and economic despair made them easy to take advantage of. It was a deplorable measure, in a desperate time: funding for birth-control research was banned by the US government until 1959, so Pincus’s work was supported by private donors, whose advocacy was directly downstream from an unsavoury enthusiasm for eugenics. For those funding the research, the pill represented a way to keep the wrong people from procreating. For the doctors who created it, the pill was an exciting scientific challenge.
That it would eventually emerge as a vehicle of female sexual liberation, one of the most socially important breakthroughs in medical history, was something neither party anticipated. While women’s bodies and biology were central to the science of the birth control pill, women themselves — not only the ones who served as guinea pigs, but also the ones who would eventually choose to take the pill — were treated as something of an afterthought. Pincus rather infamously wrote off his patients’ self-reported side effects — that same litany of problems featured on McCall’s wild spinning wheel — as the “psychogenic” products of an overactive imagination.
In short, McCall is right to suggest that the ubiquity of the birth control pill has come at the expense of women’s ability to express their concerns about it. And with Pill Revolution, she seems poised to usher in a new age of pill-related controversy: one centred on health concerns.
In this, she is unlike early critics of the pill, who were, of course, far more concerned with sexual morality than women’s wellbeing. Hormonal contraception has long been a source of consternation amongst conservatives, particularly the religious variety, who see it as a facilitator of consequence-free sexual intercourse. That loathing has little to do with the pill specifically — and more to do with a categorically antagonistic relationship toward non-procreative sex of all kinds — but it proved markedly influential in the public conversation about birth control.
For me, that influence was most clearly visible in the form of abstinence-focused sex education programmes, which were ubiquitous in American public schools in the Nineties — including the one I attended. Among other things, these classes were an exercise in institutionalised slut-shaming. Often, a piece of lint-covered Scotch tape would be brought out as a visual representation of how premarital sex ruined a woman’s ability to bond with her eventual husband. And with the primary goal of discouraging teens from doing it, the instruction we received in reproductive science verged on intentional disinformation. Girls, it was understood, were so wildly and indiscriminately fertile that just looking at an erect penis from across the room might result in pregnancy.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“The topic of birth control has never not been fraught, but it has also long been dominated by men,”
Well, as a man I am fully aware that whilst women may be empowered by the pill, men benefit at least as much. Whatever tthe word empowered is supposed to mean of course – As far as I can see it means little more than pretending that no distinction can be made between men and women. From a man’s point of view, women are much easier to lay if there is the promise of an easy way to avoid pregnancy. For whilst pregnancy is a life-changing, as well as a life-creating event for a women, it can easily prove little more than an inconvenience for a man. (Men who come here and deny that elementary biological and psychological fact are not telling the truth) Of course, prior to the pill, we found many creative ways to have fun. Perhaps Americans were too prim to indulge in such things and preferred bible-bashing – Each to his own.
We mustn’t forget that the risk of pregnancy provided young women with a very effective means of denying s e x to suitors who they didn’t fancy. Useful, as women are clearly a lot fussier than men (this is not a compelling argument for not being on the pill, but let’s not dismiss it entirely), I remember when my then girlfriend and I went to a family planning clinic to get a prescription. It seemed to me that the main concern of the polite but formidible ladies at the clinic was to ensure that I was in a serious relationship with my girlfriend. Rather quaint by modern standards perhaps, but I didn’t object, as I knew that their concern was genuine: Older women defending younger women – Lament the demise of the chaperone!
At age 62, through two marriages and raising an adult daughter, I have NEVER seen the topic of birth control dominated by men. Mothers routinely put their daughters on birth control with no involvement of the fathers. Now, young women are expected to have casual sex along the only viable path to a long-term relationship. I fail to see how any of this serves women’s interests rather than men’s. If fathers were consulted they would have explained this to their wives and daughters.
Well said! You have a lucky daughter!
Because they obviously have no brains and need it explained to them, right? You may find it incredible, but women *do* have an interest in sex and benefit as much as men from getting however much of it they want. That some men believe that there’s nothing in sex for women is their problem, not women’s.
I wonder what the evidence is that women (or men) “benefit from getting as much sex as they want.”
I assume the evidence is the same as the evidence of the benefit my children claim from getting as much ice cream as they want. “It tastes good!” What more does one need know?
Well, dear children, there’s obesity, diabetes, tooth decay, sugar lows, etc. Some even say that eating sugar all the time dulls the brain’s receptors, so that sugar is less pleasurable when over-consumed. Perhaps many of the body’s appetites work in similar fashion.
I think that you may be overlooking something: The potential cost bears more heavily on women than on men. As I have said before, the idea of “free” love was the greatest con trick that men ever played on women. It was a great benefit for me. For you, not so much.
I wonder what the evidence is that women (or men) “benefit from getting as much sex as they want.”
I assume the evidence is the same as the evidence of the benefit my children claim from getting as much ice cream as they want. “It tastes good!” What more does one need know?
Well, dear children, there’s obesity, diabetes, tooth decay, sugar lows, etc. Some even say that eating sugar all the time dulls the brain’s receptors, so that sugar is less pleasurable when over-consumed. Perhaps many of the body’s appetites work in similar fashion.
I think that you may be overlooking something: The potential cost bears more heavily on women than on men. As I have said before, the idea of “free” love was the greatest con trick that men ever played on women. It was a great benefit for me. For you, not so much.
It may seem to some men that all their birthdays have come at once with so many young women on the pill as I was. Whatever is expected of young women on the pill, a sexual relationship is still the matter of choice it always was. its not the closed subject it once was either. My granddaughter, who lives with her boyfriend did not do so without discussing the pros and cons with her mother, myself and friends first. In the family we respected her views on the matter and she ours.
Well said! You have a lucky daughter!
Because they obviously have no brains and need it explained to them, right? You may find it incredible, but women *do* have an interest in sex and benefit as much as men from getting however much of it they want. That some men believe that there’s nothing in sex for women is their problem, not women’s.
It may seem to some men that all their birthdays have come at once with so many young women on the pill as I was. Whatever is expected of young women on the pill, a sexual relationship is still the matter of choice it always was. its not the closed subject it once was either. My granddaughter, who lives with her boyfriend did not do so without discussing the pros and cons with her mother, myself and friends first. In the family we respected her views on the matter and she ours.
Absolutely spot on. The pill, like abortion, is a tool for the exploitation of women, not their liberation
By all means argue with Annemarie, but do not downvote her.
The truth is more complex than some people think. I know women who have had abortions, and after a few drinks they will tell you the truth: Abortion is psychologically traumatic. And that trauma is biologically driven – not airey fairy nonsense that you can dismiss.
Its fascinating to see the perverse view that disabling and profoundly altering a woman’s natural healthy self is “empowering” as he Marxist feminists perversely hold. And then killing her child as part of what’s it called… “reproductive health”.
So much stranger than fiction this newspeak.
By all means argue with Annemarie, but do not downvote her.
The truth is more complex than some people think. I know women who have had abortions, and after a few drinks they will tell you the truth: Abortion is psychologically traumatic. And that trauma is biologically driven – not airey fairy nonsense that you can dismiss.
Its fascinating to see the perverse view that disabling and profoundly altering a woman’s natural healthy self is “empowering” as he Marxist feminists perversely hold. And then killing her child as part of what’s it called… “reproductive health”.
So much stranger than fiction this newspeak.
At age 62, through two marriages and raising an adult daughter, I have NEVER seen the topic of birth control dominated by men. Mothers routinely put their daughters on birth control with no involvement of the fathers. Now, young women are expected to have casual sex along the only viable path to a long-term relationship. I fail to see how any of this serves women’s interests rather than men’s. If fathers were consulted they would have explained this to their wives and daughters.
Absolutely spot on. The pill, like abortion, is a tool for the exploitation of women, not their liberation
“The topic of birth control has never not been fraught, but it has also long been dominated by men,”
Well, as a man I am fully aware that whilst women may be empowered by the pill, men benefit at least as much. Whatever tthe word empowered is supposed to mean of course – As far as I can see it means little more than pretending that no distinction can be made between men and women. From a man’s point of view, women are much easier to lay if there is the promise of an easy way to avoid pregnancy. For whilst pregnancy is a life-changing, as well as a life-creating event for a women, it can easily prove little more than an inconvenience for a man. (Men who come here and deny that elementary biological and psychological fact are not telling the truth) Of course, prior to the pill, we found many creative ways to have fun. Perhaps Americans were too prim to indulge in such things and preferred bible-bashing – Each to his own.
We mustn’t forget that the risk of pregnancy provided young women with a very effective means of denying s e x to suitors who they didn’t fancy. Useful, as women are clearly a lot fussier than men (this is not a compelling argument for not being on the pill, but let’s not dismiss it entirely), I remember when my then girlfriend and I went to a family planning clinic to get a prescription. It seemed to me that the main concern of the polite but formidible ladies at the clinic was to ensure that I was in a serious relationship with my girlfriend. Rather quaint by modern standards perhaps, but I didn’t object, as I knew that their concern was genuine: Older women defending younger women – Lament the demise of the chaperone!
The pill did not liberate women, sexually, it liberated men… from the responsibility of parenthood, and spawned a legacy of single mothers. Sex outside of a loving, committed relationship is all upside for men and all downside for women. Hope this trend discontinues soon as we desperately need to get our birth rates up!
Also…
“For those funding the research, the pill represented a way to keep the wrong people from procreating.”
Indeed. Those people were eugenicists… same sorts of people who engineered the death camps. Evil, God-loathing types.
I’m a little unconvinced. I would say to a young man having casual sex, wear a condon and, ahem, don’t finish inside.
Nothing’s foolproof and the women will need to protect herself but with a belt and braces approach an unwanted pregnancy is unlikely.
So of course this doesn’t account for drunken sex but that’s a hell of a risk anyway.
I would say to anyone considering casual sex… don’t do it, it’s never worth it. Focus on building a loving and trusting relationship with someone before engaging in sex.
Luckily for men very few young women will heed this advice.
Feminism and the pill have been wonderful for men.
Let’s not spoil the fun.
I’ve been faithfully and happily married for 34 years. I think, however, it may be beneficial to coping with a long term relationship to take responsibility in a short term one. After all, we don’t know how long it will last.
I would say to anyone considering casual sex….fill your boots. It’s certainly much more fun than going home alone at the end of the night
It doesn’t matter what the subject of the article is, you always chime in to say the same thing. We get it, you have sex.
It’s more a reaction to all the holier than thou puritans who look down on those who don’t follow their pious lifestyle.
And as for the sex, I don’t have it half as much anymore. I’m too lazy, I prefer to have a cup of tea
Nothing “holier than thou” about not chemically altering the girl you say you care for , or telling her the dismembered body removed from her womb wasn’t really a little girl or boy.
Or the death of the west demographers point to in 2150. You’re really not on any moral high ground.
Nothing “holier than thou” about not chemically altering the girl you say you care for , or telling her the dismembered body removed from her womb wasn’t really a little girl or boy.
Or the death of the west demographers point to in 2150. You’re really not on any moral high ground.
It’s more a reaction to all the holier than thou puritans who look down on those who don’t follow their pious lifestyle.
And as for the sex, I don’t have it half as much anymore. I’m too lazy, I prefer to have a cup of tea
It doesn’t matter what the subject of the article is, you always chime in to say the same thing. We get it, you have sex.
Luckily for men very few young women will heed this advice.
Feminism and the pill have been wonderful for men.
Let’s not spoil the fun.
I’ve been faithfully and happily married for 34 years. I think, however, it may be beneficial to coping with a long term relationship to take responsibility in a short term one. After all, we don’t know how long it will last.
I would say to anyone considering casual sex….fill your boots. It’s certainly much more fun than going home alone at the end of the night
Spoken like a sexually liberated man. Casual sex is fine, just wear a condom and “don’t finish inside”.
Get a vasectomy, just don’t advertise the fact.
Wish I’d thought of that years ago, would have saved me a fortune!
Wish I’d thought of that years ago, would have saved me a fortune!
Get a vasectomy, just don’t advertise the fact.
I would say to anyone considering casual sex… don’t do it, it’s never worth it. Focus on building a loving and trusting relationship with someone before engaging in sex.
Spoken like a sexually liberated man. Casual sex is fine, just wear a condom and “don’t finish inside”.
Yes, because controlling whe you get pregnant is awful or something.
Actually no one can control when they get pregnant. Absolutely no one. If they could, there wouldn’t be millions of infertile couples out there trying desperately to do exactly that.
The most you can do is try to control the risk of pregnancy…and that risk, using BC pills, on average stands at about 9%, assuming normal error-prone human behavior.
But no one is saying that trying to control that risk is “awful”. What is being said is that the illusion that the risk has been eliminated (via BC pills) has been a significant part of a massive cultural problem which has pushed out-of-wedlock births from about 5% in 1965 to about 40% today. This is significant, of course, because there is a very strong correlation between single-parent homes and crime, drug abuse, poverty, etc.
Those are the ‘awful’ things…and they are made much more likely if people are seduced by the extraordinarily dangerous notion that BC pills make sex risk-free.
Actually no one can control when they get pregnant. Absolutely no one. If they could, there wouldn’t be millions of infertile couples out there trying desperately to do exactly that.
The most you can do is try to control the risk of pregnancy…and that risk, using BC pills, on average stands at about 9%, assuming normal error-prone human behavior.
But no one is saying that trying to control that risk is “awful”. What is being said is that the illusion that the risk has been eliminated (via BC pills) has been a significant part of a massive cultural problem which has pushed out-of-wedlock births from about 5% in 1965 to about 40% today. This is significant, of course, because there is a very strong correlation between single-parent homes and crime, drug abuse, poverty, etc.
Those are the ‘awful’ things…and they are made much more likely if people are seduced by the extraordinarily dangerous notion that BC pills make sex risk-free.
Surely not being on the pill would lead to more single mothers, as many more sexual encounters would run the risk of an unwanted pregnancy?
Exactly!! I’m amazed that unherd published this piece
It’s like something a teenager would write.
She wrote an essay based on Davina McCall’s new special, Pill Revolution…what’s wrong with that? You’re too harsh. It’s important to lay out the arguments pro and con.
It really is. Includes all the Marxist “empowerment” trash as well. Lost in the maze.
She wrote an essay based on Davina McCall’s new special, Pill Revolution…what’s wrong with that? You’re too harsh. It’s important to lay out the arguments pro and con.
It really is. Includes all the Marxist “empowerment” trash as well. Lost in the maze.
I’m a little unconvinced. I would say to a young man having casual sex, wear a condon and, ahem, don’t finish inside.
Nothing’s foolproof and the women will need to protect herself but with a belt and braces approach an unwanted pregnancy is unlikely.
So of course this doesn’t account for drunken sex but that’s a hell of a risk anyway.
Yes, because controlling whe you get pregnant is awful or something.
Surely not being on the pill would lead to more single mothers, as many more sexual encounters would run the risk of an unwanted pregnancy?
Exactly!! I’m amazed that unherd published this piece
It’s like something a teenager would write.
The pill did not liberate women, sexually, it liberated men… from the responsibility of parenthood, and spawned a legacy of single mothers. Sex outside of a loving, committed relationship is all upside for men and all downside for women. Hope this trend discontinues soon as we desperately need to get our birth rates up!
Also…
“For those funding the research, the pill represented a way to keep the wrong people from procreating.”
Indeed. Those people were eugenicists… same sorts of people who engineered the death camps. Evil, God-loathing types.
I had been on hormonal birth control since I was about 16 and only recently came off of it a few years ago at 33 (mainly due to a complete loss of trust for pharmaceuticals after the mRNA vaccine push).
I’ve suffered anxiety and depression my whole life, but within about 6 months of coming off the pill my symptoms subsided significantly. It’s definitely something that exists even though I’m no longer interfering with my hormones, but to a much smaller degree.
I had no expectations when ceasing use that anything would change, I had just become uncomfortable with long-term treatments that weren’t medically necessary.
Yes. I also went on it at 16, my mother said it would control my bad moods that she didn’t like! Well,I felt quite bovine, like a passive cow, on it. But was so young and unaware that meds had side effects. In early 30s I came off it. Just intuition that it wasn’t good for me. So many variables it’s hard to say definitively, but I never once considered going back on it, as I felt much more alive,sparky, and more myself once I came off it. It became my personal conspiracy theory that the pill was convenient to authorities as it kept us docile, perhaps due to a feeling as if we’re pregnant all the time.
There are plenty of alternatives available for women who dislike the pill – barrier methods that can be very reliable if used properly. The main point of the pill is its convenience. I took it with me to Africa because it was the best option under the circumstances but when I retuned to the UK I successfully used a barrier method.
There are so many differences between birth control brands. Hormone makeups and side effects can vary greatly between them. I think the biggest issue is the lack of transparency for patients about the different kinds and the side effects. I, like you, started birth control as a teen and have been fortunate not to have any negative side effects whatsoever. It makes my skin radiant and helps reduce the occurence of painful ovarian cysts. My temperament has never changed. I’ve always been quite fiery and energetic. I’m certain that my family would never put my name in the same sentence as the words “passive,” “sluggish,” or “depressive.” It wasn’t until more recently that I conducted my own in-depth research on birth control and discovered how widely different the effects can be depending on your own body and the type of contraception you’re using. Doctors too often put girls on high-dose pills, which isn’t necessary unless being used to treat an illness such as PCOS. In recent years, the arm implants and hormonal IUD have become quite popular, and those have even higher levels of hormones than pill forms. In my experience, doctors just throw an Rx for bc at you without giving you any info on your options or asking what you’re concerns are. You have to completely be your own advocate. And this is also true when it comes to preparing to deliver a child.
After doing my research, I asked to be given the lowest-dose combination pill available so that I could still prevent cysts without subjecting myself to unnecessary levels of estrogen. It was sad to me how hard it felt I had to press the medical staff not to overmedicate me.
There are plenty of alternatives available for women who dislike the pill – barrier methods that can be very reliable if used properly. The main point of the pill is its convenience. I took it with me to Africa because it was the best option under the circumstances but when I retuned to the UK I successfully used a barrier method.
There are so many differences between birth control brands. Hormone makeups and side effects can vary greatly between them. I think the biggest issue is the lack of transparency for patients about the different kinds and the side effects. I, like you, started birth control as a teen and have been fortunate not to have any negative side effects whatsoever. It makes my skin radiant and helps reduce the occurence of painful ovarian cysts. My temperament has never changed. I’ve always been quite fiery and energetic. I’m certain that my family would never put my name in the same sentence as the words “passive,” “sluggish,” or “depressive.” It wasn’t until more recently that I conducted my own in-depth research on birth control and discovered how widely different the effects can be depending on your own body and the type of contraception you’re using. Doctors too often put girls on high-dose pills, which isn’t necessary unless being used to treat an illness such as PCOS. In recent years, the arm implants and hormonal IUD have become quite popular, and those have even higher levels of hormones than pill forms. In my experience, doctors just throw an Rx for bc at you without giving you any info on your options or asking what you’re concerns are. You have to completely be your own advocate. And this is also true when it comes to preparing to deliver a child.
After doing my research, I asked to be given the lowest-dose combination pill available so that I could still prevent cysts without subjecting myself to unnecessary levels of estrogen. It was sad to me how hard it felt I had to press the medical staff not to overmedicate me.
Yes. I also went on it at 16, my mother said it would control my bad moods that she didn’t like! Well,I felt quite bovine, like a passive cow, on it. But was so young and unaware that meds had side effects. In early 30s I came off it. Just intuition that it wasn’t good for me. So many variables it’s hard to say definitively, but I never once considered going back on it, as I felt much more alive,sparky, and more myself once I came off it. It became my personal conspiracy theory that the pill was convenient to authorities as it kept us docile, perhaps due to a feeling as if we’re pregnant all the time.
I had been on hormonal birth control since I was about 16 and only recently came off of it a few years ago at 33 (mainly due to a complete loss of trust for pharmaceuticals after the mRNA vaccine push).
I’ve suffered anxiety and depression my whole life, but within about 6 months of coming off the pill my symptoms subsided significantly. It’s definitely something that exists even though I’m no longer interfering with my hormones, but to a much smaller degree.
I had no expectations when ceasing use that anything would change, I had just become uncomfortable with long-term treatments that weren’t medically necessary.
Agree with a lot that has been said below already.
What baffles me as a women is how the medical Establishment ans big pharma suggest that a woman can become pregnant at any time… but the reality is that its only a few days a month which women if they follow their cycle and know their bodies can very well circumvent naturally without having to Pop hormone pills with all their potential side effects. That would be true empowerment.
As someone who has been put on the pill when I was 16 by my doctor for convenience sake of dealing with my teenage acne im horrified today of how “well meaning doctors” are treating their patients. There is in 99% of the cases NO I formed consent or true education.
In my long career teaching biology I always spent as much time as possible explaining women’s menstrual cycle. In fact, used properly, natural family planning is more reliable than any other method. The abstinence (or use of barrier methods) in the pre-ovulatory phase certainly makes the partners more appreciative of the post-ovulatory freedoms! Not very suitable for many women especially the young, but huge rewards for those who persevere with the added bonus of knowing exactly when she is fertile for when pregnancy is desired.
Interestingly, women that I have “known” in that sense didn’t favor the pill. This was long ago and I’ll be the first to say that it’s a very insignificant sample but I got the sense that the same was true for most of their friends. Comical tales of diaphram mishaps were a common trope of the time.
So, yes. The rhythm method was in use, if only as a back-up, and I suppose has been all along.
Of course, this “hybrid” method was not one hundred percent effective.
Plus ca change!
Interestingly, women that I have “known” in that sense didn’t favor the pill. This was long ago and I’ll be the first to say that it’s a very insignificant sample but I got the sense that the same was true for most of their friends. Comical tales of diaphram mishaps were a common trope of the time.
So, yes. The rhythm method was in use, if only as a back-up, and I suppose has been all along.
Of course, this “hybrid” method was not one hundred percent effective.
Plus ca change!
But nature has made it that women feel more horny when they are ovulating.
In my long career teaching biology I always spent as much time as possible explaining women’s menstrual cycle. In fact, used properly, natural family planning is more reliable than any other method. The abstinence (or use of barrier methods) in the pre-ovulatory phase certainly makes the partners more appreciative of the post-ovulatory freedoms! Not very suitable for many women especially the young, but huge rewards for those who persevere with the added bonus of knowing exactly when she is fertile for when pregnancy is desired.
But nature has made it that women feel more horny when they are ovulating.
Agree with a lot that has been said below already.
What baffles me as a women is how the medical Establishment ans big pharma suggest that a woman can become pregnant at any time… but the reality is that its only a few days a month which women if they follow their cycle and know their bodies can very well circumvent naturally without having to Pop hormone pills with all their potential side effects. That would be true empowerment.
As someone who has been put on the pill when I was 16 by my doctor for convenience sake of dealing with my teenage acne im horrified today of how “well meaning doctors” are treating their patients. There is in 99% of the cases NO I formed consent or true education.
What this article ignores is that not all women take the pill for pregnancy avoiding reasons. Some women suffer terribly every month with heavy, painful bleeding and wild hormonal mood swings and the pill can help relieve this, in the same way that some women benefit more from HRT than others.
I’d also add that hook up culture concerns should be more about the spreading of STIs than unwanted babies and condoms are the most effective for protecting against both.
Very well said, Lindsay, both things are so true.
Very well said, Lindsay, both things are so true.
What this article ignores is that not all women take the pill for pregnancy avoiding reasons. Some women suffer terribly every month with heavy, painful bleeding and wild hormonal mood swings and the pill can help relieve this, in the same way that some women benefit more from HRT than others.
I’d also add that hook up culture concerns should be more about the spreading of STIs than unwanted babies and condoms are the most effective for protecting against both.
The pill exists… take it if you want to, don’t take it if you don’t.
Are you adults with agency or mindless pawns unable to control your own life?
The author of this piece seems more than a little ambivalent about the entire subject, sitting on the fence throughout. Her only one concrete remark is that men are responsible for all the problems.
In terms of pros and cons surely one of our greatest concerns should be the female hormones excreted in urine that pollute our rivers and drinking water: adversely affecting the reproduction of amphibians, fish, and to and unknown extent, even humans.
That was the main point I got from it too.
Despite the fact it was 60s feminists who championed the pill and saw it as a tool in the emancipation of women from the slavery of motherhood… the whole thing was apparently forced on them by men. To a feminist everything has to be the fault of men.
The problem with this perspective (“take it if you want to”) is that the pill manifestly alters one’s feelings and desires. After having learned a bit about this phenomenon, my wife and I were astonished to realize that we knew at least three women who initiated a divorce within months of ceasing hormonal birth control. Something inexplicable had changed (for the worse of course) regarding these women’s physical comportment with their partners: He no longer “smelled right,” for example.
Never had any effect on my desires and feelings, myself and my late husband had an active sex life right up until a few months before he died – when he was too ill. Do not put your anecdotal experiences onto all women, or all couples.
Yes I know loads of women who took the pill and remained happily married – if it was really as bad as Alan B suggests there would have been a huge outcry. It works fine for most women. There are alternatives for those that don’t like it.
Yes I know loads of women who took the pill and remained happily married – if it was really as bad as Alan B suggests there would have been a huge outcry. It works fine for most women. There are alternatives for those that don’t like it.
If what you state is accurate and commonplace then the majority of adult females are not in their right minds and are being randomly manipulated by chemicals.
Oh, wait a minute…
Never had any effect on my desires and feelings, myself and my late husband had an active sex life right up until a few months before he died – when he was too ill. Do not put your anecdotal experiences onto all women, or all couples.
If what you state is accurate and commonplace then the majority of adult females are not in their right minds and are being randomly manipulated by chemicals.
Oh, wait a minute…
Interesting point.
“surely one of our greatest concerns should be the female hormones excreted in urine that pollute our rivers and drinking water: adversely affecting the reproduction of amphibians, fish and even humans”
The idea that we just don’t know how the pill might be affecting human reproduction… and think of the toads! Civilization is collapsing around us, but think of the poor toads!
No disrespect intended, but I found this to be hilarious.
Fair enough. In the context of global problems it’s a relatively minor problem but in the context of birth control pills (which is the subject matter at hand) then the pollution of rivers, lakes and our drinking water with female hormones is a serious issue.
Fair enough. In the context of global problems it’s a relatively minor problem but in the context of birth control pills (which is the subject matter at hand) then the pollution of rivers, lakes and our drinking water with female hormones is a serious issue.
That was the main point I got from it too.
Despite the fact it was 60s feminists who championed the pill and saw it as a tool in the emancipation of women from the slavery of motherhood… the whole thing was apparently forced on them by men. To a feminist everything has to be the fault of men.
The problem with this perspective (“take it if you want to”) is that the pill manifestly alters one’s feelings and desires. After having learned a bit about this phenomenon, my wife and I were astonished to realize that we knew at least three women who initiated a divorce within months of ceasing hormonal birth control. Something inexplicable had changed (for the worse of course) regarding these women’s physical comportment with their partners: He no longer “smelled right,” for example.
Interesting point.
“surely one of our greatest concerns should be the female hormones excreted in urine that pollute our rivers and drinking water: adversely affecting the reproduction of amphibians, fish and even humans”
The idea that we just don’t know how the pill might be affecting human reproduction… and think of the toads! Civilization is collapsing around us, but think of the poor toads!
No disrespect intended, but I found this to be hilarious.
The pill exists… take it if you want to, don’t take it if you don’t.
Are you adults with agency or mindless pawns unable to control your own life?
The author of this piece seems more than a little ambivalent about the entire subject, sitting on the fence throughout. Her only one concrete remark is that men are responsible for all the problems.
In terms of pros and cons surely one of our greatest concerns should be the female hormones excreted in urine that pollute our rivers and drinking water: adversely affecting the reproduction of amphibians, fish, and to and unknown extent, even humans.
In a way the pill took away a woman’s right to say “no”. Before the introduction of the pill, if a woman said “yes”, she’s a s/*t ( /=l, *=u, the algorithm doesn’t like the actual word); after the introduction, if she said “no” she is frigid. Either way, she was demonized. No such demonizing occurs for men.
I remember in the 80’s an advert came out saying to the effect that you are sleeping with every person that your partner has ever slept with-I think it was primarily aimed at gay/bi men to encourage condom use during the AIDS panic, but is no less applicable to heterosexuals today. The Pill has never been the panacea for sexual freedom/sexual liberation that its’ advocates have pushed. The one thing that the pill has never protected against, or prevented is venereal diseases (initially renamed sexually transmitted diseases, STDs, and now renamed the much less scary term, sexually transmitted infections, STIs) which are-once again-on the rise. The scary part is that some strains are resistant to any treatment that we currently have. Perhaps this is something that should be stressed in sex ed courses. Best to take no chances, use the pill for pregnancy and insist your partner wear a condom for both your safety.
Exactly. So important.
“Either way, she was demonized. No such demonizing occurs for men.”
This is not true. Because men and women are different, they face different cultural expectations, medical risks, attitudes towards life, etc.
But just as cultural expectations for women’s sexuality have always responded to their unique biological and psychological conditions, so too have cultural expectations for men’s sexuality always been responsive to men’s unique biological and psychological conditions.
As a result, in the post-pill era, while women have to deal with the tension between a loose woman and being a frigid one, men have to deal with the tension between being a hedonist or a closeted homosexual. Since the advent of the pill and the loosening of women’s sexual availability, men are now expected not just to pursue women, but to pursue random, short-term relationships wherever available – in a word, they’re expected to want to screw anything that moves.
If you have compunctions about that, culture assumes you want to screw anything that moves, but of the opposite sex, and you’re so burdened by shame about your closeted sexuality, that you just can’t acknowledge that to anyone.
Each sex has its benefits and burdens, and its own cultural norms that it is in constant interplay with.
Exactly. So important.
“Either way, she was demonized. No such demonizing occurs for men.”
This is not true. Because men and women are different, they face different cultural expectations, medical risks, attitudes towards life, etc.
But just as cultural expectations for women’s sexuality have always responded to their unique biological and psychological conditions, so too have cultural expectations for men’s sexuality always been responsive to men’s unique biological and psychological conditions.
As a result, in the post-pill era, while women have to deal with the tension between a loose woman and being a frigid one, men have to deal with the tension between being a hedonist or a closeted homosexual. Since the advent of the pill and the loosening of women’s sexual availability, men are now expected not just to pursue women, but to pursue random, short-term relationships wherever available – in a word, they’re expected to want to screw anything that moves.
If you have compunctions about that, culture assumes you want to screw anything that moves, but of the opposite sex, and you’re so burdened by shame about your closeted sexuality, that you just can’t acknowledge that to anyone.
Each sex has its benefits and burdens, and its own cultural norms that it is in constant interplay with.
In a way the pill took away a woman’s right to say “no”. Before the introduction of the pill, if a woman said “yes”, she’s a s/*t ( /=l, *=u, the algorithm doesn’t like the actual word); after the introduction, if she said “no” she is frigid. Either way, she was demonized. No such demonizing occurs for men.
I remember in the 80’s an advert came out saying to the effect that you are sleeping with every person that your partner has ever slept with-I think it was primarily aimed at gay/bi men to encourage condom use during the AIDS panic, but is no less applicable to heterosexuals today. The Pill has never been the panacea for sexual freedom/sexual liberation that its’ advocates have pushed. The one thing that the pill has never protected against, or prevented is venereal diseases (initially renamed sexually transmitted diseases, STDs, and now renamed the much less scary term, sexually transmitted infections, STIs) which are-once again-on the rise. The scary part is that some strains are resistant to any treatment that we currently have. Perhaps this is something that should be stressed in sex ed courses. Best to take no chances, use the pill for pregnancy and insist your partner wear a condom for both your safety.
As an old man I don’t have a player in this debate any more.
But I remember talking to three young Mormon women about the “Silver Ring” movement while hiking in Utah. I asked one what the pregnancy rate of young women who wore one was compared to the wider population. She looked me in the eye and said “about the same”.
As an old man I don’t have a player in this debate any more.
But I remember talking to three young Mormon women about the “Silver Ring” movement while hiking in Utah. I asked one what the pregnancy rate of young women who wore one was compared to the wider population. She looked me in the eye and said “about the same”.
Well it didn’t stop unwanted pregnancies, did it?
It created the mass killings of children by abortion. Narcissistic hedonism.
You do realise the pill is different to abortion don’t you? In fact by stopping people becoming pregnant in the first place it has probably caused the abortion numbers to be much lower than they otherwise would be
We could test your theory by comparing the number of abortions before the introduction of the pill to the number of abortions after the pill.
Which would show that the pill – and the sexual liberation is enabled – caused a massive increase in abortions.
You mean comparing abortion rates when they were illegal and often dangerous, compared to today when they’re safe freely available? You’re comparing apples to oranges my friend
Hmm… are you willing to admit that in the era of the Pill, people have sex with people they’re not ready to have a kid with, much more frequently than they used to?
What’s wrong with doing that?
What’s wrong with doing that?
Hmm… are you willing to admit that in the era of the Pill, people have sex with people they’re not ready to have a kid with, much more frequently than they used to?
In the early 1960’s Enoch Powell announced that married women who wished to use oral contraceptives would be able access it through the NHS. Single women weren’t supposed to have sex. Abortions, but only under certain circumstances, became legal in 1968. As prior to this it was illegal to obtain an abortion under any circumstance, it might be hard to data.
As an aside, Pre Pill introduction, my Mum (born 1929) knew 3 women who became pregnant out of wedlock in the late 40’s/50’s prior to the pill. One
man’ did a runner (got her drunk and compliant) and she and her (war) widowed mother moved away when the baby was born. Two married the women; one was date rape & after marriage he beat her on a regular basis until abandoning her and their son to poverty(her parents disowned her), the other couple married and lived a long and happy live together going on to have more children (her parents promised to support her regardless-they offered to bring the child up as their own). </span>
date’ rape; she was raped by her boyfriend who then denied the child was his; she underwent an abortion. Between the trauma of the rape then the trauma of the abortion she was depressed and fragile for years. The planned pregnancy was planned by the girlfriend (Hi there Wendy), she was a few year older (turning 19) than the boyfriend and wanted to be married before she was 20 (like her cousins). She told him she was on the pill (she wasn’t) and what horny teenage boy is going to ask twice or think to use a condom. His parents had to give permission for their marriage. He quit school after finishing Grade11. She had a daughter, I think she left him and the child as I only ever saw him with the child.As a teenager, Post Pill introduction, in the 70’s I knew of 2 unplanned pregnancies and one planned by the girl. Of the two unplanned, one was a couple who were dating during high school, they married and gave up the prospect of university. The other was
You mean comparing abortion rates when they were illegal and often dangerous, compared to today when they’re safe freely available? You’re comparing apples to oranges my friend
In the early 1960’s Enoch Powell announced that married women who wished to use oral contraceptives would be able access it through the NHS. Single women weren’t supposed to have sex. Abortions, but only under certain circumstances, became legal in 1968. As prior to this it was illegal to obtain an abortion under any circumstance, it might be hard to data.
As an aside, Pre Pill introduction, my Mum (born 1929) knew 3 women who became pregnant out of wedlock in the late 40’s/50’s prior to the pill. One
man’ did a runner (got her drunk and compliant) and she and her (war) widowed mother moved away when the baby was born. Two married the women; one was date rape & after marriage he beat her on a regular basis until abandoning her and their son to poverty(her parents disowned her), the other couple married and lived a long and happy live together going on to have more children (her parents promised to support her regardless-they offered to bring the child up as their own). </span>
date’ rape; she was raped by her boyfriend who then denied the child was his; she underwent an abortion. Between the trauma of the rape then the trauma of the abortion she was depressed and fragile for years. The planned pregnancy was planned by the girlfriend (Hi there Wendy), she was a few year older (turning 19) than the boyfriend and wanted to be married before she was 20 (like her cousins). She told him she was on the pill (she wasn’t) and what horny teenage boy is going to ask twice or think to use a condom. His parents had to give permission for their marriage. He quit school after finishing Grade11. She had a daughter, I think she left him and the child as I only ever saw him with the child.As a teenager, Post Pill introduction, in the 70’s I knew of 2 unplanned pregnancies and one planned by the girl. Of the two unplanned, one was a couple who were dating during high school, they married and gave up the prospect of university. The other was
We could test your theory by comparing the number of abortions before the introduction of the pill to the number of abortions after the pill.
Which would show that the pill – and the sexual liberation is enabled – caused a massive increase in abortions.
You do realise the pill is different to abortion don’t you? In fact by stopping people becoming pregnant in the first place it has probably caused the abortion numbers to be much lower than they otherwise would be
Considering the ever falling birth rates, it obviously did.
It created the mass killings of children by abortion. Narcissistic hedonism.
Considering the ever falling birth rates, it obviously did.
Well it didn’t stop unwanted pregnancies, did it?
“The anti-pill contingent, represented by old-school conservatives and tradfluencers alike, suggest that women are so seduced by the illusory freedom of artificially-induced infertility that they become like hedonistic children, squandering their fertile years on meaningless hook-ups and breakneck career advancement at the expense of society at large.”
I’m sorry to say that this critique rings true to me and that it applies to both women and men. Demographic decline is like a tailspin, once you’re in it, it’s extremely difficult to recover and yet every incentive in modern society is oriented towards maximising economic growth to pay for the entitlements of the generation who put us in this tailspin in the first place by following this path.
Once their demographic has shrunk to the extent that it can no longer swing elections, these entitlements will be removed as unaffordable and stuffy old school conservatives will be left to clear up the generational damage done to societies by putting the desires of the individual, and the market that feeds them, above society as a whole.
“The anti-pill contingent, represented by old-school conservatives and tradfluencers alike, suggest that women are so seduced by the illusory freedom of artificially-induced infertility that they become like hedonistic children, squandering their fertile years on meaningless hook-ups and breakneck career advancement at the expense of society at large.”
I’m sorry to say that this critique rings true to me and that it applies to both women and men. Demographic decline is like a tailspin, once you’re in it, it’s extremely difficult to recover and yet every incentive in modern society is oriented towards maximising economic growth to pay for the entitlements of the generation who put us in this tailspin in the first place by following this path.
Once their demographic has shrunk to the extent that it can no longer swing elections, these entitlements will be removed as unaffordable and stuffy old school conservatives will be left to clear up the generational damage done to societies by putting the desires of the individual, and the market that feeds them, above society as a whole.
What this article fails to consider is the importance of family life. Before reliable birth control women held the power in relationships because they had to select a reliable male partner who could support her and the family. Birth control has resulted in meaningless sexual relationship with family life and stable marriages being the victims.
“Women held the power in relationships”. I think not.
My mother had no power at all in her marriage and neither did her mother. My grandfather was a tyrant but luckily away at sea most of the time.
My mother had no power at all in her marriage and neither did her mother. My grandfather was a tyrant but luckily away at sea most of the time.
Women had the power to say yes or no ( unless they were already pregnant) to a man’s marriage proposal. That was pretty much the extent of their power.
“Women held the power in relationships”. I think not.
Women had the power to say yes or no ( unless they were already pregnant) to a man’s marriage proposal. That was pretty much the extent of their power.
What this article fails to consider is the importance of family life. Before reliable birth control women held the power in relationships because they had to select a reliable male partner who could support her and the family. Birth control has resulted in meaningless sexual relationship with family life and stable marriages being the victims.
Women are “pawns in the contraception war”?
Only if they wish to be pawns….only if they see themselves as pawns…only if they sit there, dumbly, simply waiting to be moved by The Expert Hand (preferably one which appears regularly on podcasts & talk shows spouting expertise). Otherwise they’re as free to ignore or not ignore the little sign on the pill bottle which says, “Eat Me!” as they ever were. As free, in fact, as the Man who drives past a new car lot whose sign says, “Buy Me!” ….or anyone who steps into a bar and finds the Bud Light banner which says “Drink Me!”.
The fact that — as with most things — there are groups who push one way and groups that push another is completely irrelevant. We all are free to listen or not listen: to jump down the rabbit hole, or not. Nothing really has changed.
But this fundamental freedom of choice is here obscured by a confusing litany of exaggerations and quibbles.
No…there is no ‘right wing war on contraception’….and no, Conservatives have not been experiencing ‘consternation’ at the development of hormonal contraception because they’re “categorically antagonistic … toward non-procreative sex.” Rather there is and has been a significant Conservative concern about non-marital sex and the accompanying increase in out-of-wedlock birthrates (families without fathers) and the accompanying increase in community poverty & crime all of which tend to be exacerbated when people believe in the myth of ‘sex without consequence’.
These concerns, as it happens, have been justified time and again over the last 60+ years.
The author scoffs at what she describes as “The anti-pill contingent, represented by old-school conservatives and tradfluencers alike, suggest that women are so seduced by the illusory freedom of artificially-induced infertility that they become like hedonistic children, squandering their fertile years on meaningless hook-ups and breakneck career advancement at the expense of society at large.” But surely we recognize that the Pill does seduce with the ‘promise’ of an artificially-induced infertility…as much as the “you can have it all” dogma produced by the Advertising Agency and Gender Studies (strange bedfellows!) seduces. The truth is the sexual freedom sold with those same little pill strips is illusory. There is no such thing as ‘sexual freedom’ … not really. Freedom, as they say, is just another word for nothing left to lose.
Equally illusory the belief that you can successfully and consistently make career (and ‘girls just wanna have fun’) the number one life priority until you’re 40…and then find a lifetime mate…and then get pregnant on command…and then raise multiple children in a blissfully happy family.
So yes, we do squander. We’ve always squandered; men and women alike. “The world is too much with us; late and soon, Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers.” This is not new; this is not ‘old-school conservatives’ nor ‘tradfluencers’ — rather this is life. And the way forward has nothing to do with “the topic of birth control being long dominated by men” and everything to do with people making clear-headed decisions based upon solid life priorities and values. Zipless f**** is neither.
There is a possible solution – it would be very radical but guarantee almost no out-of-wedlock births.
All men who wish to father children are invited to have several deposits of their sperm frozen and then have a vasectomy. Their sperm is easily identifiable using DNA.
As an incentive the government then invests a specific sum of money on their behalf to be withdrawn on their wedding day and used as a deposit on a house. When they are ready to become a father – only within wedlock – they can withdraw some of their sperm and impregnate their wife. This procedure can be repeated for as many times as they wish and can afford to have children. The younger the sperm generally the healthier and the greater guarantee of healthy offspring usually.
This removes the onus for contraception from women. It could be voluntary with the incentive of a deposit on a house later on plus no danger of fathering unwanted children. I think it might prove quite popular. I know a few men paying child support for children they fathered unknowingly with women they barely knew. This would put a stop to that.
Women would be able to go online and check which men had had the snip before going to bed with them.
There is a possible solution – it would be very radical but guarantee almost no out-of-wedlock births.
All men who wish to father children are invited to have several deposits of their sperm frozen and then have a vasectomy. Their sperm is easily identifiable using DNA.
As an incentive the government then invests a specific sum of money on their behalf to be withdrawn on their wedding day and used as a deposit on a house. When they are ready to become a father – only within wedlock – they can withdraw some of their sperm and impregnate their wife. This procedure can be repeated for as many times as they wish and can afford to have children. The younger the sperm generally the healthier and the greater guarantee of healthy offspring usually.
This removes the onus for contraception from women. It could be voluntary with the incentive of a deposit on a house later on plus no danger of fathering unwanted children. I think it might prove quite popular. I know a few men paying child support for children they fathered unknowingly with women they barely knew. This would put a stop to that.
Women would be able to go online and check which men had had the snip before going to bed with them.
Women are “pawns in the contraception war”?
Only if they wish to be pawns….only if they see themselves as pawns…only if they sit there, dumbly, simply waiting to be moved by The Expert Hand (preferably one which appears regularly on podcasts & talk shows spouting expertise). Otherwise they’re as free to ignore or not ignore the little sign on the pill bottle which says, “Eat Me!” as they ever were. As free, in fact, as the Man who drives past a new car lot whose sign says, “Buy Me!” ….or anyone who steps into a bar and finds the Bud Light banner which says “Drink Me!”.
The fact that — as with most things — there are groups who push one way and groups that push another is completely irrelevant. We all are free to listen or not listen: to jump down the rabbit hole, or not. Nothing really has changed.
But this fundamental freedom of choice is here obscured by a confusing litany of exaggerations and quibbles.
No…there is no ‘right wing war on contraception’….and no, Conservatives have not been experiencing ‘consternation’ at the development of hormonal contraception because they’re “categorically antagonistic … toward non-procreative sex.” Rather there is and has been a significant Conservative concern about non-marital sex and the accompanying increase in out-of-wedlock birthrates (families without fathers) and the accompanying increase in community poverty & crime all of which tend to be exacerbated when people believe in the myth of ‘sex without consequence’.
These concerns, as it happens, have been justified time and again over the last 60+ years.
The author scoffs at what she describes as “The anti-pill contingent, represented by old-school conservatives and tradfluencers alike, suggest that women are so seduced by the illusory freedom of artificially-induced infertility that they become like hedonistic children, squandering their fertile years on meaningless hook-ups and breakneck career advancement at the expense of society at large.” But surely we recognize that the Pill does seduce with the ‘promise’ of an artificially-induced infertility…as much as the “you can have it all” dogma produced by the Advertising Agency and Gender Studies (strange bedfellows!) seduces. The truth is the sexual freedom sold with those same little pill strips is illusory. There is no such thing as ‘sexual freedom’ … not really. Freedom, as they say, is just another word for nothing left to lose.
Equally illusory the belief that you can successfully and consistently make career (and ‘girls just wanna have fun’) the number one life priority until you’re 40…and then find a lifetime mate…and then get pregnant on command…and then raise multiple children in a blissfully happy family.
So yes, we do squander. We’ve always squandered; men and women alike. “The world is too much with us; late and soon, Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers.” This is not new; this is not ‘old-school conservatives’ nor ‘tradfluencers’ — rather this is life. And the way forward has nothing to do with “the topic of birth control being long dominated by men” and everything to do with people making clear-headed decisions based upon solid life priorities and values. Zipless f**** is neither.
Oh please – I went on the combined pill at 18, as I never wanted children, and had zero side effects. In my 30s I switched to the mini pill, this was recommended given I was, and still am, a smoker – again zero side effects. The mini pill was so much better – no one week break, taken all month and zero bleeding. As the article states, the one week break was never necessary – and plenty of women carried on taking their pills if, for example, they were going on holiday. I can take the mini pill for one more year until I hit 55, and my doctor and I both hope that any irregular menopausal bleeding that might happen if I was not on the pill, will have stopped by then. The pill was a complete revolution for womens control over when or if to get pregnant, yes there are issues for some women – but I still consider it one of the most important innovations of the 20th century.
Exactly, and it probably helped you go through menopause without horrendous symptoms.
This is how most arguments about human sexuality are debated these days. “Here’s something that is having a profound negative impact on society.” “Yes, but it worked for me.”
Did you know that 80-90% of smokers never develop lung cancer? Why the campaign to stamp it out?
I have been smoking for 35 years with zero ill effects, barring coughing very occasionally. My last chest x-ray was completely clear. I firmly believe that genetics play a major part in our personal health – this is the future, tailored health treatment according to our own genetic makeup. I drink way too much but had a fibro scan on my liver last week and it is apparently in excellent shape. However, I do have high blood pressure due to family history – we all have it, albeit controlled with medication – genetics yet again.
Yes, genetics surely plays a big role in things, as does family upbringing, social circumstances, whether you born into a country at war or at peace, etc.
Should public policy be set by the exceptional cases? People with no health effects from smoking are the exception, not the rule. As a result, government discourages smoking. The question is how far we are going to take that line of thinking.
We need to all be treated as individuals – not as an amorphous blob of people who have certain health issues, or who indulge in certain purportedly unhealthy lifestyle choices. We have way too much nanny state as it is.
You are right about DNA and family health history – far more important than people realise – my father was a heavy smoker and drinker who died at 67 from lung cancer – my aunt was an equally heavy smoker who lived into her 80s. They were not blood relations.
A lot of research is now being done into a much more bespoke approach to medical care which is fascinating and hopefully will bring many positive innovations in future.
You are right about DNA and family health history – far more important than people realise – my father was a heavy smoker and drinker who died at 67 from lung cancer – my aunt was an equally heavy smoker who lived into her 80s. They were not blood relations.
A lot of research is now being done into a much more bespoke approach to medical care which is fascinating and hopefully will bring many positive innovations in future.
We need to all be treated as individuals – not as an amorphous blob of people who have certain health issues, or who indulge in certain purportedly unhealthy lifestyle choices. We have way too much nanny state as it is.
Yes, genetics surely plays a big role in things, as does family upbringing, social circumstances, whether you born into a country at war or at peace, etc.
Should public policy be set by the exceptional cases? People with no health effects from smoking are the exception, not the rule. As a result, government discourages smoking. The question is how far we are going to take that line of thinking.
I have been smoking for 35 years with zero ill effects, barring coughing very occasionally. My last chest x-ray was completely clear. I firmly believe that genetics play a major part in our personal health – this is the future, tailored health treatment according to our own genetic makeup. I drink way too much but had a fibro scan on my liver last week and it is apparently in excellent shape. However, I do have high blood pressure due to family history – we all have it, albeit controlled with medication – genetics yet again.
Exactly, and it probably helped you go through menopause without horrendous symptoms.
This is how most arguments about human sexuality are debated these days. “Here’s something that is having a profound negative impact on society.” “Yes, but it worked for me.”
Did you know that 80-90% of smokers never develop lung cancer? Why the campaign to stamp it out?
Oh please – I went on the combined pill at 18, as I never wanted children, and had zero side effects. In my 30s I switched to the mini pill, this was recommended given I was, and still am, a smoker – again zero side effects. The mini pill was so much better – no one week break, taken all month and zero bleeding. As the article states, the one week break was never necessary – and plenty of women carried on taking their pills if, for example, they were going on holiday. I can take the mini pill for one more year until I hit 55, and my doctor and I both hope that any irregular menopausal bleeding that might happen if I was not on the pill, will have stopped by then. The pill was a complete revolution for womens control over when or if to get pregnant, yes there are issues for some women – but I still consider it one of the most important innovations of the 20th century.
Sex is fun and it doesn’t cost anything. There is nothing wrong with casual sex and many things right with it from time to time. Like drugs & Rock & roll, there is a price to pay: pregnancies and STDs and the pill doesn’t protect one from the latter. Anyone who is ’empowered’ should be able to choose whatever sexual avenue works for them without feeling like a s**t or walking into anything that is inconvenient or life-altering and we have the wherewith-all to achieve that. Hooray!
And just never mind that pile of tiny dismembered corpses. Narcissistic hedonism has lots of spokespersons.
That’s abortion, a completely different argument
Oh shut up, Tom. If youre against abortion don’t have one.
That’s abortion, a completely different argument
Oh shut up, Tom. If youre against abortion don’t have one.
I don’t know, it’s cost me a ton of money buying drinks for girls over the years during numerous failed attempts to get in their knickers
We need more than a drink.
So I came to realise, it was always more than one!
So I came to realise, it was always more than one!
We need more than a drink.
Sex is fun and doesn’t cost anything???
No, my friend, blowing soap bubbles is fun and doesn’t cost anything (well, beyond the price of the soap and the bubble wand). Sex…as in sex & love…is everything.
Casual sex is nothing more or less than a slightly extended masturbatory experience. As compelling as getting coffee from some Barista (though perhaps not as intimate as the quick smile we share when she hands me my cup), it requires the same degree of interpersonal engagement and ritual connection. We quickly learn that it’s not polite to treat the Other as little more than my Right Hand…though it’s rude, here, to leave a tip.
For the adolescent, Casual Sex provides the illusion that he or she has arrived. They can then say loudly though metaphorically to their Elders, “See! I am old enough to objectify myself and my desires; I take pride in my ability to ‘hook-up’, as though the literal, physical connection between the twined genitals requires maturity, wisdom, and cool.
It is an empty experience, of course, bereft of the immensity of meaning which should accompany the most intimate of human acts…but like many empty experiences, it does carry some marginal entertainment value, like chewing gum or fidget spinners (and yes, indeed, both are ‘fun’).
But why would anyone want this? Why would we seek to reduce ourselves to an Itch and an Other to a Scratch? Why would we serially and seriously pursue the destruction of human potential, be it our own or our partners? Sadly, tragically, the more we indulge these appetites for the trivially superficial, the empty and meaningless gesture of pretended intimacy, the more and more difficult it becomes to open ourselves to what is and should be both real and transcendent. We owe ourselves (and each other) more than a simple slap and tickle
“it doesn’t cost anything” then “there is a price to pay”
Hmm…
Of course you should feel like a s**t if you’re a s**t. And you should feel like a prude if you’re a prude. And if I’m a self-righteous Unherd commenter I should feel like a self-righteous Unherd commenter.
If something is bad and you are that thing, you should feel bad. That’s how feelings are supposed to work.
And just never mind that pile of tiny dismembered corpses. Narcissistic hedonism has lots of spokespersons.
I don’t know, it’s cost me a ton of money buying drinks for girls over the years during numerous failed attempts to get in their knickers
Sex is fun and doesn’t cost anything???
No, my friend, blowing soap bubbles is fun and doesn’t cost anything (well, beyond the price of the soap and the bubble wand). Sex…as in sex & love…is everything.
Casual sex is nothing more or less than a slightly extended masturbatory experience. As compelling as getting coffee from some Barista (though perhaps not as intimate as the quick smile we share when she hands me my cup), it requires the same degree of interpersonal engagement and ritual connection. We quickly learn that it’s not polite to treat the Other as little more than my Right Hand…though it’s rude, here, to leave a tip.
For the adolescent, Casual Sex provides the illusion that he or she has arrived. They can then say loudly though metaphorically to their Elders, “See! I am old enough to objectify myself and my desires; I take pride in my ability to ‘hook-up’, as though the literal, physical connection between the twined genitals requires maturity, wisdom, and cool.
It is an empty experience, of course, bereft of the immensity of meaning which should accompany the most intimate of human acts…but like many empty experiences, it does carry some marginal entertainment value, like chewing gum or fidget spinners (and yes, indeed, both are ‘fun’).
But why would anyone want this? Why would we seek to reduce ourselves to an Itch and an Other to a Scratch? Why would we serially and seriously pursue the destruction of human potential, be it our own or our partners? Sadly, tragically, the more we indulge these appetites for the trivially superficial, the empty and meaningless gesture of pretended intimacy, the more and more difficult it becomes to open ourselves to what is and should be both real and transcendent. We owe ourselves (and each other) more than a simple slap and tickle
“it doesn’t cost anything” then “there is a price to pay”
Hmm…
Of course you should feel like a s**t if you’re a s**t. And you should feel like a prude if you’re a prude. And if I’m a self-righteous Unherd commenter I should feel like a self-righteous Unherd commenter.
If something is bad and you are that thing, you should feel bad. That’s how feelings are supposed to work.
Sex is fun and it doesn’t cost anything. There is nothing wrong with casual sex and many things right with it from time to time. Like drugs & Rock & roll, there is a price to pay: pregnancies and STDs and the pill doesn’t protect one from the latter. Anyone who is ’empowered’ should be able to choose whatever sexual avenue works for them without feeling like a s**t or walking into anything that is inconvenient or life-altering and we have the wherewith-all to achieve that. Hooray!
“The loudest voices in this conversation leave little room for a middle way, one that empowers women to avoid pregnancy if they want to, but also supports them if they wish to become mothers.”
The author embraces the lie that “choice” is what’s really important in human sexuality – while complaining that the choices often seem unsatisfactory. She complains about religious-minded arguments for abstinence – while acknowledging that the consequences of sexuality and reproduction go deeper than “just the facts, ma’am.” (That depth is precisely religion’s concern, ma’am.)
I am not Catholic and have no objection to birth control. But it has insidiously fostered the notion that science has mastered reproduction, that gestation is a happenstance of women’s lives, that children are burdens, etc. We can even draw a line from the pill to men crushing women in women’s sports… if you can choose when to have children, you are in a sense choosing when to be a woman, and if you can choose when to be a woman you can choose to be a woman.
The pill is obviously not going anywhere. But what has to change is our attitude towards it. It’s “liberating” the same way that a narcotic is liberating. In very specific situations, it’s a life saver. But you can get addicted, and miss out on the best things life has to offer.
In short, a typical essay from Unherd’s stable of feminists, in which the author uses hyperbole to complain about hyperbole, and complains about contemporary conditions unaware that her perspective causes contemporary conditions.
“The loudest voices in this conversation leave little room for a middle way, one that empowers women to avoid pregnancy if they want to, but also supports them if they wish to become mothers.”
The author embraces the lie that “choice” is what’s really important in human sexuality – while complaining that the choices often seem unsatisfactory. She complains about religious-minded arguments for abstinence – while acknowledging that the consequences of sexuality and reproduction go deeper than “just the facts, ma’am.” (That depth is precisely religion’s concern, ma’am.)
I am not Catholic and have no objection to birth control. But it has insidiously fostered the notion that science has mastered reproduction, that gestation is a happenstance of women’s lives, that children are burdens, etc. We can even draw a line from the pill to men crushing women in women’s sports… if you can choose when to have children, you are in a sense choosing when to be a woman, and if you can choose when to be a woman you can choose to be a woman.
The pill is obviously not going anywhere. But what has to change is our attitude towards it. It’s “liberating” the same way that a narcotic is liberating. In very specific situations, it’s a life saver. But you can get addicted, and miss out on the best things life has to offer.
In short, a typical essay from Unherd’s stable of feminists, in which the author uses hyperbole to complain about hyperbole, and complains about contemporary conditions unaware that her perspective causes contemporary conditions.
Interesting until the last paragraph – it seems de rigeur to always blame a male collective. There is also a biological error – s**t shaming is by womwn against other women – to reduce the biological attractiveness of one’s rivals.
Interesting until the last paragraph – it seems de rigeur to always blame a male collective. There is also a biological error – s**t shaming is by womwn against other women – to reduce the biological attractiveness of one’s rivals.
More to say later when I have more time, but I will initially point out that the only institution with a sane and compassionate view on the Pill… (Jordan Peterson’s “hydrogen bomb”) , is the Catholic church. The world’s only true liberalism.
Not an accident that it was racist eugenicists like Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger… uber “feminist” who led the “Birth Control” movement.
And women were not “liberated” by the Pill. The exact opposite occurred. They were instrumentalized.
Lancet showed that NFP.. Natural Family Planning is MORE effective than the pill, is taught in third world settings effectively , and doesn’t change the the entire psychological nature of those who employ it.
As a Catholic, a true liberal, I get awfully tired of boring ideological simpletons presenting sane people as “right wing” and conservative.
It is no accident that American eugenicists and racists like Sanger and the Birth Control movement were the progenitors to this killing and antihuman instrument of death and enslavement and the breakdown of natural human life and relationships. The enslavement of women to the corporate whim.
Fakes. Frauds.
More to say later when I have more time, but I will initially point out that the only institution with a sane and compassionate view on the Pill… (Jordan Peterson’s “hydrogen bomb”) , is the Catholic church. The world’s only true liberalism.
Not an accident that it was racist eugenicists like Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger… uber “feminist” who led the “Birth Control” movement.
And women were not “liberated” by the Pill. The exact opposite occurred. They were instrumentalized.
Lancet showed that NFP.. Natural Family Planning is MORE effective than the pill, is taught in third world settings effectively , and doesn’t change the the entire psychological nature of those who employ it.
As a Catholic, a true liberal, I get awfully tired of boring ideological simpletons presenting sane people as “right wing” and conservative.
It is no accident that American eugenicists and racists like Sanger and the Birth Control movement were the progenitors to this killing and antihuman instrument of death and enslavement and the breakdown of natural human life and relationships. The enslavement of women to the corporate whim.
Fakes. Frauds.
There is nothing remotely liberating nor empowering about casual sex or the fertility crisis. When are feminists going to grow up?
Are you just upset you didn’t get any when you were younger?
Are you just upset you didn’t get any when you were younger?
There is nothing remotely liberating nor empowering about casual sex or the fertility crisis. When are feminists going to grow up?
As a Catholic its rather fascinating to see the portrayal we get in the press. Demographers point to the demise of the west; our heritage by 2150; one lifetime and a half roughly.
And the church teaches that interfering with natural healthy human functioning is a profound evil; a perversion in the true sense of the word. Inducing vomiting after eating comes to mind. Or is breaking a limb clear enough?
And NFP as Lancet reported is actually more effective than the PILL and without the horrible side effects that can include total personality disordering including no longer being sexually attracted to one’s significant other. Aww…no big deal.
And that fine Marxist ideological term… “empowering women”. Right. Look at all those empowered young women having their babies cut out of them.
And the abortions that follow irresponsible sex. But what could be wrong with killing children.
How about societal suicide and disappearance from life itself. No big deal right? After all.. its only the west.
Catholic teaching, which is based upon simple natural law; simple facts about us all, is simply sanity. Truth. About us all. It is fully defensible from reason alone.
As a Catholic its rather fascinating to see the portrayal we get in the press. Demographers point to the demise of the west; our heritage by 2150; one lifetime and a half roughly.
And the church teaches that interfering with natural healthy human functioning is a profound evil; a perversion in the true sense of the word. Inducing vomiting after eating comes to mind. Or is breaking a limb clear enough?
And NFP as Lancet reported is actually more effective than the PILL and without the horrible side effects that can include total personality disordering including no longer being sexually attracted to one’s significant other. Aww…no big deal.
And that fine Marxist ideological term… “empowering women”. Right. Look at all those empowered young women having their babies cut out of them.
And the abortions that follow irresponsible sex. But what could be wrong with killing children.
How about societal suicide and disappearance from life itself. No big deal right? After all.. its only the west.
Catholic teaching, which is based upon simple natural law; simple facts about us all, is simply sanity. Truth. About us all. It is fully defensible from reason alone.
The Pill is the pathway, the road too traveled that leads to the question du jour. What is a woman?
The Pill is the pathway, the road too traveled that leads to the question du jour. What is a woman?
when Dr Gregory Pincus began testing an early prototype for the pill, his test cases were incarcerated, institutionalised, and impoverished women. In other words, women whose incapacitation and economic despair made them easy to take advantage of. It was a deplorable measure, in a desperate time: funding for birth-control research was banned by the US government until 1959, so Pincus’s work was supported by private donors, whose advocacy was directly downstream from an unsavoury enthusiasm for eugenics.
Oh, so not “eugenicists?” Like maybe people experiencing eugenics like beliefs?
Times are ALWAYS desperate. My vote for the next Guinea pigs is people who white wash using people as Guinea pigs. And I do mean white.
A