The Pill: More Religion Than Science?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 лют 2019
- You’ve all seen birth control pills, right?
This little innocent pack of progesterone became available in the 60s - and it was the first time women could independently control if they had babies. Before then the best birth control was yelling “Rack off Darren, i’ve got a migraine”!
But just like those stupid slat blinds with the cord that get jammed every single f*ckin time - this blister pack has an epic design flaw. And it’s a design flaw that could make women pregnant -when they don’t want to be - because they’re on birth control.
Why did scientists bugger up the science? Well, the problem’s not actually with the science of the pills, it’s the religion they tried to put in ‘em.
So just to get this straight - I’m a big fan of The Pill.
This little ripper not only stops you from getting up the duff when you don’t wanna be - it also makes period pain more bearable, regulates period cycles, reduces acne, and generally makes being a women a little less shitty.
But the way women have been told to take the pill for the last 60 years is ALL. WRONG.
Hear me out: the standard contraceptive pill has 21 days of hormone pills, followed by 7 days of sugar pills with no hormones.
The hormone pills basically trick the body into thinking it’s already pregnant, so it doesn’t release an egg and hey presto! - No baby! After 21 days, you stop taking those hormone pills for 7 days, and your body has a “period”.
Sweet!
Except... it’s not sweet.
You see, a woman’s body is not designed to have a period every month. Women in ye olde caveman days got their period later, spent most of their lives preggo, and probably only had around 100 period cycles in their entire life. Whereas today, many women will hit puberty at about 11, never get pregnant, and have over 400 periods. That’s a lot of bloody periods! Literally.
That constant cycle of hormones places a big fat, unnatural stress on the human body. Every month, it’s like ‘Build up a nice baby cave, pop an egg out, oh now wait, get rid of everything, start again’. Over and over. This monthly constant change is exhausting! It’s great that modern women aren’t just baby making machines anymore! - except NOT getting pregnant actually hurts our bodies too.
Imagine if we had a way of tricking our bodies into thinking it’s pregnant…
The pill has the potential to stop this crazy pregnancy cycle, and make women a whole lot healthier. But it doesn’t. You see that 7 day row of sugar pills. When women stop taking the hormone-filled pills, their body has a ‘period’. There’s no medical reason why you need to have this period. But there is a religious reason.
The 7 day period break was designed into the pill in the 1950s as a way to convince the Pope that the pill wasn’t *really* contraception - it was just an extension of a woman’s natural menstrual cycle. Inventors knew, if they could get the Pope’s approval, they’d get more customers! So they designed the pill for the needs of religious MEN, instead of for women. (sounds familiar, huh?)
Having a period is messy, often painful, and kinda expensive. Period poverty is becoming a big deal, where women who are too poor to buy tampons or sanitary products simply miss school or work whilst having their period.
If we want to design a pill that’s really in the best interests of women, we don’t need this seven day break. Studies show that having just four days off every few months is plenty of time. I mean, think about other forms of contraception, like the IUD or the implanon. They’re inserted for up to five YEARS and continuously release hormones - no need for breaks ever!
Women in the know can always just run their packets of pills together, and doctors do often suggest doing this off licence. But right now the design of the pill is unscientific and flawed. It’s time we redesigned the pill so it serves the needs of women - instead of religious men!
SCIQ ON TYT
Produced by Jayde Lovell and Bec Susan Gill. ScIQ is a partner of the The Young Turks Network.
Twitter: @ScIQ_TYT
Patreon: / sciq
Facebook, Instagram: ScIQ_TYT
@JaydeLovell: Twitter, Instagram
Enquiries: bec@tytnetwork.com
Editor: Kevin Cunningham
SOURCES
www.popsci.com/contraception-...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2...
www.rcgpac.org.uk/wp-content/u...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2...
www.rcgpac.org.uk/wp-content/u...
www.rcgpac.org.uk/wp-content/u...
broadly.vice.com/en_us/articl... - Наука та технологія
this is why I have an IUD...no more periods, plus I don't have to take any pills
What do you guys think about The Pill? Think it should be re-designed so it has less religion in the mix? And if you use The Pill, do you ever skip your sugar (period) pills?
I have a question on plan b I know it does not cause abortion but I’m afraid because I read a article that says it can kill a embryo or cause luthel phase defect
Generally, modern IUDs are the best but some, of course, can't use so pill with occasional breaks could be a good backup for those who are not medically suited. The pills other problem is vigilantly taking them, IUDs you don't have to think about it and what happens if you forget you're out of pills? It requires constant requests for prescriptions.
In Australia you can get 12 months of the pill at a time, and it costs like, $30 or something. For a ONE YEAR SUPPLY! I cant believe some US Doctors only allow 30 days no refills.
I had no idea, thanks and great work as always.
what about the increased risk of side effects from the pills? Do they not increase risk for blood clots, various cancers, effects on the renal system and other stuff? I'm no scientist, but i would think humans aren't really supposed to be on any medication long term... what did you mean by the 4 day break?
I’m a huge proponent of BC, and I’d like a permanent option, but due to my age the doctors won’t entertain this solution.
They wont give you an IUD?? THATS INSANE! - Jayde
Very interesting.
Why do women take the pill to often? I remember dating a french. She took this often. Is it cos their sexual activity is high?
Curious Q asking from Asia
Jayde Lovell I love you, you always bring something new to learn....
Thank you! I super appreciate the feedback!!! - Jayde
Ps I love you too!
I never knew or even considered this (I know it's shocking since I am a man and thus know everything.) Thank you +SciQ! Personally, I'm for whatever is best for the health of patients.
Yey! See what type of bullshit women have to know about! - Jayde
@@ScIQ “A woman's whole life is a history of the affections.” ―Washington Irving
Wow... That things about the blinds. You weren't just acting, eh?
Dont worry about Trump - blinds are the real menace of society!!! #SCIQagainstBLINDS
- Jayde
Dost thou bleed...? - I guess trans women trying to simulate the menstrual cycle with their hormone regime are singing in the choir aswell ("to" or "too"?) then?
"Religion?" - I guess it depends upon how broadly you define religion? I've been trying to further my understanding of existential philosophy - which is currently pretty embryonic. Though it is kind of hard to miss how much Jean Paul-Satre hates homosexual people.
I don't know? - I wrote a 13,000 word amateur essay recently on Existential Philosophy (mainly Heidegger), neuroscience (mainly looking at the dorsal-ventral stream hypothesis and fear and anxiety as well as hypnotic states and pain perception) and physics (for example phycisist Sean Carroll's talks on "emergent properties" - which I guess tackles the issue of "Being vs Becoming"?) and psychology (for example Kurt Freund's work on phallometry used to assess the sexuality of potential army draft recruits - which he later dropped - and his student Ray Blanchard's theory of Auto-gynophelia which has not been retracted but has substantial criticism against it... and also Jordan Peterson's work on "psychological entropy"...).
Some of the research for it has taken me over 3 years (for example the neuroscience... although I have concerns about how neuroscience models seem to fit quite closely with philosophical frameworks from generations ago).
If I made a video about what I had done - with my current level of qualifications on it - literally everyone would kill me to death. I think because I confront political and philosophical assumptions on all sides. But the trouble is, any scientific understanding that could fill the gap is still quite a way off yet.
Though I have (against my better judgement) sent this essay out to a few people with the hope it may make them think about putting their weight behind critically evaluating some assumptions perhaps? I don't know?...
It's kind of all work and no fun as far as I can see? - depending on who you are..?
I guess I could just try and explain all the existential themes of Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock... as long as I didn't include any possible contemporary examples in real life that the buggered planet genesis could represent.
This comment will now self destruct.
Ahw sugar., this was news to me, that doesn't change the fact that this is an inequitable situation for women.
This was confusing. The perks of being a guy.