Posted on 01/04/2006 6:59:55 AM PST by Pyro7480
The purpose of "desire" is to assure pregnancy. The older, higher dose bcp's indeed tricked the woman's body into believing she was pregnant. If already pregnant, "desire" serves no biological purpose. Nature is frugal and does not support that which serves no useful purpose. It seems reasonable that desire would fade. Anecdotally, I took the older, higher dose pills and they worked well, but I did experience a lack of desire.
The newer pills often do not fully suppress ovulation, acting as an abortifacient, not a contraceptive. I took them for a short time, on the advice of my physician, WITHOUT knowing or understanding the mode of action.....it suffices to say that they really made me feel awful. I'll spare you the details. I stopped taking them because I felt awful, but I was positively livid when I found out that they acted not to block conception, but as an abortifacient.
While it's true that women would naturally spend a great deal of their adult lives being pregnant, I think it's a real stretch to believe that man-made pills can or do perfectly mimic the natural hormonal shifts of pregnancy. A normal pregnancy lasts 9 months...the pills force you through a pregnancy a month. They simply cannot be equivalent. Totally natural methods are probably best.
I'm guessing this is much like anabolic steroid use. Short cyles and short term use only supresses sex hormones for a brief period of time, but extended periods of continuous use can shut down hormone production for a very, very long time.
True enough -- but the non-pill group, which (supposedly) has "better" libido, happens to have the highest average age.
I agree that the study group is probably too small to give a good statistical profile; however, your complaint on this particular issue is not supported by the data.
Probably not, actually, because lactation suppresses ovulation and babies were commonly breastfed until 3 years of age or older.
Some biologists have estimated that a "state of nature" human family, after factoring in lactation and infant mortality, would end up with about 4 surviving children.
For a complete and full discussion of the science of sex, I highly recommend "The Science of Sex", by Dr. Kevin Pezzi. It's a great read and will be an eye opener for many - especially the women folk out there eating horse urine every day.
www.sexualtips.net
(Warning: there is an annoying java applet ticker on the page that makes it slow to download.)
It has long been known that female libido tends to increase with age until menopause sets in. This would seem to confirm that this "study" is a classic example of junk statistics.
The root cause is a lack of estrogens, and is easily remedied without pharmaceuticals.
Nope; it's a convenient shorthand description for "scientific" arguments that are based on fundamental misreadings of fact or errors in logic (such as the two I have commented upon in this one, for which I note you have no rebuttal).
The pill didn't make her libido suffer. Marriage did.
She was full of libido until.......she got married again.
You are correct. So they're trying to demonize the pill with this story and that's despicable
Amen. May God bless you with a child....failing that, perhaps you could adopt?? I have several friends who were not able to have children of their own, but opened their homes to children in need of good parents. God will show you the path....in His time.
My best to you.....
LOL....it's a vestige in the process of dying........
It doesn't happen overnight you know......;0)!!!!
The average age for menopause is 51 years. All three average ages are a goodly distance from that, and fairly close with respect to each other, so your complaint on that score falls pretty flat.
Plus which, the medical aspects of the study don't really measure "libido" per se, but rather a long-term persistent effect on the liver's production of SHBG hormone. It's interesting to note that even the critics of the study are talking about this in terms of "everybody already knows this," which apparently includes the loss of libido associated with use of birth control pills. What appears to have happened, then, is that these folks may have found the hormonal explanation for what "everybody knows."
Granting the small sample size, the data themselves appear to be compelling, in that there appears to be a significant difference in the SHBG hormone, based on past bcp use.
There is also a potential self-selection aspect to the study -- all of the subjects "had sexual health complaints for more than six months."
As such, one cannot take this study as definitive; however, the results might well be interesting enough to justify a wider study, on a more general population. The researchers themselves are clear on this point:
"It's an observation no one else has made before and we are not sure of the clinical significance," he said. "Right now, this is an observation," he added. "Now the question is, 'Does this mean that the women who have had been on birth control pills would have sexual dysfunction symptoms down the road?'"
I don't know why you would would deride this as "junk statistics," as they've apparently isolated a real phenomenon. So what's your real objection? I don't believe you when you avow your steadfast devotion to "the truth," because a person so-interested wouldn't have been so quick to jump in as you have.
Sounds like you and I had the same medical problem.
I had a couple of miscarriages but wound up eventually with two lovely kids! Don't give up hope.
Well, why have you jumped in then?
Huh?
Q.E.D.
Again, huh?
You've provided the "Quod", but I don't understand what you were "Erat Demonstrandum"-ing.
Is it that I'm objecting to his objection?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.