Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Womens pains, menstruation and the contraceptive pill Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    I hate it when people come out with this sort of thing.
    Its like saying you can't have an opinion on abortion if you haven't had one.

    No, it's like me saying - they are talking like someone who has no exerience of ever having had a period.
    • Offline

      18
      (Original post by emilina)
      No, it's like me saying - they are talking like someone who has no exerience of ever having had a period.
      You have only experience of your periods however, and you know that everyone is very different.

      Infact you have pain free periods (as you posted) and have never had anaemia, so I imagine following your logic you have just as little ability to comment on 'painful periods' or menhorragia.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Jamie)
      You have only experience of your periods however, and you know that everyone is very different.

      Infact you have pain free periods (as you posted) and have never had anaemia, so I imagine following your logic you have just as little ability to comment on 'painful periods' or menhorragia.

      hahaha err no I don't :| What a thing to say about a girl you have never met!

      And all I was saying, is that they talk as if they have NO EXPERIENCE of periods.
      • #1
      • Thread Starter
      #1

      (Original post by Cybele)
      What is the actual point you're making, OP? I like how you've gone Anonymous by the way :rolleyes:

      Where are you getting your silly facts from?
      Professor Janice Rymer
      • Offline

        18
        (Original post by emilina)
        hahaha err no I don't :| What a thing to say about a girl you have never met!

        And all I was saying, is that they talk as if they have NO EXPERIENCE of periods.
        What a thing to tell a guy you have never met!

        But seriously its a position as a male doctor I find very frustrating because whether I've had a period, or a certain operation (or not) I might still well know far more about it than those who have had, and maybe might be worth listening to.
        After all I've talked in painful depth to dozens adn dozens of women about theirs.

        And what fun it is too...
        Offline

        10
        ReputationRep:
        Good points, but maybe women have evolved over 200 years so their bodies can cope with it? I don't know x
        Offline

        12
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Anonymous)
        Professor Janice Rymer
        Well then you/she is expressing completely flawed logic! You claim that it ins't "normal" to have a period once a month. You get this from the fact our ancestors menstruated less. This is down to a number of factors -
        A less nutritious diet, lighter body weight, so menstruation began later/could not take place.
        Multiple pregnancies, so less time for menstruation to take place.
        Women died much earlier than we do today.

        Is this what you consider 'normal'? If today's women are to get a more 'normal' menstrual cycle, should we starve ourselves, get pregnant over and over, and die earlier to have a cycle more in line with our ancestors?

        The fact of the matter is, women today are healthy and thriving - we don't suffer from premature death or extreme illness and we aren't constantly pregnant or underweight. As such, a monthy cycle is a natural result of this. If our ancestors were lucky enough to live as well as we do then they too would have a monthy cycle.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Jamie)
        What a thing to tell a guy you have never met!

        But seriously its a position as a male doctor I find very frustrating because whether I've had a period, or a certain operation (or not) I might still well know far more about it than those who have had, and maybe might be worth listening to.
        After all I've talked in painful depth to dozens adn dozens of women about theirs.

        And what fun it is too...

        I didn't say they don't know anything though did I? and since you're a doctor I would have thought you would be intelligent enough to get my point.

        The way they came across is as if they never had a period. However you will notice I DID ASK THEM.

        Why the hell are you making such a big deal out of a completely pointless sentence?!?
        • Offline

          18
          (Original post by Cybele)
          Well then you/she is expressing completely flawed logic! You claim that it ins't "normal" to have a period once a month. You get this from the fact our ancestors menstruated less. This is down to a number of factors -
          A less nutritious diet, lighter body weight, so menstruation began later/could not take place.
          Multiple pregnancies, so less time for menstruation to take place.
          Women died much earlier than we do today.

          Is this what you consider 'normal'? If today's women are to get a more 'normal' menstrual cycle, should we starve ourselves, get pregnant over and over, and die earlier to have a cycle more in line with our ancestors?

          The fact of the matter is, women today are healthy and thriving - we don't suffer from premature death or extreme illness and we aren't constantly pregnant or underweight. As such, a monthy cycle is a natural result of this. If our ancestors were lucky enough to live as well as we do then they too would have a monthy cycle.
          Isn't Janice Rymer the foremost gynaecologist in this country..? I'm sure she would be wounded to know a 20year old on TSR disagrees!


          Its all swings and roundabouts really.
          I mean for starters theres no such thing really as premature death.
          Life expectancy is an average particular to one particular country. It can change very rapidly in jsut a few years.

          A 40 year old dying today by your logic would be a premature death. But a 40 year old dying 200 years ago would not.

          And for that matter what about a 30year old dying who had cystic fibrosis. It would be premature for a normal 30 year old, but quite a good run for a cyctic fibrosis sufferer.

          Normal is a construct. Its a generalisation. Its a term produced for people who can't think outside of the box.

          If people spent less time worrying about whether they are normal, and more time living their lives they would be far happier.
          Offline

          12
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Jamie)
          Isn't Janice Rymer the foremost gynaecologist in this country..? I'm sure she would be wounded to know a 20year old on TSR disagrees!


          Its all swings and roundabouts really.
          I mean for starters theres no such thing really as premature death.
          Life expectancy is an average particular to one particular country. It can change very rapidly in jsut a few years.

          A 40 year old dying today by your logic would be a premature death. But a 40 year old dying 200 years ago would not.

          And for that matter what about a 30year old dying who had cystic fibrosis. It would be premature for a normal 30 year old, but quite a good run for a cyctic fibrosis sufferer.

          Normal is a construct. Its a generalisation. Its a term produced for people who can't think outside of the box.

          If people spent less time worrying about whether they are normal, and more time living their lives they would be far happier.
          First of all, you're missing the point of what I'm saying. I'm saying that whilst it is true that our ancestors had less overall menstrual cycles, there were reasons for it which can't be applied to modern day women. If this Ryner woman is telling me that a natural monthy occurrance of which we have no control is, infact, 'not what nature intended' then she should go away and reconsider her research for this and maybe have a talk with some evolutionary biologists.
          • Offline

            18
            (Original post by Cybele)
            First of all, you're missing the point of what I'm saying. I'm saying that whilst it is true that our ancestors had less overall menstrual cycles, there were reasons for it which can't be applied to modern day women. If this Ryner woman is telling me that a natural monthy occurrance of which we have no control is, infact, 'not what nature intended' then she should go away and reconsider her research for this and maybe have a talk with some evolutionary biologists.
            I don't think I can explain this in a way you will understand, but I'll try.
            And thats not me trying to offend or patronise - I would have the same issues trying to understand quantum physics because I don't have the background in it.

            Grass, Rabbits, Foxes.

            Grass grows at a fairly constant rate.
            Rabbits reproduce at a fast rate.
            Foxes reproduce at a slow rate and eat the rabbits.

            The foxes eating the rabbits keep their population stable. They reach an equilibrium. THe rabbits need to reproduce at a fast rate in order to sustain their population.

            However take off the brakes (i.e. kill the foxes) and suddenly their population explodes. A new problem emerges. They run out of grass, and they all pretty much die. THis is bad for rabbits. Its an example of co-dependent evolution.

            A woman is capable of menstruating 12 times a year but in the past the brakes have been on due to all the previously mentioned reasons so they never have.
            Nature does not 'intend' evolution is blind (a key concept in Dawkins 'The blind watchmaker').
            But the old equilibrium is broken, and new problems emerge. Cervical cancer, breast cancer, endometriosis, anaemia - all problems not previously experienced to this degree.

            To me - a previously avid Dawkin reader the whole evolution debates and how they apply to modern populations are fascinating.
            Shame he brought out God Delusion and turned into an atheist fundementalist.
            Offline

            0
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Anonymous)
            The menstrual cycle.
            Everyone has no doubt had some teaching about menstrual cycle.
            Lasts 28 days, starts circa age 14-16, ends around 45-50.
            Period itself lasts about 5 days, and you lose about 80ml blood.

            This is how human menstrual cycle is taught.
            Its called overt menstruation - overt as in 'visible' because you can see the blood.
            This compares with some animals whereby they reabsorb their menstrual blood without it leaking. that is covert menstruation.

            But that blood loss is a bit of a waste isn't it. Doesn't really make sense to lose all those eggs and all that blood every month 'just in case' intercourse occurs.
            Menstruation is often painful as well (cramping etc) sometimes debilitatingly so.

            Look back at our history and in poorer countries and we start to see something. It wasn't always like this.
            Women used to have their first periods in their very late teens or early twenties. Periods were rarely regular because people didn't tend to eat well throughout the year - and, as many know, women who are very skinny often don't have regular periods.
            Women (and men) used to have a life expectancy in their 40s.
            The average family now is at most a couple of kids. It used to be that a woman would have at least 10+ pregnancies, many of which they would lose. THey used to breast feed much longer, at least a year in most cases.

            And I'm not even going back that far in history - only 200 years ago!

            When you put these factors together, you realise that women 200 years ago might have on average 1-2 periods per year in their lifetime. They would be pregnant for longer (not longer pregnancies, just more of them), breast fed for far longer (which supresses menstruation) and due to diet they didn't start menstruating until they were older.

            They didn't really suffer from period pains. They didn't go to the doctors in droves due to anaemia.
            The same is said for many developing countries.

            What are my points here?
            Regular periods every 28 days every year from 14yo to 50yo is not 'normal' for human beings. They happen because of our modern diets and improved O&G care meaning more babies survive hence women get pregnant less often. Contraception (condoms) meaning women don't get pregnant accidentally like they used to. Vaccinations so women lose less babies during pregnancy. Baby milk formulas and weaning products so women stop breast feeding far sooner.

            This isn't 'natural' by any stretch of the imagination. But it is reality.
            Once we accept this we can accept and understand that:-
            -Menstrual pain is 'normal' and expected
            -Irregular cycles are not intrinsically bad from a health point of view - just convenience
            -women should take good amounts of iron and vitamins to make up for this unnaturally high level of demand on their bodies

            This brings me onto the contraceptive pill. It is a hormonal pill. Many women worry about taking it and ingesting artificial hormones.
            The COC (combined pill) works by interfering with the bodies own hormones and preventing surges of the sex hormones. Whilst woemn often still menstruate it is often much lighter and so less painful. The effects also make the cervical mucus unpenetrable for sperm and prevent follicles developing (and so eggs being released). hence the contraceptive aspect.
            Much of this is the same as hormones in pregnancy and breast feeding which work in a similar way.
            This is also probably why the pill reduces you risk of dying.
            Thats right, research has shown that taking the pill for ten years increases your life expectancy. Which makes little sense until we realise all we are doing is counteracting some of the effects of modern living - reducing the hormonal load womens bodies suffer over the years.
            It is true that this increases risks of some diseases.
            It decreases the risk from others. Add the positives and negatives together however and we end up with net positive.


            Waow, your a freak.
            Offline

            12
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Jamie)
            I don't think I can explain this in a way you will understand, but I'll try.
            And thats not me trying to offend or patronise - I would have the same issues trying to understand quantum physics because I don't have the background in it.

            Grass, Rabbits, Foxes.

            Grass grows at a fairly constant rate.
            Rabbits reproduce at a fast rate.
            Foxes reproduce at a slow rate and eat the rabbits.

            The foxes eating the rabbits keep their population stable. They reach an equilibrium. THe rabbits need to reproduce at a fast rate in order to sustain their population.

            However take off the brakes (i.e. kill the foxes) and suddenly their population explodes. A new problem emerges. They run out of grass, and they all pretty much die. THis is bad for rabbits. Its an example of co-dependent evolution.

            A woman is capable of menstruating 12 times a year but in the past the brakes have been on due to all the previously mentioned reasons so they never have.
            Nature does not 'intend' evolution is blind (a key concept in Dawkins 'The blind watchmaker').
            But the old equilibrium is broken, and new problems emerge. Cervical cancer, breast cancer, endometriosis, anaemia - all problems not previously experienced to this degree.

            To me - a previously avid Dawkin reader the whole evolution debates and how they apply to modern populations are fascinating.
            Shame he brought out God Delusion and turned into an atheist fundementalist.
            So, you're telling me, 'the breaks' which stop a woman from menstruating monthly, which I previously mentioned, are 'normal'? I have never once said menstruating regularly isn't without it's drawbacks but then, life for women throughout history has been pretty horrendous and I'd rather live like I do now and have a period a month than live like my ancestors and have only a few a year. I have endometriosis and anaemia and still take that over living in an era where'd I'd be lucky to reach 40.
            • Offline

              18
              (Original post by Cybele)
              So, you're telling me, 'the breaks' which stop a woman from menstruating monthly, which I previously mentioned, are 'normal'?
              (Original post by Cybele)
              I have never once said menstruating regularly isn't without it's drawbacks but then, life for women throughout history has been pretty horrendous and I'd rather live like I do now and have a period a month than live like my ancestors and have only a few a year. I have endometriosis and anaemia and still take that over living in an era where'd I'd be lucky to reach 40.
              haha I don't think anyone would argue that things on the whole aren't much better these days.
              I mean to think that 100 years ago there was no treatment for infection. A simple urine infection would kill you!

              I really don't like the word normal, but if you are saying that not having a period is...anticipated in pregnancy or breast feeding then yes of course.
              The same applies if a woman exercises hard, loses a lot of weight etc.
             
             
             
            Reply
            Submit reply
            TSR Support Team

            We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

            Updated: December 16, 2010
          • See more of what you like on The Student Room

            You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

          • Poll
            Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
          • See more of what you like on The Student Room

            You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

          • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

            Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

            Quick reply
            Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.