S
severus68
Guest
Yes, attraction is not that simple. You can’t put some criteria in a table and tick them off.
- Status
S
severus68
Guest
I wonder why you refuse to ask the person who posted that.
S
severus68
Guest
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
True. But neither should responsible people ignore studies on some of the adverse side effects of the pill. Not saying you do, and doubt you do. But the following is additional information which you might find of interest.
I did not come in here to critique any particular woman’s preferences for males or vice versa. But it does seem to me that people tend to be awfully sanguine about very powerful drugs that have wide-ranging effects. As I mentioned before, when potential environmental effects (I am far from being an environmentalist myself) seem to be demonstrated from very indirect and smallish exposures, should we be less concerned about those who actually ingest those chemicals?
Some of the following doesn’t have to do with the pheromone phenomenon, but if manufactured estrogen compounds can do all of this, shouldn’t we be tremendously concerned about the array of effects of heavy usage? And further, should we not give some consideration to the possibility that “the way God made us” might just be the proper way for us to remain in lieu of routinely altering our body chemistry for no therapeutic purpose? Is “not worrying about having sex” really worth all the hazards?
“£30bn bill to purify water system after toxic impact of contraceptive pill”
guardian.co.uk/environmen…raceptive-pill
“[progestins] not only affect the developing embryo but also have been shown to alter adult ovarian function by targeting steroidogenesis. Hence, not only do these agents have the potential to disrupt reproductive cyclicity and/or the normal levels of ovarian steroid hormone production that are required to support implantation and the early stage of pregnancy, but these compounds may also cause transgenerational effects by targeting oocyte maturation and maternal sex chromosomes. As described, there are fundamental differences in developmental processes that control gonadogenesis in males and females.”
Developmental exposure to environmental endocrine disruptors: Consequences within the ovary and on female reproductive function
Mehmet Uzumcu, Rob Zachow
Reproductive Toxicology, Volume 23, Issue 3, April–May 2007, Pages 337–352
“Thus, when high estrogen oral contraception, considered to be a risk factor for breast cancer (112), is superimposed on a hypoglycemic elevation of IGF-II, breast cancer is a possible con- sequence. This increased risk for breast cancer may also, in part, be caused by an estrogen-induced elevation of HDL cholesterol which the high progestin contraceptive pill lowers (112). Males with excessive ethanol intake may also be equally susceptible to developing malignant tumors since ethanol is associated with an elevation of estrogen (28). But while breast cancer and other forms of cancer such as: gastric carcinoma (113); colorectal cancer (114); endometrial cancer (115); adrenocortical tumors (116); and meningioma (117) are associated with hypoglycemia and overexpression of IGF-II; lymphoma (118), lung cancer (119,120), and colorectal adenomas (121) are all associated with a lowered HDL profile.”
The estrogen connection: The etiological relationship between diabetes, cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and psychiatric disorders
R.J. Holden
Medical Hypotheses, Volume 45, Issue 2, August 1995, Pages 169–189
“Since it is now well-established that estrogen can cause epigenetic changes, it is reasonable to design experiments that ask whether the side effects associated with the use of synthetic estrogens are fully reversible after cessation of the drug. For example it has been shown that the Combined Oral Contraceptive Pill (COCP) can cause sexual dysfunction by elevating levels of Sex Hormone Binding Globulin (SHBG). SHBG binds to sex hormones, including testosterone, rendering them unavailable. Even after women stop taking the COCP, SHBG levels remain elevated and no reliable data exists to predict when they will diminish. Indeed, it has already been suggested that this is a persistent epigenetic effect on SHBG gene expression.”
Epigenetic side-effects of common pharmaceuticals: A potential new field in medicine and pharmacology
Antonei B. Csoka, Moshe Szyf
Medical Hypotheses, Volume 73, Issue 5, November 2009, Pages 770–780
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monograph Preamble on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans (page 2):
monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classi…GroupOrder.pdf
(Group 1 Carcinogenic to humans (107 agents))
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I have not seen rebuttal studies on here yet. Possibly they will come along, but I have my doubts.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
]think it is best to leave sex and gender out of it. People like sex. That has never changed and never will.
That’s why we need traditional marriage—for protection and civilization.
No it isn’t----it’s trying to find out the problem and solve it.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
severus68:
I have not seen rebuttal studies on here yet. Possibly they will come along, but I have my doubts.
Being attracted to high testosterone men – can have negative consequences. I believe I’ve read high testosterone-- is a factor in aggression and also infidelity. The role pheromones play-- may serve for initial attraction – but in the context of Christian marriage – other factors need to be taken into account – for long term stability.
S
severus68
Guest
For any marriage I would but yes, agreed.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Because you are the one who is claiming that it was on here.
Did you not post this:
I haven’t seen anyone post anything like that at all.
S
severus68
Guest
Yes, but I said “I believe…”. Why don’t you ask the poster herself or is she on your ignore list? If she is, you can put me on that list too, thank you.Because you are the one who is claiming that it was on here.
Did you not post this:
I haven’t seen anyone post anything like that at all.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ms. Jane Gray: what say you? What post proclaimed, “Families where the parents are not married to each other produce unhealthy children and do not love each other”?
And severus? It is not within your purview to ask other members to put you on “ignore”. That’s just weird. What you do is *you *put someone on ignore, if you feel it so necessary. You have that power. Just go to your user control panel and put any member you so desire on your own list.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Perhaps so about testosterone, though I have never seen a study establishing that. But that’s not the point at all. The article did not tout high testosterone levels in men. Rather, it pointed out that perception of pheremones is “off kilter” in women who use the pill and in the men whom they encounter as well. It has to do with genetic and immune response complementariness versus sameness.
The article did suggest that women who are ovulating seem to have a higher attraction level to men who have distinctively masculine secondary physical characteristics. That’s not at all the same thing as saying women “ought to” go for men with those characteristics at all times, and is far from saying women “ought to” go for men with high testosterone levels; something the article never mentions at all.
When you get right down to it, accepting that we are both physical and spiritual creatures with certain natural processes, largely unknown to us, that aid in guiding us to marriages that have a greater chance of lasting and producing healthy children, is anything but anti-Christian or even non-Christian. We ought not to be dualists about such things, but ought to accept it that God has established natural aids for us but did not give us every last detail about them. Nor is it unChristian to question whether things like the pill, which dramatically alter human chemistry and natural function, just might not be good for us in natural as well as spiritual ways. We are not angels trapped in clay bodies. We are unified creatures.
S
severus68
Guest
Thank you oh wise one, lol.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Have we decided now that this unprecedented state of affairs has something to do with testosterone levels? I’m not buying it.
I think that it has to do with the sentiment expressed on the famous bumper sticker:* A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle*. That’s what many of today’s women think about testosterone…that it is needed for sperm production! Women have stopped thinking that a) they can depend on a marriage to last until the child reaches adolescence, anyway, which means that they had better have a plan for parenting alone from the outset and b) they don’t think men are a particularly positive influence on children. Not all women, but enough that many might choose single motherhood without a second thought. If they get pregnant, therefore, modern women are prone to think the man probably won’t want to stay around, and if he does they don’t feel optimistic that he’ll stay. They figure the decision–whether to get pregnant and whether to go to term–is theirs alone in any case, then, married or not.
I think that it has to do with the sentiment expressed on the famous bumper sticker:* A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle*. That’s what many of today’s women think about testosterone…that it is needed for sperm production! Women have stopped thinking that a) they can depend on a marriage to last until the child reaches adolescence, anyway, which means that they had better have a plan for parenting alone from the outset and b) they don’t think men are a particularly positive influence on children. Not all women, but enough that many might choose single motherhood without a second thought. If they get pregnant, therefore, modern women are prone to think the man probably won’t want to stay around, and if he does they don’t feel optimistic that he’ll stay. They figure the decision–whether to get pregnant and whether to go to term–is theirs alone in any case, then, married or not.
J
JaneGrey
Guest
My exagerrated statement was inferring things from posts 310 and 312. I have no issues with Jim, who I believe is one of the posters and at least writes respectfully,or even yourself, - therefore my reaction to posts almost always tends to deal solely with the specific words in those posts. I felt they were just contributing to the general attitude I ve found here that shuts down debate and does proclaim children born into non-married households to be destined for failure.
J
JimG
Guest
I think that what you say is true, and it explains a great deal of the problem. Women no longer expect much from men, or from marriage. And men live down to their expectations. The whole thing is sad. Because with such low expectations, how can anyone recite marriage vows and actually mean them?
I believe that the root cause goes back to the widespread acceptance of contraception and the resulting sexual revolution which it enabled. It broke the bonds, even the potential bonds, which were intended to hold families together. As a result family atomization continues apace, and along with it society devolves into social anarchy.
J
JaneGrey
Guest
I think you misunderstood slightly - I am not autistic and not offended by your post per se. I was comparing how some autistics I know feel to how it feels, as a person who parents did not get married but who does not regret her life, to have people constantly refer to us as ‘illegitimate’ as though we are somehow less real, and compare us to a scourge or social ill. When one refers to ‘out of wedlock births’, they have to understand they are talking about a huge amount of different things and very very diverse issues, not all of which are inherently negative.
I think the problem with this thread is that people are conflating too many issues together. There needs to be one thread for the Pill and its alleged effects on offspring, another for teenage pregnancy, another for drug use and no good men and women and so on and so on. It is inaccurate to proclaim that all these things are linked together and therefore define children born out of wedlock.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t think anybody said this. Certainly, I didn’t.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Never did I say that somehow children born out of wedlock are somehow less real than those born within it.
As far as conflating too many issues, the topic invites broad comment, and perhaps should have been more narrowly limited. But if use of the pill is destructive to relationships between men and women, or cause them to mismatch in important ways, then it is at least potentially relevant to illegitimacy, since divorces and relationships that fall apart before marriage but after conception, may well contribute to the problem.
Obviously, if 40% of children are now born out of wedlock, that means they are born to women who are not, at the time, married. The topic then invites comment as to why that might be, but without limiting the potential commentary to, say, teenagers, drug users or just plain jerks.
- Status