Posted on 12/23/2005 10:27:20 AM PST by billorites
I'd love to meet her in Sybil phase. I've got a neighbor with an incessantly yappy dog and it would thrill me to see her punt it down the road :)
Seriously, it sounds like a trip to the gyn might be in order. They do have medications to level out the hormones. Until then, when you see a box of tampons in her shopping bag, duck and cover.
Well, any kind of chemical libido is only half of it, I'll admit that. And pain is certainly worse for any drive that might be there. I can certainly see the benefit of it for you, and for anyone who considers it and decides to use it.
As someone who previously thought sex drive (in women) to be more emotional than chemical, I was just surprised by a marked decrease, and people shouldn't discount it but recognize it. I know it can be overcome... dinner out and a little flirting goes a long ways :~D
To tell the truth, sometimes getting in the mood is a chore, but for me the cure truly is better than the disease. Also having my best friend for my husband makes it a wonderful life. Laughter truly can be an aphrodisiac;>
Very true :~D
--suggest to her to try having a real gut-buster of an orgasm a day before the arrival of the blessed event--according to several "experts" I've been shall we say "exposed" to, including an ex-wife, it solves the problem---
I don't think that's the kind of thing a dad suggests for his daughter... but perhaps she will see the suggestion somewhere else.
I suppose those women who want to get pregnant will continue do so. In other words, they will decide. It is, after all, a free country. Would you rather have the government make such decisions?
So called? What name would you prefer that we call ourselves?
It is the Roman Catholic Church, or a Catholic Church.
It hasn't been The Catholic Church since it split Roman and Greek.
Hey, Hair, I never tried to stop anybody from living their own life. Why do you always assume somebody's reflexively gone coercive on you and is reaching for a big hammer (or the jackhammer of the State?)
No, of course I'm not hoping for negative health outcomes for women. (?????weird. More than a little monstrous, too.) I do know quite a bit about the female endocrine system, having owned and operated one for many decades and having done quite a bit of reading on the subject.
Women's cyclic hormonal changes associated with fertility and menstruation are bogglingly complex and system-wide. It's not like you can flip an ON/OFF switch connected to the uterus or the ovaries. These cycles involve everything: the pituitary, the thyroid, the hypothalamus, all of the homeostatic processes, muscle tone, metabolism, blood sugar, blood pressure, immune response, the works.
Proposing to shut down the healthy, functioning female cycle is not like proposing to remodel your beachfront bungalow. It's more like proposing to fill in the Pacific Ocean with three quarters of the Moon. All climates, seasons, habitats and tides will change; and one may be permitted to doubt that we'll be the better for it.
Well, your post that I replied to, including it's "lots o'fun, seemed awfully ~glib~. I can't interpret it any other way.
I understand there are risks with anything, particularly messing with hormones. And sometimes benefits.
Besides, this violates the FIRST RULE of medical ethics:
Primum Non Nocere.
And the SECOND RULE:
If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It.
It does neither.
You just don't see a need for it for you and that's fine.
Others might, for their circumstances.
I am convinced, that all the people residing in places like E. L.A., hit the freeways to cruise for entertainment...
You wrote: "It does neither."
If applied to a normal, healthy female, it certainly does violate medical ethics. Deliberately sabotaging and disabling a healthy system is the very definition of "harm." And the conditional "If it ain't broke" is central to the discussion.
You wrote: " You just don't see a need for it for you and that's fine. Others might, for their circumstances."
Yes, yes, exactly, and that's just the point.
If a woman has a diseased or injured or deformed or poorly functioning sexual reproductive system, she's certainly entitled to try various kinds of drugs or surgery to bring things back towards healthy. Even if there might be trade-offs and she might have to accept the side-effect of some jimmying of her cycle.
That's ethical medicine.
But if a woman is healthy, normal and functioning, and a doctor deliberately puts her into a state of hormonal abnormality and dysfunction, that's medical quackery.
I agree with you position.
The birth control pills on the market now still make you have your period.
I love to get my hands on this product.
and a life of STD's, AIDS, cervical cancer due to HPV infection
a life sentence of misery or a death sentence and the feminists call this liberation?
Oh please... such drama. Give it up.
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.