Birth Control and Side Effects

I find it weird that a bunch of women I know do yoga and praise the healthy natural life style but, ingest or inject or insert something that goes into bodies which is solely designed to go against nature.

>everything I don't like should be banned

>not everyone is as sheltered or as detached from reality or social norms
Everything I'm advocating for was reality and the social norm just a few decades ago. Not that it's an argument either way--if everyone is being degenerate and retarded, they're obviously still degenerate and retarded. They just happen to be doing it together.

It's not hard--don't want to get pregnant? Simple. Don't fuck.
Don't want a guy to pump and dump, leaving you a single mom? Simple. Don't fucking fuck.

But no, that's too easy and not nearly enough 'fun.' A "normal" life now would have been (rightly) seen as soulless and despicable in the past, and not that far back either.

It's not a question of what I like or not per se (although values are inherent to it), but a question of demonstrable outcomes towards certain values. I don't like a lot of things on a personal level, but there's little reason to ban them. As for regulating birth control, it's rather obvious what stands to be gained in terms of discouraging recklessness.

In any case, unless you're a lolberg, it's nonsense to use as an argument.

>Why take something so bad, something that you hate so much, that causes you all these problems?
It enables a person to have consequence-free sex (barring STD's).

This is may seem like a dumb answer, but pharmaceutical birth control is one of the most important inventions within the last century. Before the invention of contraceptives, couples had to wait until marriage, which at that point was very literally like signing a lifelong legal contract. The alternative was being saddled with a bastard child.

>But no, that's too easy and not nearly enough 'fun.' A "normal" life now would have been (rightly) seen as soulless and despicable in the past, and not that far back either.

That’s a fucking weak as hell argument considering the idea of sexual conservatism is a relatively modern concept to begin.

Hell, even the Bible is self-contradictory when it comes to the idea of espousing your particular brand of sexual conservatism.

In every single case where access to birth control has been restricted, teenager pregnancies and STDs have gone way up. This is a fact. You cannot deny this. So you want a society with more teenage pregnancies and STDs. I cannot understand what kind of immoral degenerate wants this.

And known abortion rates stay the same despite the fact that in a no birth control country they're usually illegal and therefore massively unrecorded. Taking away birth control is literally like trying to make your country into the 1980's Africa.

>Why take something so bad, something that you hate so much, that causes you all these problems?
The vast majority of men refuse to wear a condom, especially if you're in a ltr or married.

It gives women control of their menstrual cycle and often let them decrease it.
It means they can't get pregnant*

I think most women are aware of these side effects and still choose to use it.
I can easily relate to loathing a bodily function and a desire to control it.

>It seems to me that 9/10 women who take some form of birth control *purely* for contraception seem to hate it.
well, you're wrong.

>and all it took was a "I value your health more, you shouldn't feel that way" no humble brag.
I had a dude friend who believed the same for himself, but when I finally got to be privvy to this lovely conversation, he literally just whined that it could make her fat until she agreed to change bc. I wonder how likely it is that this is the case for you.

Unless you want to play the sophist, a historical survey would undoubtedly show that sexual "conservatism" is far more common than the rank promiscuity of the modern world. There is furthermore a huge societal difference between something being common but condemned, or being uncommon but praised or ignored.

I'm not a Christian, even if I do agree with many Christian teachings in this regard.

>So you want a society with more teenage pregnancies and STDs.
The society would also have much better moral standards and overall quality of life. Pic related, I'd be happy to let the degenerates rot in their own filth if it means keeping it contained.

>I cannot understand what kind of immoral degenerate wants this.
I don't give a shit if degenerates suffer anymore than you would care if a member of the KKK got shot. STDs, with the exception of those contracted through rape, are on balance a blessing since they punish exactly those who need punishing.

As for teenage pregnancy, it's not that difficult to avoid if you're actually willing to take preventive measures. True, overall rates will increase if past statistics are any measure, but then again the goal isn't to make life easier for those who would waste it anyway.

There is nothing "moral" about bailing out the immoral.

Attached: quote-prostitution-in-the-towns-is-like-the-cesspool-in-the-palace-take-away-the-cesspool-thomas-aqu (850x400, 64K)

Society was far more degenerate in the past you mouthbreathing troglodyte. Even with easier access to birth control and hookups, the younger generation is having less casual sex than those before.

Gentle reminder not to respond to trip fags, they're literally looking for attention and think when you respond to them, that means they're important.

>society would also have much better moral standards and overall quality of life
Imagine being so deluded as to actually believe a society run on the wishes of a morally corrupt mentally ill violent psychopath incel would be better.

I think people are trying to bait him into finally getting partyvanned for good

>Society was far more degenerate in the past
Patent bullshit. Degenerates have always existed, but societal acceptance of them has waxed and waned over centuries--and right now there is essentially nothing opposing them (and a visceral reaction by legions of hedonists to any condemnation of their behavior). A century ago, the mere suggestion of degeneracy like "trial marriages" was enough to bring out the pitchforks and torches in the US.

>younger generation is having less casual sex than those before.
The only troglodyte here is you if you think that history began with the boomers.

I actually got more replies without the trip--but that was irritating because delusional retards would keep arguing with you with the same false premises because "Anonymous" is always someone new. A tripfag, despicable he may be, is an identifiable person, and most don't bother going for round 2. Believe what you want about me, but the information presented isn't up for speculation.

>something something ad hominem something tripfag literally evil something
Who I am is completely irrelevant, the facts remain irregardless of whatever hysterics you send yourself into.

ftp.iza.org/dp4200.pdf
>"measures of subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men."

For what, exactly? The bottom line is people hate having their worldviews challenged, and they REALLY hate when it might be a valid point.

How many times have you done things like threaten violence and wish for things like disease and death on everyone who doesn't agree with your tiny incel mind? People simply want you to be taken before you go Elliot and kill innocent people.

>How many times have you done things like threaten violence and wish for things like disease and death on everyone who doesn't agree with your tiny incel mind?
Precisely zero. There are certain people whose absence would present no loss whatsoever, but it's not because they disagree with me, it's because of what they do.

I'm also not an incel, since if it were 'involuntary' that would mean I don't want celibacy. I doubt you even understood the term, much less my own motivations, you just picked it because it vaguely fits the caricature you painted. Of course this will go either right over or right through your thick head, but then again my aim was never to convince the intellectually stunted.

>People simply want you to be taken before you go Elliot and kill innocent people.
Because anyone who disagrees with your own immorality must obviously be a murderer. Your delusion isn't even consistent. If I were Elliot 2.0, and was banned from a website, how would that affect anything I'd do in reality? If anything, it'd make violence more likely, since a harmless outlet was removed. Luckily for everyone, your delusion is just that, and your desire to have offensive opinions (and especially offensive facts) removed at any cost won't result in harm.

I am curious, if not from you from anyone else, what similarities at all they see between me and someone like that faggot.

>he thinks people don't recognize him when he doesn't have a trip
You only remove the trip whenever you get banned.

>everyone I don't like is LITERALLY literally Hitler
It's always funny seeing people who actually think of me as the board's bogeyman. I hope you check your closet at night, too.

I post without the trip often, especially when the topic isn't relevant to my usual focus. But you wouldn't notice that, would you? For example, I posted several times without the trip in the "ask the other gender" thread up now. You might be able to tell it's me by writing style, but certainly not by content.

There's a balancing act, of course--always posting with the trip is being an attention whore by definition, but always posting without it leads back to the issues I first had. I try to include some advice aside from my sources and soapboxing, just to build a little personality (for which you are free to criticize me).

I am also a good noodle, and I sit through any time-out. The insinuation that I do otherwise is mean-spirited and insulting.

Not me at all lmao. I just didn’t like the fact that it made her sick.

Op here, I really wish literally hitler didn’t derail this thread.

I didn't derail your thread, my initial post was exactly on topic, and I even threw in a source after that. I apologize for it getting out of hand afterwards, but that's hardly my fault alone.

Women are easily led morons who believe anything a man (especially jewish doctor) tells them. Simple as that. Birth control pills are totally fucked and screw up their brains, but to have Chaddeus, Braddeus and Tyrone hand around them for ten years they'd cut their own legs off, meanwhile Dr. Steinberg rubs his hands and laughs.

Hitler is right.
Both this poster and real Hitler obviously.

Any take on the IUD? it doesn't have any of the symptoms that the pill has, and it lasts from 3 to 5 years.

Is a combination of VCF films and pull out safe enough to protect against pregnancy?

Because most chicks are to retarded to bother to read into symptomal-thermal methods like Sensiplan, which have the same fucking pearl index like the pill.

Sluts are brainlets and water is wet.

I thank god for antibiotically resistant STD strains every fucking day. Soon every degenerate will be outcasted like in the victorian syphillis day. Amen.

I take birth control and don't experience any side effects

That I know of, at least lol

Period pains are a distraction from my job. I'd rather feel under the weather every once in a while then deal with them monthly.

I use condoms and have my gf on the pill. I pay for it for her. Why use both? I can't speak for her but I'm just getting my feet on the ground as a young professional and I don't want to worry about the slightest chance of pregnancy. A kid would really, really fuck me up right now. Also, we may not have unprotected vaginal sex but we do have unprotected anal sex, which also carries a slight chance of pregnancy that is essentially eliminated by the pill. Don't be such a beta, OP. Think about yourself for once. Girls still enjoy sex when they are on the pill, and the ones with the slightest amount of willpower won't get fat. Yeah it may suck a bit, but having a kid you don't want sucks more, and God forbid an abortion.

It's actually quite logical. It's more likely that his retardation was actually unchecked ambitions, but violating the non-aggression pact with Russia so soon was abject stupidity.

My wife and I use birth control because we won't be financially ready for kids for 2-3 years. Not every woman uses it for casual sex. I would much rather raise our children in a nice house of our own.

>tfw mother had bad experience and is against it, so that makes me doubly concerned about ever using hormonal birth control
>tfw never took it as a result
>my last lover hated condoms and we always fucked without them but it made me worry alot whenever my period was late
>tfw nothing happened, no STDs or babby thank god
>go to sexual health clinic to find out and nurse is harsh, tells me an accidental pregnancy would ruin my health more than hormonal bc and I need to get on pills

This is so difficult. The ex I mentioned was the only man I trusted (and the only person I had sex with more than once) and I don't know if I can trust anyone else to have unprotected sex with them, and I know most men hate condoms. I'm not fond of them either. I am young and don't want to use a coil either...

What does one do? I know withdrawal is a retarded method and no matter how experience the guy was, it only takes one mistake to fuck up your life and get pregnant

Attached: 1476775257653.jpg (600x602, 84K)

My opposition to methods of birth control (or rather, their misuse) isn't rooted in their side effects but in the direct consequence of encouraging immorality.

Leaving aside the horror stories of malfunctions, if an IUD is physically inert and a couple doesn't want kids at the moment, they can by all means go for it--but they must already be married to obtain it or any other method of birth control.

In general, it doesn't make much sense to marry and decide not to have any kids (barring cases like infertility of one partner), so I'd still call it degenerate to exclusively use birth control, but it's far less so if it is within marriage, even an unproductive one.

This is exactly what I mean. All of this thing's 'problems' wouldn't exist if it wasn't a whore.

>Why take something so bad, something that you hate so much, that causes you all these problems?
I don't want to have children yet and I enjoy having sex. I'd never abort. I enjoy having as much control as possible on whether I get pregnant or not.
The side effects I get are not comparable to the benefits I get from taking it both health wise and simply by knowing that I'm 99% sure that I'm not having children unless I want to.
I was on BC even when I wasn't having sex because it made me feel really relaxed that, if I got raped, I wasn't risking pregnancy.

Pregnancy before I have my shit in order is a terrifying prospect for a child, and while I waited till I was old enough to be able to find a job and in a relationship that is stable enough that we'd be able to raise a kid, I'd still wait till we are in a better position to have children.
I understand that you say "just use a condom bro" but 15% of couples that rely on condoms only to avoid pregnancy get pregnant (on a yearly basis) and I'm not betting my life and my child's life on something that has that high of a failure.

I understand that I could simply avoid having sex till I'm ready to have kids, but I really love cock.

>Why are so many women taking it?
I think other posters ITT pretty much covered it.
Society turned it into a "opt out" - you're supposed to take them by default, but if you know what you're doing you can stop.

Which honestly isn't a bad thing. We always have to differentiate what's good for us (personally, SO, family etc.) and the masses.
Birth control pills are certainly a huge improvement for the masses. As for us? Well if you *are* a thinking person, you can always lay them off.

I am of the opinion that it's a major step up that *people who don't know any better* are convinced they should be taking them.
And, like you admitted yourself, it's trivial to get someone to stop.

Nothing's lost here really.
Apart maybe from a bit of faith in humanity once you recognize how many people can't think for themselves.

My only advice would be to date men who are okay with condoms, if you can't find one then don't date at all.

You could try some contraceptives (pill, coil) as in just TRY but it's your choice and you can stop when you want.