Comments on: blogbody contraception

By: ngvrnd

ngvrnd — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 04:45:33 +0000

Yes, exactly. I’m not too reliable at moderating comments, I’m afraid.

By: dff

dff — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:36:08 +0000

Oh, stop whining, for goodness sake!

I was only whining because JP’s comment suddenly showed up, and I couldn’t say anything in response! Was it maybe in moderation and you approved it after comments automatically closed? Or was it there all along and I only saw it the other day because of some RSS reader bug?

By: ngvrnd

ngvrnd — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:40:42 +0000

If contraceptives are already inhibiting sloughing of older tissue, then changing them to prevent all bleeding might not increase the risk much over what women are already accepting, while significantly increasing their comfort and happiness.

By: TJIC

TJIC — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:56:52 +0000

Not having periods might also be a bad thing.

Speaking from half-remembered data, and prob getting 80% of it wrong:

The uterus is suffused with all sorts of hormones, which (a) make it a mutagenic environment, (b) making it a good breeding ground (I almost wrote “breading ground”, but I don’t want to make any yeasty jokes here).

There’s speculation that menstruation is an evolutionary adaptation to periodically get rid of an infection/cancer route.

By: ngvrnd

ngvrnd — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:30:11 +0000

Oh, stop whining, for goodness sake! I close the comments after three days as part of my effort to stop the hateful comment spammers. I don’t turn trackbacks off, though, unlike SOME PEOPLE. :-) Maybe I’ll push the close date out some, though.

I’ve heard that (real) periods prevent cancer by sloughing off the inner lining of the uterus, which is full of rapidly dividing cells secreting growth factors, which are at increased risk of mutations.

If contraceptive pills prevent real periods and inhibit the sloughing process, this could lead to an increase in cancer rates, I’d guess.