The Pill and attractiveness

Bet the title caught your attention, didn’t it?

http://www.blogos.org/thetakeaway/birth-control-safe.php

It’s an abortifacient, as covered before, that’s literally the only way it can work.

You can’t be anti-abortion and use The Pill (unless there’s also a barrier method so the uterine implantation doesn’t matter).

Partner choice. Pheromones and body odor have more of an influence on who we choose as a partner than we realize. Usually, people are attracted to others whose odor indicates they are genetically different. But when on hormonal birth control, not only does the woman tend to choose men who are more similar,

And consequently, cause poorer health in their children.

she is chemically less attractive to dissimilar men.

Plenty of women marry the wrong man because they were on the Pill.

You don’t tamper with the mating instinct. God/Nature guides you to the right one.

I’ve noticed women on the Pill were less attractive overall too, more vindictive (the hostility of a pregnant woman, maybe because of reduced attractiveness and the insecurity it produces) and I’d assume the men on their version (it was trialed) would be less attractive also. This could be studied but nobody is willing to offend. It’s almost to the point I can spot the women on the Pill against those who never had it.

The women can seem technically as sexy (or sexier if they lacked estrogen before) but they’re somehow less attractive.

All you’d need to do is take photos before and after Pill use (1 year?) and see if one is more attractive. This may be why younger photos are more beautiful.

This has a couple of potential repercussions. If a woman is on hormonal birth control when she chooses her mate, she will be less likely to become pregnant because of the genetic similarities. In addition, when she goes off birth control, she will be less attracted to her mate.

False love, arguably the marriage doesn’t count because she was on drugs.

Sound mind?

The Pill is psychoactive. It has psychological side effects.

Conversely, if a woman waits until after she’s in a committed relationship to go on birth control, she may find her mate less attractive while on it.

That one is unlikely, this is purely a selection phenomena.

See women on HRT in middle age for debunking it.

Whether decreased interest occurs after she starts or stops taking birth control, it could adversely affect her marriage as she inadvertently finds herself more attracted to men other than her husband.

Doubtful.

But it could make her less attractive to her husband.

The Pill (any hormones) also throws off development. Women don’t stop physically developing until their mid-twenties.

Gynecologist: 10 reasons to get off the Pill

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/05/22/gynecologist-gives-10-reasons-women-quit-taking-birth-control-pills/
Because it hasn’t been properly tested isn’t enough?
“While this may be a temporary benefit to taking the Pill, long-term, your natural “female” hormones don’t return to normal. This means your hormones stay whacked for decades.”
“The Pill, as opposed to other contraceptive methods can cause permanent delayed conception”
Do your own research, there are many troubling connections. Gut problems, psychiatric risks, cancer… infertility, possibly birth defects or genetic disorders (notice how many Down’s kids we have now?) are possible but under-studied.

The fat thing doesn’t go away either – you’ll have a higher risk of becoming randomly fat into the future – especially pregnancy. The irony of vain women taking it to avoid getting fat….

Any woman dumb enough to wish to sterilize herself, even temporarily, probably shouldn’t breed.

Low birth rate caused by birth control, explained

If we’re talking evolution and society, we need to review everything in light of r/K.

Slut shaming was prosocial. Bring back bachelor tax (we already have it in welfare parent tax for non-parents).
http://shylockholmes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/the-birth-control-basilisk.html

More sex than ever, fewer babies. Doesn’t take a genius to work out.

It tends to cull r-types, birth control was designed for married K-types to curb in line with their natural instincts and environmental needs.
“3. People have a very strong, uncomplicated desire to love and care for the children they have.”
K-types only.
It’s impossible to discuss sex without sexual strategy.

And yet people do.

” A strong desire to have sex ensures children are produced with fairly high regularity, because birth control is either non-existent or unreliable. ”
R-types only.
Ks limit their sexuality for monogamy, once pair-bonding has been achieved with a suitable mate. In human terms, after marriage.
Most of the sub-replacement fertility in Europe is due to the low marriage rates. It’s good that people aren’t reproducing out of wedlock.

“The whole idea of it being a contentious question whether you chose to have kids or not is, as far as I can tell, a shockingly recent question. If the only way you could so choose would be to either a) not get laid, or b) rely on methods that require practice, discipline in the heat of coital moment, forward planning and/or health risks, the discussion would be largely moot.”

Still no mention of marriage as related to procreation.
This, from a traditionalist.
People are that decoupled. Thanks, sexual revolution!
Birth control is K-selected, the problem is that it didn’t account for the Revolution that messed with marriage.
If everyone having sex is married, it becomes a matter of family planning.
If anything with marriage goes awry, the r-types win out because the Ks aren’t even hopping the first hurdle of the big white wedding day. Plus they’re limiting.
The man who invented The Pill intended for it to help spouses who wanted to enjoy sex but not bankrupt their pre-existing families. We could also limit birth control to those who’ve already bred like it used to be but that’s too sensible. Chemical BC causes many health problems in women, there’s medical grounds to restrict it.
The Pill as a theory is K-enforcing since it imposes their pattern on the r-types.

Never including IQ as a factor in to who is/should be allowed birth control by the state is also an issue.
Age to a lesser extent. You don’t finish developing until your twenties.

The eternal r-type

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/unbelievable-mother-of-15-kids-somebody-needs-to-pay-somebody-needs-to-be-held-accountable_12012011

for the Title alone

“Somebody needs to pay! Somebody needs to be held accountable!”

comment

“At what number of children does a woman loose her ‘reproductive rights’ to bring even more children into this world that she is unable to care for? Why are you and I ‘forced’ to support children that we had no part in creating? I had no part in the pleasure of any of the orgasms required to create these children …… so why am I required to support them and their mother?
I am informed that here in Florida, the grandmother of the children will go to DCF and allege that her daughter is unfit to care for and raise her grandchildren. Once the mother is declared “unfit”, then the grandmother will gain legal custody of the children and then become their “foster parent”. This changes the whole nature of the situation from a welfare issue to a foster care issue. Grandma can then collect approximately 2.5X more as a foster care provider than her daughter can receive as a welfare recipient.
At this point, the daughter moves back in with her mother and her children and they all live happily after ….. at our expense. How about after the delivery of two welfare babies we also provide the mother with a tubal ligation; at our expense of course. To be completely fare about the whole thing, we also give the father a free vasectomy.
Food for thought homies. Too cold on my part?”

This sex-positive Sexual Revolution propaganda is all about dem dollars.

It’s a wealth transfer to the immature dependents (high time pref) from the actual adults (low time pref). The productive are being vampirised for the leeches, that’s why they can’t afford to breed themselves!

You have a ‘right’ to breed as many children as you like, under our construct of consensual=moral, but you do not have a right to force others to pay for it. At most, your own relations ought to pay for them, not strangers. I find it funny the men complaining about free birth control are the ones (sluts) who benefit from it, they never want to shut down free STD clinics or the abortion clinics, do they?

Replacement-level only is too generous, one child only. You need to breed those genes OUT.
The old rule was all those claiming any welfare go on birth control OR forsake all right to support for any child they produce while claiming.

“This angers me because I remember trying not to cry when I went in for my tubal ligation. We wanted more kids but knew in our hearts we couldn’t afford more. We stopped at three, wanted five originally. It was hard but I figured if I was ever in a position to truly support another lil guy then I could afford a reversal or in vitro. Made sense to me then, makes sense to me now. I don’t regret it because I know my kids would have less if I had been emotional and selfish.

And then to think of the poor couples who can’t have any at all! Really makes me sick. And more and more people have no responsibility for thier actions in any way anymore. I have to wonder, if there were no such thing as welfare, would she have had all those kids?”

It hurts other, better women most of all, the ones who keep their legs shut.

In a way, it’s deeply sexist against K-women. We have a shorter breeding period where we’re forced to pay for welfare trash babies instead of saving for our own.

“Let’s be fair…
Norplant as long as you are on welfare.
Once you start on welfare no more children are added to the payouts.
You lose the right to vote as long as you are on welfare.
to collect welfare you need to turn in the father with a DNA test to prove it.
So if you are down on your luck you get help, and if you turn your life around you get to have as many children as you want, vote, and collect child support from dad(s)”

Why should anyone’s sex life (lifestyle choice) be subsidized by the taxpayer?

The assumption nobody ever attacks.

There is no such thing as a human right to orgasms.

You have no right to a sex life, especially at the expense of others. This goes from free contraception to rape. Within marriage, you have a right to sex. That is literally the ‘conjugal right‘. You don’t have conjugal rights over anyone you’re not married to. That’s the real issue, they refuse to marry.

They want all the perks of marriage: sex, children, financial providence but no obligations or responsibilities.

In a patriarchy, it’s always the father’s responsibility as the provider, this is more a paternal failure but the women are almost as bad. Simply extract all the mother’s costs from the father, or he can work it off in prison. That’s the only way to do this, the traditional way.

Without promiscuity culture, this would never have happened.

Social shame would have prevented it but who wants to name the Beast of lust? All both parents want is ‘fun’.

They had sex knowing the biological consequence. You are taught this before puberty. You can have ‘fun’ in a thousand other ways or take up a masturbation habit if orgasms are so core to your self-esteem. Too much sex and the wrong sex (out of marriage, with strangers) is bad for your body and mind. It’s also common sense. There is NO such thing as ‘casual sex’. It has one, clear outcome.

comment
“If you can’t feed em, don’t breed em.”
“The bitch and her bastards belong in the gas chamber.”
“How’s about the Dads pay and you keep your legs together. I don’t owe you anything.”

If anything, they owe society.

In these cases, it’s always unfair to blame only the mother when it takes two to horizontal tango.
Always ask: where’s the father?

comment on a previously linked article, relevant
Long before you start saving money for your own kids, you pay for someone else’s. Get some single mother’s kid set up with toys, clothes and food and THEN you can start putting aside some money for your OWN kid, but not before. First some brown kid somewhere gets a Tonka truck, new jeans, KFC, ice cream sandwiches with your money. See what’s left, stick it in the piggy bank for your kid. Fuck it.”

The welfare system is unjust.

Our future is stolen.

Anti-Trump

Stay classy.

Fashisom? Indie band?

yelling

whorepills

The Government is staying out of your bedroom. Buy your own whore pills.

Why should my taxes pay for another woman’s orgasms?

Wittier would be “get your husband to do it…. oh wait....” Implying they’ll die alone no matter how much they give it away is worse for them than saying it.

Before you call that sexist, this is A Thing.

rapemelania-protest

monisha-rajesh

redstatesusa

ripmsm

almosthadit

janetreno

Link between depression and birth control

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/massive-new-study-links-birth-control-to-depression-for-the-first-time/

I’m not going to bother on this one.

You aren’t stupid.

You can think about these things for yourself.

Like how thwarting MOTHER Nature is impossible.

And taking any psychoactive meds for more than a few years is terrible.

Just like that.

Or how the behaviour it encourages could cause shame, guilt and humiliation, suppressed due to the hypersexual culture and condensed into full-blown depression.

Stuff like that.

Birth control – for whom?

A minor point on this.

Birth control takes away control from women. The feminists lie.
Men invented birth control, men prescribe birth control, men tell women they need to be on birth control. (So they can use us like whores, only whores used to require birth control/chemical abortions, if a man tells you that you need to be on it, he’s calling you a whore and that any child he conceives with you must be destroyed in shame because while you’re valuable for sex, he doesn’t want to provide in return, still want to fuck him?)

How, exactly, is all this the woman’s choice?

And for the feminists saying they’re pro-choice, well, which industries do they profit from? Sex-positive (slut) and abortion (anti-natal) taking the option of motherhood away from other women and wiping their wallets while doing it. The competition (pretty women, usually) have less children and see no rush to get married in their physical prime, a great incentive to r-types promoting it to the enemy, who also want to keep the number of nuclear families down.

Controlling the life or death inside another woman, or even whether that woman has a life growing inside her in the first place. Doesn’t sound like personal empowerment, but social, medical control.

The fewer mothers, the fewer conservative women, this is a known connection.
The more unhappy sluts, the more self-help bullshit they read blaming the Other (men).
Gee, sound like any belief system you know?

They say: You need this.

They mean: You need us.

It’s drug addiction. What do addicts do? They take the drug longer than maximum (the Pill is only ‘safe’ a few years, tops), they self-medicate with reckless behaviours (sex) and self-destruct emotionally because a core part of their feminine identity (the Mother) has been stolen from them. Result? They feel stuck. Perma-childhood.

Finger the villain.

They say it was a Sexual Revolution.

It was, in fact, a Maternal Destruction.

Listen between their lies.

Motherhood is bad and you’re bad for wanting it. You want to be a housewife? Why? Oh, you’re a mother, what a waste. Mothers are wasting their lives, it isn’t an ambition or a valid one to want a family, like a man who wants a legacy. Those father figures are losers, how dare they love you enough to want to provide for you until they die. You have all the time in the world but don’t do it now, put it off forever. Parents are uncool, you want to be hip, I can tell. You think you want kids, but you don’t really want those ugly, smelly ungrateful things you’d have made, do you? Children are always terrible and the fact they don’t like me proves it. You should be ashamed to side with your family instead of strange women who seem very unhinged and want you to take up their unhealthy habits. If you want a cuddle, buy a dog. Human purpose isn’t genetic, that’s so Darwinian. Parents aren’t superior or I would be one. Nobody wants to marry me so you shouldn’t settle down either because I’d be all alone. There are so many exciting men who’ll be happy to use you until your looks go, why are you depriving them their fun? (R-types stick together, as you can see with the manwhore pick-up artists and slut-positive feminists who both align only to protect Promiscuity Culture).

If this sounds backwards, because it’s a media Big Lie to blame the victim, think of it like this.

Why are there mothers and boyfriends grinding up birth control into an adult woman’s food?

Where is your ‘control’ there?

Why does the father (and they are a father if there is conception) get to order an abortion in someone else’s body, of the child he consented to create in consenting to the act of sex aka procreation?

(The two can never be divided, sex is making babies and making babies is having sex, biology 101; the drugs give us an illusion, or one method would work 100%).

Why were men on board for giving it to women they would never, ever marry?

It allows men to control a woman’s body and her most feminine aspect – her fertility, to use her for his pleasure until he can discard her with no consequences or investment (the masculine side of the sexual bargain).

Is that in any woman’s best interest?

well leaves nope no go leaving

For balance? This is also bad for men in general. Aside from the chemical sterile angle.
As the men opt out of the duties of an adult male, hard-won as a rite of passage, birth control is also anti-Patriarchy. On a fundamental level, it ruins their daughters for their odds of a happy marriage, allows their wife to cheat without being found out, allows their son to waste his time chasing tail instead of building the family business and getting serious, and they probably wouldn’t become Patriarchs in the first place, revoking their masculine power to found a family too and hard-won possibility of a legacy denied to many men who can’t find or earn a good spouse (but usually, modern men are dumb enough from anti-family propaganda to encourage their women to go on the stuff too, only to complain their woman has lost interest in starting a family, because he’s drugging her to think she already has one).