Women's Issues

So

What other conditions is 'birth control' used to treat?

Some people are prescribed it to regulate their periods or make them less heavy.

Skin conditions, blood disorders, depression, glandular disruption, ovarian disorders, chemical imbalances, fertility issues, uterine problems, bone disease, etc.

Muscular irregularities, neurological conditions...

yep. there are literally tens of thousands of conditions that birth control of various forms could be used for.

Uncontrolled bleeding. Hormonal diseases. Cancer prevention for high risk individuals.

Nausea, Heartburn, Indigestion, and Persistent Penis Itching (PPI)...

I am extremely worried if that last one shows up on women's birth control pills.

I think I saw Gab say a few pages back that these pills are also prescribed to men to treat some conditions.

Are you suggesting I would ever do a joke for the sake of silliness?

The nerve.

Yep.

I've met a few guys that were prescribed low dose birth control.

One had a glandular problem and the other had an allergy that prevented him from getting an estrogen shot to treat his hormone imbalance.

Taking birth control was a safe way for both of them to get the level of hormones they needed to balance their issues without nasty side effects or other more invasive issues.

They can also be used to help open the door for transiting between genders preop if needed.

edited 1st Oct '15 8:24:08 AM by Gabrael

I read a pretty good editorial from an ob/gyn that goes into some of the politics around defunding Planned Parenthood. Just quoting excerpts, and some emphasis mine.

Maybe some of you will like this.

It's a report on a fashion parade in France where the models were all female "dwarves" done partially in order to promote acceptance and denounce "Discriminatory beauty standards". It's in portuguese but the pictures are pretty nice to look at.

Also,

Do you guys ever wonder where the western standard for 'beauty' came from? I'm taking an art history class, and so far the earliest person to have codified any sort of 'ideal' is a Greek guy named Polykleitos- though his statues of women◊ don't exactly match up to our present beauty standards

edited 4th Oct '15 8:30:05 PM by Xopher001

I have a guess beauty standards are correlated with wealth (as in, how the rich look is considered beautiful, how the poor look is considered ugly). Case in point, a century or two ago (and earlier), the ideal skin tone was very pale. At that time, having a tan meant working out in the sun. Now, a tan is more indicative of being able to afford vacations, and it's much more fashionable.

But for a long time, how the rich were represented in art wasn't actually authentic- it was an idealized version of themselves. For example, those statues you see of Octavian Augustus all portray him as a young, handsome man- we don't have any that actually portray what he may have looked like later in life, and we can't say for sure if the figure in those statues is what he ever looked like

Dude was from a well-bred and well-to-do family: he probably had sat for quite a few portraits at various points of his life. The sculptors will have been generous, but they also probably had enough material to vaguely indicate what he looked like back when he was fresh-faced and big-eared... even with the various layers of photoshopping.

edited 5th Oct '15 8:53:09 AM by Euodiachloris

I'm just saying, Greco-Roman art from that period tended to idealize the subject. Granted art from the same period also tried to be more realistic, but art historians aren't sure whether ....

I'm getting off track. I wanted to know where today's beauty standard of a woman with an hourglass figure and C cup breasts came from, because the Greek statue 'Aphrodite of Knidos' looked nothing like that, and yet there are rumors of a guy fucking it in the middle of the night

Popular aesthetic =/= commercial aesthetic and even then society has normally kept ideal and fuckable in two different arenas.

I could be mistaken, but as far as I'm aware Greek-Roman values saw youth as one of the most attractive physical aspects. In males, for example, that was demonstrated in statues by giving it a small phallus. The "best" relationship would that be between an older man and a younger one, the former playing the active role in the sexual side of the relationship.

As time went on, beauty standards developed together with whatever group held the power/wealth in a region. In times of scarce food, being fuller meant you had more money than anyone else. In feudal or slavery times, being pale meant you didn't have to spend your days working at the crop fields under the sun.

I remember the evolution of beauty standards, for the fashion industry, was a question in a Sociology exam I took once. That wasn't the focus of our study, it was simply a question that worked with the concepts we had learned (plus a little of 'describe the difference bewtween these pictures for me'), but I believe if you look for it you can find pictures for the ideal of beauty for every decade in the past century, in the country of your choice. Specially the USA.

But, as Grabael just said, there are different ideals of "beauty" for different reasons at the same time. Even nowadays, just because the fashion industry pushes for impossibly thin models, that doesn't mean everyone else follows it.

Rome capatilized on the Greek and even then, what was considered artistically beautiful didn't mean bangable.

Note the Greek statues and many of the Roman to, the men are only endowed enough to show they are men? That's because the ideal man was governed by his mind, not his loins.

And we know in practise this was bull because homosexual sex especially between teacher and student, was quite prolific and encouraged. And they wrote about enjoying more endowed men.

The. Ah. more extreme greek philosophers even pretty much repudiated all sex with women and prefered young boiz.

yaoi fans ahoy.

@Xopher

Greek sculptors tended towards idealized depictions, and the earliest Roman sculptors were Greekaboos who kept that aspect, but the Roman tradition moved towards accuracy over perfection. You can kinda see it in the two cultures' other interests - the Greeks preferred abstract philosophy and mathematics, which represented pure numbers and concepts untainted by physicality, while the Romans were experts at engineering).

For example Julius Caesar's statues didn't shy away from his baldness and his wrinkles. So I imagine the statues of young Augustus were reasonably accurate, and his good looks were a reflection of good health and diet, wealth, and breeding as Euodiachloris pointed out.

Same goes for shudou in Japan. Funny how much they line up for cultures on opposite sides of the same landmass. The only thing women are good for is babymaking and being a quick hole to fuck when the men aren't busy with their "intellectual equals".

edited 6th Oct '15 3:26:01 PM by AlleyOop

Ok here's a different question. I used to be on the swim team at high school, and it was co ed. Why is competitive swimming co ed and not other sports?

To pull it into a women's issue,

I would like to know where you went to school because many swimming programs down here (Here being the Southeastern US), both in the high school and college level are segregated by gender and the only way you will be able to find coed swimming is like, children's basic swimming and safety lessons. Once the kids hit grade school though it's broken apart.