5 Reasons The Pill Sucks

C‘mon maaan, you’ve already made your big 5 Reasons Contraceptives Suck post! Now everyone knows you’re a good Catholic and we can all go on with our lives, right? Wrong. Firstly because it is a general principle that someone must see an advertisement six times before buying the product advertised (OK, admittedly, it has nothing to do with that, don’t expect four more posts). Secondly, and more truthfully, I have serious issues with The Pill. With most other contraceptives, individuals can be convinced of the reasonableness of the Church’s teachings by way of a good chuckle. Seriously, if someone mentions that they use the female condom in their marriage just chuckle like you’re in 6th grade. At some point, someone has to admit it’s ridiculous. But The Pill is a little sexier than that. So:

1. Makes it harder for women to find a good mate. I know, I know, pretty old-school terminology. A mate? You mean a committed sexual partner? Whatever. The issue here is that women on the birth-control pill lose the natural ability to pick out – actually to sniff out – a man with an immune system that compliments their own. In the wild and wonderful world of mating, you’re going to be naturally, chemically attracted to a man with an immune system unlike your own, because two varying adult immune systems have a good chance of creating one healthy, balanced little-baby-immune-system. To put it simply, women on The Pill end up unnaturally attracted to someone – biologically – like their brother. What’s the problem with this? If you come off the Pill – which so many contracepting couples do at some point in their relationship – you’re not likely to remain attracted to someone like your brother. And, if the goal at some point is to have children, you’re fertility is reduced. It’s the way nature works to keep the future generations healthy.

2. Screws with women’s natural desire for sex. This is just whack, as far as I can tell. And I know, I know, I’ve mentioned it before. But I only mention it again because I truly don’t mind being the guy who constantly stands up for women having better sex. So, Biology 101: A female most wants to have sex when she is ovulating. The Pill ends ovulation. A woman’s hormonal cycle flatlines, and guess what? That strong desire to have sex flatlines with it. Now whenever I write this, whether it be here or here,  I tend to get a bunch of dudes protesting. This always strikes me as odd – and perhaps even just a wee, tiny bit sexist. So, men, why don’t you ask your wife/committed sexual partner whether basic science applies to her, instead of just assuming she’s having the time of her life. And then there’s the fact that men are most attracted to women when they’re ovulating. (Spoiler Alert: This is not a coincidence.) It’s interesting to note that, given 80% of our fertility-aged women are on birth-control, it’s distinctly likely that there are men out there who have no idea what it’s like to really, really, naturally want to have sex.  More on that in a second.

With a little hindsight,
the enthusiasm of the 60′s is amusing.
Does that mean she’s going to have sex with
all of them? Or is she saying, “I’m not as sexually
excited as I used to be, so go away, I’m trying to tan.”

3. Devalues women. I apologize for moving into the philosophical, but it really does. It seems the more you know about a woman’s body, in all its gorgeous nature, the more you approach her with reverence. She is not a mere thing, she is a cycle, like the changing seasons. A woman’s uterus is the only place in the human body that cleans itself, washes itself, restores itself. A woman is not something you can take for granted; she is change, birth and rebirth. There’s a reason we say ‘Mother Earth’ and not Father; it’s because no Father is a moving isochronism. There’s a reason why the Greek goddesses are held in such splendor; they are in splendid motion. For all the bitter and necessarily depressed jokes men make about PMS and mood swings, there’s a truth behind them; that, on an entirely biological, chemical and natural level woman is the inconstant constant, a secret to be deciphered. To marry her, to love her and to know her is to understand – not just a singular personality – but a journey and a story. In comes The Pill. You might as well be dating another guy, for all the work you have to put into it. Woman is something you can have sex with ALL THE TIME OMG, and never worry about children. Forget the cycle, forget the journey; you’ve got her down to a ‘t’. The Pill is a device created for the purpose of making women easier to handle.

4. Attacks guys. This is a consequence that doesn’t get talked about as often, but is undeniably scary. Mostly because I’m a guy and I’m projecting. But seriously, imagine you’re a guy, with the natural inclination to mate, surrounded by women with whom you are not - chemically, biologically - inclined to mate with. I mean, we saw what that did with the monkeys, remember? The increase in confusion, violence, masturbation and homosexual behavior? All well and fine, a cute experiment, right? It’s what your average, American, teenage boy is growing up with! The truth is we don’t know exactly what it’s doing to the modern man, but it certainly isn’t something we can conveniently gloss over. We would never look at a chemical that causes cancer in monkeys and say, “Oh, but this couldn’t happen to us! We like this chemical!” But no one seems to be worrying about The pill’s affect on men. I am willing to bet my life that the rise in pornography-use/masturbation in adult men does not mirror the rise in hormonal contraceptive use by some strange and coincidental accident. On the plus side, it makes women less attracted to manly men. So that’s cute.

5. Turns guy fish into guy/girl fish. It works like this: Woman takes pill. Woman urinates. Pill goes in water. Fish is in water. Fish gets a hit of estrogen. Fish gets deformed. OK, moment of honesty. I don’t care about the fish, as long as they are still tasty. I care about human beings. What’s happening when we  bathe our children, when we drink from water fountains? Not to be to much of an APOCALYPSE IS COMING person, and not to pretend that I’m a science major, but drinking estrogen-tainted water can’t be good for you. So.

I’m off to go wash me some dishes with this awesome, industrial-sized sprayer and a dish-machine twice the size of my dorm. You think I’m kidding, but it’s the best job ever. Bye!

The Difference Between a Renaming and a Baptism
Insulting ISIS
The Blessings of Secularism
Catholics For Choice Whine To The Huffington Post: Everyone Leaves Feeling Gratified
  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/18014672329453331576 Patrick Button

    Great post!

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/09020431743182581746 Lisa – the Granola Catholic

    As a female who started on the pill, because that is just what you did when you got married, I can attest to many of these fact. Sex was not spontaneous, it became mundane, something to get done and over. I did not have a sex drive at all. When I discovered NFP, I noticed that I had a sex drive, an incredible one. My husband was very happy.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/09555685532251043920 Laura

    Hate to break it to you broseph, but if you're in Steubenville, a bath isn't going to do a lot of good for you. In fact, take it from one alum: you might be a lot better off not showering . . .

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/04966555296621723142 Sarah

    Thankfully, not *all* women's libido's are highest when ovulating. :) (I say thankfully for those couples who desperately need to avoid pregnancy at the moment… otherwise it's a beautiful thing to have a higher libido when ovulating). Research shows that libido varies some with women, with many reporting a higher libido at other points in their cycle. However… the Pill suppresses *all* of that. Pill = lower libido."But no one seems to be worrying about The pill's affect on men." Wow, VERY interesting angle on this issue.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/02958084273028753944 Paige

    So brilliant! So, so, SO brilliant. That's all I can say. Really. Because you've got it, haven't you? And, man, I hope more people are reading this than just Catholics!!

  • Anonymous

    Okay, I am not a member of the catholic church, but I want to know your view on this, because I am trying to understand, okay. So, my sister and I have some problems on our times of the month. I pass out, and she bleeds for months without stop. Birth control helps us control our problem. If an issue like that happened to a member of your church, would they take the pill, or would they just let it happen?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16077237291128865086 Chris Owens

    Hi Anonymous! I am going through Classes to become an NFP trainer. First, I'd recommend talking with your OB/GYN about alternatives to the Pill for the various difficulties that you may have.There are a great many natural ways of regulating cycles, etc, without the use of the Pill– which studies have linked to cancer. Here's one such book:http://www.amazon.com/Fertility-Cycles-Nutrition-Marilyn-Shannon/dp/0926412345God bless you!

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12679230722483582032 Marc

    Anonymous,Great question. Yes, our church would let you use The Pill. Why? Because your intention is not to pass out and/or bleed like crazy, not to be infertile. Just like we can take medical marijuana, if our intention is not to get high.BUT LISTEN!The Pill is awful medicine. You and your sister have an underlying hormonal problem. The Pill is not fixing that underlying problem, merely covering it up. Does this make sense? You have a problem with your cycle – the Pill does not make you cycle regular, it just takes away your cycle! It makes you – hormonally speaking – constantly pregnant.Given the crazy bad side effects of the Pill, you should not see it as a long-term fix. These folks: http://www.fertilitycare.org/help people with issues like your own, and always, always find the underlying problem and fix it. It's pretty awesome medicine, so why not give it a try?

  • Therese Z

    I was on the Pill in my God-ignoring days, and then moved to mechanical contraception because the Pill made me nuts. So I went into marriage with a "control conception" mentality. When we started trying to have children, and I stopped all contraception, my sex life changed profoundly because sex became so powerful, like harnessing lightning – it could create children! Desire and satisfaction were never higher. I should have been saying "hmmmmmm" to that and wondering what I'd done to myself all that time before.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01658116461483425280 Brandon Vogt

    Great post, Marc."I am willing to bet my life that the rise in pornography-use/masturbation in adult men does not mirror the rise in hormonal contraceptive use by some strange and coincidental accident."There's no doubt about that. Why? Because contraceptives remove kids from the sexual equation. They make it cultural acceptable to experience sexual pleasure apart from the possibility of conception.Closed-to-life sex, whether with a woman or with yourself, is almost indistinguishable today.

  • http://definedbyfaith.wordpress.com/ definedbyfaith

    "To put it simply, women on The Pill end up unnaturally attracted to someone – biologically – like their brother."So true. I was on the pill for medicinal reasons like Anon and in a bad relationship. Started pill, relationship got better. Ended pill because I just didn't want to take it, relationship dissolved.Thank you for continuing to put out the truth on contraceptives.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/08031465320721586310 Jackie

    Very interesting now I have to look up what isochronism is . According to merriam-webster isochronal : uniform in time : having equal duration : recurring at regular intervalsthat sounds about right :)

  • Anonymous

    The research simply can't be covered up any more. Big pharma just pays the lawsuits for wrongful death in the case of strokes, but how about that recent study:That a woman who takes the pill for four consecutive years before giving birth raises her risk 1000%? A friend of mine is a convert to the faith, who threw out the pills and started a (big) family. Problem is that she is now dying of cancer.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17322120511913427296 Kristin D

    Just found your blog today and am lovin' it! Thanks so much for doing what you do! Do you think you might start showin' your twitter account any love? I'm a newbie to the twitter world but am really enjoying the ease of networking and sharing it brings. I'm the founder of http://livingthesacrament.com (NFP community) so will be sharing this post with our facebook and twitter followers and will add you to our blog roll. For as much as we've talked about these issues and seen others post on them I think you really spoke well and articulated issues with HBC that need to be brought to greater light. I'm thoroughly enjoying your work! Thank you!

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12679230722483582032 Marc

    A fellow named Steven posted this, and for some reason it ended up in my spam folder. So:"I have objections to four of your points… 1) "To put it simply, women on The Pill end up unnaturally attracted to someone – biologically – like their brother" Objection A) Attraction is not limited to this factor. And if a woman were to justify the selection of a mate only upon how her choice of mate's pheromones smelled, we would say that she had acted irrationally. Therefore, how a person's pheromones smell is unimportant to any mate selection process based on reason. Objection B) Many things, such as consuming dairy products, can inhibit the sense of smell, and therefore presumably the detection of pheromones. Do you propose to say that eating ice cream sucks too? Objection C) if you read the article you cite in this section it would seem that kissing for an extended duration serves the same purpose. Since this is the case it would seem that so long as a woman's selection of a mate included a kissing component, the use of the pill, does not inhibit her ability to select a mate. 2) "So, men, why don't you ask your wife/committed sexual partner whether basic science applies to her" I don't believe you wrote this point with a mind to intellectual honesty because as it stands it seems that you condoning or at least accepting committed sexual partners who aren't married. On a different but related issue, if you condone or accept sex outside of marriage, do you think that this sex should be fruitful in children? 3)"She is not a mere thing, she is a cycle, like the changing seasons. A woman's uterus is the only place in the human body that cleans itself, washes itself, restores itself. A woman is not something you can take for granted; she is change, birth and rebirth" You are trying to explain that a woman isn't a mere thing, but is instead a thing. Certainly you would admit that the changing of the seasons is a thing? Also it would seem that the stomach cleanses itself, washes itself, and restores itself, and that it does these things after every meal! By your measure, we should respect the stomach more than the uterus. Joking aside, it would be better to say that a woman deserves to not be taken for granted because she is a person, and leave it at that, since that is the exact reason why a woman deserves to not be taken for granted. 4) "imagine you're a guy, with the natural inclination to mate, surrounded by women with whom you are not – chemically, biologically – this leads to increase in confusion, violence, masturbation and homosexual behavior [assuming that there is an analogy between what was seen in a certain group of male monkeys in a similar circumstance and human males]" This argument is preposterous. The circumstances described above do not determine a set of actions for a rational moral actor, meaning that even if this state of affairs obtains for some human male it is by no means a matter of certainty that he will exhibit this behavior. I think you know this, and so this point is a sophistry. 5) I have no objections to the thrust of this point."

  • Anonymous

    Steven, while pheromones are not the only thing causing attraction they play a big part in the evolutionary process, attracting suitable partners to each other. You say eating dairy can effect one's pheromone detection (I'll take your word on that) but I have a hard time seeing how one could eat enough dairy to equal the effects of bc pills! That is the point, perhaps, Marc is trying make: the pill causes a constant state of being deadened to natural sexual process. Not so conducive to finding a mate in any kind of normal fashion, historically speaking. I do agree, though, that women are not in fact "cycles." That may be a big part of who we are but we are first and foremost people, my friend :) -Sarah M

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/06077615459336446057 Michael

    I think the philosophical point that contraception brings is the most important. Contraception brings about the situation that one or both of the couples use each other to gain pleasure is the crux of what is wrong with contraception/pill.I admit this is not a comment on the pill. Important note to understand is how Virtue and human acts become vicious or virtuous. When people repeatedly do good and chaste acts they become good or chaste. When people repeatedly do vicious acts they become readily vicious or intemperate. Basically we can let our sexual drive control us like animals. Think, now with contraception we can have pleasure whenever we want without the full act and this does not lead to people growing together, but a mutual use of bodies for pleasure sake. This is not love and the relationship will last as long as the two are attracted to each other. Separating the natural act from childbearing contributes to all kinds of moral confusion. The act naturally leads to childbearing and when you divorce childbearing from the act, then you cannot differentiate it from any sexual stimuli. This is the exact reason people don't understand the Churches position on Gay marriage. Love is construed as pleasure and attraction.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/04444704944288002925 The Ranter

    First thing, I love the commentary on the ad. ;-)Second, concerning point #3 – neither are women goddesses to be put on a pedestal and worshipped. "the more you approach her with reverence" – sorry, no. In my opinion that's just another way to devalue a woman and her opinions.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/13466586996802181998 Vlad Patryshev

    Are not you by change mixing a human being with the body of a human being. We don't have a soul, we are souls, we have a body. And we have the right to our body.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/06077615459336446057 Michael

    No we are body and soul united. The two are essentially one. Certainly our passions, are part of our bodies and can be unruly which we must assert our intellectual control by not giving in to them. We don't have any right to our body. We are charged with the responsibility of the body. It is not property. We have the responsibility to give just do to our creator who made us for one purpose to give Him glory. Original sin came about in the same way mortal sin is putting anything above the proper glory to God. Base passions and pleasures are not what is best for us as a whole person. We are first and foremost intellectual beings and must govern our bodies so that the higher principle of our lives is free. We can be ruled by our animal instincts or be free by our intellectual higher dignity.

  • http://www.youngchestertonchronicles.com John McNichol

    Excellent points! MAkes me happy to hear my alma mater is still teaching an amazing new generation the truth….and they/you are displaying it in a way that totally rocks! Woah, you've even got my favorite X-Man as your mascot- how cool is that?Loved the ad….really gets the point across about how the pill, really, ultimately, devalues women in the eyes of men.God Bless,John McNicholWow! Amazing stuff here; keep fighting the good fight!

  • http://www.youngchestertonchronicles.com John McNichol

    Hey! I used to run that giant dishwasher in the cafe, too! I got to wear the black Marriott hat as one of the evil student managers. :)JDM

  • Linebyline

    Wait… Doesn't the mouth also continually clean itself? That's one of the main purposes of saliva. (Others include keeping the mouth moist much like tears do for eyes, its digestive purposes such as softening food for easy swallowing, and of course maintaining one's place in the social hierarchy of a family with little boys.)Nice post.

  • Anonymous

    1 reason the Pill doesn't suck – the average female has a 3% risk of ovarian cancer. My daughter has a 20% risk of ovarian cancer. Being on the Pill for just 1 year can reduce this risk significantly. For a pro-life family this can create a dilemma.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12679230722483582032 Marc

    I'VE JUST LEARNT SO MUCH ABOUT THIS!! If there is a pre-existing risk of ovarian cancer, than it is not the kind that the Pill can help. The Pill reduces ovarian cancer that's caused by constant ovulation (women who have no children have a higher chance of ovarian cancer due to constant estrogen levels, the pill ends ovulation, and thus: less risk of ovarian cancer.) I don't see how it could reduce the risk of ovarian cancer in an actual pre-existing defect, because the issue would then NOT be the estrogen levels caused by constant ovulation.

  • Anonymous

    You state the above information as a fact when it is a theory. Keep reading all available resources and being open to the information and data and I'll do the same. We'll touch base when you are back in C-ville.

  • becky

    Sorry if I'm missing something, but I think maybe you made a mistake with one of your links. I didn't hear anything about monkeys in the Janet Smith youtube clip… but I'm really interested in reading about the study you allude to. (Not trying to attack you — am a non-contracepting, pro-life, NFP-believer, married woman.)

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12679230722483582032 Marc
    • Dan

      I my line of work that video is know as a the end of the argument other wise termed as…”BOOM!!”

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/05194127784395197998 Paul Rimmer

    There is no way to determine what to think about this post. Most of the assertions are untested. For example, what effect does contraceptives have on fish or the rest of the environment? What effects do contraceptives have on men?None of these things have been well-tested. Even the effects of smell discussion is on the same level as tests involving the way a guy's face looks to determine whether he's a good sexual partner. I don't think we want to go around saying "This person's face sucks." The Pill may have just as much affect (and therefore just as much importance) in a sexual relationship as the shape of the man's jaw.Finally, your paragraph number 3 devalues women. The Pill cannot devalue women. It's just a pill.Words, ideas, people can devalue other people. Pills are sticks and stones.

    • Dan

      here is a point misser, he reads and expect the evidence to pop up in front of him. Search for the answers, whats this…a quotation…”seek and you shall find”.

      seriously though, your wrong

  • Anonymous

    What's degrading to women here is the idea that my birth control usage contributes to a man deciding to watch smut on TV and masturbating himself into oblivion watching pornography. Thinking along these lines, perhaps I'm also responsible for causing rape because I dare to expose my ankles?? Hogwash.

  • Anonymous

    Masturbation, homosexuality, and pornography were all wayyyy before the pill. One does not cause the other.

    • Dan

      Man you miss the point, once there was a choice and now that choice is eroding away….

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/04121927281998746424 Carolyn

    Anon says: "1 reason the Pill doesn't suck – the average female has a 3% risk of ovarian cancer. My daughter has a 20% risk of ovarian cancer. Being on the Pill for just 1 year can reduce this risk significantly. For a pro-life family this can create a dilemma."Studies have shown that pregnancy and breastfeeding can also reduce the risk of ovarian cancer. The longer ovulation is supressed (by ecologically breastfeeding), the greater the benefit appears to be. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/reproductive-historyAlso, if your daughter is on the pill but is not sexually active, there is no ethical dilemma (you did not state how old your daughter is). Great post. I too knew the horrors of the pill. After years of depression and even being on the brink of suicide, no one suggested that it might be that little white pill I popped every morning.

    • barefoot cinderella

      what good reason would there be to be on the pill but not sexually active?

  • Anonymous

    I think that the key to discussing this issue is just that- discussion. Everyone who uses the pill does so with varying levels of consideration and intent.As with many teachings of the Church, I think its position on contraception is well warranted, and necessary as an opposition point in our society. However, I also believe in the gray area. I'm a big believer in the exploration of the spirit of the law, and in doing so have come to the conclusion that intent is at the root of the Church teaching on contraception, openness to life, etc. I often wonder what would be the difference between a couple (yes, couple, not the woman) choosing to take the pill, and NFP. If the intent in both situations is to avoid pregnancy, is one method really that superior to the other? If either method failed, and the couple were prepared for the consequences, is it that different? You could argue that NFP is more open to life, but in that case it seems disingenuous to tout its ability to "control" pregnancy just as "effectively" as the pill when marketed to couples looking to do just that.Don't get me wrong, I think NFP is a great option for couples trying to either avoid or produce pregnancy, I just think that maybe we should be looking a bit more closely at our own intentions when evaluating birth control methods.

  • Erin

    Yeah you are definitely not a science major. You are just a run of the mill IDIOT. Please present some scientific backing for you allegations. If you don’t, you are just going to turn people off to your cause. It is disturbing when people use the media in such a way because there are ignorant people out there that will take everything you say at face value. Present a persuasive case and maybe you will gain some credibility…. Oh yeah, BTW, the earth is flat… Its true because I said so..

    • Dan

      Is this a science periodical or a blog? i.e. if your interested in his allegations, then wouldn’t the intelligent thing to do be to investigate? if you came across an idea you won’t shout to yourself “you don’t have pooof”, your more liking to test your theory, maybe????

  • Karen

    Stupidest article ever. Took the pill for most of 25 yrs except while having my two planned kids. At 67, have great life, great health, and great kids and grand kids. Oh, and my husband and I have had passionate love life in part because he respected my right to determine when to have children. I saw no difference in passion during sex for procreation compared to sex for recreation.

    • Dan

      Why should you of had to take the pill? couldn’t you have just not had sex? what is the point in “recreational” sex? isn’t it just completely meaningless? wouldn’t those things be the difference?