05-11-08, 09:23 PM #1
Is menstruation unnatural?
I have this theory, that since in the animal world as soon as the female becomes ripe for bearing offspring, she usually gets pregnant. And once it starts, it doesn't stop until the female becomes too old to bear children. Thus in the lifetime of female mammals menstruation is rather the exception than the norm. I would guess they spend more time being pregnant or nursing than menstruating in their fertile lifespan...
Here is a woman who hasn't menstruated often in the last 20 years:
Baby #18 is coming to the Duggar family!
05-11-08, 09:57 PM #2
05-11-08, 10:17 PM #3
if mens need for masturbation is unnatural that womens menstruation cycle is unnatural
05-11-08, 10:23 PM #4
what a pair of idiots, people like that should be forcefully sterilised. Yes its probably true that in nature the female is more likely to be preganant, unless there is a drought or she cant find a male or a 100 other situations but for humans wishing to live much longer than nature intended (ie till your older than 20) staying constantly pregnant is a VERY bad idea.
I once had a female gupy who got preganant to often because the other female had died. Eventually her uturus was pulled out of her body and she died. Pregancy puts a large strain on the body and its resorces and anyone with an IQ above 1 should know that having 18 kids means you cant give them the resorces they deserve.
05-11-08, 10:44 PM #5
Eh, I dunno, Michelle Duggar looks pretty robust and healthy to me. So do all her kids.
It's not like she's some malnourished Third World woman obeying Nature's reproductive Prime Directive by helplessly producing sickly infant after sickly infant because she either can't or won't use birth control. The Duggars are making a conscious decision to have many-many babies, and they probably wouldn't have embarked upon this project if Michelle's health hadn't been up to the challenge, overall. If her health had buckled under the strain at some point, they would have said piously, "It's God's will that we don't have any more children" and she would have had her tubes tied, or else Jim Bob would have had himself fixed. And they would only have had "some" babies instead of "many-many".
05-11-08, 10:48 PM #6
05-12-08, 01:12 AM #7
I suppose the first consideration you should make in answering the question is: "Does it appear to occur naturally?"
And the answer is: yes. It would appear to occur naturally.
So that's quite a big pointer.
I was quite tempted to stop here:
I have this theory
05-12-08, 01:14 AM #8
05-12-08, 01:59 AM #9
Being pregnant too often is bad for your body. That's doctors usually reccomend waiting at least 18 months in between pregnancies. It takes about that long for your organs to move back into their correct positions and function normally again. And females don't always get pregnant at every available chance, just like people who are trying to conceive, but came up empty.
05-12-08, 06:30 AM #10
I feel sorry for you that you never come up with a theory, but hey, not everybody is as smart as....
As long as a member of a spieces reaches maturity and replaces itself by reproducing, its job is done, evolurionary speaking....
05-12-08, 06:43 AM #11
05-12-08, 07:53 AM #12
Don't know about unnatural, but it's kind of sucky.
I am currently doped out on Feminax for menstrual cramps. This after spending yesterday being pissed off for no reason because of PMS.
I envy men...they only have testosterone, no sketchy cocktail of hormones like us...
05-12-08, 07:55 AM #13
Still. At least you can't get your balls caught on a fence, eh.
05-12-08, 07:56 AM #14
05-12-08, 07:56 AM #15I envy men...they only have testosterone,
05-12-08, 08:02 AM #16
Its natural for women to die in child birth, all these medicines,medical procedures and antibiotics are crimes against nature! We should go back to natural child birth were 50% of women die before the 12th child (natural death rate in child birth is 1 out of every 16 pregnancies). And considering that its natural for women to begin breeding as soon as they are fertile the natural and correct average lifespan for women should be 22-26 years. And it was natural for at least half of these children to die before breeding age, all of this pediatrics, plentiful food, lack of infanticed, lack of child labor and lack of cannibalism is just unnatural and wrong! And when resources in a area were depleted the death and birth rates naturally would equalized as people starved and killed each other, naturally.
Obviously women would rather live longer, have their children live longer, everyone would rather liver longer better lives! No matter if they were naturally meant to die by 30 or not. I don't care what is natural or was meant to be, all of our modern civilization which enjoys standards of living that are unprecedented in all of history exist because of doing thing unnaturally. Fuck nature I say, who says we should do what is natural? We see where natural takes us and we see were unnatural takes us, and the unnatural obviously takes us to far better things. It's time we take our evolution away from the slow and painful Darwinian and into the faster utilitarian Lamarckian were we design our successor by our wills alone, not by natures. It may in fact be our destiny to overthrow nature, the natural course of all intelligent life, the cycle is complete.
Last edited by ElectricFetus; 05-12-08 at 08:09 AM.
05-12-08, 08:04 AM #17
Agree with Electric Fetus.
Pretty much everything we do is unnatural, like wearing clothes.
05-12-08, 08:15 AM #18
05-12-08, 08:16 AM #19
05-12-08, 08:34 AM #20
Some support for that:
Coutinho's definition of menstruation is important since it underpins his major claim in this new work -- that regular menstruation is not "natural". According to Coutinho, a monthly menses would have been unusual for early women who were regularly pregnant or breast-feeding (and therefore without periods), "young women were either pregnant or lactating almost continuously" (p.2). It is only the modern woman, he argues, who experiences menstruation as a regular, monthly occurrence. While repeated menstruation made biological sense for Stone Age humans whose survival was by no means assured, Coutinho hypothesizes, regular menstruation is no longer necessary in the modern world where human survival is not contingent upon prolific childbirth.
Not all scientists, however, are so quick to dismiss the import of women's monthly bleeding. Margie Profet -- a young, maverick evolutionary biologist from the University of California, Berkeley -- made her entry into the scientific forum in 1993 by asking a question no scientist had thought to ask since Hippocrates and Galen: "Why do women menstruate"? Profet's findings, painstakingly detailed in an article for the renown Quarterly Review of Biology come remarkably close to her scientific forbears. Profet argues from an evolutionary standpoint that there must necessarily exist a functional purpose for regular menstruation or it would not have endured the mutations of our evolution; Menstruation must offer some advantage for human survival or it would not have survived itself. It is not likely, Profet maintains, that our bodies are so inefficient as to permit a monthly expenditure of energy without a concurrent gain.
Profet noted at the outset that menstrual blood differs in composition from that of regular blood, most notably by containing immune cells called "macrophages". These cells are able to combat the presence of pathogens present in the uterine cavity. It is from this observation that Profet establishes her hypotheses: "Menstruation functions to protect the uterus and oviducts from colonization by pathogens" (p.335). Regular bleeding is a regular cleansing, in Profet's estimation, keeping women's reproductive organs free of contaminants. And from where do these pathogens come? From men, of course: "Sperm are vectors of disease" states Profet unhesitatingly (p.335). Sexually active women require a method by which to protect themselves from potential infection caused through intercourse. Menstruation is nothing less than a sign of the ongoing war of the sexes -- the natural means through which women protect themselves from men.
The enforced cessation of menses then, from Profet's perspective, would be harmful to a woman's health rather than beneficial -- "The uterus appears to be designed to increase its bleeding if it detects infection….Thus artificially curtailing infection-induced uterine bleeding may be contraindicated" -- since it interferes with her body's natural capacity to defend itself against pathogens (Profet, p.355).
By pluto2 in forum Earth ScienceLast Post: 04-30-08, 07:43 AMReplies: 84
By sderenzi in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 12-14-06, 06:05 PMReplies: 23
By Buddha1 in forum Human ScienceLast Post: 02-22-06, 03:47 AMReplies: 1088
By Kumar in forum Biology & GeneticsLast Post: 12-23-05, 05:13 AMReplies: 6
By Jussme in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 06-24-05, 04:45 AMReplies: 20