I'm constantly surprised by how many women I meet had a terrible experience with the pill in ways that they *weren't* warned about--notably, a sudden & profound loss of interest in the activity that was the reason they were taking the pill. Often it persisted after they went off.
Also, most of them report their OB/GYN was dismissive when they asked whether maybe the fact that they suddenly didn't want to have sex had something to do with the new pills they were taking.
And fair enough--post hoc, ergo propter hoc is bad science. But loss of libido is a known side effect!
Also, I first got interested in this question because I was in a group of six random ladies, one of whom offhandedly mentioned it--followed by five others saying "me too!"
All the exact same progression: Committed relationship => start pill => 2 weeks later, interest falls to zero.
Not great for your new, committed relationship.
This doesn't happen to everyone, but anecdotally, it does seem to happen a lot, only no one talks about it so people think it's just them, and not all OB/GYNs seem very good at talking about it.
So anyway, if this has happened to you: you're not crazy. It really did happen.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This thread is worth reading, the epistemic criss on the right is real, and yes, the mainstream media, by freaking out about Trump and abandoning normal standards, made that epistemic crisis much worse.
Fundamentally, I agree that this is the story many Trump supporters/apologists tell themselves, and that too much of it is true for comfort.
But my personal experience is that at the end of the day, the story is irrelevant; they side with Trump because they hate/fear his enemies
Back them off any particular truth claim, force them to confront the inescapable evidence that it's false, and they retreat almost instantly to some total irrelevancy about how progressives are nasty and dangerous.
They may be right, but that doesn't make Trump's lies any truer.
Mystified that anyone thinks "It's not nearly as bad as the worst period of criminal violence in US history" is a compelling rejoinder to fears about crime.
Rather than reassuring, it suggests you think we should wait until murders reach their old level before taking action.
I realize, of course, that this is not what people are *trying* to say, but it's what they're implying, and they should stop! It is a total political own-goal.
If you want to allay media-driven crime anxiety, ask folks if anyone they know has been victimized recently. In my experience, answer's usually "No", which often gives worriers pause--if cities are really descending into dystopia, how come no one they know has been mugged lately?
Once education became the entry requirement for a decent, stable job it was 100% predictable that affluent parents would move heaven and earth to ensure their child's education, and to hell with what that does to anyone else. It's not socially optimal, but neither is it malleable
No combination of policies will induce middle class parents to sacrifice their childrens' opportunities to even out things for the children of other parents who aren't as engaged/adept. Any policy that starts from the premise of redistributing educational opportunity is doomed.
Megan's three iron laws of politics:
1) You cannot get away with messing up someone's pension 2) You cannot get away with messing up the futures of middle class kids 3) You cannot get away with messing up someone's healthcare plan.
A bunch of things well established in the literature, and ferociously disputed by many in the public health community:
1) Obesity kills but not as many as you've heard 2) "Overweight" = lower mortality than "normal" weight 3) No one knows how to make people permanently thinner.
The wrath-of-a-thousand-suns reaction to point two, in particular, seems completely bizarre; the only way I can explain it is a kind of puritanism that wants being plump to be bad for you because it's fun getting that way.
To be sure, it may be confounding--lots of illnesses make you lose weight, though researchers do try to control for it. But no one has correctly identified the confounder yet, as far as I am aware.
I thought the ProPublica analysis of billionaire taxes was going to be exciting. Instead, it told me things I already knew: that the US tax code offers deductions for charitable donations, loan interest, and business operating expenses, and only taxes capital gains when you sell.
The most exciting thing is wondering who gave them the information, and how long that person will spend in jail when they're caught, as I suspect they will be.
This isn't a case where you could have gotten one person's partial records from an accountant or a disgruntled ex-spouse. Practically speaking, unless all the billionaires have the same tax attorney, I suspect the only place the data could have come from is the IRS itself.
After a public argument with a left-wing economist, one of his fans tried to shame me for fooling people--"You make these complicated, impressive sounding technical arguments I can't follow, and you'd probably fool people if we didn't have Professor X to tell us why you're wrong"
I gently pointed out that what she was actually saying was that she had no idea whether I was right or wrong, because if she couldn't follow my argument, she couldn't follow Professor X's argument either. She was just picking the gibberish that agreed with her priors.