Menstrual Cycle woo

[mumchup]

And the next time someone complains about the people on this forum, maybe I'll send them to this thread to prove them wrong.

 

[casebro]

I would think you need a smallish group. In the randomness of a large group, there would be no sole 'peak' to move towards.

Do girls start right in step with their Moms?

I would suspect the evolutionary advantage would be within a family- it would prevent Dad from seeking his daughters during Mom's bad days.

Herd fertility? More babies born at the same time, to promote survivability?

When I first heard the theory, I thought "AHA! That explains all those screaming matches between my mom and my two sisters- they all had PMS at the same time!". So perhaps the evolutionary advantage would be to break up family groups of women- all that PMS would drive some out of the nest?

Next thought- Is there an evolutionary advantage to PMS? It's common enough to require some kind of advantage- drive the current mate away, to vary the genes? Drive competing women away?

 

[mumchup]

Sound ideas, casebro. I seem to remember something about baboons along those lines, that only the dominant female ovulates.
But I am far from convinced that it occurs at all. The evidence is way to thin for me.

 

[skeptifem]

i heard about the pharamones subconciously making women sync up. Ive never really thought about it too much because i havent ever experienced this sort of thing, i figured it was something that happens to some groups of women but not all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sound ideas, casebro. I seem to remember something about baboons along those lines, that only the dominant female ovulates.
But I am far from convinced that it occurs at all. The evidence is way to thin for me.

The problem with that idea is that humans don't seem to have a breeding season, so I am not at all sure you would get enough simultanious pregnancies in the size groups that existed to be of any benifit.

 

[kellyb]

The problem with that idea is that humans don't seem to have a breeding season, so I am not at all sure you would get enough simultanious pregnancies in the size groups that existed to be of any benifit.

I just read this the other day, as it was one of the NS headline articles, but I don't think baboons have a set-in-stone breeding season, either:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526135.400-primates-on-the-pill.html

Primatologist Patricia Whitten of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, thinks that it might benefit the baboons, which are able to breed year round, not to conceive in the plum season, as this is the rainiest time of year, when disease is most likely.

But they apparently might use plums as contraceptives at certain times.

Anecdotally, I'm pretty sure I've experienced the period-syncing thing, but it also could have been a memory-bias phenomenon.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I just read this the other day, as it was one of the NS headline articles, but I don't think baboons have a set-in-stone breeding season, either:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526135.400-primates-on-the-pill.html

SOrry I was being unspecific I was thinking of Casebro's idea about large numbers of children timed to be born at the same time to lower loss rates to predetors.

As for only dominants being fertile that makes sense in some species I guess.

But they apparently might use plums as contraceptives at certain times.

Interesting.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

TheAtheist, this is a skeptic forum. If you're not a skeptic, please go post your musings on a paranormal lacky site.

Correction. This is the Science, Medicine and Technology section of a skeptical forum. So someone being "skeptical" or asking questions about this is doing exactly what is normal in this section of the forum.

As a person who adores this forum and it's members, I will politely ask you to please be civil. This is one of the most civil forums on the internet. Mockery is done most often with a smile around here. It would seem you might be used to the more hostile waters of other places, but it's not the case with JREF. We have our moments, but it's nothing like most other boards.

It would serve you well to remain neutral until you are familiar with the posters and topics that are the norm around here.

 

[tmackean]

Ooh, I just noticed my private message from TTLer, sent this morning:

Go Away

You are being collectively ignored by the entire 13,000 JREF forum members.

What a pleasant new member of the forum.

Thanks to those who stood up for free speech and reasonable discussion in this thread.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'm thinking TTLer might be a woo who is simply playing a charicature of a skeptic.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

I'm thinking TTLer might be a woo who is simply playing a charicature of a skeptic.

The thought occurred to me as well. Time will tell.

 

[tmackean]

I'm thinking TTLer might be a woo who is simply playing a charicature of a skeptic.

It's a rather devastating critique if he's serious.

 

[LibraryLady]

It's a rather devastating critique if he's serious.

No, I think it'd be a devastating attack if it were accurate. If this is what he's attempting, I don't think he's being successful.

 

[Rob Lister]

I'm thinking TTLer might be a woo who is simply playing a charicature of a skeptic.

The word I was think of started with a T

Perhaps he's having his period.

 

[The Atheist]

TheAtheist, this is a skeptic forum. If you're not a skeptic, please go post your musings on a paranormal lacky site.

I'm thinking TTLer might be a woo who is simply playing a charicature of a skeptic.

I agree as well. The first five posts I've seen by this cute new addition to the membership has been almost identical in its import. I'm waiting for it to make an intelligible comment. Hope springs eternal.

It has all the hallmarks of this business of YECs demanding "scepticism" of evolutionary theory.

Classic example of TTLer not using critical techniques in his/her own thinking is the classing me as a theist. (n.b. the edit data on the above post original above)

How quaint!

 

[The Atheist]

Ooh, I just noticed my private message from TTLer, sent this morning:

What a pleasant new member of the forum.

Thanks to those who stood up for free speech and reasonable discussion in this thread.

And maybe a sock-puppet.

I've seen this style plus PMs before. Must go check back some old threads when I have time, because I'll be surprised if this is his first visit here.

**You are able to report PMs, you know, pmckean, and that's a fairly abusive kind of thing to PM. Especially from a "real skeptic" who posted Wiki links to end a discussion!

 

[Gilmar]

Women's Synchronized Cycles - is that, like, a new Olympic event?

 

[SezMe]

In addition to the bad attitude, I thought Katana really nailed this fiercely true blue skeptic with this.

Quite the little hypocrite, aren't you?

You malign others for not being "true" skeptics and then throw up this anecdote as evidence?

He has one relevant experience and, based on that, declares an end to the controversy. Damn, where's that dog?

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Okay, back to the period thing. As far as I know, girls do not start in rhythm with their mothers, sisters, or other female household members. When a girl first starts her period, it is usually irregular. I have never "synchronized" or heard of anyone who did (I know that's anecdotal, but my mom did grow up with six sisters). Menstrual cycles vary widely among women; the cycle is not every 28 days for every woman, neither is the duration or intensity the same for every woman. Even women taking the pill don't all start the cycle of pills at the same time. Often after childbirth (and/or breastfeeding) a woman's period will be irregular as her body "gets back to normal". Also, stress, extremely low weight, and other factors can mess with a woman's cycle. With menstrual cycles being so varied, I think that true synchronicity (not coincidental sync) would be quite difficult to achieve, if it's even possible at all.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

I've synchronized with a female housemate, and I've not synchronized. My anecdotes taught me it's probably just coincidental, or possibly hyper awareness as suggested earlier.