Posts by Samuel Morgan40

Joshua Morgan2 said:Hey girls!

So, here’s the deal: my periods are absolutely brutal—they aren't always on schedule, they last way too long, and the bleeding is super heavy. I’ve tried standard over-the-counter painkillers, but honestly, they barely touch the pain. On top of that, my skin has been breaking out like crazy lately. Since I am sexually active, I’ve been thinking about starting birth control pills for a while now.
I’m definitely not looking to play doctor with my own body, though—so I’m planning to see a gynecologist and I want to make sure I get some blood work done first (specifically a coagulation profile and fibrinogen, if I remember correctly).

I’ve heard that some doctors don't bother running those specific tests, so I was wondering which OB-GYNs you all recommend. I’d prefer someone in the Chicago area, but I'm open to other places nearby—I just need someone truly professional since this will be my very first exam.

Also, what are your thoughts on the pill? Which brands? Why did you choose them?
I'd love to hear about your actual experiences—any side effects you dealt with or general advice you might have.
And what about alcohol and smoking? Does that mess with things?
Lastly, does anyone know roughly how much exams, the pills themselves, and the blood work usually cost?

I don't know how old you are, but before making any moves, you should definitely get your hormones checked. Acne, irregular cycles—all of that could point toward PCOS, so it might be best to figure out what you're actually dealing with before jumping straight onto the pill.

I really don't want to just wing it, so I'm planning to see a gynecologist and insist on getting some blood work done (specifically coagulation profiles and fibrinogen, if I remember correctly).

👍

I’ve heard that some gynecologists don't bother with those specific tests, so I was wondering which doctors you all recommend (I’d prefer someone near Orlando, but I suppose anywhere in Florida works). My main priority is finding someone professional, since this will be my first gynecological exam.

Most of them are pretty professional, more or less. If they won't offer the tests before prescribing the pill, you absolutely have the right to ask for them. You mentioned being near Orlando—I don't live in that area anymore, but I know the general landscape 😁. There’s Dr. Miller (private practice) and Dr. Thompson (the local public clinic). Personally, I wouldn't suggest the latter, mostly based on some rather unpleasant experiences my family members had.

You might want to take a look at this thread that Laura Mendoza6 linked—"Orlando - Gynecologists."

I’m curious about your thoughts on birth control—which brands? Why?
I’d love to hear about your actual experiences, any side effects you dealt with, and any advice you might have.
Also, what’s the deal with alcohol and smoking?
And I'm interested in the costs for exams, the pills themselves, and the blood work.

I don't have any firsthand experience with this, specifically, though I know everyone reacts differently—it really depends on how your body handles it and whether it suits you at all. As for cigarettes, well, it depends on how much you smoke or how old you are, but it’s certainly not ideal to combine them with the pill.
If you use your insurance, you shouldn't have to pay anything for the exam or the labs, unless they need to run a quick Pap smear. As for the price of the pills, I couldn't say; it really fluctuates depending on which brand you end up with.

I suppose I should address the recent chatter regarding Trilla—though calling it "chatter" feels like a bit of an understatement given the noise levels lately. It’s been quite the whirlwind, hasn't it? I’ve been sitting here, trying to make sense of the shifting dynamics, and I find myself leaning toward a rather cautious interpretation of everything that has unfolded. It isn't as straightforward as some might claim—not by a long shot. There are layers to this situation that seem to be getting lost in the immediate reactionary fervor. If one looks closely at the underlying patterns—and I do believe we ought to—it becomes clear that what we are seeing is perhaps just a symptom of a much larger, more complex structural shift. I guess you could say it's a bit of a mess, if one prefers less measured language. Personally, I tend to think we should hold our horses before drawing any definitive conclusions. We need more data, more context, and perhaps a little more patience than the current discourse seems to allow. kaže:
It is entirely possible—though perhaps not widely discussed in casual conversation—for a woman to continue having her menstrual cycle for a few months while actually being pregnant. It happens. Even a seasoned gynecologist can’t always pinpoint the exact moment conception occurred; they generally have to work with approximations and educated guesses.

Let’s say yes—though I should clarify that we aren't talking about a standard menstrual cycle here. It’s more like active bleeding, which isn't exactly "M" or anything close to it; in fact, it's a serious situation that definitely requires close monitoring.

Maria Booth96 said:Technically speaking—if you're following the standard medical playbook used by most OB-GYNs here in the States—the first day of your period is actually considered the very first day of pregnancy. It’s a bit of a counterintuitive way to track things, I suppose, but that's how the math works out in a clinical setting.

...
It seems—and I hesitate to be too bold here—that we might need to consider the urgent implementation of sex education within our school systems. Perhaps it’s worth discussing.☕

That’s exactly right. 👍

Emily White9 said:Good grief, people...🙂
So, apparently, the first day of your last period—plus an extra seven days—is what gynecologists count as the official start of a pregnancy. I guess that’s just how the math works in their world.

That’s the truth—that is exactly how they calculate it. Honestly, if you look at most pregnancy calculators online, they’ll give you that exact same result. In my case, it ended up being the same way too; I suppose it's best to just follow the Veterans of Foreign Wars guidelines to the letter. Based on everything we tracked—more or less—I know that's pretty much the definitive answer. 😛).

Kate Patel59 said:That's just not right.

Not quite.

copperraven53 said:Obstetricians generally start counting a pregnancy from the first day of your last menstrual period—though I suppose that sounds a bit counterintuitive to most people, given that you aren't actually pregnant at that point. It’s a standard medical convention here in the States, primarily because it provides a concrete starting line that doesn't rely on the exact moment of conception, which—let's be honest—is notoriously difficult to pin down with any real precision. Most doctors will refer to this as "gestational age." It’s a bit of a clinical way to look at it, I guess, but it helps establish those crucial milestones for prenatal care and development. So, even if you don't technically conceive until two weeks after that date, the medical timeline begins there. It’s just how the system operates. Day one. The concept of the "last menstrual period"—even though, realistically, a woman isn't actually pregnant at that moment—is such a strange way to track things. Not every woman follows a perfect "textbook" cycle, and since most people have no idea exactly when ovulation occurs, doctors just use the first day of that last period as a standardized starting point. It’s a bit of a clinical workaround, I suppose. Even though conception technically happens about two weeks after that date, medical professionals in the US almost always count the pregnancy from day one of the period instead. It's just the standard protocol they lean on.

Exactly. And you even have women with regular cycles who just happen to have a slightly longer first phase—the follicular phase, in my case—where the ultrasound might "adjust" things by a couple of days. It essentially makes them look a bit younger on paper, which shifts the estimated due date forward by about a week (just like what Emily White9 mentioned above).

Robin Evans3, it really all comes down to those few days shifting up or down. I know it sounds absolutely wild to base everything on a timeframe from before she was even pregnant, but that’s just how it works. It isn't some perfect, precise math equation, nor does ovulation always follow a textbook schedule. It usually lands somewhere in the ballpark. In my experience, my OB-GYN told me we should calculate from the first day of my last period, but we actually settled on a more likely due date based on a few days later. At the end of the day, it’s still just an estimate from the doctor via ultrasound, so everything stays within that general window.

Grace Chase97, I honestly don't think you were off the mark—especially regarding that sub-three-day window.

Grace Chase97 said:My thyroid levels seem to be fine, I suppose. Out of everything mentioned, the only tests I haven't run yet are SHBG and cortisol—though I did have my cortisol checked recently, and that came back normal. Is it actually critical to time the cortisol test specifically around my menstrual cycle?

Ah, my mistake—I was under the impression that you hadn't actually had your prolactin, DHEAS, androgens, or that "other" testosterone checked yet, seeing as you didn't mention any of those specific levels in your post.

Regarding the bloodwork—well, yeah, typically they draw everything from day two to day four of the cycle, and then they'll grab progesterone around day twenty-one. I was actually told—during the two times I went through this process—that for certain people (I’m not entirely sure which specific markers, though I suspect it might be cortisol) ... 🤔I suppose there’s a bit of a rule here—if you can even call it that—regarding the timing of everything. You really shouldn't let more than two hours slip by between the moment you actually wake up and the moment they draw your blood. It’s one of those little procedural details that seems minor, but I guess it matters for the results. 🤷

Yeah, this whole situation is a mess—you’re stuck in this position where you can’t exactly take time off to deal with it, yet the root cause hasn't even been properly investigated. It’s all incredibly frustrating, especially since everyone seems to be just popping pills as if they're the only—and apparently permanent—solution available.

steelangler88 said:Regarding the hormones—estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, LH, and FSH—everything is technically within the normal range, though I suppose the estrogen and progesterone levels are sitting quite low (even if they aren't officially below the cutoff). Also, the FSH is nearly double the LH level.

Given the circumstances, I feel like a significant amount of data is missing here—including thyroid function (T3 and T4), for starters. One really ought to be looking at androstenedione, both total and free testosterone, prolactin, SHBG, DHEAS, cortisol... and even progesterone on day 21. Did they happen to check if everything with the pituitary gland is functioning correctly?🤷 It might actually be worth seeing an endocrinologist—perhaps you could insist that your OBGYN runs every possible test, or better yet, just track down a specialist who is truly thorough.

Daniel Green98 said:Hey girls....

I’ve posted about this before, but since things have actually shifted a bit for me lately, I figured I had to share.

My periods used to be absolutely brutal. We're talking vomiting, passing out... total blackouts. There were days when I’d downed a pill and a half of Advil—like, 12 pills. Yeah, 12. What’s even left of my stomach lining at this point? It probably just reset itself or something.
It’s all because of endometriosis and PCOS.
I’ve been through a literal mountain of doctors, and one surgeon really messed things up—it went pretty sideways. Because of that, I ended up trying everything from IV pain management to Intercept and acupuncture.
So, okay, it’s been two months since I finished acupuncture (did 20 sessions at the local university hospital), and my periods have finally become "normal." I’ve already gone through two cycles now where I didn't vomit once and didn't pass out... I just took one single Aspirin, and that was it. I was actually able to function normally the whole time, whereas before, I basically had to be bedridden for at least three days.

For those of you dealing with insane pain, seriously, give acupuncture a shot. Nothing else really worked for me...

Just yesterday, an acquaintance was telling me about her experience—and I know for a fact she’s been struggling since she was thirteen, basically feeling like she's dying during those first two or three days of her cycle—how she felt completely reborn after just a few sessions. From what I could gather, she even picked up some pointers on things she should probably steer clear of.

In any case, I'm glad to see this stuff actually helps people with various issues, including menstrual cramps. 👍

Carol Doyle34 said:Ladies, quick question... I'm already 9 days late, and for a few days leading up to this, I had some really strange discharge... I've been using some medicated suppositories because of an infection, I got into a bit of a spat with my manager—which was pretty stressful—and I haven't been sleeping well either... For the last two days, I've had these mild cramps in my lower abdomen and it feels like my period is coming, but nothing is happening 😢(could any of this be causing the delay?? My cycle is usually very regular and only ever runs a day or two late...

Well, the infection might be a factor, I suppose, but stress—you never know. If you're feeling those mild cramps, you might get it soon. 🙂

Andrew Stewart6 said:Girls, please help, today is the 3rd day of my period and my cycle is normally 27-28 days; I need to delay my next period by about 10 days when I start taking Logitech, do I start immediately or a few days before my expected period? I've read so much conflicting stuff and I'm incredibly confused, please help

It might be best to ask in the Logitech thread or perhaps on the general birth control discussion board. 😉

I mean, there is definitely a need for it, but surely there’s a reasonable limit where you should have already had your first screening—specifically a Pap Smear. It isn't exactly logical to wait until you're 40 to undergo your very first one. I would imagine it happens much earlier, somewhere in your early twenties, or perhaps even starting around age 18.

And honestly, the procedure itself is quite straightforward; they don't even need to use a speculum. They just pass a small swab through the hymen—since, obviously, an opening must exist there anyway to allow for menstruation—and take the sample.

I suppose I should probably address the inevitable chatter regarding the X-Type—though, frankly, I’m not entirely sure why we’re even revisiting this particular topic at this stage. It feels a bit like rehashing an old argument about whether a certain mid-sized sedan from the early 2000s was a triumph of engineering or just a rather expensive way to look busy in a parking lot. If one were to look at it objectively—which is difficult, given how much people tend to lean on pure emotion when discussing legacy brands—it was always a bit of a polarizing machine. On one hand, you had that specific aesthetic direction that attempted to bridge the gap between mainstream luxury and something more... traditional. On the other hand, there were the mechanical quirks that seemed almost designed to test a driver's patience—or perhaps their bank account. I suspect some might argue it was ahead of its time, while others—likely those who spent too many weekends under a hood—would disagree quite vehemently. I don't have a strong horse in this race, per se, but I do think the nuance gets lost in the shouting matches. It was a specific moment in automotive history, a transition period, and perhaps we should view it through that lens rather than judging it by modern standards. Or maybe I'm just being overly cautious. One can never be too sure. kaže:
http://img.bosnaunited.net/images/97...1911228394.jpg

😁

silverpanther13 said:There’s more to come, I suppose. 😬

I suppose I should probably mention that I’ve finally laid eyes on this specific pressing—it’s a bit of an oddity, really. Looking at the scan here, you can see the sheer grit of the sleeve art, which, in my estimation, feels somewhat disconnected from the actual sonic experience of the record itself. It’s one of those instances where the visual presentation seems to be trying far too hard to establish a mood that the grooves just don't quite inhabit. I find myself wondering if the original engineers were perhaps a bit too preoccupied with the aesthetic choices rather than the technical fidelity, though that might be a cynical take on my part. It’s a fine line between "artistic vision" and simply being distracted by the packaging. Regardless, it remains a curious piece of Americana in the broader context of mid-century recording history. One could argue it's a masterpiece, or one could argue it's a beautifully wrapped mistake—I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the uncomfortably grey area in between.

It looks like you two almost arrived at the exact same time. 🙂

Yeah, how did I manage to let that slip my mind? Though, if memory serves me right—and it often doesn't—I think there might still be a copy of that cassette floating around somewhere. 😁

Here’s a little something from back in the day: Videosex - "Videosex '84"

Lionel Hampton - "Air Mail Special"

The Carpenters - "Please Mr. Postman / This Masquerade"

Yeah, there are plenty of them scattered across THIS page, which makes it pretty convenient for running some comparisons.
A good chunk of them are nothing more than pure homage—even if it’s just through some tiny little detail—or they’re just slight variations on a theme. I suppose The Ramones did a decent job of adding their own spice to whatever they were working with. 😁

silverviper3 said:Swearing isn't exactly the way to address a lady—it simply isn't. Regardless of whether she’s right or wrong, you shouldn't allow that kind of language; those are basic rules of etiquette. This is especially true since she’s a doctor—a professional, for that matter. I suspect it wouldn't be in the interest of any online community to lose people who can provide expert advice, whether they happen to be a lawyer, a doctor, or a police officer.

Did you even bother to figure out which post we're talking about, or actually read it? Did you even look at the explanation provided by the moderators if you somehow missed the thread? Sorry, but this feels like someone just jumping into a conversation blindly to lecture the moderators without having a clue what the actual "issue" is.

For the very last time: those specific swear words were never directed at anyone on this site, and certainly not at the woman in question. They weren't a response to her post, nor were they aimed at anyone else on Reddit.

And what does her being a doctor have to do with anything? If she acts arrogant on this subforum, she could be an astrophysicist for all I care—that kind of attitude won't be tolerated in the Health 2 x section.

As for the whole "decorum" thing—so, according to you, we aren't allowed to say, "Damn, I almost totaled my car today," or "To hell with these forums and their constant server errors," because then we'd be considered rude, cocky, or lacking "basic manners"? Well, this isn't PBS, Peace, and Goodness; it's just a forum.

Oh, please—it’s certainly not something you need to lose sleep over, nor is there any real necessity to go seeing a doctor or starting some sort of preventative regimen. Just relax.

Betty Edwards22 said:So, here’s the situation—I’m officially lodging a protest against a certain moderator. Earlier today, over in the Health 2x subforum, specifically within that Nose job thread, this individual decided to use a derogatory slur. I actually went out of my way to call them out on it—just a polite heads-up, really—but instead of an apology, I ended up getting slapped with a 35-point penalty for supposedly "trolling." I mean, seriously? It feels like a bit of a stretch, doesn't it?

Honestly, you absolutely deserved that warning from the moderator. You were busy playing both sides—engaging with the other user (in this case, Scott Allen10, though his username color doesn't really change the fact) and messing with the moderation itself. There’s a specific rule against that here. And let’s be real, Betty Edwards22, this isn't exactly your first rodeo. You've had posts deleted or picked up for warnings before for doing the exact same thing.

Is this kind of behavior from a moderator actually permitted?!?

What kind of behavior is this? Honestly, the guy just used some standard filler words like "damn" or "hell"—it wasn't even directed at anyone on Reddit. Just because we serve as moderators doesn't mean we're supposed to be saints. Besides, other mods use that kind of language all the time—myself included. I really don't see what the big deal is when it's just happening on a single forum.

I won’t even go so far as to say that I was publicly attacked just a few months ago—all because I unintentionally used the wrong word in a thread with another user, a slip of the tongue that wasn't even remotely close to the level of his insults.

He didn't attack you—he just gave you a public warning. And if I’m being honest, that warning didn't just pop up out of nowhere because of one specific post; it was more of a reaction to how you've been acting lately. You've been responding to people on Reddit with a certain... let's call it an attitude—which, I guess, hasn't exactly gone unnoticed by the rest of us.

Let me reiterate: the response was directed specifically at a properly formatted post—one written in clear, black font.

Whether it’s black and white or color—honestly, it doesn't matter—when you're choosing to focus on the person you're talking to instead of actually addressing the topic at hand, or when you decide to start nitpicking the moderation team... well, that's where we run into issues. Posts like those are liable to be deleted or result in a ban, regardless of whether you're a regular contributor or just someone passing through. It isn't about us being sensitive or anyone's ego getting bruised; it's simply because this platform exists for specific purposes, not for personal grievances. Everything would have been perfectly fine, I suppose, if you had just come here first to discuss it properly.

gentlegull93 said:I just wanted to point out that someone promised to provide an overview for this thread as a condition for opening it—and yet, they haven't delivered ☕

My apologies. 😍 I might be a bit slow on the uptake lately, but I haven't forgotten.

Take, for instance, San Francisco—I see punks everywhere, even more women identifying as punks 😍, but what’s long ceased being surprising—nor should it be—is how much more likely you are to run into someone decked out in full punk gear while they're actually listening to something entirely different, say, country, pop, or hip-hop; it hardly matters. It’s the same deal with hippies and their sort. I suspect that with punk, and perhaps these newer subcultures too, it’s becoming somewhat a matter of bygone eras; it was a specific movement during a specific window of time that left a significant mark, and now we mostly hear about various revivals that aren't quite as... well, let's say, media-relevant, simply because the initial boom has already passed.

So, generally speaking, that old-school connection where people would say, "I listen to X genre, so I dress like X," seems to have faded over time—perhaps only a certain attitude or life philosophy remains. Those rigid boundaries don't really exist anymore (I assume the sheer accessibility of all kinds of music online plays a part here), and besides, there are plenty of people—myself included, I suppose—who prefer to just throw on whatever fits the mood at any given moment, or whatever suits the occasion. You might feel sporty one day, casual the next, or play the role of the dresser, the rocker, the goth, the punk, or whatever else. And we all know that as people age, they eventually move past adhering to a single "style."

For example, I have a very close friend who is a punk; even today, she always wears at least one little detail that gives her away as a true punk, despite having been in that scene since she was thirteen or fourteen, and now being well into her thirties. It is true, though, that her interest in other genres has expanded significantly in the meantime. 😁 But, hell, she'll always be a punk at heart.

Regarding the possibility of pregnancy—nothing is ever truly 100% certain, not even during your period. I’ve heard stories about couples seeing a positive test right at that time; well, they might just be anecdotes, but then again, every woman's biology is different, and sometimes ovulation doesn't exactly follow the textbook.

As for the bleeding, it's probably possible, though I doubt it stops entirely; it's more likely that the flow just becomes irregular or fails to exit properly due to various physiological reasons 😁.

Drew Lewis2 said:Heh, yeah... I was actually just watching a clip of them on YouTube, and honestly? I think the female vocalist on "The Great Gig in the Sky" might have actually delivered a better performance than what we got on the original album. 🤷

The way she sang... I actually got chills—she absolutely crushed it!

Henry Adams3 said:I mean, when you look at the subpar sound quality, I suppose we have to ask—is that actually on the band, or is it just the fault of the promoters? It seems more likely to be a massive oversight by the organizers, wouldn't you say? 🤷

Probably. I find it hard to believe that their crew actually botched the soundcheck—especially since there were moments where certain instruments seemed to drown out everything else entirely.

Henry Adams3 said:🍿

I would love a detailed breakdown of the experience, please. 🙂

Of course! 🙂

It kicked off with SOYCD—my only minor gripe being some crackling or static right at the start—but man, once it got going, it really hit hard. I was pleasantly surprised by how well they handled See Emily Play and Money, though I felt Another Brick in the Wall came a bit too quickly after High Hopes 😁. And just when you’re finally getting into the groove (much like last time)—boom, a 20-minute intermission (I suppose they have to replicate everything perfectly 😠). The second half was definitely superior; even the crowd seemed more engaged. They were at their peak during Wish You Were Here, when the whole arena basically erupted. I think toward the end of that song, they had that specific image projected on the wall, similar to what they did at Live 8. Otherwise, the wall features a massive amount of their iconography—classic stuff. For me, Have a Cigar, One of These Days, and Vera were the highlights since they're among my favorites, although I wasn't entirely thrilled with how These Days was executed; at times, it felt like half the instruments were muffled or just lost in the mix. Then there were the sweets at the end: the shortened version of the CN solo—which was a bit of a shame—and the madness of Run Like Hell, even if I personally think they could have handled that specific track with a bit more punch. In the second half, they do the standard "goodbye," then return to tell us we were a fantastic audience and decide to play "side three" from The Wall 😁. By the way, the venue was perfectly filled. My only regret is that Young Lust and Mother weren't included in the setlist.

It seems to me that this musical group might be slightly better than the Australian one—perhaps a bit more energetic in certain performances—but regarding the overall production, I’d give the edge to the Australians. I personally had a better time with the Aussies; the atmosphere was better and the sound quality was definitely superior. I received my tickets as a gift, so I was happy to go, but regardless, the price tag feels a bit steep for a tribute band. That said, the guys are undeniably professionals; the vocals were excellent, and you can tell they've rehearsed every single note meticulously, so they get a perfect score there. Oh, and it does seem they lean a bit more heavily toward Waters's material.

P.S. Believe it or not, the biggest round of applause went to the incredibly talented backing vocalist (the blonde one); I think she might have a Russian name, 🤔 Ola Bienkowska. There were three of them, but she absolutely killed it. 🙏

Michael Hill19 said:100%?

Well, a setlist like that is pretty much standard everywhere. I actually just got back from the concert (ST, at the arena), and the setlist was basically identical.
And the show actually started on time—8:00 PM (though, naturally, there was a fucking 🙄 break)