I completely agree that there's something sketchy about not having ANY periods at all. I also don't like the idea of of pharmaceutical companies using women to make money and using our bodies as guinea pigs.

Some of the reason why our great-grandmothers had fewer periods is because they were pregnant all the time.

That all said, I can really see the benefit to it. Many women have periods so debilitating that they simply cannot function; many women are also anemic. There's something to be said for not having the nutrient/mineral loss of super-regular periods or not having cramps all the time. I know a woman with endometriosis who hasn't had a period in a while.

It's good to have that option, but I have a hard time imagining that women should NEVER have periods. Four times a year, I understand. Never just seems like something our bodies weren't designed for.

Random question to those more knowledgeable: what happens to the uterine lining during menopause?

Argh. This issue irritates me so very much.

Look, the bottom line is that women should have the right to control their own fucking bodies. Period. (No pun intended)

If not getting periods makes you uncomfortable, then don't buy a pill that makes you skip them. Medically speaking, these pills are virtually indistinguishable from regular birth control -- so I REALLY don't get why we should be so concerned on some naturalistic level about something that does the exact same thing as hormonal birth control, unless we're also going to say that birth control pills fuck with the "natural" order of things and are therefore bad. Birth control pills of any sort only give you fake periods because male Catholic doctors were uncomfortable with the notion of women not having periods. Because we all know that having periods is what makes us Real Women (TM) -- those naturally infertile women are just, I dunno, cattle.

Seriously, it pisses me off that this is an issue. It isn't "treating" periods. It is giving us control over our bodies. It's the same as the male pill stopping ejaculation. For people who are interested in it, it's awesome. If you're not interested in it, don't do it.

And I have to say, the notion that it's somehow "wrong" to tinker with your body's "natural" state smacks of transphobia. There are lots of females out there who are not women (and lots of males who are not men). Maybe we should tell them not to alter themselves through medical technology and hormonal therapy, too?

Finally, as to this:

“It’s not an easy decision for a woman to give up her monthly menses,� said Ronny Gal, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Company.

Ha! Speak for yourself, Ronny. It was pretty fucking easy for me.

I agree, Law Fairy--bottom line should be any woman should be able to make the decision about what's right for her, the more options the better.

As far as the science is concerned--aren't there stats out there linking higher frequency of menstruation to higher likelihood of breast, ovarian, and uterine cancers--this being one likely reason more women experience these diseases now, vs. generations ago when women were generally having more children, and thus menstruating less? I know I read about this years & years ago; anyone else recall hearing about this?

In total agreement, Law Fairy. When Seasonale came out, I knew instantly that I wanted it. (Although I'm switching to generics at the end of my cycle this time around - changed employers and therefore prescription copays, and I was SHOCKED when I went to CVS and was charged $100 for my pills. No wonder women spend more on healthcare related costs than men. Sheesh.) I don't begrudge other women having monthly periods anymore than they should begrudge me not having monthly periods. It's all about what's best and most comfortable for the woman.

Law Fairy, you said it about a million times better than I did.

It's a great option; if women don't want it, they won't buy it. Let's just ensure that this is done to keep women healthy and doesn't screw with our bodies.

Personally, I know that I'm freakishly lucky. I have my period for three days and never get cramps. A lot of that is from being a vegetarian athlete, but I would hardly mandate that women stop eating meat if their periods bother them. (For some women, it could worsen the situation by depriving them of iron.)

On that note, I do think that the hormones in meat and milk (I drink very little milk and try to buy organic) contribute to earlier menses and more frequent, heavy menses.

I am really angry right now that my doctors never explained to me that the bleeding you experience while on hormonal birth control is not a real period. I have also never been offered anything but the standard, regular dose ortho-tricyclen, even when I stopped taking it because of depression and because it wasn't that effective at lessening my problems. Clearly, I need a(nother) new doctor.

However, given that I have moderate-to-severe problems with my unregulated menses (not just cramps--it's like having the flu, migraine, and food poisoning all at once for 2-3 days every month), I'm glad there are options out there for people like me. I don't want to pathologize my period, but I do want to make my life as easy and pain-free as possible.

I'm mostly bothered by the statement (and belief) that women have a "love-hate" relationship with their period. I know there are some women who have horrible medical problems associated with their period and must hate it, and other women who really believe their period is empowering and defining, but most people I know consider it an occassional inconvinience at the most. it comes, you deal with it,pop some Midol, its gone after a few days. I don't understand why there is so much attention to this issue-I agree its a personal choice. I'm creeped out by the idea of never having my period again, but if thats what someone wants why not?

I have to say that, regardless of whether or not women choose to get a faux-period while on the pill of not (not my body, not my business), I'm very unhappy with the "getting periods every month is unnatural because our foremothers were pregnant all the time" rhetoric that proponents of not getting a period use. As far as I know, it's just not true. One of my great-grandmothers had one child. One. She lived to 88. Another had two, with ten years between them, and she lived to 85. On the other side, it's true, one had eight kids, but the other had only two (she died early, it's true, but those two kids had eight years between them--she didn't die that early). Assuming that pre-20th-century, women were pregnant all the time assumes that heterosexual activity was the constant norm, and that's just not true historically. In Elizabethan England, to take a time period I actually know something about, at any given moment, over half of the female population was unmarried. That's not a perfect index to childbirth, but it's not a terrible one, either. Cultures vary radically in terms of how many pregnancies women have undergone in their lives, and I don't like the "naturalization" of women-as-baby-machines rhetoric.

LegallyBlondeez: it's not about treating your period as a pathological condition - which it isn't - but about the side effects from it which are not part of a healthy life.

Law Fairy's point about the pill being devised to please Catholic doctors is sort of correct. The actual history is that the doctor who developed the birth control pill was a devout Catholic. More than anything, he wanted the Catholic Church to officially condone use of the pill as an approved method of birth control. It was his idea to dispense the drug with a once a month "dummy" pill to make it seem more natural and in this way win the approval of the Vatican. There was never any medical reason to dispense the drug in this manner.
The Vatican never condoned the pill and the doctor became so embittered over the matter that he left the Catholic Church.
There are, however, medical reasons to limit the number of periods a woman has over the course of her lifetime. The natural process of menstruation involves a very real "cells gone wild" scenario in a woman's body each month. Most of the time, no problem. But, any time cells rapidly change or multiply, there is a chance that one of those cells may continue to multiply out of control and become cancerous. Limiting the number of periods we have over the course of our menstruating lives lowers the chances of this happening.
There was a very good article on this topic in the New Yorker about 6-7 years ago.

I agree with the other posters here. It isn't like we're mandating that all women take pills to supress their periods. Personally, the thought of not having a period sounds like a great idea to me. Mine is not horrific, but it is fairly heavy. As far as I'm concerned, the only good thing about a monthly period is that it's a good indication that the birth control is working and you're not pregnant. With that said, pick what ever birth control method you want, just don't get in the way of anyone else's choice. This is the same issue as 'to shave or not to shave'. Do what you feel is the most comfortable for you, and try not to jusge the rest of us.

I agree with Law Fairy and Oenophile. If you don't want it, don't take it. No one ever told me that it wasn't a real period. My periods were always a full 7-8 day source of horrid pain and a box, box and a half of super plus. I LOVED not having PMS or being in pain and all when I had no periods on the Depo-Provera injection. I went off it, the pain and all came back. In the past couple years, I've been fortunate enough to have insurance pay for a tubal ligation. At the same time, the doc did an endometrial ablation. I retain my hormones, yet don't have periods. ever. I never felt having a period made me feel more "natural", more of a woman, or any of that. Just miserable.

I agree with Law Fairy and Oenophile. If you don't want it, don't take it. No one ever told me that it wasn't a real period. My periods were always a full 7-8 day source of horrid pain and a box, box and a half of super plus. I LOVED not having PMS or being in pain and all when I had no periods on the Depo-Provera injection. I went off it, the pain and all came back. In the past couple years, I've been fortunate enough to have insurance pay for a tubal ligation. At the same time, the doc did an endometrial ablation. I retain my hormones, yet don't have periods. ever. I never felt having a period made me feel more "natural", more of a woman, or any of that. Just miserable.

Law Fairy is fast becoming my hero:)

Ladies, if you want to do it, fine go ahead, if you don't, then don't. No one needs to argue their position to the other side or try to justify it. It is indeed your body.

Having said that, my only qualm is that everyone keeps saying how "unnatural" it is to stop your period, totally forgetting that interrupting your ovulation while taking the birth control pill in the first fucking place is also totally "unnatural". Your ovaries are SUPPOSED to unleash an egg into your womb once a month and the lining is SUPPOSED to fill up and prepare for the possibility of fertilization. So if you have a problem with stopping your period because that might be "unnatural" to you, then you really shouldn't be bothering with the birth control pill in the first place.

UltraMagnus, if you want a BC rant, I'll unleash one. :)

Yes, thank you.

I am tired of the fetishization of the "natural" state of women's bodies, coming from feminists no less. Yeah, we all have reason to mistrust Big Pharma, but here's the thing: the Pill has been used off-label to suppress periods for something like 20, 30 years, according to my gyn (who suggested that I suppress my periods before Seasonale ever came out, due to severe PMS headaches.) So actually? We *do* have very good knowledge of the safety of this, much better than we have of pretty much any other drug we take nowadays. And, as other posters have pointed out, the bleeding when one withdraws from hormones on a normal pill cycle isn't a true period anyway, so if you're going to screw with your hormones by taking the Pill at all, taking it perpetually isn't much different.

Our natural state is to either do without sex or have kids until every nutrient in our body is gone and all our teeth fall out. Our natural state is to die in our 50's or so. I'm not really fond of making a big fetish object of "natural", particularly when it comes to women's biology, as the conflation of women and nature has been used for millennia as an excuse to oppress women (and I say this as a person who actually does believe in evopsychology, although I favor more feminist and less essentialist readings of what data we do have.) I think it's silly to market a shiny new package of pills specifically for a purpose that you can accomplish by just not taking placebos, but since a lot of people's insurance won't let them get a new pack every 3 weeks instead of 4, I can see a valuable point to it. And while my own experience with the Pill tells me that a. hormonal bc isn't for all women b. not all hormonal bc behaves the same with the same women c. pro-Pill advocates really need to shut up with the "It doesn't actually cause any bad symptoms at all! Your getting fat and trying to kill yourself was all in your head!" bullshit, at the same time the Pill is why second-wave feminism was able to happen and why we have the right in law to be treated as human beings (mostly). This "It's not *natural* to have no periods! It's all a conspiracy of Big Pharma to give women cancer!" stuff plays into the hands of the enemy, people. "I'm uncomfortable with altering women's bodies with hormones so they don't have periods" is really not far away from "I'm uncomfortable with altering women's bodies with hormones so they don't have children."

So, yeah. You want a period, have one. (BTW -- I do understand the motivation of "if I don't get a period, how will I know I'm pregnant if a mistake occurs?" Because the mini-pill, breastfeeding, and two periods in two years led to me getting pregnant again and not realizing it until I was about 8 weeks in. On the other hand, if I hadn't been convinced that surely I must get a period regularly and then miss one to be pregnant, I would have pegged it a lot sooner, because the biological changes I went through started to occur very early in the pregnancy and I noticed them right away, I just was in denial. So I think that for a woman who's been pregnant before, simply paying attention to her body and looking for symptoms she's had before is a better marker of possible pregnancy than missing a period, anyway. This doesn't help anyone who's never been pregnant, of course, but if you have been, I think periods are overrated as the only early warning sign you could possibly get.) But you should understand that if you have your teeth, you have sex and don't have kids, and you've never suffered mumps, measles or chicken pox, that maybe your discomfort with "it's not natural" stems from somewhere other than where you think it does.

UltraMagnus, if you want a BC rant, I'll unleash one. :)

You can rant all you like, oenophile, birth control has been in use to women for over 30 years and for the most part it's been a great aid to women who wanted to control their fertility. Say what you want about big pharma but it is a lot easier to control one egg than millions of sperm (though I would love to see some male birth control pills or patches in the future) and they ARE working on hormonal birth control for men so I have a hard time believing that there are scientists (male AND female) sitting in a room rubing their hands together going, "my god, how can we fuck with women today, muh ha ha ha ha!!").

Besides that, if you take away the option of birth control pills from women you are taking away a big choice for them, putting their reproductive rights into the hands of their male partners, or condemning them to a sexless life (diaphrams aren't the end all be all of birth control, or else we wouldn't have the pill).

Not to be bitchy but I am also getting tired of the big pharma conspiracy theorists and if you have a problem with BCP (because if you just have BC that makes it seem like you have a problem with birth control period) then you shouldn't take it and leave other women to make their choices with their doctors for what is best for them. I had a wonderful doctor who helped me choose the best method of BC for me and it just happened to be the pill.

Whoa. I didn't know my "period" is not a real period either. Now I'm really confused: What exactly is preventing pregnancy during the "period week" when you're on the Pill?

UltraMagnus, if you want a BC rant, I'll unleash one. :)

I know you're "joking" but you can rant all you like, oenophile, birth control pills have been in use to women for over 30 years and for the most part it's been a great aid to women who wanted to control their fertility. Say what you want about big pharma but it is a lot easier to control one egg than millions of sperm (though I would love to see some male birth control pills or patches in the future) and they ARE working on hormonal birth control for men so I have a hard time believing that there are scientists (male AND female) sitting in a room rubing their hands together going, "my god, how can we fuck with women today, muh ha ha ha ha!!").

Besides that, if you take away the option of birth control pills from women you are taking away a big choice for them, putting their reproductive rights into the hands of their male partners, or condemning them to a sexless life (diaphrams aren't the end all be all of birth control, or else we wouldn't have the pill).

Not to be bitchy but I am also getting tired of the big pharma conspiracy theorists and if you have a problem with BCP (because if you just have BC that makes it seem like you have a problem with birth control period) then you shouldn't take it and leave other women to make their choices with their doctors for what is best for them. I had a wonderful doctor who helped me choose the best method of BC for me and it just happened to be the pill.

Oh, I was going to go on a different rant... mostly about how we should test birth control more thoroughly, analyse the long-term effects of it, develop male birth control (I would LOVE to see an end to the day in which men can complain that a woman "got herself pregnant"), and also, if possible, work on a birth control for women that is more reliable that the modern Pill and has fewer effects on her body.

The modern Pill uses fewer hormones than those developed in the 60s and 70s, mostly to reduce the side effects. However, they are slightly less reliable than the versions with more hormones.

My gynaecologist kept trying to force me to take the Pill (even though I'm voluntarily abstinent), so I definitely bristle at the idea of women who are just told to take the Pill with no discussion of long-term effects on HER body (not the average woman's body) and HER psyche. Again, I'm a vegetarian - I don't put meat in my body, in part because of the hormones. Why would I use the Pill? Of course it screwed me up when they put me on it for a month. Of course I got the depression from hell. I also developed a haemorrhagic ovarian cyst shortly afterwards. What irks me is that those side effects aren't discussed and aren't really treated as legitimate by the medical community.

Also, as a woman with a higher-than-normal risk of breast cancer, having had a tumor at a young age, I get really pissed when my doctor tried to give me the Pill, which may slightly increase the risk of breast cancer. If I were at a high risk of ovarian cancer, sure, bring on the Pill.

Law Fairy and all the others who agreed with her: add me to your ranks.

I was on Depo Provera for 6 years and only stopped taking it because i was concerned about the osteoporosis risk.

For a year after i stopped, i experienced heavier periods than i had had before, and i was totally unhappy about dealing with them. Enter the Mirena IUD. I'm now period free, pregnancy free, and happy.

If you want to retain your period, retain it. If you don't, you don't have to.

Law Fairy and all the others who agreed with her: add me to your ranks.

I was on Depo Provera for 6 years and only stopped taking it because i was concerned about the osteoporosis risk.

For a year after i stopped, i experienced heavier periods than i had had before, and i was totally unhappy about dealing with them. Enter the Mirena IUD. I'm now period free, pregnancy free, and happy.

If you want to retain your period, retain it. If you don't, you don't have to.

PS You guys are having server issues (error 500). I almost posted the same comment 3 times!

Honestly, I can't wait to get this pill. I hatez0rz "menses", i.e. bleeding for ten days and being all gross. I did Depo for a little while, and I loved it, but I got paranoid about the bone density loss, and the weight I put on, so I discontinued. I need to convince my clinic to give me one of these here new pills.

Honestly, I can't wait to get this pill. I hatez0rz "menses", i.e. bleeding for ten days and being all gross. I did Depo for a little while, and I loved it, but I got paranoid about the bone density loss, and the weight I put on, so I discontinued. I need to convince my clinic to give me one of these here new pills.

Dude, I might look into this. Seasonale is my best friend but I've been considering switching to Seasonique because I still get debilitating cramps during my period. Seasonique has a week of super low dose hormones that allow you the fake "period" but keep your hormone levels from plumeting quite as far as they do with the placebos. Still, this sounds good too.

As a side note, I can think of another application. My little sister is 11 and got her period this past year. She goes for 6 days and gets horribly sick and dizzy the week before it starts. She refuses to talk to us about it and can't keep track of when it's supposed to start because she's just not ready to be dealing with it yet. I can see putting a girl that young on this pill less for the birth control and more for making sure she doesn't have to worry about it until she's ready to deal with it herself. As long as mom or dad are good about keeping track of pill times, I don't think there'd be a problem. Her body's already producing more hormones than it needs, this way they'd at least be regulated.

On a bit lighter note, science-fiction author Connie Willis wrote a hilarious short story on this subject back in 1993, "Even the Queen," which can be found in a collection titled Impossible Things. It imagines a post-menstrual society in which a woman's daughter "rebels" by going natural and refusing to stop having her period.

I'm currently using the Ortho Novum birth control pills, and I'm not sure whether it's because I have a small body or a weird period, but I rarely have much if any flow at all during the month. It's cool, but then again it freaks me out a little. I like seeing my "period" because it's just another sign that I'm not pregnant. I am actually going to see if I can't change to another pill this summer to give me a heavier flow, just to make me feel more comfortable.
But I do think that the option for not having a period should be there. I just don't like the negativity these pharma companies place around having a period. Most women I know don't mind having it around so long as it's not painful or too long.

I'm currently using the Ortho Novum birth control pills, and I'm not sure whether it's because I have a small body or a weird period, but I rarely have much if any flow at all during the month. It's cool, but then again it freaks me out a little. I like seeing my "period" because it's just another sign that I'm not pregnant. I am actually going to see if I can't change to another pill this summer to give me a heavier flow, just to make me feel more comfortable.
But I do think that the option for not having a period should be there. I just don't like the negativity these pharma companies place around having a period. Most women I know don't mind having it around so long as it's not painful or too long.

I went on Depo when I was 15 (1997) because I had 7-8 day periods from hell and week migraines about midway between the end of my last period and beginning of my next. Depo was a godsend. I'd get a mini-period (a day of spotting) here and there, but after a year and for the next six years not a thing. No PMS, not a single migraine, no anemia, no super-plus tampons leaking through after 2 hours.

Now I have the Mirena IUD, and another than it being one of the most uncomfortable experiences in the world to have it put in, I couldn't be happier. Every 9-10 weeks I get a small, 2-3 day period and only go through a handful of junior tampons and next to no cramping. Until my husband and I want kids, things are going to stay this way.

I know many of my friends thought it was wierd or unnatural, until they where cramping and cranky regularly month after month and I was always fine. Several of the nay-sayer friends I had eventually went to depo or mirena and one just never takes the off week on her pill. They LOVE it and wouldn't have it any other way.

I'm so thrilled to see that everyone here is being so supportive of the choice to skip periods. I've run into quite a few feminists who are skeptical of these kinds of pills for many reasons, ranging from concern about side-effects to the fetishization of a woman's "natural" state. I was kind of expecting a debate here and I'm pleasantly surprised! I'm on the generic version of Seasonale and I love it to tears (literally: when I thought I was going to have to switch back to traditional BC because of money/insurance issue, I cried at the prospect). Good for everyone here :)

I've run into quite a few feminists who are skeptical of these kinds of pills for many reasons, ranging from concern about side-effects to the fetishization of a woman's "natural" state.

Double Fantasy,

If I'm allowed to sky dive for nothing more than an adrenaline rush, I see no reason to criticise women who take various pills to ensure that their bodies work correctly. IMO, the heart of the issue that we are all concerned with is correct (not "natural") bodily function: "function" is a crucial part of that. If periods cause your body to not work the way that it should work, then that's a problem.

Concern about side effects means that, IMO, women should be given full and accurate information about the side effects and the FDA should mandate continuing studies about the long-term effects. It means that there should be informed consent about whether or not to take it. This is similar to, for example, being told the very blunt statistics about sky-diving before jumping out of the plane. Informed consent is a good thing.

IMO, again, it's just as bad to tell women that they HAVE to take it, because periods are icky and aren't you worried about anaemia, as it is to tell them to not take it because it isn't "natural."

Yes, I agree with you. Did I somehow give a different impression?

Yes, I agree with you. Did I somehow give a different impression?

Also, don't forget that everyone is different in their response to hormones as well as having differing levels of pain with periods. Discussions like this often seem to focus on "the pill" as if there's only one kind and everyone responds to it the same way. Some women swear by birth control that made me almost suicidal with depression, some swear by the pills on which I got pregnant, taking them perfectly thank you very much, some can't stand the idea of the one that I think is the happiest bestest birth control in the world (Go Mirena!). My point is that there are a lot of choices out there for a reason, not just that different pharma companies all want a piece of the pie. That should obviously include options that definitively lessen or get rid of periods, if that's what a woman needs.

I LOVED being on Depo Provera and I'm sure that I will begin the same or a similar menstral supressing hormone therapy again later this year.

Its about freedom, choice, and its such an EASY choice for me to make.

No mess, no fuss, no wasted money on tampons, no failing at predicting when it will strike.

I see no reason for myself, or someone like myself, to have a period when they don't intend to have children and are moody enough as it is.

Also, don't forget that everyone is different in their response to hormones as well as having differing levels of pain with periods. Discussions like this often seem to focus on "the pill" as if there's only one kind and everyone responds to it the same way. Some women swear by birth control that made me almost suicidal with depression, some swear by the pills on which I got pregnant, taking them perfectly thank you very much, some can't stand the idea of the one that I think is the happiest bestest birth control in the world (Go Mirena!). My point is that there are a lot of choices out there for a reason, not just that different pharma companies all want a piece of the pie. That should obviously include options that definitively lessen or get rid of periods, if that's what a woman needs.

Ok, is that server error going to make this post twice?

I really like being on the patch (the Canadian, lower-dose patch, incidentally). I've contemplated putting another one on after three weeks instead of taking a week off (you can do that), but I haven't done it so far because I've wanted to talk to my GP about it first.

I really don't want to have more periods, but I'm not exactly ready to tell them to take the whole works out, either, and go into medical menopause, being as I'm only thirty-mumble years old. Still, I've been doing this more months than not since I was 11, and it's teejus.

(Incidentally, I'm not sure there's a correlation between hormones and milk/meat, since there are an awful lot of us Canucks who have nasty periods and we have no hormones in either milk or meat -- I eat meat, but don't drink milk, for allergy reasons, and quitting milk didn't do a thing to my period.)

Having always had excruciatingly painful periods my whole life (both physically and mentally), I always really hated all that "love your period" crap. I honestly tried- I did! But people don't realize how much easier that is to say when they are still able to function normally while they have their period. I couldn't. I'm taking the Seasonale now, and it's completely changed my life.

I am seriously considering doing this and I had a tubal almost a decade ago. PMS type symptoms flare up an auto-immune condition I have and the pain of that is horrible. I obviously don't need birth control but not being is considerable pain for about four days a month would really be nice.

If someone doesn't want to skip periods, don't. But complaining that nobody should do this just plays into the hands of the anti-contraception people and without a really valid reason. Options are good.

Double: we're in agreement; I'm just making sure that some of my comments are not mis-interpreted.

I find it interesting that they have been very slow to suggest that men use hormones for anything, though currently, and finally, testoterone is the cure for everything.

I had no periods "naturally" for many years due to (guessing) low body weight. It was paradise! If I could get an MD to pescribe OC without invasive stupid tests, I would never menstruate again. Natural perhaps. An interuption to my sex life and work-outs definitely. I hate the idea that I need to suffer for an idea of nature that includes reducing my capacity (in my view).

"aren't there stats out there linking higher frequency of menstruation to higher likelihood of breast, ovarian, and uterine cancers--this being one likely reason more women experience these diseases now, vs. generations ago when women were generally having more children, and thus menstruating less?..."

...and thus often living shorter lives.

Suppose a 70-year-old mother of 2 dies of breast cancer and a 16-year-old dies of giving birth to her 4th child. Would that 16-year-old have been protected from breast cancer because she only had 1 period in her life, or protected from breast cancer because something else killed her first?

"Our natural state is to die in our 50's or so."

Isn't that just the average of a natural state in which many people die in infancy or early childhood, a whole bunch die in childbirth/warfare/etc., and some do reach old age in their 60s/70s/80s?

"Besides that, if you take away the option of birth control pills from women you are taking away a big choice for them, putting their reproductive rights into the hands of their male partners, or condemning them to a sexless life (diaphrams aren't the end all be all of birth control, or else we wouldn't have the pill)."

Also, for some of us birth control pills reduce acne and facial hair growth. Without pill availability some more women would be celibate a la "I don't dare have sex because I'm not protected enough." Some more women would be celibate a la "everyone thinks I'm ugly, nobody wants sex with me, and I don't want to rape." Some more women would even be both!

"I really don't want to have more periods, but I'm not exactly ready to tell them to take the whole works out, either, and go into medical menopause, being as I'm only thirty-mumble years old. Still, I've been doing this more months than not since I was 11, and it's teejus."

Have you looked up uterine ablation?

Meanwhile, what do astronauts do if and when they menstruate in zero gravity? Do you suppress your period? Do you sign up for missions where the zero-gravity parts won't be on your period? Do you just really really hope the flow doesn't restart while you're changing pads, tampons, or cups?

I'm sorry, I know this is totally off topic, because I don't have much to add, but did anyone notice that Professor Linda C. Andrist was referred to as "Ms. Andrist"?

Say the name out loud if you don't get it. I love it.

"aren't there stats out there linking higher frequency of menstruation to higher likelihood of breast, ovarian, and uterine cancers--this being one likely reason more women experience these diseases now, vs. generations ago when women were generally having more children, and thus menstruating less?..."

...and thus often living shorter lives.

Suppose a 70-year-old mother of 2 dies of breast cancer and a 16-year-old dies of giving birth to her 4th child. Would that 16-year-old have been protected from breast cancer because she only had 1 period in her life, or protected from breast cancer because something else killed her first?

"Our natural state is to die in our 50's or so."

Isn't that just the average of a natural state in which many people die in infancy or early childhood, a whole bunch die in childbirth/warfare/etc., and some do reach old age in their 60s/70s/80s?

"Besides that, if you take away the option of birth control pills from women you are taking away a big choice for them, putting their reproductive rights into the hands of their male partners, or condemning them to a sexless life (diaphrams aren't the end all be all of birth control, or else we wouldn't have the pill)."

Also, for some of us birth control pills reduce acne and facial hair growth. Without pill availability some more women would be celibate a la "I don't dare have sex because I'm not protected enough." Some more women would be celibate a la "everyone thinks I'm ugly, nobody wants sex with me, and I don't want to rape." Some more women would even be both!

"I really don't want to have more periods, but I'm not exactly ready to tell them to take the whole works out, either, and go into medical menopause, being as I'm only thirty-mumble years old. Still, I've been doing this more months than not since I was 11, and it's teejus."

Have you looked up uterine ablation?

Meanwhile, what do astronauts do if and when they menstruate in zero gravity? Do you suppress your period? Do you sign up for missions where the zero-gravity parts won't be on your period? Do you just really really hope the flow doesn't restart while you're changing pads, tampons, or cups?

Oops, sorry for the double post! I thought it didn't go through the first time.

Genny, your little sister might benefit even from going on regular birth control. I have a friend who has been on the pill since she was 12 because she would get so ill during her period. she would lay in bed and throw up for a week. birth control was enough to balance her hormones to make her periods better, even though she still gets them. even a low hormone birth control would make your sister's period regular so she (and her parents) could keep track of it and might make it a lot more bearable for her. have you suggested that to your parents?

It seems to me that there isn't much point to the period if you're not shedding the egg. BUT I do know that not ovulating for one reason or another is a bit of a frightening concept. Take my situation, for example. I'm anemorrheic and haven't had a real period for several months, as a result of my fast metabolism, wonky eating habits, and intense workout sessions. This puts me at rist for all sorts of problems later in life, including premature osteoporosis.

However---the non-ovulation is the whole point of the product, so why go through withdrawal bleeding if there's no point to it other than comfort?

I agree with Ann: I'm not freaked out by the prospect of losing my period entirely. Why force yourself to go through pointless weird hormonal changes and withdrawal?

If you're okay with OCP in the first place, the bleeding issue is a red herring. (Okay, bad pun.)

There's no magic number of periods that a woman has to have each year in order to be healthy.

The inventors of the Pill decided to recreate the monthly cycle for marketing purposes, not because a monthly cycle is medically necessary. Women wanted to make sure they weren't pregnant, the a Catholic birth control pioneer hoped that he could convince the then-pope that the Pill was just an extension of the rhythm method. (Every day a safe day!) That argument didn't fly with the pope, but we're still left with the monthly cycle as the default.

Monthly periods are a valid option, but so are quarterly periods or bi-annual bleeds.

Giving women the option not to bleed doesn't imply that bleeding is an illness. When you take OCP period timing is a choice. The monthly schedule is just one "artificial" option among many.

Katxyz I have suggested it to my mother but she's definitely squemish about the idea. When she put me on birth control for my cramps I was 14 and even then she pulled me off for about a month when I was 16 "just to make sure everything works ok". It was a horrible horrible month. Anyway, she had bad cramps too but her doctors perscribed birth control pill as a last resort and gave her a big lecture about them, so I think she's a little gun shy about them. But if my sister's 'symptoms' continue to get worse, I may be able to talk her around to it. I mean, there's abosolutely no good reason for a girl to get her period at 11, but it'd be nice if we could make it easier on her. The other problem is talking a doctor into prescribing it, since we live in a somewhat conservative area.

i have to say that the "love-hate" relationship quote stuck me too. i don't HATE my period- i hate the options i have to manage it, the money that those cost, and the fact that i can't just get the whole time off from work. i'm angry at how i'm supposed to manage it in the first place, rather than there being a place for me to bleed in this society.

personally, i would not do this stopping of the period thing. for me, though, hormonal BC has not been the best thing for me. i can't take pills because they all make me sick and aggravate my mental health issues (depression and anxiety, super mood swings). i was on the patch, which worked for me, i think mainly because it had a really low dose of progesterones- what Depo and the implants are, the mini pill, and what's in the Mirena coil. i liked it other than the weird patch thing of the plastic movie around exposing the hormone adhesive, thus making me a bit paranoid about effectiveness. i go off it for a bit during being single, and by the time i'm getting laid regular-like again, my clinic won't prescribe it because of the increased chance of blood clots.
i've been on NuvaRing ever since, and while it is better than the pills for me, i've been having really clumpy white discharge, i've lost my natural lubrication, i'm extremely sensitive to abrasion (i get it from having sex with my partner while using TONS of lube) and i've had more instances of irritation that's been yeast-infection-like, though not actual yeast infections. it's just not worth it fr me because i don't normally get cramps unless i'm on hormonal BC, and i usually have about 5-6 weeks between periods.

i'm hesitant to stop it altogether, because it stopping was how i got diagnosed with hypothyroidism. i was off hormones, and in the 5 months that i was off before it stopped altogether, i only had 2 periods. then it stopped for 4 months straight, and i went through a hellish pregnancy scare stretch (literally, for 3 out of the 4 months), and had to have it induced anyways. they took blood, and found my condition. i'm being treated now, but i look at my period- my own personal menses structure- as a kind of litmus test for my health. it has worked before, it might work again. if i start to show a resistance to the level of thyroid hormones i'm on right now, for instance, it might show with another bout of amenorrhea, before i went in for my next blood draw and testing (currently set to once a year).

but hey, choice is choice, and i stand up for reproductive freedom. if you want to stop your menses, hell you want a hysterectomy? you should get it. i'm fighting that, i'm going to get an IUD (non-homonal) put in at the end of this month, and i've never had kids and i'm 26. they don't like to do that, the establishment.

if it's really such a horrible nuisance-laden worry for you, why not stop it? go for it. as long as you aren't berating me for my choice to have my period, we're all good to go. :D

When my wife heard about the "no bleed" option she called me to express her joy and happiness at never dealing with it again. She's been loving the 3 month option, and is looking forward to further reductions . . .