This post is one of my favorites. This is absolutely correct. A+

My sister does something like this. She says it's the best thing she's ever done for herself, except for all the women who feel compelled to tell her she's not a real woman anymore.

I guess all post-menopausal, trans, and otherwise not-menstruating women aren't really women either?

Great article! I figured out a long time ago that I could completely supress my period by skipping the placebo pills entirely.

I was surprised by the negative reactions I got from some of my female friends when I told them that I was skipping my period in this way. As the article stated, they believed that doing so was somehow "unnatural".

The only problem I experienced by taking birth control pills continually was that it significantly reduced my libido.

So I could either eliminate painful menstrual cramps, or I could eliminate my sex drive. THAT was a very tough choice to make!

Leslee

When you think of the pill, the first image that comes to mind is that iconic little container of pink and white pills that represents one menstrual “cycle.”

maybe in the US, but not everywhere. my pills were yellow and came in a blister pack.

But, speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, there is nothing natural about having a menstrual period every month because it is not natural to limit fertility.

true, that. but it's also not exactly "natural" to ingest synthetic hormones that trick your body into believing it's pregnant.

and, for some of us, all it does is fuck up our immune systems.

the idea that women should suppress menstruation in order to reduce the risk of cancer and cysts is about as sensible as the idea that women should bear children in order to reduce the risk of breast and endometrial cancer.

I would just amend your analysis a bit to note that our ancestors spent a good portion of their reproductive years pregnant OR NURSING (which suppresses ovulation, prevents periods, and does an ok job of contraception, although I wouldn't rely on it.)

wow. I didnt know that menstrual periods are considered dangerous for our health.

great post.

The obnoxious thing about the need for monthly periods is that I have to take BC continuously so that I can stay functional when I would ordinarily be useless because of period cramps. So I skip placebos—and then end up needing 15 packs a year instead of 12, because they decided to give me 12 weeks worth of useless pills. (Even Seasonale etc. give you 4 weeks worth—I don't want a period AT ALL!)

Sorry, I fail to see how birth control that causes one to have 4 periods a year is supposed to be more "natural" than having a period 12 times a year.

I was on Depo Provera, the hormone shot, for about 2 years. It's also supposed to cause less periods per year, which sounded very convenient, and is what convinced me to try it. But in actuality, I found my "light spotting" to be pretty much daily for at least a year. I didn't find that convenient in the least! But the real problem was feeling exhausted and depression, which ultimately lead to thoughts of suicide. Sure, the side effects I felt were extreme and very few women experience this. Still, no doctor warned me of the possibility of that happening. I ended up staying on it so long because I thought there was an adjustment period and things would sort themselves out. Might I also add, feeling depressed to the point of suicide killed my sex drive - no sex = 100% effectiveness against pregnancy! ;)

Anyway, cut to a few years later, I don't use hormonal birth control, but rather an IUD. I personally don't find women using hormonal birth control with all the possible side effects - mood altering, libido altering, increased risk of blood clots, loss of bone density, etc. to be "normal" or acceptable. Let me know when there's a pill on the market for men!

Well I would like to counter a rebuttal with the link: http://www.scarleteen.com/article/body/i_being_born_woman_and_suppressed

I'm guessing that the makers of Seasonale et al also make monthly-period pills as well, right? Well, I doubt they want to market those pills as being less likely to cause cancer than the other pills they sell!

"Our female ancestors spent a good portion of their reproductive years pregnant and not having a period. And, in fact, having a period every month can be dangerous."

"It may be healthier (and more natural), then, for women to suppress menstruation (the way pregnancy used to)."

I do question these comments. Can we without a doubt say that our female ancestors were healthier because of this? To me those comments rely to much on speculation and ignores the possible risks that may have been involved in that suppression. At this point artificial suppression has not been around long enough to know that it poses no long term risks either. Like it or not the women of the world are still the guinea pigs testing that theory out.

I'm not sure if I should be surprised that no one has mentioned this, as it's surprisingly difficult to bring up. But here goes:

If you're on the pill and you have drastically reduced or eliminated periods, how do you know and react if it fails?

As a young woman with PCOS and in an active sexual relationship, I prefer to have my monthly period, and if I skip one on purpose, I'm very paranoid about being pregnant until I have it.

I have multivarious factors that go in to how I feel about periods. I had my first period when I was 11. By the time I was 13, I was throwing up from pain each time I had my period. But my periods were far from regular. I'd go 3 months inbetween, then 1, then 7, then 2. No rhyme or reason. Just sudden pain and blood everywhere and vomit. Let's just say that I really had a good reason to never want another period again.

Then when I was 16, I managed to find doctors that recognized my symptoms for what they were (PCOS) and put me on the pill. It was such a relief! I actually had an idea of when it was coming. It also reduced the flow and the pain became a 1 compared to the 9 I had been experiencing.

It's 10 years later, and now I'm worried about my fertility. PCOS is rather scary in that department. I pretty much have no idea what to expect. I could get pregnant while on the pill or I may never get pregnant. Also there is a high chance of miscarriages for women with my syndrome. All of this makes me feel that having my period almost every monthis the best way for me to take care of myself and any children that may come along. (I do skip on purpose now and then, vacations and anniversaries and birthdays are good excuses in my book.) I want to know, as soon as I reasonably can, when I become pregnant. As much as I would love to never have a period again, I can't see myself ever managing to try for that.

"And, in fact, having a period every month can be dangerous. Every time a woman has a period, tissue lining sheds and new cells must grow to replace it. And every time there is cell regrowth there is a new chance for mutations to occur. This leads to an increased risk of cancer and cysts."

Citation Needed.

And associating the pill with a monthly cycle as some concession to the Church - which doesn't give a fuck how you package or construct it anyway? How many pre-Vatican ancient cultures noticed the cycle as monthly, as related to the lunar cycle and all that? Doesn't it seem like the cultural monthly construction comes out of the biological construction? And yes, I know not all women have regular once-a-month cycles, but guess what? Even the moon doesn't have a regular once-a-month cycle.

This post just gets me. We all know having your cycle can suck, can hurt, can embarass. But to say it's more natural not to have it? Because our ancestors would have been pregnant at the moment instead of menstruating?

If we are left on our own, no pregnancy, this IS our natural state.

One thing that I would like to bring up is that I do not have regular 28 day periods. They can be anywhere between 25-37 (I used to keep an Excel spreadsheet of the data!!!! yikes!). As a teen, I was told by my doctor, friends, aunties etc etc that I should be on the pill in order to FORCE a 28 day cycle because my natural cycle was "wrong". I've never been on the pill and I continue to have a non-regular period.

I truly belive that my body regulates itself and for example, if I'm stressed or have a cold my period will often be slightly delayed. Seems like my body is smarter than these pills.

There are many comments flying around, and in the article, about what is natural. I think this whole word needs more thought put into it. Both to what it can be applied to, and its assumed superior status.

Whether something is natural or not is pretty debatable. One might argue that regular cycles are natural, because from a hormonal perspective, if a woman had no pregnancies she would have them continuously. But looking at things from a wider perspective, during evolutionary history few women would be left on their own with no pregnancy (us being group mammals). Thus most women would experience a number of pregnancies and a number of period free years. So which state is more 'natural'?

Secondly, some comments seem to carry the implication that because something is natural, it is desired. I would argue that even if something is 'natural', it is not without-question best for us.

For example the author argues that not having a period every month is more natural and less dangerous, however the 'natural' way to be in that state (pregnancy) carries a number of risks in itself, as far as I am aware. The 'synthetic' method (the pill) of achieving this result also carries health risks, for example increased DVT risk and slight breast cancer risk increase.
On the other hand some commentors are suggesting that having a monthly period is more natural, but there are possible negative health impacts of this also - for example I know a number of women who are mildly anaemic through heavy periods. Some of these take iron supplements because of this, which are of course, not natural but do improve their health.

My point here isn't to do a risk analysis of each state, but just to suggest that there are negative/positive health effects of both 'natural' and 'non-natural' states, and we shouldn't just assume that because one is 'natural', it is best for us or that we SHOULD be doing it.

I am only now reeling to deal with the fact that I have a medical condition that I might have to control with supression BC. It is not a pleasant thing to deal with, because, yes, I do enjoy my periods, and yes, I find it kind of weird to take hormones that fool my body into thinking I'm always pregnant. I also think that it is bizarre that women are supposed to believe that a process that occurs naturally and regularly is "harmful"-- way to make me feel better about my body, guys!

I find the basic premise of this argument kind of flawed-- the words menstruation, menses and period are all tied to the idea that women are supposed to bleed monthly, or with the moon! These are not new words at all.

A lot of people are really missing the point on this one. :p Half the rebuttals so far are blithely using the word "natural" as if it's some kinda trump card, when the post is specifically challenging that assumption. The "natural" state of women has clearly not been established, and the benefit of achieving this "natural" state (if it's possible to achieve at all) is clearly uncertain at best. So enough with the "nuh-UH, periods are natural"-ing, please, it's repetitive.

Given the nature of this blog I think it's important to mention that birth control is not always pink. I've been on at least 5 different kinds, none have been pink. This doesn't have anything to do with the subject of this essay but more caution should be used here than anywhere when it comes to statements about what comes into everyone's mind when they hear something.

It might be interesting to know that in the UK it is quite common for someone to be on the pill that eliminates the need for periods at all. I, myself, have been on it for over two years and it's a free prescription drug.

I find it odd, that the advert posted is distracting from the fact that it is contraception, like it's all about stopping that irritating period. Is it possible that this makes it look like it's denying or vilifying a natural process?

The word natural is a tricky thing. We use it all the time but it is essentially empty. There is no such thing as natural. Certainly we evolved to live under certain conditions and our body and behavior will reflect that, but it means nothing.

We have long abandoned the setting that has shaped us in favor of our incredibly "unnatural" modern world. We shouldn't be worrying about what is natural and what isn't. Natural became a word to say that something is inherently good (superior) because it is part of some greater scheme, but in our context none of this makes sense.

Here's my reply to this blog post: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/05/06/the-pill-and-the-invention-of-the-monthly-cycle/comment-page-1/#comment-288282

There are a couple of things that I would like to address with this blog. Firstly, just because the pill was created by someone who calls himself a Catholic does not mean that it “was heavily influenced by the Catholic Church”. The official Catholic teaching has been clearly against the use of contraception from the pill’s inception. Pope Paul VI, in Humanae Vitae explained the Church’s opposition to contraception. You can see the Wikipedia article about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae

Secondly, there is a difference between not having a period due to pregnancy and breastfeeding, and not having a period due to the hormonal manipulation of our bodies. I find it quite misleading that you mention the dangers of having a monthly period and act as though those dangers are less than the dangers of using contraception, such as the risks of blood clots, heart attack, future infertility, future miscarriages, etc. Furthermore, several studies have confirmed the link between the use of hormonal contraceptives and the especially agressive triple negative breast cancer. This is especially dangerous for women who use the pill prior to their first full-term pregnancy. You can see information about this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_JTkqXIPjg

Lastly, I would also like to add that (in case anyone has this assumption) that the options aren’t between having twenty kids, and contracepting. There is a really natural and effective way to space pregnancies called Natural Family Planning, which isn’t just used by Catholics anymore. It’s used by people who are concerned with the harm to ecosystems caused by the number of women using hormonal contraception (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09011901.html), by people tired of the side effects, and by women who like having control over their bodies themselves by their knowledge of how their bodies work, rather than giving that control over to medical staff and pharmaceutical companies.

Out of what orifice did you pull the idea that it might be more healthy/natural to suppress monthly periods with drugs? As a species we did not skip straight from being pregnant/nursing most of the time to being on the pill. In the hundreds of years between being walking baby factories and pill-poppers, women could avoid pregnancy with condoms and other techniques. And not everyone out there is on the pill today. Those of us who are not pregnant and not on the pill have a periods approximately every month, and there is nothing "harmful" about it. Inconvenient maybe, but I think the risks associated with the pill itself are the greater evils.

Interesting, I really didn't know that. However, this post seems to take a negative attitude toward getting one's period. I understand that the situation is different for every menstruating woman, as some experience extreme pain and would probably much rather not have them, but I don't mind them. I feel no desire to suppress my period. But I also wouldn't judge women who don't want to have a period. Women should be free to choose whatever is best for themselves. Still, I think this post could have been a little more objective. I'm sure there are pros and cons to both suppressing the period and having it. Let's not swing to the opposite side of the pendulum and start saying that having periods is the problem.

It's extremely funny to see that the Pill was invented by a Catholic person, especially considering how conservative Catholics are against birth control currently. Just to set the record straight, I support birth control and would use it myself, but only if I was in a sexual relationship.

I also want to agree with Fernando that the word "natural" is meaningless.

Which inventor was the catholic?

They would be required to present clinical data demonstrating a benefit to claim that in marketing or in the label. To prove benefit like that would require massive clinical trials that would increase costs and time to market.
The FDA and other national regulatory authorities watch that closely on approved drugs and licensed biologics. They don't have the free reign homeopathic magic potions and supplements have.

Zonebao Molecular Sieve is a manufacturer specializes in carbon molecular sieve serial products in Chin Our precept is using our sincerity and perspiration to win your trust and cooperation.

Thank You, ini adalah blog yang sangat bagus menurut saya, Harus diakui bahwa sebenarnya anda salah satu blogger yang tepat yang pernah saya lihat.
Salam https://DapurYogyakarta.web.id

How far can you go before hitting rock bottom? Slope, a new arcade game from Y8 games, challenges you to roll down the slope for as long as you can without falling off the edge or hitting any obstacles along the way. Prepare for a serious speed boost as you fall downhill on the seemingly endless surface. Even if you play it a few dozen times in a row, you will have the desire to improve. Another significant advantage of the Slope Game is the new method of logging in under your own nickname and competing on the number of points with other players.