A woman's period is no fun. Sarah Pfander can tell you as much. But, should a woman really take birth control that suppresses menstruation? Is it really worth it?

SARAH PFANDER
Gargoyle assistant editor
Posted Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Opinions

IN CASE ANYONE was wondering, I still hate my menstrual cycle. If you want to hear all of my thoughts on this matter, then read my Jan. 8 column, “ProbleMS with periods.”

However, it seems as though a new birth control pill, soon to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, will be the first contraceptive on the market that completely eliminates a woman's period. The pill, created by Wyeth, will go on the market in the next month as Lybrel.

Birth control pills have been headed this way for a while, with many versions decreasing the amount of periods women have to three or four a year and almost all decreasing the amount of flow and discomfort. And, the periods that do come when a woman is on the pill, are fake, induced by the change in hormone level, not by the release of the uterine lining and the egg.

However, there is still concern that completely canceling one's menstrual cycle is unnatural and possible unhealthy.

With the creation of this pill came an outpour of dissent. Many women's health groups that are concerned with promoting a healthy view of women's bodies and the menstrual cycle, such as the Red Web Foundation, feel that suppression of periods is unnecessary and harmful.

The new pill also inspired Giovanna Chesler, a professor at the University of California at San Diego, to create an hour-long documentary about the topic, explaining why women don't need to end their periods. The documentary, called “Period: The End of Menstruation?,” is now being shown at schools and bookstores across the country.

So, with all this talk, I must ask myself, would I end my period if given the choice?

When I first read the New York Times article about Lybrel, I immediately jumped on the idea.

“What a great thing,” I thought. “I would take that pill just to end my period even if I didn't need birth control.”

I was actually kind of excited about the prospect. No more cramps, no more discomfort, no more tampons. My period would no longer interfere with sports and with games; I would no longer have to worry about accidentally bleeding through my underwear.

But am I more attached to menstruation then I initially thought?

To some extent, it does confirm my womanhood, my reproductive abilities, etc. And I do enjoy complaining about it every month, because, well, everybody likes to complain sometimes.

And it is completely natural. No one wakes up one morning and decides that they just want to stop urinating. So why must women decide to stop menstruating?

It seems that if society were more accepting of a woman's period, she wouldn't feel the need to end it.

Perhaps I am beating a dead horse. According to the New York Times article, Canadian researchers recently reported that women with heavy menstrual flow lose an average of $1,692 per year in wages due to absenteeism caused by their period.

That is a little ridiculous. If employers were more understanding of women's monthly plight, then the women wouldn't have to take special birth control to reduce their lost income.

So where do I stand on Lybrel?

I guess not having my period would be a great thing, and I would encourage women who want to suppress menstruation to go ahead and do it.

But I do think it is important to do it for the right reason. Not because your boyfriend thinks it is gross.

Realize that it is OK to embrace your period. It is natural, and can act as a symbol of one's fertility. Don't ever feel like you need Lybrel or any other drug to stop this completely normal, healthy cycle.

RELATED

— Gargoyle column: ProbleMS with periods

— New York Times: Pill That Eliminates the Period Gets Mixed Reviews