b...But others view their periods as fundamental symbols of fertility and health, researchers have found. Rather than loathing their periods, women evidently carry on complex love-hate relationships with them.
I have no interest in being fertile. Whether or not I am fertile doesn't define who I am. I have no need for this kind of symbolism. This pill sounds like exactly what I've been looking for since age 10, since I stared my period.
When my older sister started, I said to my mother, "Not me...I'm not going to have a period." She laughed and wished me luck with that. I, of course, started my period.
Now it is I who will have the last laugh.
*insert diabolical laughter here*
i'm not opposed to the idea of stopping my period. i definitely know friends who do it (through skipping the placebo phase of their birth control, for instance). as a lesbian with no intention of getting pregnant, my period is pretty useless, except for exacerbating my anemia. i also like the idea of being able to turn off your status as a reproducing being--men get to ignore the fact that their genetalia have consequences, so should women.
at the same time, i'm very wary of homone treatments--just because homones are some intense stuff. i worry about the longterm side effects of putting yourself through hardcore hormone treatments. i know that the biologists appear to think it's ok, but i still worry long-term.
i'm also worried about the idea that our bodies are machines we should ignore. i'm a cancer survivor; for a long, long time, i couldn't do a lot of things. my body was very limited in terms of my mobility, strength, etc. i spent 4 years in a wheel chair, 4 more using crutches to walk. for a lot of my illness, i refused to give my body anything; i ignored it totally and became, as Bitch PhD says, a brain on a stick (with wheels). but you can't be a brain on a stick forever. i'm a brain in a body. that body got cancer; that body still limps; that body ovulates and menstrates regardless of my brain's opting out of getting pregnant. it does these things, and they have some sort of importance.
so i suppose i have mixed feelings about the idea--but i'm sure folks are going to use it like crazy.
If the majority of women opt to take Lybrel (the Times quoted a study that said 2/3 of all women expressed an interest in giving up their period), what sort of effect will this have culturally on our tolerance for women who do not opt to take Lybrel?
Yes, that's an interesting question isn't it? I imagine that, once avoiding one's period is accepted, there will be backlash against women who chose to continue their menses on the grounds of "hygiene". Like it is somehow "cleaner" not to bleed. In some circles today , women who chose not to shave their armpits or not to have brazilians are regarded as unhygienic (Case in point, the uproar a few years back when Julia Roberts appeared on the red carpet with hairy armpits.)
I'd get rid of my period in a heartbeat. It's heavy and uncomfortable for me. And sure, I've learned to "manage" it, but if I didn't have to, I'd be much happier. It's bad enough that often, I have to stay home for a day. Being on birth control helps, but a lot of b.c. makes me nauseous, so I have taken b.c. off and on. Currently off. I could care less of others choose to continue having their periods. And I'm hairy-legged and hairy-pitted during the winter months, but prefer to shave in the summer. And I am perfectly fine with others choosing to be hairy year round. Being at an all women's college, I see it a lot. I would hope that we could learn to accept people's individual choices about their bodies. Isn't that what being pro choice is about at some level?
Mili is right, messing with your body's hormonal balance is the potentially dangerous "unnatural" part of this scenario. Don't know the biologists' consensus but would guess that the sadly underfunded FDA scientists don't go too deep into those potential consequences, especially long-term.
Personally, though I'd love to end my period, I will never take the pill again. When I went off the pill, I found myself far saner and happier (and a little bit lighter). Also, Mili mentions cancer... we've speculated within our family that my mother's prescribed use of heavy doses of birth control in her teens/early 20s (to control her menstrual cycles) greatly increased her risk of developing breast cancer, of which she is a thankful and happy survivor.
Also, I vaguely remember an article maybe a year ago, probably NYT again, highlighting the hypothesis that: since modern women menstruate more often throughout their lifetimes than in the past (fewer of us choose or feel compelled to carry many children): the higher turnover of quickly-dividing uterine wall cells increases cancer risk... anyone else read that? Sounds like a good reason to quit bleeding to me.
Everyone should be entitled to their choice! All choices involve risks however. If only there were no blame or judgement for unwanted consequences. yeah right.
My biggest concern is that we can not trust the FDA to act in the interest of the public, and there still is no way to compel pharmaceutical companies to do adequate post-marketing surveillance for safety.
This raises the issue of so-called designer drugs: those that are not intended to treat disease. When a drug is used to treat disease, there is a rational -- if inexact -- way to approach a risk-benefit analysis. If there is no disease, it is not so straightforward.
I tend to agree with brooklynmili that tampering with hormones is serious business. This is especially significant when you consider that any effect on disease rates, say, of cancer or osteoporosis, could take decades to uncover.
I guess I might also speculate about the effect that the availability of this drug might have on women who were abused and who want to eliminate all traces of femininity or sexuality as a way of dealing with the trauma. Not that I think it would be harmful; in fact, it could be helpful. But I don't know of any way to anticipate ahead of time what the effect would be.
I fear this drug, not because I don't see it's possibilities. But they thought, they swore, thalidomide was a good drug. It wasn't.
http://www.rlc.dcccd.edu/MATHSCI...ry/
history.html
More research needs to be done before women take period-stopping medication. I'm all for less pain, nausea and vomiting during my period. Hell yes, bring me relief. And not in the form of a hysterectomy, thank you. But is this GOOD? I don't think we know anything about the long term effects on skin, bones, general health, hormone levels and fertility later on. Can you imagine teens taking this for decades? Do we want to risk the chance of humans becoming infertile? Yes, a big jump, but is it? 100 years from now, we won't be here to see the effects.
Do women really want to risk cancer or worse by not having a period? I for one am not ready to take such a chance. Yeah, I hate my period. Yeah, I've joked for years about all reasons it's terrible and I hate it that men don't have an equivalent.
And a snide note: Underneath all of this -- is this just a more appealing form of BC so men don't have to deal with BC? I'd rather see the money go towards a male BC bill or something else.
As the anthropologist, Beverly Strassmann, famously argued, menstruation is itself unnatural. Under conditions similar to those of prehistory, women spend many of their reproductive years either pregnant or lactating and do not menstruate often, certainly not twelve or thirteen times a year for twenty or thirty years. The human body surely didn't evolve to put up with this sort of thing. Obviously Lybrel or any equivalent drug may or may not be safe or effective, but a hormonal treatment that elliminates periods would in effect restore the status quo ante.
I generally fall on the pro technology side of feminism also, but here's my little alarmist thought: what do you make of this drug,coupled with all of the anti-choice legislation? For those of us for whom the pill is our primary means of choosing not to be pregnant, here's my worry. I've done some reading on Lybrel and what I can't figure out is--does it "work" like other pills, which is to say--it's not 100% effective? If that is the case, and it's not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy, and the theory is that being on this pill, you don't get your menstrual cycle--how do you know you're pregnant before it's too late? This could easily put you into a second trimester of pregnancy without you realizing you're pregnant...or am I missing something here?
I think that a period can be viewed as an annoying, painful, and amazing result of being a woman. I, personally, do find satisfaction in my monthly visitor. I feel it' smy bodies way of saying "Hello, everything's working and, we're not pregnant!" I don't find my period to be a nusance, but simply a fact of life. I enjoy the privilage of being woman!
I can see if a woman is having heavy, extremely painful or uncomfortable periods, how a drug like Lybrel would be fantastic for them. I think they should take it and free themselves of pain.
But outside of that I feel, that men have tried to make women feel ashamed of their periods. Opressing the period is opressing one of the most natural cycles involved in womanhood. And I think women have conspired with other women and with themselves to make the menstrual cycle something "gross" and unwanted. So to me, shunning a period is shunning your womanhood and submitting to the idea that a woman's body and bodily function are something to be ashamed of avoided. I feel the real message is: Don't be a woman! It's a hassle and annoying! Lets teach our girls womanly self-confidence not self-loathing.
This pill sounds just wonderful i only have one question... Will it stop your ovulation??? to where you cant have kids?
Frankly, if it stops you having kids, GOOD.
I don't want them. I don't want periods either. I don't want to be feminine, or womanly, or 'intuitive' or 'nurturing' or any of the bunk that's been handed down to women for centuries like a consolation prize for not being regarded as rational beings with brains.
Secondly, where the hell do people get the idea that something that causes that much pain is natural? Pain is not natural, it's a signal that something is WRONG. By that token, cancer pain is natural, arthritis is natural, chest pains in the middle of the night are natural. 'Natural' is not a valid excuse for suffering.
Commenting by HaloScan
