The War on Menstruation

      There was a question posted that I feel needs to be addressed pertaining to the new birth control that has just been released on the market allowing a women the option of not having a period while on the pill Lybrel.  Lybrel is a pill that allows a woman the option of repressing menstruation until she is ready to become pregnant.  The question as stated reflects a negative depiction that exaggerates the purpose this pill is guaranteeing to women.  “Is menstruation a disease that needs to be cured?”

      First, this question is seriously flawed because it is already making the assumptions that women believe a period is a disease that needs to be "cured."  Considering that the tone of the word “disease” reflects a highly negative reaction from most people who hear it (one may associate “disease” with ailments such as cancer or diabetes), it is not a word that seems appropriate to the topic.  Since Lybrel does not actually “cure” or “rid” a woman of her period forever, the question thus stated is incorrect.  Once a woman stops taking the pill, a woman’s period will return – therefore the disease continues!   

      As a woman and one who has been menstruating for a very long time - I don't see my period as a disease (at least, not in the connotation it is quoted as here).  Am I uncomfortable on my period?  - Yes.  Do I enjoy getting a period every month? – Not really.  Considering the reflections of society (South Park anyone?) and the disturbances to the male species about the functions of menstruation, it would be nice to rid of it for a while so that I can enjoy my husband during that “time of the month” without pause or second-thoughts (and in my experience, everyone benefits when both parties are happy).      

      So, is it killing a child?  No!  We've just decided not to fertilize the eggs for a while.  The main function of menstruation is the continuance of a new egg every month - therefore I see no reason to not be able to use contraception of some form.  When it comes to the effects on society, I think it puts choices into the hands of women to decide what kind of future they would like to have.  Granted, there are moral aspects that land upheaval to many pertaining to having sex out of wedlock, female promiscuity (notice I did not mention male), notions of power etc.  And since western civilization has undecided issues within the social hierarchy and the creation of a uniform morale, I see no reason to stop women from having the option to decide when they would like to become pregnant.   Until there is an agreement within all social realms on the verdict of what constitutes as moral on the female reproductive system, and not an imposed position with faulty arguments, this pill is a great alternative for a while until trends (and values) change. 

      It is not up to anyone but the woman to decide when she wants to carry a child – even in the institute of marriage (that is, unless the husband does not want kids at the time).  The Bible states that a woman was landed with the burdens of carrying children – but nowhere does it state that she must become pregnant as often as physically possible.  (The Bible states that man is landed with the burden of work, but even the man can decide whether or not he wants to work.)  A woman enjoys the pleasures of sexual contact just as much, if not more, than a man.  Considering the lack of funding to study female sexuality, our societal knowledge of female sexuality is flawed – thus opinions as to whether or not a pill such as this is a good thing on the female body are formed unjustifiably.  And since there is little knowledge on the subject, it is unfair to state an argument without backing up the thesis. 

      Here is what I know based on experience.  As a woman who has breastfed three children, I know that while breastfeeding, the hormones that allow a woman to menstruate repress.  It is obvious that a woman does not menstruate during pregnancy, but rarely do people realize that women don’t menstruate (or very little) during breastfeeding.  I have gone as long as two years (pregnancy for nine months and breastfeeding thereafter) without a period.  It seems illogical to assume that a woman needs to menstruate to keep her system functioning properly.  If a woman wants to become pregnant, then it can be assumed as well that she must be menstruating to do so. 

      Also, my menstrual cycle tends to be longer than 28 days (my period usually comes between 31 and 33 days sometimes up to 45 days)  – is it okay to assume that 28 days is normal in my case and that I must menstruate every 28 days.  There is a pill that allows women to menstruate 4 times a year – but if one can suppress menstruation for three months at a time, why not do away with it altogether until one would like to become pregnant?  If I can breastfeed for a year and not have a period during that entire time (and the hormones that allow a women to breastfeed and suppress menstruation are typically not that much different from those you’d receive in regular birth control), why do I need to menstruate at all until I am ready for it? 

      My only concern pertaining to birth control is the creation of synthetic products and how closely they mimic the effects of natural hormones on the body (much like how high fructose corn syrup – a modified version of sugar – replaces the use of regular sugar) – but I do believe that a woman does not need to menstruate in order to keep her body functioning properly.  The body recovers and is capable of adhering to any manipulations that occur for any reason (unless she is pre-menopausal).  If one gets a scratch, the body heals it.  If one gets a bacterial infection, the body heats up to destroy it.  The body is a very smart entity and it knows what to do in just about any situation. 

      Birth control is not an enemy – it empowers women to make choices and draw attention to their needs and wishes.  If women are not granted some sort of power, they leave themselves open to be repressed from other powers in society – think about what kinds of observations could be made and imposed upon women if women do not state their case pertaining to aspects of their sexuality and take on life.  If a man can take Viagra to sustain an erection, why can’t a woman take Lybrel to suppress menstruation? 

      Menstruation is not a disease; it is a function of the female body (the male erection, for example, is not seen as a disease).  If people continue to look at menstruation as something negative, females will be bogged down to nothing more than an ailment – and thus lose human rights and privileges.  Women are not controlled by their menstrual cycles – and despite all the negative ailments that surround women and “that time of the month” (PMS, PMDD, cramps, etc.), menstruation is not a disease and should not be seen as their defining factor.  This kind of outlook, such as that as suggested in the question on topic, has granted women one of the most notable stereotypes and a very undesirable projection in western civilization – all women are basket cases who suffer from mad cow disease during ¼ of the month and should not be taken seriously during such time. 

And who’s to determine when a woman is on her menstrual cycle?