The issue that nobody here has discussed is the instance where a woman is completely miserable on her period. I am such a woman. My mood swings and cramps make me feel like I am not myself--even to the point where it affects my ablity to work or go to school. Any Doctor can say what they like about it, but I ask you to put yourself in the shoes of a woman who feels that the time of the menstral cycle is marked by the feeling of depression and pain, both mental and phsyical. My mother doesn't have peroids because she takes Depo because she was miserable as I am. My maternal grandmother tells me she was miserable as well. I would take a pill that would allow me to function on a higher level because I don't have to deal with this monthly bane. I haven't had children and I think it is my CHOICE to be pregnant when I want to be as well as it being my CHOICE to have peroids and be totally miserable and unable to be productive as it is to not have periods.

Sometimes such a discussion seems to be to academic. Women have the opportunity to break out of the 4 week rhytm with all the impairments, can be informed about the known risks and decide for their own life and body themself.

JumpyD, you are right about your part in this discussion. Unless you have been bleeding from you penis every month since the time you were 12, I KNOW you can't understand. I am severely anemic because of "natural menstuation". I'm very DISTRESSED at my signs and symptoms: memory loss, irregular heart beat, constant state of exhaustion, shortness of breath, weakness. I would classify this a disease process. This process slowly impacts all body systems that need oxygen. I view this as a chronic BURDEN of suffocation. So we shall choose to have or not have a period.

As far as your comment about inferiority, since the beginning of time, the male sex has been mystified, jealous, angry and resentful that females have this superior gift of creating human life. We don't really care what you might think about our periods.

On ANY and ALL forms of hormonal birth control, a woman does NOT have a menstrual period. Her “period” week is simply medicine withdrawal. In fact, when birth control was first marketed, the placebo week was put in mostly just to reassure the women that she wasn’t pregnant. Unfortunately, even if a woman was to get pregnant on birth control, she would most likely still experience a slight withdrawal bleed.


The lining of the uterus does not build up when on birth control. In fact, most birth controls aid in making the uterine lining thinner, and more difficult for an embryo to plant itself. Therefore, a woman on birth control won’t have a constant “building up” of the uterine lining, even if she was to purposely skip a period. The case remains the same in any type of hormonal birth control such as Yasmin, Seasonale, and even Lybrel.


Hormonal birth control is not natural; it is synthetic hormones. Not every woman has a precise 28 day cycle. In fact, very few women do! That being the case, a 28 day birth control cycle, such as Yasmin, is just as unnatural as an 84 day birth control cycle, such as Seasonale. Lybrel is simply taking it to the next level with a 365 day birth control cycle. Lybrel is no more natural or unnatural than any other form of hormonal birth control.

What about the argument that women didn't used to have as many periods as they do now becuase we spend less time pregnant and lactating? Maybe a pill that reduces bleeding could prevent disease conditions related to our tendency to have lots of periods like iron-deficiency.

Twenty years later we will find out that this medication leads to your head falling off, or increases the risk of some cancer...
We always mess with ourselves or with nature as we please... till it's too late.
I'm not saying that there is something wrong with contraception in general, however, the general trend is: want to sleep - take a pill, want to be awake - take a pill, want sex - take a pill, want a baby - take a pill, want to be smart - take a pill. Where do we stop?

Treating periods with drugs has nothing to do with treating infertility, or diabetes, or sickle cell, or . And that is precisely the point I was trying to make. Diseases are defined by their symptoms. If the "symptom" we treat is menstruation, then, logically speaking, wouldn't the "disease" be having a uterus? Is that a definition we want to develop?

Well, I'm not sure that the idea is "ludicrous". In fact, many arguments of exactly this type have been made before claiming menstruation proves women are inferior, and I'm sure they will be made again. While I admit that making that particular argument is ludicrous, recognizing the fact that certain people in the world do, in fact, make such arguments is not ludicrous. It is simply an awareness of the state of things.

Bringing up basic female fertility (you probably meant 'infertility') proves the point I am trying to make. A woman who has not passed through menopause, yet still cannot conceive a child, has symptoms outside the norm. Women of a certain age should be able to conceive, those that can't have an anomalous condition, just the same as those who cannot produce insulin properly have an anomalous condition. Therefore, with infertility, we are treating a medical issue outside the norm. Menstruation is hardly the same thing.

Treating periods with drugs has nothing to do with treating infertility, or diabetes, or sickle cell, or . And that is precisely the point I was trying to make. Diseases are defined by their symptoms. If the "symptom" we treat is menstruation, then, logically speaking, wouldn't the "disease" be having a uterus? Is that a definition we want to develop?

Frankly, I don't see any ethical issues here. The idea that we shouldn't do this because it would treat a natural process as a "disease" is ludicrous in light of the fact we do the very same thing for basic female fertility.

This isn't an argument that "women are inferior" but rather that women should have the choice of going through this monthly process or not. Some women suffer only minor cramps while others are bedridden from the pain and bleeding. Others simply mind the fact it interrupts intimacy with their respective partners.

Where is the harm in giving women another option?

PS: Many women see their period as proof that their birth control is working. How would a woman who had just switched to the method above know if she was pregnant without constant testing?

Being a man, my comments may not mean much to this discussion, and I would respect the right of any woman to say so.

However, it is distressing to me that we are beginning to "treat" natural menstruation with drugs. How much of a mental leap is it, then, to view the perfectly natural acts of ovulation and menstruation as a type of "disease".

I find this to be an ethically slippery slope that may have some unintended consequences. If the intent is to release women from the "burden" of menstruation, could that not be used in the wrong, rhetorically-gifted mind, as an argument that women are inferior? If they are not inferior, why do they need drugs to remove their monthlies?

Do you see what I'm getting at? I hope I made it clear.

I'd much prefer it if somebody came up with a male contraceptive. The ideal one would increase penis size (to encourage men to stay "on the pill"), but it would also have to cause it to glow in the dark for you to know that he's been taking it.

Where are scientific advances when you need them?