Comments on: To Bleed Or Not To Bleed http://www.gladrags.com/blog/2007/11/12/to-bleed-or-not-to-bleed/ a blog from the team at GladRags Sat, 22 Nov 2008 03:48:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: tracy http://www.gladrags.com/blog/2007/11/12/to-bleed-or-not-to-bleed/#comment-835 tracy Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:42:38 +0000 http://www.gladrags.com/blog/2007/11/12/to-bleed-or-not-to-bleed/#comment-835 i recently saw the cover of cosmopolitan magazine in a store and it had the headline "the best news we've heard about periods in years!" inside was an "article" extolling the virtues of lybrel, although it was fashioned to be a pro/con type article. anyway, the two pros were "never have a period again!" and "if you're on birth control, you're not having a period anyway!"* so i think it's dangerous to use the argument that birth control users don't really menstruate -- it's better than nothing, right? also, i don't how i feel about saying that women are having unnaturally more periods than before. in some ways, i think that's valid -- girls are beginning menses much, much younger than they once were -- but i also find this kind of thinking dangerous. if most women over time ovulate monthly, what's wrong with someone now ovulating more than a woman who ovulated less (because she was pregnant or nursing)? isn't it a matter of choice? what would women long ago have chosen? something to think about, since we'll never really know the answers. *the one downside of lybrel, according to cosmo, was that you might just bleed/spot constantly and experience lots of pain and side effects. but! no periods! i recently saw the cover of cosmopolitan magazine in a store and it had the headline “the best news we’ve heard about periods in years!” inside was an “article” extolling the virtues of lybrel, although it was fashioned to be a pro/con type article. anyway, the two pros were “never have a period again!” and “if you’re on birth control, you’re not having a period anyway!”* so i think it’s dangerous to use the argument that birth control users don’t really menstruate — it’s better than nothing, right?

also, i don’t how i feel about saying that women are having unnaturally more periods than before. in some ways, i think that’s valid — girls are beginning menses much, much younger than they once were — but i also find this kind of thinking dangerous. if most women over time ovulate monthly, what’s wrong with someone now ovulating more than a woman who ovulated less (because she was pregnant or nursing)? isn’t it a matter of choice? what would women long ago have chosen? something to think about, since we’ll never really know the answers.

*the one downside of lybrel, according to cosmo, was that you might just bleed/spot constantly and experience lots of pain and side effects. but! no periods!

]]> By: Michelle http://www.gladrags.com/blog/2007/11/12/to-bleed-or-not-to-bleed/#comment-790 Michelle Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:00:20 +0000 http://www.gladrags.com/blog/2007/11/12/to-bleed-or-not-to-bleed/#comment-790 Devil's Advocate is good. The pill from the earlier blog was only the inspiration for this poetic interpretation. I myself thought of the "sea of drugs" and "pill" to be a much broader reference to all the ways we are changing our cycles through synthetic drugs. I have heard of the hyposthesis that now we may be unnaturally menstruating "too much" or more than we used to. But the truth is, it's a hypothesis. We can't rewind time to know for sure what people were doing or how they were bleeding, although this argument is made with sound logic. Here's the heart of it for me: there are other values to having a hormonal cycle and menstruation than the physical shedding of blood, although there are arguments here that support that process like the woman who argues that menstruation serves to clean the body of pathogens that women might be vulnerable to via sex. The menstrual cycle is the cycle of the earth - sping summer, winter, fall, building, ovulation, decline, menstruation, the cycle of the moon, of one single day - it's all the same cycle. Menstuating gives us a sense of that. It's also an emotional cycle which I can't stress enough, can be an enormous gift to women. Devil’s Advocate is good.
The pill from the earlier blog was only the inspiration for this poetic interpretation. I myself thought of the “sea of drugs” and “pill” to be a much broader reference to all the ways we are changing our cycles through synthetic drugs.
I have heard of the hyposthesis that now we may be unnaturally menstruating “too much” or more than we used to. But the truth is, it’s a hypothesis. We can’t rewind time to know for sure what people were doing or how they were bleeding, although this argument is made with sound logic.
Here’s the heart of it for me: there are other values to having a hormonal cycle and menstruation than the physical shedding of blood, although there are arguments here that support that process like the woman who argues that menstruation serves to clean the body of pathogens that women might be vulnerable to via sex. The menstrual cycle is the cycle of the earth - sping summer, winter, fall, building, ovulation, decline, menstruation, the cycle of the moon, of one single day - it’s all the same cycle. Menstuating gives us a sense of that. It’s also an emotional cycle which I can’t stress enough, can be an enormous gift to women.

]]> By: Jen http://www.gladrags.com/blog/2007/11/12/to-bleed-or-not-to-bleed/#comment-788 Jen Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:33:31 +0000 http://www.gladrags.com/blog/2007/11/12/to-bleed-or-not-to-bleed/#comment-788 The thing about any birth control pill is that the bleeding that happens during the placebo week is not an actual period. The bleeding is a withdrawal bleed, not a shedding of the uterine lining (because there is no build-up of the uterine lining when you're on the pill). So you can't equate ONLY the pills that have no placebo pills with the cessation of menstruation. Technically, anyone on hormonal methods of birth control is not truly menstruating. Here's a relevant quote: "The effect of the Pill on the endometrium is so modest, women could go for months without having to menstruate. However, the inventor of the Pill feared that women would find this unnatural and disturbing." Source: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web2/donimirski2.html This article has a very interesting discussion about the history of menstruation. The author's hypothesis is that the number of periods women have these days is actually unnatural and unhealthy. Women in the past had many fewer periods because of later onset of menstruation, more pregnancies, and longer breastfeeding. I like to play Devil's Advocate. :) The thing about any birth control pill is that the bleeding that happens during the placebo week is not an actual period. The bleeding is a withdrawal bleed, not a shedding of the uterine lining (because there is no build-up of the uterine lining when you’re on the pill). So you can’t equate ONLY the pills that have no placebo pills with the cessation of menstruation. Technically, anyone on hormonal methods of birth control is not truly menstruating.

Here’s a relevant quote: “The effect of the Pill on the endometrium is so modest, women could go for months without having to menstruate. However, the inventor of the Pill feared that women would find this unnatural and disturbing.”

Source: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web2/donimirski2.html

This article has a very interesting discussion about the history of menstruation. The author’s hypothesis is that the number of periods women have these days is actually unnatural and unhealthy. Women in the past had many fewer periods because of later onset of menstruation, more pregnancies, and longer breastfeeding.

I like to play Devil’s Advocate. :)

]]>