by Ml Henneman

Created on: November 12, 2007

Apparently some women are actually outraged that there is finally a birth control pill that does not force us to have a period, supposedly because it is somehow "unnatural" not to have one every 28 days of our non-pregnant lives. And yet it is only due to a bizarre historical artifact that for the nearly 50 years that the Pill has been available, those of us using it have been forced to have our period thirteen times a year, even if we didn't want to.

Here's a brief summary of the human female menstrual cycle:
The first day of menstrual bleeding is arbitrarily designated as the first day of the menstrual cycle. During the first 4-5 days, during bleeding, hormones are at their lowest point. Over the next 10 days or so, an ovarian follicle develops, and once the follicle is mature, ovulation occurs. At this point, estrogen is peaking. Then, estrogen drops after ovulation and progesterone, which stimulates the uterine lining to develop in anticipation of receiving a fertilized ovum, increases. If the ovum is not fertilized, progesterone levels drop, which means the enriched lining of the uterus is not sustained, and menstrual bleeding occurs.

The birth control pill mainly contains progesterone. If you become pregnant, high levels of progesterone are maintained, which prevents further ovulation. Thus, the artificial introduction of progesterone essentially causes your body to behave as if it were pregnant, which inhibits ovulation. The traditional Pill introduces one progesterone-free week out of every four, so that menstrual bleeding will be simulated. It isn't true menstrual bleeding because we are never actually allowing our bodies to go through the cycle, we are just turning progesterone levels on and off like a switch to manipulate it.

If you ever asked your doctor why you should be compelled to go through this ritual despite the fact that you have not even ovulated, you got some vague response about how it was not 'healthy' not to have periods. But women have been systematically misled for decades; there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there are health risks associated with the absence of menstruation. Certainly the lack of menstruation can be an indicator of some further health problem (such as abnormally low body fat), but it actually serves no function other than your body saying "not pregnant this time."

What furthers the outrage was the assumption that women must have 13 cycles a year to be "normal." But Michael Gladwell(1) pointed out that there

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>