contraception and menstruation

[falasportugues]

These days we have a choice of contraception, some of which can stop us menstruating, and some of which don't. I have preferred in the past to continue having periods, because I think it is important to be aware of my hormonal cycle. Do any ladies here have any other arguments for and against menstruating? It's renewal time, and I'd like some different perspectives to help me decide. I realise I could have put this on the family planning topic, but I would appreciate a feminist views on this issue. Thank you.

I don't use contraception any more because dh has had the snip, but I would love to say good bye to my periods. Unfortunately I've probably got 5-10 more years of them, which I find annoying because as I have absolutely no intention of having any more children they seem a pointless irritant.

I was on the pill from a teen to when we decided to have children and it was good for me as I was regular and my periods were a great deal less painful, in fact that was the reason why I started with the pill. I don't think it affected my libedo. When dh had the snip that really increased my sex drive as all the anxiety about getting pregnant disappeared, and was just so much more relaxed. Now I'd just like to have a hysterectomy and I'd be sorted.

I don't think periods are essential to being a woman, and I'm in favor of women using science to create a world they want. I think the question is why would one want or not want periods? Is the desire to interfere with our bodies' cycles based on a need to conform to something pushed on us by the patriarchy or is it a new opportunity that is (for some people) worth taking?

I see nothing inherently wrong with manipulating biology when it benefits us (obviously it needs care as it's complex and things easily go horribly wrong). I have no intention of having more children so I don't see the benefit of my periods to me, and they have their inconveniences. I also don't really get the natural/being aware of your cycle argument. It's quite possible to be aware of your hormonal cycle without relying on the evidence of your period.

But I do think periods are seen as inconvenient to men - an excuse for women not to have sex, an excuse for being moody. They are also one of the most obvious signs of our ability to bear children - the big thing we can do that men can't. I don't think I've ever heard positive media comment on periods by a man. So I do think there is a male agenda to push women to thinking of periods as bad.

On the whole if there was a way to switch my periods off and on without side affects I'd probably use it quite extensively - I would hope it would be mainly for my convenience, but looking at society I'm not confident I could be sure of that.

This discussion is triggering a few thoughts for me.

The push for hormone contraception is fundamentally problematic for me because:

1. It does not prevent STDs, having an African background and thinking of that in the context of HIV, as others have mentioned is a massive deal for me.

1. As Dittany has pointed out the side effects can be pretty catastrophic, any is any kind of sex worth that risk? Also, agreed with SuchProspects that we really trust the hormone treatments developed?

1. As Pacific and HerBex discussed, it actually removes the opportunity for sexual negotition. There also men and women out there who don't know how to put on a condom, which is shocking. And also in terms of family planning services there appears to be little on safe sex, importance of safe negotiation , masturbation and non-PIV, which for me is unacceptable.

It does appear to be leaving women (particularly young women) with some pretty stark choices...the 'ever ready hormone contraceptives' or discussion of rejecting PIV. Which for me is entirely unsatisfactory.

Particularly when lots of this is within the reach of society and family planning services to fix, re. iniatives to incorporate safe sex into family planning and finding a space for young women to re-engage with their own bodies, I.e. be comfortable touching themselves, and using that comfort zone to negotiate the type of sex they have.

Sorry....bit of a long ramble.

Dittany -

If someone is having horrible side effects from the coil then, I think most decide that no, it is not worth it for them and have it removed. Unfortunately it is impossible for any one to tell if they will be one of the lucky ones who it works well for, or whether they will have nasty side-effects. But many women, having heard all the pros and cons think its worth taking the risk.

I don't think the decision people are making is 'no sex' vs 'the coil', it is 'the coil' vs 'all the other options to stop you getting pregnant when you have sex'. People weigh up the different choices depending on how important convenience, reliability, peace of mind, STD protection is to them in their situation.

I am not sure what you are advocating? That the IUD taken off the market? Or that women shouldn't use it?

Also, reading those threads, it sounds like most women aren't at all aware of the side effects until they have them themselves. It's lucky we have the internet now so women can exchange their experiences, because before it would have been between a woman and her doctor and maybe a few friends. Very limited.

I agree absolutely with this part.

OTOH, I asked MN and heard some horriffic stories and was not put off going for the injection at all. I wanted my periods to stop, and I knew that some women got side effects but also knew that plenty did not. Including my mum, which made me feel pretty optimistic about my chanves of responding well.

What we really need are not just anecdotes about hormones making you fat/grumpy/spotty/bleed all the time, but statistics.

We need information.

If 100 women started on contraceptive xyz:
2 of them would get blinding headaches
10 reported increased spottiness
30 reported fewer mood swings
15 reported more mood swings
5 got between-period spotting
10 found their periods got lighter
etc
etc

Then women can make up their own minds about the risks.

Dittany -

I agree on thinking about this stuff, and information on possible side effects (and the internet is a marvelous thing).

It is acceptable to have all these contraceptive devices etc.. because the alternative is not to have them. And that for me is not a good alternative.

I just don't think it makes sense to think of the trade off as a collective thing where some women suffer side effects in order that other women can have reliable contraception. Of course the fewer side effects the better. But the decision that people are making (hopefully with full information) is about the risk of side effects to themselves, and the benefit of reliable contraception to themselves.

I think there are 2 important issues - information about all forms of contraception needs to be increased. Even for those who are older and in long term relationships.

Secondly I think there needs to be a campaign towards protecting sexual health. I think there needs to be more focus on using condoms. People think STDs won't happen to them, they think HIV is still a gay disease as much of the awareness campaign is targeted at the gay community. HIV isn't a death sentence anymore but that doesn't mean you shouldnt protect yourself. I think more and more young women are being put at risk of disease because they are led to believe that pregnancy is the thing to worry about. They are given an implant to act as a security blanket. I find it really worrying.

Another thing I have thought about is the education on protecting yourself when you are having different types of sex, not just PIV. If porn is trying to persuade us all that heterosexual anal sex is the norm are people aware that you are still at risk of STDs? Or with Oral sex? I'm still in the age bracket at which a lot of the sexual health campaigns are targeted yet most of the information I know I have found out myself.

I've read this thread with interest.

HerBex, can you really only get a diaphragm through an FP clinic and not your GP? I really want one because I am one of those freaky women who a) really hates the feel of condoms, and b) does orgasm from PIV sex (I do from non-PIV too, but I'm more satisfied by the other).

The other thing I thought of was that GPs are, in essence, snobbish as this sounds, taught to cater to the LCD. Many people, not all, just want the GP to prescribe them something and be done with it. The fact that we are discussing this at all makes us a bit different. I've often found that when I go to see my GP, they are a bit confused by the idea that I won't just go take the medicine, that I ask questions. And at our practice, it isn't just because I'm a woman. DH gets the same treatment. Neither of us are hippies; we just like to know the science.

You can still get STI's from oral sex.

Also, I find the whole 'orgasms are paramount' concept to be as tedious as the 'PIV is the be all and end all schtik', especially when it leads to endless Cosmo articles making women feel like freaks if they can't have x amount of orgasms an hour.

In fact, I'll go further and say that the idea that women don't really like PIV, they're just being brainwashed into it is as patronising as hell. What we want is decent contraception, not to have to deny ourselves something that brings a lot of pleasure. The fact that anti PIV-ers often talk about pregnancy like it's the plague crossed with Alien (you will diiiiiiiiiiie!) is not something I find female friendly either.

As a concept it's less a solution then it is a method of a very small group of people to do some fingerwagging at their less enlightened sisters: "Oh silly you for wanting contraception, you shouldn't be letting those nasty men have their way with you in the first place"

GAG: I know exactly what you mean, there is a bit of an undercurrent of 'How dare you like PIV when other women don't? You should be prepared to make sacrifices for the sisterhood!' But sex is always the place where radical feminism and right wing religious moralists seem to coincide - women don't like sex, male sexual desire is disgusting and it's a woman's job to keep it contained.

It does all boil down to having access to good information by which I don't mean anecdotal 'evidence' of how your auntie's neighbour's daughter's best friend got on with any particular method, but what the risks are in hard numbers (I like Trillian's list ) - and then you take your pick.

Of course all options should be discussed and offered.
And the risk of STDs discussed. And yy to lots of older people putting themselves and otheres at risk.

By which point IME a fair number of people's eyes glaze over because they 'just want the pill/jag/implant'.
You'd be amazed how many women I speak to do not want to know a lot . They come with an idea of what method they'd like and reluctanctly take my leaflet with 'contraceptive choices'. Which I quite often then find in the car park bin outside...

Totally agree that this kind of in depth discussion, particularly about the feminist aspects of contraception, is not really at all common place in RL... Maybe it should be, but it ain't.

As far as all this talk about PIV or not, and the intrusiveness/riskyness of different methods go - well, we are free to make our choices.
I strongly believe that empowering women to want to seek this kind of information is what will make a difference.

'My boyfriend thinks I need to go on the pill' - WTF??
I am sorry, at the coal face of dealing with disempowered young people it is just of no use at all to say 'But what about non-PIV?'.
I do frequently point out that they do not have to have sex, but the pressure is immense - as somebody said about, that's a whole other thread!

And re having periods or suppressing them: well, prior to contraception a lot of women had a lot less periods because they were pregnant and/or BFing most of their fertile lives... not sure that would be preferable .

I agree there are lots of different issues here.

One is about whether or not women are having enjoyable sex lives, doing what they want to do. Here relationships education is important, and I think schools are getting better at providing this, but it's a much wider societal issue.

Then are women (and men too) having safe sex. And if not, what can be done about it. Personally I think that the messages are still going out, but people are still generally ignoring them (I was in my teens/twenties when the huge AIDS campaigns were on and I'm afraid to say that most of my friends were still very careless - long term risk just seems very irrelevant to many people, particularly when you feel immortal and you don't want to live forever).

Finally are women choosing the best contraceptive choice (and is the pharmaceutical industry developing good new options). Personally I've never found GPs very good at this, but the family planning clinic was great, and when I used depo for a while they certainly went through the pros and cons with me. Like Trillian I wouldn't use anecdotes to make my decisions, but I would like more tailored statistics.

Oh and I really missed PIV when for contraceptive reasons we avoided it. It might not bring me an orgasm, but then there is more to sex than just having an orgasm (enjoyable though they are).

A really interesting discussion. I use (or get my partner to use condoms). I always figures I would use the morning after pill is one split if I needed to. Never needed too.

It has probably been said, but I find it funny that the main inventor of the pill was a catholic male. That in itself was a reason for me never to use the pill (I was brought up Catholic and that so many girlfriends thought it was awful for them - made them gain weight and feel like crap, but then my grandmothers had 20 children between them!).

I too would never want to risk STD's. Not that it has been an issue in my case as my partner and I completely trust each other and have been together for a very long time.

What John Rock (Pill inventor) thought, and so many people think, is that a woman should have a monthly period. He designed his Pill to enforce this apparently natural occurrence. But, as others have said some telling studies have shown that it is not necessarily natural at all.

I just find it ironic that the catholic church which has such an abhorrent view on contraception and woman was key to the development of the contraceptive pill. Malcolm Gladwell writes an interesting article on it.

MrsTittleMouse - re your MW for fucks sake. How depressing. However, it did remind me when I was at a mum's coffee catch up with babies and a mother there who had had 2 children was basically telling all the new mums that "you just have to get on and have sex with your husband, the quicker the better - just get it over with" as it was some kind of friggin duty of women. God it irks me just thinking about it and I was too tired to tell her how pissed off I was with her submissive attitude.

LOL pinklizzie, I never knew that. Why did that guy develop the pill then? Just because he thought women's periods ought to be properly regulated?

anecdotes can have their use though in giving you a heads up about needing to research contraception yourself/ask searching questions re:side effects.

Herbex - As I understand it this interpretation is correct:

"Rock made a conceptual connection between the Calendar-based contraceptive methods and the pill, in order gain the approval of the Catholic Church. Knowing that the Pill reduces the need for frequent mensuration, Rock introduced seven placebo pills per pack to simulate a "natural" cycle, stating that "women would find the continuation of their monthly bleeding reassuring." As a result, publicly accepted notions such as the standard 28 day cycle; the need to menstruate on a regular basis; and the pill as a hormonal state of pregnancy have remained salient and continue to inform decisions regarding women's health."

Yes TC and particularly when it comes to women's lives and experience - because on the whole, it is men who decide which research projects are to be undertaken and as they generally don't know or care what's going on in women's lives, it's important that women talk to each other and realise that something they had thought was just something that happened to them an individual problem, might actually be something which affects a massive amount of women and is a structural problem - that's not just with regard to medical or health matters, but to research into anything really.

Herbex just to clear - Rock did get disullusioned by the Catholic Church in the end... funny that, I don't believe he remained a church goer.

and sorry I did not want to take the discussion off course but I have found the article by Gladwell ... in case anyone is interested

Absolutely! When I went on the pill, the only side effects that we discussed were the effects on heart disease (very important, I agree!) and potential weight gain. Lack of libido and depression weren't even on the packet leaflet (which I read, being the geek that I am). The research about lower free-testosterone wasn't done until long after, but I bet that other women had had the same side-effect. And had the internet been around (showing age!) that I would have found out about it before I'd considered the pill. I would never have knowingly lost my libido. I used to love my libido. :(