I'm on the reluctant side of this. Altering your body's natural rhythms with pharmaceuticals almost always has side effects. I can just see the headlines 5, 10 years down the road about how suppressing periods has led to what diseases, cancers, conditions, whatever. It's just not something I want to mess with, although I admit I dont' have the medical knowledge to know that it's definitely bad. But I'll err on the side of caution. Besides, despite all the Midol commercials in the world, I don't find periods to be that big a deal. We don't all have PMS & cramps.

Maybe this is an urban myth, but many women (and holistic health professionals) believe that periods serve as an excellent way for women's bodies to detoxify from chemicals, hormones, etc.

This may sound a little -- organic, but I am actually attached to my periods and the related hormonal changes I experience each month. I can discern changes in my verbal and mental acuity, in my level of sexual desire, in my energy level and my apetite. I don't track them closely, but I sometimes note my body's phases like I note the phases of the moon. Those recurring cycles remind me that I am a part of the natural world, which I think is a valuable thing.

Very tofu and sprouts, I know. But I have been having my period for 33 years now and I'll be somewhat sorry to see them end.

...I just like knowing that I'm not pregnant, you know? Even the Pill has a failure rate.

There are places on the web, geared more for those *trying* than those *avoiding*, but offering pregnancy tests in quantity for prices ridiculously lower in the drugstore. So, you can get, say, ten or fifteen strips at a time, use them once a month or so, have a year's supply and much more reliability than your 'period' while on the Pill. I started doing this after more than one panic over a 'late' period that turned out to be nothing at all. If you look the right places, you can find a year's worth of test strips for about $10, and that includes shipping.

As an aside unrelated to that particular issue, I'm tired of hearing the excuse that, "I can't believe that this doesn't have bad side effects!" as a reason for not doing it. I'm sure it won't work well for everyone, but calling it 'unnatural' is not a scientific basis for a conclusion. I won't call it absolutely safe--I think there should be studies, I think anybody who does it until then should be warned that it's an unknown quantity. That is not, however, the same as saying, "It's unsafe because I think it ought to be."

Back when I could get six packs of pills at a time, I would skip my period more often than not. I never considered it a pleasure, a privilege, or "the joy of being a woman." It was just painful and messy. I love the idea of just opting out.

Q

Susan,

Don't you think erring on the side of caution is a good thing? In our market driven world we so often tilt the other way -- if we can make it, and sell it, and put it in our bodies, it must be okay until someone can prove by a preponderance of evidence that it causes harm. To me, that's nuts.

The idea that we should not alter natural hormonal and chemical processes in our body without a compelling reason unless and until we know the process will not result in harm strikes me as a far more appropriate way to go.

On the one hand, men have gone without periods for a very long time and overall seem to do alright. I mean, we still die younger than women, but not by all that much.

On the other hand, I seriously doubt that long-term side-effects are that well teased out yet. Perhaps it's comparable to early menopause, for isntance? (In fact, that's basically what it means.) Aren't women athletes who stop having periods at heightened risk for osteoporosis? I can definitely see cause for concern, here.

Interesting notion that for all of these years women thought that they were having a "natural" period on the pill, when in reality they were not. Perhaps Tampax underwrote the R&D of those 7-day-off pills...

But not all women go on the pill or stay on it for the duration. For many women, the pill is not a good option at all and there are other types of birth control available. Personally, I plan to keep the blood flowing, if for no other reason, just to make the pope feel creeped out.

The 7 days of sugar pills don't give you a "real period", so any bad effect from avoiding periods for a long time is likely to have surfaced with women who have taken the pill for a long time. So, skip 'em.

Sophie:

Erring on the side of caution is good. But in this case, you're talking about a drug which women have been taking for long periods of time for quite some time now. The only difference is that they've been only using it 75% of the time they're taking it. So now we move it to 100%. The greater quantity of hormones could adversely affect some people. But since most of us tolerate it at 75% just fine, why should 100% pose a significant difference? A few people will probably have problems, just like a few have problems with them even at 75%. But that doesn't make it dangerous.

We're not talking about a complete unknown, as for example the Pill was when it first came out. We're talking about dosage adjustments. You're already altering natural hormonal and chemical processes in your body. The withdrawal bleed is not and has never been true menstruation. Why should it matter if it happens or not?

Pyrian:

Lack of menstruation is not all there is to menopause, and continuous use of the Pill is not the same thing. Menopause is almost the exact opposite condition, in fact. The Pill acts by simulating pregnancy-level hormones and tricking the body into thinking it doesn't need to ovulate, build up the uterine lining as much, etc. Menopause causes a reduction in hormone levels, which is why menopausal women sometimes opt for HRT--hormone replacement therapy. So no, they aren't equivalent. And female athletes, like anorexics, stop menstruating because their bodies are too low in body fat and under too much stress. Also not the same thing.

I know, more than any man really wants to know about it, but there it is!