Blog of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research

What do men know about birth control and periods?

March 4th, 2010 by Elizabeth Kissling

Here’s a hint: the title of the new study by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy is How Misperceptions, Magical Thinking, and Ambivalence Put Young Adults at Risk for Unplanned Pregnancy.

The study [PDF] surveyed American singles ages 18–29 about their perceptions about and use of contraception. Twenty-eight percent of young men think that wearing two condoms at a time is more effective than just one. Twenty-five percent think that women can prevent pregnancy by douching after sex. Eighteen percent believe that they can reduce the chance of pregnancy by doing it standing up.

A staggering 42% of men and 40% of women believe that the chance of getting pregnant within a year while using the birth control pill is 50% or greater (despite research suggesting that the pill is typically 92% effective).

And many unmarried young adults believe they are infertile. Although available data suggest that about 8.4% of women 15–29 have impaired fecundity (measured as an inability to conceive or carry a baby to term): 59% of women and 47% of men say it is at least slightly likely they are infertile (19% of women and 14% of men describe it as quite or extremely likely.

In a very good short essay about the study at The Sexist, Amanda Hess links men’s lack of knowledge about contraception to their lack of knowledge about menstruation and physiology more generally, and illustrates with some telling anecdotes. There are a few more examples in the video at right, in which Amanda corners several men and asks them to explain how hormonal birth control works.

It all seems quite shocking, until one remembers that abstinence-only sex education that includes lessons about the ineffectiveness of condoms and other contraceptives has been standard in the U.S. since 1996. (See here for U.S. Government definitional criteria for abstinence-only sex education. At present, 22 states have opted out of receiving federal funding, so that they may provide accurate and comprehensive sex education.)

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

When Mirena Meets Mommybloggers

February 9th, 2010 by Elizabeth Kissling

Guest Post from Evil Slutopia

There are Tupperware parties, Passion Parties, Pampered Chef parties, and…Mirena IUD parties? Yes, apparently these events popped up early last year and were a joint effort from Bayer Pharmaceuticals and the mom marketing site Mom Central.

Here’s one mom blogger’s description of the Mirena party that she hosted:

Then tonight I hosted a party at my house with Mom Central. Mom Central had found me through this blog and asked me if I would be interested in hosting an event sponsored by Mirena. As I welcome any opportunity to sit down with some girlfriends with some free food and drink, I was happy to accept. Before the party started, I walked around nervously, terrified that only a couple of people would show up. We’re all so busy, and I worried that people would end up skipping a strange commercial-sounding event. But one by one, they rolled in and I began to relax.

We had an amazing evening, talking about sex, fashion, and living a simpler life. I realized that we don’t actually spend a lot of time talking about sex and relationships. We laughed a lot but also went home with some great tips.

Menstruation and Music Don’t Mix

January 29th, 2010 by Elizabeth Kissling

Cartoon illustration of opera singerThat’s the report from this arts blogger at the New York Times. Yesterday, doctors from the Methodist Center for Performing Arts Medicine of the Methodist Hospital in Houston held a daylong symposium on the management of medical problems among musicians specifically and performing artists more generally. Performing-arts medicine is a relatively new specialty, and frankly, I’m not surprised by the need for it. (I know a drummer who has ongoing neck and back problems caused – or at least aggravated – by his art.)

But I was surprised to see a blanket recommendation that female vocalists use oral contraceptives to suppress menstruation. According to Keith O. Reeves, the deputy chief of Gynecology at the Methodist Hospital and a professor at Weill Cornell, premenstrual syndrome “brings vocal fatigue, decreased range, loss of power and loss of some harmonics.” Continuous use of synthetic hormones is quite an extreme remedy for an illness without a clear definition or etiology.

But apparently menopause is much harder on the vocal folds – our intrepid blogger can’t even tell us:

As for menopause, you don’t want to know. As Dr. Reeves quotes the great mezzo-soprano Christa Ludwig, “It was a hell of some years.”


Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

No more Target: Women

January 25th, 2010 by Elizabeth Kissling

We’re sad to learn that brilliant funnywoman Sarah Haskins is leaving Target: Women (and especially sad that she’s leaving before creating a TW about femcare products). But we still have her fine piece about how birth control is sold to us as period control.

Fortunately, the rest of her archive lives on, on the internet.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

There’s an app for that

January 14th, 2010 by Elizabeth Kissling

Screen shot from iPhone app to remind user to take birth control pill.There are a number of web sites and mobile applications for tracking one’s cycle (such as MyMonthlyCycles.com) and for tracking PMS – either one’s own or someone else’s, as frequent guest contributor David Linton pointed out a few months ago. Is anyone surprised that there is also an app to remind you to take your birth control pill every day?

Of course, if you’re going to take oral contraceptives, taking it consistently is important. With a short half-life and low dosage in many of today’s pills, ideally they should be taken at the same time each day for maximum effectiveness. (This also may reduce breakthrough bleeding.) Research indicates that the average birth control pill user misses three pills each month, which changes the failure rate from 0.3% to 8%.

The commonly used Dialpak® dispenser, introduced in 1965, was designed to make it easy to remember to take the pill every day, long before iPhones or internet access. Legend has it that it was invented by a fellow who frequently argued with his wife over whether or not she had taken her pill. The Dialpak® is iconic in American culture; it has made the birth control pill the only prescription drug identifiable at a distance simply by its container. It is even evoked in the perfectly circular swimming pool and costumed synchronized swimmers of the NuvaRing® advertisement frequently seen on American television.

‘Should You Get Rid of Your Period’ Debated at MSN

January 8th, 2010 by Elizabeth Kissling

SMCR and re:Cycling’s own Chris Hitchcock is featured in a menstrual suppression for-and-against article at MSN today. Chris explains why using hormonal contraceptives to stop periods is generally bad idea, except in very limited medical circumstances. Leslie Miller, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington, defends the proposition that there’s no reason to menstruate unless one wants to get pregnant.

The article also includes a Consumer Reports video analysis of that annoying Seasonique ad that presents women as split personalities between “emotional” and “logical”. (Because it’s logical to get rid of menstruation – it only makes you emotional, dontcha know.)

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Contraceptive Injections Increase Risk of Bone Loss

December 27th, 2009 by Elizabeth Kissling

DEXA scan of femur.New research from the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston finds that nearly half of women using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), commonly known as the birth control shot, will experience high bone mineral density (BMD) loss in the hip or lower spine within two years of beginning the contraceptive. Women who smoke, have inadequate calcium intake, and have never given birth are at higher risk of BMD loss.

The study, published in the January 2010 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, followed 95 DMPA users for two years. In that time, 45 women had at least five percent BMD loss in the lower back or hip. A total of 50 women had less than five percent bone loss at both sites during the same period. The researchers followed 27 of the women for an additional year and found that those who experienced significant BMD loss in the first two years continued to lose bone mass.

“These losses, especially among women using DMPA for many years, are likely to take an extended period of time to reverse,” says first author Dr. Mahburbur Rahman, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology and Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Women’s Health.

The researchers note that while this study will help physicians counsel women with modifiable risk factors who wish to use DMPA, prevention of bone loss while using the contraceptive and reversibility of BMD loss are still not well understood and further research is needed.

DMPA, an injected contraceptive given every three months, is used by more than two million women in the U.S.; nearly one-quarter of them teens. DMPA is popular with young women because it is less expensive than many other forms of birth control, has a low failure rate, and does not require daily use.

[Via Red Tent Sisters]

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

The cure for all things menstrual?

December 24th, 2009 by Chris Hitchcock

A recent press release from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists announces that Hormonal Contraceptives Offer Benefits Beyond Pregnancy Prevention. This is in the same vein as similar articles published over the years about “non-contraceptive benefits of the pill” – a laundry list of the many benefits women may obtain by using hormonal contraception. It’s not clear how they should be used by practicing obgyn’s. One use is certainly as additional talking points to convince women who are cautious or reluctant to replace their body’s own menstrual physiology with a pharmaceutical product.

I haven’t been able to read the full document (for some reason my university access seems to only find the first page of the full document), but it appears that, like previous reviews I have read, it is a biased list, including benefits but not risks. Perhaps what is most in common is the sense that a spontaneous menstrual cycle is somehow suspect, that fluctuations over time are unnatural, and that pharmaceutical control is a good solution.

Pills and Soap: Birth Control Now Available without Prescription in London Pharmacies

December 23rd, 2009 by Elizabeth Kissling

Guest Post by Holly Grigg-Spall, freelance writer (”Sweetening the Pill“)

NHS poster announcing availability of The Pill without prescription.In the summer of this year, I was researching for a feature for Easy Living magazine on the potential side effects of the birth control pill and when searching for a news hook for the piece, I found out about the preparation of a NHS scheme which would allow oral contraceptives to be distributed from pharmacies without a prescription. At that time, all of the doctors I interviewed expressed concerns about this development, even the most conservative GPs who stubbornly dismissed my concerns about side effects.

Then last week it hit British newspapers that this scheme had recently launched in the areas of London that have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy. Bold, bright posters in the style of laundry soap adverts exclaiming that the Pill is now available without prescription are up in pharmacy windows of Lambeth and Southwark. According to the news reports the pharmacists involved were given three weeks of training in order to provide consultations for young women looking to start taking oral contraceptives or wanting to move from the Pill to long acting methods like the injection, the implant or the hormonal IUS. The implication was also there that if young women came to the pharmacy for the emergency contraceptive pill then their consultation would involve the suggestion that they start on the Pill or a long-acting method.

The “standard of care” for being a girl?

December 22nd, 2009 by Laura Wershler

In a December 21, 2009 news release the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) proclaimed that “hormonal contraceptives offer benefits beyond pregnancy prevention“.

You’d have to be an ostrich with her head in the sand not to have heard this message before.  Just open any woman’s magazine to any ad for the pill, or any of the myriad varieties of drug-based birth control, and you’ll find the litany (a prolonged and tedious account) of non-contraceptive benefits used as marketing messages to “sell” birth control to girls and women.  So the news release begs the question: why now?

Maybe the pharmaceutical companies are putting pressure on the gynies to protect their funding and the drug companies profits.  Maybe this news release is damage control.  A recent article in Maclean’s magazine proclaimed a trend towards ”ditching the pill for good“.

[O]ral contraceptive prescriptions in Canada levelled off in 2008, reports pharmaceutical industry analyst IMS Health Canada. Health care workers are seeing a growing demand for non-hormonal methods. Spurred by concerns about their health, the environment, or even frustration with family doctors, who sometimes seem to push the pill as a modern-day cure-all, Canadian women are looking for other options.

Are declining prescriptions for hormonal contraceptives a growing trend in North America?  Is there a backlash brewing against the pill, the patch and the ring?  One can only hope that the days when your gynecologist could convince you that taking the pill is a panacea for everything that, supposedly, is “wrong” with women’s bodies are coming to an end.

Hormonal contraceptives are drugs that disrupt a woman’s normally functioning endocrine system with synthetic versions of estrogen (ethinyl estradiol) and progesterone (progestin) to induce infertility.  [Do not be fooled by the language used in the press release.]  These drugs have a time and place.  But precribing the pill must never become the “standard of care” for being a girl.  Mothers everywhere, take note.




Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

New Data on Toxic Shock Syndrome

December 17th, 2009 by Elizabeth Kissling

The first known case of fatal TSS related to an IUD was recently reported recently. Here’s the abstract from the November 2009 Annals of Emergency Medicine (the full article is behind a subscription firewall):

Toxic shock syndrome is a rare toxin-mediated condition that can rapidly produce multiorgan failure and severe shock. Toxic shock syndrome has been previously recognized in various clinical situations relating to surgery, nasal packing, abscesses, burns, and most notably menstrual-related cases. This case report describes a previously healthy 33-year-old woman presenting to the emergency department with complaints of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea; vital signs at triage were normal. Within hours, she developed shock and cardiopulmonary arrest. The patient met all 6 of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention diagnostic criteria for toxic shock syndrome, and her intrauterine device grew out Staphylococcus aureus. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case in the medical literature of fatal toxic shock syndrome related to an intrauterine device.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Early menarche, late menopause and breast cancer – what’s the whole story?

December 10th, 2009 by Laura Wershler
Mammograms showing healthy (left) and (right) cancerous breast. Courtesy of the National Cancer Institute.

Mammograms showing healthy (left) and (right) cancerous breast. Courtesy of the National Cancer Institute.

Can having too many menstrual cycles give you breast cancer?  That’s what one might conclude from two unrelated articles that appeared in national newspapers this week.

First was Nicholas D. Kristof’s Op-Ed in the New York Times. Kristof had recently attended a symposium exploring whether certain common chemicals are linked to breast cancer and other ailments. The role of estrogen – both the real thing our bodies produce and the pseudo-estrogens – in breast cancer was his major example.

The real thing:

One theory starts with the well-known fact that women with more lifetime menstrual cycles are at greater risk for breast cancer, because they’re exposed to more estrogen. For example, a woman who began menstruating before 12 has a 30 percent greater risk of breast cancer than one who began at 15 or later.

The pseudo-estrogens:

One class of chemicals that creates concern — although the evidence is not definitive — is endocrine disruptors, which are often similar to estrogen and may fool the body into setting off hormonal changes. This used to be a fringe theory, but it is now being treated with great seriousness by the Endocrine Society the professional association of hormone specialists in the United States. …These endocrine disruptors are found in everything from certain plastics to various cosmetics.

Readers should note that statements published in re: Cycling are those of individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Society as a whole.