Lunacy

HSchinske at aol.com HSchinske at aol.com
Mon Feb 10 15:04:49 EST 2003


In a message dated 2/10/2003 2:29:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, lost 
attribution writes:


> >Am I the only woman on here who thinks that the notion of a 28-day cycle
> >is bunk anyway? I don't think I know anyone whose cycle is 28 days (& many
> >women I know have cycles that aren't regular, period [snarf. no pun
> >intended], much less a 28-day cycle). I feel like it's mostly a myth, like
> >the "women ovulate on day 14 of their cycle" thing.
> 
Warning, too much information alert (not gross, though):

.
.
.
.
.
.
I have a 27-29 day cycle, frequently 28 days to the point where I can say 
"Okay, it'll probably show next Tuesday." (This is without outside hormones 
-- I am one of the few women I know who has never used hormonal birth 
control.) If I lived somewhere/when without calendars, the moon would be 
extremely useful for giving me a general sense of when my period was likely 
to show up, which is really all one can count on anyway. The fact that the 
moon cycle is slightly longer wouldn't matter all that much.

My mother's cycle was almost exactly 35 days, again, to the point of knowing 
which day of the week it was likely to start. 

By the way, women who live together do tend to menstruate at the same time, 
and they tend to be more regular. There ought to be a pheromonal therapy for 
irregular periods one could base on this, though it wouldn't do away with any 
underlying pathology such as PCOS. Didn't work for me and my mom, as she was 
40 when I was born and into perimenopause by the time I hit puberty.

Helen Schinske
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.suberic.net/pipermail/dwj/attachments/20030210/ae21c622/attachment.html


More information about the Dwj mailing list