Content uploaded by Jane M. Ussher
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jane M. Ussher
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://fap.sagepub.com/
Feminism & Psychology
http://fap.sagepub.com/content/18/1/87
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0959353507084954
2008 18: 87Feminism & Psychology
Jane M. Ussher and Janette Perz
PMS: The Experience of Women in Lesbian Relationships
Empathy, Egalitarianism and Emotion Work in the Relational Negotiation of
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Feminism & PsychologyAdditional services and information for
http://fap.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://fap.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://fap.sagepub.com/content/18/1/87.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Jan 21, 2008Version of Record >>
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Jane M. USSHER and Janette PERZ
Empathy, Egalitarianism and Emotion Work in the
Relational Negotiation of PMS: The Experience of
Women in Lesbian Relationships
Research on differences between heterosexual and lesbian relationships has reported that
lesbian relationships are more satisfying, more egalitarian, more empathic, and facilitate
more effective conflict resolution. These differences are of key relevance in terms of the
construction and experience of PMS (Premenstrual Syndrome), as is illustrated through
interviews with 15 lesbian women who experience PMS and 10 of their partners. While
experiences of premenstrual distress were similar to those previously reported by hetero-
sexual women, the lesbian relationship context and positioning of PMS were markedly
different. In contrast to the lack of understanding or support, rejection, and pathologiza-
tion commonly found in heterosexual women’s accounts, lesbian interviewees reported
awareness and recognition of premenstrual change, responsiveness to needs, open
communication, and responsibility sharing. This had significant consequences for the con-
struction and experience of premenstrual change, facilitating open expression of needs,
self-care, and avoidance of guilt and self-blame, reinforcing the view that PMS needs to
be understood within a framework of inter-subjectivity.
Key Words: communication; gender; inter-subjectivity; lesbian couples; premenstrual
change; premenstrual syndrome; qualitative research
While Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS) has historically been represented as a patho-
logical entity caused by biomedical or psychological factors (Ussher, 2003b), with
women categorized dichotomously as PMS sufferers or non-sufferers (Bancroft,
1993), it has recently been recognized that premenstrual changes in emotion,
behaviour, or embodiment, are not inevitably positioned as PMS, and women do
not inevitably experience such changes as distressing (Cosgrove and Riddle, 2003;
Ussher, 2006). Rather, the construction of premenstrual change as PMS is an
ongoing process of negotiation, associated with the mode of appraisal and coping
Feminism & Psychology © 2008 SAGE (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)
http://fap.sagepub.com, Vol. 18(1): 87–111; 0959-3535
DOI: 10.1177/0959353507084954
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
adopted by women in the context of relationships (Ussher, 2002). In this view, PMS
is not the underlying pathology that causes distress, but is the distress itself (Jones
et al., 2000; Ussher, 2004a), and the context within which a woman experiences and
expresses premenstrual change can have a significant impact on its construction
and impact.
The notion that premenstrual distress is relational is illustrated by the finding
that the most commonly reported descriptor of PMS given by heterosexual
women is feeling ‘out of control’ and unable to tolerate negative affect in situa-
tions where there are overwhelming demands from partner or children (Ussher,
2003a). Women report greater reactivity to family stresses, and altered perception
of daily life stresses, premenstrually (Ussher, 2002, 2003a), with premenstrual
expression of emotion often acting as a catharsis (Fontana and Palfaib, 1994).
Women, and their families, attribute these ‘symptoms’ to an embodied disorder,
‘PMS’, even when alternative explanations can be found (Ussher, 2006), result-
ing in relationship difficulties being inappropriately attributed to PMS. This
functions to disassociate negative emotions or behaviours from the woman or her
partner, leading to the reproductive body being blamed for distress or disagree-
ment and, as a consequence, the problem being positioned as a hormonal path-
ology (Ussher, 2006). This pathologization is associated with hegemonic
constructions of (hetero)femininity that dictate that ‘good’ women are eternally
calm, in control, and self-sacrificing in relationships (O’Grady, 2005; Ussher,
2004b), and where the reproductive body is positioned as the site of the
‘Monstrous Feminine’ – abject, dangerous, and powerful, warranting regulation
and control (Ussher, 2006). Transgressions from gendered ideals are thus blamed
on the body, and the interpersonal or political problems that are associated with
women’s premenstrual distress are disavowed (Chrisler and Caplan, 2002).
Feminist critics have thus viewed PMS as a gendered illness, the latest in a long
line of diagnostic categories acting to pathologize the reproductive body and
legitimate the inappropriate attribution of distress or deviance to factors within
the woman (Caplan et al., 1992; Nash and Chrisler, 1997; Parlee, 1991; Ussher,
1992).
This provides an explanation for the positioning of premenstrual anger or
distress as PMS, but does not explain the emergence of these emotions. Many
women do feel angry, or depressed, or have a desperate need to be alone
premenstrually. There are complex reasons why these feelings emerge: pre-
menstrual distress is a material-discursive-intrapsychic phenomenon, linked to
the materiality of the body and women’s lives, discursive constructions of femi-
ninity and reproduction, and women’s negotiation of premenstrual change as
PMS (Ussher, 1996, 1999). The majority of women experience physiological and
endocrine changes premenstrually, which can be experienced as increased sensi-
tivity to emotions or external stressors (Ussher and Wilding, 1991; Woods et al.,
1998). This vulnerability is positioned as ‘PMS’ because of discursive construc-
tions of the premenstrual phase of the cycle as negative and debilitating
(Rittenhouse, 1991), which impact upon women’s appraisal and negotiation of
88 Feminism & Psychology 18(1)
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
premenstrual changes (Ussher, 2002). This appraisal is also influenced by a
woman’s current relationship context. There is a growing body of research
reporting an association between relationship strain and premenstrual symptom-
atology (Coughlin, 1990; Frank et al., 1993; Ryser and Feinauer, 1992; Winter et
al., 1991), and direct expression of emotion is lower in families where women
report PMS (Kuczmierczyka et al., 1992), which increases the likelihood of
premenstrual feelings being experienced or viewed as problematic. Women who
report PMS also report higher levels of relationship dissatisfaction or difficulties
(Coughlin, 1990; Frank et al., 1993; Kuczmierczyka et al., 1992), while, con-
versely, effective communication between couples has been associated with
lower levels of premenstrual distress (Schwartz, 2001; Smith-Martinez, 1995;
Welthagen, 1995).
In an attempt to explain the expression of premenstrual anger within relation-
ships, it has been argued this is the only time that some women ‘allow’ them-
selves to be angry, as they can attribute anger to their hormones (McDaniel,
1988), a phenomenon described as a ‘redeployment’ of the reproductive body to
meet women’s emotional needs (Elson, 2002). This implicitly suggests a calcu-
lated decision on the part of women to express anger and use PMS as an ‘excuse’,
a conclusion that is at odds with the extreme distress reported by many women in
relation to premenstrual emotional expression (Ussher, 2003b, 2006). The self-
surveillance and repression of emotion that typifies PMS sufferers’ accounts of
the non-PMS self is akin to the pattern of ‘self-silencing’ associated with
women’s depression (Jack, 1991), and women who report PMS score signifi-
cantly higher on levels of self-silencing than populations’ norms (Perz and
Ussher, 2006), suggesting a pattern of traditional ‘silent’ femininity. However, it
is the premenstrual break in self-silencing that is associated with distress, being
positioned as ‘out of control’, with women using a short fuse or a pressure
cooker metaphor to describe it (Ussher, 2003a), and castigating themselves for
breaking their normal mask of compliant (hetero)femininity (Ussher, 2004b). The
self is represented as split between the responsible, calm, silent self who exists
for three weeks of the month, and the premenstrual monster, who is reactive,
irritable, and overwhelmed by the demands of others (Perz and Ussher, 2006).
‘Jekyll and Hyde’ is a common metaphor used, reflecting the judgement imposed
upon women who transgress the ideals of (hetero)femininity (Ussher, 2006;
Ussher and Perz, 2006).
However, the outward expression of emotion is not the only signifier of ‘PMS’.
Experience of a change in the desire to break silence, or move away from a
position of self-sacrifice, is enough for women to pathologize themselves
(Ussher, 2003b). Many women report that one of their major premenstrual
‘symptoms’ is not wanting, or being able, to provide unconditional care and
support for their family premenstrually, and wishing to divest themselves of over-
whelming responsibility, positioning the desire to attend to their own needs when
premenstrual as a sign of internal pathology, ‘PMS’ (Ussher and Perz, in press).
In doing so they are exhibiting self-policing (Ussher, 2004b), judging their own
USSHER and PERZ: Relational Negotiation of PMS 89
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
desires or needs in relation to the discursive constructions of idealized
(hetero)femininity, where ‘good’ women are positioned as responsible, self-
renunciating, and always able to offer unlimited care and attention to others, and
‘bad’ women are irritable, angry, and selfish (Ussher, 2004b).
Cultural expectations of ‘appropriate’ gendered behaviour are policed through
the privacy of intimate relationships, and the reactions of partners and family to
a woman’s expression of her needs, or her discontent, play a significant role in
the construction and experience of PMS. Many heterosexual women express the
need to contain their emotions in relation to men, so as not to be positioned as
‘weak’ (Ussher and Perz, in press). Men’s constructions of PMS have also been
implicated in women’s negative premenstrual experiences, with evidence that
many men treat women with PMS in a belittling way (Sveinsdottir et al., 2002).
Conversely, support and understanding offered by their partner has been found to
reduce feelings of guilt and self-castigation in women who experience pre-
menstrual changes in affect, allowing them to engage in coping strategies
premenstrually, such as taking time out to be alone, or self-care (Perz and Ussher,
2006; Ussher, in press).
The majority, if not all, of this research on PMS has been conducted with
heterosexual women, or so we may assume. This is partly through exclusion, as
researchers do not see the relevance of including both heterosexual women and
lesbians in their samples, but also because of lack of identification, as the major-
ity of research studies do not indicate the sexual orientation of their participants.
This suggests that lesbians may have taken part in PMS research, but have not
been identified within the sample. This is a significant omission, as there is
consistent evidence that lesbian and heterosexual relationships differ in a number
of ways, which may have implications for women’s construction and experience
of premenstrual change.
Lesbian couples have been found to experience more cohesion or connected-
ness than gay male or heterosexual couples (Green et al., 1996), demonstrating a
capacity for mutual empathy, empowerment, and relational authenticity
(Mencher, 1990), associated with relational resiliency (Connolly, 2005). Greater
egalitarianism, manifested as ‘highly flexible decision making and household
arrangements’ (Green et al., 1996: 197), and innovation and adaptability in
dealing with both relational needs and domestic tasks (Connolly, 2005: 270), has
also been observed in lesbian relationships. As a result, lesbian couples are more
likely to share responsibilities (Matthews et al, 2003; Schneider, 1986), and to
report an egalitarian power balance within the relationship (Eldridge and Gilbert,
1990), when compared to heterosexual couples. Lesbian couples have also been
found to resolve conflict more effectively than heterosexual couples, even though
they disagree over the same issues (Kurdek, 2004b). Discussions begin more
positively and a more positive tone is maintained throughout the discussion
(Gottman et al., 2003), with lesbian couples arguing more effectively, through
being more likely to suggest solutions and compromises, and less likely to use a
style of conflict resolution where one partner demands and the other withdraws
90 Feminism & Psychology 18(1)
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
(Kurdek, 2004a). There is also evidence that lesbian couples are more likely to
report open exploration of feelings, empathic attunement to non-verbals, negoti-
ation, and the conscious avoidance of contempt (Connolly and Sicola, 2006).
Given the relational context of PMS, these differences between heterosexual
and lesbian couples suggest that the gender of a woman’s sexual partner, as well
as the nature of the relationship, may play a significant role in the experience and
construction of premenstrual distress. Drawing on interviews with women in a
lesbian relationship who report that they experience moderate–severe PMS, as
well as interviews with many of their partners, these issues will now be examined.
METHOD
This analysis is part of a broader study on the experience of PMS in the context
of relationships (Perz and Ussher, 2006; Ussher et al., 2007), involving inter-
views with 60 Australian women aged 22 to 48 (average age 34) who presented
as experiencing PMS, and 23 of their partners (age range 24–51). These women
were purposefully selected for interview to ensure the inclusion of women across
a range of relationship types (lesbian/heterosexual) and contexts (presence of
children; single versus cohabitation) from a larger group of women who were
taking part in a mixed method study examining the experience and positioning of
PMS. Women were recruited from a range of contexts: advertisement in the
media and women’s health centres; on-line chat-rooms and email lists;
Relationships Australia (a counselling organization); and a lesbian mother–baby
network. The present article will focus on the accounts of PMS in the interviews
with 15 women currently in a lesbian relationship and 10 of their partners. Many
of the women interviewed as a ‘PMS sufferer’ also discussed their partner’s PMS,
and one-third of the women interviewed as partners discussed their own PMS. In
the analysis, women will be identified as ‘partners’ when they are talking about
PMS in their partner. The average age of the participants was 36; relationship
duration ranged from 2 to 20 years, with a median of 5 years; 4 interviewees had
dependent children.
One-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted to examine women’s
subjective experience of PMS, and the negotiation of PMS in the context of
relationships.The interviewer began by asking a woman to describe how she, or
her partner, was when she had PMS, then describe a typical experience of PMS,
and explore how this varied across relational contexts. The interviews ranged in
duration from 45 to 90 minutes. After transcription, the interviews were read and
re-read in order to identify themes relating to the construction and experience of
PMS. Themes were then grouped, checked for emerging patterns, variability and
consistency, commonality across women, and for uniqueness within cases, and
thematic coding of the interviews was conducted, line by line. This process
follows what Stenner (1993: 114) has termed a ‘thematic decomposition’, a close
reading that attempts to separate a given text into coherent themes that reflect
USSHER and PERZ: Relational Negotiation of PMS 91
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
subject positions allocated to, or taken up by, a person (Davies and Harré, 1990).
Positioning theory posits that identity is constructed and negotiated in relation to
the subject positions taken up by an individual, or the positions within which they
are put by others (Harré and van Langenhov, 1999). A number of consistent
themes were identified in the lesbian interviews, which will be discussed under
three themes: connectedness and mutuality; communication and conflict resolu-
tion; and reciprocity and responsibility sharing.
THE EXPERIENCE OF PMS IN THE CONTEXT OF A LESBIAN RELATIONSHIP
Accounts of premenstrual change, and of experiences positioned as symptoms of
PMS, were identical to those reported by heterosexual women, both in the
present study and in previous research (Cosgrove and Riddle, 2003; Perz and
Ussher, 2006; Ussher, 2006). Common symptoms of PMS were described as
anxiety, anger, irritability, moodiness, paranoia, vulnerability in the face of life
stresses, dislike of the body, desire for time alone, and need for support and
reassurance. The relational context within which premenstrual distress was
experienced and expressed, in particular the reactions of partners, played a
significant role in women’s negotiation of premenstrual change, and their con-
struction of PMS, as is outlined below.
Connectedness and Mutuality
Jordan’s (1991) definition of mutuality as ‘openness to influence, emotional
availability, a constantly changing pattern of responding to and affecting the
other’s state’ (p.82) has been used in previous research examining connectedness
in lesbian relationships (Connolly, 2005). In the majority of the interviews with
lesbians and their partners, this mutuality was manifested by awareness and
recognition of PMS, and by responsiveness and reciprocity.
Awareness and recognition of PMS. In heterosexual women’s accounts, male
partners are often described as having little awareness or understanding of PMS,
resulting in the women’s experience being denied, ignored, or pathologized
(Ussher et al., 2007). In contrast, lesbian interviewees consistently reported a
high level of awareness and understanding on the part of their partner, even
though premenstrual changes in behaviour ‘may be weird’. This was experienced
as non-judgemental acceptance, as Shea (age 23) commented: ‘In terms of the
response, like, yeah, it’s just really understanding and I guess supportive . . . Like,
it’s not that big an issue that it becomes an issue . . . it’s just like, “This is how
I’m feeling. That’s okay.”’
Awareness of the importance of taking up a non-judgemental position was
present in the accounts of many of the lesbian partners. As Denise (age 51) told
us about her partner Stephanie,
92 Feminism & Psychology 18(1)
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
I don’t ever feel like it’s okay to say to that person, you know, ‘You’re pre-
menstrual. You’re just out of control. Things are unrealistic, and next week
you’ll see things differently.’ I never feel good about saying that, because it just
devalues what they’re feeling.
Indeed, the majority of the lesbian interviewees reported being taken seriously
by their partner, with their premenstrual distress being positioned as ‘real’:
(I know) how important it is, to have someone kind of go, ‘Yep, you really do
. . .’ and it’s not being silly and it’s not, um, dismissed as being, you know, um
. . . Like, it’s actually real. ‘I get that. I believe you.’ That sort of stuff. It’s not
just an excuse for having an off day, sort of thing. (Casey, age 40)
This awareness was sometimes precipitated by a woman naming herself as
having PMS, with her partner accepting this positioning, without further explana-
tion, as Jacinta (age 31) commented, ‘I generally just admit that I’m pre-
menstrual. And she goes, “Oh. Yeah.” So I don’t necessarily talk about the
feelings that I have – that I’m feeling . . . you know, not as worthy, or less worthy,
or whatever.’ Self-awareness and self-positioning as ‘having PMS’ were often
used to provide explanation for premenstrual reactivity or irritability, with com-
munication of this awareness often acting as an apology, which ensured that the
situation didn’t escalate, as Linda (age 36) told us:
She certainly understands and so if I was to turn around, you know after a
couple of times, you know I might be snappy for half a day and then I finally
sort of realize that I’m like that, um I will say to her, ‘look I’m really sorry’ and
it’s actually better then. And then she’ll, she’ll just take it in her stride. Not a
problem.
A number of lesbian interviewees described their partner being aware of PMS
before they were, and this precipitating an empathic discussion about pre-
menstrual changes in behaviour or mood, as well as the provision of practical
support:
She knows that it’s coming and we talk about the fact that I’m probably pre-
menstrual so she’ll say something like ‘um you know you’ve probably got
PMT’1and I’ll say ‘yep I think that’s what it is’. So what would normally would
have, I guess in past relationships, become an argument, um these days would
probably just mean that she would make me a cup of tea and a hot water bottle
and I’d lie down and um get a bit pampered. (Sheridan, age 35)
Jacinta told us that she had previously thought PMS was ‘a crock of shit’, but that
her partner’s recognition of her premenstrual change had allowed her to recog-
nize it in herself, which was beneficial to her coping: ‘She said, “This happens all
the time. This happens around your period, you know,” and you go, “Oh, okay.
Oh. Okay.” Yeah, and so, then recognizing that that’s what it is.’ This recogni-
tion functioned to protect the relationship, because irritability and moodiness
USSHER and PERZ: Relational Negotiation of PMS 93
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
could be positioned as ‘just my bad day’, rather than ‘something personal’, or
something which would have a major impact upon the relationship. Jocelyn (age
47) described it thus:
If anyone’s a little bit short tempered or acting very frustrated, then we just
understand that that’s what it is and so the behaviour’s sort of not valid in our
relationship. It’s just a time of our relationship that needs a little bit more under-
standing care and concern . . . or my partner knows that it’s purely a behaviour
thing, it’s not personal, and to just let it go by.
In apparent contrast to Casey, who wanted her partner to acknowledge her pre-
menstrual distress was ‘real’, Jocelyn described her partner Deborah (age 40) as
letting ‘me have a little spit or whatever I need to do . . . she understands and she
knows it’s not real’. Equally, Deborah described the premenstrual changes
Jocelyn experienced as:
. . . not usually affect(ing) me because I’m aware that it is, um, not real, that it’s
just blown out of proportion. So, I don’t usually take much notice of it, unless,
of course, it is a genuine issue that’s the basis of it. But if it is something trivial
I think ‘oh, she’ll be over it tomorrow’.
This account is not about dismissing premenstrual distress as ‘not real’; however,
it is about understanding that a woman’s irritability or desire to be alone is
associated with premenstrual changes in state or emotion, rather than reflecting
an underlying problem in the relationship. However, where interviewees identi-
fied that there was a ‘genuine issue’ underlying the irritation, the majority
reported that this was addressed, sometimes when emotions were less heightened.
This flexibility and responsiveness in dealing with changing emotions and needs,
central to descriptions of mutuality (Connolly, 2005; Jordan, 1991), was common
in lesbian accounts of PMS, as we also see below.
Responsiveness and empathy. In heterosexual women’s accounts of PMS, it is
commonly reported that male partners are not responsive to women’s changed
moods or needs premenstrually, which results in the woman being pathologized
or rejected (Perz and Ussher, 2006; Ussher et al., 2007). A number of the
lesbian interviewees contrasted the responsiveness of their current woman part-
ner to a previous male partner who could not, or would not, empathize with their
experience of premenstrual change. For example, in contrast to her ex-husband
who ‘tried to understand it, and I think he just gave up’, June (48) described her
current partner as acting to alleviate her distress, and smooth tensions with her
children, a common focus of her premenstrual irritation:
I’ll just say, ‘I’m about to get my period, so I’m . . . tired, or . . . I’ve been cranky
with the kids . . . she’s supportive about it . . . I suppose she can actually make
me feel happier. She can bring me out of it, a little bit . . . And she has talked to
my children . . . ‘Mummy’s a bit angry at the moment.’ You know. ‘Try and
94 Feminism & Psychology 18(1)
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
behave.’ Or, ‘Try and do what Mummy asks you to do.’ And stuff like that.
She’s much more supportive than my ex-husband was.
Equally, in response to the premenstrual woman feeling ‘insecure’, many lesbian
partners described themselves as offering reassurance. Christy (age 29), partner
of Janna (age 24), told us she offered emotional support by ‘actually commenting
that she looks nice, without being prompted, without being asked, “Do I look all
right?” So to say, “Oh, that looks nice.”’ Elspeth (age 39) said of her partner
Sheridan:
I just have to adapt the way I interact with her . . . I will often be more affec-
tionate with her. Because I think that’s . . . I don’t know, just feels appropriate
. . . lots of looking into each other’s eyes . . . in psychological terms I make sure
that I’m not withholding. Like, I make sure that I validate and don’t avoid her
and that seems to help.
At the same time, there was conscious awareness of the avoidance of conflict, or
of situations that might ‘trigger’ a negative reaction or emotion premenstrually.
Hayley (age 30) told us that ‘around period time I will usually be extremely flex-
ible and don’t do things that I know are going to annoy her’, and Denise said: ‘I
can be extra – what’s the word? – extra thoughtful and extra making sure we
don’t do anything that will trigger some of those responses.’
Many of the partners interviewed described their acceptance and support of the
woman with PMS as resulting from empathy. As Elspeth commented. ‘Well I
guess being a woman as well I can kind of empathize with her’. Or as Ashley (age
31) told us, ‘Having a female partner, I think, just makes all the difference . . .
because I think they understand’. Ashley went on to describe the implications of
empathy in relation to the experience of premenstrual change in her relationship:
Well, for instance, if I’m having a bad time with my period, or Coral’s having a
bad time with her period, we are just able to empathize, and just go ‘okay’. Not
actually make it mean anything, but more like ‘oh, okay, it’s her period’. Rather
than um, ‘oh well she doesn’t like me’.
Emotional availability was a key aspect of this responsiveness. For example, Pip
(age 29) described her partner thus: ‘She’s generally very supportive and she
talks through things with me as well I think. She won’t avoid the issue, she’ll talk
it through.’ This leads us to the second major theme in the lesbian interviews, that
of communication and conflict resolution.
Communication and Conflict Resolution
Communication is a key aspect of the construction and negotiation of pre-
menstrual change, associated with recognition and naming of distress, resolution
of relational conflict, and the responses of partners to premenstrual needs and
USSHER and PERZ: Relational Negotiation of PMS 95
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
vulnerability. Two sub-themes were identified: explicit discussion of pre-
menstrual feelings and concerns, and partner’s emotion work in relation to PMS.
Explicit discussion of premenstrual feelings and concerns. Heterosexual
women commonly report that issues or feelings that are raised premenstrually are
ignored by their partner, or dismissed as ‘just PMS’ (Perz and Ussher, 2006;
Ussher, 2003a). In contrast, the majority of lesbian interviewees gave accounts of
open discussion of premenstrual feelings leading to communication about con-
cerns and needs within the relationship, when those feelings reflected underlying
issues. This allowed issues to be resolved more effectively, even if it involved
some negotiation and effort on the part of the couple. For example, Casey (age
40) told us that she and her partner had very different sexual needs premenstru-
ally, with her own libido disappearing, while her partner’s ‘went through the roof
when she’s got PMT’. However, because they could ‘talk about it, there’s a
respect’; Casey’s apparent sexual rejection of her partner was not positioned as
‘a personal thing’:
It’s really one of those hard things to talk about initially, but then it was like,
well, you know, we have to. And just that understanding of it’s not about
personal rejection . . . It’s bigger than that. So . . . we kind of worked it out.
Worked the zones out. Almost like there’s a map on the wall.
This was not simply about ways of negotiating premenstrual change, however,
but a reflection of a pattern of communicating developed within the relationship.
As Jocelyn commented:
We’ve been together for over 20 years, and we sort of talked a lot when we first
got into a relationship about how a relationship would run and it’s always run on
being very up front with each other, ah discussing any issues we have and just
keeping each other informed of how we are, and who we are, and just being
caring for each other.
A number of interviewees drew contrasts with previous relationships, both
heterosexual and lesbian, where issues could not be discussed and where self-
silencing had increased their irritability premenstrually. As Vicki (age 26) com-
mented:
In other relationships and particularly the latter parts of those relationships that
were bad, I would have more severe PMS experiences and also kind of more
PMS that was characterized by anger, or just like really small things making me
really angry and getting really irritable and a lot were the kind of things that
were unspoken at other times or maybe frustrations.
Or as Sheridan remarked: ‘It (PMS) had been named in past relationships, I think,
as well, but I don’t at all feel attacked now.’ Many of the lesbian interviewees
gave accounts of the delicate balance between describing feelings as ‘PMS’, and
thereby risking feelings being positioned as ‘not real’, and the need to express
96 Feminism & Psychology 18(1)
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
their premenstrual emotions, or concerns about other issues, within the relation-
ship. Discussing the same issues after the premenstrual phase had passed was one
solution. As Sophia (age 28) said:
I generally preface any conversation with, ‘Look, oh no, I’m feeling really
premenstrual but, look, I’m thinking about this’, and usually Tina will frame
everything with that understanding that there’s premenstrual behaviour going
on, and it might make sense or it might not. And in a week from now, you know,
I might come back and go, ‘Hey, that was a bit unrealistic’, or . . . yeah. So she’s
pretty good around that stuff.
At the same time, Sophia described how her partner Tina would let her know that
she had been ‘really fully on’ premenstrually, after it had passed: ‘A couple of
days later, or something, I say, “Oh, f . . ., I’m bleeding”, and she goes, “Woo-
hoo! Everything’s good!” and she really actively goes, “Guess what you just did!
Oh my God, you were so full-on!”’ Yet this did not mean that premenstrual anger
or annoyance was disregarded. Sophia continued, talking about Tina’s PMS:
You don’t challenge them on it, or anything, because something’s going on for
them, and they’re working through it in their own time and space. I think if Tina
gets really mad, sometimes that can happen, and we’ll be having an argument of
some proportion and something . . . in my brain, I’ll go, ‘Oh, man . . . she’s pre-
menstrual. Okay . . . Right.’ And then I start saying phrases like, ‘Oh, you know
what? Maybe I could be wrong. Maybe you’ve got a point and I’d like to listen
to it a bit more.’ And it’s . . . in a way, you just allow them space to be who they
are at that time.
Maintaining a positive tone in communications, and avoiding confrontation and
aggression, was an important feature of partners’ responses to premenstrual
emotion. Pip gave an account of being out with her partner Helen (age 41) and
suddenly wanting to go home, because she felt anxious and insecure premenstru-
ally. Helen’s response was described as ‘level headed’, and even though she is a
‘very social person, she will say “Well okay, let’s go home” or “Do you want to
go home?”’. Many partners recognized that this positive tone was needed to avoid
or diffuse conflict. As Denise told us, when her partner Stephanie was distressed
or angry premenstrually, she would ‘go up and say gently, “Okay look, I know
that’s how you feel, I understand the point, that’s enough.”’ Or as Elspeth said,
‘If you pick it early enough . . . that’s when you, sort of, quickly, say, deflect the
situation, diffuse the situation or say, “All right, why don’t you have a bath?”’
At the same time, a number of partners also gave accounts of maintaining
boundaries around what was acceptable premenstrually, and would indicate that
things had gone too far if these boundaries were crossed. As Sophia commented:
People are accountable for what they do, and, um, if I felt like Tina was really
out of control and saying and behaving in a way that I really felt strongly was
not okay under any circumstance, premenstrual or otherwise, I would certainly
say it at that time . . . so I might say, ‘Your behaviour right now is really shit and
USSHER and PERZ: Relational Negotiation of PMS 97
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
makes me feel like you don’t care about me right now. And if you did care about
me, you wouldn’t be raising your voice.’
Sophia did not describe herself as not having become a ‘passive person’, con-
cluding ‘I think you still engage, and you still, you know, respond. But you have
a framework for it.’ The need for boundaries reflects the ‘emotion work’
(Duncombe and Marsden, 1998) in managing their own feeling states, and those
of their partner, being conducted by partners of women who experience pre-
menstrual distress, demonstrating that communication and responsiveness require
effort within the relationship. This was not always successfully managed by
lesbian couples, as is evidenced by Nancy’s (age 28) description of the pre-
menstrual clashes with her partner Ellen (age 29):
We will clash generally at that time because we’re not expressing those needs in
a real and constructive way . . . it’s like we’re wearing our armour first and
making little jabs instead of just letting out the soft side . . . We don’t negotiate
like that. We should, but don’t.
Or as Janna described her communication with her partner Christy, ‘She tries, but
I probably don’t let her understand . . . because I don’t talk to her about much.’
Partner’s emotion work in relation to PMS. The position of responsive partner,
who is understanding, supportive, and able to communicate positively about a
woman’s premenstrual change or distress, was not a position without cost or con-
sequence. As Helen told us, when talking of her partner Pip, ‘If she gets cranky
about something and at me, it’s not pleasant.’ Or as Casey said about her partner,
‘I find it very hard to be around her when she’s in that zone. And I have to work
very hard at not reacting to it. So actually having a bit of separateness is actually
a healthy thing for both of us.’ Having to figure out how to support their pre-
menstrual partner each month could also be exhausting. As Denise said: ‘I think
part of my problem is . . . I don’t want to have to find the solution every month.’
Awareness of how the situation could escalate into an argument if it wasn’t
handled sensitively was evident in a number of accounts. Elspeth described the
situation as ‘a bit like stumbling into a trap’. She went on to say:
. . . like it takes you a couple of minutes to realize that you have stumbled into
a trap, that it wouldn’t really matter what you said. It’s not about that, it’s about,
there’s a ‘making trouble’ thing going on . . . I just have to adapt the way I
interact with her.
This adaptation was sometimes difficult, and could result in irritation or resent-
ment on the part of the partner, but it was rarely expressed because of the
negative consequences. As Elspeth told us:
You feel pissed off, well, you know, you feel like throwing something, not
caring and empathic but like . . . It’s almost like the . . . (a) is something you
98 Feminism & Psychology 18(1)
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
would say, (b) is the reaction you got and (c) is an opportunity for you to
escalate the situation. But if you don’t do (c) then you don’t get the argument. It
doesn’t escalate into something much more heated and severe that might cause
us not to speak for half a day or so.
So while Elspeth was aware that she could say ‘“Well, stuff you”, and I could
walk away’, she told us ‘but that’s not usually what I do’. However, she had
clearly thought about it, or sometimes wanted to. Similarly, while Lorna (age 36)
told us that she offered her partner Linda ‘lots of love’ premenstrually and made
sure ‘not to react to bad moods, to aggravate the situation more’, she said this
could be difficult depending ‘on my mood at the time’. A number of partners
described this emotion work as invisible within the relationship:
So I guess another impact from that is then that, you know, I’m actually doing
all this bending over backwards. This is how I feel it is. Um, but it’s actually not
seen that way. Sometimes I don’t tell her that I’m doing it either so she doesn’t
even know that I’m doing that. (Hayley)
However, this stands in contrast to accounts of interviewees who realize that
premenstrual mood or behaviour change can exact consequences on the relation-
ship, or on their partner. As Linda told us:
First and foremost it’s a horrible feeling because I know that I’m irritable and I
might be a little bit snappy. That’s what I’m aware of mostly, is that you know
like my partner might say something to me and I’ll just say ‘oh don’t talk to me
like that’ just for an example, and then I, as soon as I say it, as soon as it’s come
out of my mouth I just go, I take a step back and I go ‘oh I wish I wasn’t like
this’.
Thus while many of the interviewees reflected positively on the difference
between previous heterosexual relationship and their current lesbian one, PMS
was never positioned as a positive phenomenon within the relationship, and there
was acknowledgement that having two women with PMS could be difficult. As
Ellen said:
. . . being with a woman during the time just makes it entirely exhausting and
difficult um and far more complex than I ever thought it would be. . .when one
is withdrawing, the other one’s wanting more of an outward impact or some-
thing . . . so it’s two opposites coming together which causes a lot of discomfort.
Reciprocity and Responsibility Sharing
The burden of over-responsibility, in relation to household tasks and the
emotional needs of partner and family, meaning that it is difficult for the woman
to engage in self-care, which serves to increase premenstrual distress, is a con-
sistent theme in heterosexual women’s accounts of PMS (Ussher, 2003a, 2004b;
Ussher et al., 2000). In contrast, all of the lesbian interviewees gave accounts of
USSHER and PERZ: Relational Negotiation of PMS 99
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
an egalitarian relationship context where they could let go of responsibilities pre-
menstrually, receive rather than give care, and not feel guilty as a result. As Casey
told us:
It’s about . . . someone just . . . recognizing that you’re actually feeling really out
of sorts um, and, . . . taking some of the responsibility off you to actually
manage it. It’s more about, well, now you’re feeling crap. And I know there’s
nothing that much that can fix that, except if . . . you don’t have to worry about
. . . where the food’s coming from, or, you know, I mightn’t even think about a
bath, and then she’ll say, ‘How about you go and have a bath? And I’ll run it for
you’, and I’ll be like, ‘Oh, that would be really nice!’
This was described as serving to ‘just protect you a bit from the rest of the world,
um, just for the moment’, allowing Casey to ‘be able to just go home and just go,
fall apart’, to ‘just be’.
Sharing responsibilities also allows women who are experiencing premenstrual
distress to engage in self-care, or take time for themselves, as Jocelyn told us:
I’ve got a really big garden that I maintain and I like to take myself out there,
. . . I do like to be a little more alone around that time . . . she’s very under-
standing, maybe does a little bit of housework on those days, ah, doesn’t expect
too much from me at those times.
This is a reciprocal caring, as Jocelyn added: ‘We just sort of care for each other
around those times. Deborah has a lot of pain during her periods, so it’s kind of
like I give back a lot too.’ The importance of accommodating a woman’s need for
time alone premenstrually was recognized by many of the lesbian partners we
interviewed. Denise described her partner Stephanie as saying:
‘Oh, look, you know, I just want to be on my own’, so she’ll go to her own room,
and that’s fine. You know. Or she’ll potter in the garden. And I go, ‘Well that’s
fine’, you know. It doesn’t . . . you know, I’m . . . it doesn’t actually bother me;
I don’t need to be, you know, around. In fact, I’d rather that she found whatever
it is that . . . that helps her resolve it, that’s my preference.
In a similar vein, Sophia said of her partner Tina: ‘You’ve got to give the person
space to be themselves in that. And experience that.’ The lesbian couples who
described both experiencing premenstrual change, sometimes at the same time,
were aware of their mutual needs for space or support. As Casey reported:
There’s a couple of days where we’re exactly in the same place, which isn’t a
great place to be, but on either side of that, we can both recognize what the
other’s needs are . . . and we’re very clear . . . we have a very clear understand-
ing of what makes the difference, and what helps.
This is thus a reciprocal caring during the premenstrual and menstrual phase of
the cycle, not a situation where one woman is pathologized or positioned as
needy, and the other is always positioned as the responsible carer:
100 Feminism & Psychology 18(1)
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
She’ll come home from work, and . . . she’ll be really cranky. Like, really,
really cranky. And um, almost simmering on explosion. And I’ll be like,
‘Ooooh. Okay.’ And her thing is to go and play video games. So she’ll go and
play video games. And I’ll go in and try and talk to her, and she’ll just be like
one-word responses, and I’m like, ‘All right.’ And there would be things like
. . . um . . . ‘Dinner’s going to be ready soon. Do you want me to bring it in
here?‘ ‘Yes, please.’ [whispering] ‘Okay.’ . . . And you know, normally for me,
that wouldn’t be acceptable, to have meals in different rooms and not talk and
stuff. But . . . that’s what she needs. And so that’s what we do. (Casey)
Responsibilities are not just in the home. Indeed, many of the lesbian inter-
viewees talked of wanting to let go of ‘big girl responsibilities’ at work when they
were feeling premenstrual, and while this was hard to do, they could express this
desire within the relationship, and be ‘small’. As Elspeth said:
When I’m getting PMS, I feel very fragile, and I don’t want to go to work, I feel
scared to go to work, because it’s hard what I do, and it takes a lot and I guess
you kind of need to be properly resourced to do what I do . . . I often say I
feel like I want to be small, I want to be a little girl, not have sort of big girl
responsibilities. And so they are the sort of things that I will say, and it’s almost
very straightforward, Sheridan will say: ‘You must be getting your period.’
Work tensions and pressures were described as a major cause of distress pre-
menstrually, however: the need to maintain the persona of calm, professional
worker meant that frustrations built up during the day, and often needed to be
expressed at home. When this occurred for these lesbian interviewees, they were
invariably met with support, allowing a cathartic release:
I can come home and say ‘I’ve had a shit day. And this is what’s gone on’, and
a lot of debriefing around that time too, about you know, ‘and they did this and
this and they are really pissing me off because they did this,’ and then there’s
just that exactly . . . ‘Yep. I understand.’ So . . . yeah. It’s really, you know, thank
the Lord for it. (Casey)
This stands in contrast to accounts of many heterosexual women, who report
coming home from a stressful day at work when they are premenstrual, and find-
ing that they then have to enact emotional and practical care, which makes it more
likely that they will respond with irritation and anger, resulting in relationship
tension, and a cycle of self-blame and guilt (Ussher et al., 2000).
DISCUSSION
This article has examined the construction and experience of PMS in lesbian
relationships, and has found that, while experiences of premenstrual change and
distress were similar to those previously reported by heterosexual women, the
lesbian relationship context and positioning of PMS were markedly different. In
USSHER and PERZ: Relational Negotiation of PMS 101
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
contrast to lack of understanding or responsiveness, rejection, pathologization,
and over-responsibility, reported by many heterosexual women (Perz and Ussher,
2006; Ussher, 2003a, 2004b), the majority of the lesbian women interviewed in
this study reported awareness and recognition of their premenstrual change and
distress, responsiveness to their needs, open communication, and reciprocity and
responsibility sharing, on the part of their partner. This had significant conse-
quences for the construction and experience of premenstrual change, facilitating
open expression of needs, self-care, and avoidance of guilt and self-blame.
Indeed, the accounts of PMS in this study were most notable for what was absent
when compared to accounts of PMS commonly reported by heterosexual women.
All of the women in this study used ‘PMS’ as a term to describe their pre-
menstrual change, as would be expected in a study that asked for women who
experience PMS to come forward. However, PMS was not positioned as a
medical illness, or an unspeakable dysfunction, as is common in heterosexual
women’s accounts (Ussher, 2003a; Ussher et al., 2007). Rather, it was used as a
term that made sense of changes women experienced premenstrually, acting to
communicate these changes to their partner. Confirming previous research on
premenstrual change in women who have positive attitudes to menstruation
(Lee, 2002), none of the women in the present study adopted a stance of self-
pathologization, or used derogatory terms to describe themselves premenstrually,
such as ‘mad’, ‘loony-tune’, ‘bitch’, ‘monstrous-mummy’ or ‘Jekyll and Hyde’,
terms that are commonly found in heterosexual women’s accounts of PMS
(Cosgrove and Riddle, 2003; Ussher, 2002). The position of ‘Monstrous
Feminine’, wherein the reproductive body is deemed abject, and the woman
deviant or dysfunctional as a result (Ussher, 2006), was thus resisted by these
lesbian interviewees and their partners. The direct implication of this resistance
was the almost complete absence of accounts of guilt and self-blame, a major
focus of distress in heterosexual women’s accounts of PMS (Ussher, 2003b).
Equally, there were very few accounts of feeling ‘out of control’ premenstru-
ally, as premenstrual change was accepted as part of a woman’s experience, even
if it wasn’t necessarily a pleasant experience for a woman or her partner. This
allowed women to avoid the concomitant distress associated with feeling ‘out of
control’ in western culture (Chrisler and Caplan, 2002: 285). This reinforces
suggestions that mindfulness meditation practices, which encourage non-
judgemental awareness and acceptance of change, may be helpful to western
women in coping with PMS (Ussher, 2003b), and that therapists should
encourage women to reframe premenstrual experiences as ‘changes’ not ‘symp-
toms’ (Chrisler and Caplan, 2002; Ussher et al., 2002). Acceptance and non-
pathologization of premenstrual change are plausible explanations for the finding
that PMS is not reported in non-western cultures, such as Hong Kong or China
(Chang et al., 1995), a finding that has led to the conclusion that PMS is a culture-
bound syndrome (Chrisler and Caplan, 2002). However, the results of the present
study suggest that acceptance and non-pathologization can also operate in a west-
ern cultural context, strongly influenced by the construction of PMS adhered to by
102 Feminism & Psychology 18(1)
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
a woman and her partner, as well as relationship dynamics associated with the
negotiation of premenstrual experiences.
In the present study, there were no accounts of relationship conflict or tension
escalating premenstrually, as a result of a woman’s partner rejecting or dismiss-
ing her, or actively engaging in conflict, a common theme in heterosexual
women’s accounts of PMS (Ussher, 2003a; Ussher et al., 2007). This is not to
suggest that lesbian partners are passive in the face of premenstrual irritation or
intemperance, but, rather, that they invariably adopted a positive and conciliato-
ry mode of communication that served to diffuse, rather than exacerbate, conflict
and offer support. The evidence that a number of partners had boundaries associ-
ated with unacceptable behaviour also suggested that dealing with premenstrual
distress is the subject of a complex negotiation between two women, which
requires ‘emotion work’ from both parties in managing their own feeling states
and those of their partner. In all of the women we interviewed, this emotion work
was not described as a burden, but as part of being in a committed relationship,
in contrast to many heterosexual women’s accounts, where premenstrual emo-
tions are positioned as ‘too much’ work by their male partners (Ussher et al.,
2007). This is also in line with previous research that suggests that women are
generally more competent and comfortable with emotion work than men
(Duncombe and Marsden, 1998).
Evidence of open discussion of feelings and needs, in the context of partner
understanding and support, refutes the notion that PMS serves as a redeployment
of the reproductive body, which allows the expression of otherwise repressed
feelings and needs (Elson, 2002; McDaniel, 1988). Equally, there was little
evidence of self-silencing in the lesbian interviewees’ accounts, either pre-
menstrually or during the remainder of the menstrual cycle, and no evidence of
women attempting to live up to unrealistic ideals of (hetero)femininity, resulting
in the positioning of the PMS self as ‘not-me’, because of failures to emulate the
‘good woman’ who is always positive, calm, and in control (Cosgrove and
Riddle, 2003; Ussher et al., 2000). At the same time, there were no accounts of
women feeling over-burdened by emotional or practical responsibilities in the
home premenstrually, and this resulting in anger or irritation, described in
heterosexual women’s accounts through a short fuse or pressure cooker metaphor
(Ussher, 2003a, 2004b). This suggests that it is not simply resistance of hege-
monic discourses of femininity that leads to lower rates of self-silencing found in
these lesbian accounts of PMS, but the egalitarian, empathic, and mutually sup-
portive relationship context that our interviewees all described. This reinforces
previous suggestions that couple therapy may be beneficial for women experi-
encing moderate–severe PMS (Jones et al., 2000), acting to facilitate understand-
ing, communication, and support. Indeed, the act of simply including male
partners in the monitoring of premenstrual symptoms has been found to be
beneficial, increasing recognition of behavioural and emotional change experi-
enced premenstrually (Frank et al., 1993).
The relationship context described in the current study is in line with previous
USSHER and PERZ: Relational Negotiation of PMS 103
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
research on positive aspects of lesbian relationships. There was strong evidence
of cohesion and connectedness, supporting the findings of Green et al. (1996) and
Connolly (2005), as well as ‘closeness-caregiving’, supporting the findings of
O’Brien (2003). This suggests that Jordan’s (1991) notion of mutuality as ‘open-
ness to influence, emotional availability, a constantly changing pattern of
responding to and affecting the other’s state’ (p. 82) is a more applicable term for
lesbian relationships than ‘fusion’, the oft critiqued term that refers to lesbian
couples’ supposed pathological enmeshment and merger (Krestan and Bepko,
1980). The accounts of positive and effective communication strategies, and the
absence of aggression and contempt associated with relationship distress and
dysfunction (Gottman et al., 2003), are supported by previous findings that
lesbians are more likely to use a positive tone in resolving conflict (Gottman et
al., 2003); that they are more likely to argue effectively (Kurdek, 2004a; Metz et
al., 1994); and that they make more effort to resolve conflict (Metz et al., 1994).
The open exploration of feelings and explicit discussion of issues in the majority
of lesbian couples also supports the findings from Connolly and Sicola’s (2006)
study of communication in long-term lesbian relationships. In the current study,
these patterns were evident regardless of relationship length, but many inter-
viewees did talk of learning to communicate and deal with emotions over the
course of their relationship. Finally, the finding of responsibility sharing and
flexibility in relation to household arrangements supports previous reports that
lesbian relationships are more egalitarian than heterosexual relationships
(Connolly, 2005; Green et al., 1996; Matthews et al., 2003; Schneider, 1986).
There are a number of explanations for these differences between lesbian and
heterosexual relationships. Gender is the key to each of them, following the
assumption that gender, and the gendering of power, both constructs and affects
couple relationships (Laird, 2000). It has been argued that similarity in gender
role may benefit women by allowing them to empathize with each other (Metz et
al., 1994), a view that is supported by the accounts of empathy in the current
study. Expectations of empathy from a partner are also gendered. Metz et al.
(1994) have argued:
If women are generally more likely to be cautious, scrutinize themselves, or
worry more about a male partner’s reactions, or if they have concerns about
being substantially understood by a man, then women may be more self-assured
when addressing conflict with another woman. (p. 304)
This may be of particular relevance in coping with distress associated with the
reproductive body, where women expect a female partner to be more able to
understand their premenstrual experience than a male partner, because of the
assumption of corporeal similarity, as was found in the present study.
The finding that lesbians are less likely to conform to the traditional feminine
gender role (see Bailey and Zucker, 1995) is also of relevance, and was evidenced
by the absence of accounts of ideals of (hetero)femininity being used in a self-
policing manner, and the egalitarian relationship structure reported in the present
104 Feminism & Psychology 18(1)
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
study. This non-adherence to traditional gendered roles has been linked to the
greater instrumentality and masculinity, combined with expressiveness, that has
been found in lesbians, when compared to heterosexual women (Kurdek, 1987).
Green et al. (1996) emphasize that this is not about lesbians being like hetero-
sexual men, but about their being more androgynous when compared to hetero-
sexual women. They conclude, ironically, that this may result in lesbians being
less likely to be susceptible to fusion in relationships (p. 210), refuting Krestan
and Bepko’s (1980: 284) aphorism ‘women cling, men distance’, because the
greater instrumentality of lesbians leads to assertiveness. While there were
accounts of increased vulnerability premenstrually in the lesbian interviewees in
the current study, there was no evidence of ‘clinging’, and certainly no evidence
of distancing on the part of partners, in contrast to many heterosexual women’s
accounts of PMS (Perz and Ussher, 2006; Ussher et al., 2007).
The absence of children in the majority of lesbian relationships has also been
put forward as an explanation for differences between heterosexual and lesbian
couples, as the burden of family responsibility falls disproportionately on hetero-
sexual women after having children (Metz et al., 1994). However, accounts of
unsupportive relationships, over-responsibility and self-silencing associated with
PMS have been reported by heterosexual women with and without children
(Ussher, 2004b). Equally, lesbian couples are less likely to adopt gendered
divisions of labour even if they do have children, and have been reported to rate
relationship satisfaction very highly compared to child-free lesbian couples
(Koepke et al., 1992). In the present study, there was no evidence of difference
between lesbian couples with and without children; however, the sample size was
too small for generalization to take place. Future research on PMS could usefully
explore this issue further, systematically examining the difference between
couples with and without children, in both a heterosexual and lesbian context. As
the majority of our lesbian interviewees described being currently in a ‘good’
relationship, it would also be useful to examine the construction and experience
of PMS across a broader range of lesbian relationships. While a significant
proportion of heterosexual women in ‘problem’ relationships did come forward
to be interviewed, this was not the case for lesbians, who may be more reluctant
to open themselves up to scrutiny if their relationship could confirm negative
constructions of lesbian relationships as dysfunctional (e.g. Roth, 1989; Slater
and Mencher, 1991).
In conclusion, the findings of the present study appear to belie the suggestion
that ‘the relationships of gay and lesbian partners appear to work in the same way
as the relationships of heterosexual partners’ (Kurdek, 2005: 253). In relation to
PMS, they appear to be markedly different, with significant implications for
women’s negotiation and experience of premenstrual change. However, this is
not to suggest that heterosexual couples cannot experience awareness, recogni-
tion, understanding, communication, and responsibility sharing in relation to
PMS. Many heterosexual women do have partners who provide a supportive
context for their experience of premenstrual change and distress, which acts to
USSHER and PERZ: Relational Negotiation of PMS 105
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
facilitate self-care and reduce distress (Ussher et al., 2007). Indeed, supportive
heterosexual relationships share the same qualities as supportive lesbian relation-
ships – affection, containment of relational conflict, and psychologically intimate
communication between partners (Gottman et al., 2003; Julien et al., 2003;
Mackey et al., 2004). The irony is that these women rarely appear in the PMS
research literature, as they ‘cope’ with premenstrual change, and avoid the spirals
of guilt, self-blame and pathologization that often pre-empt women seeking
help, or taking part in a PMS research study. Further exploration of these ‘false
negatives’, women who experience premenstrual change but do not position it as
PMS, is warranted.
However, we should not underestimate the positive aspects of lesbian relation-
ships. The findings of the present study, combined with previous research on
lesbian relationships, suggests that for a woman the odds of being in an egali-
tarian, empathic, supportive relationship are higher if your partner is a woman
than if he is a man, with significant implications for psychological well-being, as
we have seen with PMS. These findings are not unique to PMS. In other areas of
women’s reproductive health, such as peri-natal depression (Ross, 2005) and
menopause (Winterich, 2003), the gender of a woman’s partner has been found
to have an impact on her experience of distress. Yet the implications of this
research are far broader than the positioning and experience of the reproductive
body. A growing body of research has reported that lesbian relationships are
experienced as more satisfying than heterosexual relationships (Green et al.,
1996; Kurdek, 2003; Metz et al., 1994), with predictors of this satisfaction being
greater emotional companionship (Metz et al., 1994), greater liking, trust, and
equality (Kurdek, 2003), cohesion and flexibility (Green et al., 1996), as well as
intimacy, equity, and autonomy (Schreurs and Buunk, 1996). We would thus
argue that these findings provide insight into the high levels of satisfaction
reported in many lesbian relationships, and have broader implications for under-
standing and facilitating women’s mental health and well-being. Difference
does not necessarily mean disadvantage: being in a lesbian relationship can
undoubtedly be beneficial for many women.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was funded by a grant from the Australian Research Council, ‘An Examination
of the Development, Experience and Construction of Premenstrual Symptoms’. Thanks
are offered to Julie Mooney-Somers, Lee Shepard, Beverley Johnson, and Helen Vidler
for research support and assistance, as well as to Colleen Connolly and an anonymous
reviewer for suggestions for revisions to the manuscript.
106 Feminism & Psychology 18(1)
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
NOTES
1. Premenstrual change was first described as PMT (Premenstrual Tension) by Frank
(1931), Many women still use this term.
REFERENCES
Bailey, J.M. and Zucker, K.J. (1995) ‘Childhood Sex-typed Behavior and Sexual
Orientation: A Conceptual Analysis and Quantitative Review’, Developmental
Psychology 31: 43–55.
Bancroft, J. (1993) ‘The Premenstrual Syndrome: A Reappraisal of the Concept and the
Evidence’, Psychological Medicine 241 (supplement): 1–47.
Caplan, P.J., McCurdy Myers, J. and Gans, M. (1992) ‘Should “Premenstrual Syndrome”
be called a Psychiatric Abnormality?’, Feminism & Psychology 2(1): 27–44.
Chang, A.M., Holroyd, E. and Chau, J.P. (1995) ‘Premenstrual Syndrome in Employed
Chinese Women in Hong Kong’, Health Care for Women International 16(6): 551–61.
Chrisler, J.C. and Caplan, P. (2002) ‘The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde: How
PMS Became a Cultural Phenomenon and a Psychiatric Disorder’, Annual Review of
Sex Research 13: 274–306.
Connolly, C.M. (2005) ‘A Qualitative Exploration of Resilience in Long-term Lesbian
Couples’, The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families
13(3): 266–80.
Connolly, C.M. and Sicola, M.K. (2006) ‘Listening to Lesbian Couples: Communication
Competence in Long Term Relationships’, in J.J. Bigner (ed.) An Introduction to GLBT
Family Studies, pp. 271–96. New York: Howarth Press.
Cosgrove, L. and Riddle, B. (2003) ‘Constructions of Femininity and Experiences of
Menstrual Distress’, Women & Health 38(3): 37–58.
Coughlin, P.C. (1990) ‘Premenstrual Syndrome: How Marital Satisfaction and Role
Choice Affect Symptom Severity’, Social Work 35(4): 351–5.
Davies, B. and Harré, R. (1990) ‘Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves’,
Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour 20: 43–65.
Duncombe, J. and Marsden, D. (1998) ‘Stepford Wives and Hollow Men? Doing Emotion
Work, Doing Gender and Authenticity in Heterosexual Relationships’, in G. Bendelow
and S. Williams (eds) Emotions in Social Life: Critical Themes and Contemporary
Issues, pp. 34–47. London: Routledge.
Eldridge, N.S. and Gilbert, L.A. (1990) ‘Correlates of Relationship Satisfaction in Lesbian
Couples’, Psychology of Women Quarterly 14: 43–62.
Elson, J. (2002) ‘Menarche, Menstruation, and Gender Identity: Retrospective Accounts
from Women who have Undergone Premenopausal Hysterectomy’, Sex Roles 46:
37–48.
Fontana, A.M. and Palfaib, T.G. (1994) ‘Psychosocial Factors in Premenstrual Dysphoria:
Stressors, Appraisal, and Coping Processes. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 38(6):
557–67.
Frank, B., Dixon, D.N. and Grosz, H.J. (1993) ‘Conjoint Monitoring of Symptoms of
Premenstrual Syndrome: Impact on Marital Satisfaction’, Journal of Counseling
Psychology 40(1): 109–14.
USSHER and PERZ: Relational Negotiation of PMS 107
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Frank, R. (1931) ‘The Hormonal Causes of Premenstrual Tension’, Archives of
Neurological Psychiatry 26: 1053.
Gottman, J.M., Levenson, R.W., Gross, J., Frederickson, B.L., McCoy, K., Rosenthal, L.,
Ruef, A. and Yoshimoto, D. (2003) ‘Correlates of Gay and Lesbian Couples’ Relation-
ship Satisfaction and Relationship Dissolution’, Journal of Homosexuality 45(1): 23–43.
Green, R.-J., Bettinger, M. and Zacks, E. (1996) ‘Are Lesbian Couples Fused and Gay
Male Couples Disengaged? Questioning Gender Straightjackets’, in J. Laird and R.-J.
Green (eds) Lesbians and Gays in Couples and Families: A Handbook for Therapists,
pp. 185–230. San Fancisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Harré, R. and van Langenhov, L. (1999) Positioning Theory. London: Blackwell.
Jack, D.C. (1991) Silencing the Self: Women and Depression. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Jones, A., Theodos, V., Canar, W.J., Sher, T.G. and Young, M. (2000) ‘Couples and
Premenstrual Syndrome: Partners as Moderators of Symptoms?’, in K.B. Schmaling
(ed.) The Psychology of Couples and Illness: Theory, Research and Practice, pp.
217–39. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Jordan, J.V. (1991) ‘The Meaning of Mutuality’, in A.G. Kaplan, J.B. Miller, I.P. Stiver
and J.L. Surrey (eds) Women’s Growth in Connection: Writings from the Stone Center,
pp. 81–96. New York: Guilford.
Julien, D., Chartrand, E., Simard, M.C., Bouthillier, D. and Begin, J. (2003) ‘Conflict,
Social Support, and Relationship Quality: An Observational Study of Heterosexual,
Gay Male, and Lesbian Couples’ Communication’, Journal of Family Psychology
17(3): 419–28.
Koepke, L., Hare, J. and Moran, P. (1992) ‘Relationship Quality in a Sample of Lesbian
Couples with Children and Child-free Couples’, Family Relations 41: 224–29.
Krestan, J. and Bepko, C.S. (1980) ‘The Problem of Fusion in Lesbian Relationships’,
Family Process 19: 277–89.
Kuczmierczyka, A.R., Labrumb, A.H. and Johnson, C.C. (1992) ‘Perception of Family
and Work Environments in Women with Premenstrual Syndrome’, Journal of
Psychosomatic Research 36(8): 787–95.
Kurdek, L.A. (1987) ‘Sex-role Self Schema and Psychological Adjustment in Coupled
Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women’, Sex Roles 17: 549–62.
Kurdek, L.A. (2003) ‘Differences between Gay and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples’, Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships 20: 411–36.
Kurdek, L.A. (2004a) ‘Are Gay and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples Really Different from
Heterosexual Married Couples?’, Journal of Marriage and Family 66: 880–900.
Kurdek, L.A. (2004b) ‘Gay Men and Lesbians: The Family Context’, in M. Coleman and
L.H. Ganong (eds) Handbook of Contemporary Families: Considering the Past,
Contemplating the Future, pp. 96–105. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kurdek, L.A. (2005) ‘What Do We Know about Gay and Lesbian Couples?’ Current
Directions in Psychological Science 14: 251–4.
Laird, J. (2000) ‘Gender in Lesbian Relationships: Cultural, Feminist, and Constructionist
Reflections’, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 26(4): 455–67.
Lee, S. (2002) ‘Health and Sickness: The Meaning of Menstruation and Premenstrual
Syndrome in Women’s Lives’, Sex Roles 46(1–2): 25–35.
Mackey, R.A., Diemer, M.A. and O’Brien, B.A. (2004) ‘Relational Factors in Understand-
ing Satisfaction in the Lasting Relationships of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Couples’,
Journal of Homosexuality 47(1): 111–36.
108 Feminism & Psychology 18(1)
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Matthews, A.K., Tartaro, J. and Hughes, T.L. (2003) ‘A Comparative Study of Lesbian
and Heterosexual Women in Committed Reationships’, Journal of Lesbian Studies
7(1): 101–14.
McDaniel, S.H. (1988) ‘The Interpersonal Politics of Premenstrual Syndrome’, Family
Systems Medicine 6(2): 134–49.
Mencher, J. (1990) Intimacy in Lesbian Relationships: A Critical Re-examination of
Fusion, Work in Progress No 42. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College, Stone Center for
Women’s Development.
Metz, M.E., Rosser, B.R.R. and Strapko, N. (1994) ‘Differences in Conflict-resolution
Styles among Heterosexual, Gay, and Lesbian Couples. The Journal of Sex Research
31(4): 293–308.
Nash, H.C. and Chrisler, J.C. (1997) ‘Is a Little (Psychiatric) Knowledge a Dangerous
Thing? The Impact of Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder on Perceptions of
Premenstrual Women’, Psychology of Women Quarterly 21(2): 315–22.
O’Brien, S.M. (2003) ‘Intrusiveness, Closeness-caregiving, and Relationship Adjustment
in Lesbian Cohabiting Couples’, Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B: The
Sciences & Engineering 64(6-B): 2933.
O’Grady, H. (2005) Woman’s Relationship with Herself: Gender, Foucault, Therapy.
London: Routledge.
Parlee, M. (1991) ‘The Social Construction of PMS: A Case Study of Scientific Discourse
as Cultural Contestation’, paper presented at The Good Body: Asceticism in
Contemporary Culture Conference, Institute for the Medical Humanities, Texan
University, Galveston, USA.
Perz, J. and Ussher, J.M. (2006) ‘Women’s Experience of Premenstrual Change: A Case
of Silencing the Self’, Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 24(4): 289–303.
Rittenhouse, C.A. (1991) ‘The Emergence of Premenstrual Syndrome as a Social
Problem’, Social Problems 38(3): 412–25.
Ross, L.E. (2005) ‘Perinatal Mental Health in Lesbian Mothers: A Review of Potential
Risk and Protective Factors’, Women and Health 41(3): 113–28.
Roth, S. (1989) ‘Psychotherapy with Lesbian Couples: Individual Issues, Female
Socialization and the Social Context’, in M. McGoldrick, C.M. Anderson and E. Walsh
(eds) Women in Families: A Framework for Family Therapy, pp. 286–307. New York:
Norton.
Ryser, R. and Feinauer, L.L. (1992) ‘Premenstrual Syndrome and the Marital Relation-
ship’, American Journal of Family Therapy 20(2): 179–90.
Schneider, M.S. (1986) ‘The Relationships of the Cohabiting Lesbian and Heterosexual
Couples: A Comparison’, Psychology of Women Quarterly 10: 234–9.
Schreurs, K.M.G. and Buunk, B.P. (1996) ‘Closeness, Autonomy, Equity, and
Relationship Satisfaction in Lesbian Couples’, Psychology of Women Quarterly 20:
577–92.
Schwartz, C.B. (2001) ‘The Relationship between Partner Social Support and Pre-
menstrual Symptoms’, Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering
61(10-B): 5580.
Slater, S. and Mencher, J. (1991) ‘The lesbian family life cycle. Journal of American
Orthopsychiatry, 61, 372–382.
Smith-Martinez, K.L. (1995) ‘Premenstrual symptomatology and its impact on marital
communication’, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences &
Engineering, 56(6-B): 2887.
USSHER and PERZ: Relational Negotiation of PMS 109
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Stenner, P. (1993) ‘Discoursing Jealousy’, in E. Burman and I. Parker (ed.) Discourse
Analytic Research, pp. 114–34. London: Routledge.
Sveinsdottir, H., Lundman, B. and Norberg, A. (2002) ‘Whose Voice? Whose
Experiences? Women’s Qualitative Accounts of General and Private Discussion of
Premenstrual Syndrome’, Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 16(4): 414–23.
Ussher, J.M. (1992) ‘Reproductive Rhetoric and the Blaming of the Body’, in P.U.
Nicolson, J.M. Ussher and J. Campling (eds) The Psychology of Women’s Health and
Health Care, pp. 31–61. London: McMillan.
Ussher, J.M. (1996) ‘Premenstrual Syndrome: Reconciling Disciplinary Divides through
the Adoption of a Material-discursive Epistemological Standpoint’, Annual Review of
Sex Research 7: 218–51.
Ussher, J.M. (1999) ‘Premenstrual Syndrome: Reconciling Disciplinary Divides through
the Adoption of a Material-discursive-intrapsychic Approach’, in A. Kolk, M. Bekker
and K. Van Vliet (eds) Advances in Women and Health Research, pp. 47–64.
Amsterdam: Tilberg University Press.
Ussher, J.M. (2002) ‘Processes of Appraisal and Coping in the Development and
Maintenance of Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder’, Journal of Community and Applied
Social Psychology 12: 1–14.
Ussher, J.M. (2003a) ‘The Ongoing Silencing of Women in Families: An Analysis and
Rethinking of Premenstrual Syndrome and Therapy’, Journal of Family Therapy 25:
388–405.
Ussher, J.M. (2003b) ‘The Role of Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder in the Subjectifica-
tion of Women’, Journal of Medical Humanities 24(1/2): 131–46.
Ussher, J.M. (2004a) ‘Blaming the Body for Distress: Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder
and the Subjectification of Women’, in A. Potts, N. Gavey and A. Wetherall (eds) Sex
and The Body, pp. 183–202. Palmerstone North, NZ: Dunmore Press.
Ussher, J.M. (2004b) ‘Premenstrual Syndrome and Self-policing: Ruptures in Self-
Silencing Leading to Increased Self-Surveillance and Blaming of the Body’, Social
Theory & Health 2(3): 254–72.
Ussher, J.M. (2006) Managing the Monstrous Feminine: Regulating the Reproductive
Body. London: Routledge.
Ussher, J.M. (in press) ‘Challenging the Positioning of Premenstrual Change as PMS: The
Impact of a Psychological Intervention on Women’s Self-Policing’, Qualitative
Research in Psychology.
Ussher, J.M. and Perz, J. (2006) ‘Evaluating the Relative Efficacy of a Self-help and
Minimal Psycho-educational Intervention for Moderate Premenstrual Distress
Conducted from a Critical Realist Standpoint’, Journal of Reproductive and Infant
Psychology 24(2): 347–62.
Ussher, J.M. and Perz, J. (in press) ‘Disruption of the Silenced-Self: The Case of Pre-
Menstrual Syndrome’, in D.C. Jack (ed.) The Depression Epidemic: International
Perspectives on Women’s Self-silencing and Psychological Distress. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ussher, J.M. and Wilding, J.M. (1991) ‘Performance and State Changes during the
Menstrual Cycle, Conceptualised within a Broad Band Testing Framework’, Social
Science and Medicine 32(5): 525–34.
Ussher, J.M., Hunter, M. and Browne, S.J. (2000) ‘Good, Bad or Dangerous to Know:
Representations of Femininity in Narrative Accounts of PMS’, in C. Squire (ed.)
Culture and Psychology, pp. 87–99. Falmer and New York: Routledge.
110 Feminism & Psychology 18(1)
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Ussher, J.M., Hunter, M. and Cariss, M. (2002) ‘A Woman-centred Psychological
Intervention for Premenstrual Symptoms, Drawing on Cognitive-behavioural and
Narrative Therapy’, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy 9: 319–31.
Ussher, J.M., Perz, J. and Mooney-Somers, J. (2007) ‘The Experience and Positioning of
Affect in the Context of Intersubjectivity: The Case of Premenstrual Syndrome’,
International Journal of Critical Psychology 21: 145–65.
Welthagen, N. (1995) ‘The Influence of Premenstrual Symptoms on Marital
Communication’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Winter, E.J., Ashton, D.J. and Moore, D.L. (1991) ‘Dispelling Myths: A Study of PMS
and Relationship Satisfaction’, The Nurse Practitioner 16(5): 37–40.
Winterich, J.A. (2003) ‘Sex, Menopause and Culture: Sexual Orientation and the Meaning
of Menopause for Women’s Lives’, Gender and Society 17(4): 627–42.
Woods, N.F., Lentz, M.J., Mitchell, E.S., Heitkemper, M., Shaver, J. and Henker, R.
(1998) ‘Perceived Stress, Physiologic Stress Arousal, and Premenstrual Symptoms:
Group Differences and Intra-individual Patterns’, Research in Nursing and Health
21(6): 511–23.
Jane M. USSHER is Professor of Women’s Health Psychology and Director of
the Gender Culture and Health Research Unit, PsyHealth, at the University of
Western Sydney, Australia. She is author of a number of books, including The
Psychology of the Female Body (Routledge, 1989), Women’s Madness:
Misogyny or Mental Illness? (Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991), Fantasies of
Femininity: Reframing the Boundaries of Sex (Penguin, 1997), and Managing
the Monstrous Feminine: Regulating the Reproductive Body (Routledge, 2006).
Her current research focuses on women’s sexual and reproductive health, with
particular emphasis on premenstrual experiences and gendered issues in caring.
ADDRESS: School of Psychology, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag
1797, Penrith South DC, NSW 1797, Australia.
[email: j.ussher@uws.edu.au]
Janette PERZ is a senior academic in the School of Psychology and Deputy-
Director of the Gender Culture and Health Research Unit, PsyHealth, at the
University of Western Sydney. Her research focuses on understanding women’s
experiences of reproductive health across the lifespan, including premenstrual
and menopausal experiences.
ADDRESS: School of Psychology, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag
1797, Penrith South DC, NSW 1797, Australia.
[email: j.perz@uws.edu.au]
USSHER and PERZ: Relational Negotiation of PMS 111
at University of Western Sydney on January 21, 2013fap.sagepub.comDownloaded from
