As noted on Friday, historian (and fellow UCLA Ph.D.) Elaine Tyler May is looking for stories about the Pill.
Since she asks for stories from men whose partners have used the Pill, I’ll take the invitation to offer some thoughts.
I lecture on birth control every semester in my women’s history class. I always begin the same way, by talking about semantics, namely to make what ought to be an obvious point: “birth” control is not identical to contraception. The very names make clear the difference: birth control encompasses a wide variety of methods to give women control over their entire (or nearly entire) reproductive process; contraception is, evidently, limited to those methods designed to prevent conception. Contraception, in other words, is a subset of but never a synonym for birth control. One key feminist goal remains ensuring safe and reliable access not merely to contraceptive technology but to birth control.
Invariably, some students get confused, largely because the phrase “birth control” in their minds has come to mean only the Pill. When they hear an expression such as “Mary’s on birth control”, they assume that means oral contraceptives. This equation of birth control with the Pill hasn’t changed noticeably since I first started teaching fifteen years ago. Nearly five decades after it first appeared on the market, the Pill continues to exercise a powerful hold on the language — as well, of course, on the bodies — of women young enough to be the granddaughters of the first generation to use it.
There are, it should be noted, a few good books already out there about the Pill: Bernard Asbell’s , Elizabeth Watkins’, and, for a more detailed medical focus, Lara Marks’ work. Readers can suggest others in the comments!
I don’t ask my students to share their own sexual histories or birth control practices. A great many folks in my women’s history class do, however, volunteer the information. Completely anecdotally, Pill use has declined somewhat in recent years, due primarily to two factors: rising cost for oral contraceptives, and increased access to alternative hormonal technologies, including the famous “patch.” I also hear a few more objections to the Pill “interfering with body chemistry” than I did a few years ago, suggesting — again, utterly anecdotally — that a greater environmentalist concern with “natural” products may direct some young women to look elsewhere for reliable protection.
My first high school girlfriend went “on the Pill” — after, of course, I had gotten her pregnant and she had undergone an abortion (a story I’ve recounted here). As I recall, the chief issue for her was remembering to take it regularly. She was a year younger, so she was a high school senior when I was already a college freshman. We tried the long-distance thing for nearly a year, talking on the phone almost every day, seeing each other every few weeks. (I rode the Greyhound bus down to the Monterey Peninsula.) I remember regularly asking during our phone calls if she had taken her Pill that day; half the time she would say “Oh, whoops, thanks for reminding me.” I also remember being a bit bewildered that someone who had already gotten pregnant would be so forgetful. In my teens, I was a judgmental boyfriend, I’m sorry to say!
I’ve been married four times and lived with four or five other women for extended periods of time. My first two wives and three of my long-term girlfriends were on the Pill; most were far more assiduous about taking it regularly than my high school girlfriend had been. Where cost was involved, I was good about always offering to pay half the cost of the monthly prescription, an offer that was usually but not always refused. Most of the women I dated, both casually and longer-term, were either on the Pill or had tried the Pill and then, for a variety of reasons, stopped using it. One or two liked using the Pill less for birth control and more for its help in regulating their menstrual cycles or clearing the skin, while several exes referred to the negative side effects (weight gain, mood changes, nausea) as reasons why they had moved on to other contraceptives.
I’ve thought a lot about a man’s role in the birth control discussion. Obviously, men must assume responsibility for their part in preventing pregnancy; male ejaculation is remarkably closely correlated with conception! But the final decision about what to use and when to use it must be in the hands (so to speak) of she who will bear the burden of pregnancy, whether intended or otherwise. In any enduring heterosexual relationship, contraceptive use ought to be discussed; it’s also a nice idea to talk about what each party imagines would happen if a pregnancy were to occur. That doesn’t mean, of course, that men ought to have an equal say in determining the outcome of an unintended pregnancy. Those who carry the greater burden always should have the greater voice: that’s as good an axiom as any to keep in mind.
Men also need, I think, to be alert to their own possible desire to have their partner select a contraceptive method that imposes a burden only on the woman. One of the appealing aspects of the Pill for men is, of course, there are no side effects for males. Wearing a condom does change the sensation of sex for both partners; having a wife or a girlfriend take a Pill does not. Of course, a woman on the Pill may have complications and side effects that are more enduring than the brief and slight discomfort occasioned by condom use. Nothing could be more insensitive (pun intended) than for a man to pressure a reluctant woman into using oral contraceptives because he doesn’t want to be bothered with making any decisions or sacrifices. Anecdotally, it seems likely that the availability of the Pill has provided at least some men with a greater excuse to avoid responsibility for contraception, or to whine about how condoms “don’t feel good”. One of the many reasons why I am most comfortable using the condom as the primary method of contraception is because of this commitment to not prioritizing my pleasure over another’s discomfort.
There is no perfect form of birth control or contraception (pace, my NFP advocate friends). It’s axiomatic that different women, with different bodies, at different stages of life, and in different kinds of sexual relationships, will find different methods of preventing pregnancy to be more helpful (if not always ideal). There’s no question that for all its many imperfections, the Pill has proved extraordinarily liberating to millions of women over the three generations since its appearance. More than any previously extant technology, the Pill offered — at least for some — the precious gift of autonomy over the body. There is no more important right in this world than the right to be sovereign over our own flesh: imperfectly but undeniably, the Pill offered access to that right to countless women who would not otherwise have had it. For that, we ought all — men and women alike — be immensely grateful.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: For men, the best option is a vasectomy. Mine cost me about $500 (insurance didn’t cover it) back in 1999, inflation might have raised the price since and I’m sure mileage varies anyway. It also cost me a few weeks minor discomfort.
In return, I never again have to put on a condom. I never had to worry about another child to raise with my increasingly unstable wife or any woman I’ve been with since she passed. It’s complete reproductive autonomy for a man, and until they come up with some equivalent of The Pill for men I can’t recommend it enough.
“It also cost me a few weeks minor discomfort.”
Yeah, there’s that. Call me crazy, but pointy things and my groin don’t mix very well.
“Obviously, men must assume responsibility for their part in preventing pregnancy; male ejaculation is remarkably closely correlated with conception!”
LMAO…that statement just made my day.
“In return, I never again have to put on a condom. I never had to worry about another child to raise with my increasingly unstable wife or any woman I’ve been with since she passed.”
Chief,
While I applaud your decision to make an to take responsibility for your role in reproduction by having a vasectomy,
I’d love it if you could elaborate on this particular statement. How is it that you never again have to put on a condom? If I’m reading your statement correctly, you are no longer in a permanent monogamous relationship. If that is the case, then why don’t you have to wear condoms, ever? Condoms aren’t just for preventing pregnancy…
In return, I never again have to put on a condom.
Except to protect yourself against HIV, herpes, genital warts, and all those other fun things that you don’t want to receive and subsequently pass along.
“Birth control” in itself is only one part of safe sex considerations.
From your statement that you’ve been married and have had kids, Chief, I’m guessing you’re closer to my parents’ generation than my own, and it never ceases to astound me as I discover that my parents’ peers think they’re immune to STDs simply because of their age. Condoms aren’t just for the high school and college set, people.
I worry about this statement:
“But the final decision about what to use and when to use it must be in the hands (so to speak) of she who will bear the burden of pregnancy, whether intended or otherwise.”
Because it’s just not true. Yes, a woman does have the final decision about whether or not to take hormonal birth control. (Including the patch or injection methods which can have the same negative side effects as the Pill.) However, it is absolutely each individual’s responsibility to ensure safe sexuality. As the other commentors have pointed out, that is more than just birth control.
Particularly because of the issues with remembering to take oral contraceptives every day at the same time, and because oral contraceptives do not prevent the spread of disease, I recommend that teenagers choose condoms. They provide the third benefit of offering teenage boys the chance to own the potential effects of their sexual activities.
@The Chief — never again? So, you do little or nothing about STD’s? You know that still makes you look a little dumb, right?
Do you think your penis is invincible, or what? You don’t owe it just to yourself but the women you’re with, too, to be more responsible than that.
Karen, I love your blog, and sometime soon will mention that in a post. I agree that condoms are a wonderful way for young men to “own their part” in healthy, safe sex. At the same time, when it comes to negotiating contraceptive use, I believe that while both the male and female are equally responsible, we can acknowledge that the “final say” (assuming there is disagreement about what to do) ought to lie with the one person who can get pregnant. Both men and women can get STIs, but only women can conceive — given the disparity in consequences, it seems reasonable to me to give greater weight to the feelings and views of the more physiologically vulnerable partner. This can be accompished without vitiating the importance of male participation.
For everybody who asked–I tend to only sleep with women whom I’m reasonably certain are disease free (no, nothing’s 100% certain in life, but get to know somebody past the third Cosmopolitan at the local bar and you can get a pretty good hunch).
Note also that, in spite of what some hysterical AIDs activists would have you believe, the chances of a heterosexual male who doesn’t use intravenous drugs getting HIV are virtually non-existent, even without condom usage. Yes, there are other (thankfully less serious) diseases you can get, but again, a bare minimum of effort in getting to know the person can help with that.
“But the final decision about what to use and when to use it must be in the hands (so to speak) of she who will bear the burden of pregnancy, whether intended or otherwise.”
I have a problem with this, too. Men have as much right to bodily autonomy as women do. A woman cannot choose a vasectomy or a hormonal method of contraception (when one becomes available) for a man.
A woman cannot choose a vasectomy or a hormonal method of contraception (when one becomes available) for a man.
Agreed. But she’s damn straight entitled to make either one of those a precondition for intercourse with her.
“For everybody who asked–I tend to only sleep with women whom I’m reasonably certain are disease free (no, nothing’s 100% certain in life, but get to know somebody past the third Cosmopolitan at the local bar and you can get a pretty good hunch).”
Ah, Chief, the only way you can be reasonably certain someone does not have an STD is to see the test results confirming that the person does not have an STD…and, hell, even that isn’t a definite. Three Cosmos and an hour or two spent in a bar is not a recipe of STD detection…it’s a recipe for STD contraction. It’s even difficult for people in a monogamous relationship to be sure that they are safe.
“Note also that, in spite of what some hysterical AIDs activists would have you believe, the chances of a heterosexual male who doesn’t use intravenous drugs getting HIV are virtually non-existent, even without condom usage. Yes, there are other (thankfully less serious) diseases you can get, but again, a bare minimum of effort in getting to know the person can help with that.”
My Goddess…You do know that this is the year 2008, correct? It is most certainly possible for heterosexuals to contract HIV through unprotected heterosexual intercourse. And again, the only way you can know for sure if someone is not infected is to see their test results.
I was attempting to be polite in my first statement, but now, like B, I’m astounded at your level of ignorance…and arrogance.
Yes, there are other (thankfully less serious) diseases you can get, but again, a bare minimum of effort in getting to know the person can help with that.
I’m just flabbergasted that a grown man is saying this. That sounds like something a college kid deludes himself into. There are people who you’d least expect to have STDs who have them. They don’t discriminate and only attack the whoriest of us - a virgin can have one sexual encounter and walk away with herpes. Some people don’t even realize they have them. or they ignore the symptoms because they’re too sheepish to discuss private bodily functions with their doctor. And it’s not just that person who you’re getting to know you have to worry about - they might be the nicest person in the world, or whatEVER strange personality criteria you’re using to judge their health, but they could have had a partner who cheated on them or had a colorful past.
If all it took was three drinks to determine whether someone has an STD or not, the STD rate would be nearly zero. You stick your nose up at the idea of getting HIV because the chances are nil for you, but there is a whole variety of fun stuff out there for you to sample. And half of it NEVER GOES AWAY. (Which is another thing that makes your personality gaging STD meter wonky - who they are now is not who they were 20 years ago, and herpes doesn’t fade with age)
Sorry for going on about this, but I am just aghast at the misinformation out there, in GROWN MEN.
Being happily married for decades means this isn’t really a pressing issue for me. But it amazes me that men have unprotected vaginal sex with any woman they don;t love enough to marry. My advice to my son was: even if you have some “discussion” and your girl says she’s using birth control, use a condom anyway. If you don’t love her enough to marry her, and trust her enough to marry her, don’t hand her 18 years of your life for a few minutes pleasure.
chief, i’d take some forms of cervical, prostate and rectal cancers serious
“Particularly because of the issues with remembering to take oral contraceptives every day at the same time, and because oral contraceptives do not prevent the spread of disease, I recommend that teenagers choose condoms. They provide the third benefit of offering teenage boys the chance to own the potential effects of their sexual activities.”
I think this is a great point and I agree completely with the idea that teenagers should use condoms. However, I my experience in high school I knew people (stupid people) who wouldn’t use a condom because of the fact that they are drunk and dont want to lose the moment. I would have to say since teenagers are especially stupid, regardless of the relentless education they get petaining to safe sex and the proper use of condoms, that girls should be on “the pill” only to ensure that spontaniety doesn’t bring them a 3rd.
Unfortunately, there is of course a problem with this, I wouldn’t want to encourage the pill with teenagers because that will totally discount the use of condoms and further spread disease. As well as, putting all the responsibility in the hands of the girl and that is unfair to her and far too easy for the guy. Where is his responsisbility ?
So, I guess the only way to truely make it equal would be to have the girl take the pill and the guy use a condom in order to make 100% sure she won’t get pregnant. This is also good because it shows that both the make and female are taking themselves and their partner into consideration, as well as responsibility for their actions. Not to mention stopping pregnancy and the spread of more STD’s.
I don’t have a book recommendation, but this is a really excellent article on the Pill which gets into the feelings and intentions of one of the Pill’s developers, John Rock, as well as a lot of other issues.
http://www.si.umich.edu/~rfrost/courses/MatCult/content/PillTaker.pdf
“I would have to say since teenagers are especially stupid, regardless of the relentless education they get petaining to safe sex and the proper use of condoms, that girls should be on “the pill” only to ensure that spontaniety doesn’t bring them a 3rd.”
Where are teenagers getting relentless education regarding safe sex and the proper use of condoms? Unless their parents are educating their kids, sex education in the USA barely exists. Sex education in this country currently amounts to telling kids to remain abstinent until marriage. They are not taught about safe sex and proper condom use at all in most places.
The Chief didn’t say that it took three drinks to get to know someone; he said that if you do MORE THAN THAT, you can get to know someone pretty well. Well enough to guess whether or not they know/are truthful about their STD status? Obviously, that’s a gauge we all have to take for ourselves.
In addition, although it isn’t popular to say it, the odds of a heterosexual man getting HIV from unprotected PIV sex with random people is, in fact, pretty low. It’s not that you can’t get it or that the disease doesn’t propagate independently of the moral virtue of its hosts; it’s simply the demographics of who has it, and the mechanics of its transmission. I wouldn’t personally take the chance, but it’s the hazard equivalent of not wearing your seatbelt on a 3-mile trip to the grocery store, not the equivalent of launching yourself from a cannon at a brick wall: low chance of outcome, terrible outcome, vs. high chance of outcome, terrible outcome.
Thanks for the kudos, Hugo, I like your blog too. :)
But I will continue to disagree with your point in this post. I’m going to try to clarify more than in my previous comment:
Both parties (or all parties) involved in a sexual encounter are responsible for any procreation or illness that comes as a result of sexual intercourse. Agreed that women pay much higher dues (and potentially all of the dues) if she gets pregnant.
However, if a woman does not choose to request a condom, or even says she does not want the man to use a condom, it is still the man’s responsibility to require a condom.
In fact, I would say that both parties are “damn straight entitled to make either one of those a precondition for intercourse.” Period. Regardless of gender.
I don’t think I disagree with anything you’ve said, Karen: equal responsibility for both sexes, greater weight to the pregnancy-prevention strategy favored by the woman. Those aren’t mutually exclusive positions.
Regardless of a heterosexual man’s chance of contracting HIV from a heterosexual woman, a heterosexual man’s chance of contracting syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, etc. still exits, and his chances of passing on anything he has (whether he know it or not- men are often asymptomatic while still carrying the disease) is much higher. If Chief hasn’t been tested for STDs since his last condom-free encounter, he doesn’t know for a fact that he is STD free.
“The Chief didn’t say that it took three drinks to get to know someone; he said that if you do MORE THAN THAT, you can get to know someone pretty well. Well enough to guess whether or not they know/are truthful about their STD status? Obviously, that’s a gauge we all have to take for ourselves.”
That’s basically what he said. You can’t really get to know someone well enough to know if they are being truly honest with you or not until you’ve known someone for a considerable amount of time - like a few months at the very least. A few hours in a bar or even a few days time conversing with someone is hardly adequate enough time to risk contracting your death because they seem like a nice clean honest person. If Chief, or you, wish to play russian roulette with your health and very life, so be it. But don’t kid yourself or anyone else that that is exactly what you are doing.
Faith, in the part of the USA that I’m from there is, in fact, relentless sex education. It started when we were 10, with free pads and lots of diagrams, and there was a little “health” section in science class since then every year until we were 16. I’m perfectly willing to believe that living on the outskirts of San Francisco I got a bit more sex ed than people in the midwest, of course. But the US is a big place.
I’m a bit concerned about calls to have every teenage girl on the Pill. I’m in the process of going off it, due to concerns about it “messing up my body chemistry”. These are not environmentalist concerns, they are health concerns - especially with all the growing evidence about the influence of hormone levels on womens’ decisions, I don’t want to be walking around with my body perpetually convinced that I’m pregnant. It seems irresponsible to impose years of constant medication on teens just because they might have sex. Of course, it’s worse to deny it to them, but there are concerns on both sides.
And, again, some people just don’t know that they have an STD. They can be as honest as can be, and then discover later that they passed something on to you they didn’t realize they had. Not every STD is as obvious as a pussing sore, and plenty of people shrug off any variety of symptoms because they don’t want to be bothered with going to the doctor and figure that whatever it is will pass.
It’s always amazing to me the casual and flippant attitude that some people demonstrate with regard to their health and also the health of others. I guess it’s just another variation of the “It won’t happen to me,” approach to life. I do agree with B’s observations that plenty of people shrug off any variety of symptoms because they don’t want to be bothered with going to the doctor and figure it will pass. Unfortunately for many this attitude has sad consequences. I don’t like saying that I’ve encountered so many people who regret not taking their health more seriously. I wish it were the opposite. Just about everyone I knew had some type of STD or other sexually transmitted disease. I also know people who died from AIDS–watching what that disease does to people, their deaths and the toll it took on their relatives and was emotionally painful. I don’t get it, but if they want to take risks with their own life, it is their choice and the outcome their responsibility. I just don’t like it when they extend the same disrespect towards others.
Lisa,
Thanks for backing me up on the fact that sex education is very given to a high percentage of teenagers and children for that matter. The first time I was taught formally about sex was in 6th grade at a private christian school (wierd i know) and I learned about as much about sex as a 12 year old could and I thought it was very beneficial. Then almost every year til I graduated from highschool we were given all kinds of discussions about having safe sex and all the dangers of STD’s, aids, and of course pregnancy. In college we had access to free STD check ups and all the free condoms we could ever want. Sex education was not as prevelent in class discussions, but was very openly talked about and discussed among the administration and the dorm residence, which I found to be very beneficial.
I guess I can credit that to also being from the bay area, I dont know what kind of sex education or lack of sex education faith got in her hick town in the midwest. hahahah I’m only kidding Faith I hope you dont get offended because it was merely a joke and I have really no idea where you came from.
I suppose faith’s comment is extraordinarily important, because if you did not receive any sex ed. then teenagers where you grew are also not getting those important life lessons. This just goes to show that America needs to step up on its role in the lives of teenagers and their sex lives.