Erotica Readers & Writers Association Blog

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Abstinence, Condoms, Or Twenty Kids: Male Choices in Our New America

by Donna George Storey

We live in a tumultuous time and few can predict the news each day will bring. However, we can be certain that under a Republican Congress and President and with a Supreme Court that is bound to become more “conservative,” the U.S. government will move to limit its citizens’ access to contraception and sex education.

When I say citizens, I mean both women and men.

Yes, men will be intimately affected by limited access to contraception. Why do so few of them seem to understand this?

Shutting down funding for Planned Parenthood is always presented in terms of its effect on women’s health. Reproductive choice is regarded as a woman’s issue, something that might sway the votes of women, but never men. It’s as if men don’t play a role in pregnancy at all.

Men may no longer have the luxury of ignoring the fact that they do.

Let me pause here to say for the record that my argument has nothing to do with abortion, which is about what happens after conception. I’m talking about the access adult men and women have to modern medical technology that will enable them to have sexual intercourse without conceiving a child.

But seriously, you say, who would take this access to birth control away from us? That would never happen!

Haven’t you noticed? All kinds of crazy and unimaginable things are happening these days.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of powerful male politicians who either actually want to take access away--especially from the young and people with low incomes--or who go along without thinking through how it might affect their male voters’ lives. Too many of us take for granted that contraception is part of our right to privacy. Birth control has nothing to do with government control. However, a look back in history shows that our government has zealously denied its citizens access to contraception for a period of over ninety years.

Before the Comstock Act, a federal law pushed through a tired, distracted Congress in 1873, birth control was legal in the United States. The Comstock Act cleverly prohibited sending any device or information having to do with contraception through the mail. Its pure-minded father, Anthony Comstock, was also appointed as a special agent to the post office to enforce his law, which he did with sanctimonious enthusiasm. He most often targeted small-scale, immigrant-run condom and “womb veil” producers, while letting Goodyear, a wealthy company which manufactured rubber condoms as well as other rubber goods, avoid surveillance and consequences. By the way, the Comstock Act also prohibited sending obscene materials through the mail—including sex toys, pornography and erotica, although the latter was surely not as well-written as erotica authored today!

The Comstock Act was terminated in 1957--that is, not all that long ago--although in 1936 there was a court ruling, United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries (the best court case name ever!), that the federal government could not prevent a doctor from providing contraception to his patients. In other words, those who were wealthy enough to have enlightened physicians who supported family planning could enjoy the benefits of reproductive technology much earlier than the common man.

In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution protected the right of married people to use birth control as late as 1965. Only in 1972 did Eisenstadt v. Baird allow unmarried people the same right. Estelle Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut who opened a birth control clinic in New Haven to challenge the state’s lingering Comstock law. William Baird purposely got himself arrested and convicted for handing a condom and package of contraceptive foam to a 19-year-old unmarried woman after a lecture on birth control. We must remember this didn’t just happen. These brave people along with many others (Margaret Sanger and her husband and many more) endured prison and hardship to win us our right to control our reproduction.

It might be a fight we have to wage once more.

Indeed some want to turn back the clock to a more idyllic time in America, before all these pushy women had the idea they were equal and wanted to have sex without consequences. I’d like to consider what such a renaissance of old-time values and customs would mean for men who want to have sex today.

Until the 1920s, when sexual intimacy was first acknowledged as an important part of a married couple’s happiness, an enlightened man would be considerate of wife’s health and abstain from sexual intercourse as much as possible. That was the only universally accepted way to control family size. The desire for sex was a bestial urge, and the civilized man would conceive a few children to help his wife fulfill her womanly nature, then nobly refrain—or visit a prostitute.

Now some men were not so noble, or inclined to visit prostitutes, and relied on other means to control family size.

Clelia Mosher’s survey of married women beginning in 1892 revealed that withdrawal was a fairly popular birth control method back when men were men and women wore corsets all the time and not just for fetish reasons. Planned Parenthood reports that if always done correctly, only 4 in 100 women will become pregnant each year using the withdrawal method. I was told it was a terrible form of birth control, so I’m surprised it’s that good. Of course, the rate climbs to 27 out of 100 if the man is not as conscientious, so it probably is not a great method for teenagers.

Back in the early twentieth century, many doctors recommended against withdrawal because it would make men weak and mentally infirm. The argument was no doubt self-interested, but most men today would probably agree. The rhythm method was not discovered until 1930. Before that, most physicians thought women were “safe” at the midpoint of their menstrual cycle based on studies of animals. The rhythm method might also be called “limited abstinence” because the couple might have to abstain as many as ten days of the cycle. If you don’t like sex during menstruation, the period of abstinence will be even longer.

Is traditional-values living sounding good so far?

Condoms were the most popular purchased contraceptive back in our glory days. Goodyear rubber condoms were so thick and sturdy they could be washed and reused. If we return to such a way of life, remember that recycling is good for the environment! Latex condoms were invented in the 1920s but men still had to purchase them under the counter in cigar stores, gas stations and saloons. Bellboys usually had a few on hand if you tipped nicely. Again we might ask—who would take condoms from the shelves of CVS? Can we take anything for granted in this crazy twenty-first century world of ours?

The other option was and is, of course, to have lots and lots of children. If followed to its logical conclusion, a policy which prohibits family planning and sex education means that someone with an active sex life will have twenty children. Since every other man with an active sex life will also have twenty children, that's a lot of babies. And babies don’t die as often as they used to from diphtheria and measles as they did back in the day, although with an anti-vaxxer in the White House, infectious diseases might be great again, too. But let’s figure the world will be really crowded and competitive with all those kids running around. You think it’s hard to get into a good college now?

So in summary, gentlemen, if you don’t stand up and insist on every citizen’s right to reproductive options to your elected officials in the most vehement terms, you may well be left with the following choices of yore:

Abstinence
Withdrawal
Rhythm method
Rubbers
Twenty kids

Then again there is one more option for sexual expression I forgot to mention: read erotic stories with your lover and pleasure each other manually and orally. Save the intercourse strictly for when you want kids.

Come to think of it, if we’re not slapped with a revival of the Comstock Act, the new era of reproductive restriction might be good business for erotica writers after all.

Donna George Storey is the author of Amorous Woman and a collection of short stories, Mammoth Presents the Best of Donna George Storey. Learn more about her work at www.DonnaGeorgeStorey.com or http://www.facebook.com/DGSauthor

6 comments:

  1. I thought this post would generate more discussion! However, you're probably preaching to the choir. I assume all of us here at Erotic Readers & Writers are grateful for access to birth control. (I'm retroactively grateful, since I'm post-menopausal and in a monogamous lesbian marriage.)I'll never forget how desperate I was in my first year of university (away from parents & wanting to exercise grown-up freedom), age 19, when the legal age for everything was 21. I asked a doctor for a prescription for the pill, to no avail. I tried to buy condoms in a drugstore, and was asked for proof of age. The guy I was seeing would not take no for an answer (I didn't call his behaviour "rape" at the time) & wouldn't take responsibility. I resorted to scrubbing myself out later with household cleansers, not knowing what else to do. (I think I was amazingly lucky not to suffer permanent damage.) I can see why life in a convent would have looked tempting to women in a time when the only alternative(s) were rhythm, withdrawal (& I'm also surprised those methods are at all effective), abstinence, or 20 kids.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for sharing your story--this is very important stuff and it impacts our experience of sexuality profoundly. Part of the appeal of sex writing through the ages has been pushing those consequences of disease and pregnancy to the shadows! Beyond more discussion here--which would be nice, but yes, this is the choir--I really hope more chorines of both sexes become engaged in this issue. Since any discussion of sexuality is still suppressed unless it's "sex is great, buy this!" or "teenage sex is terrible, don't do it!" lots of suffering and confusion is covered up. My Catholic mother said that sex was always fraught for her, and this is with her husband, because she feared an unwanted pregnancy, so sex as an older woman was so much more enjoyable. The issue of male responsibility should also be more openly discussed. And, btw, you were not alone in turning to household cleaners--LYSOL was widely advertised as a douche in the 1920s and 1930s. I also wonder how many women suffered permanent damage from that!

    ReplyDelete
  3. OMG, I've heard of Lysol as a douche. The really disturbing thing about harsh chemicals in women's sensitive parts is that these douches probably led to infections, which seemed to confirm the general belief that women are really dirty down there, and need to be constantly cleaned up: a vicious cycle. Several years ago, I read an article by a woman whose mother was diagnosed with cancer of the cervix after years of using talcum powder down there, on advice from "medical experts." (Sorry I can't remember the author or the venue.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These are great examples of how silence leads to ignorance leads to life-threatening problems. "Woman doctors" recommended Lysol douches in magazine ads! Letting women take care of "all that down there" (whether out of disdain or "respect") really lets men off the hook. Of course now they can't just say "she's a slut by virtue of the fact she had sex, I'm probably not the father anyway" because we can track them down. Hmm, maybe our conservative lawmakers should start outlawing paternity tests, at least for white men? After all, who can trust science?

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.