Contraceptive disparity among the sexes: Structural sexism and commercial racism

Contraception around the 50s and 60s in America was used to facilitate safe sex, the commercialisation in America was possible only for this reason. The condoms even before them were made of bovine intestines, turtle shells and linen cloth pieces which didn’t avoid sperm permeation. However, when latex was invented – condoms became cheaper and used for pregnancy prevention as well. Today, contraception is advanced or so we are made to believe.

Out of all the methods available today, all except two are targeted at female anatomy/ womb-owners whereas men/testes-owners have surgical vasectomy or physical barrier of condoms. They, of course also have the scandalously ineffective method of ‘pulling out’. The cause of this large disparity is manifold, however, it rests on three main pillars namely – structural sexism and traditionalism, alleged commercial racism and biological nuances.

One must understand that as far as women or menstruators are concerned, birth control is beyond a preventive method in the event of sex. It also helps with dramatic acne-flareups, thyroid issues, irregular periods that can be caused due to hormonal imbalance. These birth controls have drastic side-effects normalised for women jointly by society and medics across the world. It is in this way that among most institutional constructs like maternity leaves, abortions and glorification of virginity- contraception also joins the list in being for women but not by women thereby inefficiently serving women. However, the question is – do men not have hormonal imbalance that causes painful acne?

If the pills are good, why is the male equivalent not available? If the pills are bad, why have their effects on women been dismissed, despite living in a man’s world obsessed with bloodlines, lineages and birthing children? For the longest time, we as women were made to believe that we deserve respect because we can reproduce!

societal notions that ‘women should have responsible sex because they have the higher stakes’

However, today let us believe in medical science and demand for a male contraceptive. The most logical biological reason for this disparity is the ease of stopping an egg as opposed to millions of sperms in a single ejaculation. However, reproductive rights are not just determined on grounds of biology especially not now when we have advanced leaps and bounds in medical sciences. Reproduction and the rights bestowed upon birthing women are also political.

How is it that in a world where an argument put across suggesting that a man and a woman make a baby equally shall have equal say in the keeping or the termination of the pregnancy, turns a blind eye to equality in responsible sex? In a world where a man enjoys legal and political precedence involving family or children suddenly forget their self-proclaimed machismo when they’re asked to step up and use contraception to equalise the pressure of keeping accidental pregnancies at bay.Why has research further enforced these sexist ideas thereby legitimising societal notions that ‘women should have responsible sex because they have the higher stakes’.

This reinforces lifestyle as portrayed in pop culture where a man is celebrated for being a Casanova and having an active sexual life but a woman is lauded for ‘saving herself’ and adjoin morality with her rights in family planning, abortions, sex and contraception. These ideas then cause further disparity in the bedroom where a woman remains unbeknownst to the feeling of an orgasm, where she thinks sex is over when he ‘finishes’, where she thinks sex is a way to show him how much she loves him by agreeing to stick it in wherever he wants and not an act of mutual pleasure, where she can’t distinguish between lovemaking and marital rapes, where she doesn’t learn how to say ‘no’, where she never explores sexual freedom and assertion.

This seems to be a far-fetched connection but they do go hand-in-hand and this may seem like promoting multiple sexual partners but is only promotes equal sexual responsibility and rights.

Male contraception doesn’t only cater to relieving burden on women to take preventive measure but also takes cognisance of the National Family Health Survey 2015-16 where only 0.3% showed readiness to vasectomy. This is due to the relative permanence of the procedure compared to other methods even though reversing it is mostly a successful surgery unlike tubectomy which 36% of Indian women have performed on themselves.

A study called “Efficacy and Safety of an Injectable Combination Hormonal Contraceptive for Men”  published by The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism was terminated after display of side effects in men despite showing 95% success in 24 weeks on its subjects. These side effects included the same side effects as women like libido issues, anxiety, acne, depression and mood swings. Why have these side effects been recognised as adverse for men but normalised for women?

Interestingly, in the field of male contraception India is ahead than many heavily funded countries in the form of RISUG developed by Prof. SK Guha of IIT Kharagpur in 1970s. As recently as 2019, ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research) that had started its testing since 1984 declared its successful clinical trials and sent the drug for approval at DCGI (Drug Controller General of India) however, its public use has not started. This drug is surgically administered in vas deferens and is potent for 13 years, it is easily reversible by surgical dissolution of the drug in the vas deferens.

The American equivalent is still only successful on mice wherein it degenerates a crucial protein in spermatogenesis called YCT-529. There are other drugs as well which alter the size and shape of sperms to make them bad ‘swimmers’.

This was a display of structural sexism and biology playing a role in the matter. Let’s look into the racism.

There is a history of contraception in India as old as the Birth of Krishna, here as well women were expected to  take precautions. How is it that after so many advancements the medical approach back then and now are the same? As we ask that to ourselves also know that unlike present times that contraception had absolutely no side effects because they came from Ayurveda. These include, vaginal insertions like sterile stone massages which made the vagina rough or dry.

There were also herbo-mineral contraceptives mentioned in texts like Gadanigraha, Yogaratnakara, Rasaratnasamucchaya, Bhiivaprakasa etc like admixtures of palm leaves and red chalk or pessaries made of honey, ghee, rock salt and seeds of palash trees. Root of Dhatura used during coitus in the ovulation period or administering 3 year old Jaggery for 15 days which caused permanent sterility.

Recognition of these have been continually ridiculed by modern sciences as the slightest validation would attract many patients and customers and make a ‘brown’ system of medicine superior even if these potions will make no side effects in women. Infact, the tight-lip toward allopathic male contraceptives also is due to India’s sole advancement in it, the slightest recognition will cause a lot of money coming to the country. Another reason gone to justify the years of colonisation, now Indians are better feminists too?!

Family Planning is a shared goal and delayed recognition of male contraception will only reduce the scope of changing anachronistic narratives, political and reproductive rights as well as a very viable source of money-making. This ignorance will only add to the  years that general public will take to accept and normalise the procedure for common use. In a world where women citizens lost to foetuses, their victory when men citizens are in the ring seems implausible, but hope is what we shall hold onto. Let’s hope. Hope that the society and the medical pantheon will fasten their decision-making and loosen their chastity belts.

Please, also have a look into : Abortion limit increased to 24 weeks of pregnancy for special cases