Recently, I've been hearing from several college-age women who are upset over the rising cost of the birth control pill. (This issue got fresh ink in the New York Times.)
I did not question their choice to be sexually active; I simply asked if the young women had considered asking their partners to help out with the cost. They both laughed. "Forget about it," said one. The other: "I once did ask this of the guy I was regularly hooking up with, and I never heard from him again. Too much of a commitment." (It doesn't help matters that men, apparently, are more attracted to women who aren't on the Pill.)
I am familiar with the usual take on this issue: a young woman paying for her own birth control is supposedly independent--she's not reliant on any man. Scarleteen informs teens that they're not ready for sex until they have a "sex budget" of at least $50 to cover birth control. A young woman who can pay for her own birth control is "empowered," ready to enter a world of infinite possibilities.
Or is she?
Leaving aside the question of sexually-transmitted diseases and the emotional consequences of sex, and leaving aside recent findings that the Pill can decrease a woman's sex drive long-term--are you leaving all this aside?--I have a very simple question. What does this state of affairs, where the young women are expected to handle the entire cost of birth control, teach the young men?
Here is, alas, a typical tale from a popular online advice column:
My boyfriend and I have been living together for a while now. We’re committed, but since we’re not ready to say “I do” or start a family, birth control (me taking the pill) is essential. I want him to share the not-insignificant cost of my prescription. He says none of the guys he knows split the contraception tab with their girlfriends, so why should he?
—B.K., New York, N.Y.
Call it chivalry or call it self-serving, but not too long ago, it wasn't uncommon for boyfriends to offer to pay for birth control. When your girlfriend went on the Pill, it was a pretty big deal. Now suddenly, when the relationships don't last very long, it is simply taken for granted that birth control is a "woman's problem."
To me, behind all the bluster about the rising cost of birth control are two unmentioned issues. One is the unfairness of one sex bearing the entire burden of birth control--and the misogyny behind what passes for empowerment nowadays. (The answer to the above question posed to the advice columnist, in case you were wondering, was that merely raising the issue constituted "fighting" and could "lead you back to your own place—where you’ll be paying 100 percent of everything." Nice.) I think many women are feeling ambivalent about this situation, and rightly so: is it really wise to share your most intimate self with someone who will flee at the first whiff of responsibility? And does such a person really care about you, or is he just using you?
So what do you think--should birth control always be "woman's treat"?
Hello, hello every girl who thinks her "religion" should have nothing to do with this discussion.
First of all, DO NOT put aside your religious views when speaking on any terms concerning any topic in which you believe. Your religion is supposed to be what you BELIEVE TO BE TRUE AND RIGHT, it is supposed to be the WAY in which everyone would profit in following. So, that said, please realize that your beliefs have EVERYTHING to do with this discussion, please do not leave them out. Without a higher law giver, there can be no law, no better way to follow than "that which is right in our own eyes"; and if everyone has a "right" to do what he feels is right in his own way, then this discussion about sex and birth control is totally worthless.
Now, with my Christian views in mind, may I say that because I believe that Jehovah God's way is the right way, and that His Word has revealed to us this right way, I tell you that God forbids fornication and not only promotes abstinence until marriage, but commands it for our good! Ok, so if this is your belief, it would be sensible to assume that birth control should not be even an issue in one's life until the day that person is committed in marriage.
Concerning men and their refusal to pay for birth control, well, has any girl thought of the idea that maybe guys no longer care about the girl's they have sex with, because these women are allowing guys to think of them as whores? I mean, hey, do these women actually expect guys to treat them with respect when these same girls act as if they don't want any in the way they dress, in their attitudes, and in their sex-driven lifestyles? These ideas used to be common sense in the days when guys actually paid for their girl's birth control, and maybe that is why they did, because girls were, for the most part far less openly promiscuous.
Posted by: Emily | December 22, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Honestly, if the birth control being used is "the pill", I think that the man should foot the entire financial bill. I know, this might not be a popular view. But my reasoning is that the woman "pays" by altering her body chemistry. There are many health risks to this. I think we take this too lightly.
Also - and this is also not a popular view - but men have so many fewer physical risks to contend with as a result of sex. They don't need to see a separate doctor (and pay the bill) once per year for invasive exams. They don't have the same risks with infertility, cervical cancer, vaginal and urinary tract infections that are often brought on as a result of sexual activity. Add to this the fact that they are often more pushy and interested in sex. I think it's just a biological fact that sex is more important to them than it is to women. I know we often don't like to admit that.
Another important thing to consider: when taking the pill, pregnancy is still possible. The woman is still bearing the brunt of this risk. Honestly, I think that footing the financial end is very minor compared to the rest of what the woman pays, physically.
Lastly (and this one continues to baffle me), if men love sex so much and are so driven to have it, why *would* any of them would balk at footing the financial bill to facilitate it happening more often and with less worry and complication? Especially if this ensures them, well... more sex!
I really truly think that if a man isn't willing to foot the bill for sex-related risks and supplies, he can't possibly want it *that* bad!
Posted by: Diane | December 27, 2007 at 08:04 PM
to anon 12/12 6:20-
you'd be surprised how many college guys DON'T take it upon themselves to buy condoms, or even go over to the health center, where they give them out for free. my ex-boyfriend never kept condoms on hand, and then did not understand why I wouldn't have sex with him.
and Emily-
having premarital sex does not make you a whore. sure, it might not be a good idea and sure, there are plenty of girls who are promiscuous. Maybe I am reading your comment incorrectly, but it seemed as if you were saying that any girl who was engaging in premarital sex obviously has a whorish attitude, dresses like a hooker, sleeps around, and shouldn't expect to get any respect from men. I, for one, am offended by that. No, I'm not a virgin, but that doesn't mean I'm running around campus in stilettos and mini skirts with all kinds of cleavage hanging out. No one should disrespect a person because of their personal decisions, period. In addition, what kind of a guy would date a girl he doesn't respect? if you're dating someone because you think that they're an easy lay, the problem is with BOTH parties, not just the girl.
Posted by: Emmeline | December 28, 2007 at 08:48 PM
There's a 5-letter chatroom acronym that springs to mind but which I hesitate to type as it's not very modest :o) But even with the profanity it contains, it would have been better advice than what she got, which was instructions on how to better capitulate to being used sexually by her boor-friend.
Why is it young women are continually given this crappy advice? Why are we being schooled to be ever-flatter doormats? Why is it rude to tell a young woman she shouldn't put up with such things? Why do we offer advice on how to 'keep' this dork, as opposed to pointing out that... well, this dude might be a bad bet, y'know?
Posted by: Emily | January 10, 2008 at 03:58 AM
Woman have the legal right to abort during just about any point of a nine month pregnancy in every state in the US. A man's opinion is treated as worthless. Women don't even have to notify the father when they get an abortion. Conversely, if a woman decides to keep the child and the man doesn't want it, he becomes financialy bound by her choice for 18 years. Steve Martin said it best in the movie "Parenthood" - "Women have choices, men have responsibilities." Given these basic facts about reproduction in the modern world, I think it shouldn't be a big deal when men don't offer to help pay for birth control.
Posted by: Daniel | January 13, 2008 at 10:49 PM
I seem to be one of the few who've had a considerate ex - the ex I was the most serious about always bought the condoms, and when I was complaining about the method of birth control I was using being dropped by my drug plan when my school switched carriers, he just said he'd buy it for me, no problem.
As an aside, that wasn't entirely the point to my complaining, the plan switch was a breach of contract with the previous provider, and with us, I was thinking that their bait and switch wasn't entirely legal, but it was good to know he was at least *somewhat* considerate (even if he still eventually ran away)!
As usually the guy's the one who wants it more, he should be bending over backwards to take care of the girl in that department, if he expects to get some.
Posted by: Rachael | January 18, 2008 at 11:22 AM
I agree with Daniel. It shouldn't be a big deal when men don't offer to help pay for birth control. Along with that I think it also shouldn't be a big deal to the man when women don't want to have sex with him. And it also shouldn't be a big deal to the man if he does have sex with a woman, and then has to care for a child for the next 18 years.
Birth control is a really easy way for a man to avoid at least some of the risks of possibly creating the child with the woman, and then "being financially bound by her choice for 18 years". It's not really her choice that he's being bound by. It's his (and her) choice to have had sex in the first place. Sex leads to babies. We all know that! It's common knowledge.
If a man doesn't want to deal with that possibility, he doesn't have to have sex with a woman. It's HIS choice to have sex that creates the baby in the first place. Daniel's post makes it sound like women are forcing sex on men, and then the poor men have to deal with HER selfish "choices" regarding the consequences. I don't think that's the case at all.
Posted by: Sarah | January 19, 2008 at 11:00 AM
I agree with Sarah. If men want to have sex and the woman gets pregnant then they should be equally as enthusiastic about being fathers. It is important to remember that no form of birth control, other than abstinence is 100% effective. Condoms fail and so does the Almighty birth control pill. People are aware of this when they have sex (or they should be), and this includes the man. Abortions can be extremely damaging to a woman's body. I have already written about these potential effects in some of my notes above. As a result, if a woman gets pregnant and decides that she doesn't want the abortion then that is completely understandable and unlike Daniel's position I feel that the man should suck it up. He knew that the woman could still get pregnant, even if she was on birth control and he CHOSE to have sex with her. So, if the result is a baby then c'est la vie...time to grow up and accept the responsbility that comes with sex, instead of just enjoying the benefits!
Posted by: Rachel | January 26, 2008 at 06:27 PM
I completely agree with Sarah and Rachel. I'm so tired of men complaining about having to pay up/be bound by the woman's choice for 18 years etc etc.
Posted by: Jen | January 31, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Hi Jen,
I am tired of men stating that they should have the right to decide whether or not they want to have the child and that they shouldn't have to be "bound" by the responsibility. However, I am equally as tired of hearing women say that they should have the freedom to have an abortion as they don't want to be bound by the responsibility. When people have sex, they should accept the responsibiltity that comes along with it. If that means getting pregnant, then they should be responsible enough to have the child. If one is not willing to assume carriage of responsibilty then they should not be having sex. From a practical perspective I believe that we each should be the author of our own life. No one should have the right to take our life away from us. As a result, no one (man or woman) should be allowed to take the life of an unborn child. It further angers me to hear fallacious claims that the unborn child is not really a child. In the United States, in some states a woman can have an abortion up until the 9th month, provided the baby doesn't come out! This is pathetic. Don't tell me that it is not a child in the woman's womb. My younger sister was born almost 1 month premature. When she was born she had to be put in a incubator and a lot of extra measures had to be taken to preserve her life. However, I assure you she was not "just a bunch of cells" when she was born. She was a baby who cried and had life. In turn, when a woman has an abortion she is not simply terminating "a bunch of cells" or something that "would have been a child." Rather she is taking the life of an innocent child who cannot so much as even defend itself. I do not support capital punishment however, when criminals are sentenced to capital punishment at least they have the opportunity to defend themselves and make their pleas. However, when babies are aborted, they are not even afforded the same opportunity. We reserve the death penalty for the most harsh of crimes yet we choose to give the same punishment to innocent children who are guilty of nothing other than being born!
Posted by: Rachel D'Souza | January 31, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Who should pay for birth control is a moot point, as it is a question that each individual person will have their own answer to. The real question here is this- why is the government now trying to make it MORE difficult for young women to have access to birth control? Do they WANT girls to get STDS or get pregnant?
Posted by: blondein_tokyo | February 04, 2008 at 08:48 AM
Just wanted to add one thing- you can get free condoms in many places. Right now, it doesn't cost $50 to protect yourself- but if the government has it's way, it soon will.
Posted by: blondein_tokyo | February 04, 2008 at 08:50 AM
I am in a serious long term relationship with the man I hope to be with permanently and have children with when the time is right. Although using the IUD, I got pregnant after we had been together a year. I originally planned to have an abortion, but was deeply distressed when I saw the scan of the foetus. The obstetrician said she would not recommend me for an abortion unless she was sure I was completely at peace with it, and told me that although the clinic I went to was very rigorous in only granting abortions to women who were at peace with their decision, nevertheless fully two thirds of women who had abortions regretted them and suffered serious trauma.
She gave me a timeframe in which it she would be willing to abort if it was my final decision, told me to come and see her every week until I had decided one way or the other, and was very encouraging about other options such as adoption, either by strangers or by a family member whom I have already helped to have a baby through egg donation. My boyfriend said he would support whatever decision I made, although his feelings were strongly in favour of parenthood.
In the end I decided to keep the baby. Abortion felt like it would be too violent and traumatic an action on so many levels. In a horrible irony I had a second trimester miscarriage, losing my daughter at 18 weeks. This is where it gets complicated. I mourn that loss as the loss of a baby, a daughter. We named her, and buried her. I have pictures of her and still weep with the lack of the baby that I could never hold in my arms. Neverthless I know, from my very intense and painful experience that she was not yet a person at the time of her death. She was in the process of becoming a person. I attribute personhood to my baby, because she would have become one, and because it is necessary to have a focus for one's intense grief, which is uniquely complex and painful. Abortion would not have hurt her; she had not yet developed a nervous system with which to feel pain. It would have damaged me, for a liftime.
Although I could not have had an abortion, and I am eternally grateful for the obstetrician's compassionate and strongly ethical care of me and my potential baby, I still know that it can sometimes be the least wrong choice for a woman to terminate a pregnancy, as long as it is done early on. It is not the same as murder, although it is tragic, and it is necessary that safe and legal abortions should be available for women who need them. I say need; as many of you rightly point out, it is not merely a lifestyle choice. I'm sorry for going on at such length, but for many of us the issue is complex, and cannot be treated with a blunt one size fits all ethic. I am in the UK by the way, and the care I received was on the NHS. I don'y know how my experience might have differed in the USA.
Posted by: Rose | February 10, 2008 at 04:03 PM
Dear Rose,
Thank you for sharing your story with us. I grieve with you and am so sorry to hear of your story. I am also exceptionally proud that you made the decision that you did. I am sorry about your loss and am certain that this must be difficult for you to deal with but at the same time find comfort and consolation in knowing that you daughter's passing was an accident that happened and was not your fault.
My mother lost two children via miscarriages which was very difficult for her. One was about 4 months developed. I spare the readers the gruesome details but when she had her miscarriage parts of the baby were visible. That is, it wasn't just a bunch of cells but rather a life that had begun.
I am very happy to hear of the support that the obstetrician gave you and the fact that she shared the other possibilities with you and assured you that abortion was not the only way out.
Your story touched me greatly and reminded me of a posting I once wrote on regarding unrequited love. So often when we hear the words unrequited love we think about romantic love however, the actual word unrequited means unreturned. That is, a love that we may feel for someone that is not returned. Therefore, the concept of unrequited love extends to and should include many people from the orphan who weeps for the parents they no longer have to the parent who grieves over the loss of their child who has become a drug addict-who has lost themselves and become mixed up in a world where they don't belong.
With your words I feel as though in your heart you too must feel that you have unrequited love for your child. You miss and love the child that you never had the chance to meet. However, in these moments find comfort in knowing that your love is not really an unrequited love per se. For the love you have for your child does not go unreturned. Your child is in a better place with God and her love for you is very much returned and alive. She is with you now and always will be. I believe that when we are children we are in our most innocent stages of life-free from the imprints of even the smallest of transgressions. With such innocence when we go to God how can he do anything else but embrace us into his loving arms?
It is with such hope that we are saved at the end of the day-saved from our saddness and pain. Saved from our grief. When our heart is weak and heavy and our eyes swollen with tears at night-tears that no one in this world sees we must remember....we must remember that our loved one is not lost or gone but rather just away from us temporarily to some day be united again to us.
It is under the mantle of love that our spirits shall be lifted so that the heaviness in our souls will cease to exist. Even in our darkest moments we must believe in life and love. We must believe even if we have doubts. For faith is faith because we do not have proof. If we had proof we wouldn't need faith. However, be thankful that we do not always have proof for with faith our souls are able to be taken to a higher level. When we believe we become courageous. Our courage facilitates so much. It allows us to be the people that we yearn to be and love in the way that we are meant to love.
I conclude by saying that my heart grieves the most not for the one who has lost their life but rather their love. For if our corporal bodies were to cease a mere norm would have occurred. However, if our love was to cease a flagrant tragedy would have occurred and for this we should grieve to no end.
Posted by: Rachel D'Souza | February 13, 2008 at 11:53 PM
With respect to the comment
"Just wanted to add one thing- you can get free condoms in many places. Right now, it doesn't cost $50 to protect yourself- but if the government has it's way, it soon will," I have a few things to say.
First of all while you do get condoms in some places condoms are not fool proof. Condoms break and women get pregnant. However, even by spending $50/month you are still not engaging in fool proof bith control. Even women on the pill get pregnant believe it or not. The only 100% effective form of birth control in abstinence.
I found the part where blondgirl said "it doesn't cost $50 to protect yourself- but if the government has it's way, it soon will" to be very interesting. You are quite right. I agree with you but probably not in the sense you think. I agree with you that it doesn't cost $50/month for a sexually active woman to protect herself. There is not price tag a woman can put on "protecting herself" or any amount of money that she could pay to be protected. For a woman who is sexually active makes herself vulnerable to the man she is intimate with.
That is why it is adviseable to wait until marriage to have sex. Because when a woman becomes intimate with a man she bonds with him and nothing in the world can spare her from that. No amount of money could "protect her."
I realise Blondgirl that you probably meant this from a physical protection more than an emotional one but I just thought that I'd throw this out there anyhow.
Posted by: Rachel D'Souza | February 14, 2008 at 12:02 AM
It's misleading to say that women must abstain from sex in order to avoid pregnancy- it simply is NOT TRUE. The pills isn't 100%; condoms aren't 100%; but how about using BOTH at the same time? Doesn't that just make sense, anyway, as you are protected from disease and pregnancy at the same time?
Any doctor will tell you that the odds of getting pregnant when using multiple forms of birth control are virtually nil. However, every morning when you get in your car to go to work, the odds of getting into a car accident are actually VERY high.
The point is, we don't avoid driving, or skiiing, or any other risky activity just because there is a SLIGHT change of getting hurt or killed. Yet, we ask women to avoid sex so as to avoid the very small chance of getting of getting pregnant. Why? Why pick out sex from the dozens of risky activities we do every day, and demonize it in this way?
Sex always gets picked on. Sex is always seen as leading people to embrace an "instant gratification" culture, and leading them down a path to moral destruction. Well, so does fast food. So does TV. So does a lot of things that the modern world embraces and takes for granted. Yet, we take all this time out, expend all this energy, all those billions of tax dollars spent on totally useless abstinence education. Why?
Because religion demonizes sex, and religious people want to push their values down the rest of our throats. That's why.
And I said- free condoms are distributed in many places, and Planned Parenthood (among other organizations) provide the pill free or at reduced prices.
The point is, there is reliable birth control available for every single woman in the US, and there is no real reason that every one of them shouldn't take advantage of that, and enjoy her sexuality to the fullest- as she personally sees fit, and feels emotionally able to.
Posted by: blondein_tokyo | February 22, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Blonde in Tokyo, pardon my nitpicking focus here but, your last line "enjoy her sexuality to the fullest- as she personally sees fit, and feels emotionally able to" seems in itself as an admission that a free for all sexuality that is ready to be "taken advantage of" is in fact emotionally taxing - or worse. Am I wrong in my reading of this...?
I think there are many ways in which overly accessible contraception rather than knowledge of the real implications of the different modes of expressing sexuality, or choosing not to express it for the time being and aiming for deeper relationships or understanding of such first, actually limits the feeling of choice and leaves a lot of the youngest with the feeling that physical protection is the only advice there is - this in turn can actually lead ( in my opinion ) to more risky decisions, pregnancies and diseases rather than less. Education should go deeper than just the physical.
Posted by: priya | February 28, 2008 at 12:27 AM
"The point is, there is reliable birth control available for every single woman in the US, and there is no real reason that every one of them shouldn't take advantage of that, and enjoy her sexuality to the fullest- as she personally sees fit, and feels emotionally able to."
Ms Blonde In Tokyo - do you think we should live as an endurance test and do what we are able to or should we benefit from the wisdom of others, our own intuition and observations and do what will give us the most meaning and satisfaction in our lives. The freedom to take advantage of our sexuality in the most open ways is for many an incessant pressure to hide our individual yearnings for more integrated lasting experiences.
Posted by: Priya | March 06, 2008 at 03:43 PM
Haven't read every comment; forgive me if I repeat anything said already.
I think this is just another fallout from the "my body, my choice" movement. If a woman believes that she has total rights over the growing life in her womb, whether it gets to live or die, and irrespective of what the father thinks of it, or anyone else, why should the responsibility for kindling that life be any different. Mothers have the option to "opt out" of motherhood by abortion, and fathers have the option to opt out by running. If that responsibility can be avoided, why should men even bother to consider the lesser responsibility of preventing a badly-timed conception?
It seems to be (at least in part) just another unfortunate result of the pro-choice movement and "sexual liberation". We live in a culture that shirks at every opportunity the responsibility created by sexual activity.
Posted by: Amanda | March 10, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Isn't birth control demeaning to women? It says "I want your body but not all of it." It turns women into an object for desire. Fertility is part of our make-up but people see it as a problem. Who needs birth control when we have chastity? Why stuff up your body for someone who doesn't like your whole person? When you consider a woman is lucky if she's fertile 25% of the month it seems mindless not to work with it. If you don't like the consequences then don't do the deed.
Posted by: Diane | March 19, 2008 at 02:48 PM
I spoke with you about this in person tonight, but I wanted to put it down in a comment on your blog, too, because this is very important to me.
The evidence that you cited about birth control pills decreasing women's sexual drive in the long term is bunk. This is coming from the doctor who prescribed my BCPs, an OB/GYN and a scientist who heads a well-known institute of women's reproductive biological research and happens to also be my father:
"Retrospective studies (like the one quoted there) are replete with biases, especially when dealing with difficult issues, such as sexual function. Moreover, [there is no evidence that] elevated SHBG leads to sexual dysfunction. Also, not all BCPs are the same. You cannot do such a study on 30-60 patients and publish in a reputable journal."
Wendy, this study is crying wolf. You can't spread this kind misinformation and claim to be doing good. Most people lack the time, resources and training needed to follow up on this stuff. Intellectual honesty REQUIRES that you refrain from citing studies published in the scientifically irresponsible Journal of Sexual Medicine. Please be more careful!
Posted by: Ronni | April 02, 2008 at 11:35 PM
There is a dichotomy being established here of reckless, unhealthy, dangerous sexual behavior or abstinence until marriage. I don't think that anything in this world is that black and white, and I certainly don't think that the issue of sex is.
Respect is something that can be present in any relationship, sexual or otherwise, as long as women demand that it is there. How about serious monogamous relationships that are not marriages? How about people outside of the heterosexual paradigm?
Putting the emphasis on the social institution of marriage doesn't seem liberating to me. There is no inherent human benefit to marriage - it's a social construct. One that I, personally, respect and value, but a construct nonetheless.
What's liberating is the ability to know myself well enough to decide when it's right for me to have sex. And sometimes that can be a one night stand, and sometimes that can be with someone I love. But I don't think see any evidence that suggests that I can't have beautiful, loving, perfect sex that uplifts me as person outside of a simple, civil institution.
Posted by: Eliza | April 03, 2008 at 03:05 PM
The pill is not only used to prevent pregnancies! I am not sexually active but am on the pill to literally save my life. I suffer from some physical ailments that would require invasive surgery if it were not for the pill. This medication literally saves my life every month!
To the girl--i have no idea what your bf's financial situation is like, but he should at least pay for part of it if the only reason you are on it is for him. also, studies show that couples who cohabitate before marriage are more likely to get divorced over the course of the marriage. something to keep in mind, and good luck!
Posted by: Liora Sitelman | April 28, 2008 at 07:27 PM
A young woman who can pay for her own birth control is not "Empowered", she's just protecting herself.
I don't get up every morning saying "Whoa! Now I take my hormones! I'm empowered! I'm a true woman". I won't ask a men to pay for my own pills, still if I'm not in a relationship.
Posted by: Silvia Barbina | May 20, 2008 at 05:17 AM
I was recently in a relationship with a man who insisted that I go on the pill (he also, boorishly, insisted that "condoms take all the fun out of sex"). When I asked him if he was going to pay his share of the contraception, he blanched. "No way babe, you're on your own there." Needless to say, that relationship didn't last very long! I say we stop giving men a free ride and hold them responsible, esp. if they are insisting that we take chemicals to alter our hormones (which I find intrusive to say the least!)
Posted by: Sadie Marlowe | May 24, 2008 at 03:44 PM