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"?
Ronni,
How can I know that a comment by someone I know nothing about on an internet blog is more reliable than a medical journal I know nothing about? Generally speaking, I would trust the medical journal and not the random commenter! Also, the study was of 124 people, not 30-60.
Posted by: Walt | July 30, 2008 at 03:31 PM
Wendy, I have been a fan of you and your writing since I first read you in the Reader's Digest more than ten years ago (about coed bathrooms). After I read Return to Modesty, I immediately bought seven copies to give to friends. Then I began giving talks at different Chabad Houses and modesty was one of the subjects the women always brought up -- so I began bringing Return to Modesty to my talks and urging women to buy it. I spent the past week reading Girls Gone Mild and I enjoyed it immensely, in fact I could not put it down. Besides educating me about American culture, it was written in a very entertaining manner. My family could not believe I was so fascinated by non-fiction, but I was. It helped that you mentioned Stephanie Levine occasionally, and she carried out some of her interviews in my house. I saw that book happen, in a way.
In brief -- thanks for GGM -- I listen to the radio and understand what I am hearing in a whole new way now. For example, a woman calls in to find out if she should date her daughter's teacher, and the advice given is to a) use the daughter out to further(or create) the relationship, and b) wear something revealing and low cut to PTA. All I'm thinking is, "THIS IS WHAT WENDY IS TALKING ABOUT!" Thank you for your books and for being you.
Rishe
Posted by: Rishe | October 13, 2008 at 09:58 AM
The answer to this question is the equivalent of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The relationship is already on the short road to failure the moment the man and woman start thinking they can have sex without the bond of marriage and the natural consequence of that sexual act which is union and the possibility of life. The permanance of marriage allows for the freedom that sex demands by its nature. That freedom should not be confused as license to do what one wants without consequence. Rather, that freedom is the ability to give oneself freely for the good and all that it is. Why are there so many broken relationships? Because people do not respect the power of sex and all that it entails on the natural level (the supernatural is a discussion for another time). Suffice it to say that, no matter one's religious beliefs, sex has natural consequences for good or ill, depending on when it is used and how it is used. If it is used for it's natural end of union of spouses and openness to life, which can only be done freely within a marriage covenant, then it is good. If it is done outside of that marriage covenant, then the deck is already stacked against you as you are only playing "house" and not free to accept all that sex entails.
Posted by: John Tuturice | March 05, 2009 at 08:40 AM
Eeeh,has anybody in this discussion actually thought about the fact that women might LIKE having sex, sometimes with men they wouldn't dream of having children with?
The level of self-control you advocate is unobtainable but for the strongest amongst us. But it is actually possible to (as the booze-commercials say) enjoy sex responsibly. You are denying the existence of many many shades of grey by clasifying women as either sluts with no self esteem or righteous abstainers.
Indeed I agree that men who refuse to pay their share of birthcontrol are total boors, but I am also sure that that isn't the only feature of their unsuitbility as a partner.
Also, on abortion, the sad truth is that whatever decision you make, it will change your life. There's no unscathed escape. But it's also unfair to judge all women who had an abortion as selfish carefree, etc. How about the women in FSR for whom abortion was their only way of birthcontrol? Are they all total sinners? It is never an easy decision, and the last thing women need afterwards is guilt-inducing judgement.
Posted by: Eliza tK | May 28, 2009 at 05:41 PM
I'm not responding to any of the above comments, however, just to pass along a relevant story...I was shopping in the supermarket today and passed by the condom/lubricant area in the drugs/shampoo/crappy hair accessories aisle and was interested to see that the section was called "Family Planning." I have to wonder what person is coming to Safeway to grab condoms and lubricant that is thinking that he or she is participating in family planning. Really.
With the rising cost of birth control, I agree that men should absolutely have to split the costs. So interesting that most women interviewed in the article replied that they shouldn't or wouldn't even ask because they don't think they would. Makes me wonder why women on the Pill think that by doing so they're "so liberated".
Posted by: Kelley | December 22, 2009 at 02:27 AM
They are coming out with male birth control. Although, if he is unwilling to pay for hers, he probably doesn't care enough to pay for his. Abstinence till after marriage is the best. He will definitely feel more responsible then. Or will he? If he is sane, sensible, and decent...
Posted by: R | February 22, 2010 at 11:50 AM
Considering that this thread is 2 1/2 years old, I doubt that this comment will show up, but here it goes anyway. As a guy, I'd be more happy to share the cost of birth control if my gal partner were more willing to share the cost of going out (dinner, movie, etc.) more. In the beginning of a relationship, most gals EXPECT the guy to pay for most everything. Sure, a lot of guys like to pay, but part of that is because they they the gal EXPECTS them to pay for it. I meet very few women who offer to go dutch on the first few dates.
I know what you're saying: "But that's in the biginning of a relationship." Why is ok for the guy to bear the majority of the financial burden of a relationship, but then be expected to chip in equally when her expenses begin to mount up? Seems like the guy paying for going out and the gal paying for birth control is a more or less balanced approach. Ladies: if you want your man to share in the cost of birth control, you better offer to go dutch when dating him. Otherwise, you're all hypocrites.
Posted by: norm | June 28, 2010 at 11:52 AM
i didn't mean to sound misogynistic in my first post. as a guy i just see women constantly asserting their rights without ever really considering the bigger picture of gender roles in relationships.
for example, another complaint i often hear from ladies is "why don't guys ever ask me out?" well, the answer to your question is sitting under your nose! ask yourself, "why don't i ever ask guys out?" it's largely the same reason: fear of rejection. but men aren't supposed to be afraid of rejection, or we're supposed to be able to take it because we're "the man." give me a break. newsflash ladies: men have feelings too, and just because we do doesn't mean we're not real men.
Posted by: norm | June 29, 2010 at 08:14 AM