Comments on: Contraception before The Pill

By: More on “the bloody, rich mulch of life:” Part II of my interview with The Republic of Nature author Mark Fiege : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:36:56 +0000

[...] A recent book that I deeply admire and that speaks to all of these issues in particular ways is Susan Klepp’s Revolutionary Conceptions, some of the insights of which I incorporated into The Republic of Nature. As an environmental [...]

By: PalMD

PalMD — Mon, 17 May 2010 17:29:37 +0000

I think that we, as physicians, help perpetuate this view, since our profession is in many ways technology-driven. This influence of technology is not a bad thing in and of itself, but it’s easy to pick up an ahistorical view of these things when you look at the tools that are available now.

That’s why I think it’s necessary to remind our charges (students, residents) that despite our tech advances in birth control, birth control is still problematic. Griswold wasn’t long ago, and simply legalizing it did not make it safe, effective, and available.

By: demographer

demographer — Sun, 16 May 2010 10:18:57 +0000

Interesting blog, I have subscribed

By: Knitting Clio

Knitting Clio — Mon, 10 May 2010 20:05:49 +0000

I’ve had a few posts up recently reflecting on the history of the pill — just finished May’s book and will write about it when the semester is over. I’m not bothering with the Sommers interview. If anyone wants to read about pre-pill contraceptive technology, see Andrea Tone’s _Devices and Desires_.

By: Janice

Janice — Mon, 10 May 2010 02:31:10 +0000

Much agreement with ej and Perpetua. Since early modern physicians, midwives and lawmakers focused their chronology and physiology of pregnancy so much on the quickening (i.e. the detection of fetal movements by outside observers), this really meant that there was a fairly open period in early pregnancies where women could seek the restoration of their regular menstrual flow (i.e. procure an early abortion) without official sanction.

Also, am I the only one who was kind of bemused to learn that the men who were behind the pill felt that by preserving the menstrual cycle (with days off of the hormonal treatment) they’d be “more natural” and more acceptable to the church?

By: Perpetua

Perpetua — Sun, 09 May 2010 23:21:00 +0000

I second H’ann’s characterization of Collin’s discussion of contraception in earlier history as condescending. While certainly nothing was as effective as modern contraception, pre-modern women (and men) had access to a wealth of information about contraception and abortificants, largely herbal (in addition to things like charms) – and they certainly knew about pulling out!

By: Notorious Ph.D.

Notorious Ph.D. — Sun, 09 May 2010 20:21:04 +0000

Market for a male pill, my ass. People were talking about this when I was in high school, and my friends and I looked at each other and asked “Would you trust that the guy took this every day, just because he said he did, when he wouldn’t have to face the consequences?” Then we dissolved into giggles.

By: Indyanna

Indyanna — Sun, 09 May 2010 19:34:18 +0000

I don’t have the specific electronic link, but it’s an interview in today’s NYT Magazine, p. 16, with questions by Deborah Solomon–the title is “Craft Work.”

By: thefrogprincess

thefrogprincess — Sun, 09 May 2010 18:33:30 +0000

Funny, I was just watching the May-Sommers interview independent of this post. I really liked the exchange between the two of them over the level of litigiousness, especially when May described trial lawyers as some of our most important defenders of democracy (or something like that). Our society is incredibly litigious to a point that is detrimental, I agree. But Sommers looks only in one direction: the people she claims are trying to gain something or game the system. She fails to wonder why there is so much corporate malfeasance that attracts so much legitimate litigation. It strikes me that in this country, we’re so enamored with business and capitalism that we’ve lost sight of the sectors where profit should not be the driving factor: pharmaceuticals, education, health insurance/medicine, defense. (This is well off topic but briefly, I’ve been seeing a lot of interviews with Richard Clarke, who’s arguing that our complete aversion to regulation is leaving the US incredibly vulnerable to cyberattack because the current policy of the government is to defend itself but the private sector is on its own. That includes power grids, utilities, trains, everything but military defense, all because it’s political suicide to come down hard with regulations that protect us.)

I thought May handled herself well against Sommers’s nonsense.

By: Comrade PhysioProf

Comrade PhysioProf — Sun, 09 May 2010 18:25:34 +0000

Sounds like a very interesting book! It’s going on my reading list.