This week marks the 50th anniversary of the revolutionary contraceptive pill, which is still, at middle age, enjoying guilt-free sex. Life without “the pill” is something that may be regarded inconceivable (excuse the pun) to many women: young, old, married, single, monogamous. Many who now use it for much more than the prevention of unwanted pregnancy, to treat acne, improve mood and control menstruation.
Of course, contraception was never as simple and available as it is now. Although alternative remedies for contraception have been used for roughly 4,000 years, nothing has ever been as effective as the contraceptive pill. Women in ancient China consumed mercury, Indigenous tribes in Eastern Canada drank tea made from beaver testicles (yum yum) and in one ancient medical manuscript, women were instructed to crush dates, honey and tree bark together to form a paste and apply it in places where the sun certainly does not shine. The Arabs, who definitely did not have animal welfare sensitivities, used to place pebbles in the uteruses of their camels to prevent pregnancies, and 2nd-century BCE recorded the use of
early diaphragms involving an enticing mixture of elephant dung, seaweed and apricot pit
The fight for the the scientific world to surpass the cultural and legal pressures of the past is a struggle that should still be appreciated by all women today. Cultural institutions like churches who long feared that contraceptives as widely and readily available as the pill produce sexual anarchy, however it seems these views are not vastly outdated. Raquel Welch has recently pointed the finger at the contraceptive pill for the degeneration of “sexual morality”. Ironically, the 70s sex symbol believes that the pill, legally introduced in the 1960s, has fuelled promiscuity and subverted the institute of marriage which many younger generations now consider a mere option. She discussed the prevalence of “sex without any consequences”, however I’m not sure quite sure I agree with Welch’s view on the decline of moral standards even half as much as I agree with the decline of her thorough understanding of social constructs.
To equate sex and contraception with morality is very simplistic. Even if Welch were correct in her assumptions about the social and cultural effects of the pill and promiscuity, how is this linked to the concept of morality? And if the pill has in fact contributed to sexual immorality, then what does this views have to say about other sex-related, socially acceptable forms of medicine, such as Viagra?
Perhaps we will leave the issue of abortion for another day.
