Pages

March 11, 2012

Aisle 19 Musings on Sex, Birth Control and the War on Women


The things you start thinking about when you stop by the drug store to buy tampons …

Like, whether it’s appropriate to use the t-word in a first paragraph of a blog post. I might offend some sensibilities -- maybe all those social conservatives who don’t want to deal with human reproductive matters unless it involves limiting women’s reproductive choices.

I was in Aisle 19 of the CVS Pharmacy in the Countrywood shopping center the other day, and it got my mind running over the personal and the political around sex, birth control and what's being called a GOP-led War on Women. 

As the sign hanging above the aisle indicated, this is where a customer would find goods related to “Feminine Care” and “Family Planning.” 

So, in Aisle 19 there were tampons for sale, as well as anti-fungal ointments to treat vaginal itching. I know, Eww!

I couldn’t imagine any men entering Aisle 19. For one thing, they’d have to pass through its gauntlet of feminine mystery. On one side, there are shelves holding the aforementioned tampons and creams; on the other side, maxi pads.

Of course, this is the aisle where men would find products pertaining to their role in procreation and transmitting STDs. I’m talking condoms, including varieties like Trojans Ultra Thin Lubricated Condoms.

“Over 25 percent thinner than standard condoms.”

“Designed for a more natural feeling.”

You hear all the time about how men don’t like using condoms. This apparent antipathy to prophylactics is a real concern for sex workers around the world, trying to protect themselves from HIV and other diseases.  The female condom was developed as an alternative. Apparently, the American porn industry is in an uproar over a new Los Angeles city ordinance that requires male actors to wear condoms. Industry officials in America’s porn capital say audiences – the majority of whom are men – find prophylactics a turnoff.

OK, I'm meandering but I can’t help but see a connection between the setup of Aisle 19 and attitudes and institutions that keep men at a remove from the day-to-day mess and mechanics of sex.  

Actually, most men I know don't deliberately remove themselves from these matters. They see themselves as partners in birth control and family planning. They make it to ultrasound appointments for their pregnant partners, and help out in labor and delivery rooms. They would probably venture into Aisle 19 and buy those Trojans themselves if that’s the contraception they and their partners agreed upon. And, they wouldn't hesitate to pick up a pack of feminine hygiene products for their girlfriends or wives. 

Still, family planning a women’s problem, not withstanding the good intentions of such evolved men. With regard to Aisle 19, CVS probably made a marketing decision in displaying male condoms products next to "feminine care." After all, women make the majority of condom purchases. 
 
Right now, there are Republican-led efforts at the federal level and in multiple states to limit access to contraception and abortion.  You have older male religious leaders in a mostly male-only Congressional hearing dismissing a woman’s choice to use contraception as almost a frivolous life-style choice – like choosing to get a tummy tuck or Botox injections.  You have Rush Limbaugh calling a woman a slut for wanting to use birth control. You have new laws, such as the one in Texas, that requires a woman seeking an abortion to first undergo a transvaginal ultrasound.

In a lot of ways our national consciousness and public policies on sex, birth control and women's rights are at risk of falling back a century.

Back in 1916, Margaret Sanger opened her first birth control clinic. Sanger’s own mother went through 18 pregnancies in 22 years.  Sanger articulated a pretty basic but powerful idea: A woman’s potential to lead a healthy life and enjoy equal status in society depends on her ability to determine when to bear children.

Sanger’s idea established birth control as a fundamental component of preventative health care for females of child-bearing age. Over the past century and around the world, we have seen the strong link between a nation’s economic development and the growing status of its women, which is largely dependent on their ability to choose when to get pregnant and how many children they will have.

It seemed that Sanger’s basic idea had become a given in developed societies -- but not anymore. Conservative politicians and religious leaders are trying to  tell the public that contraception isn’t a necessary part of women’s health care. 

Scary that such early 20th century thinking is gaining any momentum in 2012.

What else will you find it Aisle 19? Home pregnancy tests. They are on the shelf to the right of condoms, which in turn are to the right of maxi pads. 

The left-to-right placement of these products creates something of a narrative about the cycle of human reproduction, the cycle of life. From menstruation to the possibility sex, for which a woman needs to take protective measures. Otherwise, she'll end up needing to buy one of those test kits, which will deliver news that will either make her very happy or leave her terrified and in despair.

It's a cycle to which all women are well acquainted. It also makes Aisle 19. and its counterparts in pharmacies, grocery stores and big-box stores all around the world, a regular shopping destination.

5 comments:

Old Fart said...

we stay out of this conversation for a reason

Anonymous said...

As a Republican man who loves women and who has no objection to contraception and isn't afraid to pick it up in the local drug store, the idea that there is a war on women is ludicrous. This all started because the Obama admin attempted to force churches to provide contraception knowing that it was against certain church belief systems. The admin then backpedalled a bit and tried to compromise by stating that an exception would be granted to churches but not to church run charities such as hospitals. I have yet to hear anyone argue that women (or men for that matter) should not be able to go the local drug store and buy as much contraception as they want. I have only heard that the govt should not be allowed to force churches (or any other provider for that matter) to provide contraception as part of every health plan. Whether contraception is a good idea (I happen to believe it is) is a different question as to whether the govt should be able to mandate its inclusion in health coverage. Now, to end on a lighter note, maybe people should use that contraception and make love, not war (on women "and men" who use it).

Thud said...

I mostly avoid your political posts but limbaugh and the slut name calling incident was a little more than him slandering her for wanting contraception Apparently a sizeable percentage of female students at elite Georgetown are suffering financial hardship as they pay for contraception....and we are supposed to believe this? both sides are idiots.

Christina said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christina said...

Thud, I believe it could lead to financial hardship. The NuvaRing — often considered a healthier option because of lower estrogen levels — is on average about $80 per month without insurance. I would say that can turn into a financial burden for those on the "starving student" track.

I have to say, while most political debates are rife with agendas on both sides, lately I've been taken aback by some of the things conservatives and Republicans are saying and the bills they've been promoting about "women's issue." And so far, every woman I've spoken with about this agrees — that alone should send a clear message to the GOP, especially since the remaining presidential candidates haven't positively contributed to the situation in a significant way.