Crocodile dung, Queen Anne’s Lace and Lysol:
A History of Contraceptives
Part three concludes the summary of women’s contraceptive practices over the past 4,000 years. Defying death, sin, laws and the medical community, women have historically sought control over their fertility.
As the sun rose on 20th century America, contraceptive information remained in darkness. While Americans wrestled with the legal, moral, and practical issues of contraception, the Comstock morality continued to imprison women’s power over their fertility. Then, inadvertently, a war reintroduced the condom, but not for contraception.
Venereal disease was a widespread public health problem when World War I broke out. In 1917, with VD infection rates in new recruits at 5.6%, and in some areas as high as 25%, the crisis of soldier health became paramount to the war effort.
Unfortunately, our Defense Department was headed by “Comstock era” men who believed that VD was, in essence, the result of immoral sex. While struggling with the moral dilemma of protecting “red-blooded” troops abroad from engaging in sex, everything from punishment and loss of pay, to painful post-coital prophylaxis procedures were employed on soldiers admitting to having intercourse while on leave. While our troops endured psychological and physical trauma, the allied troops were supplied with free condoms. It wasn’t long until American troops figured out that procuring condoms protected them from venereal disease and from humiliating post-leave inquiry.
Returning U.S. soldiers brought condoms home to a grateful female population, both as a protection from venereal disease, and for the publicly silent contraceptive benefit. Because of its success in disease prevention, the condom became legal here in 1918. Prevention of venereal disease was important; unintended pregnancies were never a public concern. Condom popularity increased, as did the manufacturing and mass-marketing of inexpensive and sometimes inferior products. By 1926, condoms of latex rubber, which were uniform and of a higher quality, became available, though the inference between condoms and prostitution, or immoral sex, continued. Sales boomed in the 1920s-1930s, but the medical community and newly-vocal birth control advocates discounted men’s ability to be diligent users, stating that contraception should be solely in the woman’s control. However, with the Comstock Law still in effect, there was scant contraceptive information legally available.
Finally, in 1936, the ban on contraceptives under the Comstock Law was declared unconstitutional. Concurrently, rubber diaphragms with spermicidal jellies became the most widely prescribed contraceptive device in America. For the device to effectively work, a woman had to visit her doctor, who would “size” her and show her how to use it. But diaphragms were also available over the counter in various sizes. Perhaps because of embarrassment, finances, or want of secrecy, many women purchased their diaphragms from the drugstore, with little to no information how to size or use the product. New “modern” feminine douches came onto the market, unregulated by the medical community or the Federal Drug Administration for safety or effectiveness.
Even though contraceptives were now legal, the term “contraceptive” still held a cultural taboo. For the next thirty years, the “code” word for contraceptive suppositories and douches was “feminine hygiene”. The leading “feminine hygiene” product for those 30 years was – drumroll - Lysol! Yes, Lysol. The early formulation contained extremely caustic Cresol and was marketed by advertisements portraying “European female doctors” touting Lysol as a multi-purpose product: douche, gargle, nasal spray and household cleaner. Investigations led to the discovery that none of the “doctors” existed; it was pure fraud committed to the detriment of women’s health. Lysol never worked as a contraceptive, although many gullible women thought it would.
And what about that rhythm method? Though it regained some popularity, contradictions existed on actual timing of “non-fertile” intercourse and when to start counting, with no real knowledge of a woman’s actual cycle.
By the mid-20th century, knowledge of natural plant and herb-based contraceptives was firmly buried in history, except in secluded pockets of rural populations in “third world?” countries like China, India, and South America. Even here in Appalachia country, women used plant and herb-based contraceptives successfully. One plant, still is use to this day, is the wildflower Queen Anne’s Lace. A small amount of seeds, gathered the previous fall, taken with a glass of water, or simply chewed before intercourse successfully prevents contraception, with no side effects.
In May 1960, the “Pill” was approved by the FDA as the “first” oral contraceptive. The Pill was initially developed to control population growth in “third world” countries. Here it was also intended to curb population growth, but more particularly of certain ethnic and socioeconomic groups, thus relieving the welfare burden on middle- and upper-class (white) society. However, while cost prohibitive for the groups it was targeted for, it soon became the most popular form of birth control among that “white” society. This neat, mess-free, woman-controlled contraceptive, along with the other prescription-only products - Norplant and Depo-Provera - fueled widespread acceptance of medical birth control by both doctors and patients.
Another contraceptive device, the IUD, or intrauterine device, was known and used by women in Japan and Europe in the 1930s. Not until the 1950s did American scientists begin their own IUD research, experimenting with new plastics and all kinds of configurations and sizes, from curlicues to miniature “weapon-like” shields. In 1965, the IUD became available in the U.S., with a doctor’s visit and prescription.
Modern medicine regards itself as the preeminent source for all fertility control and contraceptive information, relegating the ancient, natural plant-based methods of contraception not as folklore, but as myth. Corporations manufacture fertility and contraceptive drugs for economic benefit; physicians prescribe contraceptives after a doctor’s exam, or offer sterilization surgery.
Encouragingly, science is reviewing and conducting studies of prescriptions contained in the ancient Greek, Roman, Arabic and Egyptian texts. They are rediscovering the plants used historically in folk and early premodern medicine.
Research using mice and rats, confirms that most of the mentioned plants and drugs tested perform as intended, with many at 100% effectiveness, without permanent sterility.
With the renaissance of organic and natural homeopathic remedies, and the scientific studies backing up the ancient potions, I can’t help but wonder what our future daughters and granddaughters might use to control their fertility. No, I don’t see animal dung pessaries returning, or Lysol douches, or new supplies of Silphium being discovered, but perhaps a return to the plant-based oral potions that worked for women so long ago.
And for the record:
I must clear up something that has provoked my curiosity for years -the supposed link between camel “IUDs” and human IUDs. My reading of four comprehensive, respected sources, and numerous online sites, reveals that, yes, Arab nomads did, and still do, insert small pebbles attached to a string into their camel uteri to effectively prevent conception on long treks. However, I have found no evidence that this method was ever employed by or on women, nomadic or otherwise. Today’s medical commentary refers to the camel practice as the “first IUD”, but without one source to back up the assertion!
Print Sources:
Contraception and Abortion in 19th Century America, 1994, Brodie, Janet Farrell, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London
Devices and Desires, A History of Contraceptives in America, 2001, Tone, Andrea, Hill and Wang, New York
A History of Contraception From Antiquity to the Present Day, 1990, McLaren, Angus, Basil Blackwell, Oxford and Cambridge, MA
Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance, 1992, Riddle, John M., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, London, England.
