A Green Response to Green Birth Control

As concerns about ecological sustainability continue to impact the ways in which people think about how their actions affect our planet, some have began to take critical looks at how and to what degree our methods of contraception degrade our natural resources. "Tree-Humper: What's the greenest form of birth control?" by Slate's Nina Shen Rastogi is one such critical inspection, though it has a few lapses of green judgment.

Writing of condom selection for the eco-minded, Rastogi correctly notes that condoms "contain preservatives and hardening agents to make sure the rubber can withstand a fair amount of friction" and that those additives "make it harder for the condoms to break down in the landfill."

Due to these factors, Rastogi recommends switching to lambskin condoms. I totally disagree for two reasons. First, lambskin condoms do not prevent the transmission of STIs like latex and polyurethane condoms do, putting you and your partner(s) at risk for infection. Why don't they protect against STIs? Well, that begets the second reason you shouldn't switch to lambskin condoms, that being that they are cruel and disgusting. Lambskin condoms are actually made of sheep, meaning that sheep are killed and their intestines harvested for the production of lambskin condoms. I don't know about you, but I really don't desire cute, now-dead sheep intestines to be anywhere near my body, much less my genitals. And, returning, why do lambskin condoms unable to protect against STIs? Because they are made of organic tissue, lambskin condoms have pores, and any viral STI is small enough to pass through said pores. Moreover, the fact that lambskin condoms are derived from sheep means that, in order to make a lambskin condom, you must first make a sheep, and that takes a lot of resources. One study by Cornell University finds that that the energy-input to meat-output ratio of sheep husbandry is 50:1. In other words, it takes fifty pounds of grain to make a single pound of sheep; with production inefficiencies like this one, lambskin condoms are hardly a "green" alternative.

Pweez don't kill me and stuff my intestines into your erogenous zones, ok?

But what about the amount of waste actually made by disposing of condoms? Well, according to Rastogi's calculations, about 1,365 tons of condom waste are produced each year in the United States, which makes condom waste less than .001% of the estimated 152 million tons of trash produced by Americans each year. For comparison, if Americans could waste only 1,365 tons of food each year, they could feed the world's hungriest several times over with the leftovers. Condom waste, then, is truly so neglible in the scope of green thinking that I feel we could focus on much more pressing things, such as the environmental effects of meat production or the continued threats of slashing environmental protection dollars.

Rastogi also exposes rising concerns about how estrogens from birth control are affecting our waters. Back in 2007, some EPA scientists found that higher concentrations of birth control hormones seeping into natural waters increased the number of intersex fish. By netting and sexing 123 fish downstream of the Boulder, Colorado water sewage treatment facility, scientists found that ten of the fish were intersex, supposedly a large number. However, this article (and the research that inspired it) fail to mention how many intersex fish are expected to be found naturally in that fish population. Oh, they didn't talk about the part in which all biosexually-dimorphous organisms have naturally-occurring intersex individuals among their populations? Cuz they do. Given that several meta-studies have disproven the myth that estrogens and phytoestrogens cause biological feminization in human males, I am highly skeptical that increased levels of mammalian sex hormones would escalate the numbers of intersex fish. In fact, the sex-determination system of fish isn't even the XX/XY system of mammals, but rather the ZW system in which males are homogametic and females are heterogametic (the opposite is true in mammals), and so any supposed correlation between human sex hormones and the biosexual expression of fish seems highly doubty.

I may not be entirely male or female, but I am ALL FABULOUS (because I'm a rainbow trout)!

Fortunately, Rastogi doesn't get caught up on this feeble argument, and instead offers that better water treatment is the best way to avoid dumping estrogens into our waterways.

So, what is something you can do to make your sex greener? Use contraception! The truth is, no matter the ways you prevent pregnancy, the truth is that the resources used to grow a person will always be greater than those to produce all forms of birth control. To make your sex even greener, you can also switch to an organic lube or stick to the internet forms of pornography to avoid excess paper production! And who said going green wasn't fun?

Being eco-conscious and sexy do mix!

Male Oral Contraceptives

Male birth control has received a lot of media attention of late, as scientists have recently succeeded in preventing sperm production in mice. Though various news sources have referred to this developing technology as "male birth control" or "male contraception," in truth, these kind of pills will be called male oral contraceptives. The "oral" part here is important because, at present, males actually have several methods of non-oral contraception, among them condoms, the "pull-out method" (technically called "coitus interruptus"), vascetomy, and castration (no thank you).

Scientists at Columbia University Medical Center have discovered that the drug being tested on mice, BMS-189453, prevents spermatogenesis, the creation of sperm cells by an adult male's body. Previous male oral contraceptive drugs have had mixed results, many of them resulting in permanent sterilization of male mice. BMS-189453, though, does not seem to cause infertility, and allows regular, healthy sperm production soon after stopping the drug, meaning that men will be able to father children if and when their family planning goals change.

I believe wholeheartedly that we should continue to develop these technologies. One reason why we ought to support the creation of male oral contraceptives for humans is for the affective reason: progress is good. The other reason why I feel we should develop these technologies further, though, is much more multifaceted: the male pill will get men more involved in contraception, meaning couples will have more opportunities for discussion and responsibility-sharing, which are the cornerstones of intimacy.

On the other hand, though, with the inevitable production of male oral contraceptives, we must also be careful to avoid the trap of single-partner contrapception responsibility. Single-partner contraception responsibility is a term I coined to expose the erroneous notion among couples that pregnancy and STI prevention is the obligation of only one partner. Unfortunately, Dr. Joseph Alukal, the director of male reproductive health at NYU's Langone Medical Center, caters to this mental pitfall when he says that "there are plenty of men in committed relationships who choose to take onus of reproductive planning on themselves." This kind of mentality supports inequality among sexual partners by suggesting that something that is both their responsibility is the burden of only one, and attitudes like these are what have been the core obstacles to the sexual liberation and equality movements.

In developing these technologies, we must also be wary of toxicity and side effects. Unfortunately, at present, oral contraceptives taken by females have several side effects, among them an increased likelihood of certain kinds of cancer, depression, and pulmonary embolism. In their report about studies of BMS-189453, ABC News notes that the drug has an unusual history: it was originally developed "as a possible treatment for skin and inflammatory diseases," and that the drug's spermatogenesis-stopping side effect was considered "toxic." Painfully, the lead author of Columbia University Medical Center's study seems not to care much about the possible damages that could affect men, saying, "One company's toxin may be another person's contraceptive." The same comment made about women's health would be considered offensive, and sexism works both ways. Men, just like women, are an advantage to family planning, and further development of male oral contraceptives must take their health into serious consideration.

Though I support further development of these technologies, it is important - vital, even - to focus on how male oral contraceptives will not protect men or their partners from sexually-transmitted infections. Hormonal methods of birth control are very effective at preventing unintended pregnancy, but they are 0% effective at warding against potentially life-threatening STIs like HIV, whose fully-developed disease form kills 1.8 million people per year. Thus, consistent, correct condom use will and must remain the preferred choice of pregnancy and infection control, and further discussion of male oral contraceptives must include this fact.

A Wider Look at Kirsten Moore's "Why We Need Contraception Innovation"

The Huffington Post's Kirsten Moore argues that people ought to be as passionate about contraception as they are their iPhones. In one brilliant line, she writes, "As a reproductive health advocate, I can't help but wonder: What if we were as devoted, critical and insistent when it comes to contraceptive technologies as we are when it comes to cell phones?" The crowning glory of her positions is, however: "OK, maybe birth control isn't as sexy as a smart phone, but shouldn't it be? Actually, shouldn't it be sexier?"

She's right. While an astounding 93% of iPhone owners are satisfied with their cell phone, only 57% of women are satisfied with their pill regimen.

This idea is mind-boggling to me. The other day, I had a heated discusssion with a dear friend about a similar topic: she feels passionately that the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP)'s side effects outweigh its benefits, while I feel that the pill remains a highly-effective method of family planning on the part of women. In truth, we're both right: COCPs have a tragically-long laundry list of potential side effects, and yet they are great at preventing pregnancy. Now, far be it from me to tell my friend that she ought to begin a pill regimen - after all, I believe that men do not deserve the ability to dictate what women should do with their bodies - but I was particularly surprised when my friend stated that one of her objections to the pill is its requirement that she take a pill daily and regularly.

Yes, that's right - she told me that taking one pill at the same time each day was just too damn hard! I couldn't believe it. If one cannot trust another to care enough about their reproductive health to take one single pill each day, how can one trust them to do much else? For instance, if a cisgender man chooses not to have his gonorrhea treated by a medical professional, how can his partner trust him to have their health and wellness in mind? And also, how could my friend forget what a huge, historic lifestyle change COCPs have been for women?

I think modern women are forgetting what a radical, incredible change the invention of the pill was. There's a reason why we call it The Pill - it's the biggie that changed everything! I know why women are undereducated about the significance and importance of the pill: abstience-only sex education proponents pressure the American government to spend $50 million annually towards abstience-only sex education through Title V. That money corners states into adopting AOSE programs, meaning that young women never learn the history of the pill. And how can a person know what they have never been taught?

Moore's article continues with examples of consumer complaints and desires regarding their COCPs. Among her examples are male oral contraception, green birth control, and "multipurpose prevention technologies." What are multipurpose prevention technologies? Multipurpose prevention technologies are innovations that simultaneously prevent pregnancy and STIs. Writes she, "Remember when we had digital cameras, phones and MP3 players crowding our purses? Now we have one multipurpose device that does it all -- and fits neatly into the pocket of those skinny jeans. Why not ask for the same from birth control? Multipurpose prevention technologies would do just that: combining pregnancy prevention with STI or HIV prevention. Like a condom, these innovations would do 'double duty' and may come in [many forms]...." Well, guess what, Kirsten Moore? We already have those, and they're called condoms!

Her thoughts about multipurpose prevention technologies in relation to women's dissatisifaction with their pill reigmens is where her argument becomes a little, well, silly, for the truth is that condoms will always be a preferable method of unintended pregnancy prevention because they, unlike hormonal methods of contraception, also protect against sexually-transmitted infections like syphilis and HIV. While there are many ways of managing an unintended pregnancy - abortion, adoption, and raising the resulting child among them - modern medicine is greatly lacking in the ability to cure the most detrimental STIs. Strangely, Moore doesn't touch on this subject. Perhaps she imagines that her audience is made entirely of monogamous opposite-sex couples who tested STI-negative prior to their sexual relationship together and thus the worry of infection or disease is not present, but as a single gay man who reads her works, I prove that her audience isn't that specific.

Moore's argument that people ought to be more invested in their family planning than they are in their possessions made by Apple isn't wrong, it's simply myopic. Instead of focusing on how women are unhappy when they have to take a single pill each day, we should focus on how proper condom use bypasses said problem by making it possible for women to forgo hormonal birth control if they so choose and has the more-than-nifty added bonus of keeping them safe from STIs.