No, You Don’t Need Pills
Filed under: Uncategorized — Giulianna Maria Lamanna @ 11:14 AM
A common concern among women who stumble upon primitivism (usually through their boyfriends or husbands) is that living primitively is necessarily anti-feminist, since there is no way for a woman to control when or if she gets pregnant without the help of latex condoms, pills, and so forth. But looking at the grand sweep of human history, this is patently untrue. All primitive peoples practice some form–usually multiple forms–of birth control. In a nomadic society, it’s essential to keep the population low because you can’t have more babies than you can carry from one camp to the next. (And when you practice attachment parenting and late weaning, that reduces the number of babies even lower than a number we Westerners might imagine.)
It was agriculture that set the frantic birthing pattern that turned women into baby-making machines; after all, when you no longer have to move around twice a year, and when folks normally die of malnutrition at age 30, making as many new babies as quickly as possible becomes a pretty good idea. However, even with this cultural pressure–and the patriarchy that began to develop along with it–the knowledge of herbs that work as birth control or abortifacients continued to be passed down through generations of women.
Sister Zeus is the most popular (and, as far as I can tell, most comprehensive) online source of information on fertility management. It outlines not just methods of contraception, but sexual health and anatomical information as well. It also provides book recommendations. There’s pretty much nothing I could tell you that’s more helpful than, “Go to Sister Zeus.” So that’s what I’ll do. But even so, here’s a pitifully brief overview of the options you have available to you:
The best-known method of “natural” contraception is called fertility awareness, and simply boils down to knowing your own body. This can be incredibly difficult in our society. We tend to view our bodies as useful tools that happen to be attached to our brains, and unfortunately every so often we have to take a break from working to insert food into them or let them lie down for a while, or our productivity will plummet. It’s often easier to take pills that mess with your hormones just so you don’t have to bother checking your mucus. The classic book Taking Charge of Your Fertility tells you how to pay more attention to your own body, and thereby reduce your risk of pregnancy.
Of course, you’re never going to reduce your risk to zero, which is why it’s generally recommended that you double (or triple) up on methods. The best way to reduce your risk of pregnancy to the lowest number possible is to use several different methods at once and pay attention! If you’re using herbal contraceptives, remember to take the recommended dosage and no less. If you’re using fertility awareness, actually be aware. And if you’re pulling out, actually pull out. And so on, and so forth. And, of course, none of the birth control methods discussed here or in sites linked from here prevent STD’s. One assumes that if you’re living in a tribal society, STD’s are not exactly a huge issue.
I should provide a disclaimer when it comes to herbal contraceptives and abortofacients: I haven’t actually tried any of them out myself. I don’t know if the information I’ve linked to here is legitimate or not. Please don’t use any of these herbs without cross-referencing their effectiveness and safety. Herbal medicines are serious business, especially ones that can induce miscarriage. And if you’re planning on gathering these plants personally, do be careful. Use all the usual field guide precautions, like not collecting near a roadside and carefully comparing lookalikes. I would highly recommend consulting a professional herbalist (or two) before starting any herbal treatment, period. And for the love of God, don’t use essential oils. Save those for perfume; keep them out of your mouth.
That said, herbs have been widely, historically used for this purpose. Herbal contraceptives range from suppressing ovulation to acting as spermicides to acting as morning-after pills. One book I’ve found on the subject (though it’s written for pregnant women and also covers herbal treatments to keep you and your baby healthy during your pregnancy) is called Wise Woman Herbal for the Childbearing Year. As it so happens, the author, Susan Weed, has provided online excerpts from the book discussing herbal contraceptives.
And then there’s the barrier method. Here’s where we get a bit icky, if you’re squeamish: before there was latex or rubber, there was animal skin. Oh, stop making that face. If you’ve ever eaten a hot dog, you have no leg to stand on, believe me. Sheep intestines have been used as condoms for millennia, and believe it or not, you can still buy them from a real store, like in packaging and everything. They call them “lambskin” condoms, though, presumably because there’s something about the phrase “sheep intestine” that makes people not want to put the product inside them. I have heard, however, that they are far more comfortable and pleasurable for the guy than any other condom. Yet another example of modern science failing to meet Paleolithic standards of comfort.
Everything you need to manage your fertility can be found outside of a lab. You just have to know where to look. And of course, pay attention!
Another awesome story, thanks! I’d agree with your wise recommendation to definitely double or triple up on measures taken.
I have just one small beef. I call upon all women discussing fertility awareness to rewild their language! I don’t know who decided our cervixes produce mucus–sounds to me like snot, like phlegm, like something that clogs and annoys, something that motivates us to avoid dairy products; instead of something that maintains, nourishes, lubricates, and makes life more wonderful. How bout fluids? juices? waters? any other ideas, folks?
Comment by Jana — 5 March 2008 @ 7:37 PM
Ah, yes. “Taking Charge of Your Fertility” has a section on medical language which demeans women and makes us think our bodies don’t work right. I wish I had read that book when I was 12. She uses the phrase “cervical fluid” because men have “seminal fluid” which is the same thing, but with sperm in it. Now that Jana’s brought it up, though, I think I like the word juices. It sounds sexy, sassy, and something else that I can’t think of words for.
Comment by Vicky — 6 March 2008 @ 8:35 AM
haha! ever heard anyone say “seminal mucus”?
cervical elixir? you can’t get much closer to describing the mythical “elixir of life”. ^_^
Comment by Jana — 6 March 2008 @ 10:56 AM
Why do you think the word “mucous” indicates something wrong? A healthy human body has to have a pretty good amount of mucous to function properly.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 March 2008 @ 12:21 PM
The point isn’t the technical definition of mucous; it’s what it evokes in people’s minds. Mucous sounds slimy and gross. Fluid sounds neutral. As Jana said, nobody ever talks about seminal mucous. It’s part of the underlying assumption in western medicine that women’s bodies are just an inferior version of men’s.
Comment by VickyVicky — 6 March 2008 @ 8:12 PM
That really gets to my point: why does mucus sound slimy and gross? I’d say the real problem lies there: that we all hate our bodies, male or female, so much that we denigrate something as vital and helpful as mucus as something “slimy and gross.” The very fact that we have that association, to me, speaks to a discomfort in our own skin far more profound than the gender issues involved.
I don’t know if the lack of references to “seminal mucus” really makes the point, though, since seminal fluids don’t meet the definition of mucus. Mucus contributes about 60% of the fluid, and we do call that seminal mucus. But semen involves mostly seminal mucus, plus many other components, so we call it by the more general “seminal fluid.” Since cervical mucus only contains mucus, it gets that name. You certainly could call it “cervical fluid,” since “fluid” has a broader, more general meaning that encompasses mucus (”fluid” describes all mucus, but only some fluids take the form of mucus). But with that, you make your language more vague on purpose. I think of precision as a virtue. I agree that our medicine, like everything else in our society, takes a patriarchal bent, but I don’t know if this really presents a good example of that.
I suppose you might make the point that my penis might rule out my ability to understand this, but I don’t disagree with you in principle. I just have a strong demand for accuracy that never fails to get me into trouble.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 March 2008 @ 9:54 PM
Mantak Chia calls cervical mucus one of the three sacred waters in The Taoist Secrets of Love. The other two are other forms of female ejaculate little know to western medicine. How is that for rewound language.
Natural contreceptive issues are addressed in the book.The practice encourages men to delay ejaculation for months at a time while cultivating full body orgasms.
Comment by Heathen — 7 March 2008 @ 5:28 PM
I’m glad you mentioned the essential oils bit. I’ve seen people inveigh against using pennyroyal but they seem to have the essential oil and the whole herb confused. As far as I know the herbal tea has never killed anyone; at worst it has made them feel queasy. The oil, however… Just don’t.
I’ve drunk pennyroyal tea and it’s kind of yucky but it didn’t harm me at all. I’ve also drunk blue cohosh, at the same time. (Yeah… my period was late. Don’t know if there was anything to it, though.) No biggie. Of course that doesn’t mean someone else wouldn’t have problems.
Re: the lambskin condoms–modern technology doesn’t make them as nice because lambskin lets viruses through. We had to come up with something that was virus-tight, and unfortunately it also wound up uncomfortable. Dem’s de breaks. I’d be a lot more uncomfortable with a raging case of AIDS, and I bet most guys would be too.
Comment by Dana — 8 March 2008 @ 12:33 AM
It seems odd to me most of the discussion is about how to rebrand mucus rather than if anyone is actually trying out these approaches to fertility management. All talk and no say again?
The gut condoms you refer to seem to only slightly predate the manufacture of latex condoms. Can you actually make a functional animal gut condom in a HGing situation? In the long run might animal gut condoms be a potential source for new animal to human diseases to emerge?
For those in the warmer regions neem as a spermicide seems like one of the more useful options, but it still requires a fair bit of foreplanning. Its a pity you HGers don’t wear shoes and construct stone structures or the good old tied shoelaces and gentle push down the stairs would be an viable chemical-free option.
Comment by void_genesis — 9 March 2008 @ 10:23 PM
Rather, done so much nothing further needs said.
Sure.
No more likely than eating meat or wearing leather.
Uh … huh … yeah … the “kill or seriously injure the mother” approach has to go by the wayside. Real shame, that.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 10 March 2008 @ 4:21 PM
Supposedly AIDS jumped the species barrier during the slaughter and/or consumption of wild monkeys (a counter example to the theory that epidemic diseases only come from zoonoses via domesticated animals). Eating meat generally has the protection of being cooked first, and our guts have their own elaborate defence systems. Leather is usually tanned, and sits up against our well defended skin. But how do you sterilise a delicate animal gut to make a structurally sound condom, which then will be in contact with our most vulnerable membranes for pathogens to cross?
The shoelaces and stairs remark was a fairly clumsy attempt at humour…..in fact I have heard it from young mothers nervous about getting pregnant again.
Do you know much about HGer behavioural practices to simply reduce the amount of reproductive sex taking place? Separating male and female groups, socialised homosexuality, sexual timing taboos etc? Not exactly egalitarian or laissez faire but nevertheless potentially effective.
Comment by void_genesis — 10 March 2008 @ 6:21 PM
Before I got into Taoist Inner Alchemy and Energy Channeling, I had a theory inspired by a 1999 National Geographic article on Women and Population. I was so disgusted by the abuse of the women in the article and infuriated by the fact that occupiers gave the children medicine to increase infant mortality without subsequent information on population control. I was also angry at the men for well being doubly oppressive.
WARNING THIS IS A VERY ANGRY THEORY.
That was when I spent lots of time meditating on methods of contraception and sterilization that could be used without industry. I didn’t find the herbal methods right away so I was trying to think of a way that HG shaman could perform minor surgeries to keep population replacement rate at 2.1 so that the population would stay the same (replacing the mother and father). I was frustrated because a hysterectomy would be very dangerous and possibly fatal to women because you have to go inside the abdominal cavity. Also, Vasectomies are difficult to perform (they have to send a sample to a pathology lab to see if the right tube was cut). Then the number 2.1 gave me an idea. What piece of reproductive anatomy are there two of and are easily accessible? You don’t have to remind me that I am evil, I am well aware.
Just imagine how much more a father would treasure his children if he also had to sacrifice and experience pain for his children. Imagine how much more peaceful the world would be without a lot less testosterone. The practice could be worked into the culture and could easily be a taboo to not recognize children with a sacrifice.
OK, it’s your turn. I have really looked into this so I know that it not a feasible solution but I want other people to think about this and why it couldn’t work. So I can bring up my findings and compare.
Comment by Heathen — 10 March 2008 @ 10:00 PM
AIDS did jump the species barrier from monkeys, but your characterization actually highlights the difference: the genitals do not stand as our most vulnerable membranes, as you suggest; rather, those lie in our digestive tracts, which only function if nutrients can get through them. But more importantly, the overwhelming majority of zoonotic diseases develop from extended contact with live animals.
Probably the most effective hunter-gatherer technique for spacing out births, though, simply comes from natural breastfeeding practices. Hunter-gatherers breastfeed sometimes as late as five years. Extended use extends lactation, which inhibits fertility. The hunter-gatherer diet, as I understand, does not support the same constant fertility as a high-carbohydrate, high-dairy diet and a sedentary lifestyle, though I’ll admit I haven’t looked into that deeply recently. Hunter-gatherers do accept homosexuals much more than the Abrahamic religions which developed in cultures where soaring death rates required everyone to contribute, as much as possible, to breeding, such that any non-reproductive sexual activity left the community vulnerable to extinction.
Heathen, besides the logic of “two wrongs don’t make a right,” as a means of birth control, that plan has one glaring problem: you don’t need a lot of men to create a baby boom. Take one woman and 100 men, and you’ll have a population bottle-neck; take 100 women and one man, and you could have the next generation as big as the preceding one. The same applies to eunuchs; you only need one fertile man to continue driving population higher.
Besides, as far as abusing people sexually, our civilization has not spared men, either. Tim Ingold’s essay, “From Trust to Domination,” in Perceptions of the Environment, discussed how animal domestication extended to the logic of eunuchs in those same cultures, for example. Granted, the abuse visited upon men has generally come from other men, but when one man abuses all the women, and all the other men, I don’t think you can really draw a clear dividing line between female victims and male perpetrators.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 March 2008 @ 7:28 AM
Void Genesis-
You’ll find that the charting method advocated in “Taking Charge of Your Fertlity” is actually pretty popular, especially among religious groups who don’t allow birth control and crunchy types who don’t like artificial hormones. I have used it successfully myself. It works, although it does require more self control than hormonal birth control.
Re; Breastfeeding, it’s not a guaranteed method of birth control. I got my period at 15 months post-partum with both of my children although I nursed them for far longer. We used pacifiers with the older one, but not the younger. I ate a vegetarian diet with my first child, but not my second. I have a couple of friends who exclusively breastfed, but got their periods 6 weeks pp. I don’t know if it has to do with diet, activity level, body type, or what.
Comment by Vicky — 11 March 2008 @ 7:52 AM
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 March 2008 @ 11:54 AM
I’m not sure that it does limit population growth, though. If you use breastfeeding alone (which I’m sure hunter gatherers don’t do) You’ll have a baby about every two years. That’s a lot of babies! Here’s an artical about lactational amenorrhea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactational_amenorrhea_method
Perhaps HGs stay infertile longer due to their lifestyle, I don’t know. I think I remember reading that in some tribes sex is taboo for a nursing mother. That would definitely keep the population down.
Comment by Vicky — 11 March 2008 @ 3:45 PM
Two years under what we consider “normal” breastfeeding conditions; as I said, they’ll breastfeed for up to five years. But diet and lifestyle also play their part, as mentioned previously.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 March 2008 @ 7:50 PM
If conciously limiting your population and rate of reproduction is desirable and advantageous, then why isn’t the world populated by people who are naturally less fertile? If having one child every five years gives the best success rate in having offspring who have their own offspring, then surely it would be the default setting no? Our distant ancestors mostly had yearly cycles, so why did our cycle change to monthly if all it causes are problems?
Likewise why isnt any species in nature behaving in this manner and holding back on reproduction, population and net consumption? Deer on an island or yeast in a bottle keep growing until disaster strikes. Except people never look beyond these simple analogies and wonder why despite this suicidal behaviour the world is still full of reckless creatures like deer and yeasts.
And of course the answer is that competition from within your species, and pressures from predators and parasites, normally provide the counter pressure. This means that not fulfilling your biological potential (to eat, breed, build condos etc) is a form of existential insincerity and falsehood. If you can do it and you choose not to then someone else will and you will be erased from history. If we cannot trust our own instincts then we cannot trust anything. And right now in history human instincts are telling us to consume the planet. And if we choose not to, then someone else will. The odds of coordinating six billion people to feel guilty in the same way at the same time are nigh on impossible.
Humans are odd because we keep winning arms races with other species that might have balanced us by changing our behaviour again and again. Fire, tools, agriculture, medicine, etc. Our only possible saving grace is our ability to turn on ourselves. The wolf is the doctor to the deer herd, just as the investment banker is the doctor to the african peasant. The deers life looks less pleasant than the wolfs (being eaten hurts), but without the wolf its life would be far worse (starving en masse hurts worse). The peasant’s life looks less pleasant than the banker’s, but can we really be sure that it would be better and not worse if the banker didn’t exist?
Comment by void_genesis — 11 March 2008 @ 11:15 PM
Consciously limiting your personal fertility has no impact on population because, as you point out, if you don’t do it someone else will. The human population is behaving exactly like the yeast in the bottle.
I’d like to point out that the relationship between wolves and deer has nothing in common with the relationship between human peasants and human investment bankers. I find social Darwinism really offensive.
Comment by Vicky — 12 March 2008 @ 1:22 PM
I guess you could say the banker-peasant relationship is more like mosquito swarm-deer or tapeworm-deer, in many ways more caring and sharing than the throat tearing wolf, but ultimately with the same effect of limiting population explosions to some extent by mopping up excess stock, especially by preying on the weak and stupid. I find it offensive too, and inconsistent with our short range capacity for empathy and altruism, but that doesn’t stop it from being consistent with reality.
Comment by void_genesis — 12 March 2008 @ 5:55 PM
That doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t limit population explosions. If it did, the human population wouldn’t exceed 6 billion. Like all other animals, human population is determined by food supply. Have you read the thirty theses on Anthropik? If not you ought to, if so, you should re-read them.
Comment by Vicky — 13 March 2008 @ 7:35 AM
I hope no one took my above theory seriously. I was just exercising my right to think criminally. My reasons for abandoning the theory are varied. There would be problems with proving fraternity, childhood epidemics wiping out population. and attacks by neighboring tribes overtaking.
Plus it perpetuates the nuclear family format which I don’t like.
I think the concept of free choice is related to the socio-biological fact that our species is neither completely monogamous nor polyamorus. Think of every one of the tem commandments and how it might be different they would be if women were allowed to be promiscuous and property was shared. Our current society only formally acknowledges monogamous heterosexual relationships. I think people are made differently in who they are attracted to as well as how many people they can sustain relationships with. I know that part is random but I am usually pretty random. Thus the fact that I am talking about hypothetical rites when everyone else is looking for a modern alternative birth control.
I have heard that the pill is actually good in the fact that using it for a year can lower the chance of breast cancer. If you and your partner aren’t interested in Taoist healing love practices which claim to lessen periods by recycling the life giving yen chi into creative energy that can be used to heal or develop spiritually. In males the practice encourages males to withhold semen to use the energy in a similar way. Which is a lot more work than monitoring a cycle but carries amazing benefits. I know it sounds like new age mumbo-jumbo but imagine how well martial artists can fight and apply it to sex.
Reducing caloric intake (especially animal fats) and having vitamin deficiencies can stop menstruation at the cost of your health. Though some people think reducing calories really do live a lot longer than people who eat a lot and exert themselves to burn extra calories. I don’t know what I think about that.
Though the easiest method I have heard of is for men to wear tighty-whities to lower sperm count also I think soaking the testicles in hot water could probably have the same result.
Comment by Heathen — 13 March 2008 @ 6:17 PM
Thanks for what you’ve mentioned, Heathen.
Through all the talk here, I’ve become disturbed (again) by the lack of consideration among many for individual happiness. Some of us don’t want an expectation of pregnancy, nor segregation and conflict and pain or any of it all.
I’ve become very tired.
Comment by Singanothertime — 14 March 2008 @ 10:02 PM
I’ve arrived late to this dialogue, but I’d like to comment on Taoist “Healing Love” techniques as taught by Mantak Chia, etc, (in books such as “The Multi-Orgasmic Man” and “Taoist Secrets of Love”) which others have mentioned, and which I have over 10 years’ experience with. At different points, I saw or heard warnings (both from teachers of this system and others) of these practices’ potential dangers, and I mostly heeded them. At times, especially early on, I had incredible experiences with these techniques (and later on, with the rest of the Healing Tao practices). I definitely believe that the possibility for such a sexuality (for both men and women) does exist, along with the rest of the possibilities that people like Mantak Chia and Michael Winn allude to (immortality, etc.).
Nevertheless, in the long term, these practices stopped working for me, and actually harmed my sexuality (I didn’t bust a blood vessel or anything, although such a thing has happened to people - even more obsessed than me, perhaps - practicing some other more advanced techniques). The proper warnings do not appear often enough nor at every point where they should, and worse, the system does not have all of the elements in it that would allow long-term sustainability of itself or true achievement of the goals it purports to allow you to achieve. I would heartily discourage men from attemting to engage in long-term “semen retention,” as the techniques mentioned DO NOT (contrary to claims) actually cause “sublimation of the sexual energy” or other such descriptions.
In other words, although this Healing Tao system contains some value, in my opinion, I consider it a partial, cobbled-together, bastardized, commercialized, culturally-appropriated version of Taoism. Guys, you need to cum, and you will, eventually, whether you want to or not. Maybe you will get into a state someday, somehow, where that statement no longer applies, but to grasp after such a state or try to create it prematurely will only lead you astray and potentially hurt you.
For what I’m into now along these lines, and what I consider a more healthy, whole, and authentic path, if you’re curious, check out http://www.traditionaltao.com .
Comment by Riggs — 28 April 2008 @ 10:04 PM