Talking about male body-based contraceptives: The counseling visit and the feminization of contraception.

In developed countries, women bear the primary, and sometimes exclusive, responsibility for preventing pregnancy in heterosexual sexual relations. This unequal burden is not an intrinsic fact; it is the consequence of broad social narratives and interpersonal negotiations. The contraceptive counseling visit is increasingly recognized as a site of the discursive production of normative ideas about reproduction, suggesting that clinicians themselves may contribute to the assignment of responsibility for contraceptive labor to women (i.e. the feminization of contraception). Scholars have not yet considered how providers talk to patients about methods that are male body-based (i.e. condoms, withdrawal, and vasectomy) and, as such, may disrupt the feminization of responsibility for contraception. Using transcripts of 101 contraceptive counseling visits recorded between 2009 and 2012 in the San Francisco Bay Area, I investigate how clinicians discuss male body-based methods with female patients. Drawing on a constructivist approach, I find that clinicians generally devalued male body-based methods in their counseling. They did so by, first, failing to discuss them as options for long-term contraception. Second, when they did discuss them, clinicians tended to emphasize aspects of the methods that were presumed “negative” (e.g. the lower efficacy of withdrawal and condoms) but not features that patients might view positively (e.g. the high efficacy of vasectomy or the lack of side effects with condoms and withdrawal). In aggregate, these discursive practices marginalize male body-based methods as contraceptive choices. As a practical effect, this may encourage women to choose a method that does not best meet their preferences. At a structural level, by devaluing methods that could undercut the unequal division of fertility work, these discursive patterns contribute to the feminization of responsibility for contraception and the retrenchment of the unequal gendered division of fertility work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Social Science & Medicine is the property of Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)