Thought experiment

There are people who think that making birth control available, will make people more likely to have sex. I think I have come up with a thought experiment (to borrow a term from Scott Adams) to prove why this is not true. Follow along and see if it works (note: for simplicity's sake, we are only considering birth control here, not STD protection):

The year is 2006. Consider a sexually active opposite-sex couple who does not want to get pregnant right now, so the woman goes on the pill. This makes perfect sense. The pill is one of the most effective forms of temporary birth control, it prevents the ovaries from releasing ova so there are no eggs floating around to get fertilized, so society in general will consider this a reasonable and responsible course of action. If they get pregnant, people will be surprised.

Suppose the woman isn't on the pill, and they use some kind of barrier method. That's generally not considered as responsible. The general consensus is "Yeah, I know, sometimes hormonal methods wreak havoc on some women's bodies, but really it's better to be on the pill if at all possible." If there's no good reason why the woman can't be on the pill, the general consensus is "WTF are they doing? Condoms break, you know, and the rhythm method is not at all reliable!" If they get pregnant, there will be an unspoken undertone of "Well, what did you expect?"

But let's go back in time a bit. Now the year is 1936. The pill has not been invented yet. So an opposite-sex couple who does not want to have children (it being the Great Depression and all) goes to a controversial newly-opened family-planning clinic, where they are issued the latest in birth control technology: condoms and spermicide. They use these, perhaps in combination with the rhythm method. Again, moral detractors aside, this is generally considered responsible. They do not want to have children, they can't afford to have children, so they use the very latest technology available to keep themselves from getting pregnant. They aren't on the pill, but they're still considered perfectly responsible. Why? Because the pill hasn't been invented yet. Maybe an experimental version is in a lab somewhere, but practically speaking there's no possible way for them to get their hands on it, so they are still being as responsible as possible despite the fact that they're not using it.

Now let's go forward in time. The year is 2036. The male pill has been invented, and is mainstream and widely available. So now both members of our couple are on the pill. She's on the female pill, which prevents the ovaries from releasing ova, and he's on the male pill, which prevents sperm production. This is generally considered the responsible course of action for when you don't want to have children.

Now, still in 2036, suppose the man is not on the pill for whatever reason, but the woman is. The general consensus would be something like "Yeah, I know the pill wreaks havoc on some men's bodies, but it's really better for both people to use a hormonal method if at all possible." If there's no good reason for the man to not take the pill, the general consensus will be "WTF are they doing? They'll get sperm everywhere!" And if they get pregnant with only the woman on the pill, there will be a general undertone of "Well, what did you expect?"

Our 2036 couple is generally considered irresponsible for not using the male pill, but our 2006 couple is not because the male pill is not available in 2006. Our 2006 couple is generally considered irresponsible for not using the female pill, but our 1936 couple is not because the female pill is not available in 1936.

The 1936 couple is not considered irresponsible for not holding out until they can get a female pill, and the 2006 couple is not considered irresponsible for not holding out until they can get a male pill. Overall, it is considered responsible to use the very most effective birth control available, regardless of what it is. Overall, it is considered unreasonable to expect a couple to avoid sexual contact until a better form of birth control becomes available.

You with me so far?

Okay, now let's go to a dystopia where the anti-contraception lobby has won. There are no hormonal, chemical, or barrier methods of birth control available through doctors or pharamcists. Now we have an opposite-sex couple who does not want to get pregnant. So what do they do? They go to their doctor and/or pharmacist and ask about their options, and perhaps they are informed about the rhythm and withdrawl methods. Wanting to be as responsible as possible, they use the rhythm and withdrawl methods. Because they are using the best methods available, they do not feel like they are taking any unnecessary risks, any more than we today feel that we are taking unnecessary risks by not using a male pill. They won't feel any particular need to avoid sex, any more than we feel it necessary to avoid sex because the female pill is only like 99.9% effective and the male pill is not available. However, they will still have a higher unwanted pregnancy rate than we do, just as the unwanted pregnancy rate was higher in 1936 than in 2006, and just as it will doubtless drop once the male pill becomes available. It's just like people didn't feel unsafe for not having seatbelts before seatbelts were common, or for not having cellphones before cellphones were widely available.

People feel like their behaviour is unrisky when they are using the best precautions possible. Eliminating precautions from the realm of possibility is just going to lower people's risk acceptance threshold.