Sex and Drugs

Did 20th-century pharmaceutical and technological advances shape modern sexual behaviors?

By | July 1, 2014

LOVE-IN: Did pharmaceutical advances fuel the 20th century’s sexual revolution?© OSTILL/ISTOCKPHOTO.COMThe sexual revolution of the 1960s unleashed women’s sexuality and  shifted their sexual behaviors away from baby-making into the realms of pleasure, love, and self-expression. So goes popular opinion, anyway. For many years, as society has looked back upon that formative decade, the prevailing assumption has been that “The Pill”—the oral hormonal combination approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for female contraception in 1960—was the spark that lit the fire.  

“That’s an exaggeration,” says Linda Gordon, a historian at New York University. Elaine Tyler May, a professor of American studies and history at the University of Minnesota, concurs. Despite the widespread belief, “there’s no evidence that the birth control pill caused the sexual revolution.” The scant scientific evidence that exists regarding the sexual attitudes and behaviors of the earlier 20th century paints quite a different picture—one in which the roots of the sexual revolution reach back decades before women starting popping the pill in the 1960s.

The pharmaceutical advances of the 20th century fell into the lap of a culture primed to take advantage of them.

Gordon points out that birth control methods started growing steadily in popularity among American women in the 1910s. After World War I, “there was a nationwide, massive birth control movement,” she says. So-called birth control leagues set up clinics across the country. States began to repeal laws against contraception, and doctors were free to prescribe vaginal diaphragms. Family sizes shrank, and extramarital sex became more common. Once the birth control pill debuted, however, it remained illegal in several states during the 1960s and was primarily used by married women, says May.

Andrew Francis, an economist at Emory University, proposes that it was a different pharmaceutical milestone of the 20th century—the discovery of penicillin—that helped drive changes in sexual behavior prior to the 1960s. In a study published last year, Francis looked at the association between, on the one hand, three metrics used to quantify risky, nontraditional sexual behavior—the incidence of gonorrhea, the number of illegitimate births, and the proportion of teen moms—and, on the other hand, the incidence of syphilis. All three of the risky-business markers began a steep climb in the early 1950s, just at the time when syphilis cases were at an all-time low (Arch Sex Behav, 42:5-13, 2013). “Syphilis would bottom out, and immediately you’d see a rise in these proxies of risky sex,” Francis says. “To me, it’s evidence that there must be something going on here.”

That something, Francis suspects, was the availability of penicillin. In the 1940s, the antibiotic was first deployed against syphilis, a potentially deadly sexually transmitted disease. “Syphilis incidence fell by 90 percent and deaths by 75 percent from 1947 to 1957. That’s staggering,” Francis says. “Very few diseases have declined and collapsed to this extent.” Because nonmarital sex was no longer so dangerous by the 1950s, Francis posits, people pursued their desires more readily.

While May agrees that the upheaval in sexual behaviors started long before 1967’s Summer of Love, she cautions against a “technological determinism” that overstates the role of pharmaceutical advances. “Pharmaceutical products have a huge impact, but they’re not causal agents,” she says. “Sexual behaviors change more as a result of social changes than any kind of technological changes.”

David John Frank, a sociologist at the University of California, Irvine, reported a few years ago that such social changes can be traced back to at least the 1940s, when laws against nonmarital or nonprocreative sex began to contract, and laws punishing sex crimes expanded (American Sociological Review, 75:867-93, 2010). These legislative changes reflect a modern view of sex whose origins perhaps lie as far back as the French Revolution, when France started retiring laws prohibiting nonprocreative sexual behaviors. “I think it’s the French Revolution that begins to break apart the monopoly of family thinking and begins to assert the primacy of individual thinking, and a shift [in perspective] from baby-making sex to individual-pleasure sex,” Frank says.

The pharmaceutical advances of the 20th century fell into the lap of a culture primed to take advantage of them. Penicillin and the birth control pill augmented the changes that were already happening, Frank says, but they didn’t cause them. Take, for instance, oral sex. It too became more commonplace during the mid-20th century. “That’s not because of the pill, or penicillin, or the condom,” he says. “It’s because we changed our way of thinking of sex.”

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You



Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo


July 21, 2014

As the ecclesiastical grip on sexual mores and practices loosened thro the decades, pharmaceutical hold on its direction along with the emergent opportunity birth control pharmacology afforded of being able to divorce the 'means'( bad or good sex) from the 'end' ( unwanted or wanted pregnancies)tightened with material influence on increasing disinhibitions amidst young and not so young.just like now, biology had always trumped reason and disease consciousness as reason has never really inhibited many who pandered more to hormones than to phobias or even the inhibitory logic of STDs. Observed sexual practices remain the net vectorial result of the intersecting forces of religion, education, socioeconomic realities, instincts, and a miscellany of proximate and individual influencers,giving local and regional differences between different parts of the world. Some of these factors exert more penetrant influence as drivers in the west than they do elsewhere and vice versa.
Avatar of: Ben Zikria

Ben Zikria

Posts: 1

July 21, 2014

Kerry Grens's article is thought stimulating and according to the scientific methodology of sociology has acquiesced to the "Theory of Multiple Causes".  While it touches a number of socio-technological aspects of prograsive societies, it does not mention the role of one very significant factor, religion. The Age of Reason opening the flood gates of Science & Technology started to diminish the powers of the God of Morality.  Today we worship  Aphrodites and Bachus more than the gods of our forfathers.  With the might of science our social fears of creating bastards, suffering from or being shamed by STDs have gradually disappeared. Consequently, our 'Progressive Societies' have become more hedonistic and Epicurian and less moralistic.

Popular Now

  1. Can Young Stem Cells Make Older People Stronger?
  2. Thousands of Mutations Accumulate in the Human Brain Over a Lifetime
  3. Two Dozen House Republicans Do an About-Face on Tuition Tax
  4. CRISPR to Debut in Clinical Trials