A recent article in Salon reported that Planned Parenthood was opening vasectomy clinics in Indiana as a response to that State’s 2023 decision to ban almost all abortions. It quoted a research study which indicated that the US Supreme Court ruling against a federal right to abortion had resulted in a significant increase in the number of men seeking vasectomy. Today’s Supreme Court conflict over whether or not federal emergency care law can override a State abortion ban suggests that the issue is not going away. It seems a good time to explore the significance of this apparent association between a ban on abortions and a rise in vasectomies.
At first sight, the association seems an encouraging, if unexpected, side effect of a legislative attack on women’s reproductive rights. Does it signal a greater preparedness of men to take on some responsibility for unwanted pregnancies? Or should we be dismayed that it took a vindictive law change by predominantly male justices to bring about this shift? And, if at some point in the future Roe v Wade were to be reinstated, would the numbers of men seeking vasectomy decline again?
Vasectomies Against Sexism
Back in the early 1980s I was in a small UK group called Vasectomies Against Sexism (VAS). We organised workshops, we wrote articles (in the Anti-Sexist Men’s Newsletter which flourished at that time), and we produced a pamphlet.
“Vasectomy is probably the least harmful and most effective form of contraception, involving a painless minor operation to cut the tube at the base of the penis through which the sperm get into the semen. Despite the prevalence of heterosexuality, it’s not very widely practised , reflecting men’s limited awareness of contraception. At the Bristol conference we held a workshop which discussed the importance of vasectomy for anti-sexism and talked through our own experience and fears. Out of the estimated 300 men at the conference less than 10 had had a vasectomy, and only 3 of these hadn’t fathered children. Clearly the issue of vasectomy needs wider exploration both personally and politically, and we’re carrying on meeting to do just that. We’re planning articles for the next newsletter covering different aspects of the subject, and any information or personal experience anyone wants to send us would be welcome.”
(Julian, Chris, & Alan - Male? Heterosexual? Have you considered vasectomy?, Anti-Sexist Men’s Newsletter no10, March 1980)
In the workshops and writings, we sought to give information on what the operation was like, how this compared with female sterilisation or abortion, and how to go about accessing a vasectomy service. We quoted from a January 1980 Spare Rib article by Margaret Versluyen - “Let men above all realise that abortion is not a panacea for all ills, it is usually a last resort rather than first resort and often entails considerable emotional cost to the abortee”. We felt that evading responsibility for contraception, and assuming that it’s the woman’s job to avoid pregnancy, was an important component of men’s sexual oppressiveness in present-day patriarchy.
“Most existing forms of contraception place an enormous responsibility and emotional burden on women, and are either ineffective or involve considerable risks to their health. Abortion is not a satisfactory alternative. Vasectomy, in contrast is effective, safe, and uncomplicated. If we are to take greater responsibility for contraception, we must give it serious consideration.”
(Julian, Chris, & Alan - Vasectomy, Anti-Sexist Men’s Newsletter no11, May 1980)
We argued that greater availability of reversibility and sperm freezing would probably encourage more men to have vasectomies, but we doubted their necessity - “We’d like to challenge the patriarchal assumption that biological paternity is all important … The assumption that men need to be able to father their own children is high questionable in the light of the burdens which contraception, pregnancy, abortion, and childbirth can place on women.”
We saw too, that discussing the issues that come up around vasectomy could often lead into a discussion of sexuality itself:
”In the men’s movement, awareness of non-procreative forms of sexuality has usually been linked to an exploration of gayness. But there is no reason why our sexual relationships with women should continue to be based on penetration. Penetration, as prescribed by patriarchal culture, is a direct expression of male sexual domination over women, and it carries with it the possibility of unwanted pregnancy. We can, instead, take our share of responsibility for developing sexual relationships between women and men which are based on equality and which don’t involve the risk of unwanted pregnancy. We should listen to what women want of us sexually, we should reject the conditioning which stops our exploring sensual, mutual and emotionally close sexual relationships, and we should question the nature of our ‘desire’ for penetration. Exploring alternatives does not itself remove the threat to women from unwanted pregnancy, however. A woman can become pregnant from any contact between her genitals and and a man’s penis - not just from intercourse. She may also want to explore for herself whether or not it is possible to have sexual intercourse with a man and not be oppressed by it. This must be her choice not ours. We cannot begin to have sexual relationships with women unless we give up our power to cause unwanted pregnancy.”
(VAS - Vasectomy: a political issue for anti-sexist men, 1981)
We were keen to emphasise how personal resistance to reproductive responsibility is linked to the preservation of men’s power over women:
“All the institutions of our patriarchal society are based on male power, not least the NHS and the medical profession. It is not surprising, in this context, that men know little about contraception, that research into male contraception gets no support, and that vasectomies are not freely available. The implications seem clear. We as men should reject the false equation of sexuality with penetration, should take greater responsibility for contraception, and should give serious consideration at a personal level to vasectomy.”
Reactions
Reactions to our workshops and writings were interesting. Many of them simply repeated fears we had addressed - including fears of pain, weakened sexual ‘performance’, etc. These negative responses often seemed to be based on a reworking of a familiar ‘not our responsibility’ meme, justified by arguments that because it was women who became pregnant, it was ‘natural’ for them to take full responsibility for contraception. A more original negative response was a letter suggesting that freely available vasectomy would prop up sexism by encouraging men to have multiple sexual relationships, while discouraging women. A few men responded positively, but most of the positive responses were from women who had read the pamphlet.
The Vasectomist
A search for vasectomy on xy online ( a resource on men and masculinity) yielded few references, apart from the March 2024 Salon article, and, remarkably, one mentioning one of the VAS workshops in 1980. If there was involvement by anti-sexist men in action for reproductive responsibility since the 1980s, it must have been under the radar. There has been mainstream media interest in vasectomy, though, particularly since the 2013 release of a documentary, The Vasectomist, about the work of urologist Dr Doug Stein. The film follows Stein as he performs vasectomies in his home state of Florida, as well as in the Philippines and Haiti.
Sef-styled ‘reactionary feminist’ Mary Harrington, who has at times expressed opposition to all forms of contraception, has been critical of World Vasectomy Day events founded by Stein and the film’s co-director, Jonathan Stack. Her claim that vasectomy is a eugenic and neocolonial front, concerned only “to reduce population growth among the world’s nonwhite peoples” shows that she has not bothered to watch the film. Stein’s work in the Philippines and Haiti was sponsored by the Philippines-based No Scalpel Vasectomy International. And his concluding remarks makes clear the main focus is on rich countries:
“Whenever I’ve been away and I come back to the suburban sprawl and big houses and the highways full of big cars, I’m reminded that this is the most important place to do vasectomies. Americans are among the most consumptive and waste productive individuals in the world.”
(Dr Doug Stein - The Vasectomist, 2013)
One of the main facts highlighted in the film is that, worldwide, the number of tubal ligations (female sterilisations) far exceeds the number of vasectomies, despite it being a more complicated, painful, and costly operation. The reason for that, which Harrington ignores, is male irresponsibility.
“I’m going to perform tubal ligation. She is 41 and she really need that. She knows (about vasectomy) but the man refuse to have the vasectomy. Vasectomy is more simple. You don’t have to go to the abdominal cavity. But men are afraid to lose their libido. That’s why most of the time they refuse to come. It will take time because we need to educate men, all the time.”
(Dr Fritz Lolagne, Haiti, - The Vasectomist, 2013)
A fairer, and far more hopeful, account of the vasectomy project is provided in an episode of the invaluable Overpopulation Podcast, featuring Colombian vasectomist Dr Esgar Guarín. Guarín describes the no scalpel, no needle technique that is now adopted throughout the world, long after it was first developed in China. And he relays how Stack, having worked on prison documentaries, had become disillusioned about men, and how this changed when working with Stein on The Vasectomist:
“He (Stack) started asking every guy who was getting a vasectomy why they did it And he started hearing that every single person, all of a sudden, was talking about love when they were doing it.”
(Dr Esgar Guarín - Vasectomy: One small snip for Man, One giant leap for Humankind (ness), Population Balance 24 Mar 2022)
Some men were doing it for love of their partner, some for love of their children, and some for love of the planet. But all were doing it for love.
Executive Director of Population Balance Nandita Bajaj, at the end of the podcast, highlights how vasectomy fits with the philosophy of the organisation:
“We’re really asking people to ask themselves the bigger questions about the fundamental drivers for how we relate to the planet, how we relate to each other, how we relate to nonhuman beings. Where does the desire for biological children come from? To what degree is it authentic? To what degree is it pressured? To what degree are we ready and able to bring a child into this world? And when you start getting down to the real questions like these, it generates some of the most incredible conversations”
(Nandita Bajaj, Vasectomy: One small snip for Man, One giant leap for Humankind (ness), Population Balance 24 Mar 2022)
*******
Women’s right to choose must be restored as the basis of abortion law. But the safety net of abortion should no longer be an opportunity for men to evade responsibility. The insight that Jonathan Stack gained from working on The Vasectomist, that men are capable of love, had a profound effect on him. It suggests that attempts to engage men in avoiding unwanted pregnancies may be more effective if they focus on the type of sex we want - in particular one that is based on love rather than lust. And that would require linking arguments for greater responsibility with mobilisation against the increasingly prevalent commodification of women’s bodies. Pornography, prostitution, and surrogacy must become no-go areas for men.