'Germs in Dark Corners': Feminine Hygiene and Implied Birth Control
Dangerous Douches and Chemical Suppositories
The Comstock Law of 1873 made offering plain-spoken contraceptive information, as well as actual products, illegal in the U.S. This inspired a rash of products euphemistically advertised as birth control. For more than seventy years, Lysol disinfectant was sold to medical professionals and consumers as a safe product, whose suggested uses ranged from wound disinfection to contraceptive. Beginning in the 1920s, Lysol douche was covertly advertised as a contraceptive in the United States and Canada, as well as a means of dispelling “feminine odors,” all through the thinly veiled language of “feminine hygiene.” According to historian Andrea Tone, by 1911 doctors had already recorded five deaths in addition to many less severe burns and injuries from “uterine irrigation.” Nevertheless from 1930 into the 1960s, Lysol led the market in "feminine hygiene," one of the euphemistic phrases implying not only intimate cleanliness but avoidance of unwanted pregnancies. Women responded to advertisers’ assertions of Lysol’s value to maintain a fresh youthfulness and to dispel “calendar fears.”
Even though it had a more than 50% failure rate and otherwise dire health consequences, over-the-counter douches were the most popular form of birth control method by 1940, partly because no prescriptions were needed. In 1952, Lysol did remove cresol, the caustic ingredient thought to be responsible for much of the reported vaginal tissue damage. The product's efficacy as either a necessary intimate cleanser or a contraceptive remained very low. In April 2020, President Donald Trump controversially suggested yet another unproven aand dangerous use for Lysol--as an internally applied defense against the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The history of obscure medical clarity concerning the use of chemical products continues to be both a political and public health issue.
Davol "Comfy" Syringe
The target audience for douching throughout the twentieth century was young, middle-class white women. Societally induced shame over natural female functions supported the use of Lysol and less caustic substances as a vaginal deodorant, as well as a form of implied birth control. The sanitary claims of douching are well disputed by evidence that female organs are naturally self-cleaning. Douching is far more likely to eradicate good bacteria in the vaginal ecosytem than to “maintain healthful youthfulness,” as some Lysol ads indicated. Yet even today douching persists in many parts of the world, along with the belief that women’s nether regions are inherently problematic.
Dr. Peirre's Boro-Pheno-Form Antiseptic Vaginal Suppositories
Vaginal suppositories were another category of feminine hygiene products with implied contraceptive properties. Such "patent" medicines were sold over the counter beginning in the nineteenth century. The description of Dr. Pierre's Boro-Pheno-Form suppositories as "inhibiitory antiseptics," as billed in advertisements, suggested its spermicidal value. The boric, salicylic, and lactic acids in these suppositories were intended to change the vaginal environment below a pH level of 3.5, a level known to kill sperm--though not at all reliably.
Early references to "germs" in the context of vaginal cleanlineess were often synonymous wiith sperm. While acidic suppositories emphasized their deoderizing effects, producers included a multiptude of caustic, corrosive, and even explosive substances to produce the acidic environs detrimental to sperm. Unfortunately, this environment was also hostile to the beneficial bacteria that naturally flourishes in the vagina, causing discomfort and potential infection.
Norforms Feminine Hygiene Suppositories
By the 1940s, Norforms (formerly known as "Vagiforms') were the best-selliing brand of vaginal suppositories in the U.S. While the suppositories were sold only as "feminine hygiene" products, the company's vice president Webster Stofer conceded that the phrase was tightly associated with birth control. In comments published in 1938, The Norwich Pharmaceutical Company, manufacturers of Norforms, justified its advertising policy. Stofer insisted that his company's suppositories were not sold as contraceptives, and that the company was not inclined to change its admittedly misleading marketiing slogan. "The term [feminine hygiene] has become too closely associated with Norforms," he contended. "And anyway, we have our own definition of it."
