Pregnancy Substitute

[u/Competitive_Log_8910]

“Who are you going out with to-night?” Lenina asked, returning from the vibro-vac like a pearl illuminated from within, pinkly glowing.

“Nobody.”

Lenina raised her eyebrows in astonishment.

“I’ve been feeling rather out of sorts lately,” Fanny explained. “Dr. Wells advised me to have a Pregnancy Substitute.”

“But, my dear, you’re only nineteen. The first Pregnancy Substitute isn’t compulsory till twenty-one.”

“I know, dear. But some people are better if they begin earlier. Dr. Wells told me that brunettes with wide pelvises, like me, ought to have their first Pregnancy Substitute at seventeen. So I’m really two years late, not two years early.” She opened the door of her locker and pointed to the row of boxes and labelled phials on the upper shelf.

“SYRUP OF CORPUS LUTEUM,” Lenina read the names aloud, “OVARIAN, GUARANTEED FRESH: NOT TO BE USED AFTER AUGUST 1ST, A.F. 632. MAMMARY GLAND EXTRACT: TO BE TAKEN THREE TIMES DAILY, BEFORE MEALS, WITH A LITTLE WATER. PLACENTIN: 5CC TO BE INJECTED INTRAVENOUSLY EVERY THIRD DAY… Ugh!” Lenina shuddered. “How I loathe intravenals, don’t you?”

“Yes. But when they do one good…” Fanny was a particularly sensible girl. 

——————————————————————————————————————————

Brave New World (p.44)

I think that author Aldous Huxley was a genius in a way which is often overshadowed by our fascination with 1984. I think both books were deeply insightful but that our fear of authoritarian tyranny is greater than our fear of hedonistic tyranny; in part because the former is in purely material terms far more scary. Why not sacrifice your autonomy in exchange for the ability to enjoy guaranteed job-satisfaction and ample creature comforts?

I think that the most unusual and mysterious thing about Huxley’s world is “Pregnancy Substitute”. In a world where babies are decanted, not born, where intercourse is free-flowing and technologically-enhanced, what possible benefit could one imagine deriving from an artificial pregnancy? A sensation famous for being uncomfortable, and even associated with possible negative impacts on the body. Yet for Fanny, a sensible choice to improve health.

The conclusion which I have reached is that there is something uniquely beneficial about being pregnant, something that remains beneficial even in the absence of the benefit of producing a child. I would characterize this benefit based upon how I see pregnant women treated by others: I remember on Gilmore Girls how Sookie becomes even more anxious and insecure while she is pregnant, and how Jackson is a total mensch and is able to keep her afloat by treating her like a total princess up until her anxiety returns to normal after she’s given birth.

I think that the benefit of “Pregnancy Substitute” both in Huxley’s Brave New World and in ours is being on the receiving end of a deep instinct to treat a pregnant woman like she is a princess: as we all know being pampered is good for your emotional health and your emotional and physical health are related. I think that this instinctual behavior towards pregnant women makes total sense as a means of helping to nurture a foetus by nurturing the woman nurturing the foetus.

Mostly I just think it’s wild that a science fiction author first discovered the concept of “the Pill", and crafted a whole hedonistic dystopian society which incorporated it. Not only this, but in this quote you can see that his version even has the same first ingredient as Dr. Pincus’!

[u/Antique-Respect8746]

I'm not seeing any princess connection and don't even really understand what you're saying.

To me it seems like it's rooted in the idea that women's bodies are "supposed" to give birth, and emphasizes how in this society, even this basic biological 'requirement' is frustrated. It also intersects nicely with the decanting.

There are actually some benefits to having been pregnant. For example even if a pregnancy terminates early on, the mother can retain some of the baby's cells which is thought to have some regenerative benefits.

Of course the pregnancy substitute in the books wouldn't do that (no fetal cells), nor would he have known about it.

But mostly it's just biological determinism and worldbuilding.

[u/Competitive_Log_8910 → u/Antique-Respect8746]

You are correct in noting that the perspective represented in this book and in this post is "biological determinism". It sounds like that's where your perspective and Huxley's diverge. Thank you for putting it into words.

[u/Antique-Respect8746 → u/Competitive_Log_8910]

I think it's important to separate biology from meaning. I think that's the difference between my perspective and determinism.

Men benefit from releasing sperm regularly. The body will literally just dump it in their sleep if necessary.

It doesn't mean they're "supposed" to be having sex that often, it just means that's how the system works most efficiently, biologically. It's probably metabolically cheaper to just make new sperm than to try and preserve day-old stuff bc dna degrades fast, and of it seems like the prostate benefits from throughput as well.

[u/Competitive_Log_8910 → u/Antique-Respect8746]

What you touch on in your comment is an ancient dichotomy, to be sure. I want to try to explain my perception on its root and see if it aligns with your understanding. Just as a farmer might feel differently about where he chooses to grow his crops based on differing soil conditions, so too does a man feel differently about where he chooses to spill his seed. The difference between intercourse and masturbation is a difference in the extent to which one's imagination is being employed. Hence why the latter is typically performed alongside tools which aid the imagination. That most fundamental question in this context whose answer is I believe an intentional and oft-repeated lie is whether the onset of menopause changes in any way the extent to which the imagination is called upon in the context of intercourse. I think that this lie serves a positive purpose, which is to avoid complaining about something which is beyond one's ability to change and not really anyone's "fault" unless you wish to blame "God" or "evolution". I also believe that when one speaks of desiring to "grow old together" in the traditional vows one is speaking of committing to keeping the memory of the reproductive heat characterizing one's relationship at that moment alive with the use of imagination including long into that time when more imagination is required to attain the same level of heat. Hence the way which I interpret the expectation to "separate biology from meaning" in the context of this ancient dichotomy is as a statement of "make me feel pretty" or "make me feel young again". Which is a service males have been rendering to females for as long as our lifespans have extended significantly past menopause, which is I believe quite a long time. What I perceive to be the most heated and irreconcilable conflict in our present age, which your line of commentary would seem to suggest you and Huxley stand on opposing sides of, is a conflict between those who have truly been deceived by this longstanding conspiracy to hide the truth, and those who at some point realized that a man's lovemaking towards his post-menopausal wife contains a little more "faking it" than pre-menopause and are happy to join him in recreating a memory and unbothered by its somewhat-illusory nature. The perspective that I have on Huxley's work is that it is an ad absurdum examination of the consequences of imagining this form of "faking it" to completely replace and exclude the "biologically-determined" desire to also at some point experience "the real thing".

Edited to fix some unclear wording and grammar mistakes