I'll excuse your ill manners and accusing tone, WibblyBibble, because it is a surprising little factoid, but it is nonetheless true.
"Withdrawal is sometimes referred to as the contraceptive method that is ?better than nothing?. But, based on the evidence, it might more aptly be referred to as a method that is almost as effective as the male condom?at least when it comes to pregnancy prevention. If the male partner withdraws before ejaculation every time a couple has vaginal intercourse, about 4% of couples will become pregnant over the course of a year. However, more realistic estimates of typical use indicate that about 18% of couples will become pregnant in a year using withdrawal. These rates are only slightly less effective than male condoms, which have perfect- and typical-use failure rates of 2% and 17%, respectively."
Better than nothing or savvy risk-reduction practice? The importance of withdrawal
Rachel K. Jones, Guttmacher Institute, New York
Julie Fennell, Sociology Dept, Central Connecticut State University
Jenny A. Higgins, Office of Population Research, Wallace Hall, Princeton University
Kelly Blanchard, Ibis Reproductive Health, Cambridge, MA
Published in Contraception #79 (2009) 407?410
www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/reprints/Contraception79-407-410.pdf
So 2% (perfect) to 17% (typical) for condoms, versus 4% to 18% for withdrawal. Or, as I put it, "Sex using condoms and the withdrawal method are about equally effective".
The perfect / typical rates for the combined pill are 0.3 to 8%. So effective withdrawal is actually better than the crap of typical for the pill.
As to whether "women are obliged to drug themselves for the benefit of men who...want to fuck without condoms", clearly they aren't. If they looked into whether it even works, they'd find it's a fool's errand to do so.
While providing reliable-ish contraception is likely one reason women use the pill, my surmise is that it is often used just to establish and assert control over a particular dimension of the relationship.