Not so rhetorical question - why aren't contraception methods for males

[KitchenWitch]

researched and developed?

I think it is all about trying to control female sexuality. See, in most conservatives' viewpoint, the only sexuality that is considered evil is that of women (and gays, but gays can't get each other pregnant).

Case in point, I used to be involved with a fundy man twenty plus years ago, and basically the party line was no sex before marriage, but it was far more acceptable if a man had a premarital sexual encounter, than if a woman did. It was also taught in his church that men physiologically "needed" sexual release, therefore it was perfectly acceptable for men to masturbate, but that women were forbidden from masturbation. Sounds like they want to control women's sexuality to me.

[Codeine]

1. Actually

there are a number of male contraceptives in the research and development stage. Only recently has it become possible to manipulate the hormones in such a way as to ensure that impotence didn't accompany the infertility. Here's a BBC News article from a few days ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4948302.stm

[CPMaz]

11. Want a male contraceptive that will appeal to men?

Combine it with Cialis/Viagra/Levitra/etc. and hire Angelina Jolie (or the equivalent, depending on who the ads were targeted to...she works for me though :) ) to appear in the ads.

Better yet, market it with C/V/L/etc. and BEER. And Angelina Jolie.

It'll all be in the marketing.

[KitchenWitch]

15. Sounds about right - and welcome to DU!

[murielm99]

2. Control of women is part of it.

The other part is that many men are so insecure with their sexual prowess that they would reject anything that interferes with their "potency."

Birth control for men would not sell, so it is not worth researching or marketing.

I don't know how fundie conservatives feel about vasectomies. You know some of them have cows about condoms. But imagine how they would denounce any birth control sold to men.

[phylny]

31. Man, I agree with you about the "vasectomy" stereotype.

Fourteen years ago, my husband got a vasectomy. BEST thing we ever did regarding birth control. No worries, no problems. The cool thing was that my obstetrician encouraged him to do so. "Cheaper, safer, easier" than tubal ligation.

A former friend of mine said her conservative husband refused to have one. "There's something about that word - 'sterile' - that just freaks me out," he insisted.

So, as far as I know she's spent the last 18 years using birth control because Mr. Sterilephobia couldn't bear the thought.

[TheBaldyMan]

3. would you trust me if we were about to have sex, then you say, ...

"What if I get pregnant?" then I say; "It's OK - I'm on the pill ! "

I can see a definate flaw in this logic.

[KitchenWitch]

4. I am not saying women should not take precautions

I am saying that for years, while women have been putting themselves at medical risk to avoid pregnancy, very little research was done on the male side of things.

The converse is true for other medical research. They have done many times more studies on adult males, than they have on adult females, regarding such everyday diseases as Diabetes, heart disease and cancer. And they wonder why some protocols only work well in men. :sarcasm:

[Karmakaze]

16. The funny thing is...

The Pill was first proclaimed as a liberation of women - of them being able to take control of their fertility and thus free them to enjoy sex on an equal playing field with men. Even feminism has been used as a marketing tool. Whatever sells...

As for research such as heart disease etc, part of that came from medical science not recognising that there were fundamental differences in how women and men react to the same medicines, part of it came from the fact that men suffered from these diseases earlier and more frequently than women.

Nowadays the opposite could be said, with treatmenst for breast and cervical cancer seemingly getting far more attention than prostate and especially testicular cancer.

Anyway, my point is its not necessarily sexism that makes these decisions, but more often than not the return on investment calculation. If it seems easier to create, market and sell a drug for women, thats what they will do, if the opposite is true, then that is the way they will go. In either case its not the gender of the target, but the expected return on investment. Corporations dont care enough about ANY people to bother differentiating between us. All that matters is the bottom line - maximum profit for least expenditure.

[Kutjara]

8. I knew a sleaze in college...

...who told women that he had had leukemia in childhood and was sterile from the radiotherapy. He boasted that this 'worked like a charm' to get women into bed. Of course he had never been sick a day in his life.

There will always be tricksters. The male pill just gives them another trick to play.

[Bridget Burke]

20. Contraception is needed beyond the "One Night Stand"...

In that case, BOTH partners ought to use all the precautions available--against pregnancy & various nasties.

But plenty of committed couples (married or not) want to become parents--eventually. (Or they want more kids--later.) So sterilization is out. Some women have health reasons NOT to use available contraceptive methods. And the guys might get tired of latex. So new male contraceptive methods would be useful.

[ComerPerro]

24. I hear that!

[Kutjara]

5. I think its really about relative risk.

Despite years of safe sex advertising, a large proportion of casual heterosexual encounters are not 'safe'. Given that the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy in such circumstances will usually fall squarely on the woman, it is in her interests to ensure that appropriate contraceptive measures are taken. The assurances of some guy that she has only just met that he is 'on the pill' are unlikely to reassure any but the most gullible. Now, if there could be some way that taking the male contraceptive could leave an unambiguous visible mark (like the words 'firing blanks' tattooed across the forehead), it would probably be safer for women to rely on them.

In stable relationships, however, I can't see any reason why men shouldn't share the contraceptive burden. Hopefully the new crop of contraceptives will be on the market in the near future.

[Peter Frank]

6. Fundamentalists Believe That Eve Bears All Responsibility... n/t

[eridani]

7. Because of the nature of the technical problem

13 eggs a year to block, vs. billions of sperm.

Also, success in the endeavor would result in a method usable only by people in long-term relationships. In no other circumstances would a sane woman believe a man who said "Sure baby, I'm taking the new miracle SpermBlock."

[REP]

12. How About a Guy Who Doesn't Want 18 Years of Child Support Payments?

Discuss birth control and abortion long enough, and some guy will come along and tell how he was tricked into fatherhood by a woman claiming to be on the Pill. Well, if guys had a Pill, too wouldn't it be harder to get stuck with unwanted Daddyhood? Sure, we already have condoms, but maybe having another option will make men realize that they can control where their sperm ends up.

[KitchenWitch]

13. Bravo!

:applause:

[JVS]

37. Isn't the implication of this that it is actually male sexuality that is..

controlled more by lack of men's contraceptives than female sexuality?

[Scout]

40. that's what I've been told

it's not impossible to make a male contraceptive, it's just a lot easier (so far) to make one for women for precisely the reason you stated.

[Jean Louise Finch]

9. Some good news

There are some male contraceptives in clinical trials, some entering later phases. This website I just stumbled on has some good resources to learn more: http://www.malecontraceptives.org/

If you think about how much work and sweat has gone into getting contraceptives for women approved, you can imagine that any intervention having to do with reproductive health isn't a huge priority for big pharma. Which is distressing, but true (and inexcusable), but some researchers are trying to make a change. If you know someone keen, try and get them to enroll in some clinical trials! The only way this stuff will move forward is by active outspoken demand by consumers.

I'm still amazed that we can put a man on the moon but haven't figured out a better way to deal with menstruation than tampons and pads. What the hell? Some priorities are so out of whack it just bedazzles me.

[geniph]

32. There actually IS a better way to deal with menstruation

and most OB\GYNs know about it, but are cautious about recommending it, because they're afraid of malpractice suits in case that one person in a million has a problem. If you take birth control pills continuously (without the week of placebos) most women won't have any bleeding at all. There's no medical reason why you have to have periods; for most women, it's quite safe.

There's also that new version of the pill, Seasonale, that allows women to have only four periods a year. That's the way to kind of split the difference between no periods and one every four weeks.

There's also the option of uterine ablation (removal of the uterine lining altogether), but most physicians are reluctant to do that for any woman who isn't more or less crippled with endometriosis.

There's plenty of wacko fundy fruitbat types that think anything that prevents menstruation is unBiblical - because Eve was "cursed" by God.

[riderinthestorm]

38. I like this!

I practically begged for a hysterectomy after my second child was born. No more periods! I couldn't believe they would voluntarily tie my tubes but wouldn't give me the hysterectomy.....

I can't wait until tomorrow when I can schedule an appointment and check out some of these possibilities. Thanks for posting!

[Scout]

39. I was lucky...

If you take birth control pills continuously (without the week of placebos) most women won't have any bleeding at all.
I didn't even have to do this ... just taking them normally, including the placebo week stopped my period. It was great! I talked to my doctor about it, tried another kind of pill, but same thing. It didn't bother me, and doctor said no health risk (other than the normal ones associated with BC pill).

After I stopped taking the pill and had a tubal, my periods came back for a while.

Now I'm entering menopause. I hope they will be gone entirely, soon!

[Jean Louise Finch]

42. There's also Implanon, oh, and some great menstrual cups

Implanon is just a contraceptive (progestegon only) plastic stick you get inserted in your arm, though I'm not sure if it's gotten approval in the states yet. This was a dream for the first two years I've had it -- very rare (very irregular), but very light periods. It's been sort a nightmare the last six months but hopefully once I get it replaced things shall return to normal. I can't take birth control pills -- the daily hormonal spikes make me totally insane, grumpy and give me debilitating migraines, so seasonale and so forth aren't really an option for me and lots of other women. It makes me pretty furious that the options for women are still so limited, much less the ones for men.

For when you actually have your period, there's also Instead cups, which take some getting used to but let you have all the sex you want without the stained sheets. Also doesn't mess up the natural moisture that keeps one healthy! They just require you to be sorta comfortable with your body and what comes out of it. There's also the Diva Cup and the Mooncup for more eco-concious women, but I find those awfully irritating when I'm relying on public bathrooms most days.

Anyway, back to the topic!

[REP]

44. My Ablation was Does Primarily For My Convenience

I have a history of menorrhagia, but no endometriosis. I had my ablation after my tubal liagation. It isn't offered more because it destroys fertility - a big plus for me, but for many it isn't; also they tend to fail within five years when done in women under 40. For women who don't want children or who don't want any more children, uterine ablation is a good choice to end or minimize periods, though another form of birth control is advised; pregnancy can happen (abaltions don't always get 100% of the endometrium) and such pregnancies are dangerous and must be terminated.

[debbierlus]

46. WAY more then one person in a million has problems on birth control pills

And, there are very sound medical reasons for not wanting to have continously high estrogen levels...High levels of female hormones increase the risk of breast cancer & stroke.

Birth control pills have their place. No question.

But, they do have real risks and as a RN I would never in a million years recommend any woman taking them continously UNLESS there was a very legitimate medical reason.

[slybacon9]

10. according to Dr. Drew from LoveLine, that shit is right around the corner

but of course, he's been saying that for at least a year now.

and i'm sure the FDA will squash it anyway, just like everything else.

[Triana]

14. Our male-run gov't (incl the FDA) won't have any part of that...

....and they'll say "it encourages promiscuity" so they won't want to approve it. Doesn't mesh with the "abstinance" crap. Hell, they're trying to outlaw birth control for women, as is.

[mondo joe]

35. Who elects the "male run gov't"?

Mostly women.

[One_Life_To_Give]

17. What do you call a Vasectomy

if not male birth control?

And as pointed out in other posts. The "Male Pill" has been talked about as coming Soon for several years.

[KansDem]

18. I remember reading some years ago about tiny little valves

that could be attached to the testicles, enabling one to turn on and off the sperm flow. With the valves turned to "off," sperm would not be released and only seamen would be ejaculated. With the valves on "on," sperm would flow freely and mix with the seamen. I don't know what became of this bit of technology.

But imagine the possibilities for pop song writing:
Baaaa-by
You turn my vaaaalves on.

edited for spelling

[raccoon]

19. You oughta write songs, Kansas. :-)

[Canadiana]

21. Anyone who says it's to repress women

is dead wrong. With the way women's and men's bodies differ...there are some things that a practical and some that are not. Since the female fertility cycle has very regular events, controlling the hormones in a way to supress the one event of ovulation turns out to be easy. Controlling the spermatogenesis of hundreds of millions of gametes is FAR more difficult and impractical. Scientists have tried with little sucess compared to controlling the female fertility cycle.

However, there's another side to the coin. The male condom is a fairly reliable form of contraception AND std prevention. The female condom, I imagine, is a lot less comfortable or practical. Condoms fit men, pill fits women.

[KitchenWitch]

22. I disagree with you

The plain truth is, the "research" into male contraception has largely been talk, and depending on a woman's medical history, the methods available to them are often risky (maybe not at the time, but later in life). The pill can cause heart disease, stroke and deep vein thrombosis; the IUD can shift and perforate the uterus, and can also cause a major infection in the uterus, severe cramping (and simply cannot be used at all by women with a history of PID or menorrhagia). Norplant and Nuvaring can't be used by the same women that can't use the pill. Diaphragms (and condoms for that matter) cannot be used if either partner is allergic to latex. And do not get me started on the rhythm method (are you kidding me).

Women bear children, thus women show the "stain" of sexual activity. The puritans want to keep women from having sex outside of marriage pure and simple, and one cannot deny that is a part of why real solutions for male (and female) contraception are not researched. Plain and simple, our government via FDA panders to the religious wrong.

[XemaSab]

25. It's a fact

Lot of anti-contraception FReepers roaming around lately.

[KitchenWitch]

26. No kidding!

:patriot:

[BlooInBloo]

23. There's no reason whatsoever they can't both be true...

(1) That a large part of the impetus for female contraception is the traditional male desire to control women and their sexuality (read Steinem for more on this).

and

(2) It so happens to be technically relatively easy to engineer contraception based around women.


There's just no reason in the world that these can't both be true.

[jbnow]

48. If it was to control women

they'd have gotten male birth control (besides condoms) and not female birth control. Then women would be under the control of men.

If women have birth control can take the control of their own body.

I know bc pills and IUDs have health risks but I don't get how it gives male the control at all. If a man wants a baby she can say she is not taking the pill, but take it. If a man wants no baby she can say she is on the pill but not take it. We have the control.
Male birth control and a man could do the same to women. He'd have control.


Pills for women weren't that easy,. Once they figured out how and when to alter the hormones they still kept tweaking it. Early pills had way higher doses than needed. But still a simpler puzzle to solve to stop one egg then to stop constantly replenishing sperm. God knows what side effects those will have as they get perfected.

Birth control pills for either sex are best for committed relationships for many reasons. Trust, dealing with failed birth control and most of all this isn't the 70's anymore. Boys don't like condoms but they're the best protection for STDs and AIDS. They should used even with other birth control.
Kids are you listening?

[uppityperson]

41. So women only have to take 1 pill once a cycle? cool

I thought they had to take them continuously, running the risk of blood clots (strokes, heart attacks). Mens and womens bodies both do hormonal things all the time. Seriously. Men can make sperms all the time, women have 1 (usually) egg released a month. However, they both do hormonal things all the time and the women have to take artificial hormones all the time to stop that 1 egg. Did you know that?

Scientists have done little research into controlling the male fertility cycle but are working on it.

Condoms don't fit all men, or all women, esp those allergic to them or the wrong size. Female condoms aren't as effective as male ones, either.

[jbnow]

49. Women take pills

for three weeks each cycle in their cycle to stop that one egg.

I haven't read links on what they are developing for men recently, but they sure were having trouble over the years trying to halt that constant production of new sperm. spermatogenesis isn't easy to stop.
I hope the side effects are OK. I'll have to read what they are doing.When I read about it a few years ago it took shots AND pills to lower the sperm count to make them sub-fertile, still made a couple million a day.

In trials they had weight gain, aggressiveness, messed up cholesterol, lowered sex drive or impotence and sometimes impaired fertility went on long after going off the pill/shots. I worried what long term implications would be.

If they have refined it that's great.
In the meantime condoms work pretty well (and this is the age we need condoms in all but committed relationships)

[liontamer]

51. not true at all

it's a lot easier to mechanically block sperm release. It's also pretty easy to either stop sperm production, or damage sperm motility. and unlike with women, you don't have to control an entire cycle, just pick one process and stop it. Unfortunately these techniques aren't funded well. I've known people who worked in the field who had to shut down their research because nobody would fund male contraception (after all men can't get pregnant). There are lots of techniques that are in the works, but people don't have the funding to run them through clinical trials (it takes about a billion dollars to get a drug on the market)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Females have nice regular hormonal cycles...

that can be easily disrupted with various steroid, thus rendering her infertile.

Fifty years ago, some chemists isolated a steroid from a cactus, performed a few simple modifications of it, and bam- a multibillion dollar drug industry.

If you'd like to propose a cheap, easy, non-surgical way to make men infertile without any major risks, then I'm sure pharmaceutical companies would love to hear it. That would be a multibillion dollar industry too.

You're right on the premarital sex double standard, wrong on the masturbation. Men, until the last few decades, were forbidden to masturbate, and people went to lengths to insure they did not. Women, however, were simply assumed not to masturbate.

[KitchenWitch]

28. About the masturbation - I was just speaking to my experience

being involved with someone whose church sanctioned male masturbation while oppressing that in women.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. LOL.

What church was that?

[KitchenWitch]

33. I can't recall, but it was a fundamentalist Christian church

You know, submissive housewives, man as spiritual leader of the family, hate gays...the whole nine yards.

[Sapere aude]

30. Biology?

[cushla_machree]

34. millions sperm vs one egg

It comes down to that.

Plus, hell i cannot remember to take my pills everyday....as if i would trust some guy to take his 'pills'!

[JVS]

36. Because if you want something done right, do it yourself

Responsibility for the birth control goes to the woman because she is the one who actually has to deal with the fact that she's pregnant.

Imagine that you were single and out on a date (I assume no STD's because condoms are every bit as much for men as women, in fact I'd bet men buy them more). Do you really want to have to consider if he took his pill that morning? The only reasonable thing to do would be to take care of birth control yourself.

I think the pharm companies are banking (correctly imo) that since women are the ones who experience the problems of pregnancy first hand that they are the ones who are more interested in preventing it.

Your idea that it is designed to control female sexuality makes no sense! How does making pills that (once again assuming no STDs) allow you to have consequence free sex contolling you?

BTW, what denomination doesn't forbid men to masturbate?

[Quantess]

43. If we could get some scientists to respond...

This has also also seemed obvious to me forever, (I'm 35, ask me).

Has any truly new Birth Control been inventented since Reagan? It seems that since Ronald Reagan's inauguration, it's just Norplant (a version of BC hormones). Some women are not safe for B.C. hormones, because they may encourage cerebral infarctions (strokes).

edited for spelling

[debbierlus]

45. I would not trust anyone to prevent MY getting pregnant

We are the ones that can get pregnant. No one is controlling that, THAT is the reality.

Do you really trust another person to stop a woman from conceiving?

I can just imagine the tens of thousands of boys lying to ignorant girls....

Yeah, baby. It's cool. I am on the pill.

The best way for a woman to ensure that she will not get pregnant is for HER to take measures to prevent it from happenening.

Even, people in committed loving relationships could have problems with the man being responsible for the contraception.

Not in a trillion years. Only way I would trust it, if the man has a vasectomy. (And, you KNOW that it is true)!

[liontamer]

54. Why not?

There's a certain amount of trust that goes into a relationship. Obviously for casual encounters there's a bit less, but that's when you would be using condoms anyway. (and do you trust your partner to use a condom and not say poke holes into it?).

[entanglement]

47. Wait, you're trying to get me disagree with you or something?

;)

[Up2Late]

50. There IS one (injection I think), but do you really trust a guy...

...when he says, "Don't worry _____, I got that male birth control shot, I promise.:evilgrin:

[liontamer]

52. I would

I don't sleep with people I don't trust.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. You Do Realize That There Are Many Being Developed Already Right?

And you have heard of condoms too I hope.

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. So....

Let me get this straight. There are a dozen reliable and private forms of ad-hoc birth control available for women and one (1) notoriously unreliable and impossible-to-disguise method available for men... because it's all part of the conspiracy to control women's sexuality?

There's another possible explanation. The decisionmaking related to reproduction is currently almost entirely the province of women. This decisionmaking authority confers significant power over their partners. Any pill which allows men to control their fertility undermines this power.

On behalf of my adolescent sons, I very much welcome the introduction of a male oral contraceptive, and I guarantee it'll be a big hit when it reaches the market.

[American Tragedy]

56. Actually, the current circumstances place men in the vulnerable position

Granted, more male contraceptive options would exponentially decrease the likelihood of conception to the benefit of both parties, women as well as men, but most strikingly it would empower men to independently control their own reproductive destinies in a way that they cannot right now. It's a very positive development for both sides - I don't see why either sex would have a vested interest against it.