If a safe and reliable male contraceptive pill was invented what would happen to US birth rates?

[toofs]

Birth rates might change based on demographic or class lines. Males having active, automatic control over their fertility (without the use of a condom) would be a game changer.

I have already discussed this with friends of mine. Every straight guy I know, married, single, in a committed relationship, or already has children has said they would take the pill. They want control. Two party integrity for creating new humans.

This is a multi billion dollar untapped market.

[Count_Blucher]

@Bridget_Burke

Would men really be so gutless that they’d take the pill in secret? Why not say “Honey, it’s not fair that you should keep taking the pill–which has side effects. It’s my turn to take responsibility.”

Of course, we’re assuming the male pill would have NO side effects, unlike every medication ever…

I’m guessing that there would be the “bragging rights” firsters & then the guys who just don’t want to be support donors. Not sure how the courts would rule, given that the guy had done everything chemically short of sterilization to prevent conception.
(Assumes blood test showing chemical levels in the bloodsteam might logically lead to grounds for DNA paternity testing to point in Another financial direction, deep pockets be damned.)

[even_sven]

@Lemmytheseal2

I don’t dispute most of that, but what about the common phenomenon of men leaving after impregnating a woman (before or after she gives birth), and/or the phenomenon (possibly widespread, but we don’t know) of women “oopsing” themselves into pregnancy, and/or the phenomenon of men with no plans (or no current plans) to impregnate anyone, but intoxication or something similar ruins their plans?

IMHO, a lot of these guys are perfectly fine with having a kid, they’d just prefer not to actually raise a kid. I’m also pretty sure a lot parents break up when the baby is 2 or 3 years old-- old enough that the novelty has worn off and the real work has begun.

Being a non-custodial parent can be a good deal if you aren’t too burdened by ethics of empathy, especially if you can weasel out of child support. All the reproduction at a fraction of the sacrifice.

[even_sven]

@astro

My belief is that desire for children falls along a curve. If a man is still dithering about having kids into his mid 30’s and early 40’s his actions will speak louder than his words. A lot of women quite reasonably think men in these age cohorts must want babies because that’s what the men will usually say when quizzed by women. They often say this to either be socially accepted or placate their SO. “No I don’t really want kids” is a conversation and relationship killer on many levels.

Men do not have a biological push to “have kids”, they have a biological push to have sex. The lifestyle rationale to have kids is weaker in modernity than it has even been in the history of mankind. Most men will go along with their SO desires but there are IMO a substantial group of men, who if they had the option to opt out at a certain age will take this route.

I suspect you are drawing too closely on a small group of men who share your views and tying them to some tired stereotypes about women. I know a lot of women, and despite popular belief, they are not all baby-crazy dingbats who’ll believe anything a man tells them with “baby” in the sentence.

Some of them don’t want kids at all but are being pressured by their SOs. Some of ambivalent and are letting their SOs decide. Some of them are mostly having kids because it’s important to their SO. Some of them want one or two while their SOs want three or four. And of course, some are well-matched with their SO’s views. I don’t think any of them are dumb enough to not notice if their SO was lying through their teeth about such a spectacularly important issue, and I don’t think any of their SOs are feeding them a bill of goods. There are plenty of women who don’t want kids in this particular city, so a guy has no real reason to stick with one who does if he doesn’t.

While having kids may not make sense on a strict cost-benefit caculation, most of us (including men) grew up in families, and many of us desire to keep that dynamic in our lives.

[Hail_Ants]

@LSLGuy

Disagree almost completely.

A condom is a total downer to use. A med that, per the OP, has zero effect other than sterility would be awesome and a big hit with a huge number of men. For them it’d be returning to the worry-free sex of the 60s. Or the worry-free sex of the vasectomized, but without the permanent part.

Well maybe, but remember unlike a condom a pill does nothing to prevent STDs, so it still wouldn’t be worry free…

[Doctor_Jackson]

@even_sven

IMHO, a lot of these guys are perfectly fine with having a kid, they’d just prefer not to actually raise a kid. I’m also pretty sure a lot parents break up when the baby is 2 or 3 years old-- old enough that the novelty has worn off and the real work has begun.

That statement made me wonder, so I did some research. I was a bit surprised that data on the age of children at time of divorce seems hard to come by, but the small amount I found online seems to indicate an average age significantly older than 2-3:

NYT article on a California study that says, in part:

The California study, begun in 1971, has followed 60 families whose 131 children ranged in age for 2 1/2 to 18 years old when the marriages ended. The new findings center on the 34 youngest children who were preschoolers, aged 2 1/2 to 6, when the study began.

In that study, only about a quarter were between 2 1/2 and 6 years old.

In another studythe average age of children of divorce was 9:

Fraley analyzed data from 7,335 of men and women, average age 24, who participated in a survey about personality and close relationships online. More than one-third of the participants’ parents had divorced.

On average, the children were aged 9 at the time of the divorce.

In neither study was the age of the children a primary data point, they were looking at the overall effects on children and whether age at divorce played a part in those effects, but it gives an indication of a higher age at divorce than toddler.

[ZPG_Zealot]

@even_sven

While having kids may not make sense on a strict cost-benefit caculation, most of us (including men) grew up in families, and many of us desire to keep that dynamic in our lives.

However one does not need to have children to have a family.

[Acsenray]

The medication I was thinking of is Flomax. It relaxes the urethra and causes retrograde ejaculation and thus acts as a male contraceptive. It’s pretty effective in stopping ejaculation of semen.

[even_sven]

@Doctor_Jackson

That statement made me wonder, so I did some research. I was a bit surprised that data on the age of children at time of divorce seems hard to come by, but the small amount I found online seems to indicate an average age significantly older than 2-3:

NYT article on a California study that says, in part:

In that study, only about a quarter were between 2 1/2 and 6 years old.

In another studythe average age of children of divorce was 9:

In neither study was the age of the children a primary data point, they were looking at the overall effects on children and whether age at divorce played a part in those effects, but it gives an indication of a higher age at divorce than toddler.

Thank you for the research-- I’ve tried to look this up before but kept reaching dead ends.

I think it would be important to separate out the divorced parents with shared custody or who otherwise take real and regular responsibility for the kid. Divorce isn’t the same as abandoning a kid or having nothing to do with them outside of a court-ordered child support check.

Still, I think it does point to people not wanting to take care of their kids, but not neccessarily not wanting to have kids to begin with.

[Boyo_Jim]

If you could take a pill (very cheap, without prescription, and so flat you could keep it in a wallet ) 5 minutes before sex to prevent pregnancies, unplanned pregnancies would almost disappear.

But STDs would probably increase significantly.

Once a month? No change.

[Your_Great_Darsh_Face]

@ZPG_Zealot

However one does not need to have children to have a family.

Very true. Adoption is a reasonable, responsible and socially aware choice.

[Count_Blucher]

@Hail_Ants

Well maybe, but remember unlike a condom a pill does nothing to prevent STDs, so it still wouldn’t be worry free…

True, but if it could be dispensed without a prescription and could still remain effective after being at the bottom of a shot glass, could you imagine boost in bar drink sales to men 21-65?
Good bye, Margaritas!
Hello, Senoritas…!
:eek:

[Drunky_Smurf]

@Your_Great_Darsh_Face

Very true. Adoption is a reasonable, responsible and socially aware choice.

Adoptable children are the most special children and society needs to take better care of them until they get adopted by loving caring parents.