I have a question about male contraceptives. Specifically one that could be taken as a pill, shot, implant or other method similar to the many available to women today.
In my searches of the archives I found several posts asking if men would take them if available and if women would trust them. This is not what Im asking here.
Also, there is a post on a product in development but it seems to me to have been a long time coming and as far as I can tell not yet available. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=394457&highlight=Birth+control+male
Female birth control pills, injections and such have been on the market for years. Yet no male equivalent has been forthcoming, as of yet. At least none I can find. If there is one please provide specifics.
My actual Question is. Are there technical/medical reasons why a male birth control medication has been more difficult to develop?
I realize the obvious cynical reasons for this but Im more interested in a scientific reason if there is any.
Note: Before we get into the subject of condoms, venereal disease or other non medication types of birth control. Im married monogamous and using condoms EVERY time. My wife is on the pill but I worry about the health issues related with the use of it. If available I would gladly take a pill, injection, implant or whatever was available assuming the risk was equal to or lower than the female birth control pills she is now taking.
One of the reasons I’ve heard (here I think) that it’s so much harder is that to do it the med has to kill millions of sperm very day, as opposed to one egg a month.
Yep, what Joey Psaid, except that The Pill doesn’t “kill” the egg so much as prevent it from ripening. Women are only fertile 3-5 days a month, due to a very manipulatable sequence of hormones that are very well understood. Also, we function pretty well while mucking about with those hormones, most of the time. Basically, the birth control pill was designed to be “natural” enough to be accepted by the Catholic church (it wasn’t, but that was the inventor’s intent) by simply extending the non-fertile part of the cycle by providing the hormone that keeps us infertile. In the woman’s body, once that hormone level drops, poof! you ovulate. Keep those hormone levels high, and you won’t ovulate. (Yes, this is in Captain Dummy Speak, but it’s all you need to know to answer the question in the OP.)
Men, OTOH, produce sperm whenever there’s enough testosterone, and do it 24/7. Remove his ability to produce testosterone or block the body’s ability to recognize testosterone far enough to stop producing sperm, and bad things may happen. (Growing breasts, losing facial hair, voice rising, etc.) My understanding is that there’s a product in development that has gotten around this problem, but it’s still in testing. I’m not sure of the mechanism or why there are supposedly no emasculating side effects.
Other female birth control choices either block the sperm (which a male condom will do), kill the sperm once it’s left the penis or irritate the uterine lining so that implantation is impossible. While a penile spermicide is an intriguing idea, it bears its own theoretical problems, like application (do you really want to inject a stream of spermicide up your urethra right before sex?) and duration of effectiveness. Even if you kill all the sperm that are viable right now, in a few minutes more will have matured.
I wouldn’t overlook the trust issue either. If it is a daily pill, I think many men couldn’t trust themselves to take it consistently, I think women know this. Now this does not mean that a man wouldn’t want to take the pill, he really would, but would be much more likely to forget then women in general.
Also the burden of pregnancy would fall on the woman, so that would be taking control over her body out of her hands.
I feel these are real factors that discourage spending research dollars here.
One factor that’s hindered development historically is that there is already a mechanism by which a woman of fertile age becomes temporarily infertile: pregnancy. Mimic that and you’re getting somewhere. There isn’t a corresponding condition for a man, which makes the problem harder, though not necessarily insoluble.
It’s true that both can take such a pill, and that could add a level of comfort.
But assuming only one is to take such a pill. If she forgets and has sex she is assuming the risk of pregnancy that comes directly from her actions (or inactions). If the pill is up to him, he forgets and she gets pregnant that comes directly from his action (or inaction). There is a big difference if you change your own life, or your life is changed due to the actions (or inactions) of another party which you had no control of.
Also if the person suppose to take the pill doesn’t (for whatever reason), then the couple want to have sex, I feel the man would be more willing to take the risk, while the woman would be more willing to abstain or use other methods of birth control.
I ask “how?” once again - I’ve heard of plenty of women who’ve forgotten to take the pill, and ended up pregnant as a result. Have a cite there, that women are more likely to take a daily pill than men are?
1 - the loss of control that women would have, having to depend on the man, instead of herself
and
2 - The perceived view that men are more undependable in taking daily medications then women. Note this does not mean that there is a difference (though I think I can accomidate that too), it only means that the general public perceives such a difference and that advertisers are influenced by this perception.
Well, magically I manage to take all my heart, diabetes meds, etc. daily and I’m much more afraid of having a kid than a heart attack or sugar coma, so I’m calling BS on yahh sweetheart.
You may not like it, but there are differences between men and women, and perceived differences. If you don’t think such things are noticed by marketers you are sadly mistaken.
Hehe, how many men since the beginning of time (or birth control) have gotten accidentally pregnant? Zero? I guess that would point to at least all women being less dependable than men when it comes to same.
