Thank you all for your info on the medical side of a male pill.
I knew that the topic would generate a few of the posts about the reliability of men taking a male pill which is why I tried to emphasize the medical side of the question. I have also taken the time to respond to some of the many suggestions that have been given that do not seem to me to hold up when looked at from the stand point of the original question.
I find it hard to believe that any drug company would not see the great potential for profit in a male pill that worked without side effects. Not to be too cynical but the drug company’s only care if their drugs could cause repercussions that the company could be sued for. Somehow a man lying to a woman about taking the pill and then getting her pregnant does not seem to hold that threat to the drug company. Even in these litigious times. So I do not think that topic would prevent a company from going after the market dollars.
Marketing is also not an issue. Case in point was referenced in this very post. Viagra has turned the once ultimate taboo subject of erectile dysfunction into a multi million dollar business. Predominantly through brilliant, if not annoying, advertising. I would speculate that being unable to have sex at all due to penis failure is a fare more difficult topic to address for men than whether or not the mans sperm was fertile or not. Further more drug companies spend millions on drug advertisements that target a relatively limited effected market. (Think anything from hay fever sufferers to those with herpes.) So from the advertising and changing of social views stand point the drug companies would appear to be more than ready and willing to spend the dollars to make even more.
As for the argument about women not trusting their partner when he claims to be taking the pill and is not. As I stated in the OP I married and monogamous. Any person foolish enough to have sex with someone they do not know well enough to trust with a matter of birth control and then not use a condom is risking far more than just pregnancy. That statement goes for both men and women.
If my wife gets pregnant I am very deeply effected. I grant that I will not be the one to become pregnant but I am deeply and profoundly effected by the pregnancy and for a long time (18 years minimum but allot longer for most parents) It is an insult to say that a responsible male in a trusting long term (read permanent in my case) relationship is not to be trusted to take a pill that if missed would profoundly change his life. Well beyond the 9 month pregnancy I might add.
Anyhow this line of reasoning only goes to the topic of weather or not a woman would trust a man. From the standpoint of researchers and drug companies they really don’t care if the woman trusts the man anymore than they care if the man trusts the woman. They only see a potential market and the revenue it would produce. So it seems to me that there has to be more here than just social and marketing issues.
All that being said I think the medical replies seem to be getting me closer to my answers. The few sites I can find however fail to go into detail about the actual mechanisms of why the male pills have been so much more difficult.
Maybe someone could find an article from a researcher detailing the mechanisms of some of the failed drugs that were mentioned. This may point us in the direction of why the drugs have been so difficult to produce. I have been trying and continue to fail but I have no access to any medical databases. Does anyone out there have access to such information?