The birth control pill for men has been just around the corner for close to thirty years now.
Some claim it’s because of the difficulty of creating such a pill. After all, a birth control pill for women has to stop an event that happens once a month (ovulation). A birth control pill for men would have to do something about sperm, either by stopping sperm production or by making them incapable of fertilizing an egg. But sperm production is happening all the time, even while the owner of the testes is involved in such non-sexual pursuits as flossing his teeth. (And if any of you guys do get off on flossing your teeth, I don’t wanna hear about it, okay?) And unlike a vasectomy, a male pill should be easily reversible - men will want to know that their fertility will return after they stop taking it. Tricky.
Others say it’s because of the inequalities of pregnancy. Men simply don’t get pregnant, therefore women have a greater interest in controlling reproduction.
Another possibility is that men rather like the status quo. With only one birth control option available to them, condoms, men can argue against that one method (usually by saying it reduces sensation) and hand full responsibility for birth control over to their partners. Or maybe men just won’t put up with putting synthetic hormones into their own bodies… but then why is it so natural for a woman to do just that?
It’s sometimes said to be marketing, as well. The potential market for a male pill is too small to be worth investing serious research dollars, so they say.
I sure don’t know. I can think of counter-arguments to almost every point brought up here. Maybe it’s a combination of several of them. Maybe it’s something else I’ve never thought of. What do you think?
mm…interesting concept. Never really thought much about this, however, it would depend on how they would make the male contraceptive pill work. Trying to halt sperm production would be difficult, but probably could be achieved.
true too that too much emphasis is placed on the female to look after the contraceptive side of things.
gonna have to agree on this one too. of course they’re not going to spend millions developing a drug if it’s not going to be used!
I think you’ve opened up a can of worms with this one. I’ll wait a little while and see what others have to say on this. I’ve brought this subject up before. I believe it came up in a thread on parental responsibility. And once again on abortion rights.
No woman in her right mind is going to trust someone of the non-impregnable sex to make sure she doesn’t get pregnant.
But…do you really have any trouble comprehending why a male person would want to prevent someone from conceiving by him except under circumstances where he wants it to happen?
Let’s just say that if there had been a decent and dependable pill of this type, my vasectomy would have been unnecessary.
Actually, one of the safest, most reliable birth control methods belongs to men: the vasectomy. Of course, it is not usually reversible, so the man must be sure he doesn’t want children or any more children. But barring abstinence or sodomy, it is just about the best bet for preventing pregnancies.
I think responsible birth control is the for both parties (duh!). Both have sex, both have to suffer the consequences (well, hopefully both - we all know it sometimes doesn’t work out that way) of an unexpected pregnancy. I think there should be more options for men besides condoms. Women have lots (barrier methods, IUDs, etc).
This from my POV: I’ve been on the pill for 10 years now. After we have kids, ol’ honey is either going have to get snipped or use condoms because I AIN’T going back on the pill. I don’t think it’s fair to expect me to have to be the one concerned with it all the time. Even if I was to use a barrier method, I still think that he needs to take some of the responsibility after we have children. Heck, my sister-in-law is pregnant and she was a devoted user of her diaphragm.
Heh heh…I know why. It’s because of the side effects. The Pill makes your boobs hurt, exacerbates migraine headaches, makes you more susceptible to yeast infections, & all kinds of other unfun stuff. Of course, a male pill would have different side effects, but when you tinker with your hormones, you get side effects.
Ladies, think about how much your man whines when he just has a cold…now imagine how well he’d deal with hormonal side effects! If the pill made guys’ nuts hurt the way my boobs do, we’d just never hear the end of it! No thanks.
There’s been a lot of work over the last thirty years to come up with alternate forms of male birth control. Try visiting these sights for more information.
Any male birth control pill would almost crtainly have to be a contraceptive. There are no contraceptive pills for women; why should we expect there to be one for men?
“The combination pill prevents ovulation by suppressing the natural hormones in the body that would stimulate the ovary to release an egg. By taking this estrogen throughout the month, you insure that no egg will be developed or released for that cycle. Progestin thickens the cervical mucus, hindering the movement of sperm. Progestin also prevents the uterus’s lining from developing normally; so, if an egg were fertilized, implantation is unlikely.”
Not only does it suppress ovulation, it also acts as an abortificant (sp?). The hormones used in the pill cover several bases, in case one method fails. How would this be done with a male pill?
I think that they are abortificants. However, Alatariel’s post suggests otherwise. Perhaps I have been misinformed. However, since you apparently believe that “birth control” and “contraceptive” are synomynous, you definitely have been misinformed.
A pill that prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum in the lining of the uterus is in no way an “abortificant” (sic). Fertile women shed fertilized ovum during menses quite frequently; that’s one reason some women find it difficult to get pregnant.
Now, if you are arguing that any fertilized ovum that fails to produce a live birth is somehow an “abortion”, I think your cheese done slid off your cracker, Ryan.
[quoteNow, if you are arguing that any fertilized ovum that fails to produce a live birth is somehow an “abortion”, I think your cheese done slid off your cracker, Ryan[/quote]
Abortion:
Induced termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or fetus that is incapable of survival
Pregnant:
Carrying developing offspring within the body.
Perhaps, in the strictest sense of the word, it’s not abortion, but in no sense of the word is it contraception, which is my central point.
Face it, Ryan. Abortion is used as contraception whether you approve or not; and what’s more it is legal and will continue to be legal for the foreseeable future. If you want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, I suggest you start teaching kids about safe sex, reproductive science, and alternative forms of birth control. If you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
Maybe men would be more likely to take an oral contraceptive if it was packaged specifically for them. For example, you could put it in beer, or nachos…
: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation
[/quote]
[/quote]
Abortion doesn’t prevent impregnation, it ends it. This is a very simple concept. I don’t understand why you aren’t getting it.
You obviously either do not understand what the word “abortion” means, or you do not understand what the word “contraception” means. Quite possibly both.