One persistent excuse for lower investment in male contraceptives is the assertion that men, especially young men, wouldn’t use them. I happen to think it’s at best a chicken/egg problem in the sense that the only realistic options available to men are a) vasectomies and b) condoms, each of which has their, um, shortcomings fertility-wise. Vasectomies are very reliable but cost $6,325.00 to reverse (in 1995 dollars since that’s when I had mine) should you ever actually want to have children. And condoms, while they work very well when both parties are sober, invested in the outcome, have the lights on, put it on before even the first bare genital-to-genital contact, remain erect throughout, withdraw immediately after intercourse, dispose of properly, clean up all fluids, remain mindful of any and all post-ejaculation seepage before resuming even incidental genital-to-genital contact, and always have non-defective, high-quality condoms available… well, condoms aren’t always used under those circumstances. So even if it was men who got pregnant instead of women the available options for men are exactly the same as they were in 1975 when I got my vasectomy, and, for that matter, the same as they were in 1890.
So yeah, the story goes that men, especially young men, wouldn’t bother using contraception so why bother developing it?
Well. What if the story wasn’t exactly true. What if there was evidence that men, even young men, were actually pretty interested? Frequent commenter A from France, who’s actually just moved back to England, sent me a BBC article about a British National Health Service report that’s mostly about how women’s sterilization’s are down thanks to increased availability of long-action reversible contraceptives (LARCs.) It ends, however, with what I consider to be very encouraging news:
Male clinic visits
The latest figures also show more men are visiting contraception clinics.
In the past year 117,000 men attended a clinic – an increase of 48% over the past decade.
About 30,000 of these visitors were aged 16 and 17 – a rise of 50% among this age group in just one year.
However, the vast majority of people who visit a clinic are still women – who out-number male visitors by eleven to one.
Yes, an eleven to one women to men ratio is pretty low but it’s a huge improvement over the previous twenty-two to one ratio. If anything else between vasectomies and condoms were available there’s no reason why the ratio wouldn’t plummet towards parity.
Obligatory “to be sure” about STDs since someone always brings it up: yes, non-barrier contraceptives don’t prevent transmission of disease. But for some reason women still seek them out, presumably because the risk of pregnancy is at least an order of magnitude higher especially in longer-term relationships. And in long-term monogamous relationships the pregnancy/std risk approaches — but obviously never reaches — infinity. And if women see fit to use other contraception instead of or — preferably, obviously — in addition to condoms then why wouldn’t men?
Submitted by 1724 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-10-31 13:50.
There are a number of possible research paths into non-hormonal male contraceptives outlined in the very interesting site Male Contraception Information Project. See also malecontraceptives.org.
[Aha! I thought there might be. Thank you, A! --fl]
Submitted by 1724 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-10-31 15:46.
As a male, I would definitely be interested in some kind of pill. Maybe I just want to be responsible or something, but given the option I would take it in a heart beat. I hate wearing condoms, yes they do affect the sensitivity, but they are little rubber things it only makes sense that they would affect the sensitivity. But that said I do wear a condom when necessary (I am only using that statement because it has been five years since it has been necessary i.e.-no sex for me lately). So given the option of a condom or taking a pill, I would take the pill and depending on the hormonal consequences I would probably not even think about them.
[Nicely said, BR. Thanks. --fl]
Submitted by 1724 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-10-31 11:23.
It's pretty obvious that men would want to control their fertility. When I went on the pill, I talked to my boyfriend, and he decided he would prefer to keep wearing condoms. This wasn't because of any kind of disease concern - I think he just likes the extra security and, perhaps, that it's something within his control.
[That's putting it pretty well: nobody likes to feel out of control during sex. Or at least not *that* way. Which is part of why I'm so optimistic. Thanks, DY. --fl]
Submitted by 1724 (not verified) on Thu, 2007-11-01 03:28.
I would certainly have tried a pill instead of a vasectomy had it been available. I had the snip only after we had had our 3 babies and decided that was enough for us and so the question of reversibility never came into it, but before then it would have been good to have a choice.
[It's worth mentioning that while reversals are more effective than often advertised, there's still a darn high chance fertility won't be restored. Which, since most people want only to avoid unplanned, unwanted pregnancy and not avoid pregnancy *period,* that it's not an advisable, acceptable method in many, many cases. But yeah, note that all the men who've chimed in have said they'd do it, and it's not like we all have the exact same reason either. Thanks, LR! --fl]
Submitted by 1724 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-10-31 12:07.
I think there's a demand, yes - but I wonder how many men would be willing to tweak their hormonal balance? Especially if there were any chance of being feminized as a result? Women do accept the risks and disruptions of screwing with our hormones (I did for a really long time, with no obvious damage) but the stakes are obviously higher for us. Plus most women don't mind if their boobs swell on the Pill - that too would be pretty different for men!
[I'm not positive they'd have to be hormonal for men -- if I'm not mistaken none of those routes seem to work anyway since men already produce sperm over such an incredibly wide range of hormonal circumstances (neither high estrogen nor low testosterone, for instance, get *all* of them and while you actually do need more than the proverbial one sperm even a few hundred thousand -- a very low number relatively speaking -- is a big problem.) One thing I'd like to say about the stakes business -- I'm going to guess that if a solid, not-too-high risk male contraceptive became available then I'm guessing paternity case law would shift. Men who failed to use it would pretty quickly be branded with the same accusations as women who don't use it currently are. And if I'm wrong that it wouldn't happen *naturally?* Well I for one would cheerfully promote activism to make it so. It's certain that for most of the population men who "got caught" would be scorned rather than ignored or congratulated for getting someone pregnant but not providing whatever support was appropriate afterwards. Thanks, Sungold! --fl]
Submitted by 1724 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-10-31 11:31.
Considering how many men are terrified of being "trapped" by a pregnant girl who suddenly reverses her pro-choice opinions and can legally demand child support... I'd think a male pill would sell BETTER to misogynists.
(To say nothing of ordinary non-misogynistic men who would just see it as a nice convenient option, especially if it has fewer side effects than the female pill.)
[Another excellent point though, of course, there are (at least) two kinds of misogynists -- those who are terrified of women's "awesome powers" and those who think they can be controlled by, say, manipulating their fertility. But yes, at least the former would be very interested and even the latter might be manipulated into imagining it better to *withold* fertility. Maybe. Worth a try anyway. Thanks, Holly. --fl]