Jesse Taylor completely destroys the idea that men won’t take a male version of the pill:
Dude. In the past fifteen years, I’m now intimately familiar with marketed treatments and cures for diseases that I’m pretty sure didn’t exist before the pills were invented. If necessary, I know a pharmaceutical cornucopia of options that would give me the ability to hang drywall with my penis after a five-second flipthrough of Playboy. Within five years, a marketable option to give me death ray-eyes will be on the market, and I will be tempted to take that shit, side effects of partial paralysis and spastic colon be damned.
And you’re telling me you can’t market no-baby sex? To men???
Word. I’ve said I’d take the male pill since I was roughly 16, and nothing since then has altered that. If anything, I’ve become more certain I would — after all, I’ve been taking daily meds now for four years straight, and I have learned that yes, it is indeed possible for a man to take his meds every day, especially when important things like not being depressed or not having a kid are on the line.
Jesse also explains why the MRA/Kathleen Parker set won’t worry about this much:
But neither of them will complain about this, because they’re the exact kind of people who would expect men to forget their pills or lie about taking them. Medication and responsibility for fertility isn’t Man Shit, it’s Woman Shit, and you’d best not forget. A major industry deciding that men – millions of whom manage to do things every day which require more effort and less potential reward than birth control – are simply uninterested and incapable of swallowing a tiny pill on a daily basis would seem to be the ultimate argument against men, made in as offensive and patronizing a manner as possible.
Yup. As always, misogyny and misandry are really just two sides of the same misanthropic coin.
As for big pharma, I really can’t imagine why they won’t go after this market. Even if only one in ten men decides that the male pill is worth it…that’s a hell of a lot of men. More men than are taking Adderall or Wellbutrin or even the piece de resistance, Viagra. Only internalized sexism can explain why they don’t think men would be willing to take hormonal birth control — or why women should continue to be required to bear that burden alone.
Why on earth would they want to market a birth control pill for men? If Bush’s buddies have their way, women won’t be allowed to use ANY kind of birth control because, according to them, even a fertilized egg that isn’t implanted (and gets flushed during menses) is a human being with a right to life. It’s always been a woman’s fault if she does or does not get pregnant, especially if she’s single (if she’s married and doesn’t get pregnant, there’s obviously something wrong with her, she should WANT to be a mother, whether she and her husband can afford to raise children or not, whether they would be good parents or not). This whole birth control/abortion fiasco is the religious zealots’ way of controlling those of us who don’t bow down and worship exactly the way they do (after all, they have the only right answers, just ask them, they’ll tell you so). Keep half of the population in fear of becoming pregnant, with no options, and you’re on your way to controlling the other half.
I will admit that if I was single and dating, I would make sure all my bases were covered and still be on the pill and use condoms. If I was with a significant other, presumably a partner I trust enough to call my significant other, I’d be more than happy to relinguish birth control to the other side of the fence. But it would be weird and admittedly hard for me to do. When you are the person who experiences pregnancy and childbirth, not feeling in complete control of your fertility would be really scary, but I think I could get used to the idea of my husband having to take a pill everyday instead of me. Let him have the mood swings and side effects. Absolutely. Plus, it might actually make him go to the doctor more than once every 5 years.
If I were a guy, I’d be pretty insulted by the implication that I was either a) too pigheaded to admit that birth control should be more than just a woman’s responsibility or b) too stupid to remember to take a pill every day. Men should really protest; their image is at stake here.
I would take the male pill. Since I don’t want my wife (significant other) taking all of the risks to prevent pregnancy, I would add the male pill to the other option of condom use.
Do you know of the different risks between birth-control pills for men and women? Just curious since I haven’t seen a chart describing the different potential risks for each pill/medication for men and women.
Sounds good to me, though I don’t need it any more myself.
I would encourage anyone outside of a VERY serious relationship to not trust in either their partner’s commitment to BC; or em’s commitment to post-BC-failure issues. This applies to men just as much as women. A male pill would be really helpful there.
I look forward to the discussions on this though. There are clearly benefits (fewer unwanted pregnancies overall, one would hope.) But many of the real life reasons that a man islikely to go on the pill may not be entirely feminist in appearance: a desire to have more condom free sex, or to not have to trust women to follow through, or so on.
“Only internalized sexism can explain…” Sheesh. Or, maybe, economics. This is big pharma we’re talking about. Money, honey.
The problem with a male pill is that the target market is relatively small. The pill is not going to be a big seller in the single-dating-guy market for what ought to be obvious reasons, among which are: a) women having casual sex with a guy they don’t really know are not likely to believe him when he says he’s on the pill, b) STDs are not prevented by the pill and so the guy still has to wear a condom and so from his POV he gets little additional benefit from fiddling with his hormones. (“It’ll protect you if the condom breaks” is fairly small potatoes, from my memory of being a horny guy in my 20s), c) general male fear of fiddling with the hormones.
Among married guys, or guys in long-term relationships, there could be a market. But many of those couples already have a birth control regimen in place, so momentum is on the side of nonadoption. Other guys (and even couples) do feel that the responsibility is on the woman; rightly or wrongly, they aren’t going to buy the new pill.
Add to those markets all the sensitive men who will be excited to take responsibility for their reproduction in contradiction to ten thousand years of training in male entitlement and privilege. Snarky comment about that number proactively redacted.
Subtract from these numbers all the ignorant Neanderthal men who, regardless of the merits of the case, react to the idea of fiddling with their hormones with protective crotch-related gestures and the wearing of iron underpants.
All that adds up to an American market, not of a hundred and fifty million guys, but maybe ten million. Which is not potato pancakes – plenty of drugs do quite well with smaller market spaces than that. So then you have to compare the size of the potential market with the cost of the approval process – hundreds of millions of dollars, for a hormonal birth control. And then you figure what you could expect to make in profit, and it’s probably a decent amount, if you can make the drug for a while and if the marketing goes well.
And then you compare the projected profit to the likely cost of the lawsuits, again in a culture where male fertility is glorified, which will inevitably come whether or not the pill is a hormonal time bomb that makes men’s penises fall out or turn orange or whatever.
And then, if you’re a sensible pharma executive, you very likely say “Fuck it, let’s just work on our viagra clone. Nobody will sue us over a viagra clone.”
Do you know of the different risks between birth-control pills for men and women?
Hard to say, as no male pill is on the market; early trials tend to show the biggest risk is infertility, probably at a similar rate as seen from women on the pill. But it’s really too early to know.
The problem with a male pill is that the target market is relatively small. The pill is not going to be a big seller in the single-dating-guy market for what ought to be obvious reasons, among which are: a) women having casual sex with a guy they don’t really know are not likely to believe him when he says he’s on the pill, b) STDs are not prevented by the pill and so the guy still has to wear a condom and so from his POV he gets little additional benefit from fiddling with his hormones. (“It’ll protect you if the condom breaks” is fairly small potatoes, from my memory of being a horny guy in my 20s), c) general male fear of fiddling with the hormones.
a) Well, no, and yet single guys seem willing to believe their partner’s on the pill. Besides, if male hormonal birth control is of similar effectiveness to female hormonal birth control, it’s more reliable than condoms.
b) Really? Because while I certainly wore a condom to prevent disease, once I got into a committed, long-term relationship I continued to use it — to prevent pregnancy. And I knew my girlfriend/fiancee/wife was on the pill, and not likely to forget it — we just wanted extra protection. Frankly, after our daughter was born, I would have liked to have had the option to mess with my hormones, given that my spouse’s hormones had been messed with already.
c) General male fear of fiddling with hormones doesn’t seem to apply when it comes to steroids — an illegal class of drugs that are a multi-billion dollar industry. General female fear of fiddling with hormones hasn’t kept the pill from having a 90%+ adoption rate among women. Even if men’s adoption rate is only 1/10th of women’s (and I doubt it would be that low), it’s still a huge market.
Finally, people will sue about anything and everything, including Viagra clones. I’m not buying that this is something the pharmaceutical companies have really sat down and looked at — but I think, like you, they’ve sat down and rationalized why it won’t work.
Well, no, and yet single guys seem willing to believe their partner’s on the pill.
Yes, because (fantasies about man-trapping females aside), very few women are the type of sociopath who lie about their birth control in order to get sex.
How many men do you think would lie about being on the pill to get sex? Certainly not all of them, but equally certainly, quite a number of them – and that number will be quite sufficient to poison the perception pool down at the meat markets.
Your personal experience is relevant. Congratulations, you’re in the target market for the product – as I concede, there’s quite a substantial potential market. I’d consider using it, depending on the methodology and the reliability. That doesn’t automatically make it a good idea to develop the product.
Finally, people will sue about anything and everything, including Viagra clones.
True, but the scope and cost of the potential liability makes a difference. Viagra has made a few people go blind (allegedly). Faulty birth control can cost billions in liability. You note, regarding early trials, that “trials tend to show the biggest risk is infertility, probably at a similar rate as seen from women on the pill. But it’s really too early to know.” The Time magazine article linked in Jesse’s piece mentions that reliability rates for the prototypes are in the 90% range – for the 90% of men on which the pills work. Another 10% of men don’t respond to the existing prototypes.
That adds up to an enormous potential liability concern at the current state of research.
I’m not buying that this is something the pharmaceutical companies have really sat down and looked at — but I think, like you, they’ve sat down and rationalized why it won’t work.
Right. The umpty-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry puts the same level of analysis into their decisions as do commenters on blog posts. They just idly felt like doing all the basic research to get the technology to where it is, but then suddenly the sexism reared up (I hope it didn’t spill their coffee) and they decided to flush millions in investment away because, ewww, birth control is for bitches.
Because single-dating-guys have absolutely have absolutely no interest in prevent conception of their own account. The thought that “It’ll protect me if the condom breaks” would never occur to them.
How many men do you think would lie about being on the pill to get sex? Certainly not all of them, but equally certainly, quite a number of them – and that number will be quite sufficient to poison the perception pool down at the meat markets.
I’m trying to imagine a scenario in which your concern would actually make sense.
I’m imagining myself as a lady not on birth control, engaging in an sexual encounter with a man I don’t know well. I admit that I forgot a condom (not in character for me) and he says he doesn’t have one either, but he’s on the pill, baby!
In order for me to have sex with this man, I have to
(a) believe him, even though I don’t know him well
(b) not care about STDs.
NOT HAPPENING.
Yes, Tanglethis, that’s the point. Being on the pill wouldn’t make sex more available to men. Therefore, the “ooh, I want this pill because it will make sex more available to me because the ladeez will know I’m shooting blanks!” argument is bogus. That population has little to gain from the male BCP.
And yes, Daran, I do think that the bulk of the single-guy, casual-sex population will see limiting their liability/risk exposure as being a very marginal benefit. Enough so that some guys would get on the pill? Undoubtedly, which I’ve consistently acknowledged. But the vast horde of lads out there aren’t going to be jumping up and down and saying “oooh! oooh! a hormonal product I can take which will do nothing for my chances of getting laid, but which will let me trade an expensive drug bill every month now to prevent some hypothetical future expense later! woot! sign me up!”
I didn’t think like that when I was a single guy cruising for sex, and I was pretty forward-thinking and risk-averse. Not everyone is like me, but on the curve of male thought, I was over on the right hand side of the responsibility curve, and I wouldn’t have been interested in this drug for that purpose.
The only population which will find this drug of interest would be a relatively small fraction of those men who are already in LTRs. That’s not an insignificant market. It IS a significantly smaller market than is being assumed/asserted, and “the market isn’t big enough to meet the product development and liability costs” is an eminently reasonable argument.
Robert, one study I read [*] found that over 70% of heterosexual men in California are either married or cohabiting. Even if we assume that there are absolutely no married or cohabiting straight men anywhere in the world but in California, that’s still an enormous potential market.
[* Couple relationships among lesbians, gay men, and heterosexuals in California: A social demographic perspective.]
Yes, it’s an enormous potential market, for a drug that will cost an enormous amount to develop, test, and get approved, and which will have ginormous liability concerns. (And population-based liability concerns, by the way, are going to be heightened as the market gets bigger, not shrunk.)
I’ve been married for over 10 years. My wife and I decided not to have kids quite a while ago. To ensure that decision doesn’t get reversed by fate, I’ve not only had a vasectomy, but she is still on the pill AND we use condoms. If a male version of the pill comes out, I’ll line up and get mine.
um, is that a joke? I mean, you seem to be taking it juuuuuuust a bit farther than usual, if not.
Far better than deciding what to do with an unwanted child is prevention of conception, Sailorman. It is an easier outcome to deal with on every level imagineable. I applaud J’s diligence.
“I really can’t imagine why they won’t go after this market.”
Actually, imagining is all we can do. From the article quoted originally by Jesse, “industry representatives refused to speak to the marketability question” except for “Despite 20 years of research, the development of a [hormonal] method acceptable to a wide population of men is unlikely.” Emphasis mine.
The contraception described is temporary chemical castration to the point that one form requires an internal steroid drip to replace hormones that the testes would no longer produce. Try to get a professional athlete to start hocking steroids in today’s anti-steroid climate.
Also, imagine the fodder this would provide comedians. I certainly would not want to market something that will be the butt of so much initial bad publicity.
No joke. See, we started out knowing we didn’t want kids. When we’d answer the “when are you going to have kids” question with “never”, people would regale us with stories about how many people they knew who were on the pill or using condoms or who had vasectomies that later ended up having a “surprise” kid.
We’re SURE we don’t want them. When methods for controlling have a 1% chance of failing, that’s a risk we’re not willing to leave to singular chance.
Huh.
I know that vasectomies have a certain rate of improper tie off, but that is a short term issue. Once you have cleared, my understanding is that you can pretty much get around the risk by periodic sperm counts. The rate of men who regain fertility drops dramatically over the first 6 months, and long term is well under 1%, I think. Check with your doctor, but I believe that if you have a (painless, drug free, and relatively cheap) sperm count every now and then, your chances are WAY under 1%.
I would also note that anecdotal data may not be the best way to make a call.
But then again…. are you pro life? I ask because there is an obvious solution to pregancy (abortion) and at some point, the chance of BC failing and the resulting abortion is minimal enough that it is outweighed by the costs (emotional, financial, and physical.) We don’t want more kids either, but we reply on my vasectomy. If you positively don’t want kids and would never ever abort, then it makes a bit more sense though it still sounds strange to me.
Ghu knows how many men the MRA talk about fear of being hit with child support represent, but a man who wants to improve the odds of not having to support a kid he’s not interested in would at least be very interested a birth control pill for himself.
Pingback: The Link Roll For Saturday August 9 2008 : Barenaked Meditations