"Any new product they could introduce would be likely to cannibalize their existing products. After all, one reason for a man to want to use a reversible contraceptive is so his partner can stop taking the pill."
Little economical incentive to cannibalize its own market. That makes so much more sense than conspiracy theories preventing this from happening. I disregard real "scientific barriers" here because I believe capitalism would have driven science to where it wanted anyway -- hell, there's very little stuff in the world that won't see any meaningful progress after 50 years of research.
I doubt that's actually true for most use cases, though. I think for most people it offers security for the male only. People always want to keep their own sexual health under their own control. I would be hesitant to say that most sex happens in relationships between two long-term exclusive partners. Therefore, there would be many people still interested in taking the daily pill or other birth control options for their own protection, instead of taking their sexual partner at their word.
Also, if you find the fact that economics or whatever has prevented male birth control, consider donating to the Parsemus Foundation who is actively working on the Vasalgel product.
Well, that was one reason only. I'd include myself in the group of paranoid sexual partners too, by the way. Still, I believe the economical incentive is missing here, as the industry might just think there are plenty of crappy alternatives and yet people complain very little about not having a male pill. Why would they bother in cannibalizing their own products then?
They currently make $0 per year from males. I don't pay for my SO's birth control. I asked her if she would stop taking hers and she said no. Interestingly, she's no longer on daily pill, but a method that's effective for 3 years. There's also the IUD which lasts as long as Vasalgel, though is pretty invasive. Those option exist for women, but they are afraid to cannabalize their own product? I'm not convinced those numbers add up.
> I think for most people it offers security for the male only.
I'm not sure that would be the main reason. If you're concerned about security, pills/vasalgel/anything except condoms won't really save you from the worst consequences. Only a barrier method can be completely effective (and even that fails).
> Only a barrier method can be completely effective (and even that fails).
I would not call it completely effective. Someone who uses a condom perfectly, each time, every time, still has a 50% lifetime (35 year) chance of having a child.
And with more typical use a person is all but guaranteed to have at least one child during their life.
Condoms help reduce fertility (i.e. smaller family size), they do not eliminate the possibility of children.
Someone who absolutely does not want children does not really have any good solutions except avoidance. The typical advice is two methods of birth control at once (i.e. hormone plus barrier), but that's only an option for females.
> Someone who uses a condom perfectly, each time, every time, still has a 50% lifetime (35 year) chance of having a child.
That statement makes no sense. If the condom is not broken or slips off, there's no chance that a woman is inseminated. Unless the man has magic sperms that can teletransport themselves into a woman's womb.
Perfect use of male condom: 18% chance of conception after 10 years. Typical usage: 86% chance of conception after 10 years.
Even "the pill": 3% chance at conception after 10 years with perfect use. 61% chance of conception with typical usage.
Everyone thinks they use contraception correctly. It may be true for anyone reading this forum, but if you're looking at policy, you have to account for typical usage. Education campaigns can move "typical" closer to "perfect" usage, but IUDs and sterilization are pretty much the only types of birth control that offer more than 50% chance of not conceiving in 10 years.
Perfect use for condoms has a 2% failure rate. Perfect use means the user did nothing wrong, not that the condom was perfect.
0.98 ^ 35 = 0.49, i.e. 51% chance of failure.
Failure here means child conceived. And keep in mind that there is only approximately a 2% chance of having a child from each encounter, so condoms fail a LOT. (20% chance of a child if done at the right time divided by 3 days out of 30 where it's possible.)
Note that the low 2% conception chance is mitigated by looking at a failure rate over a full year, i.e. multiply 2% by the number of encounters in a year.
In general, you can always get an abortion (or, at least the woman can), but you can't always get cured of an STD.
Having said that, there definitely are non-technical issues that can make pregnancy more final than an STD (moral opposition to abortion, not wanting the child while the woman does, ...)
I'm not sure what you're arguing. A contraceptive method doesn't prevent STIs? It never was claiming to. It's also absolutely not true that as a male, one can always get an abortion.
There are plenty of women who are incapable or unwilling to take hormonal birth control, and thus rely on the male (e.g. my wife). Of course some couples would swap out one method for another, but the idea that introducing a new product to market would result in a net loss is ludicrous.
> Little economical incentive to cannibalize its own market.
Wait, what? Couldn't you interpret that as a new company/startup entering an existing market? "Little economical incentive for Samsung to cannibalize on Apple's market."
That's for a specific type of male contraceptive, not a general one. Furthermore, there already exist female contraceptive options that last years, so I'm not sure your argument is valid in any case.
Could Vasalgel be used in fallopian tubes? Why are there not more options for mechanical, reversible birth control for women that don't involve hormones?
The economics of regularly-taken pills seem to disadvantage everybody (except the drug companies.)
I think "economics" does not begin to explain why this is the way it is. I think it is far more complicated than "well, companies have no financial incentive to develop this."
Condoms are not just birth control. They are protection from STDs.
Hormonal birth control has a lot of side effects. If a man has certain side effects, sex can simply not happen. Then, what's the point? You can skip the drugs and just not have sex. Done.
Many people are incredibly uncomfortable discussing birth control in "casual sex"/dating type situations. It is far easier to assume it is on her or use a condom.
The heat the testicles method provides no proof it is being practiced and no means to show he is temporarily sterile. Plus another comment in this discussion indicates it was eventually shown to cause permanent damage.
Her giggling comments about sex suggest she has no clue what sex is like for a great many people. Her saying that the withdrawal method is something where he has to do it but she has to not protest because it feels too good -- a lot of women do not have orgasms from penetration. There is enormous amounts of shitty stuff that goes on behind closed doors for a great many couples and this woman sounds like she has no clue what the landscape looks like in that regard.
The Wet Heat method mentioned in the article is NOT reversible if used for a longer period of time. It was initially thought to be, but it has since been found to cause permanent damage.
Also, if you need to resort to conspiracy theories to make your point, your point is probably not correct.
"men were interested in male contraception. Why weren’t drug companies interested? And why are they not, still?"
Perhaps because the main point of the article that there is no scientific barrier is not actually correct?
I did not see any conspiracy theories in the article. I saw a reasonable explanation of the incentives involved, and why those incentives resulted in no new option for male birth control.
There is a scientific barrier, but I think the article provides good evidence that it wasn't until the past two decades that some of the fundamental research related to that has been done. That is, because of the above-mentioned incentives, no one bothered doing some of the basic science necessary.
Except the basic science still hasn't found what needs to be done. Broadly it's kind of obvious: we either need a truly reversible vasectomy (not possible due to immunological reasons), a method to inactivate sperm production, or a method to inactivate sperm.
There are massive biological science barriers to implementing either of those two options - we essentially got really lucky with the female hormone pill that it works at all. It's a blunt, simple instrument that luckily works really well.
That's not at all true for men - it will take new advances in technology before we identify any suitable targets.
>we essentially got really lucky with the female hormone pill that it works at all.
Not quite as lucky as you think. The female reproductive system runs in cycles and is in many different states at different times. We happened to figure out how to use the switches that nature already has. Men, on the other hand, have one state. On, all the time, from puberty till death.
I would not be surprised at this scenario - her: do you have protection? him: um, sure. I'm taking that, uh, that pill thing.
I can't help but think a male contraceptive that is not visually verifiable by the women is not entirely trustworthy. Perhaps in committed relationships, but not for casual sex. I'm sure we're all nice guys here, but men in general are not exactly known for being trustworthy when they're drunk and about to have sex.
Possible, but if you want us to the ignore the hugely differing economic incentives for men and women wrt pregnancy then the discussion isn't going to go anywhere.
>Possible, but if you want us to the ignore the hugely differing economic incentives for men and women wrt pregnancy then the discussion isn't going to go anywhere.
What possible incentive is there for a man to impregnate a woman, especially without her desire? I don't think many guys are out there begging to pay child support.
There is no incentive for man to impregnate a woman. That question, however, takes pregnancy as the given outcome. A man does have incentive to have sex: he likes it. anigbrowl's point was simple: by most measures, pregnancy is more "expensive" for women than for men, so women have higher incentives to not take the risk.
It is. But it's still not as "expensive" as pregnancy for a woman. I use scare quotes because I don't just mean monetary costs, but all kinds of costs.
You're still missing the benefit side of the cost/value equation. It might not seem like this to you but having a child is a major value to many people.
A woman has multiple options to prevent unwanted children (including two after the fact options). She therefore has full control of the child/no-child outcome based upon cost/value for her personal situation. A man has two options to prevent childbirth: a permanent vasectomy or using a condom (these fail and they fail too often in real world settings). A man has limited (or in the case of a condom mishap potentially no) control and potentially if the woman decides it should be so no value whatsoever.
I completely understand the upside. I am, however, assuming a situation where both parties do not want to have a child, right then. The original scenario was, implicitly, casual sex. (Original scenario: "her: do you have protection? him: um, sure. I'm taking that, uh, that pill thing.") We can be more charitable and assume that scenario could play out a few months into dating. In such situations, not wanting a pregnancy is generally taken as a given. The entire discussion - birth control - even assumes that pregnancy, at the moment, is not wanted. So I'm confused why you're bring up the value of having children (which I do not deny) in a discussion about the incentives for men and women in avoiding unwanted pregnancy.
Perhaps your confusion is that I stated "There is no incentive for man to impregnate a woman", and you interpreted that as a universal statement. It was not. It was a direct response to the question for a man's motives in the given scenario, which assumes unwanted pregnancy.
The point I'm trying to make it that the cost is not the only part of the equation and that we must also account for reward and control.
Cost/reward
When the female birth control pill became available the cost/value was weighted very heavily against the woman and female control was much more essential. However today the cost/value is more evenly weighted. Back then a man could deny everything and move on leaving the woman with the baby and a ruined life. Now the man can't deny everything and as a minimum will be committed to child maintenance but he may still be denied access to the child. So the situation now is: woman high cost coupled with high reward; man moderate cost and potential reward controlled by the woman.
Control
Let's assume that both parties decide for themselves based on their own cost/reward situation. Let's assume that they don't always inform the other of the their decision honestly. Neither is perfect judge of character.
Current situation
Scenario 1: Man wants child. Woman does not. Woman controls outcome. No child.
Scenario 2: Man doesn't want child. Woman does. Woman controls outcome. Child.
Scenario 3: Both want child. Child.
Scenario 4: Neither want child. No child.
Situation with male birth control
Scenario 1: Man wants child. Woman does not. Woman controls outcome. No child.
Scenario 2: Man doesn't want child. Woman does. Man controls outcome. No child.
Scenario 3: Both want child. Child.
Scenario 4: Neither want child. No child.
P.S.
Personally I think that the pill was one of the greatest drivers of women starting to have rights on a par with men (I'm not saying that 2015s western world is perfect gender equality wise but it is a lot better than the 1950s western world was).
P.P.S.
I just think that men should if possible have the option to control their reproductive function and that it does not matter whether woman trusts the man -- the man's control does not affect the woman's control (except in the scenario that the woman is a deceptive actor - NB that the inverse situation where the man is a deceptive actor is already under the woman's control).
Don't be so stupid. Men and women both enjoy sex but pregnancy involves a lot of extra physical work for the woman because it takes ~9 months to grow another human being (or more than 1) that's 5-10% of the woman's own body weight, not to mention that human infants are completely helpless for a long time after birth, in contrast to many other animals.
This is just a fact of biology before you look at any of the social contextual factors.
I did not mean to imply anything of the sort. However, Alex spoke specifically to what the incentives for men are, so I explained the incentives I think men have. For women, I only mentioned the risks. I think a charitable reading of what I said would assume that I think women also have positive incentives.
The incentive is the net present value of having sex Right Now, versus the cost of money, being unable to sleep for the next 18 years, and financial obligations. Given how often people (in general) don't use a condom, even when they're available, I get the impression that most guys are not thinking very hard about the future.
Gender generalizations aside, there's nothing wrong with the male using vasalgel, the female using a hormonal option, and the male also using a condom. Just makes it even more effective, and everybody involved feels comfortable and relatively safe. Sexual safety is the responsibility of each individual involved.
>men in general are not exactly known for being trustworthy when they're drunk and about to have sex
Jesus, I can only imagine the reaction from HN if you made such a sweeping generalization about how trustworthy women are. How can you verify that a woman is on the pill? Even more, what if she says she has an IUD? How is that verifiable?
Edit: Nevermind, I didn't realize that there was thread that could be found if you were looking for it. My girlfriend had one put in somewhat recently and I never noticed.
This doesn't solve the problem of getting an STD, it only protects against the possibility of getting someone pregnant. Condoms are still the best form of protection against that. Vasagel however, can work well in conjunction with condoms.
I don't think that's the point. For random hookups, people really should be using condoms; STIs are a thing. But for couples in trusting relationships, I don't see why men would be less trustworthy than women. Having an extra layer of protection outside of condoms, and being able to not have the responsibility being all on the woman would be really nice. Some women can't tolerate various other forms of birth control for health reasons.
I don't know why you are getting downvoted, I upvoted you. A big positive for using condom is that it's easily verifiable by the other partner. However, I can imagine that there is another big market where partners are in a trusted relationship (either marriage or live in partner) and would like to use male contraception.
maybe we can make a website where we "verify" if people are trustworthy before drunken hookups.
tryna take home a dude at the bar? just verifyhim
we can even call it verifyhim. scan his fingerprint on your iphone and/or use your cameraphone to scan his eyes to verify if he was using the man pill last time he hooked up.
I've heard of that idea before. It wouldn't work for many reasons, the main being "cache invalidation." i.e. it becomes obsolete as soon as somebody has another sexual partner. And at that point, you're trusting users to just update it.
That doesn't even mention the privacy issues involved.
Yes, because I'm sure tons of people will line up to have their fingerprint/eye pattern associated with contraception and their last potential hookup in a 3rd party database. What could go wrong?
"Yes, because I'm sure tons of people will line up to have their fingerprint/eye pattern associated with contraception and their last potential hookup in a 3rd party database."
What on earth are you talking about? Your post is highly sexist.
As a man I want to take care of my own reproductive function. Women can already take care of theirs and a male pill-equivalent product won't change that.
One problem with trying to reverse a vasectomy is that backpressure from the blocked vas deferens can cause damage to the epididymides. It would appear that this Vasalgel product would have the same issue. However upon further research [1] (not sure about the source) apparently the block is not complete, but rather relies on spermicide to kill any sperm passing the 'blocked' area. This should reduce pressure and the associated risk.
But as the article says, Vasalgel is not RISUG. They block it entirely. I have always wondered why she insisted on making a new product when the one in India had so much testing already. Just take that and start trials - animal trials at first if they must, but that had all been done before.
Male birth control is not happening, it is not just economy but also politics. There are a few methods known since sixties, with less side effects than female hormonal contraception, but those are all banned.
It looks very much like it is happening. I have to travel to another country to get a procedure done? Oh well. Medical tourism has been a thing for a while.
> Male non-invasive birth control isn't happening right now.
Research continues, no? Its going to be available sometime soon (3-5 years), even if I have to get pills mailed from India or China every month (or I go on a medical tourism trip to have the Vasalgel procedure done).
If I'm worried about the reversibility, I'd have some semen cryogenically preserved. I'm also not too worried with how quickly protocols are being developed to coax stem cells to grow into reproductive tissue.
>This study revealed that 70% of 271 patients became azoospermic after 6 months of treatment. The mean time to azoospermia was 3 months. The azoospermic patients were enrolled in a 12-month efficacy phase, where one pregnancy occurred. Sperm reappeared in the ejaculate in 11 patients. Once the testosterone was discontinued, the mean time to sperm recovery was 3.7 months. Of note, this international study revealed that 91% of Asian and 60% of Caucasian patients became azoospermic, suggesting an ethnic difference in endocrine response. This difference has been seen in subsequent studies. Possible explanations include fivefold differences α-reductase levels in these groups,
This is your solution? This isn't marketable because you can't have six-month induction periods with repeated testing for azoospermia that only works on 3/4 of patients in the first place. That's a practical problem, not a political one.
"Any new product they could introduce would be likely to cannibalize their existing products. After all, one reason for a man to want to use a reversible contraceptive is so his partner can stop taking the pill."
Little economical incentive to cannibalize its own market. That makes so much more sense than conspiracy theories preventing this from happening. I disregard real "scientific barriers" here because I believe capitalism would have driven science to where it wanted anyway -- hell, there's very little stuff in the world that won't see any meaningful progress after 50 years of research.