My first thought was that no, they wouldn't use it because men wouldn't fuck with their biochemistry like that. But then, I realized that men take Viagra all the time and other types of prescriptions from the doctor, so yeah, I think they would take it. The follow-up question will be, do we believe a guy when he says, "Don't worry, baby. I'm on the male pill."?

I think most guys won't take it simply because men don't get pregnant, regardless of what they say their reasons are.

For my part, I'll have some reservations about it simply because it's new and relatively untested--modern female birth control is 40 years old, and has existed in some form since ancient Greece--but if it becomes clear that it's safe and doesn't carry much risk of permanent infertility, I'll probably get on it whether I have a sexual partner at the time or not.

Cheers,

TH

I'm not so sure men will be up for this. If the responsibility suddenly lies equally on both members of a heterosexual couple, but the woman has been doing it for years without complaint, what motivation would there be to change the routine? In birth control like in everything else, gender roles have been built up (which is why few people use the female condom and nobody's jumping to improve that product, either).
Hopefully though, those roles will break down and different factors could determine who takes it, or both take it.

Wow. That article managed to squeeze in all three of the most common sexist attitudes surrounding this issue:

1) Men won't take a male pill and compromise their fertility (read "virility") because they're just too "manly" to go around shooting blanks.
2) Men aren't willing to suffer the side effects that would come with taking the pill. It's just fine for women to suffer from them, of course. That's their job, isn't it?
3) Wealthy or famous men will take the pill, as it ensures that no evil, conniving women can trick them into a marriage or paying child support by claiming to have been knocked up by them. (Because we all know that's the top career choice of women today.)

Voila. Misogyny trifecta!

Personally I think men aren't the troglodytes the media likes to present them as, and if a man is in a relationship with a woman for whom the side effects of birth control are particularly severe, he'd take the male pill because he loves her and doesn't want her to suffer. Call me crazy.

Male birth control may soon be a reality.

Male birth control already is a reality. It's called the condom. ;-)

I'd take it if I were in a relationship. Being single, a daily reminder of the sex I'm not having is just depressing, an aspect of female birth control pills I'd not considered before.

I'm with Vervain. I read the article thinking, do people really believe this sexist crap. The fellow they quoted knows *what* about women and their plans. Who are these nefarious women? Because I know nobody who would make that choice purposefully. And the "most men" at the beginning and "some men" at the end. Do they have any real data? Is some guy taking a poll at the urinal? I now the msm is shoddy, but when it comes to gender issues, they are downright misleading.

Much as I'm glad to hear this (and my significant other is gagging to take a male pill, no pun intended), I seem to remember reading an article about male birth control being available in 5-7 years when I was in school, and again when I was at university, and, whaddayaknow here we are 15 years after the first time I read about it, and ten years after the second, and it is still '5-7' years away...

I'd use it and I know of other men who would too. I think a safe, effective pill would be far superior to condoms or a vasectomy.

another thought I had was this would be effective in arguing with those MRAs who think they shouldn't have to pay child support because abortion is legal. But then Shakes pointed we already have male contraception, so we will probably be stuck with these attitudes for a while.

Some men would use this, others won't. Just like women and the female pill!

Whether or not I would take it gets into the nitty-gritty details of side effects, it's track record, what happens to my guy friends who take the pill...etc.

How long did it take the pill for women to gain widespread acceptance?

Male contraception does indeed already exist, but it's not the condom--which doesn't protect against either pregnancy or STDs. It's called abstinence. (Second best is the withdrawal method.)

I'd take it as a back-up method of birth control, along with condoms. Since none of the side effects sound too severe, I'd be quite willing to at least give it a try.

I don't see why most men would not be willing to take a birth control pill. It is true that men don't get pregnant, but still, I can't imagine someone wanting to become a father by accident.

I wonder if there would be a drop in condom use. Having an injection once a year might seem 'easier' to men than remembering to use condoms every time. So I wonder if there could be higher STD infection rates as a result...

I think Abby is right that expectations have already built up that women are the ones who take the pill, but at least a male pill would be a first step to breaking such expectations down -- or at least would make it possible to do so.

3) Wealthy or famous men will take the pill, as it ensures that no evil, conniving women can trick them into a marriage or paying child support by claiming to have been knocked up by them. (Because we all know that's the top career choice of women today.)

Voila. Misogyny trifecta!

Posted by: Vervain

Women are people.
People change their minds, fail to be up front, or tell lies (both intentionally and subsconsciously) all the time.

When one has a pre-sex conversation re abortion, and then the "I wonder if I'm pregnant; should I keep the baby?" conversation comes up and one's partner takes a whole different tack, it's not sexist to say "Holy shit!"

Wealthy/famous men will take the pill, not to protect themselves against evil conniving women (rare and not really worth a mention)... but to protect themselves against the consequences of the perfectly normal changes of mind that people go through (relatively common). And to protect themselves against the chances of BC failure.

i'm not a medical doctor, but i think the "withdrawal method" is about as effective as praying not to get someone pregnant. and it happens to be 0% effective against std's.

i think that if they could prove that these male contraceptives were fine (and i'm not convinced that female hormone-based contraceptives are very healthy, actually) i think guys should be jumping on it.

I don't want to throw stones or get flamed, but as far as sports and wealthy men go, there are those women out there who will do anything in order to get money, i.e. that sports controversy in the mid-90s with all those pro-basketball players (some married) knocking up women and the women having kids that the players wanted nothing to do with. It was heartbreaking to read/watch it happening. There was an article in Rolling Stone or Details, earlier this year about the rankings of groupies who chase after rappers/sports guys and how the women at the bottom of the totem pole were the women who would do anything to get close to the men.

Does it reflect on all women? No, just like something like "Flavor of Love" shouldn't reflect how ALL women act but it does show that there are women out there who will dig low to get what they want (and to be fair, men will go low too).

What gets me about the "protect themselves from coniving women" is that they ALREADY could have protected themselves by wearing a freakin' condom and making sure it was properly thrown away (don't ask) in the first place, however they didn't do that for whatever reason and they took the risk of getting a woman pregnant so I don't see how this is going to change anything.

The wealthy men will always know that there is the risk of something happening and the women (possibly) know that if it does they can get lots from it just by having one child.

Again, not reflective of all women, or even the whole sub group, sometimes it really is an accident like Sailor pointed out, but I just don't see why this guy thinks this is such a grand idea to protect men, seeing as how people make mistakes in judgement anyway.

Male contraception does indeed already exist, but it's not the condom--which doesn't protect against either pregnancy or STDs. It's called abstinence. (Second best is the withdrawal method.)

Go away, Troll. Your lies are not appreciated here.

I could imagine the guys I know being reticent about the more long-term options -- the injection or implant -- until they've experienced the side-effects, but I can imagine them taking the pill readily enough.

Hell, my partner would probably take the pill while I continue to take mine. Every little statistical edge helps.

having read many of heraclitus's posts, i feel obligated to tell doulababe that he is just kidding, and not a troll.

watch it heraclitus, sarcasm is hard to detect over the internet! (that darn lack of inflection)

How exactly would this work? I don't suppose it would mean no splooge? Because that would make me very, very happy.

I hate cleaning up a smelly, invisible-except-under-ultraviolet-light mess. Of course, I've always thought condoms plus the pill is the best way to go... virutally no chance of pregnancy PLUS protection against STDs... who was it that said condoms don't protect against STDs? That one confused me. Obviously nothing's as protective as abstinence, but that's not really the point, now, is it?

As for the benefits of hormonal birth control, besides the obvious, I love that my pill keeps my hormones in check. I use the pill to skip my periods -- yeah, I know this hasn't been studied closely and may have horrible side effects down the road (or may be perfectly harmless, who knows). Frankly, I'm okay with the risk. Never having to deal with hormonal dips makes my life SO MUCH BETTER. Men also have hormonal dips and peaks -- these just get ignored largely because men don't get to enjoy the fun of a monthly internal hemorrhage to boot. But I would not be at all surprised to find that male hormonal birth control does wonders for men's well-being as well.

no, you'd still get splooge (most of which isn't sperm anyway.)

I apologize for any confusion my smart-assery may have occasioned. I thought any advocacy of the withdrawal method could only be taken as ironic, all the more so when coupled with insistence on abstinence. After all, the abstinence-only folks object to extra-marital sex, not extra-marital sex that doesn't use the withdrawal method (although that would at least teach the kids some discipline).

I think in general, men in relationship would have a decent amount of motivation to take a pill or get a shot, but (much like women) there would be a much lower rate of usage among the single crowd.

But for women like my sister who have problems with birth control pills (she gets wicked migraines if she takes it) I don't think it would be difficult to talk her husband into taking a pill; he'd love to be able to take the condom off...
My husband and I talked about the male pill and when it becomes available we agreed that we should cycle back and forth between which one of us takes it every year or so because my BC absolutely kills my libido.

I like any kind of birth control that forces the man in question to be conscious of it. Right now that limits me to condoms, which I would be using for casual sex anyway. In a relationship, I wouldn't have a problem if my partner wanted to use a male pill--if I couldn't trust him to do that when he said he would, I couldn't be in a relationship with him anyway.

DOUBLE YAY to see men who are responsible.

DOUBLE YAY to see men who will take responsibility.

yes i have trouble speaking english. :D

If it means I can stop using condoms (in a relationship) and still be in control of my own destiny, I will absolutely use it.

Currently, while I would love to stop using condoms, I do not trust anyone enough to give them sole responsibility for birth control.

Bring on the male pill (with acceptable side effects, of course)!!!

"Male contraception does indeed already exist, but it's not the condom--which doesn't protect against either pregnancy or STDs. It's called abstinence. (Second best is the withdrawal method.)"

Yes... lets try that method on the 17 - 22 year old boys in university.
but then again, try making them take a pill like the women's birth control.

Yes, abstinence for all men until marriage. We don't want them to lose any petals before that.

I think it's a great idea and I personally would totally trust my boyfriend with it, but the main reason why I almost never forget the pill is the fear of getting pregnant. A man wouldn't have the same kind of visceral fear. Besides, for those who aren't in relationships with a 100% trust, it can be akin to leaving your reproductive choice in your partner's hands. (even though I don't think it's a good idea to stay in a relationship with someone you don't trust anyway)

This might not be such a good thing.

Research has indicated that women who take the pill prefer men who look like giant overgrown babies. It has something to do with the pill fooling your body into thinking you are pregnant.

I know this to be true. Pre-pill, I was attracted to dark-haired, thin men. After I took the pill, it was like a switch was flipped. I was only attracted to blond or sandy-haired, blue-eyed men with a football type build who looked like big overgrown Caucasian babies.

I'm off the pill now and I am back to being attracted to dark-haired, thin men.

God only knows what the side-effects will be for men with this pill, plus who knows if they will actually take it. Men seem to be so biologically consumed with impregnating (although, not perhaps caretaking, the resultant offspring).

Ok, seriously whats up with the insane comments on this post?

Anyways, my boyfriend said he would take it. I think its a great idea, because its a alternative to getting sertilized, puts men in control of their reproductive health and takes some of the pressure off of women.

I agree that there were alot of sexist things said in the article.

poes... sorry if this is obtuse -- that was a joke, right?

So hard to read sarcasm on teh intarnets!

I like the idea of having control over this, and not putting the burden on my significant other to take another birth control method or be sterilized. Yeah, condoms are fine, but there's quite a few drawbacks to them. And yes, I plan on being sterilized in the future, but it would be nice to wait until I have half-decent helathcare.

I want to have more options in birth control. This would be a wonderful one.

We (my husband and I) have been waiting for male birth control that doesn't include sterilization. My body has issues with almost every single type of bc except some condoms. We already have a child and don't want another at this point.

There are several male contreceptive options currently being tested around the world (http://www.malecontraceptives.org). As a side note, China seems to be the most aggressive in this endeavor.

I think that men in a relationship will be more likely to take a pill than a man who is unattached.

What I find alarming is the scientist who seems to be showing concern about their funding running out.
Why does contraceptive research get so little funding?!?!?! You would think that Pro-Lifers would be all over comprehensive BC. But then again, that would be logical, wouldn't it?
Ima start writing checks if this doesn't come through soon. That's ridiculous.

I feel like this development can only be a good thing - another step towards dismantling the construct of a woman as hole to be filled (and the accompanying responsibilities of making herself 'a safe hole')
having said that, my guy friend doesn't like the idea of this kind of male contraception because he's worried that his 'soldiers won't fight when he wants them to fight' - much like my concerns over the pill. However irrational, I'm like 'what if I can't get pregnant if and when the time comes that I want to?'
Also I back trueblue_ethel's comment about the lack of funding being dumb....talk about agenda-setting...

Sailorman - I think you misunderstood my comment.
I was paraphrasing (amusingly, I hoped) the sexist sentiments I perceived was being displayed in the article.
I was in no way expressing my own opinion, or making a statement or generalization about what women (evil or otherwise) always/never/sometimes/often do.

Heraclitus -
Alas, we who wield the sword of irony or sarcasm are so very often misunderstood on teh internets...
I knew you were kidding. ;)

As a man in a relationship I would jump on the male pill in a heartbeat. I think it is ridiculous that there are only two birth control options available to men now: are condoms and sterilization. Now I can't speak for every male, but I know at least one who's girlfriend's libido was completely killed by the pill. This could have been a solution for them. More options are always better than less.

dhs -
Sorry...

/irony

sorry vervain ;)

Effective male birth control technology has been around for over 2 decades.

The reason it is not available (in the US) is primarily due to the medical and legal establisment's hostility towards AAS (Anabolic Androgenci Steroids) which were made controlled substances (as opposed to estrogen, which is merely Rx) due to the Ben Jonson Stanazolol "scandal".

However, it has long been known that exogenous testosterone is an effective male birth control - for decades. The chinese have conducted some studies as have many others.

This has been common knowledge in the bodybuilding and strength training communities for over two decades - that Testosterone (cypionate, enanthate, etc.) acts as an effective contraceptive and is 100% reversable, especially if chorionic gonadotropin is used concurrently to help keep the HPTAxis feedback loop working.

So, in brief - the late arrival of male contraceptive (like so many medical issues) has about ZERO to do with science/medicine and 100% to do with politics - specifically mainstream's medicine's demonization of hormone therapy for men.

Interestingly, they do not demonize cosmetic surgery (for men or women) which is infinitely more dangerous. Nobody has ever died from AAS. Numerous people have died, and suffered serious complications from plastic surgery. I believe both should be choices, but the medical community disagrees vis a vis AAS, with the exception of some very progressive anti-aging clinics for men