As a man, I want to make sure this comes across with appropriate vehemence: I would LOVE to have some type of pharmaceutical birth control available to me. Hell I'd give my right nut for it.

It is absolutely incomprehensible to me why men wouldn't be excited about this, and why pharmaceutical companies have determined that there isn't a market for it. I don't know too many men who are jazzed about the idea of unintentionally getting a woman pregnant, with all the repercussions that involves. Now, I'd obviously want to see what the side-effects were to be sure that I wasn't seriously harming my health in either the short or long-term, but beyond that I simply can't see why men wouldn't be open to this.

Every single man I've asked (and, granted, I haven't asked all the men I know) have been very enthusiastic about male hormonal birth control. They've all been in their early 20's, if that has any bearing.

I know my boyfriend would be all for this! We're both nervous about everything, so even though the Nuvaring is 99% effective at preventing pregnancy, we still use backup methods.
Though I do have some male friends, who don't want kids right now, but still guard their fertility with ferocity. One of them doesn't use a microwave for fear of being infertile... even though he's 20 and about 10 years from kids. *rolls eyes*
If the company could 100% assure men that once they stop the meds, they'd be fertile again, I can see it being successful.

As sad as I am to see male contraceptives no longer being developed, I must say from an economics point of view, it kind of makes sense. And unfortunately, economics, and not needs really does drive most industries (not that economics and needs aren't related, but sometimes the corrolations aren't that strong). For instance, female birth control is used for numberous reasons, some of which have nothing to do with not having a baby as exemplified by a recent post about how advertising for BC never mentions not getting pregnant. Also, I have to ask, mainly because as guy I have no idea what women think about this and would love some feedback. But, if you (as women) were not on birthcontrol, and some guy said he was, would you have sex without a condom. I mean, if girls say they are on BC, I feel like boys believe them, but if guys said they were on it, then would girls believe them? So, if girls wouldn't, then that makes male BC useless for any guy taking it if the women does not believe him, whereas if a girl is taking BC and the guy doesn't believe her, there are still potential benefits to taking the BC. So, I guess my real questions is this: obviously it would be great for there to be effective male BC, but, would it actually be used enough to merit the amount of money being spent on it when that same money could be spent on cancer/HIV/malaria... research, especially when the condom effectively already does everything male BC would do, except allow condom free sex? Sex is a huge issue, it sucks that the burden falls on women if both partners decide not to use condoms, but when I look at the cost/benefits of having male BC, I must say, I am really borderline on whether it is worth it or not.

My Sig O would love a male BC option. I've gotten pregnant while on the pill (twice) and have had very, very bad reactions to other other forms (the ring, an IUD), so I'm just staying on the pill while we use other methods.

Well my boyfriend is getting a vasectomy, so I don't think he's much interested in non-permanent birth control. But I know that all of my male friends with two exceptions (one actively trying to get pregnant and the other having already opted for the Permanent solution) would love it.
More ironically, whilst I've heard of men complaining about the fears of implants in *articles,* my friends in *reality* are actually preferring something where they don't have to take a pill.
Forgetful that they are, they fine with a Boy Nuvaring.

Upon posting this to a forum, the first response I got was

For women on the other hand the only "side effect" I've ever heard for the pill is a positive effect on periods, so that's a win-win. *Shrug*
If they could make it do NOTHING but neutralize sperm, and have it cheap and over-the-counter, then you'd see guys using it. But if it's prescription, expensive, or with any sort of significant side effect, forget it.

How do you respond to that?

This isn't a case of misogyny. Its a case of the market.

I think there might be a limited market for male birth control in the same way there's a limited market for vasectomies. Most men, rightly or wrongly, are way too superstitious to trust a 'temporary' contraceptive...especially when there's a temporary one already available, and, oh bonus, it protects you against AIDS too. They call it a condom.

And judging from the number of deadbeat dads out there, its a pretty limited market at that.

It is absurd to hinder medical and lifestyle progress at the expense of sexism. Men should have the option to take on regular hormonal birth control responsibilities, just as women. Furthermore, it is not as if men already don't enjoy taking certain pills, like the ones that maintain their erections.

Ask any straight guy in a relationship if he'd like to have sex without a condom WHILST not getting his partner pregnant and see how fast he signs up!

On one hand, pharm companies might figure that if they put a male Pill on the market, sales of the female Pill would decline as hetero women leave birth control up to their male partners.
At the same time, a lot of women use the Pill for period regulation or to treat other health issues, and will use it no matter what men do. Personally, even if my partner began using the male Pill, I would continue using my own. The entire burden of pregnancy would be on me, obviously, so it's not something I'd be willing to leave in my partner's hands.

It's not just the demand that drug manufacturers are looking at. It's whether or not they will be able to recoup cost of drug development and make huge profits.

Furthermore, the United States is the one of the biggest markets in terms of pharmaceutical sales because for the most part we have very few price controls. We are the cash cow of the pharmaceutical world.

Success in the US market would mean that male birth control would need to be seen as a medical necessity. Otherwise insurers could refuse to pay (as they are trying to do for women's contraceptives) leaving men to foot the bill for a product that will most likely be more expensive than the female counterpart. Good luck with that.

The obvious solution is for governments to subsidize part of the research like the US does for Orphan drugs (drugs for rare disorders that have a limited market yet serve an unmet medical need). Also, contraception needs to be considered a medical necessity so that insurers are obligated to a least cover part of the cost.

But mind you there is probably another Viagra type product in the pipeline somewhere so all is not lost.

I would love love love to alternate BC from me to my boy. We have both talked about it before. OR even having both of us on BC at the same time, statistically chances of getting pregnant would be immensely reduced.

The argument about hormonal male BC not preventing STDs is moot, a given, we already know that. If someone isnt in a relationship its just a good idea to double up (condom and BC). There are so many combinations and situations where male BC would be awesome. Arguments that men wouldnt be as concerned if women were to get pregnant are kind of sadistic. If you dont trust your partner enough wear a damn condom!

i'm disappointed that development has been stunted.

@roxie: I know a girl who was on BC for less than a year and gained 60 pounds. She has not been able to lose it. It also can create breast tenderness, higher risk of blood clots, nausea, etc. etc...

My boyfriend would love to have male BC. I'm on the pill, but it's always good to use two methods. The idea that "Most men, rightly or wrongly, are way too superstitious to trust a 'temporary' contraceptive" is straight up sexist. I think Danyell's got the right idea here: it's convenient, safer, the considerate thing to do... plus if you're clean, it means no condom. Win-win.

I love how when (some) men are asked if they'd use a male BC product they say, "Is it safe?" I can't help but think, "Are you that worried about your girlfriend/wife/partner's current prescription?" Because no one seems to mind that female BC isn't 100% safe, and yet it's constantly a woman's responsibility to purchase and undergo the side effects of.

That said, when I asked my husband if he'd be willing to go on male BC, he said, "Why? Are they close? Gimmee three!"

Roxie: Can you cite some stats on negative side effects (any bc insert will cite them for you)? And while you're at it, why don't you ask this fool why it's only ok for women to pay lots of money to be BC guinea pigs for big pharma? "But if it's prescription, expensive, or with any sort of significant side effect, forget it." Seriously? He's insulting thinking members of his gender by reducing them to uncaring, cheap and lazy stoops. Hit him with THAT.

@roxie:

First thing that comes to mind is that there are plenty of negative side effects to female birth control which are different for different women. Female hormonal birth control can cause weight gain, high blood pressure, acne, lessened sex drive, and increases the risk for heart attack and stroke, among other things.

For most women I think it comes down to weighing the risks against the benefits. For me, since I (supposedly) have PCOS, and to my knowledge I do not and have never ovulated, I don't really need to worry about not getting pregnant. However, I'm willing and physically able (I'm pretty young and have a history of low blood pressure) to take some of the risks. Luckily, it has controlled my acne. Unfortunately, it made a boobs grow a bit larger than I'd like, too.

I like to think that for men it would be the same sort of decision.

I'm not seeing how women having more birth control options than men is misogynistic. I want as many choices and I can possibly get and I certainly don't consider having those choices and the ability to control my own fertility a burden at all.

I'm the one with the most at stake when I have sex because I'm the one who's risking pregnancy; ultimately, I'm the one who would have to make the decision what to do if I were to get pregnant (keep/adoption/abortion); I'm (statistically speaking) the one who would be raising the resultant child; and I'm the one (again, statistically speaking) who would bear most of the financial responsibility for any child. Therefore, I find it rather apropos that I should have more options when it comes to birth control.

That's not to say that I don't think men should have more than two options. I do. But the fact that they don't ... I just don't understand how that's misogynistic.

This isn't a case of misogyny. Its a case of the market.

ROFL

Um, those are one and the same. A misogynistic society creates a misogynistic view of the market. "The market" is not some abstract, disconnected, magical force that exists outside of social and cultural mores. The market is simply an aggregate of society AS IT EXISTS. I.e., misogynistic.

Most of the women I know double up. They use condoms in casual sex (for pretty obvious reasons) AND the pill. So I can see the male pill being useful in stable monogamous relations.

As to the idea that 'would women trust a man who said "relax, I'm on the pill?"' - my take (and that of many of my female friends) is that is that there is no way that I am having unprotected sex with someone who has not received a clean bill of sexual health, because I find the idea of a STD more frighting than pregnancy.

Thanks y'all. I did that and now it's all about, "I'd rather not take the risk of side effects. I'll just use condoms, thanks"

And I'm sitting here thinking

It's clearly like, "well, I don't have to deal with that responsibility now, so why would I ever want to. I'm just fine with the woman having all that, thanks."

Like I totally see him as being the guy asking the girl WHY did she get pregnant?

Hell, if I was guy, I would take that shit. I would want to able to make sure I wasn't getting anyone pregnant. Even if you boil it down to simply not trusting other people, you could trust yourself and control what happens much better.

oh, and in response to the original question, my husband would be well on board with sharing the secondary effects of a pill, as he has been worried about the pill's possible secondary effects on MY body.

my take (and that of many of my female friends) is that is that there is no way that I am having unprotected sex with someone who has not received a clean bill of sexual health, because I find the idea of a STD more frighting than pregnancy.

khw, I'm a million percent with you. While I certainly don't *want* to get pregnant, I'm much more concerned about something that leaves me with ZERO options and irreversibly changes me for the rest of my life. Not to be overly flip about it, but herpes and HIV are a lot more permanent than pregnancy, even if you carry the thing to term.

My birth control caused strange side effects for me well i also had the typical weight gain (30lbs yes 30lbs!) breast tenderness, severe mood swings etc. but the strange side effect was the "high eye pressure". Yes this seems bizzare but my doctors thought i had a brain tumor because the pressure was so high. Anywho regardless to say it was not a brain tumor it was the birth control. I have not used it since. ( I also go pregnant while i was on it)

I'm pretty disappointed that they have halted those projects. I wonder what is in those drugs. Its not like they would give them more hormones like our pills are. Or do they? How does that even work? How the hell do you just lower sperm production?

This is unfortunate. If I were a man, I would certainly want as much of my reproductive future in my own control as possible. It would be nice for men to have options beyond condoms and vasectomies. Even in a relationship, I would be uncomfortable having the possibility of creating a human being in someone else's hands. Lots of women don't intend to sabotage their birth control routines, but things happen... pills are forgotten, antibiotics, prescriptions run out etc. Clearly, men could always wear condoms but some couples like the intimacy of going without. And truthfully, we don't live in an ideal world. People don't always do everything in the safest manner when in the heat of the moment. I also realize birth control still fails, but it increases the odds. I would hope that new male birth control methods could help some of the sexist accusations slung at women who have unintended pregnancies (that she got pregnant on purpose, lied about birth control, etc), by shifting more of the responsibility into his hands. Pregnancy prevention so often seems to be written off as a woman's concern, but if I were a man I'd want to do as much as I possibly could to prevent an unintended pregnancy (particularly because men don't have a legal say post-conception).

That said, developing birth control for men is undoubtedly significantly harder than for women. Birth control is based on creating failure. Female birth control suppresses ovulation, an event that occurs once in a cycle (obviously there are rare exceptions) and generally involve a single egg. Male birth control have to cause millions of failures, either by suppressing production of sperm, killing sperm, or preventing their release. There is a lot more room for error. This probably makes for more expensive research and ultimately, a less effective product (I could be totally wrong on both counts). Many men would never consider it because birth control is a "woman's thing" or out of concern that they will lose their virility. Sexist or not, companies have to weigh demand against research costs, they are not a charity organization developing it for the good of humankind.

rootedwillow - My understanding is that at least some of the methods that have been researched are hormonal, as my admittedly-too-limited understanding of my own biology is that hormones are one of the chief regulatory factors in sperm production. Presumably there would be side effects, as screwing with the body's hormone levels invariably affects more than one function. The question is how serious they would be.

Its not "big pharma" limiting options - these pharma companies are businesses like anything else. If we want to see a male contraceptive, we need government intervention - a more socialist bent to government. We need the govt to cover contraception without it being medically necessary and we need govt to fund research, and not leave it up to the free market alone.

Yes, it's for economic reasons. No matter how many men commenting here claim that they will use it, when push comes to shove, men won't want to take anything that might mess up their precious sperm. But...it's perfectly OK for women to mess up THEIR health and carry all the responsibility for preventing pregnancy at $50 a month or more. These pills or implants would be very low selling. That's business. Although I would be curious to see if these pills would be included on "preferred meds" lists for health insurance plans. My birth control pills are not. ALL birth control should be "preferred."

That makes me so sad. I can't use hormonal methods of birth control because they all involve dramatic side effects for me, we seriously don't want a second child for a few more years, and my husband would LOVE the chance to give us better odds than condoms alone.

The discussion in the comments is interesting in how various commenters sort of assume that single men or men in long-term monogamous relationships are the norm, huh? I imagine that there are wildly varying levels of interest in this sort of birth control depending upon age, relationship status/type, cultural background, etc. In any case, it does seem clear that it sucks for society to set me up so that I have to choose unacceptable side effects to my body, an unacceptable risk of pregnancy (which, in my situation, is as much my husband's 'risk' as my own), or abstinence-with-benefits instead of the full range of sexual activities within my marriage--with no possibility of my husband messing with his hormones instead ...

We need more options for male birth control. But I don't know how effective male birth control would be in regards to teen pregnancy. Unless they can be used for other purposes, I don't see many parents putting their boys on birth control. And I also don't understand why this has to be considered misogynistic.

Steph, to be fair, this isn't actually the operation of a *real* free market. In the real free market, there will be supply for virtually any product that is demanded, unless the supply and demand curve are sooo disparate that they never intersect (which is pretty much never the case, and certainly not in a rich country like the US where demand curves are more able to trend toward the inelastic given an abundance of monetary resources (in the aggregate)).

This is, rather, the operation of a corporation-driven market based on certain key free market principles, and with tendencies similar to the free market. But we no more have an actual free market than we do an actual democratic government.

(to be clear, I'm not advocating a true free market as the solution, since a true free market is amoral, which I believe to be detrimental to social development and desirable human evolution).

Can anyone explain how in the world a gel might work?

Matthew, I could totally see parents putting their sons on birth control and then acting like that makes him a stud because he's having so much sex, he "needs" it.

I do think men need to have this option, just like women do, partially so that the responsibility is not all on the woman (though I'm sure it would still disproportionately fall on her) but also simply because, like Lisa said, men should also be able to make sure they aren't getting a woman pregnant if they don't want to.

Just a thought- don't you think if men took BC, condom sales would go down? Thus more people are likely to get STDS?
I can just picture it now... a one-night stand and everyones getting hot and heavy and she grabs for a condom and he's like relax I'm on the pill! And then the woman is like but what about STDS??? Boner kill.

I'm all for men having more than one reproductive choice.

big pharma targets women, our bodies, our experiences of ourselves, and has gone as far to label something perfectly ordinary a syndrome.

you know what i'm talkin about. I'm talking about PMS. Well, can it be a syndrome when it just, happens?

for a long winded one sided conversation about big pharma, feminism, critical disability, and the politics of experience, click my link i just wrote something about all that.

as far as male BC goes, i've always said, "end the debate, get a vasectomy."

it's also a painting of a fetus with those words around it.

the comparative rates of long-term complications, and rates of recovery after reversals of vasectomies VS abortions, sterility, infections/incomplete procedures and living with your body being the object of a public debate--- the trade off is so worth it.

LOL
duh
the link is here:

http://feministinguottawa.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/so-try-this-one-on-for-size/

Wax_ghost: there are actually quite a lot of hormone replacement therapy gels out there. Hormones can be effectively absorbed through the skin and some people prefer them to taking hormone pills.

(hooray for working in pharmacy, lol)

I'm actually going into pharmaceutical research (though my focus will probably be more disease management than birth control :P). The companies are pretty much concerned with money-making, and, as has previously been mentioned, a male BC would likely be very expensive. Not to mention that whatever company came up with it would have at least a 12 year patent (I'm not *entirely* sure on this date, as it varies depending on how long it takes the company to get FDA approval, etc etc etc).

Re Sarah:

The argument about birth control reducing condom risk can be used for women's birth control and was in fact used as an argument against Plan B being available over the counter. I just don't think it's right to limit people's reproductive choices "for their own good". I'd much rather see more comprehensive sexual ed as well as more open discussion in society about STDs to prevent them. Things like destigmatizing STDs so people wouldn't assume that only "dirty" people have them.

While STDs are unfortunate, in the real world people will continue to have condomless sex. It's sad, but it will take a lot of education and more openness to sexuality in general to help that problem. I'd rather the consequences are limited to the two people involved in a sexual act than bring a third person (creating a human being) into the picture. Women can obviously have abortions (which this could also reduce), but men's legal say in pregnancy ends at ejaculation. Obviously it would not be 100% effective, but every encounter a man had while on birth control would be less likely to result in pregnancy (alone it would be better than nothing, and combined with condoms or female bc would be VERY effective). I just think it's best if all individuals have as much opportunity to control their reproduction as possible.

I bet it they could make a male pill that also helped men sustain/get better or longer lasting erections, or prevent testicular cancer (just like the female pill regulates periods/PCOS/other things and MAY help prevent breast cancer, depending on the pill), it would go FLYING off the shelves.

I bet my boy would be interested in a male pill, assuming it was safe.

I can see it now...
"OMG honey, we can be on the pill...TOGETHER!!!"

Just being silly :p

I was about to comment that I had read that the companies stopped the development because of problems with efficacy and safety. Then I read the same (it had a 10% inefficacy rate) further down in the article - the part you didn't paste. It's very unlikely, in my mind, that these major companies would spend years developing it, pumping money into it, then at the last minute give up for political reasons. Also, I'm sure profits trumps politics. Anyway the inefficacy rate is very high, which explains a lot. Please give all the relevant information next time!

Newsflash: this isn't misogyny. It's science. Men can buy condoms and get sterilised, and many do. They can't take the Pill or get implants because the science for male hormonal contraceptive devices doesn't exist yet. A male pill was trialled, and the results proved it ineffective. That's about all there is to it.

In America, profit trumps politics. For this to be a case of misogyny you'd have to imagine a bunch of Pharma execs saying, "Hey, there's this blockbuster drug for men that will make us filthy rich, just like Viagra, but darnit I'd rather keep women down."

That's just not how the boardroom works. If there's a market for this--really, truly a market for it--someone will develop it. That's the beauty of the free market. And if Big Pharma doesn't, someone else will. This isn't saying there are no men interested in it, just not enough to support the investment.

And how is it that a man being superstitious about pharmaceutical BC in any way sexist??? That's just a concern for their personal health. There are women who dislike & don't take BC because of the health impact & that certainly doesn't make them sexist.

Newsflash: this isn't misogyny. It's science. Men can buy condoms and get sterilised, and many do. They can't take the Pill or get implants because the science for male hormonal contraceptive devices doesn't exist yet. A male pill was trialled, and the results proved it ineffective. That's about all there is to it.

um katie, did you read the article? or hell, the quoted section right above?
you know, the part that says "if Phase III clinical trials were to begin tomorrow on some of those discarded drugs, men would probably have their pick of contraceptive gels or implants -- just like women -- within five years."

so yeah, the science is there, or it would be soon if the pharmaceutical companies would like, step to it. if there's any other argument to make than sexism, it's economics, not science.

I have to agree with Katie
also from the article:
"Though a combination oral birth control pill wouldn't work — the necessary testosterone would get broken down too quickly in the liver — researchers have developed several other delivery methods"...."None of these birth control methods are as convenient or noninvasive as the Pill for women, but they are as safe and as reversible.
The only problem is that they're not always as reliable.".... "But studies have also shown that 10% to 15% of men don't respond to hormonal treatments at all — a fairly high nonresponder rate."..."but, he says, "if we had a compound that was 99% effective, then the drug companies would be on board, the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] would be on board, and consumers would embrace it."

My husband thinks they should have had this stuff around 15 years ago!

To be fair I don't think the original poster is suggesting that pharmaceutical companies are making business decisions based on misogyny.

What is telling is that many men seem pretty silent as far as fighting for this basic unmet need. At the same time we have some men more than happy to sit back and blame women for "trapping them" into parenthood and a educational and cultural system set up to put disproportionate blame on women for unintended pregnancies.

quote spike the cat:
"What is telling is that many men seem pretty silent as far as fighting for this basic unmet need."
It's sooo true. Men could learn a lot from feminism about fighting for their needs rather than thinking the market will take care of them as long as they just work enough over time or get that promotion carrot they're chasing

The decision to cease research into a male birth control pill is a mixture of cultural, scientific and economic reasons. To develop a new drug, pharmaceutical companies have to invest millions of dollars UP FRONT. In doing this, they have to be sure that the drug is likely to go on sale, and when it does, will not only recoup their intitial investment, but make significant profits for the company. It would be guaranteed that Bayer would have done market research into whether such future profits were likely. If a large enough market were shown for the drug, then it would be nonsensical from a business point of view for them not to pursue its development. This leads to the question of why they did not see a large enough market. Perhaps men still see birth control as largely a female responsibility? Perhaps men are suspicious/worried about side effects? Would a woman (particularly in non-committed relationships) believe a man who says he's "on the pill" and take the risk? A male pill would not protect against STIs like a condom. These are all cultural and personal health issues. Also where the science is actually situated in developing a safe and effective male pill is still open to question. There is a big gap between researchers being "on the verge of success", and a drug being approved for sale to the public. All this time and extra research costs money. The article quotes a time frame of 5 years. That equates to a lot of money. I have a son who works in medical research, and a huge amount of time and effort is spent on obtaining and maintaining funding. If it is considered that you are not delivering the goods, the funding stops. It is highly competitive and cut-throat. While I think the successful development of a male pill would be advantageous to both men and women, I do not think that the choice to cease its development is a misogynist conspiracy by large pharmaceutical companies. They are merely operating in the economic and cultural climate which exists, not dictating it. If they could see big profits in the development of a male pill, they'd continue investing big-time!

Alicat has some valid points, as do the others. I read a journal article in relation to this issue a few months back,and it seems several different issues are at hand in this situation. First of all the difficulty (and costlyness) in creating new drugs has only increased over the 40 years since we developed the first pill for women. Some of you may remember that it was poorly informed Puerto Rican women who took the risk to test out the pill (Enovid) in its first widescale clinical trials. Such a grossly un-ethical way of pushing through a drug cheaply would benefit no one, and hence why it has and will take much longer to develop a proper pill for men.

It is also difficult to get men to participate in these sorts of clinical trials, or to get them to even want a pill for many reasons. For one, the cultural expectation has become that male responsibilty in contraception does not extend beyond condoms, vasectomies and pulling out. It is the expectation that women will take the risks to protect themselves from pregancy, and this has probably been fueled by a cycle of heavy developement of female contraceptives (driven in part by the push by women to control their own sexuality), while the male side of research stagnated.

Another reason maybe the focus on male virility and the fear of putting that at stake by taking a pill which stops it. Beliefs about masculine identity are often wrapped up in sexual/fertility status and some men fear or receive ridicule for participating in clinical trials for a male contraceptive.

I've babbled on enough :), but the article that discusses these issues is Oudshoorn's 2004 "Astronauts in the sperm world" which can be found in the journal Men and Masculinities (4).

So long as we’re in the mode of making confessions: I don’t use birth control. I can’t. I’m really sensitive to hormones so I don’t take any. My partner and I have been talking a lot about alternative options for us which got us talking about male contraceptives.

My alma matter had a lot of funding going in for a male contraceptive. However, in recent years funding has been cut. I took a look at a lot of the arguments by males for and against "the male pill" and this is what I deduced:
http://tiny.cc/IGV5c

This is hardly misogyny.

There are plenty of good arguments that the contraceptive pill contributed to the sexual liberation of the 60s; and there's plenty of good arguments that that liberation created an impetus towards equality.

But now the contraceptive pills is a burden?

Surely, big pharma denying me the ability to have more than one birth control choice that I have control over is, if anything gender related, misandry, not misogyny. Plenty on this forum see it as all the burden being placed on women, I see it as my right to choose being infringed. (these are, of course, silly arguments). From my experience, when it comes to birth control, it has been assumed by most of the women that I've been with that I provide the condoms. I don't have a problem with this, as it's the only control I have; but with a healthy sex life, it's far more expensive than the pill is here in Australia (between $5 and $30 per month in most cases, dependent on your financial situation; we have a proper health system here).

I must admit, I'm pretty offended by some of the comments on this site. Why is that so many women, especially avowed feminists, see all men as drooling Neanderthals, walking around grabbing their crotches looking for a lay. Not all men are sluts, just like all women aren't studs.

Comments expressing disbelief about the sincerity of men saying they want a say in their fertility are beyond offensive. The comment above suggesting that we just get vasectomies is ludicrous; you know women can have their tubes tied, so why do we even need a pill at all?

I've had this conversation with friends before, and I'm yet to meet a male that wouldn't take it. Then again, I don't hang out with the knuckle draggers and mouth breathers whom some seem to think make up all men. Perhaps before making such generalisations one should think of all the negative female stereotypes out there, and their manifestations in reality (Hello Paris!), and stop and think that maybe this image of the man they have conjured up in their head has more to do with their own prejudice and selective information processing than reality.

Personally, I'd like an implant like the implanon, I already forget to take my other meds :P

However, as was said above, it's really up to us men to demand this; I'm not really sure what more can be done... Any suggestions? (I hope none here take this post as disrespectful, I'm just trying to do what I can to point out sexism when I see it).

So really, wouldn't it be more helpful to point out that this is happening, and try to rally everyone to fight for it, rather than isolating people from your audience by calling it misogyny? (I don't think that was the OP point, but it's come out from the discussion).

Some links for some info:

Succesful trials of the male pill way back in '03. 55 couples, none got pregnant in 12 months and one DID get pregnant shortly after ending the trial. AND it's an implant! This has some government funding, given that it's attached to a university, but is mostly privately funded. Importantly, it's a non-profit, so it makes the economic argument moot.

75% of Australian men would take some form of male contraception were it available.

Unfortunately, I can't find other links, but the last I heard (a few months ago, on the radio), Australian researchers were awaiting approval for the next stage of clinical trials, and are expecting a product on the market in 3-5 years. Importantly, the research here isn't being done by big pharma, but by self funded non-profits and government and university research labs.

So, with any luck, we should have something soon, and trust me, I do hassle the government to provide greater funding to research institutions!

this is not good. health insurance companies need to start paying more. They need to step up to the plate.
health insurance quotes
free investing information
home improvement tips
free weightloss blog