Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Research into a safe, effective male birth control "pill" is ongoing, and it seems reasonable some such pill may be available in the near future. I wonder what effect such a pill might have on the rate of unintended pregnancy.
Part of me thinks that it may lower the rate of unintended pregnancy dramatically. The excuse men usually give for not using condoms id they don't "feel good." If that weren't an issue, and if the male pill were cheap and readily available, perhaps more men would use contraception.
But another part of me is more skeptical. Some men might balk at the idea of taking anything that would alter their body chemistry. They might fear it would make them ill or impotent, even if such fears were unfounded. Some men even seem to enjoy "getting over" on women--i.e. getting them pregnant and getting away with not paying child support.
There are so many factors to consider beyond the medical ones. What do people think?
I believe it would lower the rate of pregnancy but not dramatically because I don't believe there would be many men that would opt to take the pill. I would love to see it on the market tho.
In combination with a woman on the Pill, I'd say it would make a big difference. However, as the one with a lot more to lose, I wouldn't put the responsibility for unwanted pregnancies into the hands of the man alone.
My understanding is that a male pill was invented in the 60s, soon after the female version. But it had the same side effects as a the female pill -- greatly decreased sex drive for most takers -- and women were more willing to accept that than men.
And the result is that we now have this bizarre cultural belief that women's sex drive is naturally less than men's. You don't see that belief in cultures where hormonal birth control is less pervasive.
And of course there is the problem of whether women will believe men who say they are on the pill. Many men with vasectomies are disappointed to find that, for casual sex, women still require condoms for backup and for STI prevention.
A male pill, like a vasectomy, would only be useful in LTRs where trust is high. And where there is an imbalance in libido when she is off the pill.
No. Both "Male oral contraceptive" and "female oral contraceptive" existed way before 1960s. It was only about how to make a profit out of it. To make a profit out of it, one needs to be able to patent it - which is why pharmacy industry actively paid for any legal obstruction on contraceptives UNTIL they could patent it. Female pill is using the same extract which was a known contraceptive that uses well before it ever got "discovered" by its creator. he just created the medical-looking ("pill") version, which he managed to patent. If he couldn't patent it - he'd side with legislators who were obstructing any federal admission of an officially available contraceptive that uses that same extract and you'd have to resort to other means with no warranty (i.e. "herbalists").
This is where male version got stuck - it couldn't get patented and they did that exactly. It's been a long time that they attempted to patent it but unsuccessfully. The pharmacy industry came closest to its patent when they actually patented it and even planned production of future pills.... only to get struck when Indian folks started with lawsuits because it exists for thousands of years over there and because they feared that they'd block them from being able to go the same way once the patent is official.
It simply doesn't pay off if they can't patent it - which is why they deliberately obstruct its import or its listing as an official contraceptive. Which is why it gets stuck with "herbal" part.
Unintended means unintended. It doesn't mean intended by one person but not the other.
Totally. And I'm not discounting that men will forget (likely more often) than women to take it. Antibiotics. Etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NilaJones
Do you have access to any peer reviewed studies, comparing the frequency of men sabotaging birth control to women doing it? I am not being snarky here, I am really curious (but too lazy to look it up myself right now).
Such a study wouldn't be factual yet, because
a) It's obviously hypothetical: we don't have a male pill yet
b) It would be subject to SERIOUS judgmental bias. I don't see many people admitting to sabotage, even in an anonymous study.[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by NilaJones
It's a common problem, especially in relationships where the man is controlling or abusive and the woman is trying to escape. The man tries to get her pregnant when she does not want to be, in order to keep her trapped. But women sometimes do the same thing, and I don't know how the rates compare.
And you know me, I am rabid about consent, for men and for women.
I'm not denying that it would happen altogether, but I strongly believe that a pregnancy that occurred because a man lied about taking birth control would be far less likely than the other way around, and that, in turn, would result in a massive decrease in unintended pregnancies ("unintended" here meaning not intended for at least one party)
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,948,491 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty2011
In combination with a woman on the Pill, I'd say it would make a big difference. However, as the one with a lot more to lose, I wouldn't put the responsibility for unwanted pregnancies into the hands of the man alone.
Which is why I use condoms. It's about taking responsibility and wanting control of a life altering issue.
a) It's obviously hypothetical: we don't have a male pill yet
b) It would be subject to SERIOUS judgmental bias. I don't see many people admitting to sabotage, even in an anonymous study.
You misunderstand me. I'm talking about right now, today, men often sabotage birth control. A common method is to substitute some other kind of pill for her birth control pills, in the dispenser. Or to poke holes in condoms. There are websites giving men explicit directions for how to slip a condom off without her noticing.
And yes, any study that relies on self reporting is problematic. But we rely on them anyway, in all sorts of areas related to birth control and sexuality and politics and consumer behaviour. Techniques have been developed for interviews and surveys that maximise the probability of getting accurate answers, and people make multibillion dollar decisions based on these studies. Frankly, they utilise the fact that altruism has been heavily favored by evolution.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,948,491 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by NilaJones
Frankly, they utilise the fact that altruism has been heavily favored by evolution.
You've said this before and I've dug and dug on the web, Lexus Nexus, etc and found no good studies supporting this. If you have any good reading, I'd appreciate a citation. There is reciprocal altruism, kin selection and the closely related group selection, but none are really altruism since the motives are inherently selfish (whether they are intended or not).
You misunderstand me. I'm talking about right now, today, men often sabotage birth control. A common method is to substitute some other kind of pill for her birth control pills, in the dispenser. Or to poke holes in condoms. There are websites giving men explicit directions for how to slip a condom off without her noticing.
And yes, any study that relies on self reporting is problematic. But we rely on them anyway, in all sorts of areas related to birth control and sexuality and politics and consumer behaviour. Techniques have been developed for interviews and surveys that maximise the probability of getting accurate answers, and people make multibillion dollar decisions based on these studies. Frankly, they utilise the fact that altruism has been heavily favored by evolution.
And again, I'm not denying that men do it, just that it happens less often than women doing it. Those same websites are also geared towards women. And that's in addition to simply "not taking the pill and saying you did".
If you're not concerned about the accuracy of the study and relying on altruism, then here's the closest thing to "factual" information I could find on the topic:
"Approximately 8.6% of women in the United States reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get them pregnant when they did not want to"
...
"Approximately 10.4% of men in the United States reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant when they did not want to"
So far two women have responded with comments that allude to men being too irresponsible to be trusted to properly medicate.
Not irresponsible. Deceitful. I said men of dubious integrity. There will be men who lie and say they are on the Pill just to avoid using a condom, just like there are women who lie and say they are on the Pill just to try to trap a man.
As a woman, and therefore someone who would be the one actually getting pregnant, I trust no one with contraception but myself.
It's a done deal, now, anyway. Thank you, modern surgery!
You've said this before and I've dug and dug on the web, Lexus Nexus, etc and found no good studies supporting this. If you have any good reading, I'd appreciate a citation. There is reciprocal altruism, kin selection and the closely related group selection, but none are really altruism since the motives are inherently selfish (whether they are intended or not).
For a good overview of the science, with citations, I recommend The Origins of Virtue. I also saw some good popsci prospects just now by googling 'altruism science', but I did not investigate them. The links to Scientific American, Psychology Today, and Wired looked like they might have potential.
You bring up the question of how altruism is defined, and what 'counts'. If something is evolutionarily selected for, it obviously benefits at least the close gene pool, if not the person themselves. My impression is that pessimists use a definition that is not the mainstream one, in their attempts to convince people that there is no such thing .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemind31
"Approximately 8.6% of women in the United States reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get them pregnant when they did not want to"
...
"Approximately 10.4% of men in the United States reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant when they did not want to"
Which is, admittedly, less of a discrepancy than I suspected, but still greater in the case of women.
Edit: By "greater", I mean that more women are deceptive in that department than men.
Great job! So it looks like the rates are pretty similar, maybe within the margin of error. And, honestly, higher for both genders that I would have guessed. 8-10% is a LOT.
It's interesting that the researchers approached the topic by asking people if their partners had attempted to subvert birth control. I assume this was an effort to get around the problem of people not wanting to report their own bad behaviour. But I wonder how they controlled for paranoia?
Have you seen the studies on prevalence of rape, where they ask men what they have done but carefully do not use the word 'rape'? Surprisingly many men admit to doing it, if they don't have to face the name.
Maybe something like that could be done with this question. Like, 'Have you ever had sex that could result in pregnancy when your partner thought it couldn't?' Or you know, someone with better grammar than mine could write the question .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
