This is going to be awful for women in abusive relationships. The dude can claim he's on the pill, and then get her pregnant, which then gives him even more control over her because she now has children to worry about.

Yes, and no.

It depends. As long as it's a pill or a liquid or something, it's a possibility. It says is suppresses sperm production, so I guess it depends if that really means 'eliminates ejaculation' or if it just means 'decreases volume and viscosity'. I could live with the later, the former is not going to be acceptable to most men. I'm not sure if a woman could understand something like that, but I will note that very few women take advantage of treatments to eliminate their menstrual cycle, probably for very similar reasons.

Any male who doesn't want children, is in a committed relationship with a woman, and has no specific contraindications against the use of a birth control pill should be willing to use it and to put the effort in to use it correctly. Any female in a committed relationship with such a man and has no specific contraindications against the use of a birth control pill should do the same. Better safe than sorry, Although I suppose the partners could take turns spelling each other on taking the pills, if a break from side effects is needed. Also, individuals not in committed relationships could certainly use the pills as well, so long as the need for protection against STDs is also met.

(Bear in mind that, barring some bizarre rearrangements of the fundamentals of biological reproduction, the odds of me or a partner needing to avail ourselves of protection against pregnancy is basically zero, so my opinion may be of limited applicability.)

Yossarian: thats insane. That's like opposing ortho tricyclen because maybe a woman will lie to you and trap you into a relationship. It's something to watch for, but it's not a real reason to oppose contraception.

I could take someones eye out with a pen, but very few people would consider that a reason to ban Bics. It sounds like you're just afraid of either having to take responsibility for yourself (if you're male), or of having to share that kind of decision (if you're a woman).

Soullite, the amount of sperm in one ejaculation would fit on the head of a pin. So if the drug interferes only with sperm production it shouldn't affect the semen in any noticeable way.

To answer the question at hand: I would be willing but not enthusiastic to take a pill with the current side effects, and think I could reliably remember to take such a pill when I was in a relationship. I'm not sure I could be counted on to do so if I was not.

One thing that decreases my enthusiasm for a male pill, however, is knowledge of the reversible, ten-year treatment RISUG which is currently undergoing clinical trails in India. I'm always a little confused as to why this treatment hasn't received more attention here in the States.

I'd be ok with it. But it's true that I could understand a partner's reluctance - they, after all, would have to bear the brunt of my failure if I forgot.

Yes and yes.

Bloix, good to know. I don't really care if I make sperm or not. It's a good idea, you should never have to put something like that in another persons hands. Even if your partner uses contraception, the idea behind it kind of indicates that two people using pills would be slightly more effective than 1 person.

Yes and yes.

The only way a male contraceptive could ever be "trusted" (by any woman who isn't comfortable just taking the man's word for whether he's safe) is if taking the male pill causes, as a side effect, the word STERILE to appear on his upper thigh. And even then some men will get that tattooed there just for fun.

As other posters have said, male contraceptive is good for people in committed or trustworthy relationships, either as the couple's sole contraceptive or as a backup to whatever other methods they're using. But it can't be trusted.

For that matter, men who take a random hookup's word for being on the pill are idiots, but that's a discussion for a different day.

Living in the real world means that any male contraceptive is a good and useful idea, but won't protect women from unwanted pregnancies by unscrupulous men. Unless there's a label involved.

Thanks for the attempted mind-read, Douchebag McGee, but when did I say I was opposed to the male pill? I was merely pointing out a possible (indeed, probable) unintendend consequence that I haven't seen other progressives bring up in this conversation. On the whole, male birth control is probably a good thing, but you'll pardon me if I don't turn into Pollyanna. My girlfriend works in the domestic violence policy and service community, and this was the first thing she thought of when I told her about male birth control.

I guess it depends if that really means 'eliminates ejaculation' or if it just means 'decreases volume and viscosity'. I could live with the later, the former is not going to be acceptable to most men.

To each his own, I guess. One of the meds I tried for an enlarged prostate several years ago did in fact eliminate ejaculation. But orgasms didn't feel any different as a result - just less messy, and of course very effective contraception.

Would I? Of course! I'd jump at the chance.

Now, whether I'd remember to take them at exactly the same time every day is a whole other question...

I don't want my fiancée taking the pill because mucking around with one's hormonal balance seems like a large risk to me. I know it's been around for a long time and we think we understand the risks, but I am not so sure.

I would be concerned about taking a "male pill" for similar reasons.

I would certainly take it under one or both of two conditions:

A) It is more medically safe than female birth control pills;

and/or

B) Both of us using birth control pills virtually guarantees that there will be no pregnancy (that is, both partners using birth control quite significantly reduces the possibility of pregnancy).

Well, having gotten a vasectomy at age 21 my answer would obviously be yes to #1 and a probably on #2. (For the record I don't think having one mattered to any of my one-night or other short-term relationships. Possibly for reasons similar to but not quite the same as the "obvious" ones McCardle repeats. It did pay off for long-term relationships though.)

If I can put on my Matt Yglesias contrary-to-contrarianism hat for a minute, I don't think you'd want to assume average men's behavior would remain unchanged if something safe and effective became widely available. Individuals and institutions, even traditionally patriarchal ones, are going to be less forgiving of someone who fails to use, or *lie* about using, a readily-available pill.

As for non-average men, there will always be losers, psychos, and tools in the world, But considering that abusers already simply refuse to permit any protection (not to mention confiscating pills and puncturing condoms) it's hard to see how refusing to take their own pills would *increase* the already considerable abusive/controlling risks they pose to their partners.

For everyone else (and a point I'm disappointed a nominally "free-market" advocate like McCardle would miss) an obvious aftermarket product for fertility test strips similar to pregnancy/alcohol-style test kits that are already available. A lick-able strip might change color in the presence of a male-pill metabolite, or one that could be dipped in pre-ejaculate or semen might change color in the presence of actual sperm. They could be used by either partner and they could be in longer-term relationships. And of course, for one-night stands (assuming one really wasn't wary of STDs in the first place) I think their use would integrate easily into hookup routines.

By the way, just because most non-barrier contraceptives have been available only to women doesn't mean that the introduction of a male pill would *automatically* mean women could stop taking theirs. Instead I'm already confident most birth-control advocates -- who already advocate contraception redundancy -- would advise *both* partners to take their respective pills.

Oh, and finally, when talking about "would men remember to take pills" one reason birth control advocates recommend redundant contraception is that it's pretty hard for *everyone* to remember to take pills. Doubling up strongly decreases the chance *both* methods will fail at the *same time.*

Cool topic, Dana.

figleaf

Omg, yes! I've been waiting for this day for a long time. Unfortunately, I have almost no confidence that the 3 year estimate is even close.

There is no reason for any man to take a contraceptive, unless his partner can't take a contraceptive for some health reason.

This is because 1) she bears the risk of failure and 2) it's easier to stop one egg a month than billions of sperm ejected during every encounter.

In other words, the only good solution is for her to be the one to take the pill. Which means there is no reason for him to.

Sell it in a drug cocktail with viagra and you'll sell brazilians of them.

Note to Yossarian: your girlfriend is a dumbass, you are a double dumbass.

What this really will do is keep women from defrauding innocent men through bogus paternity claims.

i'm in my late 40s. i wish they had come out with a male pill years and years ago. i would have happily and faithfully taken it every day. contrary to the accepted story and the low end of the curve behavior that is taken to represent every man, some men are quite responsible. still, i have to say, being in my late 40s, that i can see one big disadvantage for women to a male pill: no man in his late 40s or older, no matter how sincere or responsible will remember to take it every day because your short term memory gets worse and worse every year, maybe every month beginning in your 40s. so for a few years, assuming a relatively years-matched pair, it would require checking on her part, not cause he is obstinate, but because he is aging.

Captcrisis, even though a man can't get pregnant, he still shares in the risk of a failure of birth control. Whether it's standing by the woman in an abortion clinic, committing to starting a family before he was ready, or just making child support payments, any man worthy of the name has to be prepared to take responsibilities that last past the moment of ejaculation.

And until you accept that, I pray that you never date.

(Exception: feel free to date away if you're a lesbian; I don't think your attitude toward men will matter in that case. But if you're straight, or even a gay male, you're not going to be much good in a relationship until you learn that grown men actually should act like adults.)

Yoss, your first thought when it comes to male birth control pills is that men are such vile pigs that we will beat and forcibly impregnate their SO's, and you have the fucking nerve to call me a douchebag?

What. A. Fucking. Moron.

Low Tech, theres quite a bit of difference between an elective perscription and one that deals with an actual medical condition.

If I were in that position, I'd take the meds too. I took antidepressants when I was 19, and they damn near made me impotent. When you need meds, you take them. When you don't NEED them, you have an entirely different choice to make. I'm not sacrificing my adulthood for a pill that does what a piece of latex can do. Not much mess in that either.

Doesn't appear to be an issue though, so as long as there aren't any unfortunate (explosive diarrhea, internal bleeding, loss of sex drive) I don't really see any reason not to get this pill.

What?

Did I say I would not stand by my woman if she got pregnant? No.

I'm just pointing out the facts. Take the male pill if you want to show the world how progressive you are. But if your woman doesn't *also* take a pill, she's being a fool. Because she bears the risk of failure, and it's easier to stop one egg a month than billions of sperm every time you put your penis into her vagina.

I think it's great there's a male pill, and I'd be happy to take it if/when it becomes available.

I'm curious about the second question, though... I don't see how the existence of this potential new product changes the issue that trust is sort of the major factor in ALL birth control situations to begin with. If you're a man who doesn't trust a woman who says she's taking the pill, or you don't know her medical record, use a condom. If you're a woman who doesn't believe your male partner claiming he's on a male pill, then make you're on one, and that he's using a condom.

The idea that guys who claim they're "on the pill" is a potential next-gen "I'll pull out at the last minute" but it's really no different then assuming the woman isn't lying when she says she's on the pill, save for the woman facing the risk of being pregnant.

If you're a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant or a man who doesn't want to get a woman pregnant, then decide what contraception is necessary for you. The existence of a new product doesn't change this at all.

For sure I'd take it. When it comes to birth control, the more options the better. Trust myself to take it properly? Of course. Saying no and expecting women to is just a lame cop out isn't it?

This seems less a question of the transferring of responsibility to men than men taking responsibility for themselves or, in committed relationships, of sharing responsibility more equitably. Prudence would dictate that many women would continue to take measures for reasons McCardle gives, but this would at least give men more options with many males opting to take the pill for the same prudent reasons women would. A mans incentive in avoiding pregnancy, while not as strong as a womans, still may be pretty darn strong.

Why do you sell Canada generic Viagra online?  We sell our order viagra because it enables us to reach a greater customer base and provide meds to those who otherwise would not be able to afford them.  Because we operate online and ship direct from the manufacturer, we save on marketing and inventory costs, bringing down. For More info Visit: http://www.xlpharmacy.com

I wish the science find out easier and permanent methods for this. we at abcweightloss.net still try to promote weight loss pills.

The Viagra effect might be thought of as some minor problem that affects older men. Or possibly those women who live with or date older men perhaps. However, the Viagra Effect can in fact lead to problems for the larger society. Both Instapundit and Tyler Cowen point to this piece.

i like this

I wish the science find out easier and permanent methods for this. I wish the science find out easier and permanent methods for this.