to think a male pill would be one of the best things that could happen to society?

@gannett I know right, some women have managed to make this all about themselves. As if it's being invented for them not men! It's very little to do with women it's an extra option for men and we can still take our own contraception anyway.

I'm a bit confused that this is anyone's response.

A male pill wouldn't be for women, literally. Whether women trust men to take it or not is irrelevant. A male pill would be for men, enabling them to control their own contraception in a way they can't at the moment without surgery, in the same way that we can control our contraception. It doesn't mean we can or should abandon our contraception!

If a male pill existed, both parents would have to actively decide that they want a baby now, which would be a net win for society.

Both parents already do that now.

I’m all for a male pill/ male injection but I don’t think it is going to make that big of a difference when men will still be able to do as they please and leave a woman with a baby whether she wanted it or not. There are also men who change their mind after the baby is born and will find any way not to pay CM.

We can talk about a small minority of women lying about being on the pill but there would be men doing the same, won’t admit that they forgot to take theirs, taking it wrong, etc.

With the options men have now, there are men poking holes in condoms, stealthing by taking them off during sex, tampering with women’s contraceptives, tampering with women’s drinks whether they are in a relationship or not amongst other things.

Perhaps, it may have to come down to it being an actual legal contract before sex takes place with both parties agreeing they are taking contraception and what happens if it fails.

Not a chance

We had this discussion years ago (not on MN) when the male pill came out or was being discussed. Most women then said they wouldn’t trust the man to take it.

I would agree with that. As a young man, I would have taken the male pill as well as using condoms ( I worked next to infectious diseases in the 90s) As didnt want to get anyone pregnant, having seen pregnancies at 15/16 around me.

I know that women can be dishonest about taking or not taking the pill; I just feel, given the opportunity of taking it, men, as is nearly always the case, would be far more prolific in lying about it, Also from a genuine contaception point of veiw were also far more likley to forget to take it forget to order it and would genuilney end up another task managed by their partners.

YANBU. Having both parties able to independently control their own fertility would be fantastic. It would ensure men have access to the same thing women do: the ability to take contraception the other partner isn't aware of. In situations where women are being coerced to TTC, they can take the pill to prevent pregnancy. Same would apply if men were being coerced.

It would mean men not having to rely on women taking the pill correctly or truthfully. Taking control of their own contraception. Which is what women have always been asking for, right?

@ZoeCM

Have you considered men in relationships where consensual sex is happening in an attempt to conceive, and the man is taking the male pill in secret, knowing that they won't?

There are no simple solutions to human problems

I guess they would have to stop shagging ultimately if they were forced to pay for their offspring that they didn’t want. I think if they made it a legal requirement then they should also give the man the opportunity to sign away his rights and responsibilities before the birth.

This is exactly my point and I agree 100%

Yes absolutely and at points has done 2 or even 3 jobs when feasible and even gaining qualifications at the same time to ensure she can earn better but earnings are also limited when she has to work around the kids and their needs with no one else.

She works harder than anyone I know and it infuriates me so much that he gets to opt out in favour of fun nights out and a single life like he has no kids.

I meant its irrelevant in the way you are talking potential child vs actual child. No parent would wish their child didnt exist but if back then she realised he would piss off and leave her with the children, all the work and all the financial burden then I have no doubt she wouldn't have gone through with 2 pregnancies. But no parent would want to undo that once a child is actually here, its different.

But my point was that men may take a bit more responsibility with contraception if they bore the consequences of it in the same way women did but as a society, men do get to opt out. So of course its relevant to a discussion about contraception.

@holidayhelpneeded1 I agree that it is too easy for men just to walk away and not pay. Your friend sounds in a very difficult situation, assuming she is working as well?

These are good points. Sadly we know women are coerced into these kind of scenarios already.

The question of parentage can be easily answered with DNA testing but I don’t have easy answers for the rest.

I’m willing to bet if our society was much stricter about men supporting their offspring (instead of the absolute shit show that is CMS) they’d be much more into not risking have a child, and go on the pill. As it stands they can walk away and not pay a penny, or pay an insulting amount which doesn’t go anywhere near the costs of raising a child.
My dh would have happily taken the pill, when I couldn’t take hormonal contraceptive, he’d much rather have done that than had a vasectomy, which caused quite a few issues post surgery.
an additional barrier to protect against unwanted pregnancy surely isn’t wrong? Why can’t men have more choice other than a condom, vasectomy or abstinence?
I think OP, if you had simply asked ‘AIBU to think men should have the option of the male pill?’ the results would be very different.

I would say my point isn't irrelevant because this is a thread about a potential male pill not primarily about child maintenance laws.

Paying maintenance and supporting children isn't the only way for a man to be responsible. Not fathering the children in the first place is an equally responsible choice.

A male pill would be developed by scientists and marketed by drug companies. Child maintenance laws are decide in parliament by politicians. The topics are essentially unrelated.

But the point you are making feels irrelevant because a theoretical child to an actual child is different. If he were on the pill then those children wouldn't exist, but once they are an actual person with a life of course its different. But she would have had a whole lot less stress. The point is, if he were actually really equally responsible for the lives he created, he would perhaps have considered them more carefully. As it stands he was free to walk away as soon as he was bored and decided to opt out of both parenting and the financial burden, that shouldn't be allowed to happen and would perhaps make both parties more responsible for the consequences and maybe men would want stronger contraceptive choices.

Well the difference here is that those children were wanted, HE pushed for them but when he got bored, he walked away and moved halfway across the country and decided he didnt need to financially support them and quite often says isnt that what child benefit is for! Like the few quid a month should cover it all so he doesnt have to.

So in their circumstance the pill wouldn't have helped but HE may have thought mroe carefully about having those children if he knew he would be liable to pay 50% regardless. As it stands he got to walk away and pay bare minimum and quite often nothing. So for their circumstances specifically, maybe he wouldn't have pushed so hard had he realised he would have had to pay for 18 years, not just until he changed his mind.

Well in the example I have given, they were in a relationship and these were wanted kids, kids HE actually pushed for. But actually parenting them and actually paying for them is a different matter.

But yes I do agree that its on women too in a situation where its unexpected. But the point is that the non resident parent, which is very very often men, get to walk away and pay bare minimum to fund their own child and it should not be the case. It should be 50% if the ACUTAL cost of raising a child and if that was the norm, I think men would want to be more proactive with contraception too. Right now it feels like walking away is very easy or possible with very little consequence.

It’s not right to force anyone into parenthood. You should ensure that if you knowingly bring a kid into the world knowing its father doesn’t want it and doesn’t want to be involved financially or any other way that you are able to support it yourself (not relying on government support).

Having a kid in good faith is obviously a different situation of course.

If it meant they could have the most pleasurable kind of sex (no condom) without the possibility of 18+ years of child maintenance it would very much be for men's benefit.

I think the "I wouldn't trust the man" posts are missing the point. The effect of a male pill would be to shift the balance of conception control from women to men. Not a 100% change but the balance would move a bit. So therefore fewer babies.

There are very few men that I would trust are capable of remembering to take a daily pill that wasn’t explicitly for their own benefit

Hypothetically - if a male pill were available and the ex had been on it then he wouldn't be a deadbeat dad, failing to support his children. On the surface being responsible. But you friend wouldn't have her children - would she now think that would have preferable?

It depends. When a woman gets pregnant she of course has the right to decide whether or not to go ahead with the pregnancy.

And that is completely right that it is her choice.

However even with contraception, accidents happen. So if she goes ahead with the pregnancy against the wishes of the father (which is her right), then he shouldn’t be forced to support a kid that he doesn’t want.