Why so few male contraceptive options?

[Dustyblue]

Does anyone else find it weird that nobody has come up with a decent reversible male contraceptive? It's either condom or vasectomy.

I've heard people say it's merely because the patriarchy prefers this burden to be on women but that doesn't truly make sense to me. Surely millions of men would use an easy, reversible and safe contraceptive that isn't a condom?

Just one of those strange things I've been contemplating recently!

They have made a male pill, but decided it needs some work because the poor menfolk can't handle weight gain, acne and mood changes.

I read somewhere that for women it’s scientifically simpler in that you’re just stopping production of an egg once a month. Not millions of sperm.

They have tried a male pill, but haven’t got there yet. Probably won’t be long

They have condoms and vasectomies. To state the obvious, men don't get pregnant so are exponentially less motivated to commit to contraception. Would you trust a man to take the Pill religiously?

Because they can't be trusted.

What @GarlicFound said!!

No, I wouldn't trust them. But they trust us, it would seem? That doesn't always work out well. We still cop unexpected pregnancies although that's a different topic.

I still reckon loads of men would take a male 'pill" or similar if they could.

I can remember reading about a 'male pill' about 15 years ago. Doesn't seem to have gained much traction, that is with research funding etc!

So presumably you would take the female pill and the men would take their pill and everyone would be happy?

It’s because they’d be taking a pill and getting the risks without the medical benefits. They’d be taking it so that someone else got the medical benefits (not getting pregnant). That changes the ethics. For example, the contraceptive pill for women leads to an increased risk of blood clots, but it’s still much less of a blood clot risk (and less of a risk to health in general) than pregnancy & birth. If a male contraceptive pill raised the risk of blood clots, it wouldn’t be protecting them from something with an even higher risk.

Because for a long time nobody has really cared what is done to women's bodies, and we are expected to put up and shut up and never question the rollercoaster of symptoms and side effects since we are inherently "changeable". This idea goes back to the ancient world. Men on the other hand are solid and stable and can't be expected to put up with anything which threatens that.

If they developed one that increased muscle mass and cleared up acne, I imagine the uptake would be very high. I get why men don't want weight gain or acne though. I didn't like the side effects of the pill so I didn't take it when I was younger. I'm on a great one now though which I take because of the side effects(lighter periods, no weight gain, better sleep and clear skin).

This.

It impacts them less so they have very little motivation.
I'd speculate up until recently Big pharma cant be that bothered because there isn't much a market (i think this is changing)
and condoms were only invented to prevent men getting STDs (from prostitutes who other men infected)

Google seems to confirm this
The first documented use of a condom in Europe, described by Italian anatomist Gabriele Falloppio in 1564, was as a linen sheath specifically intended to protect men from contracting syphilis

Which one is that please? My dd suffers terribly with weight gain with the pill

Male pill doesn’t protect against STDs. If the consensus is that men can’t be trusted to take it, at all or properly, then it doesn’t protect against pregnancy either. It then becomes a product without a purpose but with a cost both financial and in relation to side effects. Why would any pharmaceutical company spend money on R&D? Condoms are cheap, visible and do both.

"Men on the other hand are solid and stable and can't be expected to put up with anything which threatens that." I came on to say something along @Jadzya 's lines; I honestly think that giving men a hormonal contraceptive which had the potential side-effects of low mood, depression and irritability would endanger women. These symptoms are already precursors for violence and domestic abuse. As a society, we need to keep men collectively regulated and on an even keel, or there'll be hell to pay for someone, somewhere.

Yasmin. It isn't available on NHS because it is more expensive than the ones they provide, but you can buy it privately from online pharmacies. I think it costs around £10 a month. You can't take it if you have high blood pressure.

🙄

I just don’t think it would be that popular, really.The consequences of pregnancy fall solely on the woman really, so I find it strange that women would be willing to hand the responsibility for preventing it completely over to someone else. Surely women wouldn’t trust it in a ONS or a casual relationship.

My husband is fully trustworthy and would happily take it, but if I became accidentally pregnant while he was taking the pill I would struggle not to feel resentful and wonder if he took it properly etc. And once you’re done having kids, a vasectomy makes far more sense.

I can see it being very popular for men who want to protect themselves against being “baby trapped”. But it’s unlikely they’d have that many woman willing to trust them, so it becomes a bit moot.

Surely it would give protection to both. Even now it shouldnt be one or the other. The message should be stronger that protection is an individual thing.

That’s what I have said to my sons - if you don’t want a child wear a condom regardless, even in a longstanding relationship.

Unless men had child maintenance deducted straight from their salaries (like how tax is), they will never be motivated enough to take a contraceptive pill regularly.

You say that, but I wonder how many 'happy little accidents' it would stop. and how many men would find out that their wives are sleeping around.

I’ve heard of something like a clamp that goes around the tubes instead of cutting them in a vasectomy that you can squeeze to engage and disengage, sounds interesting.

If you need to ask, then you must have missed a lot of life as it passed you by.

The only reason - and all else are below this one - is that getting pregnant is not a risk for a man. Never has been. Never will be.

Once that flash of insight has dawned on you it is impossible to unsee and totally and utter resistant to all and any attempts to disprove it.

It's rather worrying it wasn't the immediate reply, I guess a lot of women overthink things. Unlike men.

I disagree that getting pregnant isn't a risk for a man. Obviously it's a much lesser risk, as in negligible in the physical sense.

However loads of men would prefer to have control over their fertility. I have a pre-pubescent son and so far all I can teach him is "always wear a condom". Yes there are other issues involved but if there was a way he could prevent impregnating his partner when he didn't want to- surely that would be a good thing?

I've seen a few threads here where a Mum has been faced with her teenaged son having a baby with his teenaged girlfriend. So difficult for all involved and yes, the brunt of it will be on the teenaged Mum. I don't know, I just think it would be better if all men could have some control over their fertility whether they chose to use it or not.

The point upthread about the difficulty in preventing one egg per month versus millions of sperm per day is interesting.