Tyler Cowen does not expect the male birth control pill to be popular. Nor do I. He lists several possible reasons but misses what I think is the main one: incentive structures. As any woman can attest, it's all too easy to miss one or more of those pills. It's therefore very difficult to trust someone else to take them. It's especially hard if you are the one who will bear the heaviest price for a failure. As long as women have the stronger incentive to avoid pregnancy, it will be easier to trust them to keep taking their pills. Especially if you don't live together and thus can't watch him taking it at the same time every morning. The transactions costs on making a Coasean bargain are simply too high.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
As a male, I always thought we men had a stronger incentive to avoid pregnancy. Women have the option of abortion, but men do not.
As you note, it is difficult to trust others to ensure adequate birth control. I'd be more comfortable being on the pill just for my own peace of mind.
In light of Tyler Cowen's arguments, though, perhaps I'd even keep that fact to myself ...
The transaction costs can be minimized if the woman requires a non-performancee bond equivalent to the cost of raising and educating the child or children that way result, as well as compensation for pain and suffering, and of course, a custody agreement.
Alternatively, the man might provide proof of sterility.
If I ran money or otherwise represented professional athletes, I'd be asking the drug maker and Gatorade to form a partnership.
From a theological point of view, this strikes me as less disturbing than some of the options that are out there.
Pill? What is this, the 50s? Please, there are far superior methods of contraception, like the nuvaring or an IUD. More effective, no worrying about "did I take a pill today?". Which is why a male pill will not catch on, pills are already an inferior form of birth control.
Plus, it is bad marketing to call it "birth control for men" because men don't give birth, and will reject it for being feminine. Just like facial moisturizers needed to be specifically branded to men to catch on.
What's the most pointless thing in the world?
A booth selling the male Pill at a Star Trek or D&D convention.
"It's especially hard if you are the one who will bear the heaviest price for a failure."
Spoken like someone that's never faced the possibility of paying child support.
Second most pointless thing, Peter. The most pointless would be a booth selling the female pill at the same convention.
But yes, I could see some kind of a market for the pill. Some men sleep around and have risky sex when they're doing so. If they're on this pill, they won't have to worry about having any children from that. It doesn't have the finality of a vascectomy, either, so the man would be able to have children in the future if he wanted to. Of course it's still probably not going to provide as much protection as using a condom, but it's another option they'll have available.
I personally think it'd be useful. I'm in a committed relationship where sometimes, someone forgets to take the pill. Since I'm anti-abortion, this leads me to use condoms to avoid any mishaps. From my perspective, this has a higher price. But condoms decrease "the fun" if you will.
Two Questions:
Will it make me gain weight when I start?
Will it clear up my complexion?
I'm with anon at 11:07. Female BCP isn't foolproof, so I've worn condoms in serious relationships as a backup. Furthermore, some women can't go on the pill for their own medical reasons (been there, too).
I can't help but think that the side-effects of a male pill would be more severe than they are for the women's pill.
Here is why. The current pill exploits the fact that women normally and naturally do not always ovulate: They do not ovulate when pregnant.
There is no normal state in men where we do not produce sperm.
ADDED: I fully agree with the first commenter Phil: Biologically, women have a stronger interest in having control over reproduction than men, but legally women have far more power than men. How often do women pay child support? If they want the baby, they have it. They almost never have the baby, give it to the father and then pay-out child support.
Megan,
I could not disagree more. I am a man and, assuming I'm still fertile when these pills actually hit the market, I will take these pills every day, even if my partner is also on birth control. Once my partner becomes pregnant, the situation is completely out of my control, and that's terrifying. Even if she's on the pill, I'd be happy to have a second line of defense.
Seriously. If it was safe, I might take double the dosage just to be sure.
What would pro-abortion activists say if they realized magaret sanger was a racist eugenist?
And no, margaret sanger wasn't a racist who merely happened to promote abortion by chance. She promoted it because she was a racist who wanted to eliminate undesirables like the poor. Abortion today is just a reverse psychology version of eugenics masquerading as "womens' rights" and "liberalism". Instead of saying that they want to eliminate the poor, abortion activists say that they are trying to solve poverty by reducing the birth rate of the poor. And instead of it being racist to support abortion, it's now "racist" not to support abortion. Of course you may also be able to reduce poverty simply by elimination of the population of poor people, but it's a pretty twisted way of doing it, because it's basically saying that some people's lives are not worth living compared to others.
1 year ago
Why do you think they always have a black woman to head up Planned Parenthood? Yes, Margaret Sanger was very *much* a racist eugencist (as was Allan Guttmacher)! By hiding their *real* agenda, which was to eliminate poor people - *especially* *****/black/Afro-American ones - they started by fighting for the elimination of laws against contraception means and devices, then offering any birth control means they could acquire to poor people, especially poor black girls and women, at low or no cost! Planned Parenthood and NARAL, and their ilk, then launched their attack against poor girls' and women's babies already conceived - *especially* black ones.
Planned Parenthood finally managed to dupe a poor, divorced, woman to become Jane Roe in Roe vs Wade, and convinced enough liberal U. S. Supreme Court Justices to find a so-called "Right to Privacy" in the First Amendment of the Constitution (one which doesn't *really* exist)! Although any HS Sophomore Biology student knows when life *really* begins; liberal Justices didn't want to pursue the truth . . . just Planned Parenthood's agenda! Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) actually had her child, did *not* have an abortion, and is now a pro-life activist! I personally had the pleasure of meeting this, now-Christian, lady a little over a decade ago!
While it is true that women/girls with lots of money could almost always get away with many crimes, including murder and abortion (while it was still illegal), Planned Parenthood has even managed to get taxpayer dollars from the U. S. Government to help fund their eugentics agenda and programs, all in the name of "helping" poor women (i.e., keeping the poor, especially black, population down)!
I'm sure that most pro-abortionists fully realize what they are doing - destroying human life - and really don't care, because they have the same racist eugentics agenda Margaret Sanger had! That's one reason they hate sonograms so much!
I have known many pro-abortionists, but they always want to be called "pro-choice" (as long as that choice doesn't include giving the girl/woman the choice of carrying the baby to term and either giving it up for adoption or taking responsibility for caring for and raising the child, herself, or by her relatives)!
1 year ago
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070414202814AAiTdsN
two views..
"It's especially hard if you are the one who will bear the heaviest price for a failure."
Spoken like someone that's never faced the possibility of paying child support.
-- Written like someone who believes that everything is about money.
It is worth noting that at least some women respond badly to birth control pills. A male pill would offer another option to couples where that situation exists.
Also, I like the equality embodied in a situation where either or both partners can control their fertility.
and, another view:
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932
On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12
On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107
On adultery:
A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11
On marital sex:
"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said. (p. 23) [Quite the opposite of God's view on the matter: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)
On abortion:
"Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.
http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
Written like someone who believes that everything is about money.
This is an economics blog, y'know.
I think that men WILL be interested, because for the man, the downside IS about money. There are those out there that have been lied to about various aspects of who is protecting who, and from what. So, it behooves anyone with a brain to protect themselves first. Once you trust the other person enough not to use a barrier, you still have to make sure you start a kid, when you both agree. It is interesting how subtle that argument can be.
I think guys, assuming the pill works, will definitely take it on just to make sure.
It won't replace hormonal birth control for women, but I see a market for paranoid men and those whose partners don't do well on hormonal birth control. Hormones kill sex drive in a lot of women, and given the choice between infrequent sex, frequent sex with a condom, and frequent sex + remember to take pill each day, I think most will pick the pill. And that's assuming it's in pill form; it could easily be a patch or a subdermal implant, at which point faulty memory isn't as worrisome, and it becomes an honest comparison of side effects.
"-- Written like someone who believes that everything is about money."
When it is up to 50% of my money for 18 years with no regard for how I will pay for myself to live then yes. Men are very aware of the legal consequences of getting a woman pregnant and I think would take steps to prevent it. If male birth control wouldn't be popular, then why are condoms? Right now men can do two things, both with downsides. We can wear condoms or get a vasectomy, to me this shows a market for a better solution.
There are technical hurdles to the drug, but there have been successful clinical trials involving male birth control pills. The one I saw had a 100% success rate in couples that were using no other form of birth control. It also seems ready made for patches or implantations because you only need to deliver the same dose of the drug every day.
Peter and Tel, I feel the need to defend geek-kind here. I know quite a lot of geeks, and the gender ratio is only maybe 3-1, with about half the population(skewed to women, but still) in long-term relationships. Such booths would be stupid for other reasons - who the hell gets pharmaceuticals at a trade show of any sort? - but not for a total lack of potential customers.
Defensiveness aside, this sounds like a great invention. Not a clue if I'll ever use it, but it'll certainly a good thing to have existent.
"-- Written like someone who believes that everything is about money."
If that's all you've chosen to take from my response, it's likely not worth my time to change your mind.
Then there's the matter of the reltive benefits/disadvantages vs. vasectomies and/or condoms.
Plus, it is bad marketing to call it "birth control for men" because men don't give birth, and will reject it for being feminine. Just like facial moisturizers needed to be specifically branded to men to catch on.
I think George Carlin had a bit about this 30 years ago. Men's pills should have names like "INCONCEIVABLE" and "PregNOT".
Gotta agree; a male birth control pill marketed as an anti-child support pill would sell better than the best-selling beer. Better than Viagra. Guys would forget to take the Viagra before they'd forget to take the anti-child support pill.
Believe me, it IS all about the money.
Why do you think there's all the hooting and hollering going on stage when Maury Povich reads "You are NOT the father"?
Um, you people are saying the cost of pregnancy to men is greater than to women are nuts. A man can disappear, move, deny fatherhood, etc. A woman simply can't run away from an unexpected pregnancy. Yes, there are some men who get stuck with supporting a child they didn't want or get fooled into fathering a kid. They are *far* outnumbered by the number of women raising a kid on their own.
Not to mention the physical and emotional and career costs of pregnancy. Or the physical and emotional cost of an abortion. Yes, this is an economics blog. Not all economics is about money. Or perhaps you haven't heard of Public Choice Theory.
Megan (and Tyler) -- You both argue against that the pill won't be popular, but you fail to give any metric of what you consider popular.
Any demand for the male pill implies some degree of popularity.
I have to say that, were I woman, there is no freaking way I would trust the my vulnerable uterus to a man's memory.
Honestly, I can't believe that men haven't clamored for this for ages now.
I can't imagine trusting another fallible, forgetful human being to take a pill at the same time, every day, when the consequences are an unintended pregnancy. I don't know how my past boyfriends (pre-IUD, which has changed my life) trusted me to take a pill every day - even as reliable as I am. The thing is, we're human and liable to messing this thing up. It's best to cover your bases and double up by using two methods, or get a foolproof method like the IUD, Depo Provera or Implanon.
Male birth control would also protect men against women who might be trying to become pregnant without him being in on the plan, for whatever reason. So the market would be (justifiably or not) paranoid men who don't trust their partners.
Personally, I wouldn't trust a guy to use male birth control reliably - not because of his maleness but because of his humanness. IUD for me!
--Some men sleep around and have risky sex when they're doing so. If they're on this pill, they won't have to worry about having any children from that.
Men having risky sex aren't worried about children. If they were, they wouldn't be indulging in "risky" sex in the first place.
This analysis and Tyler Cowen's both ignore the benefit side of the relationship. Based on (admittedly limited) anecdotal evidence, condoms affect male sensation more negatively than female sensation (though there's more to it than this, obviously). Thus, the person receiving (arguably) the greatest benefit (versus condom use) is also paying the price, which seems more efficient than having the person who does not benefit as much paying the price.
Also, the complete lack of control for men is an excellent point. A woman knows with near-certainty whether she'll bear a child should she get pregnant. A man can never be sure, particularly with a woman he does not know well.
Pill? What is this, the 50s? Please, there are far superior methods of contraception, like the nuvaring or an IUD.
The IUD is an abortifacient.
"Um, you people are saying the cost of pregnancy to men is greater than to women are nuts. A man can disappear, move, deny fatherhood, etc. A woman simply can't run away from an unexpected pregnancy. Yes, there are some men who get stuck with supporting a child they didn't want or get fooled into fathering a kid. They are *far* outnumbered by the number of women raising a kid on their own."
MikeS: A man can move and do itinerant labor to support himself. But most people, and nearly everyone who is likely to read an economics blog, won't choose to do this. They will take jobs where the child support enforcement authorities can track them and garnish their wages.
These men pay a great deal for a child. And they don't get to decide whether the woman bears the child or not.
If you're pissing and moaning about child support, then you ought to consider what it's like to be a child whose father sees him as first and foremost as an impediment to buying a Porsche. (Or, to reverse the story, whose mother sees him as a nifty source of income). If you lose half your income, you're the one getting off easy in that story.
Maybe it's just the father of two in me speaking, but good lord, there's a lot more to life than money.
well, at least for my part, I don't mean anything of the sort that men bear a larger burden... What I mean is that the burden that they might AVOID, will more than be enough to get them to buy such a pill if it works...
as for clamouring for it, we have been, but as pointed out, it isn't straightforward to turn off the swimmers, while allowing them to turn back on. Getting snipped is a better guaruntee, unless you happen to find someone you wish to raise kids with later. This is definitely a deal breaker in that case.
"A woman simply can't run away from an unexpected pregnancy."
A woman can have an abortion or give the child up for adoption. Men have no choice, and those that would like to be gainfully employed can't just run away. Any job that pays under the table would likely not pay well enough to be worth it for many men. As far as the risky sex comment, people do stupid things when drunk and horny. The pill allows you to soberly choose and prevent a pregnancy when the drunk brain doesn't care.
As Rob pointed out the one who suffers most is the child of an unwanted pregnancy, but that's not the point. The point is that men do have to pay for their little mistakes, so would take the pill as a precaution against that. It's not about who suffers more.
Yes indeed, it is dicey to trust somebody else with taking the birth control pills. Just ask a man -- we've been stuck with trusting the women to do this for almost 50 years now, and you can see how well that has worked out.
Step aside, girls.
Planned Parenthood and NARAL, and their ilk, then launched their attack against poor girls' and women's babies already conceived - *especially* black ones.
Sanger was a racist and eugenicist. But I find it ironic that Planned Parenthood gives out free condoms which are far far more likely to break than commercially bought ones.
And is there any evidence that the existence of abortion actually reduces the fertility rate?
Too much discussion over what should be something simple.
-A man can't credibly signal that he's on the male pill.
-Any signal the pill can give off to incidate you're on it (e.g. it makes the bottom of your feet purple) can be copied by a pill that doesn't act as contraception.
'Nuff said.
Pregnancy can kill a woman. Men don't die from women being pregnant. And if the woman doesn't die, it's still a major toll on her body (which men don't seem to understand). This is why it is in women's interest not to get pregnant. Men don't need this pill, they may want it, but they don't need it.
This was discussed in Scienceblogs about three months ago. You're really late to this story.
http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2008/01/ethical_considerations_in_the.php#more
Ken
from the link above
"Why don't they make a birth control pill for men?"
There are important considerations from medical ethics that might explain why a birth control pill for men has not happened yet.
You'd think that there would be an ethical impetus for the development of a birth control pill for men, given that men (or at least, their sperm) are a necessary component of human reproduction and that men have an interest in controlling their fertility, too. Men might view such a pill as a useful option. The question is whether that benefit outweighs the potential risks.
The Belmont Report (which lays out the U.S. government's guidelines for the protection of human research subjects) notes that ethical treatment of humans requires beneficence, which includes maximizing the possible benefits and minimizing the possible harms of a particular intervention. In biomedical research, these risks and benefits are usually understood in biomedical terms -- what will happen to your health with the intervention or without it. If an intervention introduces too much risk of harm, or too little chance of benefit given the potential harm, it crosses an ethical line.
For the female partner in human reproduction, this means tallying the possible health consequences of taking the pill against the possible health consequences of pregnancy. From this point of view, even if oral contraceptives increase your chance of weight gain, blood clots, and stroke, the potential harms of the pill are less than the potential harms of pregnancy itself (which include high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, and death, not to mention weight gain).
For the male partner in the equation, the consideration of risks and benefits is complicated by the fact that men don't get pregnant. As such, any potential harms that come from a male contraceptive would count against the ethical use of that contraceptive, since there is no impact on a man's health (at least from a straightforward physiological perspective) from impregnating someone. This is part of the reason it's possible for men to be fathers without knowing that they are fathers. The analogous situation hardly ever happens with mothers.
In short, unless the male contraceptive provides some clear health benefit to the male taking it, researchers will judge that the possible harms outweigh the possible benefits.
Indeed, this kind of assessment may explain why the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was initially tested for use just on girls, even though males get HPV, spread it to their sexual partners, and can get warts or even penile cancer from it. While bothersome, genital warts are less harmful than cervical cancer, the most serious female consequence of HPV, and penile cancer is much rarer than cervical cancer. But researchers are now testing HPV vaccines on males in the hopes that the potential harms will be even lower than the (comparatively) low potential harms of HPV.
It looks like an attempt to avoid putting an undue burden on men (by offering them a pill with more direct health risks than health benefits) ends up saddling women with an undue burden as far as the responsibility for avoiding pregnancy. Maybe this means that our evaluation of risks and benefits needs to take more account of social factors -- including the real (if not physiological) benefit a man could get from knowing he will not unintentionally impregnate his partner.
"Will it make me gain weight when I start?
Will it clear up my complexion?"
I realize this was a joke comment, but I think this is the key reason it will be wildly successful.
Perhaps what I've read has been misleading, but my understanding is that this works by boosting your testosterone level. The side effect is that you GAIN lean muscle mass. I can hear the conversations now:
"Yeah, yeah, yeah, it prevents pregnancy. That's nice. But you're telling me it GETS ME IN BETTER SHAPE? How do I get a prescription?"
The purchasing decision will be based on the side effects as on anything else.
For myself, I think a male birth control pill or easy, reversible vasectomies would definitely have a market, exactly because of the child support issue. This isn't a 'stealing my victimhood' issue. I WANT children. But I don't want children with someone I don't know well. Condoms SIGNIFICANTLY impair enjoyment of sex. And they are only 90-95% effective.
Its not about a porsche, its about buying a house. And having my children raised by somebody else, where all I get is the ability to pay for them and visit on weekends (if she's nice enough not to move away).
I would be VERY curious about side effects. I know my ex-wife gained weight on Depo. Getting cut sounds nice. Getting aggressive (another side effect of androgens), not so much.
"What would pro-abortion activists say if they realized magaret sanger was a racist eugenist?"
I would say that Margaret Sanger's views on this, or any other topic, don't have anything to do with my opinions on this or any other subject.
Seriously, is this supposed to be an argument? It's like saying that Hitler painted and that, therefore, painting is facist.
Spoken like someone that's never faced the possibility of paying child support.
No, spoken like someone who would neither have an abortion (thereby avoiding most of the costs of pregnancy), nor quit her job and live off the child support while doing no more to care for the child than is necessary to avoid neglect charges. There are plenty of women in the latter group, who appear to rate financial support from a high-earning unintentional sperm donor as worth far more than the various costs of child-bearing and minimal caring for the child.
If the male pill was as safe as the female one with no worse side effects and there was any possibility I was going to engage in casual sex with women I barely knew, I'd certainly take it.
BUT: I think it's unlikely that a male pill is possible without hazards or side effects far worse than the female pill. Ovulation is something that happens only when all the hormonal conditions are right, and there are triggers in place to shut it down during pregnancy, which the pill only has to trip without bringing on too many other effects of pregnancy. Sperm production is something that normally runs all time in male humans past puberty unless they are starving or have damaged testicles. You can't even turn to animal species only distantly related to humans for a model of shutting down sperm production while leaving the male healthy and capable of sex - some male animals can only have sex in season whether or not they produce sperm year round, but only sick or injured ones lose their sperm before they lose interest in sex.
I tend to agree with posters who, recognizing that the male pill has huge potential drawbacks, yet commend it - used properly - as another "line of defense" against pregnancy.
It reminds of the old joke where a man is asked if he wants his (recently deceased) mother-in-law embalmed or cremated. His response? "Why take any chances - do both!" ;-)
I for one would feel better knowing that I couldn't accidentally get any women pregnant, regardless of how the woman feels. And honestly, if I were on the pill but my gf still wanted to take her's, I really wouldn't care. Its just another layer of protection. Having to go through an abortion sucks, and any protection that can be offered instead of or in addition to condoms is welcome, as they do not always work... On another note, I agree with you that STDs are still a problem, but I really believe that male BC will be a great thing to men in monogamous, committed relationships where they know that no one is going to bring an STD into the picture. Please don't forget that the pill is not the only option, there is also RISUG which has been in use, and 100% effective (when administered correctly) in India since the early 1990s. Its great, one application can last 10-15 years, and there are no long term side effects other than some swelling at the point of the insertion on the vas deferens, but this goes away after 2 weeks. Its undergoing FDA testing now for approval in the US.
I think the key idea here is to promote a person's individual responsibility toward their own reproductive choices. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she takes some form of contraceptives. If a man doesn't want to get a woman pregnant, he does the same.
The feminist/sexual politics issue that lies at the foundation of contraceptive practices is that men have never been asked to be accountable for their part in reproduction. Of course this is a generalization -- there are condoms, yes, but many men aren't thrilled about using them.
For decades it has been a woman's responsibility to ensure their reproductive choices. Women take the pill, women ask their male partners to wear a condom, women take the morning after pill if there's an emergency or complication, women deal with the excruciating emotional and financial consequences of having to terminate a pregnancy, give a child they've carried to term up for adoption, or raise a child they never planned for.
With a male "birth control" pill, men can be responsible for their own reproductive choices. The issue isn't trust, memory, money. It's not about creating an alternative so that women don't have to worry about it. It's about providing fair choices for both sexes to be in control of their capacity to reproduce.