
The Economics of Male Birth Control - pmcpinto
http://priceonomics.com/the-economics-of-male-birth-control/
======
caio1982
I think this part nails it:

"Any new product they could introduce would be likely to cannibalize their
existing products. After all, one reason for a man to want to use a reversible
contraceptive is so his partner can stop taking the pill."

Little economical incentive to cannibalize its own market. That makes so much
more sense than conspiracy theories preventing this from happening. I
disregard real "scientific barriers" here because I believe capitalism would
have driven science to where it wanted anyway -- hell, there's very little
stuff in the world that won't see any meaningful progress after 50 years of
research.

~~~
LesZedCB
I doubt that's actually true for most use cases, though. I think for most
people it offers security for the male only. People always want to keep their
own sexual health under their own control. I would be hesitant to say that
most sex happens in relationships between two long-term exclusive partners.
Therefore, there would be many people still interested in taking the daily
pill or other birth control options for their own protection, instead of
taking their sexual partner at their word.

Also, if you find the fact that economics or whatever has prevented male birth
control, consider donating to the Parsemus Foundation who is actively working
on the Vasalgel product.

[http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/](http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/)

~~~
tomp
> I think for most people it offers security for the male only.

I'm not sure that would be the main reason. If you're concerned about
security, pills/vasalgel/anything except condoms won't really save you from
the worst consequences. Only a barrier method can be completely effective (and
even that fails).

~~~
ars
> Only a barrier method can be completely effective (and even that fails).

I would not call it completely effective. Someone who uses a condom perfectly,
each time, every time, still has a 50% lifetime (35 year) chance of having a
child.

And with more typical use a person is all but guaranteed to have at least one
child during their life.

Condoms help reduce fertility (i.e. smaller family size), they do not
eliminate the possibility of children.

Someone who absolutely does not want children does not really have any good
solutions except avoidance. The typical advice is two methods of birth control
at once (i.e. hormone plus barrier), but that's only an option for females.

~~~
6t6t6
> Someone who uses a condom perfectly, each time, every time, still has a 50%
> lifetime (35 year) chance of having a child.

That statement makes no sense. If the condom is not broken or slips off,
there's no chance that a woman is inseminated. Unless the man has magic sperms
that can teletransport themselves into a woman's womb.

~~~
kale
Check this out: [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/14/sunday-
review/...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/14/sunday-
review/unplanned-pregnancies.html)

Perfect use of male condom: 18% chance of conception after 10 years. Typical
usage: 86% chance of conception after 10 years.

Even "the pill": 3% chance at conception after 10 years with perfect use. 61%
chance of conception with typical usage.

Everyone thinks they use contraception correctly. It may be true for anyone
reading this forum, but if you're looking at policy, you have to account for
typical usage. Education campaigns can move "typical" closer to "perfect"
usage, but IUDs and sterilization are pretty much the only types of birth
control that offer more than 50% chance of not conceiving in 10 years.

------
radarsat1
Could Vasalgel be used in fallopian tubes? Why are there not more options for
mechanical, reversible birth control for women that don't involve hormones?

The economics of regularly-taken pills seem to disadvantage _everybody_
(except the drug companies.)

------
Mz
I think "economics" does not begin to explain why this is the way it is. I
think it is far more complicated than "well, companies have no financial
incentive to develop this."

Condoms are not just birth control. They are protection from STDs.

Hormonal birth control has a lot of side effects. If a man has certain side
effects, sex can simply not happen. Then, what's the point? You can skip the
drugs and just not have sex. Done.

Many people are incredibly uncomfortable discussing birth control in "casual
sex"/dating type situations. It is far easier to assume it is on her or use a
condom.

The heat the testicles method provides no proof it is being practiced and no
means to show he is temporarily sterile. Plus another comment in this
discussion indicates it was eventually shown to cause permanent damage.

Her giggling comments about sex suggest she has no clue what sex is like for a
great many people. Her saying that the withdrawal method is something where he
has to do it but she has to not protest because it feels too good -- a lot of
women do not have orgasms from penetration. There is enormous amounts of
shitty stuff that goes on behind closed doors for a great many couples and
this woman sounds like she has no clue what the landscape looks like in that
regard.

I am just flabbergasted.

------
ars
The Wet Heat method mentioned in the article is NOT reversible if used for a
longer period of time. It was initially thought to be, but it has since been
found to cause permanent damage.

Also, if you need to resort to conspiracy theories to make your point, your
point is probably not correct.

"men were interested in male contraception. Why weren’t drug companies
interested? And why are they not, still?"

Perhaps because the main point of the article that there is no scientific
barrier is not actually correct?

~~~
scott_s
I did not see any conspiracy theories in the article. I saw a reasonable
explanation of the incentives involved, and why those incentives resulted in
no new option for male birth control.

There is a scientific barrier, but I think the article provides good evidence
that it wasn't until the past two decades that some of the fundamental
research related to that has been done. That is, because of the above-
mentioned incentives, no one bothered doing some of the basic science
necessary.

~~~
XorNot
Except the basic science still hasn't found what needs to be done. Broadly
it's kind of obvious: we either need a truly reversible vasectomy (not
possible due to immunological reasons), a method to inactivate sperm
production, or a method to inactivate sperm.

There are _massive_ biological science barriers to implementing either of
those two options - we essentially got really lucky with the female hormone
pill that it works at all. It's a blunt, simple instrument that luckily works
really well.

That's not at all true for men - it will take new advances in technology
before we identify any suitable targets.

~~~
pixl97
>we essentially got really lucky with the female hormone pill that it works at
all.

Not quite as lucky as you think. The female reproductive system runs in cycles
and is in many different states at different times. We happened to figure out
how to use the switches that nature already has. Men, on the other hand, have
one state. On, all the time, from puberty till death.

------
jakejake
I would not be surprised at this scenario - her: do you have protection? him:
um, sure. I'm taking that, uh, that pill thing.

I can't help but think a male contraceptive that is not visually verifiable by
the women is not entirely trustworthy. Perhaps in committed relationships, but
not for casual sex. I'm sure we're all nice guys here, but men in general are
not exactly known for being trustworthy when they're drunk and about to have
sex.

~~~
souljaswag
I am though.

maybe we can make a website where we "verify" if people are trustworthy before
drunken hookups.

tryna take home a dude at the bar? just verifyhim

we can even call it verifyhim. scan his fingerprint on your iphone and/or use
your cameraphone to scan his eyes to verify if he was using the man pill last
time he hooked up.

~~~
noxToken
Yes, because I'm sure tons of people will line up to have their
fingerprint/eye pattern associated with contraception and their last potential
hookup in a 3rd party database. What could go wrong?

~~~
dllthomas
_" Yes, because I'm sure tons of people will line up to have their
fingerprint/eye pattern associated with contraception and their last potential
hookup in a 3rd party database."_

Sadly, I am also sure of this.

------
tempestn
One problem with trying to reverse a vasectomy is that backpressure from the
blocked vas deferens can cause damage to the epididymides. It would appear
that this Vasalgel product would have the same issue. However upon further
research [1] (not sure about the source) apparently the block is not complete,
but rather relies on spermicide to kill any sperm passing the 'blocked' area.
This should reduce pressure and the associated risk.

[1]
[http://www.newmalecontraception.org/archive/risug.htm](http://www.newmalecontraception.org/archive/risug.htm)

~~~
phkahler
But as the article says, Vasalgel is not RISUG. They block it entirely. I have
always wondered why she insisted on making a new product when the one in India
had so much testing already. Just take that and start trials - animal trials
at first if they must, but that had all been done before.

------
jkot
Male birth control is not happening, it is not just economy but also politics.
There are a few methods known since sixties, with less side effects than
female hormonal contraception, but those are all banned.

~~~
toomuchtodo
It looks very much like it _is_ happening. I have to travel to another country
to get a procedure done? Oh well. Medical tourism has been a thing for a
while.

~~~
Raphmedia
Male non-invasive birth control isn't happening right now. It wouldn't be
viable to travel to other countries to get birth control pills monthly.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> Male non-invasive birth control isn't happening right now.

Research continues, no? Its going to be available sometime soon (3-5 years),
even if I have to get pills mailed from India or China every month (or I go on
a medical tourism trip to have the Vasalgel procedure done).

If I'm worried about the reversibility, I'd have some semen cryogenically
preserved. I'm also not too worried with how quickly protocols are being
developed to coax stem cells to grow into reproductive tissue.

~~~
caio1982
I've been hearing that it will be available "sometime soon" for the last 20
years.

------
jdjdirn
Good old market forces doing thier job. /s

