Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Economics of Male Birth Control

priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#41

Post by tomp »

LesZedCB wrote: post #17
caio1982 wrote: post #15

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 barr…

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 th…

> 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).

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#42

Post by dionidium »

solutionyogi wrote: post #38
jakejake wrote: post #19

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…

I don't know why you are getting downvoted, I upvoted you. A big positive for using condom is that it's easily verifiable by the other partner. However, I can imagine that there is another big market where partners are in a trusted relationship (either marriage or live in partner) and would like to use male contraception.

I don't know why you are getting downvoted

Because he implied that a man's word that he's taking a daily contraceptive is less reliable than a woman's.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#43

Post by LesZedCB »

tomp wrote: post #41
LesZedCB wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> 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).

For me personally, having a child is way worse that contracting an STI. I'm sure that's very different from person to person, though.

I would of course absolutely advocate using a condom with any new non-fluid-bonded partner.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#44

Post by LesZedCB »

tomp wrote: post #40
caio1982 wrote: post #15

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 barr…

> Little economical incentive to cannibalize its own market. Wait, what? Couldn't you interpret that as a new company/startup entering an existing market? "Little economical incentive for Samsung to cannibalize on Apple's market."

it's not a recurring revenue like a a daily pill. One payment every ten years per person is pretty meager.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#45

Post by tomp »

LesZedCB wrote: post #43
tomp wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

For me personally, having a child is way worse that contracting an STI. I'm sure that's very different from person to person, though. I would of course absolutely advocate using a condom with any new non-fluid-bonded partner.

In general, you can always get an abortion (or, at least the woman can), but you can't always get cured of an STD.

Having said that, there definitely are non-technical issues that can make pregnancy more final than an STD (moral opposition to abortion, not wanting the child while the woman does, ...)

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#46

Post by tomp »

LesZedCB wrote: post #44
tomp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Little economical incentive to cannibalize its own market. Wait, what? Couldn't you interpret that as a new company/startup entering an existing market? "Little economical incentive for Samsung to cannibalize on Apple's market."

it's not a recurring revenue like a a daily pill. One payment every ten years per person is pretty meager.

That's for a specific type of male contraceptive, not a general one. Furthermore, there already exist female contraceptive options that last years, so I'm not sure your argument is valid in any case.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#47

Post by scythe »

jkot wrote: post #13
BeefySwain wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There are a few methods known since sixties, with less side effects than female hormonal contraception Such as?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/722423_5 google cache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:50H_2S...

>This study revealed that 70% of 271 patients became azoospermic after 6 months of treatment. The mean time to azoospermia was 3 months. The azoospermic patients were enrolled in a 12-month efficacy phase, where one pregnancy occurred. Sperm reappeared in the ejaculate in 11 patients. Once the testosterone was discontinued, the mean time to sperm recovery was 3.7 months. Of note, this international study revealed that 91% of Asian and 60% of Caucasian patients became azoospermic, suggesting an ethnic difference in endocrine response. This difference has been seen in subsequent studies. Possible explanations include fivefold differences α-reductase levels in these groups,

This is your solution? This isn't marketable because you can't have six-month induction periods with repeated testing for azoospermia that only works on 3/4 of patients in the first place. That's a practical problem, not a political one.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#48

Post by dikdik »

anigbrowl wrote: post #28
stevenmays wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh. The counterpoint. Her: I'm on the pill. Him: Okay. 9 months later we find out she lied. Both men and women should have access to contraceptives. Saying that one gender is less trust worthy then another is ridiculous.

Possible, but if you want us to the ignore the hugely differing economic incentives for men and women wrt pregnancy then the discussion isn't going to go anywhere.

In the prejudiced US family court system, women have more of an economic incentive to lie about birth control than men.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#49

Post by bradjohnson »

jakejake wrote: post #19

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…

>men in general are not exactly known for being trustworthy when they're drunk and about to have sex

Jesus, I can only imagine the reaction from HN if you made such a sweeping generalization about how trustworthy women are. How can you verify that a woman is on the pill? Even more, what if she says she has an IUD? How is that verifiable?

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#50

Post by scott_s »

ars wrote: post #3

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 becau…

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.

Post reply on HN