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

51–60 of 87 posts

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#51

Post by scott_s »

AlexEatsKittens wrote: post #39
anigbrowl wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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. What possible incentive is there for a man to impregnate a woman, especially without her desire? I don't think many guys are out there begging to pay child support.

There is no incentive for man to impregnate a woman. That question, however, takes pregnancy as the given outcome. A man does have incentive to have sex: he likes it. anigbrowl's point was simple: by most measures, pregnancy is more "expensive" for women than for men, so women have higher incentives to not take the risk.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#52

Post by phkahler »

tempestn wrote: post #18

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…

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.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#53

Post by DanBC »

breischl wrote: post #34
DanBC wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For casual sex people should be using two methods of contraception, and one of those should be a standards-compliant condom. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nearly-half-a-million-new... https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hiv-infections-continue-t... etc

>>standards-compliant condom Wait, there's a standard for that? What is it, ISO-69? Did they also standardize the different sizes and textures? Regardless, I bet it was an interesting working group.

http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=45589

Slides from the workshop? http://www.path.org/publications/files/RH_condom_wrkshp_sess...

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#54

Post by gknoy »

AlexEatsKittens wrote: post #39
anigbrowl wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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. What possible incentive is there for a man to impregnate a woman, especially without her desire? I don't think many guys are out there begging to pay child support.

The incentive is the net present value of having sex Right Now, versus the cost of money, being unable to sleep for the next 18 years, and financial obligations. Given how often people (in general) don't use a condom, even when they're available, I get the impression that most guys are not thinking very hard about the future.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#55

Post by XorNot »

scott_s wrote: post #50
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 inc…

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.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#56

Post by wmeredith »

breischl wrote: post #34
DanBC wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For casual sex people should be using two methods of contraception, and one of those should be a standards-compliant condom. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nearly-half-a-million-new... https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hiv-infections-continue-t... etc

>>standards-compliant condom Wait, there's a standard for that? What is it, ISO-69? Did they also standardize the different sizes and textures? Regardless, I bet it was an interesting working group.

69? Haha. It's actually 23409:2011

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#57

Post by tibbon »

bradjohnson wrote: post #49
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?

Its pretty trivial to tell if someone has an IUD.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#58

Post by pixl97 »

XorNot wrote: post #55
scott_s wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inc…

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…

>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.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#59

Post by tibbon »

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 think that's the point. For random hookups, people really should be using condoms; STIs are a thing. But for couples in trusting relationships, I don't see why men would be less trustworthy than women. Having an extra layer of protection outside of condoms, and being able to not have the responsibility being all on the woman would be really nice. Some women can't tolerate various other forms of birth control for health reasons.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#60

Post by hugh4 »

souljaswag wrote: post #25
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 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.

Theoretically (not that I think it's necessarily a viable product) could you tell if a woman is on birth control from a blood sample?
Post reply on HN