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

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#71

Post by LesZedCB »

tomp wrote: post #45
LesZedCB wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, ...)

I'm not sure what you're arguing. A contraceptive method doesn't prevent STIs? It never was claiming to. It's also absolutely not true that as a male, one can always get an abortion.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#72

Post by [deleted] »

tomp wrote: post #46
LesZedCB wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#73

Post by jakejake »

adekok wrote: post #32
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 can't help but think a male contraceptive that is not visually verifiable by the women is not entirely trustworthy. Uh... how is that different from what we have today? Women take a pill. It's not visually verifiable by men. Surely you can't object to the idea that men have the same choices about the pill as women do?

Simple. Because the guy can be gone the next day, never to be seen again.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#74

Post by jakejake »

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?

I'm a guy. I feel perfectly comfortable saying that guys can be absolute pigs.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#75

Post by bradjohnson »

jakejake wrote: post #74
bradjohnson wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

I'm a guy. I feel perfectly comfortable saying that guys can be absolute pigs.

So can any sufficiently large subset of people, including women.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#76

Post by 6t6t6 »

ars wrote: post #69
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).

> 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…

> 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.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#77

Post by JupiterMoon »

gknoy wrote: post #54
AlexEatsKittens wrote: post #39

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. 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.

Plus the benefit of raising your child and watching him/her grow up.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#78

Post by ars »

6t6t6 wrote: post #76
ars wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

Perfect use for condoms has a 2% failure rate. Perfect use means the user did nothing wrong, not that the condom was perfect.

0.98 ^ 35 = 0.49, i.e. 51% chance of failure.

Failure here means child conceived. And keep in mind that there is only approximately a 2% chance of having a child from each encounter, so condoms fail a LOT. (20% chance of a child if done at the right time divided by 3 days out of 30 where it's possible.)

Note that the low 2% conception chance is mitigated by looking at a failure rate over a full year, i.e. multiply 2% by the number of encounters in a year.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#79

Post by JupiterMoon »

tibbon wrote: post #59
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…

Also it would give the male the same autonomy over their reproductive function that women have.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#80

Post by kale »

6t6t6 wrote: post #76
ars wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

Check this out: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/14/sunday-review/...

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.

Post reply on HN