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

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#61

Post by bradjohnson »

tibbon wrote: post #57
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?

Its pretty trivial to tell if someone has an IUD.

Elaborate please

Edit: Nevermind, I didn't realize that there was thread that could be found if you were looking for it. My girlfriend had one put in somewhat recently and I never noticed.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#62

Post by cheez »

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.

Would be helpful if you outlined these incentives!

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#63

Post by JupiterMoon »

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, ...)

A man can't get an abortion.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#64

Post by JupiterMoon »

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…

What on earth are you talking about? Your post is highly sexist.

As a man I want to take care of my own reproductive function. Women can already take care of theirs and a male pill-equivalent product won't change that.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#65

Post by JupiterMoon »

scott_s wrote: post #51
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.

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.

Sorry how is paying 18 years of child support for a child you could easily have no rights to even see not really very expensive?

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#66

Post by ambicapter »

scott_s wrote: post #51
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.

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.

Oh right, because women don't enjoy sex.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#67

Post by JupiterMoon »

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.

Because his post was extremely sexist.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#68

Post by 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.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#69

Post by ars »

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).

> 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.

Re: The Economics of Male Birth Control

#70

Post by dllthomas »

noxToken wrote: post #37
souljaswag wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

"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.

Post reply on HN