6 ms·

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 wa

by caio1982 11y ago

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 11y ago
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/
- caio1982 11y ago
  Well, that was one reason only. I'd include myself in the group of paranoid sexual partners too, by the way. Still, I believe the economical incentive is missing here, as the industry might just think there are plenty of crappy alternatives and yet people complain very little about not having a male pill. Why would they bother in cannibalizing their own products then?
  - LesZedCB 11y ago
    They currently make $0 per year from males. I don't pay for my SO's birth control. I asked her if she would stop taking hers and she said no. Interestingly, she's no longer on daily pill, but a method that's effective for 3 years. There's also the IUD which lasts as long as Vasalgel, though is pretty invasive. Those option exist for women, but they are afraid to cannabalize their own product? I'm not convinced those numbers add up.
- tomp 11y ago
  > 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).
  - LesZedCB 11y ago
    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.
    - tomp 11y ago
      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, ...)
      - JupiterMoon 11y ago
        A man can't get an abortion.
      - LesZedCB 11y ago
        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.
  - ars 11y ago
    > 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.
planfaster 11y ago
What are the "conspiracy theories" surrounding this? And can we please stop using this CIA slur around here? CIA Memo #1035-960 for those unfamiliar.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  Well, we could invoke a 'furtive fallacy' if you prefer.
pc86 11y ago
There are plenty of women who are incapable or unwilling to take hormonal birth control, and thus rely on the male (e.g. my wife). Of course some couples would swap out one method for another, but the idea that introducing a new product to market would result in a net loss is ludicrous.
bradleyjg 11y ago
Not necessarily. If your existing market is generics at $0.10/pill and your new market is brand name at $1/pill that's well worth cannibalizing.
tomp 11y ago
> 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."
- LesZedCB 11y ago
  it's not a recurring revenue like a a daily pill. One payment every ten years per person is pretty meager.
  - tomp 11y ago
    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 11y ago
      [deleted]

LesZedCB 11y ago

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/

caio1982 11y ago
Well, that was one reason only. I'd include myself in the group of paranoid sexual partners too, by the way. Still, I believe the economical incentive is missing here, as the industry might just think there are plenty of crappy alternatives and yet people complain very little about not having a male pill. Why would they bother in cannibalizing their own products then?
- LesZedCB 11y ago
  They currently make $0 per year from males. I don't pay for my SO's birth control. I asked her if she would stop taking hers and she said no. Interestingly, she's no longer on daily pill, but a method that's effective for 3 years. There's also the IUD which lasts as long as Vasalgel, though is pretty invasive. Those option exist for women, but they are afraid to cannabalize their own product? I'm not convinced those numbers add up.
tomp 11y ago
> 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).
- LesZedCB 11y ago
  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.
  - tomp 11y ago
    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, ...)
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      A man can't get an abortion.
    - LesZedCB 11y ago
      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.
- ars 11y ago
  > 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.

planfaster 11y ago

What are the "conspiracy theories" surrounding this? And can we please stop using this CIA slur around here? CIA Memo #1035-960 for those unfamiliar.

anigbrowl 11y ago
Well, we could invoke a 'furtive fallacy' if you prefer.

pc86 11y ago

There are plenty of women who are incapable or unwilling to take hormonal birth control, and thus rely on the male (e.g. my wife). Of course some couples would swap out one method for another, but the idea that introducing a new product to market would result in a net loss is ludicrous.

bradleyjg 11y ago

Not necessarily. If your existing market is generics at $0.10/pill and your new market is brand name at $1/pill that's well worth cannibalizing.

tomp 11y ago

> 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."

LesZedCB 11y ago
it's not a recurring revenue like a a daily pill. One payment every ten years per person is pretty meager.
- tomp 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    [deleted]