7 ms·

I do see a market with this, but it's got a lot of problems you'd need to navigate. Nothing a smart team couldn't figure out. Most of the time, men trust women

I do see a market with this, but it's got a lot of problems you'd need to navigate. Nothing a smart team couldn't figure out. Most of the time, men trust women when they say they're on birth control. Women get pregnant--a big deal. It's less likely (but not unheard of) that a woman wants to get pregnant and then lies about birth control. Men, on the other hand, would love to not use a condom. And men don't get pregnant. So saying "yeah baby, I've had my shots" would probably be a lot more common. You'd need to market this to couples. Relationships with trust--not teenagers. Or, as an "and-1", extra step prevention. Not as a first line of defense. Then, the low cost would be more of an extra procedure that would get them thinking more about being safer. You wouldn't hang your business model on it but could actually do more business by offering it. Lastly, being a man, the idea of someone putting forceps in my scrotum gives me the willies. Just sayin'.

ianferrel 15y ago
Isn't most non-condom birth control primarily intended for couples? All the other types prevent pregnancy only. Condoms prevent disease as well.
- dfc 15y ago
  Hormone based birth control for women has ancillary health benefits outside of family planning.
  - kisielk 15y ago
    As well as a lot of drawbacks and side-effects.
  - Lazare 15y ago
    Of course, it also lowers sex drive[1], while causing weight gain, cancer[3], and heart problems[4]. For historical reasons IUDs are uncommon in the US. This is unfortunate. They aren't perfect, but they are relatively cheap, extremely reliable, and remarkably safe. Depending on the type, they also have few or no side effects. Worth considering... [1]: This one arguably isn't a health benefit, but in many ways it's huge. With a few exceptions, humans are sexual beings, and frequency of sexual encounters correlates highly to a range of positive health outcomes, happiness, avoidance of depression, and strong long-lasting relationships. [2]: This one confuses people, because it also prevents cancer. Best evidence is that it has a fairly strong protective effect on ovarian cancer, but causes breast and cervical cancer. The net effect on total cancer rates is still unknown; it's certainly not a clear cut benefit though, and it may be a clear net negative. (As always, these sort of epidemiology numbers are a real headache to parse. Comparing a big effect on a rare event to a small effect on a common event is very tricky. Still, anything that boosts breast cancer rates is kind of scary.) [3]: This one is clearcut. Hormone based birth control causes a range of heart issues, from heart attacks via clots, to cardiovascular diease. We're still trying to figure out how big this factor is, but it's already clear that if you have any risk factors (ie, you're overweight, or have a family history of heart disease) you should NOT be on combined oral contraceptives, and any hormone based birth control is very iffy.
    - dfc 15y ago
      This is news to me. I have never heard/read anything that casts hormonal birth control in such a negative light. Do you have any pointers to more information? It has always been my understanding that hormone based birth control was a huge win for women's health...
      - oodalolly 15y ago
        There are thousands of forums with women discussing all the negative side effects of birth control. Off the top of my head, you can visit http://iud-divas.livejournal.com/ http://iud-divas.livejournal.com/, which is women who are considering/have IUDs, and many of them report the negative (often severely so) effects of previous hormonal birth control usage. Otherwise you can visit bedsider.org, which talks about side effects for all birth control methods. The pill is an incredible win for women's health. Unfortunately, not all women can use it effectively, safely, or comfortably.
        dfc 15y ago
        I was looking for clinical data, peer reviewed research. But thank you I will look at these...
      - Lazare 15y ago
        Which bits? The impact on sex drive is fairly well known, I think. Google turns up a bunch of references[1][2]. The impact on weight is apparently cloudy; birth control pills almost universally list that as a side effect on the packaging, but studies have failed to turn up a reliable link. (Silly me; never trust drug company materials, even if they seem to be casting the drug in a negative light.) I understand there's some evidence that birth control may cause depression, but I don't know that there's a definitive answer. (Google mostly just turns up anecdotes from people convinced that their depression is caused by their birth control; not really helpful.) The argument over which way the cancer risk goes on balance is all over the net; there's a decent roundup on Wikipedia[3]. If you dig into it a bit, it's still pretty unclear, mostly because there haven't been a lot of studies. The heart stuff is, compared to cancer, much more solid. Again, the internet is full of stuff about this. I don't know of any comprehensive roundups, but google will turn up a TON of stuff. [1]: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=116056 http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11... [2]: http://www.epigee.org/guide/pill_sex.html http://www.epigee.org/guide/pill_sex.html [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormonal_contraception#Effects_on_rates_of_cancers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormonal_contraception#Effects_...
- streptomycin 15y ago
  In theory, maybe. In practice, no. Condoms are way out of fashion these days among the young sexually active crowd.
  - paulhauggis 15y ago
    You would think after the aids scare of the 80s and 90s this wouldn't be the case.
    - dfc 15y ago
      It would not be the case with people that were alive and mature enough at the time to be cognizant of the situation. I think the OP is referring to people who were not around at the time...
      - roc 15y ago
        Not to mention that HIV/AIDs is no longer the death sentence that it used to be. So even among those who are cognizant of what it was like in the 80s, they also know that it isn't like that anymore.
        tsotha 15y ago
        It's still crazy to expose yourself to the virus. The antivirals you get for HIV infection have lots of nasty side effects, and even with treatment you're still likely to die well before your uninfected peers.
        roc 15y ago
        Absolutely. But the image in the pop culture mind is one of Earvin Johnson and not Ryan White.
  - MartinCron 15y ago
    That's a horrifying thought. I'm planning on doing "the talk" with my children starting with a latex condom and working outwards. "Sex is a beautiful thing shared between two people and a latex condom from a reliable brand"...
- sudhirj 15y ago
  If I remember right the doctor who came up with this was trying to prevent the immediate problem of unplanned pregnancies in rural India - they're among the primary causes of our population explosion. Most of the men and women in his (initial) target audience are illiterate and do not understand / care for methods of contraception that require any kind of anticipatory action - like taking regular pills, putting drunken desire on hold to find a condom, or even paying for either of these. (On $2 a day, all existing contraceptives are luxuries). That said, I think is a perfect fit for his target demographic. Looks like the characteristics of that demographic are a lot more universal than he thought :D
dminor 15y ago
For couples who are done having children, this is a fantastic alternative to a vasectomy.
- callmeed 15y ago
  How so? If I'm "done" I'd rather have a vasectomy than risk forgetting about this and getting my wife pregnant at 42.
  - gyardley 15y ago
    Because life is long, and when man plans, God laughs. You could divorce (or be widowed) and remarry. You could tragically lose your existing children. You could simply change your mind - it does happen. Should this happen to you, a shot into the vas to reverse things would be far, far easier on you and more likely to succeed than a vasovasostomy or a vasoepididymostomy.
oodalolly 15y ago
You hit the nail on the head, here. Even if you're in a committed relationship, there's still a need, as a woman, to protect yourselves at all costs from pregnancy if you aren't looking to have a child. That's why many women in relationships will use secondary birth control. (Condoms + the pill, IUD + spermacide, etc.) Female birth control puts the power of reproduction back in the hands of the woman, which is a comfort for most women. Relying on your partner to be the one safeguarding your body is a tough choice, but is a wonderful choice for, as you said, couples.
vacri 15y ago
If your sexual activity is not with a long-term exclusive partner, you should be using barrier protection anyway.
tesseractive 15y ago
You could also go a different route and seek endorsements from pro athletes known to have a large and expensive number of baby mamas around the country. Market it as the "Player's Club Membership Card." It could become really trendy.
dkersten 15y ago
The way I see it, contraceptive is for the person using it. So if the guy doesn't want the girl to get pregnant, or wants to avoid STIs - he should use the appropriate protection. If the girl doesn't want to get pregnant, or wants to avoid STIs - she should use the appropriate protection. (Both people want to avoid pregnancy/disease? Then both should use protection!) That way you don't need to worry about what the other person is doing - you manage your own expectations. If you're in a stable long-term relationship and have talked about it, then sure, you can rely on one person, but otherwise each person should, imho, manage their own contraceptives.
dkrich 15y ago
I disagree completely. Sure there are guys who might lie, but a lot of guys would love to be able to not ever have to worry about the female using birth control. Males (and females) hate condoms, but the idea of having a child before you are ready is a very scary proposition. I think this would sell very well if the surgery were painless and not too invasive.
X-Istence 15y ago
While putting forceps into my scrotum also gives me the willies I am more than willing to get the procedure done. I think this is more a secondary defense. For me personally it wouldn't replace condoms (1, I have never had issues with them, and 2, STD's can still be transmitted) unless in a committed relationship, but also to make sure that if something goes wrong with the female birth control, that there is a second stop-gap measure. I as a 23 year old love the idea. If it is affordable and easy to get done I wouldn't have an issue going to get it done. And from the sound of it, it will not cause pressure to build up much like getting them cut would... There are liars the world over. I don't think that is necessarily a trait that is just for men. I've know quite a few guys in high school that had unprotected sex because their girlfriend was on the pill end up with a baby because that is the way she thought she could keep him forever.
- antihero 15y ago
  I am 23 years old, I'd consider myself rational about most things, but this scares me absolutely shitless. I know that's dumb, but if someone like me is made extremely nervous about screwing with my method of reproducing, then that can indicate what other people are feeling. Secondly, I see orgasm as a highly pressurised, highly tuned, intense thing. It feels like I'm straining every part of my balls to the limit when I'm doing this - if I had medical procedures down there, anything that could psychologically make me feel they were frail, that would utterly ruin it.
  - pilgrim689 15y ago
    If it's of any consolation, they don't cut open the whole scrotum or anything. They make a pinhole (that's tiny!) incision, and reach for the vas deferens just enough to inject it with a syringe. And I don't think it does anything to make you feel like your balls are "frail". So far the only side-effects I've read about are a possibility of swelling for 1 week after the operation. Then, you're back to your old non-frail-balls self!
    - silentscope 15y ago
      I have to say, I love how frank this discussion is. If we weren't talking about testicles, I would say I hope this is what every HN discussion would be like.
tomjen3 15y ago
It is not the business problem if some guy lies to get sex (welcome to the human world). And there is a market among men with many sexual partners to get this procedure -- every man fears that she lies about the pill. Doesn't mean you can't market it to couples too, of course.

ianferrel 15y ago

Isn't most non-condom birth control primarily intended for couples? All the other types prevent pregnancy only. Condoms prevent disease as well.

dfc 15y ago
Hormone based birth control for women has ancillary health benefits outside of family planning.
- kisielk 15y ago
  As well as a lot of drawbacks and side-effects.
- Lazare 15y ago
  Of course, it also lowers sex drive[1], while causing weight gain, cancer[3], and heart problems[4]. For historical reasons IUDs are uncommon in the US. This is unfortunate. They aren't perfect, but they are relatively cheap, extremely reliable, and remarkably safe. Depending on the type, they also have few or no side effects. Worth considering... [1]: This one arguably isn't a health benefit, but in many ways it's huge. With a few exceptions, humans are sexual beings, and frequency of sexual encounters correlates highly to a range of positive health outcomes, happiness, avoidance of depression, and strong long-lasting relationships. [2]: This one confuses people, because it also prevents cancer. Best evidence is that it has a fairly strong protective effect on ovarian cancer, but causes breast and cervical cancer. The net effect on total cancer rates is still unknown; it's certainly not a clear cut benefit though, and it may be a clear net negative. (As always, these sort of epidemiology numbers are a real headache to parse. Comparing a big effect on a rare event to a small effect on a common event is very tricky. Still, anything that boosts breast cancer rates is kind of scary.) [3]: This one is clearcut. Hormone based birth control causes a range of heart issues, from heart attacks via clots, to cardiovascular diease. We're still trying to figure out how big this factor is, but it's already clear that if you have any risk factors (ie, you're overweight, or have a family history of heart disease) you should NOT be on combined oral contraceptives, and any hormone based birth control is very iffy.
  - dfc 15y ago
    This is news to me. I have never heard/read anything that casts hormonal birth control in such a negative light. Do you have any pointers to more information? It has always been my understanding that hormone based birth control was a huge win for women's health...
    - oodalolly 15y ago
      There are thousands of forums with women discussing all the negative side effects of birth control. Off the top of my head, you can visit http://iud-divas.livejournal.com/ http://iud-divas.livejournal.com/, which is women who are considering/have IUDs, and many of them report the negative (often severely so) effects of previous hormonal birth control usage. Otherwise you can visit bedsider.org, which talks about side effects for all birth control methods. The pill is an incredible win for women's health. Unfortunately, not all women can use it effectively, safely, or comfortably.
      - dfc 15y ago
        I was looking for clinical data, peer reviewed research. But thank you I will look at these...
    - Lazare 15y ago
      Which bits? The impact on sex drive is fairly well known, I think. Google turns up a bunch of references[1][2]. The impact on weight is apparently cloudy; birth control pills almost universally list that as a side effect on the packaging, but studies have failed to turn up a reliable link. (Silly me; never trust drug company materials, even if they seem to be casting the drug in a negative light.) I understand there's some evidence that birth control may cause depression, but I don't know that there's a definitive answer. (Google mostly just turns up anecdotes from people convinced that their depression is caused by their birth control; not really helpful.) The argument over which way the cancer risk goes on balance is all over the net; there's a decent roundup on Wikipedia[3]. If you dig into it a bit, it's still pretty unclear, mostly because there haven't been a lot of studies. The heart stuff is, compared to cancer, much more solid. Again, the internet is full of stuff about this. I don't know of any comprehensive roundups, but google will turn up a TON of stuff. [1]: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=116056 http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11... [2]: http://www.epigee.org/guide/pill_sex.html http://www.epigee.org/guide/pill_sex.html [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormonal_contraception#Effects_on_rates_of_cancers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormonal_contraception#Effects_...
streptomycin 15y ago
In theory, maybe. In practice, no. Condoms are way out of fashion these days among the young sexually active crowd.
- paulhauggis 15y ago
  You would think after the aids scare of the 80s and 90s this wouldn't be the case.
  - dfc 15y ago
    It would not be the case with people that were alive and mature enough at the time to be cognizant of the situation. I think the OP is referring to people who were not around at the time...
    - roc 15y ago
      Not to mention that HIV/AIDs is no longer the death sentence that it used to be. So even among those who are cognizant of what it was like in the 80s, they also know that it isn't like that anymore.
      - tsotha 15y ago
        It's still crazy to expose yourself to the virus. The antivirals you get for HIV infection have lots of nasty side effects, and even with treatment you're still likely to die well before your uninfected peers.
        roc 15y ago
        Absolutely. But the image in the pop culture mind is one of Earvin Johnson and not Ryan White.
- MartinCron 15y ago
  That's a horrifying thought. I'm planning on doing "the talk" with my children starting with a latex condom and working outwards. "Sex is a beautiful thing shared between two people and a latex condom from a reliable brand"...
sudhirj 15y ago
If I remember right the doctor who came up with this was trying to prevent the immediate problem of unplanned pregnancies in rural India - they're among the primary causes of our population explosion. Most of the men and women in his (initial) target audience are illiterate and do not understand / care for methods of contraception that require any kind of anticipatory action - like taking regular pills, putting drunken desire on hold to find a condom, or even paying for either of these. (On $2 a day, all existing contraceptives are luxuries). That said, I think is a perfect fit for his target demographic. Looks like the characteristics of that demographic are a lot more universal than he thought :D

dminor 15y ago

For couples who are done having children, this is a fantastic alternative to a vasectomy.

callmeed 15y ago
How so? If I'm "done" I'd rather have a vasectomy than risk forgetting about this and getting my wife pregnant at 42.
- gyardley 15y ago
  Because life is long, and when man plans, God laughs. You could divorce (or be widowed) and remarry. You could tragically lose your existing children. You could simply change your mind - it does happen. Should this happen to you, a shot into the vas to reverse things would be far, far easier on you and more likely to succeed than a vasovasostomy or a vasoepididymostomy.

oodalolly 15y ago

You hit the nail on the head, here. Even if you're in a committed relationship, there's still a need, as a woman, to protect yourselves at all costs from pregnancy if you aren't looking to have a child. That's why many women in relationships will use secondary birth control. (Condoms + the pill, IUD + spermacide, etc.) Female birth control puts the power of reproduction back in the hands of the woman, which is a comfort for most women. Relying on your partner to be the one safeguarding your body is a tough choice, but is a wonderful choice for, as you said, couples.

vacri 15y ago

If your sexual activity is not with a long-term exclusive partner, you should be using barrier protection anyway.

tesseractive 15y ago

You could also go a different route and seek endorsements from pro athletes known to have a large and expensive number of baby mamas around the country. Market it as the "Player's Club Membership Card." It could become really trendy.

dkersten 15y ago

The way I see it, contraceptive is for the person using it. So if the guy doesn't want the girl to get pregnant, or wants to avoid STIs - he should use the appropriate protection. If the girl doesn't want to get pregnant, or wants to avoid STIs - she should use the appropriate protection. (Both people want to avoid pregnancy/disease? Then both should use protection!) That way you don't need to worry about what the other person is doing - you manage your own expectations. If you're in a stable long-term relationship and have talked about it, then sure, you can rely on one person, but otherwise each person should, imho, manage their own contraceptives.

dkrich 15y ago

I disagree completely. Sure there are guys who might lie, but a lot of guys would love to be able to not ever have to worry about the female using birth control. Males (and females) hate condoms, but the idea of having a child before you are ready is a very scary proposition. I think this would sell very well if the surgery were painless and not too invasive.

X-Istence 15y ago

While putting forceps into my scrotum also gives me the willies I am more than willing to get the procedure done. I think this is more a secondary defense. For me personally it wouldn't replace condoms (1, I have never had issues with them, and 2, STD's can still be transmitted) unless in a committed relationship, but also to make sure that if something goes wrong with the female birth control, that there is a second stop-gap measure. I as a 23 year old love the idea. If it is affordable and easy to get done I wouldn't have an issue going to get it done. And from the sound of it, it will not cause pressure to build up much like getting them cut would... There are liars the world over. I don't think that is necessarily a trait that is just for men. I've know quite a few guys in high school that had unprotected sex because their girlfriend was on the pill end up with a baby because that is the way she thought she could keep him forever.

antihero 15y ago
I am 23 years old, I'd consider myself rational about most things, but this scares me absolutely shitless. I know that's dumb, but if someone like me is made extremely nervous about screwing with my method of reproducing, then that can indicate what other people are feeling. Secondly, I see orgasm as a highly pressurised, highly tuned, intense thing. It feels like I'm straining every part of my balls to the limit when I'm doing this - if I had medical procedures down there, anything that could psychologically make me feel they were frail, that would utterly ruin it.
- pilgrim689 15y ago
  If it's of any consolation, they don't cut open the whole scrotum or anything. They make a pinhole (that's tiny!) incision, and reach for the vas deferens just enough to inject it with a syringe. And I don't think it does anything to make you feel like your balls are "frail". So far the only side-effects I've read about are a possibility of swelling for 1 week after the operation. Then, you're back to your old non-frail-balls self!
  - silentscope 15y ago
    I have to say, I love how frank this discussion is. If we weren't talking about testicles, I would say I hope this is what every HN discussion would be like.

tomjen3 15y ago

It is not the business problem if some guy lies to get sex (welcome to the human world). And there is a market among men with many sexual partners to get this procedure -- every man fears that she lies about the pill. Doesn't mean you can't market it to couples too, of course.