Hacker News Reader

Comment by caio1982 | Hacker News Reader

caio1982

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.

View on HN

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/

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?

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.

> 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).

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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."

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.

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.

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.

Well, we could invoke a 'furtive fallacy' if you prefer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com