male birth control: annoyed, intrigued

[fourwordsapart.livejournal.com]

So I somehow clicked a link about male birth control option that are in the pipeline and have been reading about them for a half hour or so. It sounds like they're actually getting pretty close to getting something on the market. I have a few thoughts I want to bounce around with you vag-lovers though! (I suppose this is only particularly relevant to fertile female-bodied folks who have sex with male bodies, sorry to be exclusive.)

Under the cut is an article about a drug that sounds pretty promising. They're taking this drug, binding it to a modified form of Follicle Stimulating Hormone to increase the bioavailability at specific receptor sites, to temporarily eliminate men's virility. It keeps sperm from maturing all the way--and that's about it. Binded to the hormone, they don't need a very high dose, which eliminates side effects. All it does is make the sperm unviable. Sounds good, huh? Especially compared to female hormonal birth control, which, as many of us know, causes a lot of side effects.

But my question is, will men take to it? I read another article that said male contraceptive methods are pointless because (a) it's impossible to expect men to be responsible enough to take a medication regularly, and (b) there's no way men will ever want to take a pill that reduces their virility.

That really irked me. I mean, I don't want to be the feminist who cried sexist, but isn't it pretty short-sighted to say that we can't hold men to do these things when women are expected to do them everyday--with the added burden of terrible side effects? I don't know many women who actually like altering their bodies' natural processes and rendering themselves infertile, but many of us do it.

There are a few things from the article that seem to express a similar underlying bigoted outlook. (I bolded them in the article.) The doctor/researcher interviewed in the article said several things that hint that there's a double standard when it comes to birth control: the medical community and the world at large don't seem to care that hormonal b.c. is inconvenient and unpleasant for women, but they wouldn't dare try to use the same treatments on men if they altered the role of hormones in their body. As if meddling with women's hormonal balance doesn't cause "problematic side effects"!

I thought it was very odd that the article says that injection is unacceptable when many women take Depo Provera injections every three months! (Then again it might be different since this drug has been tested with intravenous injections rather than subdermal or muscular injections.)

So what do you think? Should we hold the same expectations for men that many people do for women--to take an active role in preventing pregnancy and bearing some of the (maybe event unpleasant!) burden of that responsibility? Are men capable of this? Are you excited at the prospect of male contraceptives? Do you think the attitudes I described are sexist or fair? Is the lack of faith in men's ability to deal with birth control realistic?

Personally I am sort of hopeful because maybe if a really good male contraceptive option (that causes few side effects) becomes available, it will eliminate problems for heterosexually active males and females. Which would be great!

Targeting the testicles could help create a male contraceptive without unwanted side effects, a new study suggests.

Chuen-yan Cheng at the Population Council’s Center for Biomedical Research in New York City, US, and colleagues, injected a drug into rats that prevents immature sperm cells from maturing properly.

The drug, called Adjudin, works by disrupting the interaction that takes place in the testicles between immature sperm cells and the nurse cells responsible for nurturing sperm to maturity. The germ cells need to adhere to the nurse cells for sperm to properly develop, and the drug prevents this bond from forming.

But Cheng’s earlier studies showed that when taken orally, Adjudin did not specifically act on cells in the testicle – it caused liver inflammation and muscle atrophy in the rats. "Even though it was very effective, we couldn't make use of it," he explains.

To get around the problem, Cheng’s team has now coupled the Adjudin molecule to a mutant form of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), which targets receptor molecules found only in the testes.

The new approach allowed them to induce infertility in the adult rats using relatively low doses of the drug, which produced no obvious side effects, the researchers say.

Other types of male contraceptives currently being trialled involve hormone combinations that prevent sperm from being produced altogether. But these can have problematic side effects because hormones play such an important role throughout the body.

At the moment, Adjudin is injected into the rats’ bloodstream. "But injection won't be acceptable for a male contraceptive in humans," admits Cheng. So, the team is now working to develop a gel patch that men could stick on their bodies.

"We are at a very early stage, but we are optimistic because in human males these FSH receptors are also only found in the testes," he says.

Journal reference: Nature Medicine (DOI: 10.1038/nm1420)

Comments

[musicgirl312.livejournal.com]

Given the high turnover rate of cells in the testes, it's more likely that the male contraceptive would require more frequent injections than, say, Depo. Hard to know though without knowing the specific turnover rate of the drug.

It seems to me as less of a "who cares about women" issue as "now that we have the technology to do sensible drug design, let's build it right the first time". The technology and knowledge simply wasn't there in the 60's, and now that there are so many BC options in place, the funding/motivation for a method with less side effects isn't there "since HBC works". Not saying that's RIGHT, but that's my $.02

[fourwordsapart.livejournal.com]

that's a good point. of course i'm not saying that men should have to take drugs with a high rate of side effects, to "get them back" or something. the article just rubbed me the wrong way because it didn't mention at all the fact that many women cope with these side effects, though that really wasn't the focus of it. and as for having the technology, etc., it'd also be great if there were more effective, non-hormonal options for women, as well!

[musicgirl312.livejournal.com]

I'm not an expert on female fertility, but as a scientist if they've started producing good hormone-drug fusions in the male system, there's no reason (except $$$) that this isn't also a HUGE step in doing it for women as well. Precedent is a huge step.

[pocochina.livejournal.com]

Well, that's a sexist assumption too - not on your part, I want to be really clear about that - but on the part of researchers who think women should suck up the symptoms but men deserve a Totally Tried and Tested Product. It's an unspoken assumption, so it's less blatant than some of the stuff in the article, but still sexism.

[musicgirl312.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily. You have to remember that as science one of the main motivations is THE NOVEL DISCOVERY. NOVEL DISCOVERIES (I capitalize this because that's how much importance it really has with this field!) mean more funding, better students, publishing in better journals- the rest is looked on with disdain as "me-too science". Making a new male drug is A NOVEL DISCOVERY- making an altered female drug isn't. I hope (and there is certainly reason to believe) that this new male paradigm can be co-opted to make a better female drug since I know MANY women have not been as lucky in their HBC experiences as I have, but it's simply not something that would receive as much attention or funding without "justification". It sucks, but it's the way of the field.

[musicgirl312.livejournal.com]

A clarification- "me-too science" is "oh, you made an HBC pill? Me too!" Doesn't matter if the new one is better/safer/less side effects- it's not new, and therefore largely "uninteresting".

[pocochina.livejournal.com]

Gah! But then women's health isn't justification? (I'm not accusing you of this viewpoint, clearly.) Christ, I have way too much faith in people.

That's super interesting, though, I hope they can apply the technology more broadly like that. Thanks!

[musicgirl312.livejournal.com]

Think of it this way- you are a grant administrator, there are 100 grant applications and enough money to fund 20 (thanks current government for NIH cuts!). Assuming there is already something that works REASONABLY well in area A, wouldn't you rather give the money to area B to open up a whole new area of knowledge?

In an ideal world, you'd fund A and B both. But science is expensive, and money and space in publications is limited, so preference tends to go to things that will make people sit up and say OMG WOW then "we've relieved half of the side effects in the 10% of women who can't tolerate current forms of HBC" (random numbers made up to prove a point.

(I work in a lab right now that is doing work related to skin and lung cancer, and there's concern that it's too much "me too" and not novel enough. So while I absolutely see your point, this is a more-widespread problem than just women's health).

[pocochina.livejournal.com]

"...I don't want to be the feminist who cried sexist..."

Then I will be. It is utterly sexist to say that birth control is women's business alone, unless of course the men in question are willing to give up a) paternal rights and b) any defense to child support. And that it is acceptable to mess with hormones in female bodies but not male bodies - because, you know, all hormones in female bodies do is MAKE BABIES! Duh. Also, it is utterly sexist (of the researcher, not you) to say men are too worried about their conformity to a particular socially-constructed masculinity to take responsible steps for sexual health.

That said, women have more at stake in birth control, so in a perfect world of BC options for all, we would probably still be more likely to choose birth control. But that doesn't make it a fair expectation.

Totally with you on the interest in the subject, too. Cheers for more BC options!

[audacian.livejournal.com]

Another feminist signed!

[kuni-bob.livejournal.com]

"And that it is acceptable to mess with hormones in female bodies but not male bodies - because, you know, all hormones in female bodies do is MAKE BABIES! Duh. Also, it is utterly sexist (of the researcher, not you) to say men are too worried about their conformity to a particular socially-constructed masculinity to take responsible steps for sexual health."

Agreed 100%. The assumed gender roles implied by this article really bother me.

[wendolen.livejournal.com]

Agreed. This article seems to assume sexist attitudes towards both men and women.

[mylittlebox.livejournal.com]

What concerns me about the male pill/injection:

"Don't worry, baby! I'm taking the male pill! We don't need a condom."

It'd be very easy to lie about, no?

[pocochina.livejournal.com]

Oh, of course. But the assumption that because some men might lie, all men will, leads pretty naturally to therefore we shouldn't bother, and that concerns me. I don't think all men should (or will, since let's be real, this is men's health we're talking about) be denied the option just because some guys are asshats. And I don't think it's necessary to think that women will go right off HBC if this becomes available, either, just like the existence of the pill didn't preclude anyone from coming out with IUDs (or whichever came first).

Plus, that's probably fraud, which = major trouble, for good reason.

[mylittlebox.livejournal.com]

I agree that not all men will do this. I know a lot of good men. I know more bad ones, but hey, that's true of women too. It's just something that concerns me... well, not me, because I'm in a committed relationship, but for my female relatives and friends, etc.

I do think that scientists and doctors are dismissing men unfairly, though.

[arularia.livejournal.com]

Likewise, it's also just as easy for a woman to say that she's on the pill when she's not.

The lying/failing to take responsibility/all the other stupid crap that happens when people have sex applies both ways.

Non-barrier method contraceptives require some definite trust in the other partner.

[revolte-avecmoi.livejournal.com]

agreed!

[wendolen.livejournal.com]

Sexist male whiners that say, "women lie about taking birth control so they will get pregnant and trap us poor unsuspecting men" aside,

Sadly, I know a woman who did this. Twice with the same man. And then left him with the kids.

Would you trust every man you've slept with if he said, "Hey baby, I'm on birth control?" I'm not sure I would.

Agreed. I guess that's the advantage of the dermal patch -- he can show you!

[pocochina.livejournal.com]

I also think there's a false dichotomy here (in the article, not your comment). It's not necessarily an either/or proposition - as far as I'm concerned, double the birth control is twice as nice, if you are trying to avoid pregnancy. Shit happens - people forget pills, or get nauseous, or have to take antibiotics which mess with the effectiveness of HBC. Hell, you can go for the hat trick with HBC, male BC, and condoms, if this eventually becomes available.

I read that Pandagon post, it made me so mad I was *actually seeing red.* I didn't know that was *possible.*

[5ampunkrock.livejournal.com]

While I'm inclined to agree with you that it's only fair for men to bear some of the burden in preventing pregnancy, I don't think they have as active a desire as women. Why? Because it's not their body. I think what makes us remember to take our pills everyday and put up with annoying side effects is the physical reality of becoming pregnant, not just the abstract concept of it. That physical reality we know to be pretty difficult - side effects, potential complications, and the eventual pain of labor and delivery - and so we put ourselves through the routine so that we feel sure that we're not getting into that until we're ready. For a man, even though he may not want to be a father, the entire act is less of a reality for him. He's not the one who's going to be carrying the baby, he's not the one who's going through all the discomfort and the pain, and so he has less of a direct incentive to take a pill everyday, get an injection, etc., and deal with hormonal side effects.

Is it fair? No, because it takes two to horizontal tango and make a baby. But that lack of urgency in preventing conception is, I think, a detriment to any potential male contraceptive being used widely.

That said, I'm sure there are plenty of responsible men who would be willing to do it for the women in their lives, and so I hope they get this out on the market as quickly as they can.

I for one am not sure if I'd trust my partner enough to stop birth control, though. But then again, I'm one of the lucky ones who has very few complications on HBC, so taking my pill doesn't bother me too much.

I hope this made sense lol

[fourwordsapart.livejournal.com]

I think that's a really good point, just the higher stakes that women have giving more of an impetus to prevent pregnancy.

[h2ok.livejournal.com]

I think if you are having sex and ejaculating inside a girl on a regular basis, then pregnancy wouldn't seem like such a distant reality.

[5ampunkrock.livejournal.com]

No, but it's not a personal, physical reality like it is for me. A guy can feel certain that he doesn't want to father a child, but at the end of the day, it's not him who would have to carry the child, it's the woman. That sheer fact alone entails a certain disconnect. IMO, anyway. FWIW my boyfriend agrees. Despite the fact that he doesn't want a kid right now, and would be willing to wear a condom if that's what I wanted for extra protection, he acknowledges that the bulk of the burden rests on me, and that should my HBC fail, it's essentially me who bears the brunt of the consequences. Physically, at least. Emotionally, he's right there with me. All I'm saying is that PHYSICALLY there's not the same urgency to prevent pregnancy for men because they can't get pregnant themselves.

[skeas.livejournal.com]

I totally agree. It's even present (I'm ever the grammatical fiend) in the syntax. "I don't want to get pregnant" vs. "I don't want to get her pregnant." There is a huge difference in those statements. If you get pregnant, you're goddamn pregnant, and the baby is there whether you want it or not. It then becomes your responsibility to take action and decide where to go from there. If you get someone else pregnant--that person is pregnant, man. You're not pregnant. It really doesn't even have to affect you that much if you don't want. You can sign away paternal rights, pay some sort of pittance as child support, and go about your merry way without the kid. You don't have to suffer through an abortion, you don't have to go through the birthing process: you're pretty much very removed from the entire situation. Women, whether we like it or not, bear the burden of getting pregnant and all of the consequences that come with it. Guys really don't have to, unless we force them to legally.

This is not to say that I don't think the male contraceptive is a good idea. I think it's a great idea. It's just that guys are going to take it to prevent pregnancy from happening to someone else, not themselves. That's pretty far removed. When was the last time you took a pill that only had the benefit of suppressing a negative consequence in someone else?

[skeas.livejournal.com]

Even though my boyfriend would be totally there for me emotionally, and would probably be very upset and lastingly moved by a pregnancy, I still feel like I would bear the brunt of an abortion, an adoption, whatever we decided on.

Things aren't always biologically fair, and I feel like this is one of those things.

[lupie-stardust.livejournal.com]

Men have an equal part to play in the creation of babies, so they should have an equal opportunity to help prevent babies. It's only fair.

[kuni-bob.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

[poppleshatesyou.livejournal.com]

You took the words right out of my mouth!

I also know plenty of men who would (and all men could) take male HBC responsibly. I also know plenty of men who have the "incentive" or are capable to do so because they don't want to be daddy's, let alone dead beat ones.

Regardless that article was sexist in all directions and the over all tone was condescending. Thumbs up on the idea, thumbs down on the way this article (and many others like it) have portrayed the information.

[kuni-bob.livejournal.com]

This discussion actually came up recently among a group of my friends, and I was surprised how many guys would take a pill or shot. Most of my guy friends are more afraid of pregnancy than most of my girl friends, because once pregnancy happens, my guy friends agree that it's completely the woman's choice whether she keeps, terminates or adopts, and the fellow who impregnated should have no say...and that terrifies most of them. The woman bears the physical AND psychological brunt of a pregnancy, so she has the most to lose, yes, but don't underestimate the psychological brunt that a man has to bear. It's enough to make many decent guys want to prevent a pregnancy at any cost.

Sure, there are some jerks who will wave it off and not care, but not all guys are dogs who cannot be trusted. :)

[kuni-bob.livejournal.com]

Replying to the tone of the article and some of the discussions that have followed this sort of thing in my life and not to the OP, who was very fair and even-handed, by the way. :)

[fourwordsapart.livejournal.com]

"not all guys are dogs who cannot be trusted"

thank god! i'm fairly sure my boyfriend would be willing to take some birth control measure (an able to do it responsibly!) especially if it had low risk of side effects. he's very sensitive to the fact that i'm currently the one making sacrifices in order to keep us from making a baby! : )

[imnotyourstarx.livejournal.com]

ive been on HBC for about a decade, and im definately looking to get off of it. ive been on it for about half my life! my companion and i have decided he will get a vasectomy as soon as we are ready to get married and/or he gets health insurance and we find a good doc who will do it. whichever one comes first.

but we have discussed the idea of male birth control and he has said numerous times that he would be more than willing to go on it, no matter what form the birth control came in. he sees how religiously i stick to my birth control routine, and he understands how big a responsibility it is.

thats why i love him. :) feminist men are teh best.

[cbackson.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of men would be interested in this option because then they don't have to depend on women. They may not have to bear the child, but they sure as hell have to pay for it, even if their female partner actively misled them about birth control use. My husband's always asking me if I took my pill ("Yes, honey, this morning and every morning for the last XXXX years!"), just to reassure himself.

[taterbug160.livejournal.com]

I think the idea that a guy cant be "responsible" is ridiculous. My boyfriend is responsible enough to use a condom every time we do it, why can't he take a pill everyday??

However, when I asked him if he would go for it, he balked. Men have that weird thing when you talk about their fertility. I do agree with the commenter that said that some men would go for it because they don't have to rely on the women's BC being taken/working.

I think it's great that something like this is coming out, it will just be convincing the mens that it's worth it!

[alstromerian.livejournal.com]

Leaving women out of the article is representative of the same old sexist androcentrism we see in medicine. Assuming men are unwilling to participate in hormonal birth control or simply unable to be responsible enough is totally sexist (against men) as well. Men AND women can be irresponsible about sex, and those people aren't usually big on fighting for bc rights anyway. Men AND women can also be responsible about sex, and just because pregnancy is portrayed as "a woman's problem" doesn't mean both partners aren't interested in bc.

These sexist stereotypes about how men and women think about sex really disgust me, and they are harmful to both genders. Women are unfairly burdened with most of the responsibility, if not in their personal lives, definitely in the public sphere. Men are unfairly assumed to be piggish brutes who simply don't care about responsibility because it doesn't affect them directly and being horny outweighs. What a grim picture.

I'm so tired of this evolutionary biology based argument that because women are the ones to get pregnant, they have to care and men are likely to not care. This seems logical on face, but if you analyze it, it is simply ridiculous. Proponents of these theories always rely on the "state of nature" (something we can only theorize about) to explain socially created phenomena. In a world where we do not have technology and social contracts, this argument makes sense. That is, we live in a world where birth control and legal protection compromise the state of nature, and most people are familiar with that knowledge. We have more control over our fertility. Further, if a man acts in the piggish way he is stereotyped as, he can be legally forced to pay child support and if he refuses, be thrown in jail (it may take a lot of effort, but this can be enforced). So really, this argument is inaccurate and pretty insulting to men.

If a man is really as oversexed and misogynistic (that is, totally unconcerned with the potential for pregnancy) as the stereotype claims, then he is also a total idiot because the law is not on his side if he impregnates and runs. A mean, sexist depiction of men? Yeah I thought so.

These gender stereotypes hurt us all in the end. Men and women? Really not that different. Our agenda is not defined by the nature of our reproductive function, not in the year 2007.

---

I also have to second the notion that having both partners fertility compromised with bc is an excellent way to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Double the protection makes a lot of sense. My boyfriend and I have agreed that this would be a wonderful option, you know, if it existed. (He also agreed to share the cost of my bc when my insurance temporarily drops. More men are like this than you think.)

[queensugar.livejournal.com]

You basically said what I was attempting to say, but much better. No more commenting minutes after waking up again...

[queensugar.livejournal.com]

I read another article that said male contraceptive methods are pointless because (a) it's impossible to expect men to be responsible enough to take a medication regularly, and (b) there's no way men will ever want to take a pill that reduces their virility.


The media tends to want to force men into neat little gender-behaviour boxes... after all, it makes for easier copywriting... but both of those assertions are frankly very insulting to men's intelligence.

The first "point" is an especially odd argument given that men take medication regularly all the time. And the second is just sad for assuming that all or even most men so blindly and strongly subscribe to rigid biological concepts of "virility," even when it works in their best interests to temporarily limit their reproductive capability.

And hey, look at it this way: I'm a terrible pill-taker with my oral contraceptives. Seriously, I'm the worst HBC pill-taker I've ever known. But nobody ever says that's due to my gender, and if they did it would be quite sexist. I think I owe men the same respect.

Basically, those arguments are built on the totally false assertion that men are emotionally immature and irresponsible when it comes to contraception and reproduction, and that only women are capable of safeguarding their bodies. It's so far from true that it's actually angering to me that those ideas are out there.

That is so far from true it's really angering. Men are adults. Most are responsible, emotionally mature enough to care about safeguarding their reproductive future and capable of making intelligent choices about their own reproductive health.

Anyway -- every partner I've had has wanted there to be a male birth control pill. My current SO is the same way... we've agreed we'll be lined up at the doctor's the morning it comes out! They've all shared the same basic motivations:

A) Gives them the control over non-barrier contraceptive options. Though they trust the female oral contraceptive, no matter how much they trust their partners they'd feel that much better having control of it themselves.

B) Eliminates side-effects for their female partner. I react extremely badly to HBC, and it's pretty much always a Very Ungood Thing for me; all of my partners have expressed regret and even guilt that I've had to put up with the side-effects, and are very interested in relieving that.

[rockhardkim.livejournal.com]

I think it really just depends on the guy. I'd like to assume half the guys I know in sexual relationships WOULD be willing to get their act together for the cause. None of them want children and SEEM to be doing all they can to prevent that from happening.

BUT...I think pricing might play a part in it. If not enough men take to the idea, it could turn out to be an expensive ordeal, which would turn them off all the more...

[sonarafaey.livejournal.com]

My husband and I have had discussions about the female pill vs the male pill. I know for a fact that he would not take any sort of hormones. He doesn't like taking any sort of medication, and he won't even take an Advil when he has a headache. While that might seem unfair that the burden of birth control is on me, we have made a fair compromise. We have agreed that before we have kids I'll be on the pill. When we are finished having kids he will be the one to go under the knife.

[h0rsegurrrl.livejournal.com]

It won't come out in my lifetime so it's irrelevant to me. :-) Unfortunately for us, it'll take a long damn time before the double-standards are broken and it is socially acceptable for a male to take charge of birth control. I've been reading shit like this since I was a little girl and still nothing is on the market; I've learned not to get my hopes up anymore.

[dictionaria.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, there are a lot of cultural barrier on this one.

I'm not so interested in HBC for men, but RISUG has my full support:
http://www.newmalecontraception.org/vas.htm

I brought both male HBC and inter-vas methods up with my boyfriend and another guy once to hear their views and the answer was basically "Hell, no way." and then they high-fived when they found out that the methods weren't out yet. "They can't stop us yet!" (Not funny. At all. They were trying to make light of something that made them both visibly nervous.)

Thankfully, they weren't all that serious, but my boyfriend was rather anti-male HBC/inter-vas methods entirely because the idea of anything messing with his genitals in any way freaks him out. Which I was rather pissed by because a lot of the male methods have many fewer side effects. So I brought up how much it bothered me that male genitals take greater importance than my well-being.

He quickly relented. He's a good guy and he finally understood my point.

But that's the point: in our culture, we've made it okay for women's reproductive systems to be manipulated, but it's not okay for men's to be. All of these men are so weird about anything that might possibly affect their reproductive system that there might be no way around those ideas. They just don't seem to see our HBC as equivalent to their's a lot of the time. Not all the time, but some of these guys have grown up with the idea that their reproductive rights are more important than our's.

[fourwordsapart.livejournal.com]

"Not all the time, but some of these guys have grown up with the idea that their reproductive rights are more important than our's."

that's what bothers me most, actually. way to sum it up.

[xevv.livejournal.com]

the way I see it, everybody should be responsible for their own fertility. If my boyfriend started taking b/c, that wouldn't mean that I would stop taking my own unless of course for financial reasons or something. Because in the unfortunate event that one of us cheats on the other, suddenly the whole dynamic of 'we're safe as long as one of us is sterile' doesn't apply anymore.

If you don't want children, it is your responsibility to make sure you don't contribute to making a child, whether you are male or female.

[sandtigeress.livejournal.com]

Oh, I completely agree with you.

There ARE a lot of men against BC for themselves (take vasectomies, for example), but I think those men show a lot of immaturity about it because they think their fertility is "what makes them a man." *rolle eyes* So glad my boyfriend isn't like that. He wants a vasectomy when he can get the money. :)

But, yeah, I agree that men should be held under the same expectations as women and have just as much responsibility as the girl.

[untstuntstgirl.livejournal.com]

I didn't read the article, but looking at your post, a thought came to me.

I wouldn't want my boyfriend taking that, at least not when it's brand-new, and it's long term effects are currently unknown, because I want to have children with him some day. I wouldn't want to risk the possibility that this might make him sterile in the long run.

That being said, if there was an entirely safe method out there, and all males had to do was responsibly take pills, I believe plenty of males would be all for it. Many men DO care about what happens to the girls they sleep with, despite the stereotype. My boyfriend, for example, tells me that the first thing he was EVER taught about sex was that a guy ALWAYS carries a condom with him - because you don't want any "accidents" to happen. That's a bit refreshing after the stereotypical idea that men don't CARE if the girl they're sleeping with gets pregnant or not, because he "doesn't have responsibility."
So, if there was a harmless way for men to avoid using condoms and to avoid making women's hormones worse, I think there would be plenty of men who would try it.