Five reasons why the male pill isn't coming any time soon

Last week, the promise of consequence-free sex was waved under the noses of Telegraph readers - which, perhaps unsurprisingly, struck a chord.

Aaron Hamlin's compelling piece on the male contraceptive pill argued that men can expect a revolution in over-the-counter options within a decade. In many ways, he's correct.

And yet, although big scientific strides have certainly been made in this field, there is still plenty of behind-the-scenes resistance which, essentially, means the production staff at Durex won't be losing sleep over this particular pipe-dream any time soon.

Don't believe me? Here are the five (perhaps surprising) stumbling blocks to the arrival of the male pill: the greatest thing we've never had.

Image: Alamy

1. Drug companies think it's too risky financially

Yes, it's big business once you're onto a winner - but, unlike other industries, the task of drug companies bringing a new pharmaceutical product to market is uniquely epic. And risky.

The process goes a little something like this: after scientists make their initial lab discovery, bio-tech partners create a compound to prove it won’t wreak havoc on the body’s other cells. A prototype is then made for human drug testing, which is a three-stage, ten-year process conducted under strict medical supervision. Only then, if nobody dies or grows an extra limb, can it be considered for commercial use. At this point, a marketing plan must be devised to ensure the end product doesn’t flop. And even then it’s a gamble, especially when - in the case of the male pill - it can only be used by half the population (rather than, say, statins which are good for all).

To date, the likes of Bayer, Organon and Schering-Plough (all major players in the sector) have looked into a male pill, but got cold feet at the last minute.

But why?

‘It’s to do with maths,’ says Dr Allan Pacey, Chair of the British Fertility Society and Senior Lecturer in Andrology at the University of Sheffield’s Medical School. ‘The methods are there - it’s now about convincing the venture capitalists to step up, but it’s extremely expensive,' he says. ‘It will take one of the smaller pharma companies [who are constantly looking for that competitive edge and have less to lose] to take the plunge,’ he says.

Even legendary Austrian-American scientist Carl Djerassi, the guy dubbed the father of the female pill, said in a 2014 interview: "This [resistance] has nothing to do with science; we know exactly how to develop [the male pill], but there’s not a single pharmaceutical company who will touch it – for economic and socio-political, rather than scientific, reasons.’ he said. "Their focus is on diseases of a geriatric population: diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular, Alzheimer’s. Male contraception is nothing compared with an anti-obesity drug."

Photo: Universal Pictures

2. Men aren't demanding it in huge numbers

After years of being nudged out of the discussion on gender issues, men have long lost their voices on some of the big issues - especially when it comes to demanding things for themselves. With a Twitter mob always on-hand to take offence at something, they fear it'll appear sexist or self-serving to dip a toe into the gender debate, so let the women get on with it.

But, annoyingly, this public silence is subjects such as contraception is misread by pharmaceutical companies as a lack of interest, so they fear they'll invest time and money into a product which, a bit like the Sinclair C5, will be a massive flop because there's no consumer demand.

Forget sperm and egg, this is chicken and egg. Which is precisely why we need a Minister for Men's Health - male or female - to champion these things legitimately and in parliament.

Even if just to break the deadlock.

•

Photo: Roger Taylor

3. Although imperfect, current methods work just fine for most men

Granted, women have the lion's share of greater (and more refined) contraceptive choices - but, aside from abstinence, the ones men do have work just fine as far as most of us are concerned.

In fact, they have plenty of plus-points: vasectomies - although increasingly being sidelined by the NHS - are long-term solutions which simplify sex in a single snip. This means that, unlike a male pill, it can't be forgotten, misplaced or tampered with in the heat of the moment, making it a watertight option.

Meanwhile, condoms are cheap, simple to use and portable. More importantly, they also remain relevant - after all, they don't just stop unwanted pregnancies - they also halt the spread of STDs, which is a whole other ball game...

Photo: Alamy

4. It could fuel our misplaced panic about STIs

Sexually transmitted infections are on the rise, with new strains reportedly appearing in (nether) regions across the world at a rapid rate - in part, some say, thanks to hook-up apps such as Tinder.

So, naturally, there are concerns that a male pill would open the floodgates. But would it really?

"Actually, that’s a red herring," says Rebecca Fleming, head of press at London’s Family Planning Association. "Many women on the pill have unprotected sex because they’re on the pill – and that hasn’t stopped it being a success. STIs are a separate, ongoing issue to men managing their fertility and shouldn’t be used to derail their options."

Good point. Just because the female pill controls pregnancy – and not STIs – doesn’t make it any less of a success. Nor is it any less of a money-spinner: millions of women take the pill, earning a fortune for drug company bosses in the process. The same would apply to a male pill.

"In fact," Fleming adds, "countless men call the FPA’s helpline because they frequently find unplanned pregnancies 'devastating'. Our statistics show that half of all pregnancies are unplanned. We know these can be as distressing for men as they are for women, but it only strikes men at this point. And, once a woman is pregnant, they have no say on whether she keeps it or not."

5. Many feminists don't like the idea

At the risk of having faecal matter posted through my letterbox, one of the other big barriers to the male pill has been feminism.

Granted, we're talking big, sweeping generalisations here, but history speaks for itself.

See, while the latest scientific breakthroughs may be new, the general concept of a male pill is not.

In the 1970s, Brazilian endocrinologist Dr Elsimar Coutinho developed one of the first ever male pill prototypes. Made from all-natural cottonseed, it didn’t go down too well with pharmaceutical companies for obvious reasons (hardly a money-spinner if the local health shop can produce a no-frills version for half the price), but it also suffered social resistance.

When launched at the 1974 World Health Conference in Budapest, religious groups voiced concern and feminists staged a boycott, storming Coutinho’s presentation and demanding that only women – not men – should be making choices about parenthood.

Think attitudes have changed? Don't be so sure. Not long ago feminist site Jezebel dubbed the idea "whore pills for men", while Angela Phillips wrote in The Guardian that "the bigger issue behind the development of a contraceptive pill for men is that women risk losing control of conception".

She added: "While we are transfixed by the idea that men might at last be able to share the loss of libido, weight gain, and general grumpiness which so often accompany pill-taking for women, we are in danger of losing track of the bigger issue: control. The pill gives women control of the fertility tap. She decides when to turn it off but just as important she decides (after discussion we hope) when to turn it back on."

Which, funnily enough, is precisely why men need their own version. Wouldn't it be better if pregnancies were planned by both parties, all the time, rather than "control" resting solely with women? That really shouldn't be such a bitter pill to swallow.

Peter Lloyd is the author of Stand By Your Manhood, which is available for £2.99 on Amazon Kindle