Skip to main content
Download PDF

Attitudes towards the male contraceptive pill: psychosocial and cultural explanations for delaying a marketable product

Regards sur la pilule contraceptive masculine: enjeux culturels et psychosociaux expliquant le report d’un produit commercialisable

Basic and Clinical Andrology volume 22, pages171–179(2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Even though years of research on the male contraceptive pill have been conducted, a marketable product is still absent from the arsenal of male and female products of contraception. In this paper, the following psychosocial and cultural factors have been elicited from the literature in order to reveal explanations for this delay: acceptability, trust, fear of side-effects, perceptions of contraceptive responsibility and fear of losing connotations of masculinity. Regardless of cultural variation, overall there seems to be a positive attitude towards the acceptability of male contraceptive for both males and females, especially males in stable relationships. Some indication shows that the media have played an important role in distorting the results of research regarding male and female trust. Ongoing and future researches into several projects on psychosocial and cultural factors are described.

Résumé

Alors même que la pilule contraceptive masculine a fait l’objet d’années de recherche, sa commercialisation est toujours absente de l’arsenal des méthodes de contraception pour les hommes et les femmes.

Cet article a pour but de mettre à jour des explications à ce retard. Par une analyse de la littérature, menée par une recherche sur sept bases de données en utilisant une combinaison de plusieurs mots clés (pilule masculine, contraception masculine hormonale, attitudes, et psychologie), les auteurs ont mis en évidence les facteurs culturels et psychosociaux suivants: l’acceptabilité (hypothétique et dans les essais cliniques), la confiance — les femmes feraient-elles confiance à leur partenaire pour utiliser une pilule masculine efficacement, et les hommes auraient-ils confiance en euxmêmes —, la peur des effets secondaires, les perceptions de la responsabilité contraceptive et enfin la peur de la perte de masculinité.

Sans se soucier des variations culturelles, il semble globalement exister une attitude positive à la fois des hommes et des femmes en ce qui concerne l’acceptabilité d’une contraception masculine, plus particulièrement pour les hommes qui sont dans une relation stable.

Il existe par ailleurs quelques indices laissant percevoir que les medias ont joué un rôle important en dénaturant les résultats de la recherche concernant la confiance des hommes et des femmes en l’utilisation d’une contraception masculine.

Les auteurs développent enfin plusieurs projets de recherche en cours sur les facteurs culturels et psychosociaux. Ils soulèvent aussi la nécessité d’un modèle intégré de ces facteurs qui formatent les attitudes envers la pilule masculine, modèle nécessaire à l’évaluation de la variation psychosociale globale qui distingue les hommes les uns des autres dans la compréhension de la contraception hormonale masculine.

References

  1. 1.

    Hoesl CE, Saad F, Pöppel M, et al (2005) Reversible, Non-Barrier Male Contraception: Status and Prospects. Eur Urol 48:712–723

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Flood M (2003) Lust, trust and latex: Why young heterosexual men do not use condoms? Cult Health Sex 5:353–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Trussell J (2004) Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception 70:89–96

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Page ST, Amory JK, Bremner WJ (2008) Advances in male contraception. Endocr Rev 29:465–493

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Nieschlag E (2010) Male hormonal contraception. Handb Exp Pharmacol 198:197–223

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Manetti GJ, Honig SC (2010) Update on Male Hormonal Contraception: Is the vasectomy in jeopardy? Int J Impot Res 22:159–170

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Liu PY, McLachlan RI (2008) Male hormonal contraception: so near and yet so far. J Clin Endocr Metab 93:2474–2476

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Meriggiola MC, Cerpolini S, Bremner WJ, et al (2006) Acceptability of an injectable male contraceptive regimen of norethisterone enanthate and testosterone undecanoate for men. Hum Reprod 21:2033–2040

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Solomon H, Yount KM, Mbizvo MT (2007) ’A shot of his own’: The acceptability of a male hormonal contraceptive in Indonesia. Cult Health Sex 9:1–14

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Anderson RA, Bancroft J, Wu FC (1992) The effects of exogenous testosterone on sexuality and mood of normal men. J Clin Endocr Metab 75:1503–1507

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Sjögren B, Gottlieb C (2001) Testosterone for male contraception during one year: attitudes, well-being and quality of sex life. Contraception 64:59–65

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Brooks M (1998) Men’s views on male hormonal contraception — a survey of the views of attenders at a fitness centre in Bristol. Br J Fam Plann 24:7–17

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Weston GC, Schlipalius ML, Vollenhoven BJ (2002) Migrant fathers and their attitudes to potential male hormonal contraceptives. Contraception 66:351–355

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Eberhardt J, van Wersch A, Meikle N (2009) Attitudes towards the male contraceptive pill in men and women in casual and stable sexual relationships. J Fam Plan Reprod H 35:161–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Anderson RA, Baird DT (1997) Progress towards a male pill. IPPF Med Bull 31:3–4

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Martin CW, Anderson RA, Cheng L, et al (2000) Potential impact of hormonal male contraception: cross-cultural implications for development of novel preparations. Hum Reprod 15:637–645

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Oudshoorn N (2003) The male pill: a biography of a technology in the making. Duke University Press, Durham and London

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Amory JK, Page ST, Anawalt BD, et al (2007) Acceptability of a combination testosterone gel and depomedroxyprogesterone acetate male contraceptive regimen. Contraception 75:218–223

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Matthiesson KL, McLachlan RI (2008) Male hormonal contraception: concept proven product in sight? Hum Reprod Update 12:463–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Liu PY, Swerdloff RS, Wang C (2010) Recent methodological advances in male hormonal contraception. Contraception 82:471–475

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Gu Y, Liang X, Wu W et al (2009) Multicenter contraceptive efficacy trial of injectable testosterone undecanoate in Chinese men. J Endocr Metab 94:1910–1915

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Nieschlag E (2011) The struggle for male hormonal contraception. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 25:369–375

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Heinemann K, Saad F, Wiesemes M, et al (2005) Attitudes toward male fertility control: results of a multinational survey on four continents. Hum Reprod 20:549–556

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Glasier AF, Anakwe R, Everington D, et al (2000) Would women trust their partners to use a male pill? Hum Reprod 15:646–649

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Reis TJ, Gerrard M, Gibbons FX (1993) Social comparison and the pill: reactions to upward and downward comparison of contraceptive behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 19:13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Ringheim K (1995) Evidence for the acceptability of an injectable hormonal method for men. Int Fam Plan Perspect 21:75–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Walker S (2011) Attitudes to a male contraceptive pill in a group of contraceptive users in the UK. J Mens Health 8:267–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    O’Connor D, Ferguson E, O’Connor R (2005) Intentions to use hormonal male contraception: the role of message framing, attitudes and stress appraisals. Br J Psychol 96:351–369

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Rothman AJ, Salovey P (1997) Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behaviour: the role of message framing. Psychol Bull 121:3–19

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Van Wersch A (1998) Health and illness. In: Trew K, Kremer J (eds). Gender and Psychology. Arnolds Publishers, London, pp 167–179

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Anderson RA, Kinniburgh D, Baird DT (2002) Suppression of spermatogenesis by etonogestrel implants with depot testosterone: potential for long-acting male contraception. J Clin Endocr Metab 87:3640–3649

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Ringheim K (1993) Factors that determine prevalence of use of contraceptive methods for men. Stud Fam Plann 24:87–99

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Ringheim K (1996) Whither methods for men? Emerging gender issues in contraception. Reprod Health Matter 7:79–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Terry G, Braun V (2011) ’It’s kind of me taking responsibility for these things’: men, vasectomy and ‘contraceptive economies’. Fem Psychol 21:477–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Bardwick J (1973) Psychological factors in the acceptance and use of oral contraceptives. In: Psychological perspectives on population. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (1997) A new national survey on men’s role in preventing pregnancy. HJKFF, Menlo Park, California

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Grady WR, Klepinger DH, Nelson-Wally E (1999) Contraceptive characteristics: the perceptions and priorities of men and women. Fam Plann Perspect 31:168–175

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Kalampalakis N, Buschini F (2007) La contraception masculine médicalisée: enjeux psychosociaux et craintes imaginaires. Nouvelle Revue de Psychosociologie 2:89–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Mruk D (2008) New perspectives in non-hormonal male contraception. Trends Endocrinol Metab 19:57–64

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Cheng CY, Mruk DD (2010) New frontiers in nonhormonal male contraception. Contraception 82:476–482

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    O’Rand MG, Widgren EE, Hamil KG, et al (2011) Epididymal protein targets: a brief history of the development of epididymal protease inhibitor as a contraceptive. J Androl 32:698–704

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Nieschlag E, Vorona E, Wenk M, et al (2011) Hormonal male contraception in men with normal and subnormal semen parameters. Int J Androl 34:556–567

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Beck U, Beck-Gernsheim E (1995) The Normal Chaos of Love. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Beck U, Beck-Gernsheim E (2002) Individualization. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Giddens A (1991) Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Giddens A (1992) The transformation of intimacy: sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Stacey J (1990) Brave new families: stories of domestic upheaval in late twentieth century America. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Stacey J (1996) In the name of the family: rethinking family values in the postmodern age. Beacon Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Naz RK, Rowan S (2009) Update on male contraception. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 21: 265–269

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Wang C, Swerdloff RS (2010) Hormonal approaches to male contraception. Curr Opin Urol 20:520–524

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Social Science and Law, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BA, UK

    A. van Wersch, J. Eberhardt & F. Stringer

Authors
  1. A. van Wersch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Eberhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Stringer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. van Wersch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Wersch, A., Eberhardt, J. & Stringer, F. Attitudes towards the male contraceptive pill: psychosocial and cultural explanations for delaying a marketable product. Basic Clin. Androl. 22, 171–179 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12610-012-0185-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Acceptability
  • Attitudes
  • Contraceptive responsibility
  • Male pill
  • Masculinity
  • Psychosocial factors

Mots clés

  • Acceptabilité
  • Regards
  • Responsabilité de la contraception
  • Pilule masculine
  • Masculinité
  • Facteurs psychosociaux

Basic and Clinical Andrology

ISSN: 2051-4190