to think a male pill would be one of the best things that could happen to society?

[ZoeCM]

A massive number of society's problems are caused by absent or bad fathers. Imagine if, before a baby was conceived, a man had to consciously think, "I want to have a child with this woman, so I'll come off the pill." Not just "I want to have sex, this woman is willing, and it'll be less enjoyable if we use a condom."

Of course, it wouldn't be a panacea. There would still sadly be men who choose to come off the pill but are bad fathers anyway, or decide once the reality of parenthood sets in that they can't be bothered. And there would also be men who just don't bother to take the pill properly and are then shocked when the woman gets pregnant. But on balance, if there were a way for men to have condom-free sex without potentially having to pay for a child for eighteen years afterwards, a lot of them would be downright religious in their use of it.

I'm genuinely intrigued to see if anyone disagrees with this. I can't see any downside.

Well yeah… that’s why having a male pill as an option is a good idea

You dont have to force them to work but the bill is non negotiable, in the same way you cant just stop paying rent or mortgage if you lose a job. The amount doesnt get to reduce to a ridiculous sum and would be a priority bill that came out of benefits. If they are left with nothing for themselves it might force them to work to live.

Child payments seem to be almost able to opt out of and that needs to change. If they quit work to avoid the bill, the bill goes up and cannot be wriggled out of. Because the resident parent doesnt get to say oh I cant afford food and clothes so they just go without, they have to figure it and find a way, in the same way, the other parent should HAVE to.

We could never trust a man to take the pill, either to agree in the first place or simply to make the effort to take it properly if they did agree.

They don’t suffer the consequences so it isn’t a priority for them.

Most men can’t even be trusted to remember bin day.

It would help men in long term monogamous relationships to stop a baby being conceived without him being completely on board. Women have that right now. Yet it doesn't feel quite right, perhaps because of trust.

The type of men who don’t care about producing kids and then not providing for them, are not going to be the ones taking the pill anyway.

Men can have sex and conceive a child with multiple women in just 1 day but have absolutely no consequences of doing so.
They are free to simply walk away.

They may have to pay cms but I know of a man who has 9 children with 9 different women. The cms he pays is next to nothing because he has so many other kids.
(in this situation I do blame the women too).

Condoms have been around for years and there are men who still refuse to use them because they don’t need to worry too much about the consequences.

Until there are actual consequences for men, then no amount of contraception is going to make them more responsible.

I agree it would be a good thing for this reason.

Also some women cannot take the pill or it messes with their hormones so this is a good alternative/addition.

@holidayhelpneeded1 I don't disagree, but no government is going to take CMS payments out of benefits in this way.
Im addition, if the resident parent was genuinely in a position in which they couldn't afford the basics because they were unable to work themselves or pay was too low, they would be in receipt of government support.
Both parents should be working to provide for their children, absolutely.

I just dont think supporting a child should be such an opt out. I have a friend who struggles with her kids and her useless ex tells her he cant afford to send money and is then out drinking all weekend, how the fuck is that even allowed. He had a whole chunk of time working cash in hand but claimed not to work and again, how is that able to happen. It just infuriates me that I read so many stories of men getting to chose to pay nothing, do nothing and the women have no choice but to figure making up the money they are not getting because for them, they cant just opt out. My friend is now in debt trying to cover the loses and he is still out every weekend and sees his kids a couple times a year and even when he is in the area uses that as a party weekend to visit friends and make excuses why he has no money. It just needs to change, the system is a mess.

If these men KNEW they would have no opt out and they would have to pay a minimum amount for 18 years, they might actually try and prevent unwanted pregnancy a little more but as it stands, they just get to walk away so of course there is no incentive to actually worry about it.

It depends. When a woman gets pregnant she of course has the right to decide whether or not to go ahead with the pregnancy.

And that is completely right that it is her choice.

However even with contraception, accidents happen. So if she goes ahead with the pregnancy against the wishes of the father (which is her right), then he shouldn’t be forced to support a kid that he doesn’t want.

Hypothetically - if a male pill were available and the ex had been on it then he wouldn't be a deadbeat dad, failing to support his children. On the surface being responsible. But you friend wouldn't have her children - would she now think that would have preferable?

There are very few men that I would trust are capable of remembering to take a daily pill that wasn’t explicitly for their own benefit

If it meant they could have the most pleasurable kind of sex (no condom) without the possibility of 18+ years of child maintenance it would very much be for men's benefit.

I think the "I wouldn't trust the man" posts are missing the point. The effect of a male pill would be to shift the balance of conception control from women to men. Not a 100% change but the balance would move a bit. So therefore fewer babies.

It’s not right to force anyone into parenthood. You should ensure that if you knowingly bring a kid into the world knowing its father doesn’t want it and doesn’t want to be involved financially or any other way that you are able to support it yourself (not relying on government support).

Having a kid in good faith is obviously a different situation of course.

Well in the example I have given, they were in a relationship and these were wanted kids, kids HE actually pushed for. But actually parenting them and actually paying for them is a different matter.

But yes I do agree that its on women too in a situation where its unexpected. But the point is that the non resident parent, which is very very often men, get to walk away and pay bare minimum to fund their own child and it should not be the case. It should be 50% if the ACUTAL cost of raising a child and if that was the norm, I think men would want to be more proactive with contraception too. Right now it feels like walking away is very easy or possible with very little consequence.

Well the difference here is that those children were wanted, HE pushed for them but when he got bored, he walked away and moved halfway across the country and decided he didnt need to financially support them and quite often says isnt that what child benefit is for! Like the few quid a month should cover it all so he doesnt have to.

So in their circumstance the pill wouldn't have helped but HE may have thought mroe carefully about having those children if he knew he would be liable to pay 50% regardless. As it stands he got to walk away and pay bare minimum and quite often nothing. So for their circumstances specifically, maybe he wouldn't have pushed so hard had he realised he would have had to pay for 18 years, not just until he changed his mind.

But the point you are making feels irrelevant because a theoretical child to an actual child is different. If he were on the pill then those children wouldn't exist, but once they are an actual person with a life of course its different. But she would have had a whole lot less stress. The point is, if he were actually really equally responsible for the lives he created, he would perhaps have considered them more carefully. As it stands he was free to walk away as soon as he was bored and decided to opt out of both parenting and the financial burden, that shouldn't be allowed to happen and would perhaps make both parties more responsible for the consequences and maybe men would want stronger contraceptive choices.

I would say my point isn't irrelevant because this is a thread about a potential male pill not primarily about child maintenance laws.

Paying maintenance and supporting children isn't the only way for a man to be responsible. Not fathering the children in the first place is an equally responsible choice.

A male pill would be developed by scientists and marketed by drug companies. Child maintenance laws are decide in parliament by politicians. The topics are essentially unrelated.

I’m willing to bet if our society was much stricter about men supporting their offspring (instead of the absolute shit show that is CMS) they’d be much more into not risking have a child, and go on the pill. As it stands they can walk away and not pay a penny, or pay an insulting amount which doesn’t go anywhere near the costs of raising a child.
My dh would have happily taken the pill, when I couldn’t take hormonal contraceptive, he’d much rather have done that than had a vasectomy, which caused quite a few issues post surgery.
an additional barrier to protect against unwanted pregnancy surely isn’t wrong? Why can’t men have more choice other than a condom, vasectomy or abstinence?
I think OP, if you had simply asked ‘AIBU to think men should have the option of the male pill?’ the results would be very different.

These are good points. Sadly we know women are coerced into these kind of scenarios already.

The question of parentage can be easily answered with DNA testing but I don’t have easy answers for the rest.

@holidayhelpneeded1 I agree that it is too easy for men just to walk away and not pay. Your friend sounds in a very difficult situation, assuming she is working as well?

I meant its irrelevant in the way you are talking potential child vs actual child. No parent would wish their child didnt exist but if back then she realised he would piss off and leave her with the children, all the work and all the financial burden then I have no doubt she wouldn't have gone through with 2 pregnancies. But no parent would want to undo that once a child is actually here, its different.

But my point was that men may take a bit more responsibility with contraception if they bore the consequences of it in the same way women did but as a society, men do get to opt out. So of course its relevant to a discussion about contraception.

Yes absolutely and at points has done 2 or even 3 jobs when feasible and even gaining qualifications at the same time to ensure she can earn better but earnings are also limited when she has to work around the kids and their needs with no one else.

She works harder than anyone I know and it infuriates me so much that he gets to opt out in favour of fun nights out and a single life like he has no kids.

This is exactly my point and I agree 100%

I guess they would have to stop shagging ultimately if they were forced to pay for their offspring that they didn’t want. I think if they made it a legal requirement then they should also give the man the opportunity to sign away his rights and responsibilities before the birth.

@ZoeCM

Have you considered men in relationships where consensual sex is happening in an attempt to conceive, and the man is taking the male pill in secret, knowing that they won't?

There are no simple solutions to human problems