Basic and Clinical Andrology

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 171–179

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

Open Access
Article Original
  • 538 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Acceptability Attitudes Contraceptive responsibility Male pill Masculinity Psychosocial factors 

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

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.

Mots clés

Acceptabilité Regards Responsabilité de la contraception Pilule masculine Masculinité Facteurs psychosociaux 

References

  1. 1.
    Hoesl CE, Saad F, Pöppel M, et al (2005) Reversible, Non-Barrier Male Contraception: Status and Prospects. Eur Urol 48:712–723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Flood M (2003) Lust, trust and latex: Why young heterosexual men do not use condoms? Cult Health Sex 5:353–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Trussell J (2004) Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception 70:89–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Page ST, Amory JK, Bremner WJ (2008) Advances in male contraception. Endocr Rev 29:465–493PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nieschlag E (2010) Male hormonal contraception. Handb Exp Pharmacol 198:197–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Manetti GJ, Honig SC (2010) Update on Male Hormonal Contraception: Is the vasectomy in jeopardy? Int J Impot Res 22:159–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu PY, McLachlan RI (2008) Male hormonal contraception: so near and yet so far. J Clin Endocr Metab 93:2474–2476PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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 21:2033–2040PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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 9:1–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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 75:1503–1507PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sjögren B, Gottlieb C (2001) Testosterone for male contraception during one year: attitudes, well-being and quality of sex life. Contraception 64:59–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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 24:7–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weston GC, Schlipalius ML, Vollenhoven BJ (2002) Migrant fathers and their attitudes to potential male hormonal contraceptives. Contraception 66:351–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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 35:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson RA, Baird DT (1997) Progress towards a male pill. IPPF Med Bull 31:3–4Google 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 15:637–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oudshoorn N (2003) The male pill: a biography of a technology in the making. Duke University Press, Durham and LondonCrossRefGoogle 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 75:218–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matthiesson KL, McLachlan RI (2008) Male hormonal contraception: concept proven product in sight? Hum Reprod Update 12:463–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu PY, Swerdloff RS, Wang C (2010) Recent methodological advances in male hormonal contraception. Contraception 82:471–475PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle 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 94:1910–1915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nieschlag E (2011) The struggle for male hormonal contraception. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 25:369–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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 20:549–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Glasier AF, Anakwe R, Everington D, et al (2000) Would women trust their partners to use a male pill? Hum Reprod 15:646–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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 19:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ringheim K (1995) Evidence for the acceptability of an injectable hormonal method for men. Int Fam Plan Perspect 21:75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walker S (2011) Attitudes to a male contraceptive pill in a group of contraceptive users in the UK. J Mens Health 8:267–273CrossRefGoogle 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 96:351–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rothman AJ, Salovey P (1997) Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behaviour: the role of message framing. Psychol Bull 121:3–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Wersch A (1998) Health and illness. In: Trew K, Kremer J (eds). Gender and Psychology. Arnolds Publishers, London, pp 167–179Google 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 87:3640–3649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ringheim K (1993) Factors that determine prevalence of use of contraceptive methods for men. Stud Fam Plann 24:87–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ringheim K (1996) Whither methods for men? Emerging gender issues in contraception. Reprod Health Matter 7:79–89CrossRefGoogle 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 21:477–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bardwick J (1973) Psychological factors in the acceptance and use of oral contraceptives. In: Psychological perspectives on population. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (1997) A new national survey on men’s role in preventing pregnancy. HJKFF, Menlo Park, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Grady WR, Klepinger DH, Nelson-Wally E (1999) Contraceptive characteristics: the perceptions and priorities of men and women. Fam Plann Perspect 31:168–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kalampalakis N, Buschini F (2007) La contraception masculine médicalisée: enjeux psychosociaux et craintes imaginaires. Nouvelle Revue de Psychosociologie 2:89–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mruk D (2008) New perspectives in non-hormonal male contraception. Trends Endocrinol Metab 19:57–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cheng CY, Mruk DD (2010) New frontiers in nonhormonal male contraception. Contraception 82:476–482PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle 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 32:698–704PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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 34:556–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Beck U, Beck-Gernsheim E (1995) The Normal Chaos of Love. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Beck U, Beck-Gernsheim E (2002) Individualization. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Giddens A (1991) Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Giddens A (1992) The transformation of intimacy: sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stacey J (1990) Brave new families: stories of domestic upheaval in late twentieth century America. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stacey J (1996) In the name of the family: rethinking family values in the postmodern age. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Naz RK, Rowan S (2009) Update on male contraception. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 21: 265–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wang C, Swerdloff RS (2010) Hormonal approaches to male contraception. Curr Opin Urol 20:520–524PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SALF et Springer-Verlag France 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Social Science and LawTeesside UniversityMiddlesbroughUK

Personalised recommendations