The redesigned female condom is made of softer, thinner polyurethane to better transmit warmth. It is easier to insert; one end is bunched up as small as a tampon, an improvement on the old design, which resembled the stiff rubber ring of a diaphragm and had to be folded into a figure 8 for insertion.

During sex, the new female condom also moves more like a vagina than the old design did, according to couples in Seattle, Thailand, Mexico and South Africa who tested a series of prototypes, said Joanie Robertson, project manager for the condom at PATH. The old design hung passively from the rubber ring, which could shift around and sometimes hurt; the new design has dots of adhesive foam that adhere to the vaginal walls, expanding with them during arousal.

According to PATH, more than 90 percent of the couples were satisfied with the ease of use and comfort of the new condom, and 98 percent found the sensation of sex to be "O.K. to very satisfactory."

Probably, though, like a lot of birth control methods, it's going to end up being beloved by a few smart, self-determining women, but not changing much for a lot of women who really need it. First, because

it cannot be used secretly. For that reason, married women, now one of the highest risk groups for AIDS in poor countries, rarely use it.

"I don't want my husband to know that I am wearing a condom," said Lois B. Chingandu, the director of SAfaids, an anti-AIDS organization in Zimbabwe.

This woman is the director of an anti-AIDS organization. Chances of the female condom catching on with the women she's trying to help? Let's be generous and put them at zero.

And then of course, there's the gubment:

While the F.D.A. designates male condoms as Class 2 medical devices _ meaning that a new maker has to pass tests only for leakage and bursting _ it puts female condoms in Class 3, the same category as pacemakers, heart valves and silicone breast implants.

. . . the Class 3 listing means that any new design must pass clinical trials, which would cost $3 million to $6 million.

And of course it's more expensive than regular (read: men's) condoms. Of course.

2. On the other hand, college students hit with rising birth control prices thanks to Bush's Deficit Reduction Act (motto: More War + Less Birth Control = More Cannon Fodder) might be able to fill their prescriptions at their local Wal-Mart, if they have one.

Last year, Wal-Mart began selling prescription drugs for $4. This year, they've announced an expansion of that program to cover medication for, among other things, glaucoma, attention deficit disorder, and, yes, contraception.

RH Reality Check makes a good point by asking

The Democratic presidential candidates are unveiling their health care plans that attempt to cover millions of Americans with slightly lower premiums and affordable prescription co-pays but it's Wal-Mart that announces it will sell birth control and fertility drugs for $9 a pop. Why is it that in this country, only a giant corporation, able to pressure its suppliers to lower prices, can make health care more affordable to Americans, while our political system isn't strong enough to bring about systematic health care change?

and I wonder if there's some lobbyist/health insurance/drug provider thing going on behind the scenes as the election approaches (Don't be naive, Bitch--you mean "what kind of lobbyist/health insurance/rug provider thing *is* going on behind the scenes.) But it's good news regardless, though I still think Wal-Mart is basically evil.

3. Best of all, a recent conference at my alma mater on The Future of Male Birth Control showcased some really promising new developments:

a "testosterone-like" oral pill and a Depo-Provera shot (a once/every three month injection of progestin). And a vasectomy alternative, the Intra Vas Device (IVD), was presented, fresh from tests in its first U.S. study. A set of plugs inserted into the vas deferens that block sperm from traveling through the tube, the Intra Vas Device was successful at the end of six months in ensuring that 92% of the men studied had no sperm (or very little sperm) in their ejaculate.

Elaine Lissner, the director of The Male Contraception Information Project, says that

"We could have something like the IVD on the market in four to five years, if we make an all-out effort with funding and focus. But if we continue with just a study here and a study there, it could be an eternity."

So there's something you can do, guys, if you want to take charge of your own fertility: follow these links (and the links inside them), do some reading, and write to your representatives pointing out what an important issue this is. Again, RH Reality Check is dubious--

Male contraception as a remedy for men needing to take on unplanned parental responsibilities seems like a stretch; when a man chooses to have sex with a woman, he is also choosing to take the risk that she may get pregnant and decide to keep the baby. Male contraception may make it less likely that a woman is purposefully able to get pregnant without her partner's knowledge, but "forced" fatherhood is a reality with which men who choose to have sex with women must contend.

As for the idea that women will no longer have to experience side effects from birth control, if women don't want to tangle with hormonal side effects, why should we expect or encourage men to?

--but I'm sorry, in this case the arguments are poor ones: if a man is using good contraception, sure he has to deal with the possibility that it might fail, but that's the same reality women using contraception have to accept. No contraception is perfect, but 90+% reliable is pretty damn good odds. And as to hormonal side effects, we should expect and encourage men to "deal" with them because, just like women, every man is different. You might have side effects from the pill, but your partner might not. Surely responsible guys deserve the same ability to make decisions about the tradeoffs between (say) weight gain and unwanted pregnancy that we have.

As one man put it,

"I do think this could be a shared responsibility between men and women, and really should always be a shared responsibility. I know that wouldn't work in every situation, but I also think that the situation where a shared responsibility will not work points to other large problems in the relationship." Another man I spoke with said, "Women have been bearing the burden for a long time now. It's about time that men started taking responsibility for where they do or don't put their sperm."

Amen, brother.

Bitch_PhD has been waiting for the science folks to come out with a good male pill for a long, long time.

Priapos

Water Valley, TX

October 2005

NOV 15, 2007 04:15 PM

I've waited a long time for male contraception. Good article.

Coyotemike

Kearney, NE

May 2006

NOV 15, 2007 04:16 PM

I'd take a pill.

Now, I just need to find a woman to have teh sex with.

Formus

Milwaukee, WI

May 2007

NOV 15, 2007 04:22 PM

Nobody uses female condoms. I don't even think I've ever been somewhere that sells them.

Untimely

USA

January 2007

NOV 15, 2007 04:40 PM

Interestingly, China (wouldn't you know it) has several options for male birth control which seem safe, effective, and very very cheap. Most of these are intra-vas devices. There are at least three in common distribution.

I actually considered going there to get one of these, but instead went and got a good ol' snippity-snip. Still, it would have been preferable to have a choice, and it's insulting that some countries have options (that is, which they've already tested and supply for FREE) which we don't.

To guys of my previous generation: thanks for being so fucking short sighted.