There are many reasons that research into male birth control has been slow. Some of this has to do with the complications around testing: Any medical device or procedure that potentially involves pregnancy comes with increased ethical considerations, but it’s especially complicated when the person using the method isn’t the patient who could end up pregnant if it doesn’t work, so the risk-benefit is a less clear. The risks for taking contraception as a woman—like blood clots and mood swings—are greatly outweighed by the risk of getting pregnant, Nickels says. “Pregnancy is more of a health risk [than those potential side effects] so therefore it is ethical to administer contraceptives to women because we mitigate the health risk of pregnancy,” he explains. “Men don’t get pregnant. There is no health risk for men in pregnancy.” Sure, you could argue that the man is mitigating the health risk for their partner, but that’s not something we currently have a regulatory framework for.
"The DIY Male Birth Control Taking Over Reddit", Kara McGrath, June 23, 2026.
interesting article in Playboy, of all places, on a collection of practices called thermal male contraception that involves elevating the temperature of the testes to lower viable sperm count.
posting this paragraph in particular because it wasn't something I'd thought about before; I've seen a lot of posts and stuff over the years arguing that research on long acting reversible contraception for men is stalled because research participants (and presumably eventual consumers) will not tolerate the range of side effects considered acceptable for female contraception methods, but it hadn't occurred to me that there are ethical regulatory hurdles here too.




















