We live in the golden age of contraception, right?

Free of the constraints of STDs and pregnancy scares, we are secure enough to make our sexual decisions based soley on attraction, social compatibility and the heat of the moment. Sure, love still hurts, but if you're not stupid, the really big worries that all of history's couples have faced are now non-issues.

Well, maybe not. Sure, we've come a hell of a long way. And we are, after all, doing our best to thwart exactly why humans have sex in the first place -- not the easiest of biological quests. But from asking around, I find that a lot of people think that a lot about contraception, especially birth control, still sucks.

Condoms break. Couples rush off to Planned Parenthood for a high dose of hormones that is described to me as one of the more terrible physical and mental experiences in a woman's life. Probably not worse than an unplanned pregnancy, but certainly not fun. I know, I know, the biggest key to using condoms is just learning how to use them correctly. But as much as it's essential to use them in many situations, let's not pretend it's the biggest turn on in the world to have to muddle through all that.

Pills work, though. Sometimes they change a woman's hormonal balance so well that her libido is almost totally gone -- I suppose that's a pretty effective form of birth control. Supposedly this is due to dosage issues and finding the right balance for each person, but I've heard this from enough women to know something isn't working right. Oh, and of course that's if the user remembers to actually TAKE all her pills.

But there's new methods: There's the ring, hormonal shots and the resurrected sponge. Do you notice what these all have in common? They're all for women.

I've heard several justifications for the focus of birth control technology on women in the past, but the major reason I've heard over and over again is that men can't be trusted with the responsibility. I'm amazed by who tells me this, too. Progressive, educated people -- some of whom work in a medical field. For many people, the idea that men are untrustworthy when it comes to sex is still taken as a given. Or, as my friend Sarah likes to put it: "Boys are dumb."

OK, true enough. There are a lot of dumb, manipulative men out there. But this is 2004, people.

Elaine Lissner, director of the San Francisco-based Male Contraception Information Project, believes that most men are ready to take on a larger role in contraception.

"I think things have changed, and I'm not sure women get that," said Elaine Lissner, director of the San Francisco-based Male Contraception Information Project. "This is not a case of men not participating."

The Male Contraception Information Project is dedicated to dispelling myths about birth control (especially male attitudes toward it) and to publicizing the need for the development of emerging male birth control options. But she's not the only one who sees this shift.

Dr. Vanessa Cullins is vice president for medical affairs at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

"Most men that we run into contact with understand and are committed to that responsibility," Cullins said.

Studies increasingly are showing that men are interested in taking more responsibility, and that most women would, in fact, trust their partners with the job.

In a 2000 study, for example, the Centre for Reproductive Biology in Scotland found that a majority of men surveyed in three countries thought that responsibility for contraception falls too much on women. A majority also would use a male pill, if available. In Cape Town, among whites, 83 percent of respondents said they probably or definitely would use a male pill if it were available. Fewer men said they would probably use a long-term injectable form of contraception. Nearly four thousand men were included in the survey.

In a later survey, the Centre found that only 2 percent of women surveyed would not trust their partners to take the male pill. That's not necessarily a ringing endorsement of male responsibility overall, but it's a start.

But some of this speculation remains academic for couples.

"There's not a whole lot of options out there for men to bear the responsibility for contraception in the way that a woman is able to bear responsibility for contraception," Cullins said.

The only two real options available to men in the U.S., Cullins said, are condoms and vasectomy. Both are effective in their own way. Condoms are great (and very necessary) for people who are just dating and want to have sex. Vasectomies are quite effective too, and get rid of all the fuss of putting on a condom in the middle of what should be all happy-go-lucky. But vasectomies are permanent (with accidental exceptions), and even if they were reliably reversible, no one you meet at a bar is going to buy (nor should she) that you don't need contraception because you're snipped.

Ideal birth control is effective, inexpensive, long-term and reversible. And, ideally, it's not just one or two options, take 'em or leave 'em.

"It would be wonderful if there were four or five methods that men could choose from," Cullins said.

Lissner says there are several male contraception techniques that have shown promise but are not widely studied. They range from the surgical to the somewhat awkward (for example, wearing a special pair of underwear to hold the testes close to the body, which overheats the sperm).

Here are two examples from the Web site, www.malecontraceptives.org:

RISUG

This method, Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance, involves the injection of a liquid plug into the vas deferens. The plug coats the walls of the vas deferens in a few minutes, partially blocking the flow of sperm. The real trick, though, is a weak, negative electrical charge in the substance that ruptures the membranes of passing sperm, which puts them out of action. This would be an improvement on vasectomies, Lissner said, because (like the name says) it's intended to be reversible, and, because the plug doesn't block all flow of sperm, the immune system doesn't produce sperm antibodies. The method also doesn't seem to affect the prostate. One injection lasts at least 10 years. This method is now entering phase III trials in India, and it's Lissner's favorite method. "If I were a guy, it's what I'd want," Lissner said. "I'd want it put in when I was 13."

Simple Heat

This method supposedly dates back to ancient times, when men would literally squat on hot rocks to decrease their fertility. The idea is that if the testicles get heated at the right temperature (about 115 degrees) for a few minutes a day for a few weeks, it can produce up to 6 months of infertility. After that, fertility returns (with a vengeance, actually) unless the process is repeated. While boiling your balls might not sound like the most fun, in one study a majority of men found the sensation to be neutral or even pleasant. The advantages are clear: Hot water is basically free, it's not something you have to do during or immediately before sex, and it doesn't affect mood or sex drive.

But don't grab your bubble bath and meat thermometer just yet. The problem with this method is that it hasn't been thoroughly studied. What limited research has been done appears very promising, but most was done in the early 20th century with small sample groups. And if you heat the testicles too much, it can cause permanent infertility.

By the way, Lissner doesn't necessarily have a beef with the male pill, but it will be expensive, especially for people in developing nations. And, though male hormonal methods work differently than female medications, there's just no way around the fact that you'd be messing around with your hormonal balance.

"They're a giant question mark," she said. "It's taken us 60 years in terms of hormone replacement to get us any decent information."

So why aren't other options being studied more? Lissner believes it has a lot to do with the economics of medical technology. More and more research these days is sponsored or co-sponsored by pharmaceutical and other medical companies. These companies are much more likely to spend money on something that might make them money in the future. Which means that we, the users, will pay money for them. If you're a pharmaceutical company, Lissner argues, "You want something they have to take every day and every month, and that you have to pay for over and over and over."

Like the pill. Which is why, perhaps, if you look online you can find study after study regarding male hormonal birth control. Money, Lissner said, not the viability of the method, is what determines what research moves forward: "The more sensible the method, the less likely it is to get studied."

That's probably true, at least in the private sector, said Diana Blithe, the director of male contraceptive research at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, part of the National Institutes of Health.

"I think if it's not going to make a company make money, they're not going to market it," Blithe said. The profit margin isn't that great on a lot of contraceptives, she said, and the potential liabilities are a lot higher because most birth control drugs are intended to be used for a long time. Also, unlike with a drug used to treat, say, cancer, where the benefits outweigh many side effects, birth control is expected to work perfectly but cause no undesirable side effects.

"That makes the research for producing a compound such as that a lot more expensive," she said.

But, Blithe said, that's why a lot of work on contraception is funded by the government. "We're committed to trying to move things forward."

Blithe said much research is focused on the male pill at this point, but the NICHD is also looking at other forms of pharmacological birth control.

"We're funding a whole lot of projects that are designed to explore new targets beyond hormonal (birth control)," Blithe said.

"Many of them have identified very promising targets," she said, but "those projects are early on."

And so far, Blithe said, the U.S. government isn't spending much time so far on mechanical or surgical solutions for men.

But not because of corporate greed, she said. The U.S. government and international groups and nonprofits like the World Health Organization would love to get their hands on a cheap, effective birth control method, she said, though funding can get in the way.

"Right now, funding at the NIH is very tight because the budgets are no longer increasing at the rates they were some years ago," she said. She said other research has been slowed because private donors have given less money for research because of tougher economic times.

So what's a progressive guy supposed to do? Well, either get a science degree and try one of these methods out at your own risk (people do do it, by the way -- look around online), or find a clinical trial to participate in. Malecontraceptives.org lists some that are ongoing or looking for participants, though there's not many right now. Other than that, Lissner says, men and women will have to actively lobby for new methods to become available.

So get out there and get involved. Both ways. Women, get involved with a guy ready for some responsibility. Guys, get a clue, and offer to help out, and not just financially.

So for now, we'll just have to keep fumbling with condoms and remembering to take pills. But someday, we'll have some better options, and free love might just get a little freer.