The objective of this study was to examine attributes assigned by university undergraduates to 12 contraception options, determine if dimensions used to evaluate options differed for women and men, and assess whether these dimensions have changed over time. This study was cross-sectional and involved a written survey. The sample (N = 792) was drawn from two large universities in the southeastern United States and data collection was completed in classroom settings. Students rated 12 methods on 40 semantic differential scales. Scale scores were summed and a principal components analysis was performed, yielding separate factor structures (evaluative dimensions) for men and women. Three factors emerged for women accounting for 40.85%, 8.00%, and 5.78% of the variance respectively. Three factors also emerged for men accounting for 37.39%, 8.51%, and 7.15% of the variance respectively. Manipulating item loading criteria increased factor interpretability. In contrast to some previous research, the interpretative schemes of men and women for assessing contraception options held more similarities than differences. This apparent confluence in evaluating contraception may facilitate improved negotiation and agreement about the eventual choice of methods.