She is making a GREAT point
(midwest.social)
Mickey7
Lemmy ShitpostI'm actually waiting for male birth control pills so bad
They would give men more agency on reproduction, aside from vasectomy, which is permanent, and condoms, which can rip or be intentionally poked.
Also, they can be used in couples where a woman is hesitant to take pills herself, either out of reproductive concerns (fear that pills would make them permanently sterile), or the overall influence of hormones on the body and the menstrual cycle.
How does this unscientific instagram vomit has 500 votes on lemmy? Are we turning into reddit?
Lol this is so dumb
I think if I busted a nut 9 times a day, I would just simply just vanish.
Alright men here’s what we do:
1: Once you had your kid(s), if you want to have them someday, get snipped. It’s no big deal and you’ll both be A LOT more relaxed.
2: Don’t be a fucking rapist.
Why tf are we talking about the pills thing.
I've never wanted children and got a vasectomy in my early 30s. I think a lot of men don't do this because they have this cartoonish belief that it makes them less of a man to shoot blanks or the erroneous belief that they're family lineage is so god damned important that they're obligated to continue it.
Nah, this isn't a great point at all.... even at face value really.
Put slightly differently, if we're assuming people sleep around as much as the text implies, if we focus on birth control solely for men, then one 'failure'/non-controlled man would result in a ton of pregnancies. If the onus is on women, then one 'failure'/non-controlled woman would result in one pregnancy.
What is this weird ass template with the creepy people in the background?
I’m pretty sure the birth control pill is for women because that was easy to do. A pill for men has been tried several times and they still don’t exist yet.
Condoms?
Let's say you save exactly one pill and it works on anyone. Also assume 100% pregnancy rate, so if you are paired with someone and neither have the pill, then it's an automatic pregnancy. Our goal is to minimize number of pregnancies.
- "Max promiscuity": Say we have a complete bipartite matching. if it's given to a male, then no pregnancies have been prevented since every other male can impregnate every female. If it's given to a female, then it reduces the number of pregnancies by 1 since none of the males can impregnate her.
- "Traditional": Say we have a bijective matching (i.e. each male is paired with exactly one female, and vice versa). Then the pill can be given to anyone and it will always reduce the number of pregnancies by 1.
- "The Harem": Say we have a matching where males have more than one pairing but females have at most one pairing each. In this case, giving the pill to the male with the largest number of pairings will reduce pregnancies by however many pairings they have.
- "Reverse Harem": Same scenario as above but flip male and female. Giving the pill to any female will have the same effect of reducing pregnancies by 1. Giving it to a male will have no effect.
- "The Cliques": The population is split into disjoint graphs, but each of these disjoint graphs are complete (bijective) bipartite graphs. In this case, if the pill is given to a male, then it will only have an effect if that male only has a single pairing, thereby reducing pregnancies by exactly 1. Otherwise, there will be no reduction in pregnancies. If given to a female, then it will always reduce pregnancies by exactly 1.
As far as I'm aware, the real world operates most like a mixture of "Traditional" and "Cliques". At least, in places where birth control is an option. But in the real world, we have more than one pill.
If we have enough for either all males or all females, then the effect is the same regardless of who gets the pill. It will always lead to 100% pregnancy reduction.
Let's say we have enough pills for all but one male, or all but one female.
- "Max promiscuity": If the pill is given to the males, then we still have one male that can impregnate everyone, so there will be no reduction in pregnancies. If given to females, then you will end up with exactly one pregnancy.
- "Traditional": As before, there's no difference. Any decision will lead to reducing pregnancies to exactly 1.
- "The Harem": giving to all the males except the one with the smallest number of pairings will reduce pregnancies to however many pairings that one male has (more than 1). If given to females, then it will reduce it to exactly 1.
- "Reverse Harem": Giving it to the males will reduce pregnancies to exactly 1 since they're only in 1 pairing. Giving it to females will also reduce it to exactly 1.
- "The Cliques": if given to the males, then it will only make a difference if there exists a clique with exactly one male. It will reduce pregnancies by the largest number of females in a clique with a single male. If given to females, then it always reduces pregnancies to exactly 1.
So with the goal of minimizing pregnancies, it either makes no difference or is optimal to have the pill on women (unless you're in a harem). This is highly reductive though. We have many other considerations when deciding who should get access to birth control.
The one who gets pregnant should probably take the birth control, as pregnancy would be more bothersome for them than for the other person.
Lemmy is left but also male, according to the salty responses lol
Counter point, all men are rapists(according to the wisdom of the internet). Therefore, birth control is protection against the onslaught of unwanted semen that comes from all the endless rape.
Or, if you arent a perpetually online moron, birth control allows women to control their reproduction. Its a symbol of liberation and freedom for women, who can now enjoy sex at their want without worry of pregnancy.
In over words, shes making a shit point. This is like all the clueless cunts moaning about women in short skirts in Star Trek, not realising the the mini skirt was a symbol of sexual liberation for the time.
It's easier to prevent ovulation of one egg than stop a billion sperm cells from reaching their destination. Stop politicising biology.
Uh, it's been done. Multiple times.
First was this one back in 2016, but the caveat was that it had the same side effects as women's birth control. Since the patient being prescribed isn't the one who will experience negative health outcomes without the medications, the harm of those side effects was deemed by researchers (not the patients themselves) to be greater than the risk of impregnating someone else.
Other hornonal options have come out since then, though not on the consumer market, like this hormonal gel and this pill.
More recently its been done without hormones by blocking a vitamin A metabolite that signals the production of sperm.
You're the one "politicising biology" by using it to dismiss this out of hand without even the most basic level of research or respect for the complexity of the topic.
I'm the number one Gamer on World of Warcraft. Now what?
I'm not sure who's she targeting because I know a lot of guys who would love to have birth control pills.
It ain't like pharma ain't been trying to make male birth control pills. Lord knows they'd love the extra money.
But it turns out to be damn difficult to get right.
They have made it. Had human trials with effects that killed the trials.
Most of the men in the trials wanted to keep taking it so their partners didn't have to bear that burden alone.
Source?
They're referring to this one back in 2016, where the caveat was that it had the same side effects as women's birth control. Since the patient being prescribed isn't the one who will experience negative health outcomes without the medications, the harm of those side effects was deemed by researchers (not the patients themselves) to be greater than the risk of impregnating someone else.
Other hornonal options have come out since then, though not on the consumer market afaik, like this hormonal gel and this pill.
More recently (like earlier this year) its been done without hormones by blocking a vitamin A metabolite that signals the production of sperm.
Did you read the actual study or FDA report as to why they pulled the trial? High school level Americans fall for sensationalized articles and journalists report on things they are clueless about all the time
Idk I was 16 when that came out so actually high school level. Feel free to read the study yourself and correct me? Not sure what you're skeptical about tbh.
and no sane woman should believe that, because if she will later find the guy was lying, it is not going to be the guy having to deal with the consequences. so it is quite stupid take.
If you're having sex with random, unknown, untrusted people, you better use a condom anyway, because pregnancy isn't the worst thing that can happen, so the point is kinda moot anyway.
not every situation is as extreme as you make it and while you have a point, it doesn't make mine invalid
What? You could say that when reversed, but until proven otherwise, women have every rights and the power to chose what happens, unlike men who don't have a say
what?
Who decides if the baby is born? Certainly not the father. And once she has decided it means HE has no choice in the matter.
i have no idea how it relates to what i said.
I don't know where you live but in the north, women usually control their bodies and may chose to keep the baby or not, regardless of the father's opinion
i still have no idea what you are trying argue.
I'm not here to hold you by the hand. Try chatgpt
i really do not want to hold your hand. you started talking to me, refused to clarify and you are trying to pretend like you "won". how was kindergarten today?
No sane person should leave something that important to the sole responsibility of someone else no matter who they are.
Eta: Until I turned 30, everyone I knew who had kids was "on birth control"
Just FYI after the 5th one I'm just cumming air at that point, but if there are 2,430 women out there who want to give it a try anyway be my guest.
You also get a hydro homie whose sole job is to keep you hydrated and keep giving you zinc suppliments
If the numbers were correct and your aim was to reduce pregnancies, you could prevent 90% of pregnancies by getting roughly 90% of sexually active women to take the pill. Getting 99.95% of sexually active men to take the pill would have NO effect whatsoever on the pregnancy rate, because the remaining 1 in 2000 men would continue to meet and impregnate a woman roughly once every hour for roughly 12 hours a day (with breaks for food and resting his dick a tiny bit) for 9 months straight, with time to visit 430 women a second time in case these miracle impregnators somehow didn't always impregnate on first meeting a woman. (This would very drastically reduce diversity in the gene pool and the world would be very very very badly interbred within two generations.)
But of course humans don't behave like the numbers suggest AT ALL, thank goodness.
The most commonly produced, available, and used birth control method worldwide is the latex condom, used by everyone who has a penis. Try again.
Not everything is a conspiracy against women
I do think that birth control pills having 1 week of sugar pills to force periods rather than 1 week of optional pills to allow skipping periods is pretty fucked up though. The term conspiracy is pretty intense though. But it's super fucked.
Was curious about the placebos and came across this if you are interested.
https://srh.bmj.com/content/familyplanning/44/3/214.full.pdf
A paper that suggests there is no medical evidence why there should be a break in hormonal pills and that you can simply just start a new pack of pills and continue going on with your life
Yes and your prescription then runs out early, leaving you without birth control for multiple weeks
Sounds like a logistical problem, not a medical problem.
I used the word should.
As in the system right now is flawed and could be better.
What point are you trying to make because I'm not picking up on what you are putting down
It's less of a conspiracy and more that it didn't even occur to society until pretty recently (in historical terms) that reproduction isn't solely a woman's responsibility
Well yes. But it also occured to society that stopping 1 egg per month is easier than millions of sperm every day.
This sounds like it would make sense on the surface, but is just not true. You can look up pretty easily that there wasn't really any research on the viability of male hormonal birth control until half a century after female hormonal birth control became a thing, so it's not like they made a rational decision based on scientific findings. When they found out how to do it for men, it was roughly comparably complicated, with similar side effects. This too is easy to look up.
It makes sense that the side effects were too much to legalize hormonal male birth control because today's standards are much higher. Which is a good thing ofc- im glad they don't allow new medication as easily as they did in the past. Female birth control wouldn't be legalized if it was invented today, and neither would, for example, aspirin. They get to stay around because they don't take that stuff back out usually, even if it wouldn't pass modern standards. That's a bit of a tangent though.
Many men would LOVE a reliable, non-condom, male-controlled birth control method
Currently for men there are two options --- condoms, which are problematic and difficult in several ways, or vasectomy, which is essentially permanent or at least difficult and uncertain to be reversed.
The third method is to take WAY too many TOO HOT baths, but that also has uncertainty and is a real hassle.
As it stands, really for men they either need to use a condom, or trust that your female partner is reliable.
100% agree. The fact that they're only researching it now has been hurting everyone involved.
Is that why men have been wrapping their dicks in all sorts of weird shit for thousands of years? Animal intestines and bladders to name but a few. Fuck your "in historical terms", youre talking out of your arse, just like every other sexist who makes hating men part of their personality.
Why is everyone in this thread acting like men are always the ones providing and insisting on using barrier methods? Have yall talked to a woman who's had casual sex before about what it's like out there?
Yes, men AND women are both taking responsibility. Just because you can point to few cases of morons, doesnt make "women are sluts who use abortion as birth control" anymore true than the bullshit youre pedalling. But nice try, trying to get out of the "historical terms" bullshit, but shifting the focus to modern day... Doesnt at all make you look desperate to be right, regardless of facts...
Theres bad apples in every bunch. Only a bigot tries to frame that bad apple as the whole bunch.
Ok I'll ignore the name calling one last time.
I'll put it super simply, in the hope that you misunderstanding me wasn't as intentional as it comes across
-
barrier methods have always been, and continue to be, a shared responsibility
-
all other non-permanent methods have been purely on women until very recently.
Ignore whatever the fuck you like. Youre bigoted cunt, and thats all there is to it. You dont like being called out? Have you tried, not being a perpetually online sexist piece of shit? Fuck you.
Can you please point out the thing I said that you consider sexist, and why? I'm striving not to be, and like to learn where I can.
You say that as if women haven't been treated like property in nearly every society ever since we learned how to farm
This is one of the dumbest wagons to hitch that argument to in particular.
Sex not gender.
And no she isn't
Someone tell her condoms exist and it's men's job to buy and wear them. Prevention is both genders responsibility. If they make a pill for men I'll happily take it.
I don't understand this logic. Sex is not any one person's responsibility to be safe
If I wanted a penis inside me, I would take responsibility to have one available, because I wanted it inside me.
It's the woman who'd get pregnant and who doesn't want to. Should she rely on whether the men took their pills correctly? Taking hormones sucks for many women, but they're happy to be able to have birth control in their hands.
Yeah, I think people forget why the pill was such a game changer: It allowed women, without the permission or knowledge of their husband/sexual partner, to decide whether or not they wanted to get pregnant.
Should there be an temporary contraceptive for men? Yes, it gives agency to men and also provides an alternative to women who can't use female contraception for a multitude of reasons.
Will that be preferred by all women? Hell no
It's called a condom.
It would be great if there was an alternative to them.
For people in trusting long-term relationships who want to have sex without a condom on.
So that the burden of birth control doesn't default to the woman altering her hormonal balance.
Please do not eat the condom.
Taking hormones can also be a significant positive, depends on the person.
Yes, but this is not about the poll having positive side effects.
Women still need access to birth control in order to remain autonomous, but this is a great point.
I know a lot of people who take birth control pills to regulate their bodies rather than prevent pregnancy.
So in this imaginary never ending orgy it would still make sense for the women to take the pill because if 99% of the men do the other 1% will somehow make every single women pregnant.
The issue with pills for the man is, that he should still be able to get hard and produce (inactive) sperm, while for the woman it's relatively simple.
And trust issues, since the woman has the child then, if the man lied.
I have tried my very best with partners, but 9 times a day? Even with the most willing partner I'm not man enough for that!
I tried 4 times in a 24 hour period once with a partner and we were both far too sore to finish the last time. Maybe if we did so more regularly we might have been able to do it but the flesh is weaker than the spirit a lot of times
Sometimes we need to fly solo, but not sure that would have helped me in the same scenario
Even as a kid, my record was 5 wanks in a day.
These are crucial personal data points that we can always recall
MrSulu, you stud! I heard that gay men get more sex, but that's a bold attempt. Does Brad know about this?!
My reality is not achieve the leaderboard of the adolescent imaginations.
Me neither, MrSulu, me neither.
The trick is not to cum. Then you can last all day.
This is just logically wrong.
If birth control was only made for men, and 90% of men were on birth control, you could end up with far more pregnancies than if it's for women and 90% of women were on it.
The conclusion is exactly the opposite of the argument.
I don’t understand you logic. Are you saying the remaining 10% of men would impregnate a disproportionate amount of women?
By the logic of the image, yes.
Yes. Because 10% of men is enough to impregnate all the women.
As a guy though, I wish there was male birth control. I do not love that women get to decide if they are going to make me a father or not.
Oh I see. In my head, the 10% of men weren’t having sex with 100% of women either way.
I assumed the number of partners they had wouldn’t change.
I mean there's condoms, and there's not ejaculating inside women. If you don't want the risk of being a father, those are things you can control.
For what it is worth, my son was the result of the mother deciding where I would ejaculate through the use of “in the moment” physical force. So no, it was not really something I could control (though the risk of being there was my doing I understand).
What bejeesus does in the moment physical force mean?
Not ejaculating inside is risky and not 100% reliable, but it surely gets the odds in your favor indeed
Besides, I believe there have been drug trials for hormonal birth control for men, but they never got approved.
Take with this a mountain of salt though, I need to check my sources. I'll update later if I can find them again.
Yes, that's exactly the point of the post in the first place, 1 man can impregnate many women, a woman can't get impregnated (contemporary) by many men
Idk why I got downvoted. I just don’t understand, I’m not trying to make a point.
I meant the 10% of men aren’t having more sex to make up for the 90% that are on birth control. They would be having the same amount of sex either way.
Maybe I’m over thinking it.
But a woman can deny as many potential pregnancies. The count ignores women who are already pregnant, both as men or women.
A man can cause up to X pregnancies and thus prevent as much, a woman can only cause 1 but can prevent as much as a man. The important point is that this all matters before pregnancy. After, it doesn’t make sense anymore.
I was told that female trees are rare in American lands, eg suburbs. Found that out!!
Well to be fair they are trying to make male protection pills
The Lemmycels are pretty angry at this one, but on the other hand it's pretty silly to trust dudes with birth control when you're the one that gets pregnant.
People who didn’t make it beyond high school level biology think this meme is some sort of hard hitting argument 😆 it is much easier to control terminating 1-2 eggs in a cycle than millions of sperm without causing infertility.
It's a reductive argument. It suggests that the world actively decided to harm woman. A man not taking a contraceptive or forgetting to could inflict disproportionate harm on another person. There are many great reasons why it is the way it is.
Also the numbers are all out of whack. It makes sense that some would argue against it.
What do you mean by that first sentence?
The whole comment is only a single sentence...
But we’ve had the technology to make it an option for a long time
Sure, but as others have pointed out you'd still just end up with literally everyone on birth control.
Which is fine. Certainly makes random failures less likely.
Dumb. It's a lot easier to stop one egg a month, than zillions of sperm multiple times a day. Simple as that.
Not only that, there's an interruptible cycle of egg release. There's no regular interruptible cycle in men.
Condoms are a lot cheaper than the pill and don't come with side effects
Many people of any gender find sex much less enjoyable with a condom.
You know what's a lot less enjoyable than sex with a condom? Everything it prevents
Sure but you can't argue that Condoms don't have side effects when the clear and obvious side effect is that sex is less enjoyable.
I find sex less enjoyable with a condom. Im still able to have a good time NOT getting pregnant.
And everybody DESPISES them.
Besides, they aren't very good at either birth control or preventing disease, and they are the most effective anti-sex invention ever.
And everybody DESPISES them.
That would be wildly incorrect
Not if ya snip snip
Exactly. In the case of men, that has turned out to be the most effective method in blocking a literal flood of sperm.
People claim m that men would use a daily pill, but guys don't want their women getting pregnant any more than the women do, at least not until they are ready. If it existed, most guys would gladly take a pill that would keep them from 18 years of child support, just like most women do. In fact, having double contraception would reduce unwanted pregnancies significantly, which would also reduce the abortion rate, which might help bringing down the political temperature a bit (no, it won't).
It's not us men resisting male contraception, most of us would love it. It's just not mechanically as easy to do for men as it is for women. It's a science problem, not a market segment problem. Make it, and there will be customers for it.
Nice try mr. pervert, you were trying to make me think about a woman nine months pregnant getting plowed nine times in a row.
You wrote that comment so they accomplished that started goal of making you think about it
Up vote
That's because hormonal birth control for women takes advantage of existing biological processes to prevent pregnancy.
Men don't have any known biological processes that can be utilized like that, although it's been consistently studied for decades.
So basically it's like jailbreaking an iPhone?
And there is some progress too afaik
There's been "progress" every few years for decades. Male birth control is basically the medical equivalent of battery technology.
I'll believe it when a pill makes it to market.
Just like cold fusion
I mean... you know that you can buy batteries today, and they're much better than the ones you could buy a decade ago?
The point is that on a regular basis there are articles about some amazing new battery breakthrough, but it never leaves the lab.
Genuinely kinda wonder why that keeps happening
Tech illiterate media writing hype articles. Repeats yearly also with flying cars or vacuum tube trains.
Most progress isn't made in sudden huge jumps, but small incremental improvements.
When pubsci articles promise a breakthrough, remember:
- it takes a long time to bring such research to market (think ~decade)
- most breakthroughs are only applicable to narrow niches or work under specific conditions
- real-life results will usually be worse than lab results
- startups have incentives to make their research appear as important as possible
But instead of waiting for huge breakthroughs, just look at the progress made in commercially available batteries. There have been many improvements in cost & charge density.
I had thought that another part of it was the levels of harm compared to the problem; getting pregnant is incredibly stressful and possibly harmful, up to and including death as a possibility. A medicine that can stop that but has side affects that are less harmful than pregnancy is a lot more palatable. Whereas, for men, the harm caused by pregnancy is zero, so any harm caused by the pill is weighed a lot heavier.
It's really frustrating how often this gets framed as sexist, when it's a totally different problem. I get why people would equate them but they are very different biological processes. Producing a baby is a complicated process, and there's a lot of steps that we can intervene in to prevent it. Producing a million sperm is, maybe surprisingly, less complicated and it's harder to target a specific thing and produce easily reversible results.
Men have had vasectomy on the table for a long time now. It's just more serious than most forms of female birth control, in terms of implementation and recovery, still not foolproof, and not as easy to reverse.
Even more frustrating is that sexism definitely does exist and play a role. It's just more about the human parts of the process, like dealing with medical staff, dealing with insurance, dealing with local, state, and now federal governments that want to bar access to women. Looking at the pill side is misplacing the anger.
I am pretty sure there have been attempts at temporarily blocking sperm so not having to do vasectomy for decades and it was not yet successful, it's not like this problem is not being worked on because scientists are sexist or something
Vasalgel, I was signed up for updates, but after about 10 years I gave up on that and got a traditional vasectomy.
There are also medical benefits to female hormonal birth control besides not getting pregnant.
We do have to remember that "First do no harm" is not a universal law of ethics or anything, it's just the way the powers that be think about things.
I think men should consider the potential harms to their partner in their calculus. If a man participates in causing a pregnancy that results in serious complications or death, I would sincerely hope that he would be as devastated by the loss of his partner as he would by suffering the harm himself. If men can't empathize with their partner enough to consider the risks to her, then he shouldn't be having sex in the first place.
Also we have condoms too so i don't get what everyone is talking about
Yes, but even when used correctly the chance of pregnancy is still significant.
And many people do not know how to use them correctly.
This is a yes and situation. (You should use condoms regardless of other contraceptives, for sexual health reasons)
I know I should use them but I really don't like using them.
Happy father's day.
As long as you both don't mind, enjoy
Iirc there are trials for pills for men right now
So far, there’s no male birth control pill on the market. But there are two types of birth control pills in the works: YCT-529 and dimethandrolone undecanoate. YCT-529 is a hormone-free male birth control pill that aims to stop your body from making sperm by targeting the vitamin A signaling that makes sperm production possible.
Researchers studied the effects of this male birth control pill on animals. They found that in mice, after four weeks of use, it was 99% effective in preventing pregnancies. In primates, sperm counts dropped in just two weeks of use. Researchers also completed a phase 1 human study to test how safe and tolerable the drug is. Now, they’re recruiting participants for a phase 1B/2A study, but more research is needed before this drug can hit the market.
The other male birth control pill, dimethandrolone undecanoate (DMAU), may also be available as an injectable. This one is a hormonal birth control, meaning it impacts your male sex hormones, causing them to temporarily stop your body from making sperm.
In a phase 1 study, participants took DMAU for 28 days. But the participants weren’t relying on DMAU for birth control, so more research is needed. Even though a phase 2 trial is in the works, it’s not complete.
https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/male-contraceptives
Huh. I thought the trials had been completed, but I guess not. Feels like I remember hearing about them like 4-5+ years ago.
You'll continue to hear about them every few years for the rest of your life. Its always "just a couple years" away.
Also, that imply i have to plan doing sex weeks before if i have to take the pill
Also, that imply i have to plan doing sex weeks before if i have to take the pill
Same with the female pill. The intended usage is that you take birth control regularly, regardless of how often you actually have sex.
Nature is sexist, got it.
Basically. There's no biological advantage for men to shut down sperm production, so evolution never pressured a mechanism to do so.
It's been attempted multiple times and every time the effects are non-reversible and have horrible side effects.
It's essentially all the negatives of hardcore anabolic steroid usage without the muscles.
It sucks but the reality of it is guys are basically too simple to disrupt without seriously fucking everything up but woman are more complicated so relatively minor tweaks can achieve the desired effect.
It's more that there's not any reason for the body to have developed a mechanism to stop sperm production.
Success in evolution is largely accomplished by reproducing better than those without your mutation. Shutting down sperm production does the opposite.
I not sure I can impregnate 9 women in a day but I'm willing to participate in a scientific study to find out if anyone is doing that.
For nine months.
starts doing warmup stretches
If you insist.
The only people thinking a man can impregnate 9 women in a day are other men, coz they lie to each other
Those 9 men could prevent women getting pregnant by cumming in me instead.
Honey your desperation is showing.
based
Maybe you should just count yourself lucky that you get to control your own fertility. In civilized countries at least.
That’s quickly coming to an end.
I think it's the civilised that's coming to an end.
It's not like they haven't tried. Most men would love to be able to ensure they don't get snared. 😉
The best option all around that I've seen is Vasagel, which is the western development based on RISUG which was a successful Indian trial
https://www.planaformen.com/vasalgel
The major complication for it has been that no pharma wants to invest in it, likely because if doesn't have good profit potential.
It is a one-time 'shot' of a physical gel that blocks the vas deferens (sperm channel) and is fully reversible simply by being flushed out again.
However, since it is not an ongoing monthly profit ahem, prescription, there is not a lot of money to be made.
No hormones, no pills, fully reversible, simply blocks the sperm exactly like a vasectomy, just very easily reversed. It can all be done in clinic with a syringe (perhaps tho the syringe will be a blocker for some men)
So once again, it's capitalism. Surprise surprise.
Yea it's pretty clear.
Capitalism and religion, with maybe a little bit of 'public health' thrown in
There's strong bias against contraception in general from some religious groups, and it is strongest against the "easier" forms. For example, among Catholics technically ALL contraception is forbidden, but condoms are more acceptable than an IUD, both of which are considered by some sects to be 'abortifacient' --- on the theory that it merely prevents a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterine wall.
So condoms are 'better' because it is a barrier method.
The only Catholic-approved BC is abstinence of course.
Public Health also has a strong bias towards condoms, because of their protection against STIs. Of course, actual proper condom use is.... inconsistent at best for most people.
Anyhow, the easiest and least intrusive methods of BC are usually viewed with the most suspicion and disapproval from all sides, and Vasagel/RISUG is like... the most extreme example of that.
It is:
- relatively inexpensive
- extremely effective
- one-time clinic visit
- fully reversible, with no recovery period
- impossible to forget or accidentally nullify
Unfortunately none of these factors endear it to the capitalists, the puritans, or the public-health hand-wringers*
*To be clear, i support public health goals, but the AIDS crisis has put a strong and lasting emphasis/insistence that condoms are the only way
Is the syringe in the dong? Because that's a beeg no for me. I'm not squeamish around needles but am squeamish about the dong and dings.
I mean it seems about equally as invasive as an IUD. I bet people could get used to the concept.
I wasn't talking about people.
I'm talking about me.
I don't want needles (or any sharp objects) close to my genitals.
Not in your dong, the only thing in there is the urethra, and unless you never want to pee again you don't want to block that. The injection would probably be somwhere close to where you would cut the sperm duct in a vasectomy.
Well, I've not had it since it isn't available yet.
But I get what you mean about the needles in the dong.
But most likely, the needle is through the side of the scrote, which might not be much better.
Probably best to just not watch.
It is less invasive than a vasectomy, since it's a needle and not a scalpel, but ofc it's not as simple as a pill
On the other hand, it's one-and-done and nevermore worried about unwanted paternity claims.
So get a vasectomy or don't stick in raw, dumbass
Nothing is 100% and vasectomies are rarely reversible
Pill isn't 100% either, and a hysterectomy is completely irreversable
Just saying I would have loved to have had a male pill back in the day. Vasectomy completed after 2 kids.
Vasectomies are 85% success in reversing. I got one, highly recommend
Imagine if the pill had a 15% chance of infertility. Nobody would take it.
Yeah, well there's always kids that need parents to adopt them. The culture of having a nuclear family needs to end.
Just what we need more teen pregnancies. Btw there are over 100,000 children in the U.S.—waiting to be adopted by a permanent family
and also they're not 100%
They’re 100% of the doctors start doing them like they do at the vets office.
Then you have to spend the rest of your life on HRT. And not having balls probably causes a lot of cis men dysphoria.
Weird how it seems like it's all for women and safe sex but then criticizes a tool women have to checks notes take control of their sex lives and make decisions about getting pregnant.
Non-surgical birth control options for women tend to come with a lot of side effects and a number of risks that don't always outweigh the benefit. Hormonal birth control can cause tons of problems for the women taking them and some of them are associated with life-threatening side effects like increased risk of clotting leading to DVTs, PEs, and strokes.
Yes, and male birth control doesn't solve these problems because the only way to be 100% sure is to be on birth control yourself, especially important with huge chunks of the US banning abortions
It's not a great option for more casual encounters or early in relationships, but for established couples that already have children and don't want more or are in a committed, trusting relationship, male birth control opens the possibility for the male partner to ease the burden of birth control effort and side effects.
me: laughs in vasectomy
Fr, no worries anymore!
Best decision I made.
Best incision I have made.
Self-vasectomy is a flex for sure...
walterlego's bragging about operating on lightsong, and sparing us more of them.
odd flex but perhaps there's something there.... time will tell
Later that night:
Later that night:
More like that:
how about we just learn to pull out.
I don't get it 🤔
Technically, men's sperm takes some time between three days to two weeks as it travels up from the testees to the seminal vesicles, and before that it takes something like 72 days for sperm to be made in the testees via spermatogenesis (although this process is constant regardless of number of ejaculations), meaning that while technically a man could impregnate 9 women a day, realistically a man couldn't because after the first few their viable sperm count would drastically falter.
She has no points
A) women are voluntarily driving 100% of demand for this drug B) if we could make it for guys, we would. C) if we did unplanned pregnancies would dry up and women's power/control of birth would change vastly for the first time in our biological history.
This screen shot is meaningless kindergarten thinking.
YCT-529 just passed human safety trials last July. Its coming ... so men won't be.
Been hearing that for 30 years. That and the rapture is tomorrow. And aliens coming the day after that.
That's not birth control that's just like having a vasectomy. The big power of birth control is that it works after the fact so if you wake up in the morning and you realise you've made a mistake, you have options.
That's the morning after pill, completely different thing and depending on the country way harder to get than the regular pill.
No, you are describing a morning after pill.
Also, the new male birth control stops sperm production after 3-4 weeks. Once the drug is stopped, they slowly go back to normal in a few months. That is nothing like a vasectomy.
✂️✂️✂️
Back when I was younger and on the road all the time I would have loved to have a pill that guaranteed I didn't have a critical hit. But even at my peak nine times a day would have had me pushing rope.
You still need it.
When you see a driver running a red light, you still brake even if your light is green.
I have built-in birth control.
Also, I'd jump on a pill that allows safe (as in, no kid) sex with more fun, but it seems that's hard to do.
Yeah, neat math, but biology isn't a group project where everyone gets an equal share. Female birth control exists because it's actually doable. One egg a month is easy to manage, shutting down millions of sperm without wrecking everything else? Not so much.
And every time male birth control does make it to trials, guys tap out the second they get a mood swing or a cramp. Meanwhile, women have been tanking those side effects for decades just to keep the rest of us from multiplying like rabbits.
So no, science didn't "target the wrong gender." It just went with the one that could handle it.
And every time male birth control does make it to trials, guys tap out the second they get a mood swing or a cramp.
This is false, it's based on a single study and twists facts. Some participants dropped out because of side effects, but those not dropping out said they would actually continue using the pill if it were available. The study was stopped because one participant tried to kill himself.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/03/500549503/male-birth-control-study-killed-after-men-complain-about-side-effects
No it wasn’t just one study. The 2016 WHO trial is just the one that got the headlines because it made for a catchy story. There were several other male birth control studies going back to the 80s and 90s where men dropped out because they didn’t want to deal with the side effects. Things like acne mood swings and injection pain.
In the WHO study around twenty out of three hundred twenty men quit over side effects. Earlier trials saw the same thing a few percent tapping out for the same reasons.
So no it wasn’t some isolated case. It’s been a recurring theme across decades of research. The numbers are small but it’s there. Pretending otherwise just tells me you stopped reading after the first article title.
If you did a trial for a new pill for women you bet there will be some who will drop out because of side effects like acne or mood swings, that's expected to some degree. The thing with that trial for the male pill is, that people always twist it into sounding like the study was cancelled because of some people dropping out over these side effects, but it wasn't.
Earlier trials saw the same thing a few percent tapping out for the same reasons.
A fee percent is quite different from what you said earlier. Basically any trial has a few percent drop out.
Without wrecking everything else
Women have been taking the side effects
✂️✂️✂️
Then the just and equitable thing to do would be to shift some of that burden to men to make things easier for the women that aren't able to "tank" the side effects that can include some life-threatening complications.
I would also like to point out that the leading cause of death of pregnant people in America is intimate partner homicide, so the dangers of pregnancy can also be directly caused by the male partners. Y'all need to toughen the fuck up and get your shit together to do your damn part of preventing unwanted pregnancy and calling out the bad behavior of your peers that eventually escalates to things like rape or intimate partner homicide.
Vasectomies are a great option, but there are a lot of folks who don't want a permanent birth control so they won't get a vasectomy.
Feminist snark is much less effective when it’s based an utter ignorance of the science it’s poking fun at.
9 times per day... So ok. You know how women love to give men shit for having a poor understanding is basic female biology? This is that.
Cumming 9 times a day??
Nowhere does it say you have to limit yourself to that
With 9 different partners each time, dude dick gonna fall off statistically speaking.
So hear me out; have the lad cum onto a table, use a postcard or something to divide the subject matter into 9 equal parts, then have the ladies come in and snort it up their pussy.
I'm not a professional in this field fyi.
Yeah, any more than 7 is tiring.
Don't forget to hydrate
https://youtu.be/_ARGBrsM_Js
If you have a plan and put in the effort it can easily be done
This guy definitely owns a milking table. It's probably homemade.
I got snipped so my wife didn't have to do the hormonal bullshit. Her doctor is putting her back in it because women's bodies literally do not want them to be happy.
I'm almost 54 and menopause has not yet been achieved, though my system is constantly teasing/taunting me with it.
I couldn't agree more.
9!? You think I can cum 9 times a day!? And apparently hit the egg every fucking time too? I don't mean to question the conclusion because I think birth control should be both parties' responsibility, but I think your premise reveals a distinct lack of grasp on biological reality. Why stop at 9? Why not 900? Really drive your point home! My dick is going to be useless after number 2 or 3 anyway.
"hit the egg" 🤣😂😭
If i cum today and i want to cum tomorrow i will already feel a weaker sensation, probably if i cum 2/3 time in a day that sensation will be as good as laughing at a joke that isn't even that funny
Cocaine is your friend here, good sir.
"Okay, yea, my nose is always bleeding, my heart is on the verge of exploding, and I am at constant risk of having a seizure at any time. But my dick is rock hard and I can cum like 10 times before I start bleeding from the chafing. Wanna fuck?"
Who recommends coke to help your sex life? What is this, 1988? My guy, no one needs that much sex. If you do, and you use coke to help you, you might have two addictions.
Leys gooooooo 9000 !!
Generic image of attractive woman with text meme.
I’m sure this is well thought through and factual.
classic engineering mistake, trying to fix the problem where it occurs (baby popps out), instead of where it originates (baby gets put in). Can't be too mad at them for that. Everyone makes that mistake when they start out.
That's not how engineering works. That's like saying that you don't need gas release valves you just need to never over pressure the line. Now obviously the objective is to never over pressure the line, but it's good to have contingencies in place in case it happens.
You could equally say that you don't need to be on birth control if you just always use condom but sometimes they fail.
Nah, engineering wise you can't verify if a man actually has taken a pill and the sad reality is that women get stuck with the child and abortion rights are under attack. It's like trying to implement authorization without any way to verify that the user is actually authorized. You can't just go on vibes alone.
If there was a reversible, drug-based intervention for males that prevented impregnation that shit would be given away for free on every street corner and it's universal availability guaranteed by Constitutional Amendment lol
And Women wouldn't trust a man has taken it because, ultimately, they're the ones who become pregnant not men.
While companies have looked into male drug-based contraceptives, ultimately even if it were 100% effective, it would never beat female drug-based contraceptives. It'd have a market sure - but it wouldn't stop women taking birth-control because it'd remain the only way for them to be sure.
They've tried, but they can't get FDA approval because the men in the clinical trials aren't able to tolerate the side effects that pale in comparison to common side effects of hormonal birth control for women.
They stopped that one trial because a participant tried to kill himself, not because of comparable side effects in the female pill, and that's basically the only real trial that was ever done with a larger number of participants.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/03/500549503/male-birth-control-study-killed-after-men-complain-about-side-effects
Women and girls end up with suicidal ideation all the time when going through the trial and error process of finding the right hormone combination. There's dozens of different formulations of hormonal contraceptive pills and it can be extremely difficult to find the one that will work for you with the least amount of side effects.
The suicidal ideation is so common that it just gets lumped into the fast-forward list of side effects alongside the potential for life-threatening blood clots and other things.
Why stop at 9
A man's got to eat some time you know.
That's what the pregame is for
Reminds me of the joke: If you have a a key that can open thousands of locks, then that is what you'd call a master key.
However if you have a lock that can be opened by a thousand keys..
Genghis Khan has entered the chat
If 2,430 ladies want to test this out then hmu
I saw on Google that there are this many in your local area waiting to meet you.
All crammed into a clown car
All I'm seeing is I can seed my own country if I try hard enough.
Ok Musk.
Pff that lazy fuck pays someone else to do the work for him like for everything else
Someone else is going to run that turkey baster.
Condoms?
Centuries of discounting female medical concerns and avoiding anything that would even inconvenience men are why we’re here.
Needs text alternative.
Did someone call women females? Where's the angry mob ready to crucify this heretic? Where's the guy who posts Ferengis saying females?
I always get the biggest laugh when some clown screams "how dare you use the word female".
I'ma get a vasectomy as soon as I can drive
Where are those men?! the ones I met would impregnate 1 woman each week and that's in a good month
There have been attempts, but as far as I know they stopped due to safety issues. But I could be wrong.
Vasalgel/Risug(?) have shown promising results in tests in India iirc, but the last time I checked there was almost no momentum in getting it FDA approved. It is as far as I know, 100% effective and only required administrating once. The materials used to create it are cheaper than the syringe. Why is it not making more headway? Because it eliminates profits (like ongoing prescriptions would provide) for pharmaceuticals.
Last time I read about it had some issues, like the material stopped blocking way earlier than anticipated
It's not rocket science, it's much easier to prevent one egg from being fertilized than to stop a hoard sperm from fertilizing..
It's in the name. Birth control
I will have to test this theory, before I believe it.....
Just use condoms and don't hookup with random people. No pills needed for any gender. They are harmful.
It's because trying to shut down what millions of sperm production a day is hard. Even one gets through and your product fails.
I have had a vasectomy, but I don't have sex anymore so is that a double negative and I'm about to birth millions of new lives?
There was a post the other day pronouncing female like tamale and it made me take a while to read this post and made it a little more fun, too
As far as I'm aware science agrees with this and is certainly trying it's just proven to be a harder thing to accomplish.
Easier to stop one egg than a billion sperm
Wait…is this what that video game, 999, was about!?
s/science/pharma/
Nature is crueler with stillbirths, ectopic pregnancies, blood type incompatibility, autoimmunity killing, etc., etc..
If
The technology to make male birth control has been available for a long time but everything in our society is about subjugation and cruelty. That’s why we live in a rape culture run by pedofiles and rapists. It’s by design.
I, as a pro-birth control/pro-choice lady, believe lady-oriented birth control has nothing to do with that (perhaps naiively).
Pregnancy, even the healthiest, safest ones, are hard on our bodies. That means that anything that prevents them is theoretically better than if we're constantly/repeatedly pregnant. Even if its harmful for mental health or long term effects on organs. Pregnancy fucks us up outright both mentally and physically. Like day one.
Obviously I'm simplyifying a bit, but you understand the gist of my logic.
Men dont have HAVE to deal with pregnancy, period, so anything that introduces harm, even minutely, is automatically a worse quality-of-life option for them.
Am I pro-male birth control? Hell yeah I am. I just recognize that they're giving up more than we would be to accept the same risks, given that they dont have to experience pregnancy to begin with, and I dont trust/expect them to do that.
Therefore, it makes logical sense to me that we're the ones targeted.
Medical science is not that black and white.
Think about birth control in terms of preventing death and disfigurement. Men don't die from pregnancy, women do.
When women take birth control, it has the upside of not dying in pregnancy, having horrific pain in the process, or permanent changes to their body. Birth control has a lot of side effects, but at the end of the day, the maternal mortality rate of women who take birth control is far lower.
The reason why medical trials for male birth has been put on hold before, is because when weighing the side effects vs benefits of male birth control, men did not have to weight against death and suffering through pregnancy. Thus, the justification for male birth control requires a much higher bar.
While discrimination against women is prevalent in medicine, this isn't as simple as an instance of dismissing male birth control because men didn't like it. The process through which new modern medicines are vetted requires comparing the positive and negative outcomes of a medication, and that doesn't necessarily take gender dynamics into account.
They should have both been available a long time ago. Thanks for proving my point by defending sexism and rape culture and I’m sure you’re one of the “good ones “ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/gender-bias-kill-male-birth-control
Arguments like yours are hurting, not helping, women's advocacy in modern medicine.
When you throw out all nuance, it opens the door for misogynists to dismiss every valid concern that women have when it comes to systemic discrimination in medicine. You are also alienating men who support male birth control in the process.
As someone who has had life threatening issues dismissed by doctors, been gaslit about the efficacy of my medications, berated for going to the ER when my doctor instructed me to, gone through an excruciating IUD insertion, trust me when I say I am the last person to defend sexism in medicine.
However, male birth control isn't as that simple of an issue. There are legitimate scientific barriers to developing male birth control. It doesn't erode away the slow pace and funding in developing male birth control that is made worse by sexism, but sexism isn't the full story.
I'd suggest actually reading the article you're providing as a source:
Comparing the discontinued men’s study to what we know — or don’t know — about how hormonal contraception affect women isn’t really feasible, experts said.
There’s still research underway to develop a hormonal option, Colvard noted. And many researchers said this trial provides potentially helpful insight.
Also encouraging: the fact that so many men said they would take the drug if it were available. Historically, the burden of controlling pregnancy has fallen on women, Breuner said. But now, the findings here show that may be shifting — and could in fact spur more interest on the part of drug developers.
The fact that you think that that response was defending sexism rather proves that you are not arguing from a point of good faith.
No one is saying sexism doesn't exist, but that's not the point being argued here.
I find your explanations of common sense things to be condescending and pointless. I’d rather not continue this conversation because it’s not productive and I don’t really find your logic relevant to what I had to say in the first place
I wouldn't have had to explain common sense things if you had thought about it for 10 seconds before posting your comment. So any condescending attitude you feel you experienced is entirely your own problem.
The thing about logical thought is that it doesn't actually care about your feelings. You're the one that decided to try and couch this in terms of misogyny, but the reality is that female birth control simply developed first and had a huge impact on women as a result. And even if reliable male birth control existed (there are experiments ongoing but it's certainly not publicly available) women would still have to take birth control themselves in order to guarantee they wouldn't get pregnant, precisely because of the disparity of fertility mentioned in the image. So whether or not male birth control exists, basically has no bearing on women.
Ok, at the end of the day women are the ones that get pregnant. If you're living a life of one night stands, who's more at risk? The woman who's on nothing, or the guy that's just like "uhhh ya, I'm on that".
Kind of a poor way of looking at it imo. Guard your house. Don't expect the predators to guard it.
she's right
False
1: men do have birth control. 2: this is so Ironic because women hold the majority of if not ALL the control in terms of who they have sex with. Let alone who they allow to climax inside of them without a condom. In other words they chose the outcome. They allowed it. Not including rape and other SA scenarios.
go touch grass and stop victim blaming
Brilliant!
Also, I'd like to see this brainiac figure out how to kill many million sperm instead of just one ovum, with a pill. Surely that should be easier, but there's an anti-woke male patriarchy conspiracy, amirite?
All you need is a white labcoat, goggles, some vials, a pocket calculator and clipboard and BOOM... Science, Bitch! Surely the "EUREKA!" moment should happen within a couple of months, but it is being kept from us! The male patriarchy is yadda yadda whatever... and here's an extra yadda for good measure!
Disclaimer: I had a vasectomy.
But still, this person is under-educated in the same school system that spits out maga-types on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
This is yet another symptom of the severe under-education that Carl Sagan warned us about in The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark. The kind of under-informed, holier-than-thou attitude that lets fascism through the front door, because...
bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe LoL aMiRitE
The same fascists, religious batshit zealots and incels who want women OUT of schools, OUT of the workplace, they want them IN the kitchen, illiterate, barefoot and pregnant: "That should keep them under our thumb!"
EXACTLY like it happens now in places like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
Yeah too bad DNA tests were invented after birth control, almost as if all the consequences for either party's mistake landed on one of the two sex's involved..
I've been saying it for years. We should stop any and all funding for erectile dysfunction. Best birth control in the world is for men to stop being able get erections.
What is wrong with you?
