Reliable Male Contraceptive In the Works 519
Hugh Pickens writes "The BBC reports that recent tests in China indicate a monthly injection of testosterone, which works by temporarily blocking sperm production, could be as effective at preventing pregnancies as the female pill or condoms. In trials in China only one man in 100 fathered a child while on the injections, and six months after stopping the injections the mens' sperm counts returned to normal. The lead researcher said that if further tests proved successful, the treatment could become widely available in five years' time. Previous attempts to develop an effective and convenient male contraceptive have encountered problems over reliability and side effects, such as mood swings and a lowered sex drive. However, despite the injection having no serious side effects, almost a third of the 1,045 men in the two-and-a-half year study did not complete the trials; no reason was given for this."
Possibly because it worked? (Score:5, Funny)
however their recent child support filings may lend a clue.
Re:Possibly because it worked? (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, if I remember correctly, excess testosterone gets converted into estrogen doesn't it?
I suspect those that stopped... Didn't like man boobs.
Re:Possibly because it worked? (Score:5, Funny)
The real news here is the medical breakthrough hidden by the researchers: the 1/3 of the men that quit the treatment did so because they got pregnant.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Possibly because it worked? (Score:5, Informative)
1) testosterone shots are painful ...The enzyme called aromatase works naturally to convert testosterone into estrogen. ... Fat cells contribute a great amount of aromatase, and many nutrient deficiencies can also produce higher levels.
2) testosterone converts to estrogen (http://www.naturodoc.com/library/hormones/masculine.htm)
3) having more testosterone lowers your natural production (so going off of it can be a bitch)
4) having excess testosterone can make you more aggressive, angrier (rage), less happy but...
5) having insufficient testosterone can make you more emotional, angrier(fear), sleep poorly, less happy, anxious (free floating anxiety), loss of lust, loss of happiness, lost of performance when you do have lust.
I've been on HRT for a few years now. Having a level of about 600 makes me feel like I am 10 years younger plus the andropause symptoms went away within a week of starting supplementation. There are currently two expensive rub on versions (Testim - oil based and Androgel - alchohol based), a ton of compounded rub on versions, and shots.
Shots produce a much stronger cycle (too high for a few days, then normal for a couple weeks, then too low for a few days before your next shot).
I've read the shots are painful after you get them (the testosterone hurts inside you). It's not agony and tons of guys do get the shots (much less expensive than the rub-on approach) but the getting shots sucks, and then if it hurts after you get the shot that would suck more.
I apparently had low testosterone most of my life even before i was in my 40's since I furred out big time once I went on it.
I play a lot of boardgames and losing them pisses me off more than it used to so that is a downside. I didn't used to care.
A LOT of males have low testosterone starting at 43-- some earlier. It's an easy test to get. HRT is usually a one-way trip. You go on it and are on it until you show signs of prostate cancer (which estrogen is like gasoline on a fire for).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Possibly because it worked? (Score:5, Insightful)
A LOT of males have low testosterone starting at 43-- some earlier. It's an easy test to get.
So yet another natural progression of the aging process has become an illness to be cured?!? What a messed up world we live in. :(
News flash for all you ladies and gents out there... you were never meant to look/feel/act in your forties (and beyond) as you did in your teens and twenties. You'll be slower, weaker, more passive (less aggressive), less beautiful/handsome (by pop media standards, of course), hairier, more wrinkled, less mentally sharp, slower to heal, harder of sight and hearing, and you won't have sex like rabbits. These are generalizations, of course.
It's one thing to help you along as you age (glasses, hearing aids, canes, etc.), but this ever-growing trend in trying to dodge time's arrow every step of the way (cosmetic surgery, perpetual drug regiments, etc.) is sad commentary on a society that supposedly believes in an afterlife. Enjoy your life, in all its stages, then move along -- this world was never meant to be your home forever.
Naturalistic fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
you were never meant to look/feel/act in your forties (and beyond) as you did in your teens and twenties.
We were never "meant" to receive organ transplants either. The entire field of medicine is basically devoted to opposing to the natural course of life. Hell, most of human history is devoted to that goal.
Eventually, we're going to figure out how to forestall aging and death indefinitely. I don't expect that will happen soon enough for me, but if it does, I'll be the first in line. You'll be free to die happy, secure in the knowledge that you lived only as you were meant to (in front of a computer screen).
injections, testosterone etc. (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer#Prevention [wikipedia.org] has more info.
The wrong levels of testosterone (high or low) will indeed make one more emotionally volatile and have other bad effects. Injecting testosterone will lower natural production and can make the testes change noticeably. Testosterone injection is intra-muscular and I would expect that the reason most users complain is that 1) they puncture the skin too slowly (it stretches and hurts) rather than using a controlled jab, and 2) they inject too quickly. Liquid testosterone is about the consistency of liquid honey... forcing that into a bunch of muscle fibres at a high rate probably damages them, and 3) because it is thick you use a fairly large diameter needle. Testosterone is available in pill form but it is apparently harder on the liver to take it this way.
Testosterone deficiency can be caused by a lot of things, including sleep apnea which can screw up your endocrine system in general - if one snores a lot it may be worth getting checked out. OTOH exercise can increase natural levels.
I am not a doctor.
Re:Possibly because it worked? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Possibly because it worked? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe the article writer is a fundamentalist Christian that believes all children are gifts from God and, thus, not a serious side effect.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well if China says it's safe, that's good enough for me!
Their safety record speaks for itself.
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2008/10/product_safety.html [businessweek.com]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/fury-as-china-baby-milk-scandal-escalates-934993.html [independent.co.uk]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/19/MNV1RKN0L.DTL [sfgate.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/business/worldbusiness/19toys.html [nytimes.com]
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/series/toxicpipeline/index.html [nytimes.com]
Re:Possibly because it worked? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd bet on 'not wanting to be repeatedly poked with a giant needle'
I remember seeing videos of some trials, it was really scary.
(was very afraid of needles, now so, so, still, not 'omg I'm getting a shot this is so cool!!')
Re:Possibly because it worked? (Score:5, Funny)
More likely:
a) They were married and the wife started nagging for a baby.
or
b) They weren't married and getting jabbed with a huge needle once a month "just in case I get lucky" gets old real fast.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More like they weren't married and getting jabbed "just in case I get lucky" got old real fast, or they were married and getting jabbed knowing they weren't going to get lucky got old REALLY fast.
Re:Possibly because it worked? (Score:5, Funny)
I would not want poked with a giant needle on a plane.
I would not want poked with a giant needle on a train.
I would not want poked
Oh yes I would not.
Wanting to be poked would be quite insane!
Re:Possibly because it worked? (Score:5, Insightful)
Irrelevant - any good journalist knows that 33% is statistically insignificant...
It really frustrates me whenever the media do a science story, especially one regarding medicine. In their desperation to focus on the human angle and "won't anybody think of the children" - and of course, increase number of readers - they completely ignore any basic scientific analysis.
A classic example was the MMR-gives-you-autism scare - they make a sensational headline from a report without investigating the background of Wakefield (the author who made the public statement that started it - he received money from lawyers trying to build a case), without giving any consideration to the statistical significance of his findings (the paper looked at 12 patients), and completely ignoring the fact that the paper said it couldn't link MMR to autism. Even though it has now been proven that there is no link, the doubt lives on in the public mind.
Perhaps this is due to scientific journalists having no real understanding of science. Perhaps they do, but have a better understanding of how their job depends on selling a story. Either way, they must take more responsibility for their power over the public.
Returning to the MMR story, Wakefield has been widely discredited and hauled in front of the GMC and could be struck off. Meanwhile, what has happened to the journalists who built the story into the frenzy that led to measles and mumps outbreaks in the UK? Nothing - they're still writing stories like this.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Returning to the MMR story, Wakefield has been widely discredited and hauled in front of the GMC and could be struck off.
Well I guess that's better than being hauled behind a GMC.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When Pons and Fleischmann put forward their (admittedly bizarre) cold fusion claims, the physics community tried to replicate the results. They did not start screaming from the rooftops that Pons and Fleischmann were frauds, hoaxers, etc...
Um... yeah they did. The denunciations were almost immediate, largely because Pons and Fleishmann didn't give anyone a chance to replicate the results or even submit a paper for peer-review before going to the press. Which is classic charlatan behavior. Then they tried
Re:Possibly because it worked? (Score:5, Insightful)
When a registered medical doctor stands up in public and says "MMR is dangerous: 2/3 children who get autism get it due to MMR (based on my sample group of 12 people)", and that story is then carried on the front page of irresponsible newspapers, his peers *should* be standing up and attacking his credibility.
Any scientist worth their salt knows that correlation is not causation, and assumptions cannot be made on a sample group of 12. For any scientist to stand up and claim something so important and dangerous based on the facts before him defies belief - either he was incredibly incompetent, or incredibly motivated to come to the conclusion he had drawn. It turned out to be financial motivation that made him suppress the facts, but either way it had turned out, it was incumbent on his peers to discredit him as quickly as possible. Without contradictory investigations, it had nowhere to go other than a personal attack on the man and his methods. And I say fair enough.
Unfortunately it was too juicy a story for the facts to get in the way, so paranoia and sensational headlines meant the story dragged on for years, largely ignoring the many subsequent investigations that disproved Wakefield. This has led to a lot of fud amongst the general public, and has clearly had an effect on immunisation rates.
That is somewhat different to people saying "We've made a scientific breakthrough", others saying "Oh, really, thought that was impossible, let's have a look", then "Ah, yes, see, you're wrong". It's not as if the public would have gone out and gambled their lives on whether or not cold fusion was possible.
This is an interesting development, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
... I doubt that women will accept it.
Even if it has no side effects and if men are able to accept the stigma of being temporarily infertile, I expect that women won't trust this treatment.
Just think about it: who bears most of the risk in case of pregnancy? Women. It might be unjust, but in most societies, men can walk away and abandon women they've gotten pregnant easily without serious social stigma or financial repercussions. Women either have to get an abortion (stigmatized, traumatic, and in many places illegal/expensive/dangerous) or raise a child alone (stigmatized/expensive/time-consuming).
With the pill or condoms, women are either controlling the birth control themselves, or can verify its use on-the-spot. With male contraceptive injections/pills,
I foresee a big problem with women not trusting that men are really taking this. Heck, in the pilot study 1/3 of the men just stopped taking it for no apparent reason!!
other way around: man would be nuts to trust it (Score:3, Insightful)
If you get her pregnant, you pay child support. It doesn't matter how you get her pregnant. Even if her friends hold you down so she can hop on top and rape you, you still pay child support. Even if she fishes your used condom out of a dumpster near your apartment and uses it to get pregnant, you still pay child support.
Seriously: guys lose in court ALL THE TIME. There is zero defense if it is your kid.
It's crazy enough to trust a condom that you personally buy, protect from damage (keeping it in sight at a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering that their result is better than condoms (1% vs 2% if always used and used correctly which the evidence suggests isn't as easy as it sounds), and that it would be a contraceptive controlled by the male, then I would think this would be worth trusting at least as much as a condom. Even if you assume the statistics make it a wash, this is still better than a condom, because as you note the semen in a condom is still potent and can be retrieved (or spill etc), while the whole point of this pill is
quit rate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
And this story was posted to /. why?
Re: (Score:2)
Or more accurately, tantalising hints that you may one day have sex for nerds.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Trials are done in China... (Score:4, Funny)
Less Chinese being born, less tech jobs can be outsourced to China.
It's not the medical relevance - it's economy.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
The best contraceptive I've found is an "Excellent" karma rating on
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The best contraceptive I've found is an "Excellent" karma rating on /."
Oh really? Let's try an experiment:
Linux is less stable than Windows, and always has been.
C++ is more elegant than C.
Even power users are faster in a GUI than command line.
Mac users enjoy being marginalized.
HTML should never have gotten more popular than gopher.
So do you think that the karma burn will increase my chances of re-producing?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
So do you think that the karma burn will increase my chances of re-producing?
No, but lots of people will tell you to go fuck yourself.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
1% ! (Score:5, Informative)
1% got pregnant, that seems pretty high for contraceptive. It would have to be used with other means
I stand corrected, the pill is 92-99.7% effective, about 5% of couples will get pregnant. So it seems this way is pretty darn effective.
it's 2% failure for condoms (Score:2)
Assuming no user error, and over 10% for real life usage.
Re:Citation (Score:5, Informative)
Birth control is far more complicated statistically than people think.
Personally, sign me up for this: RISUG [wikipedia.org]
All the benefits of a male birth control pill/shot, without the hormonal side effects, at a fraction of the price. And they're pretty sure it doesn't even cause cancer!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Personally, sign me up for this: RISUG [wikipedia.org]
From the linked article: "'Within an hour, the drugs produce an electrical charge that nullifies the electrical charge of the spermatozoa, preventing it from penetrating the ovum,' Dr. Guha said."
I have to say that while empirically this stuff may work, made-up bullshit like this from the inventor does not bode well for the veracity of his other claims. While he may be talking about membrane polarization or something, sperm are electrically neutral.
Th
Re:Citation (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Citation (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always thought that condom success rate depends on intelligence and your actual practices.
I and a lot of friends used condoms and experienced 0% failure rate (no pregnancies).
OTH, with birth-control pills, we had a failure-- but it wasn't the pills.
The lady in question admitted a year or two later that she was lying and had stopped taking the pill because she had decided she wanted to get pregnant. She also later decided she only wanted the money and not the males interference with raising the child.
As a guy, you know when you are using as condom, but you never really know when you are a using a pill.
So these shots would be good because you would *know* you were covered from your side.
Re:Citation (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no reason you can't use a condom even though she's on the pill.
If you don't want kids, it's your responsibility to make sure. If she doesn't want kids, it's her responsiblity. Two complimentary methods are better than one. 3 are even better. I've got a sibling that my mom claims made it past 2 forms of birth control, and at least one form was not suseptible to user error.
Maybe it's just me (being one of 7 children, and my parents claim that we all made it past at least one form of birth control), but I'm paranoid. And you know what? I didn't have my first until my wife & I were ready.
Re:1% ! (Score:4, Informative)
A 1% pregnancy rate over two and a half years actually sounds very effective. I don't know the rates for other protection methods, or even unprotected, but I know they're not as good as 99% (in practice) over 2.5 years.
But 1/3 of the sample dropping out is not very promising. Side effects? Cherry picking? Guess we'll find out later.
Re:1% ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they just wanted to have childs...
2.5 years is a long time and they probably changed their mind
Re:1% ! (Score:5, Insightful)
The once a month injection is a deal-killer for me though.
Deal breaker!?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Man oh man - if you think that a teenie needle injection once a mnth is a hassle wait until you have CHILDREN! From waking up every 2 hours 24 hours a day to decimating the order of your household, children make a stupid shot seem just... stupid.
Tell you what: don't worry about the needle. Just have good, natural sex, the way nature intended. Wait a few years, and then tell me if a shot is really a big deal!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I have 2 kids under 5 and my wife's been hinting that number three might be on its way.
So yeah... I know all about that.
*shrug*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a difference between something that's discretionary and and something that's required to keep alive/healthy.
So what if someone else has a bigger problem than I have? There's always *someone* with a bigger problem. Doesn't mean I can't make choices about what is and is not acceptable in my own life.
Re:1% ! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:1% ! (Score:5, Insightful)
A vasectomy is more effective.
what is it with wacked out guys that refuse to get one because "I'm less of a man If I do that"...
Are most guys that uneducated or dumb? If you do not want any children, get the fricking snip and get it over with. your life is better snipped!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Did you had that nickname before or after the vasectomy?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, I wonder how many more pregnancies will happen if this becomes popular. I mean a one night stand the girl knows whether or no
Re:1% ! (Score:5, Funny)
say goodbye to your testicles! (Score:3, Funny)
And as a useful side-effect, those pesky testicles will shrink and get out of the way.
Only 99% (Score:2)
Re:Only 99% (Score:4, Funny)
Me too. Keep a picture of Janet Reno in your wallet.
That's as close to a 100% effective prophylactic as you can get.
Re: (Score:2)
So do I. My ex girlfriends best friend.
You'd look at this woman and not have interest in anything for a month.
But, a month after seeing here, and all of a sudden, cute gals are once again cute.
Re:Only 99% (Score:5, Funny)
So do I, but that's unfortunately no solution for the heterosexuals amongst us.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You know, I practice abstinence. I practice it more than anything else - 20+ hours EVERY DAY I practice it, but still it doesn't work for me.
It's those other hours that I'm not practicing -- steep drop off effects.
IIRC, IANAD, but the 99% effective rating is not a per-encounter rating, but for a year of usage - i.e. 99% effective means that among 100 couples using it as their only form of birth control, 1 couple will conceive over the course of that year. Them's the breaks, and why it's usually a good ide
Morning after? (Score:5, Funny)
But where is the male morning after pill?
Re:Morning after? (Score:5, Funny)
But where is the male morning after pill?
Fire and forget.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Bad science (Score:4, Interesting)
Also who wants only a 1/100 chance of NOT getting your SO pregnant? For most Americans that would be on the order of once year (assuming the women is only fertile for a few days a month).
Re:Bad science (Score:4, Informative)
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100068304 [msn.com]
If I recall correctly, the failure rate is given assuming a year of average amount of sexual contact per week (Off the top of my head, I've heard 'average' being assumed as '3x/week')
Re:Bad science (Score:5, Informative)
Also who wants only a 1/100 chance of NOT getting your SO pregnant? For most Americans that would be on the order of once year (assuming the women is only fertile for a few days a month).
It's not 1% chance per time, it's 1% per couple per 2.5 years (the length of the study). So once every 250 years for you and your SO, assuming you have sex about as frequently as the people in the study.
Unless of course the "almost a third" quit the study because it killed them, or made it impossible to get it up, or something.
You're doing it wrong! (Score:2)
So, instead of wearing a condom (which also protects wearer from STDs) guys will start taking monthly medical appointments so he can be pricked with a needle?
Riiiight... I can so see that happening.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm going to take the tinfoil hat off now.
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like someone who has never worn a condom.
Re:You're doing it wrong! (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate condoms. For a couple years I used them with my wife as the pill was creating undesirable side effects. Regardless of brand or style, you DO NOT get the same level of sensation as without. Tight, loose or somewhere in between.. the condom just didn't matter. Sure, it was still fun, but "unprotected" I could feel more sensation in my skin as it rubbed against hers. I am glad that since I had my two kids I went the vasectomy route. Sex life has improved, and it is a lot more fun.
On another note, it is also fun to be able to get half-way into it... take a breather and go back at it later. Repeat as much as I am able. With a condom, that just ain't practical.
Try an IUD (Score:4, Informative)
My wife had a Mirena inserted four years ago. She had a few days of cramping. After that things have been fine. She also used to have terrible cramping, bleeding, and mood swings related to her period. All of that has greatly reduced as well. Also she has not gained weight like she did on an oral contraceptive (I've already mentioned the improvement of the mood swings on this IUD, the pill was the opposite). There are some risks, ask a doctor or read the warnings. The only downside during the act is that in some cases the man can feel a poke from the string, personally I would not call it painful and it is a good indication that we are going too deep and about to hurt her so it's actually a positive.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're a dick, and I bet the only woman to have ever kissed you was you mother.
I saw here a bunch of people that made it seem condom or pill were the only options. For those of us in long term relationships that don't want more or any kids for the moment the IUD should be considered. I just wanted to give a first hand account. And when you have an adult relationship you will learn about how things affect your lover. You care about them after all. It does not make me pussy-whipped, it makes me mature. There
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
TMI ALERT (way more important than spoiler alert) I have found that it is possible for someone in this predicament to use the "Reality" female condom with the inner ring removed as a male condom. Much like the first, early review I read of such things, the experience is much like "porking a hefty bag". Still, if you put enough lube in it, it's almost like actual sex. Condoms are all terrible, though, and really the best thing to do is to find the right couple of girls to settle down with.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude you've got it all wrong. It's much easier for the Chinese government to inject contraceptives while you sleep than it is to sneak a condom on you every time you have sex.
Re: (Score:2)
People generally dislike physical barrier methods, when they can avoid them, and people generally suck at using them correctly when they are otherwise distracted(which is precisely
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow, I have a feeling that accidental pregnancy is not one of your main concerns.
Gah, do not want (Score:2)
I'd be willing to take a pill everyday, but I HATE needles. I'll just stick with condoms for now.
Not that one ought to just whip it out if you're on these injections anyhow - I'm pretty sure they can't block disease like a condom can.
Side effects include... (Score:2)
Oh yeah, I'm reassured now.
Insanity Body Builders Already Learned The Effects (Score:2)
Are they fucking serious? If injecting yourself with testosterone in any amount was safe every gym rat on the planet would already be doing it, AND SO WOULD EVERYBODY ELSE.
There is no way that the long term effects are acceptable.
Hah, they dropped out because (Score:5, Funny)
"almost a third of the 1,045 men in the two-and-a-half year study did not complete the trials; no reason was given for this"
Nobody told them WHERE the injection goes.
Re:Hah, they dropped out because (Score:5, Funny)
Oh my Lord. Brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it.
No side effects? Huh? (Score:2)
Bodybuilders well know that after testosterone is discontinued you will have man's breasts in no time.
Well, after that you of course won't need to have females to play with titties.
No, thanks.
Oh great! (Score:2)
After they fucked with women's hormones for decades, in the process fucking up many a life, they now turn their eyes on us?
Well, thanks, but I'll keep using condoms during the time my wife is fertile, thank you very much.
There's one major problem with this..... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Don't sweat it, babe, I've had the injection. Honest."
"Oh, OK, then. On you go."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Condoms for casual sex and burgeoning relationships.
Other methods for long term relationships between people who trust each other.
Re:There's one major problem with this..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reliable Male Contraceptive Already Exists (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called Neem [wikipedia.org] oil, and the Indian military ran a one-year trial without side effects or pregnancies. The reason you're not going to see any Neem-based contraceptives go through the FDA process is that so far attempts to control it have been largely unsuccessful [pbs.org].
Next week, we'll talk about olive leaf extract...
after a few minutes of internet searches.. (Score:3, Informative)
Your affusively swenstionalist article points to the existence of neem oil as a pesticide, and apparently a fairly good one (doesn't make me want to drink it btw) but does not mention at all any trials by the Indian military or it's effectiveness. The much less evangelical Neem wiki and the neem entry at drugs.com mention many medical uses, mostly for skin diseases in traditional medicine, and food additives, but makes no mention of male contraception. Female contraception tests in animals are mentioned b
Re:Reliable Male Contraceptive Already Exists (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, you could just go read the Wiki, but here goes. I'm just a lowly American so I only know so much about the stuff, but Neem has been used for thousands of years for a broad variety of uses in the home and the garden. Different parts and extracts of the plant have different properties; seed meal and oil can both be used to repel insects, the wood grows quickly and is burned for fuel, et cetera.
In terms of use as a contraceptive, the oil can either be encapsulated and consumed by the man or introduced directly into the vagina before the penis. I have so far been unable to find any information as to dosages in the Indian military study (the language barrier's a bitch) but have direct and intensely personal experience with the latter method. There is one side effect; it tends to make pussy smell like a Tiger's Milk bar — and you don't want to know what it tastes like! We mixed it with food-grade coconut oil. Both came from the health food store. So far, neem has been successful in controlling aphids, spider mites, and rugrats. Also, the garden stuff stored over winter that had neem on it wasn't invaded by rodents; for example a big wad of spun polyethylene ("Agribon", most common trade name is Remay) was free of them while a trashbag of trashbags without any became a nest.
Could be even more effective (Score:3, Interesting)
In trials in China only one man in 100 fathered a child while on the injections,
But was that child actually his and not the postman's or milkman's (or whatever the Chinese cultural equivalent is)?
Won't Someone Think of the ... Men (Score:5, Insightful)
Quoth the article:
Now assuming that "family planning campaigners" are predominantly female (a fair and perfectly reasonable assumption), contrast the above with the following opinion from fertility expert Mr. Laurence Shaw:
The difference in both perspective and opinion is somewhere between funny and tragic. If you're a woman, the former is most true (men are all-powerful and don't need any "empowerment"). If you're a man who's been involved in custody or child support proceedings, it's likely that you've been made painfully aware that the notion of men's rights is routinely ignored, dismissed as unecessary, or taken away in a gesture of deference to the "weaker" sex.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Women's rights are generally favoured in these circumstances because pregnancy and labour generally have a far greater effect on a woman's body than on a man's
Yes, and 9 months of her life should be more important than 9 months of his life, because of the physical ordeals of pregancy. The problem is that 9 months of her life trumps 18 years of his life, and that's wrong. The Male Pill will at least give men equal power when it comes to conception, if not what happens after conception.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny how that damn point only applies to the damn men, and not women.
But would they come? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ignoring the problems pointed out in other posts, would those males who should be taking it actually do so? Even if it was a patch, I'd think that normal male thought in the populations where this contraception should really be embraced would declare that decreasing your sperm count would make you "less of a man" or "less potent". Essentially it's the same people who refuse to use condoms who need this kind of thing the most, and they'll refuse to use it as well until something drastic happens.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be all over this.
If you're in a long term relationship, and your partner can't find a suitable contraceptive medicine that doesn't fuck with her mood/skin/weight/mental stability, you'll quickly realise that condoms pretty much strip almost every pleasure from intercourse possible: from physicality to intimacy and spontaneity.
Having the option, and or added peace of mind of the guy, or both parties being on contraception would be quite refreshing.
Of course they would. In droves. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, women have all reproductive rights and choices (abortion) while men only have responsibilities (18 years of child support).
Say you have 17 year old fraternal twins, a boy and a girl, and both of them conceive with their respective girlfriend/boyfriend. You can tell your girl that legally she has the right to
Whereas your conversation with your son will go more like this:
The Male Pill will finally give men the same control over conception that women have, if not the same rights & choices after conception happens.
And just like pill for women... (Score:3, Interesting)
...it will have *absolutely no changes on the character of the person*, to have periodical injections of hormones into the body.
Yeah right.
This might be a wild guess, as I have no proof, but the correlation between the anti-baby-pill and and the rise of feminism is pretty disturbing...
Mind you that I am a strong defender of equal rights (the intonation is on "rights"), as I have never understood why there were different rights in the first place. It just makes no sense. So I thing it was great that they stopped accepting that shit.
What was not that great, was that women themselves somehow acted, as if some female *qualities* were something bad that they needed to fight.
We're *not* the same. We share similarities, and have differences. And it is perfectly fine this way.
Women for example just love different things than men. If we like to build machines, and they like to care for people, then why force us into the opposite, just to be "equal"?
Or to think further: If you force anything into something, to fight being forced into something, something is very wrong.
One thing that comes to mind, is that those pills simulate being pregnant. And if you know how most animals act when they are pregnant... I mean things like wild cats chasing huge bears up into the trees, and small critters attacking you because you are too close, you know that this state makes one very defensive. Which is just right when there are kids to protect. But without kids very likely misdirected.
So what I really would like to know is: What are the real effects on the psyche of a woman, when she is on that stuff. Because I would really hate to know, that my GF is sad or angry for no reason (according to herself), just because of that stuff. I could not do that to her, just for sex. At least I would take my share of it. And ideally, nobody would have to.
Re:And just like pill for women... (Score:4, Informative)
I agree that we shouldn't try so very hard to force people into things, but the fact is that we've had a long history where people either weren't allowed to try or were shunned for trying to do a job that didn't fit their "gender role". It makes some sense to try to counteract that cultural trend. It can, of course, and often has, been taken too far.
The birth control pill is known to have an effect on some women's moods and personality. I don't think that that even comes close to an justification for feminism being basically just women on drugs. Changes in life values are not a typical result. Messing with anyone's hormones can be a problem, but it's an issue of acceptable risk and harm. Being able to control fertility is crucial the the kind of society and environment I want to live in. I think many women feel the same.
Don't hate on Slashdotters! (Score:3, Funny)
They don't want to get their "Real Dolls" and other inflatable women pregnant any more than the next guy!