Male Birth Control Shot Found Effective (bbc.com) 372
An anonymous reader quotes the BBC:
A hormone injection has been shown to be a safe and effective method of contraception -- for men. U.S. researchers say the jab was almost 96% effective in tests on around 270 men who were using it, with four pregnancies among their partners. However, a relatively high number developed side effects, including acne and mood disorders... Because men constantly produce sperm, high levels of hormones are needed to reduce levels from the normal sperm count of over 15 million per milliliter to under one million/ml.
One professor pointed out that despite the side effects, "75% of the men who took part in the trial would be willing to use this method of contraception again."
One professor pointed out that despite the side effects, "75% of the men who took part in the trial would be willing to use this method of contraception again."
Going by the data in the summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
and taking into account the risks (unwanted pregnancy) i'd say 96% effectiveness is really, really horrible.
Unless i'm mistaken in my interpretation of statistics, this is a complete failure. In this case, i'd like to know the chance that intercourse will lead to pregnangy, using this method (and only this method)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Going by the data in the summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends... What is the effectiveness of the competing methods?
Based on the summary, I'd say that despite the side effects, at least 75% of men hate condoms enough to put up with the side effects and the reduced effectiveness.
So, the real question is...What is the difference in the sexual experience when using competing methods?
Men have been waiting for quite a long time to lose the latex that has been identified as a rather unfair sexual damper. For anyone who has used condoms, it's rather obvious just how much it reduces sexual pleasure, regardless of technological advances which are often nothing more than sales gimmicks.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about as effective as condoms (2% failure) or withdraw (4% failure).
For sensation, use lambskin.
Re:Going by the data in the summary... (Score:5, Funny)
Or the whole lamb.
Re:Going by the data in the summary... (Score:5, Interesting)
Condoms aren't just for preventing pregnancy though, they prevent the spread of diseases. Even with a perfect contraceptive, you would still want to use a condom if you are not with a long term partner that you trust.
I've found that the 0.01mm thick ones are much better than the standard ones, but cost a fair bit more. Even they are far inferior to not using one though. Condoms reduce feeling for women too, I think they are just more willing to accept that because the potential consequences are much more severe and there is less social stigma if they don't reach orgasm.
Re: (Score:2)
Condoms aren't just for preventing pregnancy though, they prevent the spread of diseases. Even with a perfect contraceptive, you would still want to use a condom if you are not with a long term partner that you trust.
I've found that the 0.01mm thick ones are much better than the standard ones, but cost a fair bit more. Even they are far inferior to not using one though. Condoms reduce feeling for women too, I think they are just more willing to accept that because the potential consequences are much more severe and there is less social stigma if they don't reach orgasm.
Don't fuck anything with a disease and you're golden.
Re:Going by the data in the summary... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most women don't view abortion or giving up a child for adoption as an easy option.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is 100% effective, but if you use two methods the odds against pregnancy are pretty good. Pill + rhythm method works well, but does mean you can't have penetrative sex for a week or two every month.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Going by the data in the summary... (Score:4, Informative)
All of the commercially-available (and female-targeted) contraceptives have at least 3-nines effectiveness, and the popular ones have 7-nines effectiveness.
Well, there's some BS. Absolutely no company makes claims of 99.99999% effectiveness of their product and there has never been a study large enough to provide that level of accuracy. There's plenty of real evidence that female birth control pills are more effective than this without you spewing ridiculous numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
All of the commercially-available (and female-targeted) contraceptives have at least 3-nines effectiveness, and the popular ones have 7-nines effectiveness.
Well, there's some BS. Absolutely no company makes claims of 99.99999% effectiveness of their product and there has never been a study large enough to provide that level of accuracy. There's plenty of real evidence that female birth control pills are more effective than this without you spewing ridiculous numbers.
That's kinda funny actually SEEING the number makes it wildly clear how made up it is whereas the way he had it written almost made it sound reasonable
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, funny that hey? I wonder where that number-of-nines terminology originated.
Re: (Score:3)
It originated with modern semiconductor industry in the 1950s. Semiconductors are the purest materials on the face of the earth and for some reason they preferred percentage purity over parts-per-million purity. The materials folks still say things like "seven-nines" but most device engineers I know talk in terms of impurity density per cubic centimeter (and will say it in terms of an exponential, for example, "this sample has 10 to the 13 per cubic centimeter phosphorous".
Re:Going by the data in the summary... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Going by the data in the summary... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Those studies are based on typical use. Typical use also includes not using them. The condom itself isn't what fails, it's being someone who uses a condom as the primary birth control mechanism but then not having one with you at all time, and it's just this once anyway so what could possibly going wrong right?
Re: (Score:2)
It depends how well you use them, which depends mostly on the education available. Putting on the condom properly so it stays on and doesn't break. Getting into a routine taking the pill and acting correctly if you miss a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless i'm mistaken in my interpretation of statistics, this is a complete failure
You are mistaken.
A complete failure would be either no change to or an increase in the chance of pregnancy over no protection at all. This treatment reduced the risk of pregnancy from 15-30% to 4%.
This may not be the most effective birth control method ever tested, but it is by no means a complete failure (and it's still in the R&D stage, so the final product may be more effective).
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying that a couple having unprotected sex for a year only have a 15-30% chance of pregnancy?
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds about right, for a general average among people who aren't trying to get pregnant. Pregnancy is less of a sure thing than some would have you believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that is way more effective than what you get with a condom when you factor in how it cannot fall off or rip during use, hell you cannot even forget to bring one. So holistically, it is probably orders of magnitude better at preventing pregnancy.
Re: (Score:2)
and taking into account the risks (unwanted pregnancy) i'd say 96% effectiveness is really, really horrible.
Unless i'm mistaken in my interpretation of statistics, this is a complete failure. In this case, i'd like to know the chance that intercourse will lead to pregnangy, using this method (and only this method)
And you'd be wrong. Assuming they are calculating it the same way as other birth control methods, this is actually really good.
Going from memory, the standard rate (which I believe is odds in 1 year for a sexually active adult), the effectiveness of birth control is:
The pill (97% effective, 3% failure rate) i.e. 1 in 33 people who are sexually still active get pregnant every year.
condom (80% effective, 20% failure rate) i.e. 1 in 5 people who are sexually active still get pregnant every year.
No birth co
Re: (Score:2)
Going from memory, the standard rate (which I believe is odds in 1 year for a sexually active adult), the effectiveness of birth control is:
The pill (97% effective, 3% failure rate) i.e. 1 in 33 people who are sexually still active get pregnant every year.
condom (80% effective, 20% failure rate) i.e. 1 in 5 people who are sexually active still get pregnant every year.
No birth control (20% effective, 80% failure rate) i.e. 4 in 5 people who are sexual active get pregnant every year.
So 96% is right up there with the pill and a heck of a lot better than the other male alternatives.
These numbers [kidshealth.org] are a bit more pessimistic for the pill and condoms. Note that these statistics reflect actual use and not "if it's always used correctly".
The pill (8/100 couples will get pregnant)
Condom (18/100 couples will get pregnant)
The only methods that get down to 1 or fewer preganancies per 100 couples are "emergency contraception" (i.e., morning after pill) and IUD.
Re: (Score:2)
TFA said the subjects were in monogamous relationship and only used this method of birth control. If your girl was on birth control also or you where whoring around and used condoms then I would say that's not bad.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see why people would be hesitant to put that to the test, but you'd almost need to in order to figure out what caused the 4% failure rate. Was it not the treatment at all, a lapse in administering continued dosage, or some common biology that makes it less effective for some people?
Re:Going by the data in the summary... (Score:5, Funny)
Um, about that...
Seems like posting as AC... (Score:5, Funny)
...has a 96% success rate.
Re:Going by the data in the summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the abstinence argument is that it misses the point.
What is the safest way to cross the street?
You can do it at a designated crosswalk and look both ways before crossing, but it isn't 100% safe.
The safest way is to not cross the street.
The problem with the not crossing option is that you don't end up on the other side.
In the same way the easiest way to cook dinner is to not cook dinner.
People arguing for abstinence appears to have jumped into the second part of the discussion.
The first part was that people want to have sex. The second part was how to avoid having children while having sex.
Abstinence doesn't address the first part and isn't a viable solution.
Young people are going to have sex no matter how much you argue for abstinence.
That is why the rate of teen pregnancies are the highest in areas where abstinence is preached the most.
Re: Going by the data in the summary... (Score:2, Funny)
Tldr; the abstinence argument is stillborn.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sex is an act with a defined purpose, well its actually two fold, its first to procreate and second to strengthen and forge the bond between the patriarch and matriarch of the family.
When you use it differently than that less favorable outcomes occur. Just like if you try to use a chisel for an application that calls for a screw driver. Misuse of a thing has consequences. Even if you can remove the unwanted pregnancy risk you still have not addressed all the STDs, and you add the risk of all kinds of si
Re: (Score:3)
>Sex is an act with a defined purpose, well its actually two fold, its first to procreate and second to strengthen and forge the bond between the patriarch and matriarch of the family.
Of course the first of those is a completely arbitrary definition created by a self-appointed group of social engineers. Then, thousands of years later the concept of monogamy was introduced in a few of the more uptight cultures, for similar reasons.
Sex exists for procreation, and did so for hundreds of millions of years b
Re: (Score:3)
There is way to enjoy sex safely, that is inside a permeate, monogamous, committed relationship, where children while possibly unplanned will not be unwanted.
My wife has developed a medical condition which will kill her if she gets pregnant again.
What does your overly-simplistic worldview say we should do?
Re: (Score:3)
Trouble with that is.....it gets boring.
I might could interest you in my NEW version of Playboy I'm wanting to publish, ONLY for married men......
Every month....Same Chick!!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"That is why the rate of teen pregnancies are the highest in areas where abstinence is preached the most."
Which is beside the point. Abstinence is not ever just preached because the preacher hates babies and/or teen pregnancy*.
Abstinence is also the single most effective STD preventative, maybe more teens get pregnant, but many of those teens who used condoms and did not get pregnant still got crabs and scabies, and since they were sexually active they got anything and everything doing oral (I sort of get t
Re:Going by the data in the summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
"That is why the rate of teen pregnancies are the highest in areas where abstinence is preached the most."
Which is beside the point.
The too long didn't read version of your post is:
Abstinence only education doesn't work, but you don't care.
You and your 1.5 billion you've siphoned from the US guvmint have given the US the highest unwanted teen pregnancy rate in the developed world. And you don't care because somehow, it doesn't matter.
Because we were sold the idea that Abstinence only works. And when it turns out it doesn't, you don't care. Just make up more crap like scabies. Yeah, scabies is a STD now?
Because Abstinence only is a religion based social and personal control mechnanism that attempts to regulate one of the main drivers of survival.
Re: (Score:3)
Abstinence is also the single most effective STD preventative
I wonder if your stats include all the people who fail to abstain when they intended to or if you're just cherry picking the success cases.
Re: (Score:3)
You are OK with the government using reverse physiology to trick children into abstaining
No, I think we should tell children what really goes on, what options they have, and the pros and cons of those options. And when we do it that way, it turns out they have less sex, delay sex longer, get pregnant less often, catch less STDs.
If your goal really was to prevent pregnancy and STDs, you'd want the program that actually does that. The fact that you vehemently oppose such a program indicates your goal really isn't preventing pregnancy nor controlling STDs.
Re: (Score:3)
+1 Insightful. (aka my kingdom for mod points)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with the abstinence argument is that it misses the point.
What is the safest way to cross the street? You can do it at a designated crosswalk and look both ways before crossing, but it isn't 100% safe. The safest way is to not cross the street. The problem with the not crossing option is that you don't end up on the other side.
In the same way the easiest way to cook dinner is to not cook dinner.
People arguing for abstinence appears to have jumped into the second part of the discussion. The first part was that people want to have sex. The second part was how to avoid having children while having sex. Abstinence doesn't address the first part and isn't a viable solution. Young people are going to have sex no matter how much you argue for abstinence. That is why the rate of teen pregnancies are the highest in areas where abstinence is preached the most.
I disagree with you for one reason. Abstinence != abstinence only. In generally I have no problem with teaching children about abstinence. The problem is that most people who want to teach about abstinence don't want to teach other methods. It's important to a large population here and like creationism I think it should be taught but I also think teaching it only requires about 25 minutes after which you need to spend the rest of your week on all the other options out there. Teaching kids about abstinence i
Re:Going by the data in the summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
Humans have bodies, a physical existence in the world. That physical existence has needs, such as food and water. We also need other things that you might identify as un-necassary, such as friendships, creative outlets, self-expression, talking, listening, tasting, being accepted for who we are, being forgiven our wrongdoings if we make amends, love, time to ourselves, time with others, etcetera etcetera. None of these things are needs. it's quite possible to be alive, and never experience any of those things. But a poor existence it would be. Sex is like those things, but it's even more. it's also a biological imperative, something our bodies are very much programmed to want very much indeed.
Telling young people to just not do it will fail. Coupling that with also not telling them how to do it safely, is, and always has been, demonstrably disastrous.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Going by the data in the summary... (Score:4, Insightful)
Abstinence has a much higher failure rate than any other form of birth control.
No, that's almost-abstinence. If you actually maintain it, it is the only 100% successful type of birth control. Just like if you use condoms correctly, they are 99% effective. But most people don't. I can't, because I'm large, uncut, and fat. The combination makes normal condoms just not work for me. Sometimes I have used the female condom, which is only a bit like porking a hefty bag. Mostly I have used serial monogamy.
Re: (Score:3)
If something works 100% of the time it is successfully done, but only 10% of people have the ability to do it successfully, can you really say that it works 100% of the time?
What we can conclusively say is that abstinence-only education does not work for preventing teen pregnancy. That is a well-supported fact.
Re: (Score:2)
You are the direct result of their abstinence.
Abstinence is only effective 40% of the time, because the other 60% of the time people have sex anyways.
So many would rather choose to have sex and enjoy love and life,Than live without life's pleasures.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sad to channel my abstinence only parents (who were right), but the only effective way of preventing pregnancy is abstinence..
Only if you ignore anal, oral, fingering, hand jobs, toy play, gay sex and innumerable other iterations of two people getting each other off. There are a LOT ways to have sex with no chance of pregnancy. Your parents were just hung up on the archaic idea that sex = penis in vagina.
Re: (Score:3)
*Posting AC for reasons I don't desire to get into.*
Oopsies - Hi dahat.
I'm sad to channel my abstinence only parents (who were right), but the only effective way of preventing pregnancy is abstinence.
Nope. The problem with abstinance only is that nature hates it, and it tends to fail quickly. If males and females could simply be told "Don't bump uglies!" and they just said "No problem!" and that was it, sure.
Abstinence only works only if the couple doesn't engage in sex. But they do:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
http://www.siecus.org/index.cf... [siecus.org]
tl;dr version the US has spent 1 and a half billion dollars on abstinence only education, and we have the highest teenage pregna
Re: (Score:2)
the only absolute way of preventing pregnancy is abstinence (although you can probably find a counter-example)
If you mean the cases of Marduk, Buddha, Qi, Lao-Tse, Abaoji, Jesus, Horus, Mithra, Mithras, Krishna, Huitzilopochtli, Quetzalcoatl, Alan Gua, Momotaro and Deganawida, their claims are about as believable as words of an US presidential candidate.
Re:Going by the data in the summary... (Score:4, Funny)
Thanks to modern science, it is entirely possible for a woman who to be impregnated by a man she has never met, much less had sex with.
A quick search says that there were over 60,000 children conceived through in vitro fertilization in 2012, so it's likely that some of those pregnancies were in women who weren't having sex with anyone. Who knows, there may have been a few virgins in the bunch. Maybe we should start a religion!
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows, there may have been a few virgins in the bunch. Maybe we should start a religion!
This should be modded up, if only for these two lines!
96%!? (Score:4, Funny)
That means I'd have 14 babies a year! Not effective at a!!
Re: (Score:2)
Given at most a woman could be pregnant ~3 times during a particular year (and result in a successful birth), perhaps you should limit the # of women you are with to reduce the likelihood of such a number.
Put a ring on it!
Re: (Score:3)
I was about to say the same thing, but then I realized what he did. He said BE pregnant rather than GET pregnant. So: Get pregnant in April, you're still pregnant in January and give birth. You immediately go have sex and get pregnant again, maybe in February, and then give birth again in November. Then you hurry again and get pregnant before December is over.
Healthy? Hell no. Good math? Definitely not. But it's not wrong per se.
"News for Nerds" (Score:2)
This is probably some of the least relevant news I've seen here, and that's really saying something.
I'm just waiting for someone to wave the "techies are virgin beardos" flag.
Re:"News for Nerds" (Score:4, Funny)
This is probably some of the least relevant news I've seen here, and that's really saying something.
I'm just waiting for someone to wave the "techies are virgin beardos" flag.
I believe vehicular analogies are the usual go-to here?
"When the bus enters the tunnel..."
*all hands raise*
"Oh, for fucks sake, you want me to describe what a tunnel is??"
(OK, maybe you're right.)
Finally! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you get this list of side effects?
Re:Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
Trail ended 1 suicide 1 attempted 8 left infertile (Score:5, Informative)
The Worlds press is carrying this story but almost all have missed that the trial has been stopped due to unnacceptable side-effects
Of the 300+ patients,
- 1 committed suicide
- 1 attempted suicide
- many being treated for clinical depression
- 8 were left infertile a year after stopping the drug.
75% may be willing to continue, but not at that cost
Re: (Score:2)
The Worlds press is carrying this story but almost all have missed that the trial has been stopped due to unnacceptable side-effects Of the 300+ patients, - 1 committed suicide - 1 attempted suicide - many being treated for clinical depression - 8 were left infertile a year after stopping the drug.
75% may be willing to continue, but not at that cost
Uh, before you continue to bash this, compare and contrast the results found here with pretty much any other drug that has been approved and on the market today.
It's downright scary what regulatory agencies find acceptable for the "greater good".
Re: (Score:3)
And that's in a controlled setting. Imagine what would happen in the real world where thousands of men kill themselves every single month.
Re:Trail ended 1 suicide 1 attempted 8 left infert (Score:4, Funny)
1 suicide within the trial? That is a success. 100% contraception success.
This one will sure not be able to procreate anymore.
Uhhh.. (Score:5, Interesting)
So haven't we learned from the pill that fucking with a body's hormone levels has a certain tendency to lead to bad things and that it gets worse at higher levels?
Is the intention here to hit equality by making men as miserable as women?
Re: (Score:2)
No we haven't learnt that because hormone aren't linked one way or another to bad or good things. This is why there are a variety of pills each with different side effects. If someone you know becomes miserable on the pill then she should think of switching to another.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what we've learned is that the majority of the population is so child-averse that they're willing to deal with these side effects. That makes me happy, because I thought most people were so selfish that they were happy to populate the world with unwanted offspring and wouldn't undergo even minor discomfort to avoid it.
Granted, for a percentage of the population, the discomfort is greater than minor. I understand why they don't want to use birth control. If more of us used it, they would gain the nea
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The secondary headline from this study is, "75% of men who participated in this study are fucking morons." This contraceptive has horrendous side effects, but some people are too stupid to care.
What I find even more remarkable is that the moron who wrote this story, despite the severe side effects, still uses the term, "safe and effective." Hmm...where else have we heard this bullshit phrase?
Re: (Score:2)
No. The intention here is to make a profit by fulfilling a consumer demand that is currently unfulfilled. There are men who would like a form of birth control like this (preferably without side effects, of course).
Re: (Score:2)
It varies from individual to individual. For some women they take it to reduce the effects of the menstrual cycle, from the very start of puberty. It's just another option, and hopefully they can develop this discovery into something with fewer side effects given time.
As with most things it's a trade-off. It could be extremely liberating for men.
Re: (Score:2)
Great success! Only 19-39 of 270 failed badly! (Score:3, Insightful)
There's certainly no reporting bias here - among 270 men in the trials, 11 simply didn't reach the chosen threshold of 1/15th normal sperm count in six months, 8 didn't recover within a year after stopping the treatment, 20 dropped out because of side effects while many more reported them (to the degree they stopped taking on new participants - back in 2011), 4 achieved pregnancies within a year while under the chosen threshold. All durations reported are in "up to" form, and the fertility of their partners was not indicated (around 10% have issues while trying, per womenshealth.gov). Only 66-69 of them (by somebody's rounding) stated they would refuse to ever attempt the method again, "so perhaps the side-effects weren't all that bad after all" according to Alan Pacey (whose connection to the study was left unclear). It's unclear if this was before or after they learned of how well other subjects did. The article also carefully describes the women only as "partners", despite heterosexuality being quite relevant to the study. The journalist went with "safe and effective", quoting "extremely effective" also from Allan Pacey, while not addressing the "need for ... reversible" part. I'm mildly curious where the "safe" came from.
The worst part? Compared to regularly used hormonal treatments for women, this probably is "safe".
That's not good (Score:2)
"researchers say the jab was almost 96% effective in tests"
Well, shit, that's four pregnancies for every hundred copulations; I wouldn't call a four-percent failure rate "effective". I'd call it a sure thing. It's like Russian Roulette with orgasms.
I mean, if an airplane had a "successful" landing rate of 96%, would you fly on it?
To put it another way, would you eat at a restaurant where four out of every hundred people got sick from the food? I wouldn't.
A 4% failure rate is nothing to brag about. It's bett
How do they solve the credibility problem? (Score:2)
So guy and girl are on their third date, they're on the cusp of sex and the girl says she's not on the pill and the guy says "It's OK, I'm on the shot".
Does she believe him? I'm guessing no, she doesn't, and this is what kills a "male pill" from a usage perspective. It's the women who get pregnant and ultimately bear the risk of pregnancy so what will make them believe a guy is telling the truth?
Some might say a vasectomy is the same thing, but most men don't get one until they're older and have had kids,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the same credibility problem that exist for the female pill? and a women has a choice if she gets pregnant, the man doesn't. If she doesn't want a baby she can have an abortion he can't prevent that, if she wants a baby and he doesn't he will have to pay child support for the next 18 years he can't get out of that
Re: (Score:3)
the same credibility problem that exist for the female pill? and a women has a choice if she gets pregnant, the man doesn't. If she doesn't want a baby she can have an abortion he can't prevent that, if she wants a baby and he doesn't he will have to pay child support for the next 18 years he can't get out of that
Well, there's multiple levels of credibility happening here and a lot depends on the nature of the relationship.
In hookup-type situations, how does a woman even know the details of the man she's having sex with are real? You have to have enough details/info about the person to go down the child support path. If it was a one-night-stand type situation, she may have a bogus name or no contact info.
My sense is this pushes the risk factor for women to the point that "oh, I can just get child support" isn't re
Re:How do they solve the credibility problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
So guy and girl are on their third date, they're on the cusp of sex and the girl says she's not on the pill and the guy says "It's OK, I'm on the shot".
Does she believe him?
Who cares? Seriously, if she doesn't want a kid she should refuse sex unless she is on the (female) pill. Males won't be taking this pill to convince a woman to have sex with them, they'd be taking this pill to prevent the woman from getting pregnant.
IOW, they won't be lying "trust me, I'm on the pill", they'd be lying "of course I think we're ready for a baby".
Currently the ability to produce/prevent a pregnancy via deception is only available to females. A male pill would give that same ability to males (produce/prevent a pregnancy via deception).
Can you imagine what would happen if males could string along a woman with "we've been trying for a year"? When males get to lie about trying for a pregnancy?
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on how serious you were about it, you could probably get a vasectomy and simply get judged sterile and solve the problem permanently. Even if an exam by a doctor turned up evidence of a vasectomy, I think privacy rules alone would prevent the woman from finding out.
And I think males may be able to fake their orgasms, too. I dated a woman who related a previous boyfriend who was really anti-abortion. She was on the pill, but she said she was pretty certain he didn't orgasm most of the time and s
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on how serious you were about it, you could probably get a vasectomy and simply get judged sterile and solve the problem permanently.
That doesn't solve the problem, which is male who wants to have sex with many females but is selective about who gets to actually bear his children. The vasectomy prevents the male from having any children at all.
Deception is a large part of the female reproductive strategy for most animals (humans included). I foresee problems when it becomes an option for a male strategy as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Still useful though: the guy might not beleive the girl she's on the pill either. Or have some doubt. Or you could be using a condom which may break sometimes.
96% effectiveness isn't really good enough to be the only thing you use, but it's a nice backup.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
. (Sure, the guy can put on a condom, but by doing so he'd be telling the gal he doesn't trust her by default, which perhaps he might try to explain away with an even more awkward discussion about STDs, either way ruining the mood.)
Actually it is perfectly normal to use a condom to further decrease the odds of pregnancy. My gf was on the pill and I used condoms. Trust has nothing to do with it.
Birth control messes you up (Score:2)
At the time she went on birth control, my wife had undiagnosed celiac disease on top of the MTHFR C677T defect. Her methyation cycle has never been the same since. She’s an extreme case, but messing with your hormones is risky for anyone.
an increasingly little something for the ladies (Score:3, Insightful)
In females, hormonal birth control mostly works by tricking the body into thinking it's already pregnant. For humans, it's a significant evolutionary advantage not to become double or triple pregnant, so the body does most of the work for you. It's fairly "natural" because you're basically just reproducing a situation that the female body is designed for.
For males, though, there's no evolutionary reason to ever stop producing sperm. So any cocktail of hormones that shuts off fertility in males has not been through those same millions of years of QA. So I would want to see at least a couple more decades of testing on this before injecting it into my body.
Experience has taught me to be very skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry, so I also can't help but wonder if researchers are saying it's safe only because they, for example, consider a 15% occurrence of male breast enlargement and/or lactation an acceptable side effect.
more like 100% affective (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
How often do fags reproduce?
Per my gay friends, they keep trying to have kids, even several times a day, but still no pregnancy has resulted.
While sad of no offspring, both partners often report enjoying themselves each and every time.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a thought. What if, instead of an outright gay gene, being gay is caused by an unintended genetic mutation that is not directly inheritable but just happens? Consider allergies. Dad may not have allergy, mom may not have allergy, but little Tommy just decides one day that eating strawberries will kill him. Is that how choice works?
Re: Fag control shot (Score:2)
It is with "glutin" these days
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a thought. What if, instead of an outright gay gene, being gay is caused by an unintended genetic mutation that is not directly inheritable but just happens? Consider allergies. Dad may not have allergy, mom may not have allergy, but little Tommy just decides one day that eating strawberries will kill him. Is that how choice works?
Good point. As an additional point, I never woke up one morning and though, "Today's the day, Which shall I choose, gay or hetero?" As soon as puberty kicked in, I knew that I was interested in women, and the activities involved with them. I never chose anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I would if I actually cared about the subject. To me, some people are straight, some people are gay, some like it all and some like none. Just the way it is and I am not the person to tell someone else who they can and can't be attracted to.
Re:Fag control shot (Score:5, Insightful)
To claim that it's a choice though is just wrong. If you believe otherwise, ask yourself if you you could change your sexual orientation. Sure, you could probably have sex with someone outside of your preferred group, but you wouldn't be attracted to them or have any imperative desire to do so of your own natural volition.
Re: (Score:2)
tend to argue that sexual orientation is genetically predetermined
No-one with an ounce of sense argues that. Because the argument is irrelevant. People get to sleep with whomever they chose, provided all parties are consenting adults. End of conversation.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
tend to argue that sexual orientation is genetically predetermined
No-one with an ounce of sense argues that. Because the argument is irrelevant.
Actually argument is relevant. If it is genetically predetermined, then legislation penalizing all who discriminate (and refuse to make wedding cakes for gay couples or whatever), are justified. If it is a free lifestyle choice, such discriminatory actions (however subjectively odious) comes under freedom of speech, religion, etc..
Re: Fag control shot (Score:4, Insightful)
I find that the most hostile gay bashers tend to be closeted homosexuals themselves.
Instead of being angry at the mixed feelings you have, just be honest with yourself. Do you find yourself watching lots of sports involving sweaty men touching each other? Do you go to a gym and workout around other men? Do you only listen to songs sung or "rapped" by men? Are most or all of your friends men? Do you prefer the sight, sound or company of men? Do you like the cock?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm almost 40 now and we have one kid, and I don't want more. I'm thinking about vasectomy, any experiences here?
Yes. Ask the doc for a fan. Needless to say, the smell of cauterization isn't a pleasant one, especially when you know what's being burned.
No, don't let that concern or dissuade you, the overall procedure isn't that bad at all, and they obviously numb you up...it's a walk-in, walk (slowly) out, done in about 30-45 minutes procedure.
Then go fill your script for a mild painkiller, and ensure your Netflix account is in order. Prepare to catch up on [your favorite series] for the next 3 days as you rest in b
Re: (Score:3)
When I was in the military (mid 1990s), several of the senior enlisted guys went that route. None of them reported any complications, and recommended it to others who "had enough kids already".
We were stationed in Kaneohe, Hawaii, so they called themselves the 'Kaneohe Klipper Klub'.
Just make sure it's with a good doctor, and a clean clinic. You don't want to get an infection in that area.
Re:Vasectomy (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just do it.
It's simple, but you'll be down for a day afterwards. Frozen peas to keep swelling/pain down. Tender for a week, tops, but iirc they want you to give a sample after 5-6(?) ejaculations to check and make sure there were no misses, so 2-3 weeks before you're verified "safe" for live fire action.
Re: (Score:2)