Male contraceptive pill

[Spinozaad]

Eh...

Insert all kinds of gender symbolism and retarded Freudian psychology to back this hesitant 'eh...' up.

 

[Iron Lightning]

Sir, I respectfully submit that you are not fully correct.

I respectfully restate my submissions and argue for them.

1) Wrong, male sperm cells only last for a few days, if they are not released through ejaculation they will still die and be reabsorbed by the testicles. Therefore, by way of changing the process by which sperm are generated, the male pill has to only "hit" the relevant organs.

This is still talking long term change, over time to a cell that's only there for a short time. The eggs are within the female body for a huge length of time. All the actual "work" takes place inside the female over one cell.

To allegorise, if you don't want any cars within London, do you block off London, close down London or clamp every car outside London?
If there's 20 million cars on the M1 heading there, and you put up a roadblock at the last moment, do you think it'll stop them all?

2) Neither do rapists, I don't think this is a real issue.

You don't think that men saying "Yeah, of course I took it." and then having sex isn't a real issue?

3) To insinuate that men are incapable of remembering to take a pill every three months is quite an inaccurate assertion.

Have you always gone to the dentist everytime?
If I did a straw poll asking the guys if they'd ever forgot something important, I'd be willing to put money on at least 60% saying yes.

4) So 90% of the blokes are hypochondriacs, I have a higher chance of dying every time I step into a car.

90 is a bit low. Given that we're talking about the main reason for their life, at least in some circles, I believe it's certain.

Why, might I ask, do men not have as good a reason to use birth control as women do?

Because men can, and often do, leave for good as soon as they're bored. Also, it can be used as entrapment.

In response to you parenthetical statement, what choice are you referring to?

If your best male friend meets a woman he wants to have sex with out of the blue, do you trust him to delay having sex until he's take the male contraceptive pill and given it enough time to work. While drunk.

If the human trials show no problematic side effects,

Every last drug released has had possible side effects. Viagra can easily kill you, but some guys swallow them like smarties purely to get that last chance at intercourse.

And as for the drugs released without any real side-effects:

Thalidomide, launched by on 1st October 1957, was found to act as an effective tranquiliser and painkiller and was proclaimed a "wonder drug" for insomnia, coughs, colds and headaches. It was also found to be an effective antiemetic which had an inhibitory effect on morning sickness, and so thousands of pregnant women took the drug to relieve their symptoms.

Problem was that the drug also jumped through the placental barrier and thousands suffered. Now, can the Doctors say, with 100% certainty that this sort of thing won't happen again?
Because until then, it's a desperation drug.

I don't claim to know much about biology, or even sex education - given my schooling. I do claim that there's a huge backlog of relevant info on why other methods are more reliable at the moment.

We can hope for an effective male pill, but I don't think it's coming in our lifetime. And if it tastes of curry/lager, so much the better.

As to your responses, in order (I'm too lazy to microquote today)

1) Are you daft? The chemical in question does not effect the spermatozoa, it affects the testicles. Testicles incapable of producing fertile sperm cells will not produce fertile sperm cells. All one has to do is wait a few days for the fertile sperm cells to die off, and then there will be no more sperm cells produced. If you refer to a chance of the compound's failure, I remind you that the testicles will either produce all fertile sperm cells or no fertile sperm cells. Just because the testicles produce a lot of spermatozoa does not mean it has a higher chance for producing healthy sperm cells if its entire system is corrupted.

You like allegories? Well then, suppose you have a factory that produces yellow balls. You want to produce red balls now. Is the best way of accomplishing this a: hand paint red all your existing and future yellow balls or b: change the factory so that it produces red balls and toss all your existing yellow balls?

I don't believe you understand how the female birth control pill works. The female birth control pill has no effect whatsoever on the ova, its effect is on the uterine lining, which the pill changes to not allow the implantation of a fertilized ovum. This is because women do not grow more egg cells after puberty and, as such, any pill that made the ova infertile would make the woman permanently infertile.

2) Fair enough, I will concede to you that point. However, keep in mind that the existence of people who would misuse the idea of the male pill does not invalidate the purpose of the male pill.

3) Sure, forgetful people exist. I guess we ought to get rid of toothbrushes, taxes, and court hearings because some people forget about them. Just put a post-it note on your bathroom mirror that reads: "Take next pill on June 24th" and you'll be fine. Again, how does this make the male pill useless. We don't see people calling kitchen knives useless because some people accidentally cut their fingers off. You can't devalue a product just because some people are too stupid to use it.

4) Your original assertion was: "If there's even a .00001% chance of it rendering you infertile, 90% of the blokes won't touch it." I very much doubt that rational men will be terrified of a 1/100,000 chance of becoming infertile. If every bloke in the U.S. took the pill, only 1500 out of 150,000,000 would be made infertile. While I admit that the relevant study has never (to my knowledge) been done, I strongly suspect that more men have been made infertile by being kicked in the balls too hard. The chance of getting infertile by a forceful ball kick does not stop those men from getting in fights.

As to your next point, I say that evil women can use a lack of birth control (puncturing condoms, lying about being on the pill, etc.) to entrap men just as evil men can leave child-bearing women in their hour of need. Do men not have as much need of a chemical form of birth control to protect themselves from evil women as women need birth control to protect themselves from evil men? Evil men's actions are always less painful when they do not involve impregnated women just as evil women's actions are less painful when they do not involve unwanted children.

To refute you next point, the future male pill, just as the present female pill, is intended to be taken whether one is sexually active or not. If my best male friend met some woman out of the blue who he wants to have sex with, I would assume that he is already taking the pill so that he would be ready for such a fortunate happenstance. If he isn't, well, there's always condoms.

Moving along, yes, drugs have side effects. If this drug has any side effects that occur often enough to be problematic, then I will certainly not take the drug. If the drug turns out to be problematic, even though its testing proclaimed it safe, then the drug's testing was inadequate.

You are most correct in that, at the moment, all forms of contraception are more effective than the male pill. This is, of course, because the male pill does not exist yet.

Although, I do believe that a male pill can be made available in our lifetimes, be a little more optimistic my friend.

 

[fluffybunny937]

Considering I have no sex life, I don't care about what pill any man or woman wants to take.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

As to your responses, in order (I'm too lazy to microquote today)
All one has to do is wait a few days for the fertile sperm cells to die off,

See my later point. Most men don't go around expecting sex on one night stands, so the chance they'll have waited is almost like them having a condom ready. I'm still very unsure

You like allegories? Well then, suppose you have a factory that produces yellow balls. You want to produce red balls now.

Most. Disturbing. Allegory. Ever. Especially given the subject matter and the colours used.

I don't believe you understand how the female birth control pill works.

You'd be right on that. I can only infer from my basic knowledge.

3) Sure, forgetful people exist. I guess we ought to get rid of toothbrushes, taxes, and court hearings because some people forget about them.

Tut Tut. Reductio Ad Absurdum. Guy's have limited memory overall for things like this. That's held out by basic humanity.

The chance of getting infertile by a forceful ball kick does not stop those men from getting in fights.

But how many men would deliberately get themselves kicked in the balls?

Do men not have as much need of a chemical form of birth control to protect themselves from evil women as women need birth control to protect themselves from evil men?

Yep, but it won't. A woman can claim the child is yours and I doubt the male contraceptive pill will convince them, or even the court. A DNA test would be needed.

If my best male friend met some woman out of the blue who he wants to have sex with, I would assume that he is already taking the pill so that he would be ready for such a fortunate happenstance.

How can I be nice about this? I wouldn't expect my best friend to even have a place lined up, never mind the necessary precautions. And I sincerely doubt I'm alone here.

Moving along, yes, drugs have side effects. If this drug has any side effects that occur often enough to be problematic, then I will certainly not take the drug. If the drug turns out to be problematic, even though its testing proclaimed it safe, then the drug's testing was inadequate.

Back to thalidomide, that didn't have many side-effects when first released. It was even hailed as a wonder-drug. It wasn't until children started being born that we saw the horror.

You are most correct in that, at the moment, all forms of contraception are more effective than the male pill. This is, of course, because the male pill does not exist yet.

As has been said earlier, no protection from STD's. And no benefit to male/male sex.

Although, I do believe that a male pill can be made available in our lifetimes, be a little more optimistic my friend.

It's not so much optimism as knowing my fellow man, and the body.
Women have a very definitive cycle of ovulation that can be tracked, examined and studied. They also have a guaranteed reason to taking the pill. There are even subcutaneous(implanted) pill releasers on the market.
What we're talking about here is a pill that we won't be able to track easily, can be ignored, has no effect on STD's, has the shadow of infertility over it and will, with all likely hood, cost a bomb.

Then there's a trust issue; would any woman actually trust a man, that they're not in a long-term relationship with, to have ACTUALLY taken it and given it chance to settle?

Honestly, I think there's a use for it in longterm relationships as an addition to other forms, but I can't see it working in the general market. Most men in that situation would go for a vasectomy.

However, if it springs research into repairing male/female infertility, then I think that would sell far better.

 

[Miumaru]

This doesn't deal with the prevalence of casual sex, and in fact practically encourages it.
(Sex with no consequences? (except STDs) What are you going to say?)

Men don't need dead sperm, they need very alive sperm and to fully accept the consequences of their shitty mistakes.

Why must the children born from this suffer? How many fatherless people must be born to a sad life so that such men can feel guilt? More than just the people having sex get punished by unexpected pregnancy.

 

[Iron Lightning]

First of all, let me comment on your debating technique. I find it rather immature for you to take my words so out of context and for you to outright ignore parts of my argument. I make an effort to address all parts of your prose and I would appreciate it if you would grant me the same courtesy.

As to your responses, in order (I'm too lazy to microquote today)

All one has to do is wait a few days for the fertile sperm cells to die off,

See my later point. Most men don't go around expecting sex on one night stands, so the chance they'll have waited is almost like them having a condom ready. I'm still very unsure

Yes, I've already agreed with you that some (but not most) men do not take the proper precautions. Now you tell me why, as you claimed in the post I first responded to, a male pill would be useless because of this. Yes, people who will not properly use this product exist, then why can people who would properly use this product draw no use of it.

You like allegories? Well then, suppose you have a factory that produces yellow balls. You want to produce red balls now.

Most. Disturbing. Allegory. Ever. Especially given the subject matter and the colours used.

Heh heh, you are quite right sir.

I don't believe you understand how the female birth control pill works.

You'd be right on that. I can only infer from my basic knowledge.

I admit that my explanation was a bit sumarized, see if this helps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#Mechanism_of_action

3) Sure, forgetful people exist. I guess we ought to get rid of toothbrushes, taxes, and court hearings because some people forget about them.

Tut Tut. Reductio Ad Absurdum. Guy's have limited memory overall for things like this. That's held out by basic humanity.

Yes, forgetful men exist, how does this fact make the male pill useless for men who do not exhibit the problem of forgetfulness?

The chance of getting infertile by a forceful ball kick does not stop those men from getting in fights.

But how many men would deliberately get themselves kicked in the balls?

None, unless they had something to gain from it. Like being able to have sex with women without fear of impregnating them. Of course that's based on the assumption that the male pill can make men infertile, which has not been scientifically determined yet.

A minuscule chance of something bad happening does not negate an extreme chance of something good happening.

Do men not have as much need of a chemical form of birth control to protect themselves from evil women as women need birth control to protect themselves from evil men?

Yep, but it won't. A woman can claim the child is yours and I doubt the male contraceptive pill will convince them, or even the court. A DNA test would be needed.

Ahhh, you have solved your own dilemma. A DNA test (or even a blood test in a few situations) will protect men from having a child claimed as their own when the child is not theirs. A superior form of male contraception will protect men from actually fathering an unwanted child, which is an impossible-to-escape situation for honorable men.

If my best male friend met some woman out of the blue who he wants to have sex with, I would assume that he is already taking the pill so that he would be ready for such a fortunate happenstance.

How can I be nice about this? I wouldn't expect my best friend to even have a place lined up, never mind the necessary precautions. And I sincerely doubt I'm alone here.

Yet again, the existence of foolish men does not invalidate the usefulness of the male pill for competent men.

Moving along, yes, drugs have side effects. If this drug has any side effects that occur often enough to be problematic, then I will certainly not take the drug. If the drug turns out to be problematic, even though its testing proclaimed it safe, then the drug's testing was inadequate.

Back to thalidomide, that didn't have many side-effects when first released. It was even hailed as a wonder-drug. It wasn't until children started being born that we saw the horror.

Therefore the testing of thalidomide was inadequate.

You are most correct in that, at the moment, all forms of contraception are more effective than the male pill. This is, of course, because the male pill does not exist yet.

As has been said earlier, no protection from STD's. And no benefit to male/male sex.

Who says you only need to use one form of birth control at a time. Use the male pill to prevent pregnancy and a condom to protect against STDs, it's super effective!

Since men are incapable of procreating with other men, the only beneficiary to male/male sex can be an agent that prevents STDs (and maybe a little something for lubrication.) Since the male pill is not designed to prevent STDs there is no sense in debasing the pill for not doing so. What you are saying is akin to claiming that a sailboat has no useful application because it is not capable of prolonged spaceflight.

Although, I do believe that a male pill can be made available in our lifetimes, be a little more optimistic my friend.

It's not so much optimism as knowing my fellow man, and the body.
Women have a very definitive cycle of ovulation that can be tracked, examined and studied. They also have a guaranteed reason to taking the pill. There are even subcutaneous(implanted) pill releasers on the market.

The fact that men are constantly producing sperm cells makes them easier to work with then the inexact and changing-between-individuals menstrual cycle. While it is true that men do not have a menstrual cycle to examine and study, they do have a method of reproduction which has been well examined and studied.

What do you mean by "They also have a guaranteed reason to taking the pill."? I assume you mean that men have no reason to take birth control, a statement which I do not agree with. Isn't the purpose of taking birth control to prevent reproduction? I don't see how this purpose changes with gender.

Yes, pill chemical releasing implants exist, I see no reason why a masculine version would not be possible to produce.

What we're talking about here is a pill that we won't be able to track easily, can be ignored, has no effect on STD's, has the shadow of infertility over it and will, with all likely hood, cost a bomb.

Take one pill every 90 days, anyone capable of basic arithmetic should be able to track the pill. Yes, the pill can be not taken, I really fail to see how this dampens its efficacy. Yes, the pill has no effect on STDs, you forget that it is not designed to have an effect on STDs. If the pill is shown to have any considerable chance of causing infertility I doubt it will be released. Yeah, the pill might cost a lot, but it would have to be about $300 a pill before it becomes a problematic trimonthly expense.

Then there's a trust issue; would any woman actually trust a man, that they're not in a long-term relationship with, to have ACTUALLY taken it and given it chance to settle?

The beauty of the male pill is that with it you won't have to trust anyone but yourself. Women don't have to trust men, if they don't want children they are capable of taking the necessary precautions. With men, you either have to trust the woman who claims that she is on the pill or trust the nameless machine that produced that potentially life-changing little circle of translucent rubber.

Honestly, I think there's a use for it in longterm relationships as an addition to other forms, but I can't see it working in the general market. Most men in that situation would go for a vasectomy.

So, most men in a situation where they had the option to take a pill that would make them temporarily infertile (maybe with a slight chance to give them permanent infertility) would choose to be made permanently infertile. I'm afraid you've lost me, I simply do not follow this line of reasoning.

However, if it springs research into repairing male/female infertility, then I think that would sell far better.

I have no idea how research into making fertile people temporarily infertile would help make infertile people fertile, but it would be quite nice if that happened. I'm not sure it would sell better though, there are more people who wish to have sex without procreating then there are people who are unable to procreate. The world's positive population growth in indicative enough of the infertile being quite a small minority.

 

[Continuity]

snip

Is any woman seriously going to rely on a man to control her contraception? after all its the woman that gets pregnant not the man.

Flaw in the plan!

 

[Skeleton Jelly]

Does it prevent STDs? No? Then condoms will suffice.

Yeah, just don't worry about expiration dates, having to stop in the heat of the moment and slip one on (making sure you do it correctly), having to take it off when you're done, and not having the satisfaction of doing it bare-back.

Besides, EVERYONE should get tested before they have sex, or oral sex. Do you use condoms for oral sex? I doubt it. So anyone who's having sex, should already be tested, and if you haven't, you don't deserve to have sex.

 

[Eggsnham]

I'm just gonna' wait for the study that finds that this pills does horrible and painful things to your junk.

Otherwise, sounds interesting.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

I dont want to take a pill just to "Fire Blanks". There are bound to be longlasting side effects of it. I like my sperm as it is.

 

[Lawyer105]

I don't think any of these things are properly tested when they hit the shelves.

Look at thalidamide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidamide). That got 'tested' too.

I think I'll just wait a few years and see what happens. The wife's already on the pill, so we don't have much to gain.

 

[kurupt87]

I'm happy with this, I'd use 'em. As someone who has studied chemistry I trust the process through which drugs have to go through to get to public consumption stage*. I'd be happier taking a pill than using a johnny, but that is a whole different can of worms.

*Chemically it'd be fine, Biologically is where a hiccough might occur, never quite know what living organisms will get up to.

 

[Skeleton Jelly]

snip

Is any woman seriously going to rely on a man to control her contraception? after all its the woman that gets pregnant not the man.

Flaw in the plan!

You're generalizing. A whole damn lot. Why not just say, "Do you really trust your black employee to NOT rob us blind?"

Many men would remember, and then of course (just like women would) there are men who would forget to take the pill.

 

[Skeleton Jelly]

I dont want to take a pill just to "Fire Blanks". There are bound to be longlasting side effects of it. I like my sperm as it is.

Didn't you read the article? You won't be firing blanks. Semen will be coming out normally, they'll just begin to die off very fast, before they can fertilize the egg. So it does make you infertile, in a sense. Because you'd need to take it every 1 month or 3 months, the effects would only last 1 or 3 months, depending on the type you took.

Sounds great to me.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Snip

Didn't you read the article? You won't be firing blanks. Semen will be coming out normally, they'll just begin to die off very fast, before they can fertilize the egg. So it does make you infertile, in a sense. Because you'd need to take it every 1 month or 3 months, the effects would only last 1 or 3 months, depending on the type you took.

Sounds great to me.

Yes I read it, I must not have made what I meant clear though. I know its not technicly firing blanks thats why I put quotations on it. I just dont what it take something that has just entered the market without extensive out of controled environment research. I mean look a thalidomide, that entered the "real world" as a cure for lots of things but without enough research and look what it did to new born babies who's mothers took it. I dont want to take a new drug that affects my semen with the off chance of it fucking up my reproductive organs/cells.

I dont want to get into a debate about it. I'm too tired at the moment.

 

[Uncreation]

Meh. It's good news i suppose, but it does not really concern me. Like another user said, it's not like i am ever going to have sex, so, sure, whatever.

 

[Dags90]

Yes I read it, I must not have made what I meant clear though. I know its not technicly firing blanks thats why I put quotations on it. I just dont what it take something that has just entered the market without extensive out of controled environment research. I mean look a thalidomide, that entered the "real world" as a cure for lots of things but without enough research and look what it did to new born babies who's mothers took it. I dont want to take a new drug that affects my semen with the off chance of it fucking up my reproductive organs/cells.

I dont want to get into a debate about it. I'm too tired at the moment.

Thalidomide happened over half a century ago. We've learned a lot from that mistake with regards to stereochemistry in pharmacology. Most chiral medications are taken in a racemic mixture and have both isomers tested for effects now. Ibuprofen is an example of one such drug.

 

[Boba Frag]

Interesting... But, come on, we'd be fools to think nobody is going "WOO!! Consequence free sex!!"

However... What are the side effects?
can it's effects be reliably reversed?
Does the sperm return to its previous level of fertility and effectiveness in swimming for the egg?

Does this alter the sperm cells in any way?

What about conceiving children after a man has taken a course of these things?
What long term effects are there?

Right, answer all of those and I'll think about it

I would some day actually like to start a family, and I'd want to be sure the very best possible health and genes got passed on.

If I end up with having a kid that can't walk in a straight line, there'll be lawsuits!

In theory, I'd probably be very slow to use it until its been out for a good few years and the side effects are well documented.