Male contraceptive pill

[conflictofinterests]

Good? I can still see idiotic stories popping up concerning how someone told the girl they're involved with he's took a pill and a condom isn't necessary, but hasn't. Hilarity ensuing.

See, guys tend to be much more overwhelmingly paranoid about the potential for accidental offspring as opposed to wanting to secretly knock her up to live out some bizarre "perfect children and/or family" fantasy. At least this is true where I live. If some guy says he's on the pill, there's a 99.99% chance he's on it, unless he has some fetish for paying child support or forcing abortions.

 

[Iron Lightning]

Won't work for four reasons

1) Female pill only has to hit one target. Male pill has to hit EVERY one of n thousand targets.
2) One night stand males have nothing to lose either way.
3) Guys, do you remember to brush your teeth EVERY night? Or get your hair cut every couple of months?
4) If there's even a .00001% chance of it rendering you infertile, 90% of the blokes won't touch it.

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

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.
2) Neither do rapists, I don't think this is a real issue.
3) To insinuate that men are incapable of remembering to take a pill every three months is quite an inaccurate assertion.
4) So 90% of the blokes are hypochondriacs, I have a higher chance of dying every time I step into a car.

Not saying the female pill is better in any respect, but at least they have a damn good reason to take it.

(And yes I'm being harsh to blokes, but would you trust any of your best mates with that choice?)

Why, might I ask, do men not have as good a reason to use birth control as women do? Of course, the burden of reproduction is much greater on the female gender, but that certainly does not invalidate a man's want to not reproduce.

In response to you parenthetical statement, what choice are you referring to? If you mean the choice of whether or not to take birth control, then I would not need to trust them. If I were female, and if I didn't want children, then I'd take birth control myself. As I am male, the only option for birth control I have are condoms which are relatively unreliable when compared to chemical means.

More on Topic: I rather like the idea of taking a pill and not having to worry about knocking anyone up for three months. If the human trials show no problematic side effects, I do believe I will utilize the substance. However, it is quite a shame that it will take three years for it to be made available.

 

[DerekTheMagicDragun]

My girlfriends mom was on the pill and she still got knocked up, so i'm always up for more protection!

 

[gorfias]

I'm all for male pills but I don't know why every girl isn't taking some type of contraceptive. A male will never spend 9 months growing another life in their body. If I was at risk of becoming pregnant I would make damn well sure that one mistake wouldn't get me knocked up.

The thing is, girls shouldn't trust that guys took their pill, we all have to be responsible for our own bodies.

A guy can be screwed if he knocks a girl up. Girl keeps child, in the US, there are social services that care for her and the child. The guy can lose 1/4 of his PRETAX income if this happens once. If it happens a 2nd time with a different mom, 1/2, up to about $80K.

I've defended kids who make $10 and hour (about $400 a week.) Hard to live on that, but then, pay $100 for a kid. Then pay $125 taxes. That leaves $175 a week to actually live on for the next 18 years. Devastating.

Men need to be able to control their side of procreation.

 

[Iron Lightning]

Wow, there is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Didn't you guys pay attention in sex ed?

I think they might have taken sex ed away in favor of the abstinence only policy.

My younger brother just finished his first year of high school. They did take it away, the daft bastards.

 

[edman270]

you misspelled "animals"

 

[edman270]

I can't believe they tested on aminals.

you misspelled "animals"

 

[tassyk]

Alright sex ed's over kids.

Yes dad...shouldn't you be getting your pension by now?

Sorry, I'm a nurse (or will be in 6 months when I graduate). I can't help myself sometimes

Wow, there is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Didn't you guys pay attention in sex ed?

I think they might have taken sex ed away in favor of the abstinence only policy.

My younger brother just finished his first year of high school. They did take it away, the daft bastards.

That's a great policy, that. Is that in the US? I think we still have it out here in Aus, but I'm not sure. We tend to follow blindly where the US leads though....

 

[glodud]

to quote Jay Leno "what sort of woman would believe a man who says "yeah, I'm on the pill""

 

[VivaciousDeimos]

But what I'm basically saying is that it isn't numbers, but the chemical process that's important.

Ah fair enough, I took maths rather than the yucky biology, but I think my psychological points still hold fast.

I'd still be curious over how they intend to subject it to normal clinical trials. Would you go for it? And how do they provide proof that it does work?

Would I go for it? Ehh...tricky. I mean, I've been on birth control, but I knew exactly what it was doing to my body, and it had been on the market for years by the time I got around to taking it. I can understand the hesitancy with this though, with no long term trials. So it would depend on how much the benefits outweighed the risks. A pill that you take once a quarters, with no side-affects that prevents pregnancy? I think I might be pretty tempted.

For a start, and this bit of biology I do know, Humans don't have a set mating cycle, where 99.9% of animals do.

This is true. And there are about six or more theories floating around about why. I like one that says it's to do with monogamy--have sex all year round and the man and woman become a bonded pair rather than mating with whoever is in season.

For a second thought, given there's a protein destroying element within the seminal fluid (AFAICT), couldn't that also interact with the female cell?

This I don't know, but is another good question.

 

[AgDr_ODST]

sounds like a great way to keep your mates out of trouble(or to be a jerk to a buddy thats ready to have kids), just slip one in thier drink and BOOM

 

[GamerPhate]

Ahh I see, its 100 percent effective on mice.

What about people? I guess the furries are excieted.

 

[chiefohara]

Don't know what to think.

Say it does exactly what it says on the tin with no side effects, im still wearing a condom for one night stands.

Its nice to have another Birth Control option, but i'll be waiting for about ten years after it comes out before i try it i think. Not keen on becoming sterile or fathering mutant children

 

[Archemetis]

Can't say it really applies for me, I mean I have a girlfriend and we're quite sexually active.

But really, she's already on the pill and I never go in without getting 'strapped'.
So we're already very careful about it.

But I suppose if we ever wanted to be even moar careful then I guess I'd look into it.
I'd have to see evidence of it's supposed lack of side-affects through extensive medical human testing.

Seeing as we already have enough worries about how the pill affects her regarding her menstrual cycle (It stopped and no she's not pregnant, we checked several times).

just 'cos it works on mice at the moment doesn't mean shit to me right now.

 

[sdafdfhrye3245]

Wouldn't use it. I'm also against the female variant of it. Just put on that raincoat (don't know if it is only a Dutch metaphore) and go for it. These chemical things and what not that aren't really necessary in the body? I am not fond of them.

Exactly the way I see it

 

[xDarc]

A male pill is power. So many women try to trap men with pregnancy and the result is most often a broken family. I wonder how this will change society in a few generations. I think it would cause less unintended births, which make up slightly less than half the total births per year in the US, last I read. So u can c how things might change drastically if it catches on. But less baby mama drama can only be a good thing.

Also, I don't know why someone mentioned this substance needing to hit all the millions of sperm. I don't believe that's the way drugs like this work. Its not a topical cream you rub on your balls, its a drug. It is likely able to change the manner in which sperm are produced in the first place.

I would take something like this all the time until I decided it was time to have children, there goes womens lib.

 

[infinity_turtles]

I find the idea of this both exciting and horrifying. I'm fairly active, so this would make things a lot easier on me. On the other hand, I'd be absolutely horrified by any chance of going sterile. While I'm not sure if I want to go the natural way or adopt, I do know I want kids eventually, and I don't want a side-effect making the decision of how for me.

So if it becomes available in the future, it's likely I'll be waiting quite sometime before trying it out, and by then it would probably just be a convenience rather than a godsend.