Slashdot Mirror
Birth Control For Men Edges Closer
ananyo writes "Developing oral contraceptives for men has not gone as swiftly as researchers imagined in the early 1970s; they suggested at the time that a 'male pill' was not far off. But researchers now report a new way to make male mice temporarily infertile. Although the treatment is not ready for human use, the method avoids some of the pitfalls of earlier attempts. The technique appears to have a much more specific action than previous methods: it impairs sperm production by blocking a protein called BRDT. This protein was singled out as a potential therapeutic target five years ago because it only occurs in the testes, where it is required for the division of sperm cells. If the approach proves safe in humans, it would be an improvement over hormone-based methods of male contraception, which are not completely effective and cause side effects such as mood swings, acne and a loss of libido (abstract). On the downside, however, the compound 'shrank the mice's testes.'"
You see, that's why male contraceptives are a big deal. Currently, the only way for a man to have sex and have any say in whether the woman gets pregnant is either irreversible with some significant probability or ineffective with some significant probability: You can get snipped or use a condom. That's it. Woman can use the pill, and since that's a relatively reliable contraceptive that also doesn't prevent the woman from getting pregnant later when she wants to, it's the most widely used method of birth control. It's however 100% in the control of the woman, who can therefore basically unilaterally decide to get pregnant. So yes, it does take two, but the realities are such that women can and do get pregnant to get a commitment out of men, even if it ends up being just financial commitment.
modern society demands they are 50% liable for children
FWIW, here in Ontario family law judges are bound to award child support by applying a chart called the Child Support Guidelines. It takes into account the number of children and the parent's individual income. Equality never enters the picture. If the parents have joint custody and one makes $10,000 / year while the other makes $60,000 and they have two children, the first parent owes a grand total of $0 / month while the second must pay over $900 / month (according to 2010 numbers).
The only time equalization can possibly occur is in the case of joint custody and, say, their incomes just happen to be equal. They therefore need to issue a payment to the other every month for the exact same amount, and so the two payments just happen to cancel each other out.
While double income families are becoming more and more common, there is a LOT of incentive for one partner to become a stay-at-home-parent if they have no moral or ethical qualms about turning their partner into a potential slave. Rather than look at it as: the parent who worked made their own sacrifice by working harder (in some cases two or more jobs) in order to give the stay-at-home parent the opportunity to be with their children all day, "society" tends to take the view that having kids is a major sacrifice (how nice for the kids, huh?) and if someone stays home to "raise your kids" then you owe them (the parent, not the children) individual financial (spousal) support ON TOP OF child support.
Two friends of mine lived together for some years as common-law spouses, never legally married, but they had children when they broke up. The female sought legal counsel and later explained to me that her lawyer was baffled that she would actually want to seek work and earn her keep. The lawyer took it as her job to achieve a state where my friend would not have to work thanks to the spousal support (in addition to child support) that she could expect to collect from her ex on top of various government programs.
We hear a lot about misogyny, but I'm starting to witness more and more misandry over the years. The misogyny card almost seems like an excuse or a red herring these days. Women may have been treated unfairly in marriage and that needed to be remedied, but I don't see any equality to be found anywhere. Instead I see giving women more and more advantages by taking them away from men.
This isn't the first time I've heard reports of negative social feedback from early large breasts. I'm not disputing your experience, but I don't get it. I thought men were obsessed with the-larger-the-better breasts, hence the popularity of padded bras and implants. Is it the girls that tease the ones who develop large/early? You'd think the guys would all want to be your best friend (maybe that's exactly the unwanted attention you refer to).
I can tell you, though, that not all early/large girls find it a liability. I remember one in my high school that used them to get guys to do her schoolwork for her.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'