Slashdot Mirror


Two New Male Birth Control Chemicals In Advanced Stages

BarbaraHudson writes Researchers at the University of Kansas and Harvard are working to give men more choices for avoiding unwanted pregnancies. From the article: "H2-gamendazole keeps sperm from maturing. The unfinished sperm fragments are then reabsorbed into the testis, never ending up in the semen. 'If there's no sperm, the egg's not going to get fertilized,' says Joseph Tash, a reproductive biologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center. Almost two years ago, the FDA reviewed the compound, and now the agency wants Tash to investigate if the compound remains in the semen and whether that would harm a woman if it ends up in the vagina. Jay Bradner, working with other anti-cancer researchers at Harvard, discovered that the JQ1 molecule blocked a bromodomain in cancer cells, causing them to forget how to be cancer. One side effect is that JQ1 also obstructed a testicle-specific bromodomain called BRDT, making the sex cells that would otherwise produce sperm non-functional — mice treated with JQ1 can hump with abandon yet generate zero mouselings. Researchers are looking for a version of the molecule that works on the testicle protein only, to avoid any weird side effects."

369 comments

  1. Time for men's liberation by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It would be awesome if this could be part of a men's liberation movement, like how women were liberated in the 60s when the pill became available. Not just contraception, a change in the way men look at themselves.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how do men look at themselves?

    2. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As moving targets and potential victims of the "women and children" state that will punish a Man to the ends of the Earth for having the audacity to father a child.

    3. Re:Time for men's liberation by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0

      And how do men look at themselves?

      With a mirror?

      If you look through some of the comments, you'll see that some guys think birth control is "not my problem." Well, this will take away that excuse for behaving irresponsibly.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually in a mirror.

    5. Re:Time for men's liberation by hitmark · · Score: 1

      I fear it will take more than a pill to stop jocks from being, well, jocks...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    6. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we'll have 60 years to enjoy it. Then, with no more kids, we'll go the way of the Dodo.

    7. Re:Time for men's liberation by Tyr07 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, this will take away that excuse for behaving irresponsibly.

      Right, because men make the choice if the child was given up for adoption, day after pill or abortions. Or the fact that men don't have to carry a growing life inside of them with potential medical risks and bringing into the world, you know, because, that's clearly not possibly in the range of responsibility for a woman.

      I'm responsible myself, but seriously, if I would get a tiny life form growing inside of me, I would assume it's MY responsibility to decide if *I* want that to happen to me. Pro choice pro your body pro your responsiblity? Yeah no one likes that last part. Lot of special interest groups are pro everything I want except the responsibility that comes with that freedom of choice.

      This alternative will be a true freedom for men however, especially for couples when birth control doesn't work well for some women out there.

      However, this will also protect men from some other issues, like forced responsibility for the irresponsibility of women. If a women makes the mistake of not ensuring she will not get pregnant when both parties claim not to want children, there is no forced responsibility for a child to grow up in a broken home and finances garnished. You'll lose that "Well You're A MAN and you're responsible too!" Because a lot of us will be, a lot more than you would expect, and it will shift things in our favor.

      In addition, this will be so new that for women who do cheat (No no, not accusing all women, men do it to, yatta yatta, get your narrow minded self interests out), it will create a different scenario where more women won't be on birth control, but men will be. So when she suddenly gets knocked up, this is going to be interesting on a social / society level.

    8. Re:Time for men's liberation by brambus · · Score: 2

      If anything, this might actually give them a plausible response to "why didn't you bring a condom?". Oh the sad irony if this actually ends up hurting women.

    9. Re: Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as you are white and middle class, of course.

    10. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be awesome if this could be part of a men's liberation movement, like how women were liberated in the 60s when the pill became available.

      Was it the pill that led to women's liberation? Or was it penicillin? The pill allows women to have sex without getting pregnant. Penicillin allowed people to have sex without getting diseases. AIDS has somewhat rolled that back.

      I'm not sure that the primary problem with men's sexuality is that there are too many consequences. It's probably more accurate to say that there are too few. The biggest problem is that some consequences are rare but dangerous. Pregnancy is not as big as a rape charge. Take the one case where a woman and a man got drunk and had sex at here behest. After the fact, the woman regretted the sex, so the university expelled the man. Now he can't go to college, because his record shows that he was expelled for sexual assault.

      That's an unlikely situation but a serious one, and you aren't fixing it with a pill consumed by the man.

      Men have had good access to birth control for a long time. Condoms are not new. They weren't even new in the sixties. Vasectomies were new in the sixties but aren't now. It's not clear that there's anything to liberate. Men are about as liberated as we're going to get.

    11. Re:Time for men's liberation by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Both of them should be taking precautions, rather than blindly trusting the other party. I get the whole "in the heat of the moment", but still ...

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    12. Re: Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as long as you're white and gullible and think the future belongs to immigrants from countries whose residents are racist against white people.

    13. Re:Time for men's liberation by Defenestrar · · Score: 2

      You've got a lot of good points about the limitations of a male pill - especially about the danger associated with unprovable accusations. Where I think this may really help is that men can be responsible for taking risks again. I don't mean with the risk of pregnancy or any of the other unwanted consequences of sex - but the risk associated with birth control.

      There's plenty of down sides to the pill - emotional effects, cancer risks, permanently altered sex drive, etc... But with a male version, the man can risk the associated side effects (perhaps they'll even be more mild than the pill). This could be a boon to committed couples who want to have a couple of years between children. The permanent solution will still be a vasectomy*, but for the settling into the marriage phase, or the wait between kids phase, this could be great for people.

      *Based on the relative risks, it's a cowards choice to let the woman go through her version of that surgery unless the doctors are already in there for something (I'll allow rare medical conditions to be excepted from the cowardice charge - just because I'm not aware of any doesn't mean they don't exist).

    14. Re:Time for men's liberation by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Time for men's liberation

      Not yet! They accidentally found a cure for cancer, so they have to get rid of the cure for cancer before they'll sell this to you.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    15. Re:Time for men's liberation by flink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would be awesome if this could be part of a men's liberation movement, like how women were liberated in the 60s when the pill became available.

      Was it the pill that led to women's liberation? Or was it penicillin? The pill allows women to have sex without getting pregnant. Penicillin allowed people to have sex without getting diseases. AIDS has somewhat rolled that back.

      Before HIV, there was still always Herpes, Hepatitis, HPV.... e.g. anything viral. People were just more ignorant of STDs 50 years ago, but that doesn't meant they still weren't getting them. You're still going to want a condom on the first date no matter how many new types of contraception get invented.

    16. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were two things that liberated women: the availability of the pill, and the legal right to abandon responsibility to a fetus (i.e. abortion). We'd need to allow men both the same rights - the availability of contraception, and the legal right to renounce parental rights and responsibilities to a fetus - to get the full effect.

    17. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh the sad irony if this actually ends up hurting women.

      That would be unfortunate, but I don't see how it would be ironic. Are you assuming that this is primarily intended to benefit women in the first place?

    18. Re:Time for men's liberation by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Right.

      What if you're one of those people who has gone around the track long enough to understand that sex divorced from reproduction is meaningless, who always wanted to have that family that everyone seems to want to be "liberated" from taking responsibility for?

      Because, honestly, that's how I feel, and I've quite literally given up on women, and sex.

      Reproductive sex isn't boring, like something out of a Puritan movie. It's just as nasty and wild and passionate and kinky as it always was. But, it's overlaid with the knowledge that, in that moment, you're like God, reaching down to create life, and your dick is his finger, and this might be the moment that your child is created. It's like taking everything that was pleasant about sex and elevating it to a spiritual level without taking anything away from it.

      Contraception takes all that away, and renders sex with a woman no different from sex with an apple pie, or a man, or a dog.

      It should be the first letter in the acronym. SLGBT, with the first letter representing the word "Sterile".

      I used to spend my free time chasing a mate. Now that I realize I'd have an easier time finding a unicorn in this culture than a woman who will truly commit to creating a family, I find it hard to find reasons not to sit and grow moss.

      But hey, thanks for setting us all free.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    19. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, let me get this straight. You're personal inability to attract a woman who wants to have a kid with you means that this news should be buried and no one should be happy about it? Shouldn't you...

      Hold on. My phone's ringing. Oh, it's for you. The WHAAAAmbulance wants to know if a normal unit is good or if you'll be needing the one for people whose emotional baggage exceeds 350 lbs.

    20. Re:Time for men's liberation by misexistentialist · · Score: 0

      What good is contraception when you can be forced to pay for children not related to you or simply banned from getting a paternity test? Biology is not the problem, the law is; fixing it will require crushing the Vietnam era "liberation" movement you admire so much, which is really a protracted Soviet-engineered insurgency.

    21. Re:Time for men's liberation by brambus · · Score: 2

      If you can't trust the other party, why are you having sex in the first place? Sex is all about trust. If trust is not assured and sex is desired nonetheless, condoms are a must, or you might be exchanging a lot more than a few gamete cells.

    22. Re:Time for men's liberation by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      I agree with you; I do want to take semi-issue with one bit, however:

      Now that I realize I'd have an easier time finding a unicorn in this culture than a woman who will truly commit to creating a family, I find it hard to find reasons not to sit and grow moss.

      Ah, but you forget: There is the late thirty-something childless single woman, the ones who woke up one morning to realize that the ovular inventory is beginning to run a bit low. She then realizes that the men aren't hitting on her as much - most guys her age are married, gay, or losers at this point, and the younger guys are too busy chasing the younger babes around, where there's a closer-matched set of interests. The biological clock won't stop ticking, so she begins to cast about for solutions. If she's lucky, there may be a freshly-divorced Nice Guy(tm), but they get snapped up rather quick and they do come with some baggage (e.g. child support payments, weekends with his kids, etc.) Of course, there's the whole 'cougar' route, but really - unless you're a wealthy bombshell with powerful professional and/or social connections, that will fizzle out rather quickly since the younger guy will quickly get bored and bail, off to go play with the next shiny thing to grab his attention.

      There are exceptions, of course - I recently visited a sweet 47-year-old woman and her 19-year-old live-in boyfriend. Then again, she's fairly well-off and he's unemployed, so I don't see things breaking off quite yet.

      But... where was I? Oh, yes - a proposal to solve your dilemma. Back when I did the divorced single guy thing in Utah, I discovered that the quickest way to score was to meander over to the nearest Mormon "Singles' Ward", which was often packed to the rafters with single women whose husbands traded them in for a newer model, or ladies who were unable to get that dream Temple wedding. Personally, I don't subscribe to the religion so I abstained (plus it seems too damn creepy/evil/icky to lead on a desperate woman like that just to get laid - at the time I took a sabbatical from the whole commitment thing.) Here in Oregon you find similar situations, albeit more scattered and with different religions and social settings. If you're middle-aged, I'd suggest attending a church and getting social there... you may just surprise yourself; most available women there are all about building a family and staying loyal the whole time (YMMV, of course.)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    23. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you're one of those people who has gone around the track long enough to understand that sex divorced from reproduction is meaningless

      Your opinion. Not a factual 'understanding' or 'conclusion' that everyone will inevitably share after enough laps.

      I've been around the track a lot. And I agree with Charlie Sheen from 2 1/2 men: (I think he said this):

      "How much sex can you have, really?"
      -I don't know. I haven't maxed out yet.

    24. Re:Time for men's liberation by Gavrielkay · · Score: 1

      Apparently, only one out of every seven women never has children, so that's pretty good odds for you.

      Things are changing, but for now, women bear the brunt of child rearing expectations. That means we are more likely to be expected to make career and life sacrifices in order to have a family. Managers will expect women with children to take off more time for things like doctor's appointments and will (perhaps unwittingly) take that into consideration when doling out promotions etc. Many women are more than happy to make these sacrifices in order to raise children, but a growing number are not so eager.

      There are plenty of women who feel the same way you do about starting a family but I guess it doesn't matter since you've "quite literally given up on women." I'd have to say that sentiment wouldn't go very far towards your valuation as a potential father. Raising kids is hard work, sacrifice, expensive and life-long. If you can't even hack the process of finding the person who wants to try to do it with you, what does that say?

      Plus, if you think the only difference between sex with another person and with a pie is the potential for children, then you're doing something wrong.

    25. Re:Time for men's liberation by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sex is all about trust.

      No it ain't, it's about shagging.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    26. Re:Time for men's liberation by Lodlaiden · · Score: 1

      with a convex mirror.

      --
      Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
    27. Re:Time for men's liberation by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      Well, as long as it's solely "her body, her right, her choice", it should also be solely "her responsibility." At least by default. If she gets him to sign a contract for support (ie marriage), and it is indeed his kid, that's different.

    28. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, that's not what he said at all.

    29. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucking queer. "Liberty" is a mad, luciferian fantasy. Life demands submission to the natural law, which a faggot like you is probably more comfortable discussing as "dharma". No one and nothing is free on this earth. It's a delusion, no more so than in the relations between men and women and the utter denial of any responsibility to the future.

      Keep jerking off to your filthy porn and sodomizing other queers. Lord Kalki is coming to cleanse the earth of filth like you.

    30. Re:Time for men's liberation by dugancent · · Score: 1

      Some of us have absolutely no desire to reproduce. I got the snip over 10 years ago (im 36 now). Couldn't be happier. GF wants no children either..

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    31. Re:Time for men's liberation by eth1 · · Score: 1

      Men have had good access to birth control for a long time. Condoms are not new. They weren't even new in the sixties. Vasectomies were new in the sixties but aren't now. It's not clear that there's anything to liberate. Men are about as liberated as we're going to get.

      Condoms? A 2% chance of failure isn't a chance I'd like to live with (not to mention the annoyance of using them)

      Male birth control pills would have a similar problem. For a woman, 99.9% effective means that she's only fertile, on average, once every 80 years or so. THOSE odds, I'll take.

      99.9% effective for a male means there's still almost 300,000 viable sperm every time.

    32. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sex between equals involves trust, yes, but saying that it's "all about trust" is like saying that going to the movies is all about eating popcorn.

    33. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all a matter of perspective... to some, cold sores are common things that are no big deal... to others, they are a viral infection to be avoided "like the plague". As time goes on, we start to worry about things that used to not bother us. Maybe one day when we solve all our other problems, a hangnail will be considered a major medical insurance problem.

    34. Re:Time for men's liberation by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Sex is all about trust.

      If that was true, the human species would have died out millennia ago.

    35. Re:Time for men's liberation by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      If she gets him to sign a contract for support (ie marriage), and it is indeed his kid, that's different.

      It isn't that different. If my wife is pregnant, it is her choice, and her choice alone, to abort or not. We have two kids. I wanted a third. She said no, and that was that. Even in a marriage, a woman has more reproductive rights than the man. That is reasonable, since is IS her body. But it also, ultimately, her responsibility. Why should she trust me, especially when she knows I would be very happy if she was knocked up.

    36. Re:Time for men's liberation by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      What this will do is fuel the argument women's reproductive rights. Currently, there's a raging debate about the inequity of controlling women by refusing to pay for birth control pills AND allowing abortions while paying for men's vasectomies AND providing them with Viagra and other sexual stimulants.

      The advent of male contraceptives is field-leveler that will overturn many court decisions and nullify many one-sided laws.

      Bring it on.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    37. Re:Time for men's liberation by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      This doesn't address the situation I was talking about. If you're happy with her choice, more power to you. That doesn't mean all men are (or should be forced into it on her whims). If it's ok for women to show up at a club, hook up drunk, and then decide what to do about the consequences, then men should have the same right to do so. Neither party should take advantage of the other.

    38. Re:Time for men's liberation by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      If you're happy with her choice, more power to you.

      I'm not happy with her choice, and I have no power.

    39. Re:Time for men's liberation by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      "keeps sperm from maturing"

      What could go wrong?

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    40. Re: Time for men's liberation by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 2

      Any reason why you think that the divorce & child support pillage is limited to white men? I know quite a few Indian and Asian men who are paying through the nose to keep their exes in the styles to which they have become accustomed.

    41. Re:Time for men's liberation by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Which is obviously not how we measure effectiveness. There's a 2% chance *per year* that a couple that use condoms as their only birth control method will get pregnant and say they didn't mess it up. ("No, I swear, we put the condom on and pinched the air out of it but it didn't work.")

    42. Re:Time for men's liberation by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Oh my god, no, keep your gross ass out of the LGBT community.

    43. Re:Time for men's liberation by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      What if you're one of those people who has gone around the track long enough to understand that sex divorced from reproduction is meaningless

      Ultimately everything is meaningless. Sex is meaningless, having a family is meaningless. Continuing to breath and thereby extending one's life is meaningless. Eating nice food is meaningless.

      But to many people living life and enjoying it feels worth doing. In that sense having non reproductive has as much or as little meaning as anything else.

      who always wanted to have that family that everyone seems to want to be "liberated" from taking responsibility for?

      I don't want to be liberated from the responsibility, I have on desire to spawn. Many people do and seem to have no problem settling down and raising kids.

      Reproductive sex isn't boring, like something out of a Puritan movie. It's just as nasty and wild and passionate and kinky as it always was.

      Unless you're pretty infertile or want a LOT of kids, then there's an awful lot less of it.

      But, it's overlaid with the knowledge that, in that moment, you're like God, reaching down to create life, and your dick is his finger, and this might be the moment that your child is created. It's like taking everything that was pleasant about sex and elevating it to a spiritual level without taking anything away from it.

      got nuthin'.

      Contraception takes all that away, and renders sex with a woman no different from sex with an apple pie, or a man, or a dog.

      I know from experience that beating off (though no direct experience with warm apple pie) is less fun than having sex. I suspect many here will corroborate that. And as for having sex with a man? Well, I'm a guy, and I'm not gay so I don't fancy men. I'm pretty sure the body hair, beard and lack general of boobs and other femal parts would make the experience substantially les enjoyable for me.

      And a dog? Gross. Why would I want to spend my time doing something I think dounds really gross?

      Now that I realize I'd have an easier time finding a unicorn in this culture than a woman who will truly commit to creating a family,

      Da fuq? Given the number of women who seem to really want to hae families, I suspect the problem lies with you, not their non-existence. The suspicion is the word "truly" in there. I strongly suspect you have some weird-ass conditions that disqualify 99.99% of eligable women. Because just going on observation, women who want families is not a rare thing.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    44. Re: Time for men's liberation by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I know quite a few Indian and Asian men who are paying through the nose to keep their exes in the styles to which they have become accustomed.

      Obviously in the USA, as your wording is distinctly American, distinguishing India (which is Asian) from Asian. Also, have you heard them as vocal in the plight of the punished and downtrodden males? Usually such wording is not given by a minority, as they know how offensive it is to themselves and others. The most self-entitled group in the US is the white males, especially those born in the top 50%.

    45. Re:Time for men's liberation by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 1

      I'd have an easier time finding a unicorn in this culture than a woman who will truly commit to creating a family

      Go overseas! The problem is lately people aren't going for foreign women, creating this artificial scarcity of women. A well-to-do 1st-world man can pretty much eat the lunch of the men in any smaller pond in the world. In many cases you can go take one home with you. With the add in benefit that you have good connections in case you need a cheap place to retire.

    46. Re: Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who thinks Herpes is "no big deal" is just ignorant (and possibly stupid).

    47. Re:Time for men's liberation by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      That means we are more likely to be expected to make career and life sacrifices in order to have a family.

      Career sacrifices fair enough, but life sacrifices? To many people being a wage slave is not necessarily a good life, and it has been shown repeatedly that a lot of women prefer having a healthier work-life balance than men do.

      Managers will expect women with children to take off more time for things like doctor's appointments and will (perhaps unwittingly) take that into consideration when doling out promotions etc.

      A majority of women tend to put their children as a higher priority than work (there is more to life than work). If managers notice this tendency in an employee, how is it a problem putting the person more dedicated towards work first?

      Raising kids is hard work, sacrifice, expensive and life-long. If you can't even hack the process of finding the person who wants to try to do it with you, what does that say?

      A lot of guys are willing to take the time and effort. But the risks and lop-sidedness if the woman decides to leave at a whim can be too high. A growing number of men are becoming aware of the increasing risks involved in partnering with a woman, and after a certain point the risks are not worth the reward.

      Quite a few men are willing to try regardless of the risks of course, but in the cases where it doesn't pan out they are often left destitute to the point of suicide. To some people that risk is worth the reward, to others, it's not worth their life.

    48. Re: Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They never said India they said Indian. That isn't distinguishing geography that is distinguishing ethnicity.

    49. Re: Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering cold sores is a different virus to the genital herpes that's traditionally referred to as herpes, and that the vast majority of the population has it asymptomatically, it's nigh impossible to avoid. No point making a big deal out of it.

    50. Re:Time for men's liberation by epyT-R · · Score: 0

      Yes, well, her denying you a child is not the same as forcibly taking your money to fund her 'choice.'

    51. Re:Time for men's liberation by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Yes, well, her denying you a child is not the same as forcibly taking your money to fund her 'choice.'

      Sure, but she could do that too. If she wanted the kid, and I didn't, she could just tell me that it was "safe" when it wasn't. Once she was pregnant, I would have no choice. Marriage doesn't change who has the power over reproduction. The sad part is that she makes more money than me too. Well, anyway, I have to go, because she just told me to go wash the dishes ...

    52. Re:Time for men's liberation by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      Which is obviously not how we measure effectiveness. There's a 2% chance *per year* that a couple that use condoms as their only birth control method will get pregnant and say they didn't mess it up. ("No, I swear, we put the condom on and pinched the air out of it but it didn't work.")

      Studies have basically found that the "2% failure rate" may be artificially inflated by false reports of condom use, and most condom failures happen to a small group of people who are not using them correctly despite reporting "perfect" use.

      Do not have a little "fun" before putting the condom on to get down to business, pre-cum can contain live-sperm. Do not use a oil based lubricant, it weakens latex. Do replace the condom or apply lubricant if things get dry, friction weakens latex. Do these things and you can have a lifetime of carefree recreational sex

    53. Re:Time for men's liberation by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. The law does. If you're not happy, and she's lording it over you, then maybe you should divorce..or leave the country (assuming you're in the west).

    54. Re:Time for men's liberation by Gavrielkay · · Score: 1

      All I'm saying is that women who are ambitious and career oriented will often forgo having children where men who are that way will look for a wife who isn't.

      I'm sure there are many people who bust the stereotypes wide open, but generally speaking it will be assumed that the woman will put her kids first by actually taking off work to do whatever they need where men traditionally are considered to be "taking care of the kids" by working hard to bring home more money. Neither way is particularly fair or universal.

      And I'm sure being left behind is no more fun for a man than a woman, but it's hardly a one sided issue. Plenty of women have been left with the kids when the husband seeks greener pastures.

    55. Re:Time for men's liberation by Kielistic · · Score: 2

      You have an interesting definition of "carefree".

    56. Re:Time for men's liberation by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Some of us have absolutely no desire to reproduce. I got the snip over 10 years ago (im 36 now). Couldn't be happier. GF wants no children either..

      You're only 36. If she ever changes her mind you'll fnid yourself alone. Do not underestimate the power of the instinct to breed.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    57. Re: Time for men's liberation by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So Indians aren't Asian? Would that mean Brazilians aren't South American?

    58. Re:Time for men's liberation by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      if I would get a tiny life form growing inside of me, I would assume it's MY responsibility to decide if *I* want that to happen to me
      That's a bit egotesticle, if you choose to have sex with someone you should also bear the consequences, after all it takes two (or three or BUKAKKE!) to Tango.
      Placing all the anus on the female to prevent pregnancy is unfair and this will allow for more options when sex is wanted but progeny are not. A lot of people don't realise that something as simple as a runny stomach from a dodgy curry can negate the pill, as well as throwing up, anti b's, certain cough medicines etc. etc

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    59. Re: Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things like that is always complicated.

    60. Re:Time for men's liberation by MikeKD · · Score: 1

      remarking to undo moderation.

    61. Re: Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hee, "egotestical..."

    62. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He meant Thrust!

    63. Re:Time for men's liberation by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >You're only 36. If she ever changes her mind you'll fnid yourself alone. Do not underestimate the power of the instinct to breed.

      You do KNOW that vasectomy's are quite easy to reverse right ?
      If she really does change her mind, her first option is to try to convince him to change his. Only if this fails does "leaving him" become her best option.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    64. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " easy to reverse" you are obviously not a doctor. you should shut up now.

    65. Re:Time for men's liberation by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      While it is possible to have a vasectomy reversed it may not work. Having had it done a couple of years back you get the full run down on it and they state that even if it is reversed you may still be sterile if your body developed antibodies against sperm. There are other things that can happen as well that may leave you sterile so it isn't entirely reversible but is much easier than it is for a woman.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    66. Re:Time for men's liberation by guruevi · · Score: 1

      There is nobody paying for men's vasectomies. Male contraception of any type is not even covered under ObamaCare. Even though male contraception thus far has always been cheaper and safer than female contraception.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    67. Re:Time for men's liberation by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 0

      Apparently, we look at ourselves as someone who shouldn't have to wear a condom.

    68. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, control a million of INDIA guys in the USA feeding food giving it to the researchers (AND YOU) at WILL (their will), and you ll see how VALUABLE it is to develop this research FOR THEM. What WE ALL NEED is to get a contraceptive for EXCREMENT COLORED FEMALES ONLY. Now, that is a research goal needing ADVANCED CIVILIZATION like we boasted in the USA vs AFRICA and INDIA nonetheless! What about it ? Ignore this, we lose, and I do not have that many channels nor time to make this understood with more than these words.

    69. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't even do the dishes without even asking, what good are you?

    70. Re:Time for men's liberation by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      If you can not find spirituality in non reproductive sex, you are doing many things wrong.
      I suggest to visit a therapist or take some canabis.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    71. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As wallets.

    72. Re:Time for men's liberation by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      In California, simply having someone state you are the father of a child presents you with decades of legal hell, even if you prove you are not genetically related.

    73. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't matter. Plenty of courts can still label paternity whether obviously evidence exist to the contrary, including DNA testing, sterility tests, or vasectomy is proved. The courts simply do not make women responsible for their actions in any form. If she doesn't want the child the foster ponzi schemes of the state will gladly take in more victims for abuse.

    74. Re:Time for men's liberation by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Is that you Genghis Khan? :)

    75. Re:Time for men's liberation by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      There's that tolerance!

    76. Re:Time for men's liberation by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The consequences are, shall we say, different for men and women, and also different in ease of dodging.

      The reason the onus is on the woman is because she's got the bad end of the deal.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    77. Re:Time for men's liberation by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Which might be related to his failure to find a woman he can marry and have children with. If it were that difficult, I wouldn't have so many married friends.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    78. Re:Time for men's liberation by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      Egotistical? Unfair? Take your crap up with genetics, evolution, god, the universe, all creation, nature, (or continue to blame men) over if it's fair if the responsibility is put on the one who carries the child to term and biologically assumes all medical related risks to it.

      Why is it fucking fair that men generally tend to be stronger and suited for hard labor and that no feminist group that exists is advocating for more women in heavy stress highly physically demanding work in high risk environments.

      Fair my ass, don't even try it. Men tend to be stronger and better equipped to handle these jobs so we tend to use our biological differences to advantage. There are women who are stronger than men but they're the exception, not the rule.

      Women when they get a penis inserted into them can become risk to growing another human, medical stresses or even death. Buck up, take some ownership over your body AND the responsibility that goes with it. Quit trying to spread the blame and responsibility when in the end you get sole choice.

      You want equal responsibility? Fine, we'll make it equal, which (Oh my gods, here comes an ego statement! Fire up your double standard machines!) that men, if they have EQUAL responsibility, then they get EQUAL control over the situation. Yeah I bet you don't like that thought, everyone loves MEN being responsible for the consequences or "equally" responsible even though they're not equals in making the decision on if you keep that child, have an abortion, stay together or pay child support.

      Equal rights equal responsibility. If you have MORE RIGHTS on what is to become of that child, then you GET MORE RESPONSIBILITY too. Suck it the fuck up.

    79. Re:Time for men's liberation by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he should broaden his horizon and try to marry a *couple* of girls somewhere in Africa :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    80. Re:Time for men's liberation by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      P.S - Addendum to female responsibility, a big duh, because you will be the one bringing the child to term, not him.

    81. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're going to get modded to hell but goodness, what a way to phrase it. Interesting for sure.

    82. Re:Time for men's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, honestly, that's how I feel, and I've quite literally given up on women, and sex.

      Of course, Mr. Fox. You don't really want those grapes. They're obviously sour, aren't they?

    83. Re:Time for men's liberation by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      Will slut shaming also happen? Oh wait, men can never be sluts! WIn!

    84. Re:Time for men's liberation by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      'anus'? Freudian slip ? :)

    85. Re:Time for men's liberation by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The contract is formed when you ejaculate inside her. If you don't want to take legal responsibility for the consequences then don't ejaculate inside women, or get a vasectomy first if you really can't give that up.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    86. Re: Time for men's liberation by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Obviously in the USA, as your wording is distinctly American, distinguishing India (which is Asian) from Asian.

      Is this really a US phenomenon? I thought it was pretty common to distinguish South Asians and Middle Easterners from East Asians.

      Since it all matters so much, and all.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    87. Re:Time for men's liberation by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Well, you can't view all guys as though we are one monolithic group. If I were single again, I would be super happy to have a safe, reliable, temporary form of birth control that I could use. Women have been known to mess up taking the pill, sometimes accidentally, sometimes intentionally.

      I'd love to enjoy the same level of control over my reproductive options that women have enjoyed over theirs for decades.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    88. Re:Time for men's liberation by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      If I were single again, I would be super happy to have a safe, reliable, temporary form of birth control that I could use.

      You already do - condoms, spermicides, finding a partner who has had their tubes tied or a hysterectomy or is infertile, anal and oral sex ...

      They might be fewer in number, but that doesn't invalidate the concept. Some of these methods have a 100% ability to prevent unwanted conception.

      And if you're really serious, get a vasectomy. They're 50% reversible in the first 3 years, dropping to 30% after 10 years.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    89. Re:Time for men's liberation by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Please tell me you're joking.

      Condoms have a failure rate of 18% in typical use. Spermicides have a 29% failure rate (typical use).

      And finding a partner who claims to have had a hysterectomy or tubal ligation is, again, not something that I can control about my reproductive system (that's all on her). As for finding a woman who is infertile: she could be wrong about that. My cousin was told by doctor after doctor that she couldn't have kids, but wouldn't you know it? One day she got pregnant. With twins, no less. Oopsie! Plus, what if I meet a woman who I really like as a person, but she doesn't meet one of those conditions? Shall I just tell her to go get lost?

      And it's great if she's into oral and anal. Hell, so am I! But I'm also into vaginal, so restricting myself to oral and anal is not a long term solution.

      And please tell me that you're joking about vasectomies. They are only sometimes reversible, attempting a reversal is extremely costly, and it's not typically covered by insurance. Also, most urologists will not perform a vasectomy on young men because "he might change his mind".

      So, yes, I actually do want a simple, safe, 99.9% effective form of birth control that is easily reversible. For me. Like women have had for decades.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    90. Re:Time for men's liberation by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The pill is not 99.9% effective. Condoms by themselves have a 98% success rate - the same as the pill. Throw in some spermicide and it goes even higher.

      Also, selecting a woman who is sterile is something that is in your control. Just put it in whatever dating profile you're using. Nobody gets pregnant after a hysterectomy. And if you find one that doesn't meet those conditions, it's up to you what you do.You're a big boy.

      Also, the pill is not without side effects, whereas a condom doesn't have side effects unless you're allergic to the material they're made from.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    91. Re:Time for men's liberation by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      I'm in the opposite situation. We've got two, she wants one more and I'd rather stop. She's had several of her friends say "Why don't you just stop taking birth control and not tell him?" to which she has replied, "I'm not going to betray my husband's trust like that." Guess that's how I know she's a keeper, as it would be a really uncomfortable situation if I couldn't trust her with this.

    92. Re:Time for men's liberation by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      I find it very interesting how everyone looks at this as a bad thing.

      Why are people so concerned with continuing the species at all costs?

    93. Re:Time for men's liberation by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      The pill is not 99.9% effective. Condoms by themselves have a 98% success rate - the same as the pill. Throw in some spermicide and it goes even higher.

      I'm not going to argue facts with you, but your numbers for typical use condoms are laughable. Google for the correct numbers during typical use not ideal use.

      Also, selecting a woman who is sterile is something that is in your control.

      This is silly for two reasons:
      1. It makes no sense to ditch what could be a great partner because she is fertile, and
      2. It is a very common relationship pattern that people want to get together and have sex at first, delaying having children until later. Can't very well do that if I'll only be with sterilized women.

      I'm beginning to think that you are arguing here only for argument's sake. Are you seriously of the opinion that men having access to simple, highly effective, totally reversible birth control is a bad idea? Why?

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    94. Re:Time for men's liberation by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Then don't buy those cheap ones at the dollar store. There's an abundance of condoms that are sold on the grey market to stores that don't meet standards.

      Also don't carry them around for years in your wallet. Store them properly.

      Don't forget to check the expiry date.

      Finally, be careful of rings and fingernails, and the packaging foil, damaging the condom. If in doubt, throw it out.

      Sounds like too much work? Tough, that's life.

      You're the one who is arguing for argument's sake. Look at this argument:

      It makes no sense to ditch what could be a great partner because she is fertile

      What "could" be a great partner? You want to avoid the risks, but you're not willing to use effective sort criteria? Come on. If you're constantly worried about her getting pregnant, she's by definition not a great partner.

      As far as the "common relationship pattern", again, play with fire, you may get burnt - that's a choice you knowingly make. Same as not using a condom with someone when you don't know what their disease status is. Ready to play Russian Roulette? Possibly with your life?

      Finally, this:

      Are you seriously of the opinion that men having access to simple, highly effective, totally reversible birth control is a bad idea?

      As the submitter of the story, it should be obvious that I'm in favor of it, but IT"S NOT THERE YET! Right now, we're in the real world, and right now that doesn't include male contraceptive pills as an option.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    95. Re: Time for men's liberation by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Is this really a US phenomenon? I thought it was pretty common to distinguish South Asians and Middle Easterners from East Asians.

      Where are you? Given your questioning of whether it's a US phenomenon without saying that you've seen it otherwise would lead me to think that you are in the US, and have only seen it the US way I mentioned, but don't have any real idea what's used elsewhere.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      Note, the original use was "Indian and Asian men", which is, in all locations on the planet outside the US the same as saying "Californian and American men". It may be understandable, but it's wrong. "Midwest and Californian men" would have meaning. As would "Indian and East Asian men". But that's not what was said, and why it's incorrect outside the US, and incorrect, but acceptable, within the US.

      The best image for the use of locations is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... where the areas are all labeled and exclusive. Unlike the US definitions, where Near East (archaic), North Africa, and Middle East all include Lybia through Egypt. The US terms are imprecise and mostly worthless, as they change based on who we are including in the Axis of Evil this week.

      Internationally, imprecision is generally used only when assembling those groups to regions. For example, APAC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... "On the whole there appears to be no clear cut definition of "Asia Pacific" and the regions included change as per the context."

      The American stance is, "why does it matter, there are two classes of people, Americans, and other." And that's clear in the improper use of terms. But of course, letting someone know they used words wrongly is somehow offensive. Reminds me of the racists I knew in the '90s. "Fuck this PC shit. I should be able to call a nigger a nigger."

    96. Re:Time for men's liberation by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Dude! Your condom ad came along with more disclaimers than Happy Fun Ball! I'm a pretty meticulous adult and I don't even trust myself to put on a condom perfectly every time in the heat of the moment. There's no way I'd trust your average horny teenager.

      Condoms are a secondary form of birth control. That's it. That's how I used them before I got married.

      What "could" be a great partner? You want to avoid the risks, but you're not willing to use effective sort criteria? Come on. If you're constantly worried about her getting pregnant, she's by definition not a great partner.

      You are either trolling me, or you are a loon. Normally I can tell the difference, but I'm having considerable difficulty in your case. Anyway, it's unrealistic to expect men, especially young men, to limit their potential sex partners to provably-infertile women only.

      As far as the "common relationship pattern", again, play with fire, you may get burnt - that's a choice you knowingly make. Same as not using a condom with someone when you don't know what their disease status is. Ready to play Russian Roulette? Possibly with your life?

      This is ridiculous. People start having sex long before they're ready to become parents. People have sex with people that they don't want to become parents with. Almost all sex, in 2015, happens for purposes other than procreation. That's life.

      For decades, the choice whether or not to conceive and bear a child has been the woman's alone. She could forget or "forget" to take her pill and then get pregnant. If she changes her mind, she can get an abortion. The man is just along for the ride and must support her, either way. We deserve our own effective means of birth control so that we truly have a choice whether or not to become a father. Condoms are simply not good enough. Their failure rate is too high, and they are also vulnerable to sabotage.

      FYI, there are other interesting male birth control options on the horizon, too. Check this one out.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    97. Re:Time for men's liberation by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      "Dude!"

      I'll overlook that, because it's probably not intentional.

      As for the rest, I'm just going with the criteria you laid down and listing the options.

      I'm a pretty meticulous adult and I don't even trust myself to put on a condom perfectly every time in the heat of the moment. There's no way I'd trust your average horny teenager.

      That's your problem, because you can't follow instructions properly. It's not an inherent defect in the method. Same as if in the future you forget to take your pill, don't blame the method when it fails :-)

      I'm not disagreeing that it would be a Good Thing for men to have the same options - which is why I posted the story. But that doesn't mean that, in the meantime, there are not other ways of addressing the problem that men can take if they are willing. You're not willing - fine. But again, that's not the fault of the method.

      "The man is just along for the ride"

      I would hope he's along for more than that. Come on, let's have some emotional involvement, rather than using each others sex organs as a form of mutual masturbation :-) Unless you're Charlie "I don't pay hookers for sex - I pay them to leave" Sheen.

      And for people who want that, why can't they just pay for sex in a safe environment, instead of marginalizing and endangering the sex workers and forcing them to get "protection" from a pimp?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    98. Re: Time for men's liberation by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Where are you?

      I'm American and I live in the US, but I lived in Israel for a while. For what it's worth, I never once heard someone in Israel saying that Israelis were "Asians". It was always "Israeli" or "Middle Eastern".

      This clearly has bothered you a lot, but I'm frankly not sure why, because this issue seems pretty pedantic, to me. In the US, I've never heard an Indian person self-identify as "Asian". South Asia is often referred to as the Indian Subcontinent, so the terms "Indian" and "Asian" aren't necessarily even redundant in that context.

      On the grand scale of things to get pissed off about, I guess I'm just a bit surprised that this even registered. But what do I know? I'm not Asian, nor Indian, so I guess I don't have much of an opinion here.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    99. Re:Time for men's liberation by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      "Dude!"

      I'll overlook that, because it's probably not intentional.

      Good instincts. I (and I think most?) use "Dude!" is a genderless interjection. But looking at your sig, I can see why it might have hit you the wrong way, so sorry for any offense it might have caused. None was intended.

      "The man is just along for the ride"

      I would hope he's along for more than that. Come on, let's have some emotional involvement, rather than using each others sex organs as a form of mutual masturbation :-) Unless you're Charlie "I don't pay hookers for sex - I pay them to leave" Sheen.

      By "along for the ride", I meant "becoming a father against his wishes". Presumably the sex itself was about some sort of intimacy or affection. Just not about procreation.

      Regarding Charlie Sheen, I get where he's coming from. Since he's a celebrity, I'm sure he has problems with women being over-persistent with him. But even as your average Joe, I would also argue that men don't pay for sex, and neither would we need to. Sex is very easy to find--all that is required is to stay at the bar long enough and to drop your standards low enough. There is no reason to pay for just the sex part.

      So why do men pay a ton of money to go to hookers then if we can get sex anyway free of charge? Simple. Good hookers provide way more than just sex, and a hooker who just puts out her cigarette, lies down and spreads her legs like a starfish, and says, "Oh, OK. Let's get this over with," isn't going to make much money.

      A good hooker remembers what music her client likes and has it playing when he arrives. She says he's happy to see him when she opens the door and gives him compliments for an hour straight. She talks to him and listens to him and tells him she wants him. They have sex and she tells him it feels great, compliments his technique. She helps him clean up. They talk and flirt some more. She spent an hour focused only on him, made him feel like a king, and when he leaves, she tells him she can't wait to see him again, the first true thing that she's said the entire time.

      And she's there whenever he wants to see her, but she doesn't bug him in the meantime. She doesn't show up at his office. Doesn't call his wife. Doesn't text him at inopportune times.

      And that, my Internet friend(s), is why men "pay for sex".

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    100. Re: Time for men's liberation by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      In the US, I've never heard an Indian person self-identify as "Asian". South Asia is often referred to as the Indian Subcontinent, so the terms "Indian" and "Asian" aren't necessarily even redundant in that context.

      In the UK, I hear the area (the Indian sub-continent) identified as "Asian", and more precision for East Asian.

      As for self-identification, nearly everyone I know in the US from South America identifies as "American" for the sole purpose of pretending to be from the US, while not being such. Those not trying to cause confusion identify as the country, not the area. Brazilian or such.

      The reason this isn't done in the US for Asia is that we are racist. "Aren't they all Chinese" is a common sentiment. There's towelhead (Middle East), Paki (Indian subcontient), Chink (East Asian), and that's about all that's used for distinguishing amongst them.

    101. Re:Time for men's liberation by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      No offense taken :-)

      But even as your average Joe, I would also argue that men don't pay for sex

      There are plenty of guys who complain that they've got to pay for dinners, entertainment, etc. just in the hope of getting lucky, and that it would be cheaper to visit a hooker. But they don't, because they still hold onto the dream of "finding the right one."

      I don't blame them ... but it might be more practical to realize that the "right one" isn't going to stay with the same figure, the same hair color, the same likes (people evolve); that cute little laugh gets nerve-grating after a few years, she doesn't like your friends and your friends don't like her, she's developed a taste for booze or coke, etc.

      Better to not look, or at least not too hard (you'll come across as desperate, which is a turnoff), and if you find someone, great, but if not, don't sweat it. Just be yourself and give it time.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    102. Re:Time for men's liberation by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of guys who complain that they've got to pay for dinners, entertainment, etc. just in the hope of getting lucky, and that it would be cheaper to visit a hooker. But they don't, because they still hold onto the dream of "finding the right one."

      So I'm probably the wrong person to comment on finding "the one" because I found my wife quite randomly, at age 20. In other words, I never had to struggle with the prospect of turning 30 or 40, having never found "the one".

      But I will say this: "the one" is going to have to share most of the same values with you. So if wining and dining chicks isn't these guys' thing, they shouldn't bloody do it. They should go Dutch. They should alternate who pays. Whatever, but all I'm saying, is that if you be someone you're not while you're dating, you're going to attract someone you don't want.

      it might be more practical to realize that the "right one" isn't going to stay with the same figure, the same hair color, the same likes (people evolve)

      My wife and I are definitely not the same people that we were when we were 20. We don't look the same, we don't act the same. We don't like the same things. But who cares? We have the same values and we respect each other, and we actually like each other as people. Who gives a shit if our hair is greying or if one of us doesn't have much hair anymore?

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    103. Re:Time for men's liberation by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's great. It's just that a lot of people change in non-compatible ways over the years. Religious believers switch religions or become atheists and vice versa. Prolonged hours at jobs really mess up home lives, and even worse if children are involved, as parenting falls to one person. People get together or married for the wrong reasons in good faith, then ... oh oh. And then there are the in-laws, who many times should be called out-laws.

      I know I'm not the same person I was years ago (obviously :-), though I'' admit mine might be an extreme case.

      Part of the whole "wining and dining and meeting in clubs, etc" is a way for people to self-select - there are those who can navigate that, and those who can't. Maybe it's different levels of extroversion / introversion ... maybe it's partly self-confidence ... I don't know.

      Question - if you didn't have the same values but still respected each other, shouldn't it still be "all good"? Same as with friends and family (and some really, really annoying co-workers)?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    104. Re:Time for men's liberation by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Question - if you didn't have the same values but still respected each other, shouldn't it still be "all good"? Same as with friends and family (and some really, really annoying co-workers)?

      Answer: Sometimes!

      With friends, family, and coworkers, I'd say that most differences in values can be bridged by mutual respect because in most cases, we can live and let live. For example, let's say that I value leading an active lifestyle, and a coworker values a sedentary lifestyle (and has the health problems that accompany this). As long as this coworker is competent professionally, those unhealthy lifestyle choices shouldn't matter to me. I can respect the things that matter to me, the professional skills, and shrug my shoulders at the lifestyle choices.

      With a spouse, it isn't always possible to bridge a values gap with mutual respect, because values dictate actions, and differing values often require differing actions.

      If one spouse values traditional medicine and the other alternative medicine, what do you do if your kid gets sick? I guess you could take them both to an MD and an alternative healer person, but what if they both tell you that the other's advice would be harmful? It's one thing if each spouse can choose a doctor/healer for themselves, but how do you choose for the kids?

      If one spouse believes corporal punishment is an important way of disciplining children and the other thinks it's child abuse, how do you then discipline your kids? You can't very well both beat and not beat them!

      Or if one values religion and the other is an atheist. Do the kids do all of the religious milestone events, attend worship activities, etc.?

      Or if the husband wants to live in a breadwinner/housewife-style household, but the wife wants to work outside the home. She can't very well do both, so how do you bridge that gap with mutual respect?

      I guess the point is that with differing values, we can bucket them into "things that affect me" and "things that do not affect me". With non-nuclear-family/friends/coworkers, really most things fall into the "do not affect me" bucket. But with spouses and kids, that "things that affect me" bucket is all of a sudden looking mighty full, and mutual respect often isn't enough to bridge the gap.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    105. Re:Time for men's liberation by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Good points. I can see that most of these revolve around the presence of kids in the family. These things should ideally be discussed in advance, but unfortunately people do change their minds, so there are no guarantees.

      I'm just glad that my kids are grown up (which is a different set of problems, but hey ... it's all good) and that I'm happy to be single.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  2. Think of the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is a murder of potentially trillions of human beings and as such an obvious affront to god!

    1. Re:Think of the children. by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      This needs to be modded insightful. I can only imagine how the Catholic Church will respond to a male birth control solution.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    2. Re:Think of the children. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Every sperm is sacred .... "

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Think of the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if this keeps any sperm from developing... Who knows this might be more acceptable to them.

    4. Re:Think of the children. by geantvert · · Score: 1

      You missed the reference. I give you a hint. It starts with Monty and ends with a snake.

    5. Re:Think of the children. by PPH · · Score: 1

      You forgot the link.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Think of the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same way they approached female contraception the whole time: it's a cop-out that leads to the degradation of societal mores at large. Considering society at large today, I can't say that they were too far off the mark.

    7. Re:Think of the children. by Amtrak · · Score: 2
      Doubtful. The Catholic church bans all contraceptive methods based on an edict from the Pope Paul VI.

      In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence. Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.

      You can read more here if you are interested.

    8. Re:Think of the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats this article got to do with buggering choir boys?

    9. Re:Think of the children. by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Monty Cottonmouth? Can't seem to find that on Google...

      (/me ducks and runs like hell...)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    10. Re:Think of the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... murder of potentially trillions of human beings ...

      Well the catholic church is technically against masturbation. But the alternative, sleepless nights and nocturnal ejaculations also results in the death of all sperm. Hell, even fucking results in all sperm dying on a bad day and 99.999% of sperm dying, before reaching an ovum, on a good day.

      Similarly, every menstrual period signals the death of an ovum. Even with 9 or 10 pregnancies, more ova from one woman will die than be converted into a zygote.

      The church has never been against the rampant death of human gametes.

      While condoms didn't require a prescription, they were in many ways a restricted substance and ignored by most women and the church. Originally, the church liked the theory of continuous contraception. But when millions of women decided to interfere with the 'natural order' of fucking, the church disliked the reality and banned its use. The church declared abstinence the only 'god-given' method of contraception. Since people aren't going to live together to avoid having sex, the rhythm and Billings method were developed.

      The AIDS epidemic made condoms acceptable in most countries and the current progressive pope is re-considering the Vatican's policy on contraception.

    11. Re:Think of the children. by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      This is a murder of potentially trillions of human beings and as such an obvious affront to god!

      Har har.

      Yet, you will be replaced by people who don't use it.

    12. Re:Think of the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about your statement. Try to realize why it's not correct.

    13. Re:Think of the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      S.
      T.
      D.
      (I'm not just talking about any children that are a result of sex.)

      captcha: wedded

    14. Re:Think of the children. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      "He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules."

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re:Think of the children. by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      In the Catholic pre-marriage class they talked about birth control as "withholding your fertility from each other" which, by their standards, was as bad as withholding anything else in what's supposed to be a union. I'm not Catholic and really couldn't make sense of that one, but it seemed to be a universal argument against birth control of any kind.

    16. Re:Think of the children. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some point of views of what "god" thinks may conflict against how long oil will last.

  3. And all that research by invictusvoyd · · Score: 0

    would be worth a condom

    1. Re:And all that research by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      It certainly seems to leave both parties less uneasy about the potential long term impacts of taking pills.

    2. Re:And all that research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All they need to do is make a pill that changes your blood type.

  4. Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Birth control is a womens issue. I won't be putting any unknown chemicals into my body for HER sake. This sounds like "science by social justice warriors".

    1. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Birth control is a womens issue.

      You won't get a judge to agree with you if you accidentally father a child.

      I won't be putting any unknown chemicals into my body for HER sake.

      And yet you want her to put chemicals into her body for YOUR fun and enjoyment. Nice troll :-(

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Birth control is a womens issue.

      Why? It takes two to tango.

      I won't be putting any unknown chemicals into my body for HER sake.

      But the woman should put unknown chemicals into her body for YOUR sake?

      Surely you're trolling.

    3. Re:Not a fucking chance. by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Birth control is a womens issue.

      You won't get a judge to agree with you if you accidentally father a child.

      I like how this issue is always 1-sided. It's a woman's choice if she wants to have an abortion, but the guy doesn't have a choice to not support the child if the woman wants to have it but he doesn't.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    4. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      I'd rather have control over my right to be a father or not. I wouldn't trust it to a women to do it for me. Every man I know, who has kids, was "mistaked" into it. Some how her birth control fails every time. There is also stories of women who steal sperm... Women are the biggest rapists of all. This will give men power to stop the RAPE.

    5. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can have something to say about when you have to carry the embryo/fetus for 9 months and then go through delivery. Until pregnancy and birth are 2-sided, your opinion is of little value.

    6. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well good news, NOW YOU DO! you can take responsibility for your own birth control.

    7. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your choice is to not impregnate her in the first place. Don't want a kid? Don't have sex! I don't care how good it feels. It was made to feel good so that people reproduce for the existence of the species. You don't want to fight the urge but you don't want the kids either. Tough shit. Sex is for reproduction.

    8. Re: Not a fucking chance. by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly, wrap your willy.

    9. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You should have something to say when you have to deal with 18 years of financial responsibility wile having no/little interaction with an actual child.

    10. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well guess what? Maybe you should have taken a little bit of responsibility by using a condom?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    11. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because 9 months of pregnancy deserve to be repaid with at least 19 years of alimony. That's why the male pill is so important: It gives men a choice, and if you think the average number of children is low now, you ain't seen nothing yet.

    12. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Raseri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I didn't realize straw men could father children. Thank you for enlightening us.

      --
      Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
    13. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why? It takes two to tango.

      Because the only satisfactorily effective means of birth control are all in the hands of women, from the pill through the morning after pill to abortion. Additionally, as women would have us believe, pregnancy doesn't affect men nearly as much as it affects women. It seems only natural that women should take responsibility for that then. It's a shame that the responsibility seems to end when someone has to pay for the result.

      Male contraceptives will cause a lot of women to be childless, women who would now find a sucker and "forget" the pill. You see, birth control isn't just a burden, it's also a form of control that isn't implied by its name, one that men don't currently have.

    14. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well guess what? Maybe you should have taken a little bit of responsibility by using a condom?

      Condoms aren't 100% effective, even when used correctly.

    15. Re: Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Condoms are rather bad at preventing pregnancy. The chance of a pregnancy during the first year of use is 2%, and that's given perfect application. Typical use is only 82% effective. For comparison, that's hardly better than pulling out, both in the "perfect" and the "typical" case. If you don't want to get a woman pregnant, and you can't trust her to reliably take the pill (don't be an idiot), get a vasectomy, which is currently the most reliable form of birth control and the only male "contraceptive" that achieves a similar effectiveness as the pill. But maybe you want kids. Given that woman can get abortions, women still are and will always be the final arbiter though.

    16. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2
      Used properly by themselves, they're effective at preventing pregnancy AND preventing the transmission of STDs. Throw in a spermicide and you've got nothing to worry about.

      Relying on what the other party says isn't nearly as effective when talking about disease transmission, and kind of silly when it comes to preventing pregnancies.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    17. Re:Not a fucking chance. by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well guess what? Maybe you should have taken a little bit of responsibility by using a condom?

      That does not address the original issue. Would you find it acceptable for someone to say "Maybe you should have taken a little responsibility and not spread your legs" to a woman? If not, why is it o.k. to say that to the guy?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    18. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Birth control is a womens issue.

      You won't get a judge to agree with you if you accidentally father a child.

      I like how this issue is always 1-sided. It's a woman's choice if she wants to have an abortion, but the guy doesn't have a choice to not support the child if the woman wants to have it but he doesn't.

      Or vice versa: the father wants children but the mother doesn't. I've run across stories where the father is perfectly willing to take care of the baby if it's carried to term (and is willing to not involve the mother besides the nine months of gestation).

    19. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the original issues is whether men will use this new form of contraception. Then some dickhead said that was the woman's responsibility. Ideally, the form of birth control should be discussed and agreed on in advance. If you don't trust the other person to keep the agreement, then why are you fucking the other person?

    20. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that the females "chemicals" are hormones (the drugs are basically tricking the body to think it is pregnant). My wife can't take hormone birth control as it is affects her mood to much, this would be amazing for us. Female birth control is not that foolproof either, I know two different people that got pregnant from taking antibiotics and thinking they were safe.

    21. Re: Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      98% effective is fine by me. By the way, that "typical" case includes -- not using a condom! Which is to say if you're an idiot, and hence the other statistics you quote. Also, if I don't trust a woman, guess what, then I don't want to be having sex with her! I know, I know, crazy old fashion....

    22. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you miss out on all the other fun sexual things you can do with sex. If all you're doing is thrusting, you're missing out.

    23. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Die in a fire, SJW white knight. "I need feminism so EVERYTHING is my choice!"

    24. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A friend of mine told his girlfriend that he didn't want kids. During the orgasm while having sex she pulled off his condom and got pregnant. He has no recourse. Women are fucking sick rapists.

    25. Re: Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does not include regularly not using a condom. It only includes "not using a condom" like an average man who generally uses condoms for contraception occasionally has unprotected sex, for whatever reason (like simply forgetting because of being drunk).

      But let's say you're always in complete control of your senses and use condoms perfectly and every time. 98% effective as measured means you have roughly a fifty-fifty chance of fathering at least one unwanted child in 30 years of being sexually active with fertile women. Still good enough for you?

    26. Re:Not a fucking chance. by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the only satisfactorily effective means of birth control are all in the hands of women, from the pill through the morning after pill to abortion

      Women are also in control of the global condom supply, apparently.

      How does something so completely wrong get modded so highly?

    27. Re: Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That way she has a nice collection bag to hold your sperm in until she can use it later. Then boom "Oh no! The condom must not have worked! I'm pregnant" followed by 18 years for child support payments. The real solutions are get a vasectomy or just don't don't let anyone have access to your semen. Or to just read a lot of slashdot.

    28. Re: Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A friend of mine told his girlfriend that he didn't want kids. During the orgasm while having sex she pulled off his condom and got pregnant. He has no recourse. Women are fucking sick rapists.

    29. Re:Not a fucking chance. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Just as he should have something to say about having to FUND her indulgent decision for the next 20 years.

    30. Re:Not a fucking chance. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the responsibility of realizing you nor daddy have the funds to raise children right now and making the appropriate choice? Feminists hate equality when it's time to take responsibility. Then they want the men to step in and clean up after them.

    31. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chance of at least one pregnancy despite perfect use of condoms during 30 years of being sexually active with fertile women: Almost half (1-0.98^30).
      Chance of at least one pregnancy despite perfect application of the pill: About 10 percent. And then a woman can still get an abortion. The only way for a man to achieve comparably reliable birth control is a vasectomy, which is an operation with a noteworthy risk of severe and permanent complications, and can only be reversed through a very expensive operation which is only 25 to 50 percent successful at restoring fertility. If a male pill with the same effectiveness as the female pill is invented, you'll find that many more women won't get their wish with regard to getting pregnant.

    32. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, because if it fails, society will still bilk it out of the man if the woman chooses to have the baby. The law is what needs fixing.

    33. Re: Not a fucking chance. by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Y'all are so friggin paranoid, wow.

    34. Re: Not a fucking chance. by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      She got her hands all up in there while having sex? Kudos to her, she's obviously very talented.

    35. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think you've changed since then?

    36. Re: Not a fucking chance. by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      That 2% also includes dudes who did not use a condom, but were too embarrassed to say so (or too idiot to realize so).

    37. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And maybe *she* should have take a little bit of responsibility by keeping her legs together and giving head instead?

    38. Re: Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know how we call a man who thinks he's so much better at using condoms than other dudes? A father.

    39. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that's what really happened.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    40. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you live, but here there is equal responsibility.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    41. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It did and fuck you.

    42. Re:Not a fucking chance. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      In the states, if mom chooses to have the baby, dad is held financially accountable, even if not married. He can be put in prison until he pays, with interest. Basically, it's debtors prison.

    43. Re: Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are obviously ignorant to the nature of a women. This shit happens all the time. Just look it up instead of being a douche.

    44. Re: Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the one with the burden of proof. You look it up. And while you're doing that, remember what they say about the plural of "anecdote".

      I'm kidding, of course. You're not going to do any research, you're just going to try to whine your way out of this. It won't work.

    45. Re: Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just looked it up and confirmed it, so go fuck yourself moron.

    46. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sex with a condom is like a sunbath with a raincoat. Sure,at first it's still fun just to get out in the sun even with a raincoat, but after a while it becomes annoying.

    47. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why it is good to have this new (potential) treatment.

      A male pill would allow men to have a reversible option for their own birth control, which is desperately needed (currently the list is: condoms).

    48. Re:Not a fucking chance. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Well guess what? Maybe you should have taken a little bit of responsibility by using a condom?

      That sword cuts both ways - the female could have exercised some common sense too. The problem is this: A man cannot stand up in court and say "The pregnancy is still prior to the first trimester. Since I do not at this time feel ready to be a parent nor ready for any financial obligations I hereby renounce all my obligations to the child." The female currently has this option. The male does not. Women currently have no need to act responsibly because the state ensures that she and her offspring will be taken care of even if she acts irresponsibly.

      Similarly, with a pill for men it is almost gauranteed that the result would be more freedom for men and less for women. No matter how much a women may want a child she can, with this pill, be easily deceived into staying with a male longer than she would have. Like the hidden ovulation of women, this pill wuold let a man easily deceive a women.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    49. Re:Not a fucking chance. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Used properly by themselves, they're effective at preventing pregnancy AND preventing the transmission of STDs. Throw in a spermicide and you've got nothing to worry about.

      Relying on what the other party says isn't nearly as effective when talking about disease transmission, and kind of silly when it comes to preventing pregnancies.

      Yes, but there's a lot more to sex than simply penetrating. You miss out on all the other lovely stuff if you have to use a condom.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    50. Re:Not a fucking chance. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that's what really happened.

      Happened three times with three different women to me. Luckily they didn't get pregnant, but women ripping the condom off is not a rare thing.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    51. Re: Not a fucking chance. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      She got her hands all up in there while having sex? Kudos to her, she's obviously very talented.

      Happened three times with me - sex is not all missionary position, in the dark, with your eyes closed, you know. In just about any rear entry position the women can easily wait for the point of no return and then slip it out, yank off the condom and slip it back in. We're talking literally less than 2 seconds when you're 3 seconds away from blowing your load. Seriously, because it's happened to me with three different women I thought it was pretty common.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    52. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      How does something so completely wrong get modded so highly?

      How about you re-read the first sentence? BC for women does not reduce the sensation for them, with the occasional exception of diaphragms. Condoms do reduce sensation for men, most of whom (in the U.S.) already had their sensation reduced by half via infant genital cutting.

    53. Re: Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many of those three rapes did you report?

    54. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Maybe ponder the hypocrisy of saying "you made a choice, now deal with the consequences" to only one person?

    55. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "satisfactorily effective". Condoms may be effective, but they are definitely not satisfactory :)

    56. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Condoms are nice for avoiding herpes, where a failure isn't the end of the world, but I wouldn't trust them for anything more than that. I don't know anyone over 30 who hasn't had at least one condom rip.

    57. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Both sides should cover more than their asses. Right now, the woman can by taking the pill. The man, unfortunately, usually whines about having to use a condom. "It doesn't feel the same." "It's like taking a shower with a rain coat on." "It ruins the spontaneity of the moment."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    58. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Another guy who whines about having to use a condom and then complains if the woman gets pregnant. BTW, you completely forgot STDs, many of which are becoming drug resistant, and also the silent killer - HIV/AIDS, which now infects more straight people than gay people.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    59. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      There's no hypocrisy. If you look through my comments, it applies equally to both sexes. You're stupid enough to have unprotected sex, you BOTH get to deal with the consequences, obviously.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    60. Re:Not a fucking chance. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Both sides should cover more than their asses. Right now, the woman can by taking the pill. The man, unfortunately, usually whines about having to use a condom. "It doesn't feel the same." "It's like taking a shower with a rain coat on." "It ruins the spontaneity of the moment."

      Regardless, the women has the option of saying, after the fact, "I don't want this child therefore I won't have this child." The man has no such option. What do you think will happen if men had the option of not paying maintenance in exchange for not seeing the child? This is a nice thought-experiment that is actually feasible to follow through on.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    61. Re:Not a fucking chance. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Another guy who whines about having to use a condom and then complains if the woman gets pregnant. BTW, you completely forgot STDs, many of which are becoming drug resistant, and also the silent killer - HIV/AIDS, which now infects more straight people than gay people.

      That's completely irrelevant to the fact that sex is much more than penetration and that a condom ceases to be of any use if you perform play involving bodily fluids and/or sexual contact. The fact that you've twice mischaracterised my positions as "guy doesn't want to man up and take all responsibility for accidental pregnancy" more than displays your own position.

      If you really want to go down that route, why not acknowledge that because women have more options and more opportunities to prevent accidental children, they should have more responsibility? A pill that gives men the same ability to prevent accidental children that women currently enjoy (though not all of the same opportunities and options) is something that could change how couples interact.

      Currently the woman in a relationship has all the power w.r.t. if and when to have children. A pill for men will remove much of that power.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    62. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Condoms do a fantastic job of preventing STIs and pregnancy, however there is that 2% failure rate.

      Condoms will occasionally fail. I've had this happen and it's a fucking horrifying experience when you realize it. Thank god for Plan B, to be frank. From my point of view, this drug would simply be a backup in the case of condom failure. Though I can see this leading to an increase in STI rates.

      HA! Verification code is condom. You can't make this shit up!

    63. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but the means mentioned, aside from abortion, are all paid for by health insurance in the US. Good luck getting your insurance to reimburse you for condoms.

    64. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Regardless, the women has the option of saying, after the fact, "I don't want this child therefore I won't have this child." The man has no such option.

      What would you think the situation would be if men got pregnant? Wouldn't you be complaining about being forced to carry a kid to term as an infringement on your rights? Realistically, such after-the-fact complaining just shows that you don't want to be held responsible for your part in not taking precautions. You know the old saying, "Trust, but verify." There are men going around claiming to have a vasectomy ... the same advice applies to women.

      What do you think will happen if men had the option of not paying maintenance in exchange for not seeing the child?

      Hey, there are plenty of women who would jump at the opportunity because their ex is an ex for a reason. However, the courts are focused (rightly) first on what's best for the child - and that means that both parents are going to have to contribute time and resources.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    65. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Another guy who whines about having to use a condom and then complains if the woman gets pregnant. BTW, you completely forgot STDs, many of which are becoming drug resistant, and also the silent killer - HIV/AIDS, which now infects more straight people than gay people.

      That's completely irrelevant to the fact that sex is much more than penetration and that a condom ceases to be of any use if you perform play involving bodily fluids and/or sexual contact.

      If you do that knowingly, you have absolutely no right to whine about the consequences. You did the deed. You chose to take that risk in pursuit of hedonism. Your attitude the the same as a crackhead who complains that it's affecting their health, or someone base jumping and then getting arrested. Actions have predictable consequences.

      The fact that you've twice mischaracterised my positions as "guy doesn't want to man up and take all responsibility for accidental pregnancy"

      Never said that. I said each party has to be responsible for the stupidity that results in an unwanted pregnancy. You could have avoided the whole question by wearing a condom. The fact that you both want to play around exchanging body fluids is on both of you.

      If you really want to go down that route, why not acknowledge that because women have more options and more opportunities to prevent accidental children, they should have more responsibility?

      Condoms are still necessary to prevent transmission of STDs, especially when even in "trusted" relationships like marriage, cheating is statistically likely at some point. That's the reality, and a birth control pill, for men OR women, doesn't change that.

      A pill that gives men the same ability to prevent accidental children that women currently enjoy (though not all of the same opportunities and options) is something that could change how couples interact.

      Never said it wouldn't.

      Currently the woman in a relationship has all the power w.r.t. if and when to have children. A pill for men will remove much of that power.

      No true. Both parties have various contraceptive options. But I find it interesting that you continually frame this as a "power" issue. Your options:

      You can wrap your willie
      Protect your boner, silly,
      Don't want kids?
      Then don't act derpy.

      Vasectomy too
      Snip snip sterile you
      But no, you think
      Loss of manhood too.

      It's your pick
      Unprotected sex is not a "kick"
      No accountability?
      Then protect your dick!

      What you got to lose?
      Get your freak on how you choose
      But "Caught up in the moment"s
      Is really no excuse.

      Burma Shave

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    66. Re:Not a fucking chance. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Regardless, the women has the option of saying, after the fact, "I don't want this child therefore I won't have this child." The man has no such option.

      What would you think the situation would be if men got pregnant? Wouldn't you be complaining about being forced to carry a kid to term as an infringement on your rights?

      You are seriously responding to an actual fact (women have an option that men don't) with a hypothetical? How about this - no man has ever complained about carrying a child to term. Logically you cannot argue that X is a problem if X has never happened before. Therefore since your "what if men were pregnant they'd be just as bad if not worse" assertion has never been observed you'd be wise to withdraw it as a component of your argument. Seriously, we have more evidence of KT extinction than of men complaining about carrying a child to term, and that former one happened some 65 million years ago!

      Realistically, such after-the-fact complaining just shows that you don't want to be held responsible for your part in not taking precautions. You know the old saying, "Trust, but verify." There are men going around claiming to have a vasectomy ... the same advice applies to women.

      Such after the fact complaining only come from men because women don't have to complain, they can revert the mistake.

      What do you think will happen if men had the option of not paying maintenance in exchange for not seeing the child?

      Hey, there are plenty of women who would jump at the opportunity because their ex is an ex for a reason.

      They currently have that opportunity. A simple divorce contract includes maintenance and parental contact. There is no reason that a women cannot specify $0 and no contact in the divorce contract. Most men would sign that. All courts would sanction it and issue a decree of divorce as a result. The power to "jump at that chance" as you put it, is already in women's hands - why don't they do that?

      However, the courts are focused (rightly) first on what's best for the child - and that means that both parents are going to have to contribute time and resources.

      The courts only intervene if the parents cannot agree to an arrangement. If neither parent approaches the court for relief of some sort, then the court rubberstamps the out-of-court settlement and issues the decree of divorce. Courts will not get involved until someone approaches the court.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    67. Re:Not a fucking chance. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Another guy who whines about having to use a condom and then complains if the woman gets pregnant. BTW, you completely forgot STDs, many of which are becoming drug resistant, and also the silent killer - HIV/AIDS, which now infects more straight people than gay people.

      That's completely irrelevant to the fact that sex is much more than penetration and that a condom ceases to be of any use if you perform play involving bodily fluids and/or sexual contact.

      If you do that knowingly, you have absolutely no right to whine about the consequences. You did the deed. You chose to take that risk in pursuit of hedonism. Your attitude the the same as a crackhead who complains that it's affecting their health, or someone base jumping and then getting arrested. Actions have predictable consequences.

      The fact that you've twice mischaracterised my positions as "guy doesn't want to man up and take all responsibility for accidental pregnancy"

      Never said that. I said each party has to be responsible for the stupidity that results in an unwanted pregnancy. You could have avoided the whole question by wearing a condom. The fact that you both want to play around exchanging body fluids is on both of you.

      But only one party has a chance to revert that mistake before it becomes permanent. Notwithstanding that one party should have worn a rubber, or the other party should have used any of the numerous options available.

      If you really want to go down that route, why not acknowledge that because women have more options and more opportunities to prevent accidental children, they should have more responsibility?

      Condoms are still necessary to prevent transmission of STDs, especially when even in "trusted" relationships like marriage, cheating is statistically likely at some point. That's the reality, and a birth control pill, for men OR women, doesn't change that.

      They may be necessary for some relationships. You're extrapolating that everyone should where a condom for each sex act because some couples have untrustworthy partners. The reality is that you aren't going to change human nature when it comes to sex - people want what people want. No amount of puritan hand-waving is going to change the fact that most couples in a long-term relationship aren't going to use a condom. A pill for men makes some of the important issues go away: I do not claim that the ones that remain are unimportant.

      A pill that gives men the same ability to prevent accidental children that women currently enjoy (though not all of the same opportunities and options) is something that could change how couples interact.

      Never said it wouldn't.

      Currently the woman in a relationship has all the power w.r.t. if and when to have children. A pill for men will remove much of that power.

      No true. Both parties have various contraceptive options.

      I can name five options for women, seven if you include after the fact options. Name two for men.

      But I find it interesting that you continually frame this as a "power" issue. Your options:

      The women gets to decide if and when she gets pregnant regardless of the mans opinion. I'm not framing it as a power issue, that's just the way it is. A pill for men would indeed prevent women from unilaterally deciding to have a child without discussing it with their partner first. That is indeed, no matter how you "frame" it, a reduction of power for women, as long as a non-zero number of women ever decided to have children without their partners consent.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    68. Re: Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y'all are so friggin paranoid, wow.

      When 18 to 21 years of your life and prosperity are at stake, it's not paranoia: it's caution. Any man who is not cautious about this simply does not respect himself.

    69. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You've proven you're an idiot, and you don't have a clue.

      Why? Because you make blanket statements that are not true. Courts do not rubber-stamp divorce agreements when there are children involved, and additionally a woman cannot unilaterally specify no access to the kids and no child support.

      So when you say

      Most men would sign that. All courts would sanction it and issue a decree of divorce as a result. The power to "jump at that chance" as you put it, is already in women's hands - why don't they do that?

      ... either provide proof that most men would sign that (custody and access battles in court say otherwise), and that courts would in fact "rubber-stamp" such agreements, or put a condom on it, mkay.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    70. Re:Not a fucking chance. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      You've proven you're an idiot, and you don't have a clue.

      Please, no insults. Besides, I've displayed more clue than you - I didn't respond to a statement about existing situations (Women can revert this mistake) with a hypothetical (what if men were pregnant?). I note that you've let that one go - wise choice indeed.

      Why? Because you make blanket statements that are not true. Courts do not rubber-stamp divorce agreements when there are children involved, and additionally a woman cannot unilaterally specify no access to the kids and no child support.

      I didn't say a women could. I said a couple could agree to it. And courts will not get involved if both parents agree to something.

      So when you say

      Most men would sign that. All courts would sanction it and issue a decree of divorce as a result. The power to "jump at that chance" as you put it, is already in women's hands - why don't they do that?

      ... either provide proof that most men would sign that (custody and access battles in court say otherwise), and that courts would in fact "rubber-stamp" such agreements, or put a condom on it, mkay.

      Actually, a divorce contract is the same as any other - the courts only get involved when they are approached to provide relief and/or remedies. You are claiming that a court will get involved in a civil matter even when it has not been approached to do so. I'm sorry but I've not heard of a single jurisdiction in which a court will look at an agreement between two parties and then refuse to stamp it.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    71. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I can name five options for women, seven if you include after the fact options. Name two for men.

      However, you continue to insist the following:

      Currently the woman in a relationship has all the power w.r.t. if and when to have children. .

      ... despite the fact that men have the power to avoid impregnating someone and having children. Getting a snip-snip and the condom are only two of many ...

      I can name five options for women, seven if you include after the fact options. Name two for men.

      Guess you never had sex ed in school.

      For men
      1. Use a condom
      2. Bring along some spermicide - "no sex unless we use this"
      3. Vasectomy
      4. Oral sex
      5. Anal sex
      6. Anabolic steroids
      7. Untreated STDs
      8. Too much weed (deformed sperm)
      9. to (at least) 99 . See original "Joy of Sex."

      And there are a lot more than 7 for women as well.

      1. Tell the guy "no nookie if you don't use a condom"
      2. Spermicide
      3. The "female condom"
      4. The diaphragm
      5. The IUD
      6. The vaginal ring
      7. The estrogen patch
      8. The implant - good for 3 years!
      9. The pill

      Now for the after-the-fact ones
      10. The morning-after pill
      11. Abortion
      12. The copper "T" IUD - good up to 5 days after unprotected sex.
      13. Dinoprostone injection
      14 Misoprostol and mifepristone - up to 2 months after pregnancy.

      And the "during"

      15. Oral sex
      16. Anal sex
      17 to (at least) 99 . See original "Joy of Sex."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    72. Re:Not a fucking chance. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      I can name five options for women, seven if you include after the fact options. Name two for men.

      Guess you never had sex ed in school.

      For men 1. Use a condom 2. Bring along some spermicide - "no sex unless we use this"

      Spermicide isn't a contraceptive - it's roughly a 2 in 3 chance of actually working. It's only recommended use is with condoms.

      3. Vasectomy

      Great - you've got two! One is permanent and rarely reversible, but at least you have two.

      4. Oral sex

      Not listed as a contraceptive... well, just about anywhere.

      5. Anal sex

      Also not listed as a contraceptive anywhere.

      6. Anabolic steroids

      Also not listed as a contraceptive anywhere.

      7. Untreated STDs

      Also not listed as a contraceptive anywhere.

      8. Too much weed (deformed sperm)

      Also not listed as a contraceptive anywhere.

      9. to (at least) 99 . See original "Joy of Sex."

      Lovely - a citation. But I don't see a listing of 'contraceptive' anywhere near this book, or in relation to it, nor ... well, anywhere. This is not a contraceptive either.

      Look on the bright side - you made it to at least two contraceptives for men, nevermind the fact that one is permanent. You still ignore the fact that if the pregnancy is a mistake the women has the option to reverse that mistake. The man doesn't get that option.

      And ultimately that is what a male pill comes down to - it gives the man one more option to have sex without consequences. I find it hard to imagine that that sort of freedom won't fundamentally change how couples interact, and the change will, I fear, be for the worse for women.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    73. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Please, no insults. Besides, I've displayed more clue than you - I didn't respond to a statement about existing situations (Women can revert this mistake) with a hypothetical (what if men were pregnant?). I note that you've let that one go - wise choice indeed.

      If men could get pregnant the morning-after pill would be available on demand and ship with a six-pack of beer and a large pizza. I was pointing out the difference in attitudes - guys almost always respond to an unwanted pregnancy by saying "I be with you when you need me - to go to the abortion clinic".

      And yet guys can just get a vasectomy or use a condom or have oral/anal sex with their partner - problem solved.

      ... but as you said, you don't want to use a condom ... awww, poor bay-bee. In other words, you are willingly engaging in conduct that you know can result in pregnancy.

      Next, you claim

      "I didn't say a women could. I said a couple could agree to it. And courts will not get involved if both parents agree to something."

      You are claiming that a court will get involved in a civil matter even when it has not been approached to do so. I'm sorry but I've not heard of a single jurisdiction in which a court will look at an agreement between two parties and then refuse to stamp it.

      Here in Canada (and this is not the only country to do this) there are rules for fixing the amount each parent pays in child support.

      The judge is obliged by federal law to see that these rules are enforced to the benefit of the child. Each agreement is reviewed for compliance by the court to these rules before the decision is rendered. No rubber stamps here. The final amount can be modified by the court if either party has a change in situation, or the child's needs change (schooling, medical, etc).

      So now you've heard of 13 jurisdictions (each of the 10 provinces and 3 territories has additional rules in addition to this). Look around and you'll find more.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    74. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      When you can show a bunch of people who have gotten pregnant through oral or anal sex, then you'll have a point. Until then, they are forms of sex, and they don't result in pregnancy.

      It's been known for decades that anabolic steroids can render the man sterile. Untreated STDs can do the same thing. So can too much weed. So can cancers that require the ablation of the testicles. So can radiation treatments.

      Plus, you can just not have sex at all if you're not able to accept the inherent risks. Go invest in a RealDoll and knock yourself out.

      You still ignore the fact that if the pregnancy is a mistake the women has the option to reverse that mistake. The man doesn't get that option

      So what? You knew your risks and options "going in" (pun intended) and also knew the possible consequences. You say it isn't fair. News flash - life isn't fair.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    75. Re:Not a fucking chance. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Using a condom is a somewhat different experience, and I prefer without. Doesn't mean it isn't a whole lot of fun with the condom on.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    76. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that your idea of a women being responsible easily accepts her committing fraud and using a man as her wallet, hiding behind the state to condemn a man to slavery with no just cause.

    77. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The problem is that your idea of a women being responsible easily accepts her committing fraud and using a man as her wallet, hiding behind the state to condemn a man to slavery with no just cause.

      That's a lie. The man has the power to "prevent himself from being used as a wallet" - put on a condom, use spermicides, engage in oral and/or anal sex, get a vasectomy, only choose a partner who has had their tubes tied, or a hysterectomy, or is otherwise infertile.

      If you decide to forgo these options and willfully expose yourself to the risk of creating an unwanted pregnancy, then you have no more right to whine about the consequences than anyone else doing something stupid.

      Also, at least here, if 2 people create a kid and they both share custody and other direct 50% of the time each, there's no child support payable. And there's no "palimony" for couples who are living together "common law" as opposed to marriage, so using a guy as a wallet doesn't exactly float. The courts expect both parents to provide for the needs of the child according to their abilities, the amounts being set by statute.

      I guess you need to move to a more modern jurisdiction.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    78. Re: Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most women whine about that too.

    79. Re:Not a fucking chance. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Here in Canada (and this is not the only country to do this) there are rules for fixing the amount each parent pays in child support.

      The judge is obliged by federal law to see that these rules are enforced to the benefit of the child. Each agreement is reviewed for compliance by the court to these rules before the decision is rendered. No rubber stamps here. The final amount can be modified by the court if either party has a change in situation, or the child's needs change (schooling, medical, etc).

      So now you've heard of 13 jurisdictions (each of the 10 provinces and 3 territories has additional rules in addition to this). Look around and you'll find more.

      That page you linked to does not support your claim that a judge is obliged to get involved. Actually, if you had even bothered to read the "About Child Support Page" on the very website you linked to you would see this (not paraphrasing, actual quote from the page) being the official view of the Canadian Justice System:

      Sometimes, one parent will decide that he or she does not want child support from the other parent.

      And, also from the Canadian Justice System, same link as above:

      You and the other parent may set up your own child support agreement out of court. Or you can ask a judge to determine an amount. It will likely be best if you can reach an agreement out of court.

      Further, also from the Canadian Justice System... on this page over here:

      If you are applying for a divorce under the Divorce Act and will pay or receive child support, the child support amount can be set by:

      agreement, or

      court order, which can be made by consent, if you and the other parent agree on the amount. If you and the other parent cannot agree, a judge will decide.

      This is precisely what I said above. A couple may agree to no maintenance. Your district apparently says the same thing. I know this won't change your mind (you've tied your ego to your argument, so you won't be able to process the fact that your argument is wrong), but at least anyone reading this far down can see conclusive evidence that, for the Canadian Justice System at least, the system makes it explicit it more than one document that a court won't step in unless there is disagreement!

      To get the most out of your laws, I highly recommend that you read them. I'm tired of educating you so probably won't reply again unless you post factually incorrect information like you did in this thread. I'm even going to ignore your attempt to redefine "contraceptive" - most people aren't so stupid as to believe that STD's are contraceptives just because they may block fertilisation.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    80. Re:Not a fucking chance. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      When you can show a bunch of people who have gotten pregnant through oral or anal sex, then you'll have a point. Until then, they are forms of sex, and they don't result in pregnancy.

      It's been known for decades that anabolic steroids can render the man sterile. Untreated STDs can do the same thing. So can too much weed. So can cancers that require the ablation of the testicles. So can radiation treatments.

      Unfortunately for your argument, "not result in pregnancy" is not the same as "contraceptive". I know you want it to be, but sorry - there isn't a single source that agrees with you.

      - none of your "contraceptive options" above are listed as contraceptives.
      Okay, how about a more authoritative source - whoops, your "options" aren't listed there either.

      Okay, how about this - you find a source for your claim that STD's are a contraceptive option for men? I've done enough to correct your general misinformation about the jurisdiction you live in - you don't even know the laws you live under so I'm not really surprised that you hurl insults at those are are aware of your laws.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    81. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And yet, any agreement that is going to be approved by the court is not going to be "rubber-stamped" - it has to conform to the rules. Provinces, including the one I am in, have exercised their right to add additional conditions. Go before a judge with a child support agreement, expect it to be scrutinized. It's public policy here nowadays. Judges will automatically suspect that any amount less than the guidelines is being used to dodge taxes in return for getting a smaller payment "under the table."

      On top of that, things like getting an order to garnish wages, seizing income tax refunds, don't even require a subsequent court hearing - just go to the Percepteur des pensions alimentare with the agreement, and the seizure goes through automatically. No hearing or other proof required. To get it lifted, the person has to go to court and prove the seizure is in error.

      They can also suspend your driver's license, passport, and other permits.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    82. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Google disagrees with you - just type "definition contraceptive" and here's what you get:

      Birth control, also known as contraception and fertility control, are methods or devices used to prevent pregnancy. Planning, provision and use of birth control is called family planning. Birth control methods have been used since ancient times, but effective and safe methods only became available in the 20th century.

      That's why coitus interruptus and the rhythm method are both classified as (very poor) contraceptive methods. Same way as anal and oral sex are methods methods to prevent pregnancy.

      STDs can cause permanent scarring of the fallopian tubes, resulting in infertility even when the underlying infection is cured. I thought everyone knew that.

      BTW, certain anti-prostate-cancer drugs can also render you infertile temporarily, with the caveat that if you take them for too long, it's going to be more or less permanent.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    83. Re:Not a fucking chance. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      And yet, any agreement that is going to be approved by the court is not going to be "rubber-stamped" - it has to conform to the rules.

      That website said very clearly that those aren't "rules", they're guidelines.

      Provinces, including the one I am in, have exercised their right to add additional conditions.

      Firstly, this is not what you originally claimed. You claimed that a court will intervene in a civil agreement between parents of a child concerning maintenance. This they will not do; they've more than made it clear in the website you linked to!

      Secondly, while a judge can modify an order before the court, it's meaningless if both parties are opposed. Courts have never, in my experience in court and out of court, forced two parties in a civil matter to agree to terms when they already have agreement in a different set of terms that violates no law.

      Thirdly, and this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, judges routinely rubberstamp amicable agreements. They can get into serious trouble if they don't (there's a whole lotta laws around this one).

      Fourthly, (and this also varies a lot) income from maintenance payments are not taxed - they have already been taxed when the paying parent received it, and as they are not tax-deductible on their way out, they are not tax-attracting on their way in to the receiver parent. When you use part of your income to provide income to an employee, you pay no tax on what you pay the employee (they pay their own taxes). As far as I am aware, this legislation went into effect in Canada on May 1, 1997.

      Go before a judge with a child support agreement,

      I've done so, and do so routinely.

      expect it to be scrutinized. It's public policy here nowadays.

      It is scrutinized. Unfortunately the court cannot intervene in a civil matter unless one or both of the parties ask the court to do so. So they scrutinise the document, look me in the eye and ask "Is the plaintiff/respondent fully aware of the implications" and I say "Yes, m'lud". The court can use its discretion to refuse to approve the agreement as a judgement, but luckily in Canada and other places a judgement is not needed for maintenance, only a written agreement.

      Judges will automatically suspect that any amount less than the guidelines is being used to dodge taxes in return for getting a smaller payment "under the table."

      See above ...

      On top of that, things like getting an order to garnish wages, seizing income tax refunds, don't even require a subsequent court hearing - just go to the Percepteur des pensions alimentare with the agreement, and the seizure goes through automatically. No hearing or other proof required. To get it lifted, the person has to go to court and prove the seizure is in error.

      Sounds like a real hellhole - seizure of assets without proof of debt. Luckily it isn't true for Canada (Seriously, who have you been talking to? Maybe you should engage a lawyer at some point to get some of your misconceptions corrected?).

      They can also suspend your driver's license, passport, and other permits.

      The link above says that the evidence and claim of non-payment is from an enforcement agency not the receiving parent. So, no - the woman cannot simply go and get all assets seized automatically with nothing more than a signed agreement and her word.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    84. Re:Not a fucking chance. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Google disagrees with you - just type "definition contraceptive" and here's what you get:

      If we're going to use google as a definitive sources, then type "examples of contraceptives" and note that none of your examples show up in the first three pages (I got tired of looking after that). If you want to claim that certain "infertility measures" is the same as "contraceptive" then you are going to have to find at least one trustworthy place that agrees with your claim that STD's are contraceptives.

      Birth control, also known as contraception and fertility control, are methods or devices used to prevent pregnancy. Planning, provision and use of birth control is called family planning. Birth control methods have been used since ancient times, but effective and safe methods only became available in the 20th century.

      That's why coitus interruptus and the rhythm method are both classified as (very poor) contraceptive methods. Same way as anal and oral sex are methods methods to prevent pregnancy.

      And yet, you cannot find anyone other than yourself who will call STD's contraceptives.

      STDs can cause permanent scarring of the fallopian tubes, resulting in infertility even when the underlying infection is cured. I thought everyone knew that.

      We do - unfortunately for your argument, not everything that prevents fertilisation is called a contraceptive.

      BTW, certain anti-prostate-cancer drugs can also render you infertile temporarily, with the caveat that if you take them for too long, it's going to be more or less permanent.

      I don't doubt their existence, but can you find anyone who refers to them in any way as a contraceptive?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    85. Re:Not a fucking chance. by bored · · Score: 1

      already had their sensation reduced by half via infant genital cutting.

      Which is yet another case of the double standard. Trim a woman, get on the news for genital mutilation, go to jail.

      Mutilate a male baby, get paid by insurance for it.

      Not, only that but IIRC in the state I live in, the decision is the mother's, not the father's if there is a conflict.

      Personally, I think it should be illegal to perform it on anyone less than 18 years of age. My parents religious / whatever hangups should not be affecting my life 40 years later.

    86. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Again, I and plenty of others have posted citations of paternity fraud throughout the thread. It takes less than 5 seconds to make the shortest of google queries about the subject. Someone in most European countries and a large majority of states can simply put my name on paper and I am now a father. This recently happened to me, even though I was in another country for the conception (4,000+ miles away), and the lady said she just felt like protecting her child instead of labeling the correct father, who makes much less money than me. My wife of 30+ years did find it interesting to receive the summons, though.

      This is the law in California, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. If you wish to find more modern locations than these I'd love to hear your analogies. Somehow, I think you continue to excuse any sort of illegal activity for your social justice activism.

    87. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      A hearing has to be held, and justification for varying from the schedule has to be given. "Because we want to" is not sufficient. It has to be shown to be in the best interests of the child.

      Again, procedures vary from province to province. As I said before, " just go to the Percepteur des pensions alimentare with the agreement, and the seizure goes through automatically." The percepteur is a government agency. Judgements after 1997 are even simpler - the money is paid to the Percepteur, usually but not always by your employer being required to deduct it from your salary. Don't pay (you changed jobs or lost your job), they go after everything. They have the power to seize your belongings, bank account, any other money such as a pension, etc. And the feds are quite happy to cancel your passport at the percepteur's request. And the province will happily yank your drivers and other licenses.

      The onus is upon the alleged debtor to go to court to prove either that payment has been made, or the amounts aren't owing (they won't even check to see if the children are now adults in their mid-twenties and the "custodial parent" isn't really their custodial parent - either produce proof that they are independent adults or have them testify). Alternatively, go to court when the kids are no longer children and get a court order ending support. The percepteur cannot modify or terminate the judgment themselves. Only a judge can.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    88. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be called a form of contraception to be used as one, just like a screwdriver doesn't have to be called a chisel to be used as one. Same as plenty of medications have off-label uses.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    89. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      How am I in any way excusing this? It's outright fraud, and since it's "supposed" to be yours, why not demand that "your child" be given a DNA test so you can "decide whether or not to apply for custody?" That might shake something loose.

      Unfortunately it's also the law here in Canada. The only thing to do is to get a court order demanding a test. You have enough to "show cause" for one.

      You can also tip off the real father that the kid is his - maybe he would like some visiting rights?

      Strange - I post an article about an upcoming advance in birth control for men, and everyone focuses on "how unfair it is that the woman has total control," when in fact she has not got total control. Condoms work. Oral sex works. Anal sex works. Vasectomies work. Finding a partner who has had an IUD inserted, or a tubal ligation or a hysterectomy works. Guys have options - this just adds two more to the mix at some future date.

      This is NOT about paternity fraud. That's going to happen even if the guy's on the pill. "Did you take it every day?" "Guess it didn't work?" "Are you sure you even took it instead of wanting to spread your demon seed?" "Maybe there was a drug interaction - what other meds are you on? Other drugs?"

      Same as now happens to women who get pregnant despite being on the pill.

      Most important of all - the kid has the right to know the truth, especially since it could be important in a medical emergency.

      Somehow, I think you continue to excuse any sort of illegal activity for your social justice activism

      Show me one place in this thread where I have excused or encouraged any sort of illegal activity. And accusing me of being a SJW, when I have been quite vocal here in denouncing the bogus claims of Brianna Wu in particular? Doesn't stick. And I've also said several times that making "Depression Quest" does not qualify Zoe Quinn as a game developer. It's just a template-driven flip book.

      BTW, the domain for depression quest (depressionquest.com) is up for grabs, if you or someone else you know wants it for the lulz.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    90. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riiiiiight.....and so women get to have sex because it feels good, but if you're a man, it's "fuck you and don't have sex unless you want a kid"? Nice double standard there....

    91. Re: Not a fucking chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the one with the burden of proof. You look it up. And while you're doing that, remember what they say about the plural of "anecdote".

      I'm kidding, of course. You're not going to do any research, you're just going to try to whine your way out of this. It won't work.

      The double standard....it burns.....

      Men accused of something or blamed for an issue? "Listen and believe!" "It's not my job to educate you!"

      Women accused of something or blamed for an issue? "Where's your proof?!??!" "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'!!!!"

    92. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      1. Again, you accuse a victim for not wading instantly through mounds of paternity law when the fraud is exacted against them (me). Further evidence the you would rather ruin someone's professional, personal, and legal standing than admit that women are enabled to commit fraud against men by most current paternity laws around the world. Counts as one instance of you advocating illegal activity from my POV. I particularly liked the part where you automatically assumed I would have sex with this person whatsoever and then dictate to me how I must conduct myself intimately.

      2. Show me a single /. thread that survives its plan once the comments start?

      3. I haven't a clue what a SJW is, or the depression comments concern. Maybe you could advocate 'people' instead of LGBTt's because the other 95% + of people tire of your bullshit.

    93. Re:Not a fucking chance. by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      P.S. As I and others have pointed out, the birth control for men means absolutely nothing if the woman simply puts his name on a piece of paper and makes him legal responsible for a child no matter what; even without his knowledge or consent.

    94. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I never accused anyone of "not wading instantly through mounds of paternity law when the fraud is against them (you)". The proper action if you feel defrauded is to get a lawyer and head to court, or at least try to get the mother to admit she lied and change the birth certificate..

      There is NOTHING that I have posted that indicates that I in any way condone fraud against someone, no matter who they are. Again, show me one place. And it should be obvious, when I focus on the child and their right to know who their real father is (and that overrides any embarrassment or trouble or other conflict others may feel) that I'm advocating for "people's rights" - in this case, a child who cannot do so themselves.

      You don't seem to understand that just because women are able to name anyone as the father doesn't mean that naming the wrong person is legal. It's, as you pointed out, fraud. It's also creating a forged document. That's why you can go to court and get it reversed - because it's NOT legal.

      Further evidence the you would rather ruin someone's professional, personal, and legal standing than admit that women are enabled to commit fraud against men by most current paternity laws around the world. Counts as one instance of you advocating illegal activity from my POV.

      Where have I said that women should be allowed to lie about who the father is? Show me ONE place where I advocate that. If you choose not to avail yourself of the means to rectify the situation, that doesn't give you ANY right to claim that I'm advocating illegal activity. To the contrary, YOU are, by your inaction, condoning that same illegal activity.

      And don't start whining about how I'm engaging in "blaming the victim" here. You ARE at fault for not taking the steps necessary to rectify this matter. Just as the mother is at fault for lying about who the real father is. There is also the problem that, in some jurisdictions, if you don't challenge it within a certain delay after you become aware of it, then you cannot go to court - you've been assumed to have accepted the situation.

      Instead of whining, go see a lawyer. Or be prepared to accept that this child is in the eyes of the law yours. Instead of whining on a blog, take action. Instead of casting unwarranted aspersions at others, fix the problem that is the source of your concern.

      If you're conflicted about it, or not ready to take such a step yet but it's still causing you grief, why not see a therapist to help you find out why you can't seem to do what is obvious to pretty much everyone. It can't hurt and it might help. :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    95. Re:Not a fucking chance. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And as I pointed out, men have legal recourse, because it's NOT legal to knowingly put down the wrong name. So men can avoid the legal responsibility by going to court. Kind of puts a hole in your claim that this sort of fraud "makes him legal (sic) responsible for a child no matter what."

      But the longer the delay in taking action once you find out, the harder it is to challenge it, since any court will ask why you didn't take action within a reasonable delay of finding out. An unreasonable delay tends to indicate that you originally were in agreement. Many states only allow 1 year to contest.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  5. Curing cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    TFA: [...] discovered that the JQ1 molecule blocked a bromodomain in cancer cells, causing them to forget how to be cancer. [...] Researchers are looking for a version of the molecule that works on the testicle protein only, to avoid any weird side effects

    Since when slowing down cancer is a "weird side effect"? :D

    1. Re:Curing cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pharma industry doesn't like to make medicines that solve more than one problem at a time. It's difficult to monetize that efficiently.

    2. Re:Curing cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/03/us/hope-lab-special-report-cautious-awe-greets-drugs-that-eradicate-tumors-mice.html

      If you actually read the papers that story was based on the control groups have tumors that are 50% the normal body weight of the mouse (eg http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9008168). Like most medical research, it's too hard to figure out what assumptions they made that lead them to think this is a generalizable situation. I don't see a link to this current actual research but would bet it is the same type of wishful thinking.

    3. Re:Curing cancer by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The pharma industry doesn't like to make medicines that solve more than one problem at a time. It's difficult to monetize that efficiently.

      Your trolling, but you're wrong. If all you need to do is another Phase III study for a different indication, you're golden. There are a number of drugs on the market that have different trade names for different uses but are the same molecule. It's not quite the Holy Grail for big Pharma, but it is at least a big lottery win.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Curing cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The pharma industry doesn't like to make medicines that solve more than one problem at a time. It's difficult to monetize that efficiently.

      Your trolling, but you're wrong. If all you need to do is another Phase III study for a different indication, you're golden. There are a number of drugs on the market that have different trade names for different uses but are the same molecule. It's not quite the Holy Grail for big Pharma, but it is at least a big lottery win.

      A good example of that is Finasteride. In one dosage it is sold as Proscar (to treat prostate enlargement), but in a different dosage it is sold as Propecia (to treat male pattern baldness). I'm sure that Merck is happy to take your money either way.

      Another example is Revatio, which is the same actual drug as Viagra, but is intended to treat pulmonary hypertension. Ironically, it was originally developed to treat angina and hypertension, but once the "side effect" became obvious Pfizer realized quickly that selling it as a treatment for ED was more profitable.

    5. Re:Curing cancer by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The pharma industry doesn't like to make medicines that solve more than one problem at a time. It's difficult to monetize that efficiently.

      Duuuuurwutt? Why would Pharma not want to sell the same research (cost) as multiple products(profit)? Wellbutrin alone is used to treat anxiety, depression, and OCD.

  6. This type of preventative would be awesome by burtosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This could really help men everywhere, there are a ton of options for women but very few for men. I can only hope when the day comes that it's viewed as a positive direction from all rights groups. Doubtful, but one can dream.

    1. Re: This type of preventative would be awesome by Fwipp · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it's weird how the dudes here are complaining about having more options. Like...? This is obviously a good development.

    2. Re: This type of preventative would be awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's likely astroturfing to change the subject from "are these claims true" to "what are the social implications".

    3. Re: This type of preventative would be awesome by burtosis · · Score: 1

      The claim that a male birth control pill is in stages of awaiting approval for testing are likely true. Many other types of pill have been tried, it's quite plausible one will come soon. I'm not astroturfing. If you read the comment i said 'when the day comes' meaning it will likely be someday. Perhaps you are getting paid by a women's group to detract from the benefits of a male pill.

    4. Re: This type of preventative would be awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was not referring to your comment. It was to the proportion of posts regarding "men's rights" or whatever that does not match with my personal experience. They may even be correct about that issue being a major problem, but I do not see the relevance to this story. The evidence for the effectiveness is not even available at TFA. First things first, is it effective and is it safe? Then discuss the other issues.

    5. Re: This type of preventative would be awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's good to have more options, just don't be fooled into thinking it's "The Pill.. but for men". In women, The Pill works instantaneously. That is, from the moment you start taking it, you are protected. But this pill only affects immature sperm. So it'll still be a few weeks, if not months, of you taking it before you are no longer able to father kids. It's the same reason why you are still fertile for a few weeks/months after getting a vasectomy.

    6. Re: This type of preventative would be awesome by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's weird how the dudes here are complaining about having more options. Like...? This is obviously a good development.

      For men certainly. I'm not sure about it being a good development for women (I'm open to being convinced). Regardless, it is certainly a nice topic to speculate on - effective and invisible birth control for men.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    7. Re: This type of preventative would be awesome by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's weird how the dudes here are complaining about having more options.

      Yeah, straw men are odd that way.

    8. Re: This type of preventative would be awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure about it being a good development for women (I'm open to being convinced).

      Frankly, who cares? Enough of society already revolves around women, there's no need for this to do so as well.

  7. Universal Zero Tolerance of Side Effects by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Funny

    "anti-cancer researchers at Harvard, discovered that the JQ1 molecule blocked a bromodomain in cancer cells, causing them to forget how to be cancer."

    "Researchers are looking for a version of the molecule that works on the testicle protein only, to avoid any weird side effects."

    Umm... can I please have the side-effects, if the side effects are, you know, NOT GETTING CANCER?

    1. Re:Universal Zero Tolerance of Side Effects by AuralityKev · · Score: 5, Funny

      Makes you wonder what the *ahem* delivery system would be... "Cmon, we don't need a condom, I'll cure your cancer!"

    2. Re:Universal Zero Tolerance of Side Effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've understood it backwards. The side effects of not getting cancer is becoming sterile. That won't turn out so well after a couple generations.

    3. Re:Universal Zero Tolerance of Side Effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't want no cell growth in your body. You'd die pretty quickly.

  8. All well and good, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    You just watch. The amount of false rape claims will skyrocket for a while when this hits the public, from the kind of women who try to "accidentally" get knocked up to ensnare men.

    "mmm yes it was so good. :) No no, don't worry about forgetting to pull out, I'll just flush myself out/I'm on the pill/it's not the right time of the month anyway/etc. [later] (Why the fuck is it always negative? Ugh... tomorrow for sure) [later] (Negative again?!) We need to talk. [one explanation later] WHADDAYA MEAN MALE BIRTH CONTROL?! SHENANIGANS! RAPE! RAAAAPE!!! POLICE HELP, HE RAPED ME!!!!!!!!!"

    Or the stuff will just get hung up in FDA approval for a while, long after all the bugs have been worked out.

    1. Re:All well and good, but... by burtosis · · Score: 1
      In before parent gets modded into oblivion. http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

      false rape claims are between 2 and 40% depending on who you listen to, personally I think its around 10% despite no real conclusive research done on it. Given the castrate and murder then check facts mentality America has degenerated into (thinking of rolling stone here) its a serious concern for males everywhere (at least in the us)

    2. Re: All well and good, but... by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      I look forward to your paper in a few years on the subject. It looks like you've already gotten it almost all written, congratulations! Simply plug in the data once it's available, and I'm sure it'll be accepted to $PRESTIGIOUS_JOURNAL straight away.

    3. Re:All well and good, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, clearly you were fucking her under false pretenses. You put it in like you were trying to get her pregnant, but in reality you were just using her for a fun time. If that isn't rape...

    4. Re:All well and good, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how is the opposite not rape then. If the female said that she was on the pill but then later remembered that she "forgot" to take her pill how is that not a rape by your logic. The Male in question only agreed to fooling around not making a baby.

    5. Re:All well and good, but... by Fwipp · · Score: 1
      Data puts it at 0.6% in the UK: http://www.theguardian.com/com...

      In the period of the review, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and 111,891 for domestic violence. During the same period there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape, six for making false allegation of domestic violence and three for making false allegations of both rape and domestic violence.

      So you know, there's some conclusive research you can look at.

    6. Re:All well and good, but... by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Data puts it at 0.6% in the UK: http://www.theguardian.com/com...

      In the period of the review, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and 111,891 for domestic violence. During the same period there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape, six for making false allegation of domestic violence and three for making false allegations of both rape and domestic violence.

      So you know, there's some conclusive research you can look at.

      That's not research its public records which aren't very accurate. I'm not sure about Europe, either in case law or in social pressures, that's true. However you can be assured the actual false claims were higher considering that it takes a pretty high level of evidence to convict someone. Assuming no false convictions (a dubious assumption) there is around a 30% margin of people who are acquitted - some may be false accusations with no substantial evidence. In the United States its so taboo to even suggest the claim is false you need incontrovertible evidence to even stand a chance. The reality is a study would likely reveal a false reporting of rape much higher than actual conviction rate.

    7. Re:All well and good, but... by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Prosecutions, not convictions.

    8. Re:All well and good, but... by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Ahh yes i misread. It's not even possible to convict someone of false rape in the USA. I respect women in general but have no respect at all for those who lie about rape, on either side. It's the women who lie that make it so much harder for the women who don't - not to mention the innocent people.

    9. Re:All well and good, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of this story: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/05/ex-football-player-breaks-down-after-rape-charge-dismissed.html

      On another note, here's a joke...
      Girlfriend: I'm pregnant.
      Boyfriend: That's wonderful! Once we get the paternity test done, we'll sue the doctor who performed my vasectomy. We're going to be rich!

  9. Cue angry fat chicks in 3..2..1.. by snowsnoot · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How else are they going to keep a man if they can't trap him by 'forgetting' to take their pill? I personally view this as a boon for men who until now, other than condoms, have only had a mostly irreversible surgical procedure to ensure they don't get trapped by some evil wench into a lifetime of torture. Bravo.

    1. Re:Cue angry fat chicks in 3..2..1.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to suggest that you enjoy having sex with women that you don't like and aren't attracted to? Um... why?

    2. Re:Cue angry fat chicks in 3..2..1.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once the trap is sprung, people change. Now instead of a multi-year evaluation of the woman to guess if she will be that trapper, you can have sex with attractive women without wondering their motives.

    3. Re:Cue angry fat chicks in 3..2..1.. by snowsnoot · · Score: 1

      Personally, I am happily married with 2 beautiful kids that my wife and I both decided to have as planned pregnancies. Her cousin OTOH has tried to trap a number of men as have some of her friends.. Its rather disgusting to see such disregard for the life of a child from its own mother, who is attempting to use it for personal financial gain. I'm not suggesting all women behave that way or that no men do anything similar.. Just that the option for a man to control whether his sperm will or won't cause a pregnancy is a great thing for society where it can prevent unwanted pregnancies in this specific case.

  10. Re:This is Old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already have a male contraceptive. It's called Slashdot.

  11. You try it first by rgbe · · Score: 1

    Why don't all you guys out there try it first. In the meantime time I may just go for the vasectomy.

    1. Re:You try it first by burtosis · · Score: 1

      If it passed fda I would definitely use it. It's much less permanent than a vasectomy, and even minor surgery carries risks.

    2. Re:You try it first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother what the FDA says? Like others have been saying for quite some time, even the admit they could not do their job (at least up to 2007):

      The Subcommittee found that the FDA lacks sufficient expertise in quantitative methods, such as statistics and biomathematics, to effectively assess products and guide sponsors to design valid and informative studies.

      http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/07/briefing/2007-4329b_02_01_FDA%20Report%20on%20Science%20and%20Technology.pdf

      Assess the evidence for yourself. That said, I think the FDA does to a relatively good job regarding short term safety.

    3. Re:You try it first by afidel · · Score: 2

      Vasectomies have potentially serious side effects, both in the short term, and in the long term (hormone issues), plus as others have pointed out they're more or less permanent (reversals are expensive and nowhere near 100% successful) .

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:You try it first by Cantankerous+Cur · · Score: 1

      Uh, yeah, gonna need some proof for those claims of side effects. Contrary to what you express, vasectomies are fairly safe and effective. http://theturekclinic.com/serv... And as it stands, the female pill has a number of nasty potential side effects, far beyond anything a vasectomy could do.

    5. Re:You try it first by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Vasectomies has no hormone issues or side effects.

      Reversal is not *that* expensive either. Of course they are not 100% successful, but they could be if the vasec itself would be perfomed different.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  12. /. News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is news, but not with useful content for nerds..... ;-/

  13. Sad For My Gender by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The number of responses here along the lines of "women always trick men into marriage by getting pregnant" or "birth control is a woman's responsibility" make me sad for my gender. I can't be the only man on Slashdot who 1) respects women (my wife and I both manage our portions of birth control together - I would never suggest that's HER job and not for me to be bothered with), 2) sees fatherhood as a positive outcome - not something that is only entered into via trickery, and 3) would like to see new birth control methods available on the market (whether or not this one would work for my wife and I aside, the more options the better). Can I?

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re: Sad For My Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up prwtty pretty please. Commenting as AC cause I do not have Slashdot login details on my mobile.

    2. Re:Sad For My Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, considering that in all matters regarding children, the woman is usually the one with the prerogative.
      Divorce: who usually gets the children ?
      Pregnant: the woman gets to decide whether to abort or not. The man just has to pay up.
      So why would it be any different when we discuss the matter of responsibility for birth control ? Just because this time we are discussing a responsibility instead of a perk ?
      In any other domain of discourse this would be unthinkable.

    3. Re:Sad For My Gender by Tyr07 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You should be sad for humanity, because men or women, both do some pretty shitty things.

      That aside, women, rightfully in my opinion, call out that it's their body, they have the right to make choices that affect their body.
      Yet for everyone pointing a finger a men, what happened to this right to choose what happens to your body, what, you get the right to chose but don't have
      the responsibility?

      Male birth control is the right step forward for equality for men. You see, although all the more extreme fem groups are all looking at the CEO's and measuring their own personal wealth against it, deciding it's the old boys club, there are other areas that have inequity for men, such as decreased pleasure sexually to prevent pregnancy, the way the courts favor women for parenting, that family courts are HEAVILY populated by women, almost always a female judge with female representatives, and that men are on the hook for children women decide to keep or come to term.

      Well, this is one way we can make our own choices about what responsibilities we're going to accept and it will be out of a woman's hand, so I'm all for it.

    4. Re:Sad For My Gender by Begemot · · Score: 1

      This is probably the most useless response here, but I had to say it - I completely agree with you.

    5. Re:Sad For My Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can respect women and still acknowledge that things like "women trick men into marriage by getting pregnant" are true.

      If you don't see it, you could read up on evolutionary biology a bit... and game theory

    6. Re:Sad For My Gender by eepok · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People comment based on experiences or the stories of others.

      Women have, historically, had the socially-supported option of getting pregnant instead of being old and single or instead of entering the workforce. In fact, entering the workforce is still a relatively new concept for women and still not universal throughout the world. Men still have the socially-enforced expectation of tying one's finances to the mother of his children regardless of the involvement of those men in the lives of the children or the mother. This is a genuine hobbling of the uninvolved man's life post impregnation and thus fear of a coerced pregnancy is a significant fear amongst men. As a result, SOME men are suspicious of women when it comes to birth control.

      Thus, you shouldn't be surprised by pessimistic online comments reading as "Women trick men into marriage by getting pregnant".

      But it does not define the entirety of the population. It MAY describe a part of an aging population of experiences (the younger generation doesn't seem too keen on popping babies out), but by no means defines an entire community.

      You can see such patterns of experiences -> comments by taking a look at your own. Your experience with your wife (cooperative birth control expectations, a happy outlook on parenthood, etc.) will bias you towards believing that women have not/do not use pregnancy as a investment-- but it would also suggest that you're fairly far-removed from the lives your male peers if you cannot understand their fears.

    7. Re:Sad For My Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This does more than just about anything to provide male choice into the pregnancy question, by making it the man's unilateral choice to take chemicals to drastically (I assume drastically; I don't know this yet) lower the odds of pregnancy.

      Men don't get to pick whether women have an abortion the same way women don't pick if a man gets a castration.

      As for child custody in divorce, fight that battle, it has nothing to do with male birth control. Except inasmuch as there are likely fewer children born when the man didn't want them born and the woman did, and therefore, fewer cases of women being awarded sole custody because of no contest.

    8. Re:Sad For My Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we have some statistics to back that? I'm sure it's happened at some point in history but I have a hard time believing it's all that common, compared to the more likely "the birth control failed".

      Evolutionary biology literally points in every direction on this subject. Every strategy under the sun has been tried, and a very large subset have been tried among our nearest evolutionary relatives. However what I can say is that "marriage" is not a biological concept, it is a social concept. Monogamy is a biological concept, and it does have a loose relationship with marriage, but most non-married people are serial monogamists, not non-monogamous.

      Game theory doesn't point in any direction by itself, or with evolutionary biology.

    9. Re:Sad For My Gender by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      There's also the fact that paternity tests have been made illegal in certain feminist-dominated jurisdictions. Yeah, that's right, ILLEGAL. You are NOT allowed to test for it. A paternity test needs a court order. Crazy, eh?

      How many men are raising cuckoos? Children who are not their own? It's got nothing to do with fairness or what's right, it's a pure power play. Women are always right, and men are always wrong. Sad, but that's exactly how it is in 2015. No social justice for half of the population.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:Sad For My Gender by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      Men don't get to pick whether women have an abortion the same way women don't pick if a man gets a castration.

      Very much the same -- that's why the number of abortions and the number of castrations are virtually equal, every single year!

    11. Re:Sad For My Gender by idji · · Score: 1

      I am the father of 3 beautiful daughters from my wonderful wife, and I see it as my responsibility to manage birth control. I don't like my wife using the pill as it effects her emotionally and physically too much each cycle - she hasn't touched the pill in 14 years. And she loves it that I take initiative here.
      I am not sad for my gender, i am just sad for women who never meet a man who would respect her.

    12. Re:Sad For My Gender by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      The number of responses here along the lines of "women always trick men into marriage by getting pregnant" [...] make me sad for my gender.

      I think the problem here is a high (but not guaranteed) effectiveness of the pill, combined with stupid people who don't read the instructions/think risks don't apply to them, combined with lazy people who don't do enough to prevent the spread of STDs, combined with some non-zero number of women intentionally tricking someone into impregnating them, combined with people being very upset about unexpectedly having to spend a significant portion of their income for ~18 years, combined with the natural tendency to shift blame away from self.

      Basically, it's standard human nature; nothing to make you sad for your gender specifically (except the non-PC aspects about men ... let's call it "winning more Darwin Awards").

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    13. Re:Sad For My Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you compare abortion to castration? Lets see, both of them are killing bits that were alive, however the similarities end there. Unless... Are you proposing that after a woman uses said member that she is responsible for its upkeep for 18 years or till someone else takes over? Oooo, I can see the adopt a willy ads already.

      Wow, we might need a new "law" for all conversations with SJW's end with ways to castrate (physical, financially, etc..) men.

    14. Re:Sad For My Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember during the early 90s some new male birth control was being researched, and feminist forbidding it under the guise that if women couldn't verify if a male was using birth control, it was an affront to her.

      Let that sink in. Permanently soured my opinion of feminism. And especially as the abortion debate was in full swing then, the notion of denying men equal say in preventing unwanted births was obscene.

      I am overjoyed that men are finally getting their say. /woman

    15. Re:Sad For My Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is ones posting that, are either young, i.e. immature, or socially, very shitty. I, being in my mid 30's, have met many mid 20's and early 20's males, through sports, jobs, general social interaction... whose attitude toward women in general, are absolutely laughable. I honestly don't know if they're being that way via social pressures, or their experience with the opposite is minimal or horrid. It really is just a lack of maturity. And I'm not saying women can't be the same, especially younger women, but from what I've observed, many younger males really behave similar to what I imagine, and have read, exists in many gaming forums and in game chat sessions. Immature, and degrading when it comes to the opposite sex.

      That said, there was a time I was likely similar, to some degree, but I at least grew out of it, if I wanted to see a women naked, or better, be in an actual relationship!

    16. Re:Sad For My Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a listing of those locations? I'd like to know more and subscribe to your newsletter.

    17. Re:Sad For My Gender by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 2
      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    18. Re:Sad For My Gender by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1
      You are not the only man on /. who respects women, but that is not the issue. It is possible to 1) respect woman and 2) not want to have childern 3) welcome new birth control methods.

      Typically my ex GFs and I used a condom until we trusted each other enough to go for another contraceptive, which typically was The Pill. If she would have objected to this, for whatever reason, I would have been happy to keep using condoms. No sweat. Respect. Responsability, no problem. On the other hand, "forgetting" to take a pill, getting pregnant, not letting me know on time, not taking any other steps (morning after pill, whatever) wouldn't be very respectful either and would indeed piss me off.

    19. Re:Sad For My Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be sad for humanity, because men or women, both do some pretty shitty things.

      On the balance this will be empowering for men, a boon to sexualy transmitted diseases and crippling to gold-digger women. At least for those who can afford these new medications.

      One side effect of birth control for men that prevents sperm release or creation is the impact on rape detection kits. How many of these kits will be rendered ineffective?

      The idiot who does a crime of passion will probably still be caught. A prepared sexual predator just needs to take his regular does of 'cover up' drugs before patrolling for victims.

      I still wonder if effective contraception will lead to a world in which the old children are offspring of people who can defeat or too careless to use contraception. Perhaps rapists using this form of sperm preventative will mean they select themselves out of the future population? But then we'd be left with those who use the risk of pregnancy as part of their attacks. So still a dark, dark world.

    20. Re:Sad For My Gender by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      1. respect is earned, usually by demonstration of responsibility and good judgment. The fact the law allows women to have babies and then use the state to go after 'your gender' for bailouts is unbelievably hypocritical and disrespectful, especially when done under the banner of 'equality.'

      2. fatherhood CAN be a positive outcome, but not when it's foisted on unwilling men by politicians with agendas and women who know they can squeeze a paycheck out of him. This is NOT an occasional event. It's what built the ghettos and the welfare system. How do feminists feel about motherhood foisted upon women? Right. It's no different for men. If you care about men, you should care about this. Otherwise, you're crying crocodile tears.

      3. Nothing wrong with that, but the real problem is the bias in the law that favors her whims and choices, but leaves him with the responsibility of the outcome. Your view is outdated, from a time when women didn't have post conception choice. It was designed to protect them. Now that she has it, he should have it too. She should have to ask him for support. If he signs the contract (or marriage license), he's liable assuming he's actually the father, and she can now count on his continued support. If he refuses, then she's on her own, and he's got no parental rights. I think women would be a lot more judicial about what guys they sleep with, and whether to have children by them in the first place.

    21. Re:Sad For My Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're creating a false dichotomy. It is possible to (1) respect women, (2) see fatherhood as a positive outcome, but also (3) respect men, and (4) see the injustices that are perpetrated when feminism is used to shield women from responsibility for their actions.

      I recognize that I might want to have a child, but I also know that that's just my opinion. I've also seen enough men get screwed over by the system in various ways that I'm not naive about what's actually going on some of the time. It's not like women getting screwed over doesn't mean men get screwed over as well.

    22. Re:Sad For My Gender by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

    23. Re:Sad For My Gender by dryeo · · Score: 1

      There's also the fact that paternity tests have been made illegal in certain feminist-dominated jurisdictions.

      There's only one jurisdiction that has banned it and considering it is a country where the men are known for fucking it's just as likely its the men who banned it rather then having to take responsibility for their actions.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    24. Re:Sad For My Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the balance this will be empowering for men, a boon to sexualy transmitted diseases and crippling to gold-digger women. At least for those who can afford these new medications.

      One side effect of birth control for men that prevents sperm release or creation is the impact on rape detection kits. How many of these kits will be rendered ineffective?

      The idiot who does a crime of passion will probably still be caught. A prepared sexual predator just needs to take his regular does of 'cover up' drugs before patrolling for victims.

      I still wonder if effective contraception will lead to a world in which the old children are offspring of people who can defeat or too careless to use contraception. Perhaps rapists using this form of sperm preventative will mean they select themselves out of the future population? But then we'd be left with those who use the risk of pregnancy as part of their attacks. So still a dark, dark world.

      There are a lot of other types of cells in semen that aren't sperm. Rape kits will work just fine.

      The social effect you are describing was outlined clearly in the future-documentary "Idiocracy."

      There are going to be a lot of guys that find out their wives and girlfriends are whores way earlier (maybe even before marriage) than before. "Guess what honey! I am pregnant!" will be instant suspicion rather than waiting a year or two and going "heyyy, that kid looks a LOT like her new boss."

    25. Re:Sad For My Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The number of responses here along the lines of "women always trick men into marriage by getting pregnant" or "birth control is a woman's responsibility" make me sad for my gender. I can't be the only man on Slashdot who 1) respects women (my wife and I both manage our portions of birth control together - I would never suggest that's HER job and not for me to be bothered with), 2) sees fatherhood as a positive outcome - not something that is only entered into via trickery, and 3) would like to see new birth control methods available on the market (whether or not this one would work for my wife and I aside, the more options the better). Can I?

      You are not alone. I see these responses and despair.

    26. Re:Sad For My Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am the father of 3 beautiful daughters from my wonderful wife, and I see it as my responsibility to manage birth control. I don't like my wife using the pill as it effects her emotionally and physically too much each cycle - she hasn't touched the pill in 14 years. And she loves it that I take initiative here.

      I am not sad for my gender, i am just sad for women who never meet a man who would respect her.

      very few women are emotionally mature enough to earn that sort of respect, which would mean relating in an honest 50/50 manner and not using manipulation and mindgames and other power plays. a relationship like yours, or like the one I have which involves a similar level of mutual trust and respect, is the exception. the norm has become a manipulative or bitchy woman paired with a piggish man, both treating the other as a sort of useful adversary.

    27. Re:Sad For My Gender by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Well, once your wife leaves you, she might let it get out that she did exactly that. We had a rotten marriage but two great kids, and she left me just when my current wife needed a great guy like me. Now everybody's happy.

    28. Re:Sad For My Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maury, Jerry Springer, or any number of baby mommas who wanted to get pregnant with whoever would have sex with them. How many guys are paying for child support for 18 years because of a little fling?

      This has major implications on the global population issue too. If religions stop using population size to expand, maybe some third world countries can become better places to live instead of over-populated wastelands.

    29. Re:Sad For My Gender by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That said, there was a time I was likely similar, to some degree, but I at least grew out of it, if I wanted to see a women naked, or better, be in an actual relationship!

      Well, men (boys) in their late teens all the way up to in some cases their early 30s are into pot, porn, and Playstation.

      The onus for sex now is on girls; I've seen girls pursuing my nephew like nothing I'd ever seen as a young man. Read Naomi Wolf's article on the subject.

      I'm now single after 18 years of marriage and in my 40s... slightly different dynamic, but 'hooking up' is easier that I'd ever imagined.

    30. Re:Sad For My Gender by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRi...

      I tire of this editor wiping out content so a simple trip to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... would give you at least 10+ citations. Your assertion is false.

    31. Re:Sad For My Gender by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      So you support fraud in order to provide women false respect. Certainly says something about your values.

    32. Re:Sad For My Gender by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      "women always trick men into marriage by getting pregnant"

      I don't know if anyone is saying "always", but plenty of women mess up taking the pill, sometimes accidentally, sometimes intentionally. Women are human beings just like us, you know. They are just as capable as we are of both errors and treachery.

      Personally, I'd love to enjoy the same control over my reproductive decisions that women have enjoyed having over theirs for decades, now.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    33. Re:Sad For My Gender by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, how could I forget the episode where Jerry Springer proved that feminist forbade male birth control?

  14. Too boring for the FDA and their cronies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  15. They've got you by the balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Memorable quotes for
    Looker (1981)
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...

    "John Reston: Television can control public opinion more effectively than armies of secret police, because television is entirely voluntary. The American government forces our children to attend school, but nobody forces them to watch T.V. Americans of all ages *submit* to television. Television is the American ideal. Persuasion without coercion. Nobody makes us watch. Who could have predicted that a *free* people would voluntarily spend one fifth of their lives sitting in front of a *box* with pictures? Fifteen years sitting in prison is punishment. But 15 years sitting in front of a television set is entertainment. And the average American now spends more than one and a half years of his life just watching television commercials. Fifty minutes, every day of his life, watching commercials. Now, that's power."

    ##

    "The United States has it's own propaganda, but it's very effective because people don't realize that it's propaganda. And it's subtle, but it's actually a much stronger propaganda machine than the Nazis had but it's funded in a different way. With the Nazis it was funded by the government, but in the United States, it's funded by corporations and corporations they only want things to happen that will make people want to buy stuff. So whatever that is, then that is considered okay and good, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really serves people's thinking - it can stupify and make not very good things happen."
    - Crispin Glover: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm000...

    ##

    "It's only logical to assume that conspiracies are everywhere, because that's what people do. They conspire. If you can't get the message, get the man." - Mel Gibson (from an interview)

    ##

    "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director

    ##

    "The real reason for the official secrecy, in most instances, is not to keep the opposition (the CIA's euphemistic term for the enemy) from knowing what is going on; the enemy usually does know. The basic reason for governmental secrecy is to keep you, the American public, from knowing - for you, too, are considered the opposition, or enemy - so that you cannot interfere. When the public does not know what the government or the CIA is doing, it cannot voice its approval or disapproval of their actions. In fact, they can even lie to your about what they are doing or have done, and you will not know it. As for the second advantage, despite frequent suggestion that the CIA is a rogue elephant, the truth is that the agency functions at the direction of and in response to the office of the president. All of its major clandestine operations are carried out with the direct approval of or on direct orders from the White House. The CIA is a secret tool of the president - every president. And every president since Truman has lied to the American people in order to protect the agency. When lies have failed, it has been the duty of the CIA to take the blame for the president, thus protecting him. This is known in the business as "plausible denial." The CIA, functioning as a secret instrument of the U.S. government and the presidency, has long misused and abused history and continues to do so."
    - Victor Marchetti, Propaganda and Disinformation: How the CIA Manufactures History

    ##

    George Carlin:

    "The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city h

  16. does anyone think by Zecheus · · Score: 1

    Really. The best way to avoid 'accidental' father hood is _________? If this wasn't slashdot, you'd get one guess.

  17. Men's morning after pill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In order to really be on par with women, men need a birth control pill that they can take after waking up in bed with whoever they drunkenly hooked up with the night before.

    To serve its purpose, it doesn't have to prevent the pregnancy, it just needs to change the man's blood type.

  18. Hey, baby, don't worry. by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    i'm JQ'ed!

  19. No pills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These sound great, but also like you'd have to constantly be taking some pill.

    I'm still waiting for this thing

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance

    1. Re:No pills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you shouldn't be. Nobody wants their scrotum torn open to have nylon injected into their vas deferens.

  20. Face reality. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In today's world, most people are financially stable and ready to provide for a child long after their reproductive prime. That's a problem.
    Further, people are at their most hormonally-driven to breed before it is even legal, let alone wise. That's a problem too.

    The real melee, however, is during and especially right after college. In that dating pool, there exist a lot of men who are overjoyed that sex is legal for them now, but who still have a good decade of youthful playfulness ahead of them before they will be able or interested in settling down. In that same pool you have plenty of women who want to have kids and need to find a provider. So, there *are* plenty of women trying to rope men into financial obligations, and men trying to get what they want and then sneak out the window.

    You aren't the *only* person who approaches relationships in a mature and level-headed way, but you don't seem to be in this demographic, either.

    1. Re:Face reality. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real melee, however, is during and especially right after college. In that dating pool, there exist a lot of men who are overjoyed that sex is legal for them now,

      Er, what? What's the age of consent where you live?

  21. Better than a shot to the balls by AntiAntagonist · · Score: 1

    Sounds better than the method studied in 2013- having gold nano-rods injected into the testes and only lasting a few months. http://www.rsc.org/chemistrywo...

    1. Re:Better than a shot to the balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vasalgel is fairly close (~2 years) and will last 10+ years with one shot. I'm watching it closely as once the Mrs. and I are done having children it's either that or a snip.

      https://www.facebook.com/Vasalgel

  22. STDs? by wisnoskij · · Score: 0

    And STDs will skyrocket. There is pretty much no reason you should ever have unprotected sex if you do not want to father a child. Imagine if this was available a generation ago, 80% of the population would of died along side all of those homosexuals. I might imagine that we have STDs slightly more under control now and the death rate won't skyrocket quite that much, but still...

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:STDs? by burtosis · · Score: 1
      Condoms, when used correctly, are around 70% effective. Besides a vasectomy males have basically no other options. This, along with a condom, would finally give males a chance at being responsible for preventing unwanted pregnancy on their own.

      if you actually cared about stds you probably should be promoting banning alcohol as I'm quite sure that leads to the majority of bad decisions

    2. Re:STDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Condoms, when used correctly, are around 70% effective.

      Quoi??? When used properly, the odds of getting pregnant when condoms are used properly every time is about 2% in a year of use. Maybe you're thinking of HIV transmission rates, which are more in the 80% effectiveness range. Source, WHO: http://apps.who.int/rhl/hiv_aids/dwcom/en/

      Or, you're thinking of the perfect/typical use cases, but the "typical" use includes people that don't use them sometimes! That's like "well, I only downloaded viruses a few times, why did I get infected?" -- your IT support group would slap you in the face to be so dumb.

    3. Re:STDs? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      And still to this day aids is a huge concern to homosexual males simply because they equate not being able to knock their partner up with safe sex. So we know with absolutely certainty that that will not happen, a large significant population will use this instead of using a condom; And many of them will die, but not until after they spread AIDs to even more people. There are no technical solutions to anything that are worth a damn. The onyl solution to pregnancy and STDs is common sense, unfortunately this "solution" will only act as a smoke screen for many.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:STDs? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      "The onyl solution to pregnancy and STDs is common sense, unfortunately this "solution" will only act as a smoke screen for many."

      My girlfriend menstruates 24x7x365 when on birth control. Others affect her blood pressure severely or cause enormous weight gain and acne.

      We've been monogamous for years and rely on condoms.

      Your opinion that people in our situation don't matter is misguided and immoral.

    5. Re:STDs? by neminem · · Score: 2

      That's retarded. People have unprotected sex because it's better. Way better. Even, I would say *especially* people in long-term, monogamous, trusting relationships, who still happen to not want kids at the moment.

    6. Re:STDs? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      OK, but like you already said you already have options. You have already mentioned condoms, there is vasectomies (and freezing sperm), abstinence, etc. With this pill you might of died of aids before even meeting her, so it does not really seem like a solution. Besides, most people in monogamous relationships get a little on the side. I have heard, though not seen the actually papers, that something like a third of all children born in wedlock are from affairs.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:STDs? by Shados · · Score: 1

      If was still young and in relationships that require condoms, you can bet your ass I'd _ALSO_ be using this (not instead. ALSO.)

      Condoms break, girls lie about taking pills. Futures are ruinned. Hormones make sure teenagers can't think straight when it happens. Rightists make sure its as hard as possible to fix problems after they happen (even if you're in an area where stuff like Plan B is readily available, there's often still a stigma behind it, and then hesitation makes the time window slip by, and then more drastic measures are the only option...and its how your life gets fucked).

      I never ended up in a situation where it got to be an issue, but if this had been available, I would have jumped on it. A little peace of mind doesn't hurt.

    8. Re:STDs? by Shados · · Score: 1

      W...ah...wo.....I don't even....

      I don't know where to start, but I already typed this much, so I'll just hit the submit button below one of the most epic fail post of all time.

      Even if its a joke, it takes skills to write something like that. I clap at your trolling abilities, oh great master.

    9. Re:STDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need a new girlfriend, seriously. Her medical problems aside, I feel really sorry for you. Condoms take a lot of the pleasure out of sex, like eating a candy without removing the wrapper. Not to mention unreliable. If you don't frequently end up with a condom, you're either a 10 minute man or make love like a comatose WW2 vet. In your case, if you still insist on sticking with her, I'd recommend a hormone-free IUD.

    10. Re:STDs? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      And still to this day aids is a huge concern to homosexual males simply because they equate not being able to knock their partner up with safe sex. So we know with absolutely certainty that that will not happen, a large significant population will use this instead of using a condom; And many of them will die, but not until after they spread AIDs to even more people. There are no technical solutions to anything that are worth a damn. The onyl solution to pregnancy and STDs is common sense, unfortunately this "solution" will only act as a smoke screen for many.

      So let me get this straight (no pun intended). You are saying gay people will use the male pill as a replacement for condoms thus increasing stds? Wtf lol. Education, free birth control and free condoms are a much better option.

    11. Re:STDs? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      No, I am saying we already have a sample population to test theories on. The gay community, which is predominately like the male population as a whole. They are in all strata of this population and as such act as a very good sample. One major difference between these populations, and the only hard physical difference in their relationships, is that gay men do not have to worry about pregnancy, and as such we see 40 times as much aids in the homosexual population. We see a tiny majority host the vast majority of STDs. The addition of these pills will put the whole population in the exact situation that gay men have been in for generations.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    12. Re:STDs? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      I'll assume you are serious here. Gay sex involves anal sex in case you aren't aware. A large reason that they have a higher transmission rate is the anal sex vs vaginal sex. It's not about irresponsibility. You are comparing apples to oranges.

  23. Boon to rapists? by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the sperm is destroyed, is there anything left that contains DNA in the semen?

    If not that this could be a big boon to rapists who no longer have to worry about leaving their DNA behind.

    1. Re:Boon to rapists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the dna often found under the fingernails of the rape victim. If anyone tried to fight this becoming available because "Think of the rapists!", it's the worst possible reason. Something like this, made affordable, could be a huge change in neighborhoods where young pregnancy is the norm. All we would need is one, maybe two pop stars putting it's name in some lyrics and it would sell like crazy. Unplanned pregnancy and low to no income is holding huge parts of the world back from bettering their situation. I'm excited for this and hope that we see it sooner than later.

    2. Re:Boon to rapists? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Again with the rape thing? Jesus Christ, it's what you people are always thinking about, isn't it? You project your feelings on whatever topic is about, and say what you're thinking. Rape rape rape rape rape rape. Yes, because rapists are really big on long-term planning and are worried about DNA tests. Raaaaaape. Rape rape rape.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Boon to rapists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like condoms, then?

    4. Re:Boon to rapists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem very sensitive to this topic.

      Are you a rapist? Why are you so concerned? Worry that we may have blown your cover?

    5. Re:Boon to rapists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an interesting point, and I'm not sure about the answer. It probably depends on how the sperm are destroyed. That being said, that's no reason to prevent this from coming to market, even if there is no DNA. The fact that it might be used to make rape easier doesn't mean it won't help a lot of people out in other ways. It might also be a (small) consolation to female victims, since it means they're much less likely to get pregnant.

  24. I happen to be a Vampire... by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    you insensitive clod.

    1. Re:I happen to be a Vampire... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      I guess you'll just have to suck it up then. ;-(

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  25. Click Bait by tquasar · · Score: 0

    Click Bait.

  26. Better than the old male pill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a big improvement over the original male birth control pill. That one was 3 inches in diameter. How did it work? Well, you put it in your shoe, and it makes you limp.

  27. Continuation of study from Neutering wiki article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Injection of a solution of the JQ1 molecule to bind to a pocket of BRDT necessary for chromatin remodeling, which gives the proteins that regulate how genes act access to the genetic material.

    Citation: Matzuk, Martin M.; McKeown, Michael R.; Filippakopoulos, Panagis; Li, Qinglei; Ma, Lang; Agno, Julio E.; Lemieux, Madeleine E.; Picaud, Sarah; Yu, Richard N.; Qi, Jun; Knapp, Stefan; Bradner, James E. (2012-08-17). "Small-Molecule Inhibition of BRDT for Male Contraception". Cell 150 (4): 673–684.

    doi:10.1016/j.cell.2012.06.045

    PMC 3420011 PMID 22901802.

  28. 2012 study from Neutering wiki article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Injection of a solution of the JQ1 molecule to bind to a pocket of BRDT necessary for chromatin remodeling, which gives the proteins that regulate how genes act access to the genetic material.

    Citation: Matzuk, Martin M.; McKeown, Michael R.; Filippakopoulos, Panagis; Li, Qinglei; Ma, Lang; Agno, Julio E.; Lemieux, Madeleine E.; Picaud, Sarah; Yu, Richard N.; Qi, Jun; Knapp, Stefan; Bradner, James E. (2012-08-17). "Small-Molecule Inhibition of BRDT for Male Contraception". Cell 150 (4): 673–684.

    doi:10.1016/j.cell.2012.06.045

    PMC 3420011 PMID 22901802.

  29. then keep your pants zipped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you could have kept your pants zipped.

    1. Re:then keep your pants zipped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you could have kept your pants zipped.

      But if you say that to a woman then it's misogyny.

    2. Re:then keep your pants zipped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it's her body, you gave up the rights when it left your body. But you didn't give up the responsibility.

      Kinda like OJ asking for his knife back.

    3. Re:then keep your pants zipped by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Except it's her body, you gave up the rights when it left your body. But you didn't give up the responsibility.

      Except that's still crap. Either "you made a choice, now deal with the consequences" applies to both parents, or neither. And you guys have yet to explain why 9 months of a women's life is sacred, yet 18 years of a man's life is nothing worthy of consideration.

    4. Re:then keep your pants zipped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that's still crap. Either "you made a choice, now deal with the consequences" applies to both parents, or neither. And you guys have yet to explain why 9 months of a women's life is sacred,

      Women are stuck with the consequences no mater what. You think all she has to do is squeeze out the child and she's done? You have no idea what it's like to raise a child as a single parent.

      Spill the load and knock her up, you're lost the choice and are still responsible for your actions. But if you think in some way she isn't bearing the brunt of the responsibility, you are completely naive.

      So you're out a few hundred bucks a month, that's much less responsibility than actually being a parent.

      If she doesn't take you into consideration, you have shown poor judgement--sucks to be you.

      Or she thinks you're just a jerk--sucks to be you.

    5. Re:then keep your pants zipped by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Lazy non-response is lazy.

      Women are stuck with the consequences no mater what.

      Morning after pill is "no matter what"?

      Abortion is "no matter what"?

      Giving the child up for adoption - with or without his consent - is "no matter what"?

      Spill the load and knock her up, you're lost the choice and are still responsible for your actions

      So you're going to barrel on with that double standard, regardless? How precious.

      But if you think in some way she isn't bearing the brunt of the responsibility, you are completely naive.

      You're completely ignoring the following 216 months with your tunnel vision on the first 9. Why is that? Do you think that responsibility for a child stops with birth?

  30. Rather than respecting women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why don't we reserve our respect for individuals of whatever gender who demonstrate respectable behavior?

  31. Re:This is Old by geantvert · · Score: 1

    No. It is called D&D but some say it is only a placebo.

  32. Re:Continuation of study from Neutering wiki artic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you. This seems to be the relevant information that needs to have it's assumptions checked for us to generalize:

    The Bradner laboratory has demonstrated a pronounced antimitotic effect of JQ1 on dividing cancer cells (Delmore et al.,
    2011; Filippakopoulos et al., 2010). In BRD4-dependent cancers, the antitumor efficacy of JQ1 is associated with G1 cell-cycle arrest. Toxicity to proliferative compartments such as bone marrow or bowel has not been observed. To firmly exclude a BRD4-mediated, nonspecific antimitotic effect of JQ1 in testes, we stained testis sections for phosphorylated serine 10 of histone H3 (pH3Ser10), which accumulates in the nuclei of mitotic spermatogonia during chromatin condensation. Changes in pH3Ser10 are not seen, supporting a selective effect of JQ1 on spermatocytes and during spermiogenesis (Figures 6G and
    6H).

    Of course, data regarding the system of interest would be superior. That may be difficult to gather cheaply/ethically though.

  33. Fat & Fugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in America. And here in America, the women are so fat & ugly, we manly men don’t need to be concerned with pregnancy, because the rolls of fat get in the way.

  34. Seriously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drop some drugs for prostate goodness and forget about that hair loss.

  35. Europe's continued decline in births by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, just what we need. More methods to decrease birth rates in an already rapidly aging Europe.

  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  38. D&D players can have children... by Dareth · · Score: 1

    D&D players can have children..., they just have a higher likelihood of being half-elven.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  39. Real question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Real question...Would any woman believe a man who said, "Don't worry I took care of it."

  40. So when can we start... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...dropping this (by drone of course) into the water supplies of the Middle East? Just curious.

  41. Better ideas - RISUG aka "VasalGel" by RanceJustice · · Score: 1

    While it is nice to see continued research along these avenues, I feel that methodology that require us to alter internal, chemical bodily functions via some sort are going to have pretty considerable side effects. Even after more than a half-century of research, we've still not been able to create female chemical/hormonal birth control that doesn't have significant side effects and trade offs. While many women put up with the side effects, which can range from lack of libido, depression, weight gain, acne, mood swings, to rarely more serious cardiovascular issues and other dangers, it is far from a simple choice. Best outcomes often require a knowledgeable and caring physician to tweak and find out what particular product works best for a given woman's individual chemistry.

    Keep in mind that all of these issues come from more or less, attempting to safely replicate a very natural part of a woman's reproductive cycle: pregnancy. Men have no such natural state of post-pubescent infertility, which makes it even more difficult to find a solution for for male birth control that comes in a pill. Thus, lot of attempts that seem promising end up failing thanks to the domino effect of messing with hormones that do more than one thing. As we become more technologically advanced the possibility of compiling a "custom" compound with less interaction outside the desired sphere is more likely, but as the article mentions this is still a long, long way from being deemed safe and effective in humans, especially over the long term. However, there is a much better male birth control solution that is going through trials in the US and Europe: VasalGel

    VasalGel is a trade name for a well known process that has gone through more than 20 years of human trials in India: RISUG. RISUG is basically a significantly upgraded, reversible vasectomy. The process begins by injecting an inexpensive, safe polymer into the vas deferens (the same tubes cut/blocked in the case of male sterilization) . This polymer occludes, but does not totally block the flow of sperm, which is a major improvement as it avoids the side effects found in both "open" (ie sperm dripping into surrounding tissues, causing sperm granulomas and training the immune system to attack said sperm, a possible cause of failed vasectomy reversal) and "closed" (ie epididimitis, "blowout", reduced overall production and more) vasectomies. As the sperm pass through they touch the polymer which in essence denatures them, robbing them of the chemical charge they need for viability. Those that aren't immediately destroyed still lose their viability to penetrate the ovum and fertilize, breaking down long before All sperm fragments are reabsorbed by the body and it doesn't seem to limit quality or quantity of future sperm production. There are long human trials in India, where men had the same RISUG polymer placed for in excess of a decade without any issues and with continued effectiveness! Furthermore, the process is safely reversible over 98% of the time. Another injection, this time of a a complimentary safe agent, dissolves the polymer and returns the vas deferns to pristine condition, allowing reproduction.

    This method allows men to take control of their reproduction in a safe, long term, convenient way that I think will be very alluring to many. By putting effort into such a localized effect, it means there is unlikely to be the sort of side effects that can happen when you're trying to mess with hormones, attach things to certain receptors and more. The Indian trials have been successful indeed and similar methods have been investigated in other nations. So why don't we have this procedure available to us now? Well, the answer as you might expect: Money. It isn't exactly profitable to provide a man one injection that will prevent pregnancy every 10 years. Consider that in the US, female IUDs that are much more comfortable, newer, and have lesser side effects aren't available for a similar reason: despite their existen

  42. I don't think it's the Woman's responsibility by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    but I know lots and lots of guys who's girlfriend somehow became pregnant while on a pill that's 99.9% effective.

    As for fatherhood: 40 years of declining wages have made fatherhood a tough sell. I grew up around and still know a pretty rough crowd. If you don't make much money and probably never will fatherhood doesn't end well. It's why birth rates in Japan keep falling. Nobody's paying us enough to raise a family...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I don't think it's the Woman's responsibility by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      The pill is 99.9% effective when taken properly. Unfortunately, it can be all too easy to take it too late or forget to take it one day and wind up pregnant. In my opinion, IUD is a more effective birth control mechanism since you don't need to think about it for about five years (at which time it needs to be swapped out). No forgetting to take the pill one day and winding up pregnant.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  43. rapaflo already available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its not birth control but it causes retrograde ejaculation (no semen makes it out, diverted to bladder instead)

    Sex still feels good without the mess. No money shot , no rug rats

  44. man up pussy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yep.

    Once you blow your load in her, its not your choice anymore, but it's your responsibility.

    Don't like the idea of personal responsibility, keep it in your pants. You give her your load, you give her the choice as well: 100%. And yes, you are accountable even if you aren't married. So man up and deal with it. Want to get laid without the risk, find one of your buddies and exchange favors; because you aren't going to get him pregnant.

    You want to bang chicks, you take the risks.

    Liberatards talk about financial responsibility, but are really fucking pussies about it.

    1. Re:man up pussy by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      So what happened to equality and personal responsibility for women? Shouldn't she be held accountable for having a kid knowing that she doesn't have the income, yet knowing she can bilk him out of his? What happened to 'social justice' as feminists call it? It only applies to women?

      Man up and deal with it? How is that different from telling women to 'woman up and get back in the kitchen'?

      It's amazing how people like you cannot see your hypocrisy.

    2. Re:man up pussy by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      What happened to 'social justice' as feminists call it? It only applies to women? What happened to equality and personal responsibility for women? Shouldn't she be held accountable for having a kid knowing that she doesn't have the income, yet knowing she can bilk him out of his? How about telling women to keep their pants on too?

      Man up and deal with it? How is that different from telling women to 'woman up and get back in the kitchen'?

      It's amazing how people like you cannot see your hypocrisy.

    3. Re:man up pussy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what happened to equality and personal responsibility for women? Shouldn't she be held accountable for having a kid knowing that she doesn't have the income, yet knowing she can bilk him out of his? What happened to 'social justice' as feminists call it? It only applies to women?

      You are such a whining little shit.

      She is stuck taking responsibility, no mater what her decision is. Even if your ass is forced to pay child support, she's still the one stuck taking care of the child. And you think piss-ant child support is enough for a single woman to have day-care while she goes out and works or to feed and cloth the child?

      You are one stupid mother-fucking-liberatard.

      Man up and deal with it? How is that different from telling women to 'woman up and get back in the kitchen'?

      It's amazing how people like you cannot see your hypocrisy.

      Your ignorant ass needs to learn exactly what single women go through raising a child.

      I used to hang with the liberatards, I know exactly how superficial, ignorant and stupid you fucks really are, you're emotionally stunted at age 17 still sucking at Ayn Rand's teet after age 30 with delusions of being John Galt.

      The difference Is I did grow up

    4. Re:man up pussy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cry me a river about "social justice" when you're the single mother changing diapers, getting up at 4AM to deal with a choleric infant or finding someone to take care of a toddler, usually at no small expense, while going off to work, of dealing with a 3 year old bed wetting or putting the first grader to bed then getting them up and ready for school while getting your ass into work.

      Your responsibility amounts to throwing a few hundred dollars at her every month. While her responsibility is for the life and future of another human being.

  45. Came here for science-y comments... by rebelwarlock · · Score: 1

    ...Forgot I was on the internet. Stay classy, guys. And gals. Everyone who posted an opinion, really.

  46. Vasectomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly, you're a dumbass.

  47. calm yourself, White Knight by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    The number of responses here along the lines of "women always trick men into marriage by getting pregnant"

    "Always"? Which comments would those be? In any case, some men are tricked into being fathers, or think they are fathers. The chances of that happening are small, but the consequences (the next 20 years of your life) are large.

    I can't be the only man on Slashdot who 1) respects women

    /rollseyes

    How about respecting people?

    "birth control is a woman's responsibility"

    Women have a plethora of BC options open to them - various IUD's, the pill, diaphragms. None of which (well, occasionally diaphragms) interfere with her pleasure during sex. Condoms do interfere for men, and most American men are already missing half their nerves to begin with, when their genitals were cut without their consent as infants.

  48. great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we'll have male birth control chems going into our water supply, soon we wont be able to reproduce

  49. Technology does not bring liberation. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    It's just a tool.
    It's how one sees it and uses it that liberates or enslaves.
    One man's magical no-baby pill is another man's realization that no one want's his genetic material, only his sexual favors.

    But being a cynical asshole, I hereby prophesize that this will be labeled as an "instrument of rape culture".

    As the song says, this ain't no garden of Eden, this isn't the summer of love. It's no longer the '60s.
    Now everything exists only as polar extremes. White-black, good-evil, love-hate...
    You can't not choose sides, mildly dislike something or be ambivalent towards it.
    You must love it or mildly praise it - or you are an -ist of some kind and a hater.
    Which is now the ultimate reduction - Reductio ad Osoribus.

    And since one pill liberated women, only logical black-white conclusion is that this one will enslave them.
    Or are you an -ist of some kind?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  50. Men Birth Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... It's okay for men to have a form of birth control, but not women.... Figures... Gotta love 'Murika.....

  51. Bleh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too many factual errors in this story to bother commenting about... there's barely a word of truth in it. Bleh.