Slashdot Mirror
Male Birth Control Shot Found Effective (bbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the BBC:
A hormone injection has been shown to be a safe and effective method of contraception -- for men. U.S. researchers say the jab was almost 96% effective in tests on around 270 men who were using it, with four pregnancies among their partners. However, a relatively high number developed side effects, including acne and mood disorders... Because men constantly produce sperm, high levels of hormones are needed to reduce levels from the normal sperm count of over 15 million per milliliter to under one million/ml.
One professor pointed out that despite the side effects, "75% of the men who took part in the trial would be willing to use this method of contraception again."
One professor pointed out that despite the side effects, "75% of the men who took part in the trial would be willing to use this method of contraception again."
and taking into account the risks (unwanted pregnancy) i'd say 96% effectiveness is really, really horrible.
Unless i'm mistaken in my interpretation of statistics, this is a complete failure. In this case, i'd like to know the chance that intercourse will lead to pregnangy, using this method (and only this method)
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
That means I'd have 14 babies a year! Not effective at a!!
How often do fags reproduce?
Per my gay friends, they keep trying to have kids, even several times a day, but still no pregnancy has resulted.
While sad of no offspring, both partners often report enjoying themselves each and every time.
This is probably some of the least relevant news I've seen here, and that's really saying something.
I'm just waiting for someone to wave the "techies are virgin beardos" flag.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"96% effective in tests on around 270 men who were using it, with four pregnancies among their partners."
0.96 * 270 ~= 259 which leaves 11 non-successful cases, so why the 4 pregnancies?
Unfortunately for you, it's spread through maternal lines.
Ezekiel 23:20
I'm almost 40 now and we have one kid, and I don't want more. I'm thinking about vasectomy, any experiences here?
The sexual liberation movement has finally succeeded, after half a century of effort.
Ezekiel 23:20
On one hand, that's going to end global warming, but on the other hand it does that by ending the human race. Oh well. Nothing we can do about it now.
sexual orientation, which is both fluid and dynamic, rather than fixed and static, is a choice, not a genetic imperative.
there is zero evidence for "gay gene". nor is there any evolutionary reason for one.
let people be free to choose their life style (as long as they do not harm others same right). and change it too if they wish.
seems like the shot will be not necessary for you 'cause the chances of you meeting a female are close to zero
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The Worlds press is carrying this story but almost all have missed that the trial has been stopped due to unnacceptable side-effects
Of the 300+ patients,
- 1 committed suicide
- 1 attempted suicide
- many being treated for clinical depression
- 8 were left infertile a year after stopping the drug.
75% may be willing to continue, but not at that cost
Ok, someone's been drinking the socjus koolaid..
So haven't we learned from the pill that fucking with a body's hormone levels has a certain tendency to lead to bad things and that it gets worse at higher levels?
Is the intention here to hit equality by making men as miserable as women?
As with most other birth control methods, the effectiveness is measured "per year using only that method." While this might be relevant to the traditional female pill - which is either going to work or not in any given month no matter how many sperm are swimming around inside her as long as that number is above zero - it's not relevant at all to male contraceptives, which should be measured differently. Otherwise, you have a totally uncontrolled variable in the form of frequency of sex as well as the secondary uncontrolled variable of how fertile the woman is at that particular point in her cycle. The traditional measurement isn't even all that good for some female contraceptives.
Male infertility is usually defined as being below some arbitrary cutoff of sperm count. However, sperm count rarely drops all the way to zero, unless with a vasectomy, and sometimes even then! However, even "infertile" men still produce many sperm and so, in principle, could cause a pregnancy. So the real useful statistics here would be what the average sperm count is and the usual statistical friends (standard deviation, etc.) as well as how that compares to typical men as well as those considered clinically infertile.
What's SJW about the GP? Quite the opposite. SJWs think LGBTQXYZ is same as skin color.
There's certainly no reporting bias here - among 270 men in the trials, 11 simply didn't reach the chosen threshold of 1/15th normal sperm count in six months, 8 didn't recover within a year after stopping the treatment, 20 dropped out because of side effects while many more reported them (to the degree they stopped taking on new participants - back in 2011), 4 achieved pregnancies within a year while under the chosen threshold. All durations reported are in "up to" form, and the fertility of their partners was not indicated (around 10% have issues while trying, per womenshealth.gov). Only 66-69 of them (by somebody's rounding) stated they would refuse to ever attempt the method again, "so perhaps the side-effects weren't all that bad after all" according to Alan Pacey (whose connection to the study was left unclear). It's unclear if this was before or after they learned of how well other subjects did. The article also carefully describes the women only as "partners", despite heterosexuality being quite relevant to the study. The journalist went with "safe and effective", quoting "extremely effective" also from Allan Pacey, while not addressing the "need for ... reversible" part. I'm mildly curious where the "safe" came from.
The worst part? Compared to regularly used hormonal treatments for women, this probably is "safe".
You sound sexy. I'll fantasize about you next time I blow my partner.
Haha! Jokes on you. I have three in my basement as we speak.
No doubt chained to the wall and gagged.
The Worlds press is carrying this story but almost all have missed that the trial has been stopped due to unnacceptable side-effects Of the 300+ patients, - 1 committed suicide - 1 attempted suicide - many being treated for clinical depression - 8 were left infertile a year after stopping the drug.
75% may be willing to continue, but not at that cost
Uh, before you continue to bash this, compare and contrast the results found here with pretty much any other drug that has been approved and on the market today.
It's downright scary what regulatory agencies find acceptable for the "greater good".
And that's in a controlled setting. Imagine what would happen in the real world where thousands of men kill themselves every single month.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
What kind of clown wrote that article anyway? This crazy hormone shot is just as unsafe as birth-control pills, and both should be avoided. Use other means of contraception.
We're nerds, we have natural birth control. The majority are introverted, fat, ugly, or deemed unfit for a long term relationship for one reason or another. That's birth control enough. It would be a minor miracle to have sex let alone be put in a situation where birth control was a topic of discussion with a significant other. This article belongs in Vogue or G.Q. not Slashdot.
However, a relatively high number developed side effects
It makes your dick fall off
Socjus and the general PC crowd tend to argue that sexual orientation is genetically predetermined, and that to regard other people's lifestyles as a choice is to be homophobic, so I disagree with your call.
Here's a thought. What if, instead of an outright gay gene, being gay is caused by an unintended genetic mutation that is not directly inheritable but just happens? Consider allergies. Dad may not have allergy, mom may not have allergy, but little Tommy just decides one day that eating strawberries will kill him. Is that how choice works?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
... the Barbara Streisand's picture jokes are getting old.
Then how are they supposed to post "negative 1" quality comments on Slashdot?
Why not? He's probably fantasizing about you.
"researchers say the jab was almost 96% effective in tests"
Well, shit, that's four pregnancies for every hundred copulations; I wouldn't call a four-percent failure rate "effective". I'd call it a sure thing. It's like Russian Roulette with orgasms.
I mean, if an airplane had a "successful" landing rate of 96%, would you fly on it?
To put it another way, would you eat at a restaurant where four out of every hundred people got sick from the food? I wouldn't.
A 4% failure rate is nothing to brag about. It's better than condoms (12%) but you're still going to be making babies left and right.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Hormons suck for male birth control.
Support some real options here:
http://www.newmalecontraceptio...
1 suicide within the trial? That is a success. 100% contraception success.
This one will sure not be able to procreate anymore.
So guy and girl are on their third date, they're on the cusp of sex and the girl says she's not on the pill and the guy says "It's OK, I'm on the shot".
Does she believe him? I'm guessing no, she doesn't, and this is what kills a "male pill" from a usage perspective. It's the women who get pregnant and ultimately bear the risk of pregnancy so what will make them believe a guy is telling the truth?
Some might say a vasectomy is the same thing, but most men don't get one until they're older and have had kids, so the verisimilitude of a 40-something guy saying he's had a vasectomy is much higher, especially if his partner is a woman of a similar background who may have been married.
2cc of 90% ethanol in each testicle, guaranteed effective. A few side effects...
tend to argue that sexual orientation is genetically predetermined
No-one with an ounce of sense argues that. Because the argument is irrelevant. People get to sleep with whomever they chose, provided all parties are consenting adults. End of conversation.
It is with "glutin" these days
Imagine what would happen in the real world where thousands of men kill themselves every single month.
What, and then they resurrect themselves for next month?
s/every single/per/
Vasectomies don't sound that bad but my nether regions cringe just thinking about it. I'd rather have a shot. In the arm!
You really should read up on Wikipedia about how all that stuff works.
At the time she went on birth control, my wife had undiagnosed celiac disease on top of the MTHFR C677T defect. Her methyation cycle has never been the same since. She’s an extreme case, but messing with your hormones is risky for anyone.
Some side effects may include a slight limp,, softening of the spinal column, voice change, and overbearing sense of control exhibited by your partner. WARNING! DO NOT CONFUSE MALE BIRTH CONTROL KIT WITH DO IT YOURSELF HOME GENDER IDENTIFICATION KIT as they are both located on the same isle of your local planned parenthood.
...has a 96% success rate.
tend to argue that sexual orientation is genetically predetermined
No-one with an ounce of sense argues that. Because the argument is irrelevant.
Actually argument is relevant. If it is genetically predetermined, then legislation penalizing all who discriminate (and refuse to make wedding cakes for gay couples or whatever), are justified. If it is a free lifestyle choice, such discriminatory actions (however subjectively odious) comes under freedom of speech, religion, etc..
So I can see how being utterly manic depressant and having pimples would be a good birth control.
It's just like climate change. They don't want to prove it beyond a doubt or the grant money stops and real solutions begin. Same with homosexuality. They wish to remain special snowflakes as long as possible.
ever looked at a romance novel? women like that sort of thing. they're sick puppies.
Dude. She's going to jail.
In females, hormonal birth control mostly works by tricking the body into thinking it's already pregnant. For humans, it's a significant evolutionary advantage not to become double or triple pregnant, so the body does most of the work for you. It's fairly "natural" because you're basically just reproducing a situation that the female body is designed for.
For males, though, there's no evolutionary reason to ever stop producing sperm. So any cocktail of hormones that shuts off fertility in males has not been through those same millions of years of QA. So I would want to see at least a couple more decades of testing on this before injecting it into my body.
Experience has taught me to be very skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry, so I also can't help but wonder if researchers are saying it's safe only because they, for example, consider a 15% occurrence of male breast enlargement and/or lactation an acceptable side effect.
...compared to constantly messing with hormones:
https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/
Here's a thought. What if, instead of an outright gay gene, being gay is caused by an unintended genetic mutation that is not directly inheritable but just happens? Consider allergies. Dad may not have allergy, mom may not have allergy, but little Tommy just decides one day that eating strawberries will kill him. Is that how choice works?
Good point. As an additional point, I never woke up one morning and though, "Today's the day, Which shall I choose, gay or hetero?" As soon as puberty kicked in, I knew that I was interested in women, and the activities involved with them. I never chose anything.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Just because there may not be a genetic component to homosexuality doesn't mean that it isn't fixed or is somehow a choice. Neuroscientist, Simon LeVay found evidence for sexual orientation being connected to brain structure decades ago. It's entirely possible that homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics, but is rather the result of aberrations during fetal development that result these deviations from the norm.
To claim that it's a choice though is just wrong. If you believe otherwise, ask yourself if you you could change your sexual orientation. Sure, you could probably have sex with someone outside of your preferred group, but you wouldn't be attracted to them or have any imperative desire to do so of your own natural volition.
It took you that long? I knew I was straight at 5. And I also had no choice in the matter. That's just the way I am.
I would if I actually cared about the subject. To me, some people are straight, some people are gay, some like it all and some like none. Just the way it is and I am not the person to tell someone else who they can and can't be attracted to.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Avoid getting yourself vaccinated. Avoid getting your kids vaccinated. There is no safe level of mercury or fluoride or any of the other crap in this vaccines, like Polio in California right now.
I find that the most hostile gay bashers tend to be closeted homosexuals themselves.
Instead of being angry at the mixed feelings you have, just be honest with yourself. Do you find yourself watching lots of sports involving sweaty men touching each other? Do you go to a gym and workout around other men? Do you only listen to songs sung or "rapped" by men? Are most or all of your friends men? Do you prefer the sight, sound or company of men? Do you like the cock?
Yes, that is the joke he was doing.
The subject has been studied quite throughly. There is a good scientific consensus on the issue now: There are inheritable genetic factors that influence sexuality, but they alone are not enough to determine it. Environment matters too, but the environmental factors also have not been isolated.
Sex is an act with a defined purpose, well its actually two fold, its first to procreate and second to strengthen and forge the bond between the patriarch and matriarch of the family.
For people who realize that experience and purpose is subjective, sex can actually be, you know, fun.
It took you that long? I knew I was straight at 5. And I also had no choice in the matter. That's just the way I am.
Well, yeah. Mostly I was referring to the obvious reactions one has when puberty kicks in. As a little boy I had a great appreciation for the ladies, but had no good idea about the details.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Also discovered in the study that 4 women were cheating on their partners.
Allergies are not genetic. The predisposition to develop them is.
So the shot prevents sperm production, causes acne and mood disorders... so it makes you female?
that's way better than where i thought it would be.
Phase 2
How about pedophiles, necrophiliacs? Should those perverts "come out" too? What a great society.
I totally support that message. Although Hillary loves towelheads and ISIS and admits them as refugees, which might be a slight issue.
Traditionally, the problem with male pills has not been that they lack effectiveness, but that they have side effects that are considered unacceptable. One of the more common side-effects is that the damn things are too effective, as in - for some cases - they cause long-term of possibly permanent sterility
You're rediculous. There are many examples of homosexual behavior in non-sentient (if clever) animals, who by definition can't 'choose a lifestyle', they're wired the way they're wired, but you assume, because it doesn't suit your particular world-view or sensibilities, that it's going to be any different in homosapiens?
Please. Try to keep your irrational homophobic knee-jerk reactions under control, please? Nobody is going to make you gay, and no gay person is going to force themselves on you, either. You're just embarassing yourself.
Pre-emptive strike: No, I'm not gay, but I do want to promote rational, logical thinking, and discourage irrational fear-based knee-jerk reactions.
..oh, and also? I'll bet you any amount of money that you have no problem whatsoever with girl-on-girl sex acts, mister homophobe, so stop bullshitting us.
> The first part was that people want to have sex
At times I may want to punch someone in the nose. I can choose not to. I choose not to be controlled by every impulse, because I don't care for the consequences and because it is wrong to punch people in the nose. I wanted to fuck my girlfriend, I chose to wait and make love to my wife instead.
My daughter was around 18 months old when she learned that it was "viable" for her to do something other than exactly what she felt like doing at that moment.
I'd rather not have anyone screwing around with my endocrine system; thanks but no thanks. I'll find some other way.
There are many examples of homosexual behavior in non-sentient (if clever) animals, .. but I do want to promote rational, logical thinking, and discourage irrational fear-based knee-jerk reactions.
Why not "promote rational, logical thinking" by citing the scientific studies of "many examples". Merely asserting like you did, seems like a "irrational fear-based knee-jerk reaction".
Most of you are worthless.
To claim that it's a choice though is just wrong. If you believe otherwise, ask yourself if you you could change your sexual orientation. Sure, you could probably have sex with someone outside of your preferred group, but you wouldn't be attracted to them or have any imperative desire to do so of your own natural volition.
Most people don't "have any imperative desire to" " have sex with someone" other than person they are in love with. While people can "have sex with someone" other than their partners, to the question whether they can easily change their long term sexual partner for someone else, they would say no.
In other words, your arguments are logical fallacies.
Get educated in logic!
From the article: ..so for one in 67 people it fails. Thats WAY too high to be described as "effective".
"around 270 men who were using it, with four pregnancies among their partners...."
"Eight men had not recovered their normal sperm counts a year after the study ended.....
The researchers stopped taking on new participants in 2011 after concerns were raised about side effects such as depression and other mood disorders, as well as muscle pain and acne.
Such side effects caused 20 men to drop out of the study and were reported by many others,"
That doesn't sound like "safe" to me.
It also misses the bigger picture. How many women are going to trust that the guy they just met at the bar is telling the truth when he says he got the male birth control shot? Exactly. Nearly all women are going to insist on some other form of birth control that they can be sure of, making this a secondary form of birth control at best (at worst it'll be a way for guys who never got the shot to trick gullible females into having unprotected sex).
Even if this were 100% safe, the only real-world use this would see is among males wishing to avoid a paternity suit (or at least diminish the odds of one being successful). There might be some married couples where the female can accompany the male to the doctor's office to make sure he actually got the shot. But those cases would be better served with a vasectomy.
Whatever you do, don't go to wikipedia about a subject like this.
Completely useless PC crap.
I suppose it keeps 'them' busy and out of other trouble. Almost completely useless.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Your wife is reading over your shoulder?
I can't think of another explanation for parent post. It's an obvious lie, he's not even tempted?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Homeopathy, where more than 15 million/mL becomes less than 1 million/mL (oblig. XKCD).
The choice isn't "be gay or not" it's "choose who you have sex with."
People get pretty upset when they can't choose their sex partners and for good reason.
I wish they would mention this in the MSM article. Source: https://www.endocrine.org/news...
The hormones that were injected are Norethisterone enanthate and Testosterone undecanoate.
It's been well known in bodybuilding circles that anabolic steroids make you infertile. I'm curious if they were checking the blood work of these guys.
For the men who were still sterile afterwards, i'm wondering if they referred them to an endocrinologist. A round of injection the folicle stimulating hormone may resolve their low sperm counts.
Make no mistake about it gentlemen, this male "birth control" is very much a cocktail of anabolic steroids. It sounds like a few of the guys very much had "negative" roid experiences.
All of Wikipedia is like that. Recently I stumbled across the entry for that shitty old song "Let's get retarded" by the Black Eyed Peas and they had renamed the entry to "Let's get it started" and pretended like that was the original version instead of the censored American version that came out afterwards. When I moved back to the states from Europe (at the time the song was at the height of its popularity and often played at clubs) and heard that version playing in one of the airport's duty free shops in the US, I thought it was a parody.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/30/health/male-birth-control/index.html
"The study, co-sponsored by the United Nations and published Thursday in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, tested the safety and effectiveness of a contraceptive shot in 320 healthy men in monogamous relationships with female partners. Conducted at health centers around the world, enrollment began on a rolling basis in September 2008."
"The researchers discovered that the shot effectively held the sperm count at 1 million per milliliter or less within 24 weeks for 274 of the participants. The contraceptive method was effective in nearly 96% of continuing users."
They play on words here by saying "continuing users" rather than taking it as a part of the whole study group. If you look at the 274 as part of the whole group of 320, the effectiveness drops to 85%. If they cant continue using the shot due to side effects, they are not a continuing user but that also means that the shot did not have the desired effects on them.
"However, due to side effects, particularly depression and other mood disorders, the researchers decided in March 2011 to stop the study earlier than planned, with the final participants completing in 2012.However, due to side effects, particularly depression and other mood disorders, the researchers decided in March 2011 to stop the study earlier than planned, with the final participants completing in 2012."
""It is possible that the fluctuations in the circulating progestin following bimonthly injections could have resulted in the reported or observed mood swings, such as occurs in women, whether on a hormonal contraceptive or not," Colvard speculated.
Overall, 20 men dropped out early due to side effects. A total of 1,491 adverse events were reported by participants, including injection site pain, muscle pain, increased libido and acne. The researchers say that nearly 39% of these symptoms -- including one death by suicide -- were unrelated to the shots."
"After the shots stopped, most of the men returned to fertility during a recovery period."
"Still, there were problems. After 52 weeks in recovery, eight participants had not returned to fertility. The researchers continued to follow these men individually, and five eventually regained normal sperm counts over a longer period of time. One volunteer did not fully recover within four years, though he did "partially recover, so whether he is actually fertile is not known," Colvard said."
"Despite the side effects of the male birth control shot, more than 75% of participants reported being willing to use this method of contraception at the conclusion of the study. Cohen believes at least part of the reason for this is that they were getting testosterone."
""Testosterone makes men feel pretty good," Cohen said. "Testosterone is not a stimulant per se, but it is a steroid, and like a lot of steroids, it can give you a boost of energy. It can give you a boost of muscle mass. It can help with weight loss. It can help with mentation," or mental activity.
Lloyd believes that if 75% of the men said they'd be interested in getting the shot if it were available, there's real interest in the product. "That's unbelievable. That's fabulous. I'm very very impressed with that number," she said."
They are marketing this to men as a "feel good" shot that will help you "boost muscle mass, help with weight loss and aide in mentation". They are pitching this to men as a panacea for all their ailments and are surprised when 75% of them are like "hell yea DR Bob, gimme a shot of that feel good juice"
"Cohen, who says he he sees patients who face infertility or other hormonal problems, worries about the safety of this method. "Let's just say, when I read it, I was highly alarmed," he said, explaining that putting men on testosterone who have normal testosterone levels is not safe and amounts to a violation of the "ethical clinical practice guidelines.""
""We're talking about young people, and
Also found to assist in growing a vagina.
Technical subjects are mostly right.
Even with tech there are exceptions...Wikipedia thinks CNC stands for 'Computer Numeric Control' not 'Continuous Numeric Control'. And now they have a cite circle, so no fixing it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
However, a relatively high number developed side effects, including acne and mood disorder
Which sounds about the same as the female birth control pill. Of course the set of side effects seem to vary depending on _which_ pill, but in the case of my wife the "mood disorders" part seems to apply to all of them...
The problem is it can be a choice. You can teach yourself to become sexually aroused at anything and you can teach yourself to not be aroused at something. I'm not saying that training is quick or easy, just that it's possible for the majority of the population. So while we don't know how your defaults are pre-set, you can change them after the fact. So you can choose to change it if you put in a ton of effort to do so.
That's cool. Mexican and central American men don't consider the dominant man to be gay.
Funny that you mention religion. Does that mean it's OK to discriminate against people based on their religion since it is a choice or at worst indoctrination and not innate?
Does that mean it's OK to discriminate against people based on their religion since it is a choice or at worst indoctrination and not innate?
I would say "no" if the religion is Islam, because the penalty for leaving Islam is bloody, horrible death. And that's in the peaceful, non-ISIS countries. Duress obviates choice.
the 4% that got their partners pregnant, are they sure they were the ones who got their partners pregnant?
Not relevant. Homosexuality is and has been for ages, a fact of life.
Nothing wrong, it's personal.
The problems start when sexuality of any kind are suppressed (e.g. religion, cultural). Male rejection usually stems from sexual uncertainty or fear of being hunted. Most get over it,bullying is a choice.
Those of us who read slashdot however have a method that is 100% effective (no sex!). ;-)
People have sex to enjoy themselves. Some in a relationship, some outside of it. You do not get the right to say what are acceptable reasons to have sex.
The better to get them treatment.
If it is a free lifestyle choice, such discriminatory actions (however subjectively odious) comes under freedom of speech, religion, etc..
Religious affiliation is a free lifestyle choice (albeit one typically heavily indoctrinated at youth), and the last time I checked, the courts took a very dim view of religious discrimination. Note that there is a wide gulf between being discriminated against and not being allowed to impose your religion on others.
Not at all. We just think you are a degenerate faggot.
Do not not the power of hype to nudges to social goods. It is probably out there on YouTube somewhere, but many years ago Arsenio Hall had a nighttime TV show and did a routine about wearing condoms. It was hilarious. It was effective. It made condoms really cool (one of his lines was "Rough Riders! I turned them inside out and where two of them!").
This was one of the most effective routines ever done, right up there with the Brooke Shields anti-smoking campaign ("then he lit up a cigarette! Ugh")
Not at all. We just think you are a degenerate faggot.
That is what is called psychological projection. Q.E.D.
Vasectomies are generally permanent. After not being connected for a while, the testes tend to shut down sperm production, so vasectomy reversals are unreliable. They're not good for the "I don't want a kid right now" phase, only the "I never want another kid" phase.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"Computer Numeric Control" was what I was told about nine years ago when I started working with CNC machines. It made sense to me because the gcode the mills used was a Turing-complete specialized computer language.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There's no projection involved. Faggotry is a degenerate, barren sexuality; and thus, faggots are degenerates. It is natural for healthy people to shun the vile and unnatural. Moral relativism is the domain of liberal intellectual whores devoid of any standards.
Classic denial. It is not normal to go out of your way to be offended by or to attack people who have done nothing to harm you. The most likely explanation for your anger is that you secretly lust after men, but that revelation is threatening to your self-imposed sense of machismo due to your uncultured, biased and bigoted upbringing.
I've known many "faggots" (to use your crude parlance) who are much more civilised, intelligent and masculine than you are.
Just because you don't have a meaningful love life, don't mean everyone else, including grandparent, is pathetic as you are.
Oh, on "not even tempted", read the grandparent carefully, he/she/whatever did not go that far.