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."
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?
Abstinence has a much higher failure rate than any other form of birth control.
Condoms aren't just for preventing pregnancy though, they prevent the spread of diseases. Even with a perfect contraceptive, you would still want to use a condom if you are not with a long term partner that you trust.
I've found that the 0.01mm thick ones are much better than the standard ones, but cost a fair bit more. Even they are far inferior to not using one though. Condoms reduce feeling for women too, I think they are just more willing to accept that because the potential consequences are much more severe and there is less social stigma if they don't reach orgasm.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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..