Slashdot Mirror
Why We Can't Have the Male Pill (bloomberg.com)
Reader joshtops shares a report: For years, headlines have promised an imminent breakthrough in male contraception. Time and again, these efforts have fallen short. Last October, for instance, researchers reported that a hormone cocktail they'd been testing curbed sperm production and prevented pregnancies. But they'd had to halt the study early because men were reporting troubling side effects, including mood changes and depression. "The joke in the field is that the male contraceptive has been five years away for the last 40 years," says John Amory, a research physician at the University of Washington School of Medicine who has been working on the challenge for two decades. A new form of male birth control would be a public-health triumph and could snag a significant piece of the contraceptive market -- which is expected to surpass $33 billion by 2023, according to research firm Global Market Insights Inc -- or possibly expand it further. In a 2002 German survey of 9,000 men in nine countries, including Brazil, France, Germany, Mexico, and the U.S., more than 55 percent of the respondents said they'd be willing to use a new form of male birth control. A later study by Johns Hopkins University estimated that the demand could yield 44 million customers in those nine countries alone. And yet major pharmaceutical companies have mostly abandoned the chase.
Well arent you fucked up. "I dont like these peoples political opinions and who they vote for. So lets prevent them from having kids".
*snaps heels together* Seig Heil !!
Sounds about the same as the female pill regarding mood swings and depression, or altered personality. Anyone who has been with someone before and after they started taking birth control will know what I'm talking about.
"The joke in the field is that the male contraceptive has been five years away for the last 40 years"
Did anyone else immediately think of nuclear fusion?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
A pill doesn't solve all the problems with sex, just birth control. A condom isn't perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than a non-existant pill with the added benefit of preventing STDs.
I'm disappointed that the male contraceptive that basically glued the vas deferens closed but could be dissolved by another solvent hasn't taken off: https://wired.com/2011/04/ff_v...
Birth control is not just for one night stands. Sometimes wedded couples decide they have enough kids at whatever number they have and would like birth control that doesn't make the wife throw up and allows them to have sex. A LOT of married men would gladly take birth control over expensive constant buying of condoms.
Just another second banana
Because women don't lie about being on the pill? I got some bad news for you.
I'm guessing that for a man who is circumcised, and who already lost most of his sensitivity, a condom doesn't make much difference, but for me the condom cuts far too much sexual pleasure. I prefer masturbation (and obviously a blow job) to having sex with a condom.
Of course, the best solution would be for society to realize that it's women who get pregnant, not men, and that it's obviously their body, their choice, and therefore their responsibility, but society doesn't like the idea that women should be responsible for their body. Society still considers that a man should be responsible for a woman's body. It's sad that in 2017 women are still considered as being unable to be responsible for anything, not even their own body.
Even if the woman lies about birth control you are still liable.
Yeah - it's called being responsible. Why trust what someone else tells you?
So if not being fooled is the fool's responsibility, why do we have laws against fraud?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And ruin sex, which is then with a rubber sex toy rather than a person. Besides that isn't responsibility it is due diligence or self-defense.
We have birth control, morning after pills, and abortion. The argument that we can't require women to take the absolutely minimal risk associated with the morning after pill or an abortion or even carry to term if the father doesn't consent to an abortion is a weak one when we require individuals to risk death just to determine if their blood alcohol level is too high. The current system of treating a pregnant woman as the patient rather than the fetus which is 50% part of the fathers body is unjustifiable. Keeping paternity testing as taboo rather than standard and automatic procedure during pregnancy to establish fatherhood as soon as possible is unjustifiable now that it can be done early and as simply as establishing gender with a 99.9% reliable bloodtest from the mother.
Even if you aren't willing to require minimal and reasonable levels of accommodation from women to provide something approaching equitable rights for expecting fathers, given that pro-creation is the least common motive for intercourse the father should at least have the right to waive parental responsibility while an abortion is still possible and later if the mother was negligent and didn't inform him during that time. In the case of rape the attacker should lose all related rights obviously, a man who rapes a woman has no rights to a resulting fetus and the same if a woman rapes a man and gets pregnant, she loses her rights and must go along with whatever decisions.
Saying it is a woman's body it impacts and so it is all her decision ignores that the fetus is NOT part of her body any more than a piece of stolen jewelry she swallows. It ignores that carrying and birthing or the risks of outpatient abortion are the least of the risks, suffering, and responsibility that comes with a child. Are we really going to say it is okay for a woman to use her innate physical womb to take total control of lifelong decisions that impact another person at least as much as themselves? How can we reconcile that with the way we treat men who are even slightly assertive because women might fear the physical advantages they theoretically could take advantage of?
Women make up about 60% of the population in the United States. They hold so much power in our society they were able to push through a constitution amendment (prohibition) that men opposed even when they didn't have suffrage. They make up 60% of the potential voters and have an even disproportionately greater representation at the polls. Politically we pretend women are disadvantaged because they have the political and social power to push that standard when in reality they hold almost all of the actual power and our policies and laws are all designed to give them all the advantages while guaranteeing no advantage can ever be given to males.