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.
The Pill generally works for most women (and in some cases helps them stay 'regular'), a not-insubstantial number cannot go near the things without causing massive problems (irritability, fertility issues later down the road, etc). That said, it's fairly predictable, and you're not introducing anything more than just more hormones at the right times.
It's tougher with men, since we don't have predictable cycles to monkey with (sperm production is more or less constant until the guy is well past old age), unlike eggs (which are already present at birth), sperm is made on-demand, and various hormonal interdependencies with brain chemistry is likely way more complex.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Women have a natural state where they no longer ovulate (pregnant or breast feeding) and female birth control works by tricking their bodies into going into that natural state. The big problem with male birth control is that there is no natural state where men don't produce viable sperm. All hormonal based male birth controls force the male body into some sort of unnatural state, which always leads to unacceptable side effects. Now physical barrier based male birth control might work better but its not as profitable because those methods are typically long lasting and more permanent, so the drug companies don't get a regular kickback as you don't have to buy pills every month.
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_vasectomy/
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 !!
I would think it's far more prudent (and effective) to kill one egg than a gazillion sperm.
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.
"Vasectomies cost about $350 to $1000 — far less than surgery to sterilize a woman — and many insurance companies will cover the procedure."
How much profit do they think they'll make off these pills?
Woman have a valid reason for BC. Men would lie because we're stupid.
"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.
If you already have a basic mechanism to stop fertility in place, it's a lot easier to trigger it on command. Specially when it is designed for external control. It is the fetus that signals the mother's body to switch to pregnancy mode. This makes it a lot easier to find and trigger the chemical pathways that will do the trick.
Males, on the other hand, do not have such mechanism, which makes this much harder to achieve without serious side-effects,
Keep your pants zipped. I've done it for 47 years. Saves a lot of heartache from shotgun marriages, unwanted children and STDs.
Im still waiting on the FDA to approve Vasalgel, its worked for decades in India, is reversable, no side effects, but also no money because its a cheap one time injection.
This article is pure hate fact. We all know the only reason there is no "male" birth control pill is because of the cis-gendered alt-right white nazi patriarchy. Men and women are the same and any differences only exist because of social constructs.
</mode>
We've already got a way to prevent unwanted pregnancies... It's called eSports.
Thirty four characters live here.
Because it will be much harder (if not impossible) for the women to conceal a 'successful' adultery.
Perhaps male contraception was a viable issue to address during the boomer generation.
Today, the divorce rate has never been higher. Infidelity(AshleyMadison/IllicitEncounters) and casual sex(Tinder/Grindr) have been turned from sins into products for the hook-up generation. All of this activity going on in the most dangerous STD landscape that has ever existed.
Pill contraception is a one-trick pony, and unwanted pregnancy is the least of our fucking concerns now.
Once you father a child the state OAG has you by the balls, and even if you sign a legally binding contract for child support at x dollars per month, they can come after you every three years for more for no more reason than time has passed. No requirement on the mother to prove she's capable or actually spending the money on the children neither. Staying married is only an option for some. It's cynical as heck but protection, you know, protects. You.
How do I edit my sig.
It' s been practiced for thousands of years. I do it. Just press at the base of the perineum just before ejaculation and voila. Orgasm with no ejaculation.
Because women don't lie about being on the pill? I got some bad news for you.
Woman have a valid reason for BC.
So do men. No-one wants to be lumbered with 18+ years of child support from a one night stand.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Birth control outside of a condom is for people in a dedicated relationship and if you're lying about birth control in that situation your relationship is more fucked up than I care to imagine. I wouldn't want to have unprotected sex with someone I've just recently met. Pregnancy isn't the biggest concern compared to getting some STDs. If someone gets pregnant you can always get an abortion, but there's no easy fix for HIV, hepatitis, or herpes.
"He confessed his transgression to the researchers, and follow-up studies confirmed his account: WIN 18,446 didn’t mix well with booze. Men who combined the two reported heart palpitations, sweating, nausea, and vomiting. The research was quietly abandoned.".
As someone who doesn't drink at all, I would quite like this to be researched more. There are a non-trivial number (some millions in the USA alone) of people who don't drink, for one reason or another, and might be interested in a contraceptive.
Google it, there is a solution that works and is reversible.
Why don't we have it? Because the entire contraception industry would collapse and I'm sure there is even a decent dose of fear about birth rates plummeting. Major commercial and religious entities at play in making sure you continue to make babies...
Because women don't lie about being on the pill? I got some bad news for you.
A responsible adult (man or woman) should be able to take control of their own birth control. They should never have to rely on the other party doing their part- or be in a position where the other party could be misleading them.
Doesn't matter if you're man or woman, it's much better to have your destiny in your own hands.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Hardly a "massive" social turbulence. The number of births where the expected father isn't the real father is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% (Find your own sources). This wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
Yeah it's also cost/benefit.
If you get pregnant you're in a risky medical condition. The pill might put you at risk, but you're avoiding a different risk. For the male pill you're taking someone who is in a perfectly safe medical condition and putting them in a risky medical condition with no direct benefit to the individual.
It's a stickier ethics question than the slam dunk case for female contraceptive pills.
Solve the liberal problem by preventing weak men from reproducing!
They should put it in the water in all the low education red states....
Well arent you fucked up. "I dont like these peoples political opinions and who they vote for. So lets prevent them from having kids".
Wait, which one is messed up? The one that matches your world view, or the one that is opposite of yours?
Err....paternity suits, and having to be associated with this one woman and kid for 18 years can be a huge, long term, chronic health threat (mental, physical and financial).
Health risk by law...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Sperm #1: "I'm getting tired swimming. How far is the uterus?"
Sperm #2: "I don't know, We only just passed the tonsils."
Have gnu, will travel.
They already do. Everywhere. The amount of testosterone and sperm motility is half for males that lived in your grandfather's time in the US.
Man I screwed that sentence up. Ours is half that of our grandfathers time. If only we had a 30 second grace period edit option... anyway there are a ton of articles available. Here is one: http://www.trtguide.com/low-te...
Absolutely agree and that is one reason I hope for a day with male BC so that I don't have to make a permanent decision like a vasectomy to take control of my own birth control.
or be in a position where the other party could be misleading them.
This is more difficult because it amounts to; "Trust no one". Being in a relationship, a healthy one at least, is built on some level of trust.
Men reported side effects that are minor versions of what women get with birth control pills and it's enough to stop the study. Fucking wah.
If they're serious about male birth control pills they would conclude the study as planned.
Of course no intelligent woman is going to trust a random guy who says he's on "The Pillz(tm)" because quite frankly no intelligent man should trust a random woman who says she's on the pill. These would be for stable, trusting relationships and peace of mind for the guys. None of which is bad.
Nice dehumanization you did there. Remember, it's not murder if their not human. You would fit right in with ze Nazi's.
Both.
Hardly a "massive" social turbulence. The number of births where the expected father isn't the real father is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% (Find your own sources). This wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.
No. It's been measured from 20% to 35%. There are multiple sources for this, I suggest you start with the CDC.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
My comment still stands true.
How about the people that voted for hillary. Im sure by your comment you fit in that croud.
That leaves the 60% that didnt vote to make the states a better place.
...and just how many women would trust a guy saying... "yeah.. I'm totally on the pill"
Female hormonal birth control can cause serious and even deadly side effects, however they are acceptable in women because Pregnancy carries far higher health risks for women, especially older ones. For males such side effects are very problematic because men don't face any additional health dangers if they do not use contraceptives
That's not how it works are all. In fact, it's somewhat worse: When the Pill got through testing, all of the side effects were considered perfectly acceptable in general. Not in a 'because pregnancy is more risky' sense, but in a flat-out 'because we do not actually give two fucks' sense...which should be a hint as to why the rules got tightened, too. (Nearly all the rounds of the FDA's rules getting tightened can be traced back to it being realized that they're fucking people over; the one exception is when it was everybody else being lax getting us a nice global panic while a paper-pusher at the FDA went "Nope!" and refused to allow Thalidomide to get approved in the US...well, for the uses wanted for it at the time. It's actually a very good cancer drug & approved for that particular use.)
We've since tightened up the rules, but since the Pill got approved before then it stays on the market even though you'd never get it through now.
Bullshit! Women often become very fertile within a month or two after giving birth. Ever wonder why tots in a family can be three to six months a part? Yeah, that's why!
Hmmm... Three to six months apart? I thought gestation was longer than that... I guess birth control pills can speed up everything!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Eliminating women's rights already exists in much of the muslim world...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Hardly a "massive" social turbulence. The number of births where the expected father isn't the real father is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% (Find your own sources). This wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.
No. It's been measured from 20% to 35%. There are multiple sources for this, I suggest you start with the CDC.
If memory serves, the higher numbers are specifically for those children for whom paternity testing is done--the 2% number is what I've seen given as predicted for what might be expected with a truly random sample, and usually gets brought up to remind people that the 20%-35% number is better understood as the percentage of men who are actually right in suspecting that the child isn't theirs.
"side effects, including mood changes and depression."
Sounds like they were having their period.
The FDA can't revoke approval but it has slapped the ominous Black Box warning on most hormonal birth control pills. Older women that smoke are highly discouraged from taking them because of the significantly higher risk of cardiovascular side effects. Still most OBGYN would recommed those in the high risk category to continue taking hormonal birth control if their partners object to alternative birth control methods and they would try to carry a unwanted, high risk pregnancy to term because of their beliefs
They're relatively inexpensive, reversible, not a complex or invasive, and don't involve hormone changes. I'd rather do that than take a pill.
If medical study and caution for side effects for women contraceptive was held to same stringent standard as this current male contraceptive is now, will the women pill be stuck as "five years away for the last 40 years" as well. Women Contraceptives are not exactly harmless for health.
If anyone's ever played ice hockey, or any other sport, you'd know it's easier to stop one puck than it is to block 500,000,000 at once. This is why we don't have a "male birth control pill".
Alterations in estrogen levels during pregnany result in haulted ovulation during pregnancy. It is part of the normal biological process for ministration to suspend under some circumstances. The female pill creates one of those circumstances.
There are no normal situations that suspend sperm production. It’s an abnormal situation.
Just to point out the obvious, the article was written by a woman.
It's what natural selection and society already does.
Atleast if let alone.
Also their opions (reds) are intrusive non-free one so of course one should be free to fight back against it.
It's not like they are for liberty and of no danger.
You most certainly are that guy.
An option for married couples who don't want more kids, if you'll read the fucking thread.
good grief that was one example. Do i have to cite every single reason for birth control in one post to make them valid?
Just another second banana
9.5/10
Actually, as you noted, it's only most hormonal birth control pills--but knowing the wide range of alternate birth control methods? The only reason I can come up with for a partner objecting to all of them is that he wants something he can easily sabotage with minimum chance of detection... (There's safer options that don't change anything for the male part of the experience and are harder for either side to sabotage.)
You defenders of Trump are barely literate, but at least you have the comfortable delusion that your ignorance is what will make you free.
There are none so stupid as those who chose not to learn from the mistakes of history.
The truth can not be swept away or hidden, but ignoring it can cause plenty of damage.
The forces supporting Trump's MAGAdupes are counting on that group's continued blind acceptance of their blatant lies and misdirected anger to stay in power and to continue in their unlawful power grabs.
Collusion with the Russians is only the tip of the iceberg of corruption that is beginning to be revealed as their evil plans unfold.
PlaynBass
Says the apparatchnik of the party of vote suppression.
Name the crimes and the proof
Don't bother with Drudge, NewsMax or Faux, as these are all proven lies
Trump LOST the election by 2.86 million votes because we, the people, are tired of brainless cowardly guntoting sheep running the nation into ever more war debt while people die of easily cured diseases.
You defenders of Trump are barely literate, but at least you have the comfortable delusion that your ignorance is what will make you free.
Illusions won't make me free.
The destruction of the threats against my freedom would.
There are none so stupid as those who chose not to learn from the mistakes of history.
Socialists never learn.
continue in their unlawful power grabs.
What's that really? Being able to empower yourself?
Yeah. Sounds scary.
Collusion with the Russians is only the tip of the iceberg of corruption that is beginning to be revealed as their evil plans unfold.
Putin is our guy. He's for sovereignty. That's worth plenty.
Also I'm Swede not American so my Trump support or not isn't very relevant over there.
Idiocracy explains it best. It's a negative selection bias against people who are proactive and think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Men have been expected to make the money as their half of the family. They can't give birth, so sustenance is all they can bring to the table as a partner.
Therefore the men are more motivated to succeed because women want successful men to bonk, not losers.
So the reason why men have "all the power" when you look at jobs, it's because women have wanted men to do that and men have had to.
It can be ingested regularly, and in about a year, total male sterility.
Its the same spermicidal lubricant used on condoms.
How do you predict something for which you have no data whatsoever? If most children haven't received paternity testing, how do you know how many of them have the expected father? It could be none of them, or it could be all of them, or anything in between.
Besides, if men's suspicions are so off base, they could be equally bad at not suspecting a cheating partner.
How do you predict something for which you have no data whatsoever? If most children haven't received paternity testing, how do you know how many of them have the expected father? It could be none of them, or it could be all of them, or anything in between.
It's measured at 2% for those who found out the real paternity due to a medical issue that cropped up. That 2% number comes from a perfect storm that requires all of the following:
1) A cheating wife (a given in the context of wrong paternity), and
2) The 50% dice roll that results in the other guys sperm managing fertilization in place of the husbands (also a given), and
3) That the child is biologically incompatible with the husband, and
4) An unexpected medical procedure that requires compatibility
So, yeah, I guess a "real" rate of 30% could work out to 2% if measured using the above constraints only.
If the other guy has compatible blood type with the husband, the true paternity will never be discovered. If the child never needs biological material from the husband, the true paternity will remain a secret.
Of course, this means that the true rate of female infidelity is probably twice as high as the 20% - 35% number, because a women who is alternating between two men (husband and non-husband) will only get pregnant by the non-husband around half the time, meaning that only around half of women who cheat get pregnant by the non-husband.
In other words, for each woman who is found to have perpetrated paternity fraud, there is one other woman who cheated but got pregnant by husband instead.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Hardly a "massive" social turbulence. The number of births where the expected father isn't the real father is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% (Find your own sources). This wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.
No. It's been measured from 20% to 35%. There are multiple sources for this, I suggest you start with the CDC.
If memory serves, the higher numbers are specifically for those children for whom paternity testing is done--the 2% number is what I've seen given as predicted for what might be expected with a truly random sample, and usually gets brought up to remind people that the 20%-35% number is better understood as the percentage of men who are actually right in suspecting that the child isn't theirs.
I've already answered this - see this link below. TLDR version is this: the 2% number is derived from the number of paternity fraud discovered when "daddy" tries to donate biological material to the child, and they realise that he is incompatible. The 2% number doesn't reflect wrong paternity, it reflects wrong paternity AND unusual medical procedures.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
And that is how I know you are stupid.
Hardly a "massive" social turbulence. The number of births where the expected father isn't the real father is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% (Find your own sources). This wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.
No. It's been measured from 20% to 35%. There are multiple sources for this, I suggest you start with the CDC.
If memory serves, the higher numbers are specifically for those children for whom paternity testing is done--the 2% number is what I've seen given as predicted for what might be expected with a truly random sample, and usually gets brought up to remind people that the 20%-35% number is better understood as the percentage of men who are actually right in suspecting that the child isn't theirs.
I've already answered this - see this link below. TLDR version is this: the 2% number is derived from the number of paternity fraud discovered when "daddy" tries to donate biological material to the child, and they realise that he is incompatible. The 2% number doesn't reflect wrong paternity, it reflects wrong paternity AND unusual medical procedures.
Unusual medical procedures is a better means of approximating a random sample of the population than there being questions in the first place about the paternity.
To get a truly accurate rate would require a proper random sample, and you're never getting that by itself through an ethics review board. You might manage to get approval of a study on rates within the population of something that would require you establish genetic parentage--but it'd need to be something where you can establish a reason why knowing inherited vs de novo mutation rates would be just as important as does vs doesn't have rates.
Oh, and your modern paternity test is a genetic test. The blood test has issues, including the fact that chimerism is not unknown in humans--and one of the known flavors is basically accidental in utero transplant of maternal blood stem cells. (At that age, transplants are easy.)
And this is how I know you're not in any part of STEM where you're expected to know how to recognize what is and isn't a random sample...and how to approximate such because there are logistical issues in grabbing people at random from all over the planet as an experiment. And, well, I suppose it's also not terribly ethical...
One of the really interesting things is that we do know that the chance is not 50%, even for simple fertilization. There's a lot of factors involved in just the odds of conception alone--enough that people are making careers out of studying this--but those odds can be altered by such things as genetic compatibility, point in her cycle, sex acts performed (aside from the obvious one), frequency with that specific partner, and of course male fertility. Most of this list also figures into the odds of the outcome being a 'live infant.' (And yes, you can find scientific papers on this entire list, but if you want me to do it for you I expect to be paid.) Most, if not all, of these factors have been shaped by evolution, in at least part because the reproductive investment for females is higher than it is for males, especially in mammals.
Well, that and female birth control also lowers the risk of some cancers and has other benefits - typically related to menstruation - as well.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.