Slashdot Mirror
New Male Birth Control Pill Succeeds In Preliminary Testing (time.com)
"A second male birth control pill succeeded in preliminary testing, suggesting that a new form of contraception may eventually exist," reports Time:
The new pill, which works similarly to female contraception, passed initial safety tests and produced hormone responses consistent with effective birth control in 30 men, according to research presented by the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute and the University of Washington at the Endocrine Society's annual meeting. (The study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.) It's early days for the drug -- which has not yet been submitted for approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) -- but co-principal investigator Dr. Christina Wang, lead researcher at LA BioMed, says it's an important step toward effective, reversible male hormonal contraception....
Unlike a 2016 male birth control trial that famously stopped enrolling volunteers early because so many men complained of side effects, none of the men experienced serious problems, and no one stopped taking the drug because of side effects.
Unlike a 2016 male birth control trial that famously stopped enrolling volunteers early because so many men complained of side effects, none of the men experienced serious problems, and no one stopped taking the drug because of side effects.
Works quite well for me.
That goes both ways, actually. When my ~15 year relationship broke up, I got into dating again. I'm a man, and the women I was dating were aged 35-42, and regularly viewing a potential partner as their last chance to have children. Whenever it got to sex (which is not often because I'm no ladies' man), I made super double sure to wear a condom, even though she said she'd be on contraception.
And in my (European) country, you can bet your ass you will pay through the nose for a child that you didn't choose.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
"Dr. Christina Wang"
Sure, whatever.
#DeleteFacebook
Actually, you have to unroll condoms.
#DeleteFacebook
Even if you're in a committed long term relationship, if your only birth control is the female pill, you're putting all the responsibility on one person. In our case I would much rather have taken on the responsibility instead of her (or even better, in addition to her). Forgetting to take the pill once in a while is a common problem, and some people are more reliable than others. It's not like I could ask her every day if she took the pill - that's a surefire way to piss her off because it shows I don't trust her, even though she did occasionally forget. It makes sense for both people to have the option. If I were in those years again, and there was a reliable, safe male birth control pill with only moderate to minor side effects, I'd be on it for sure.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
In my 30s and it's amazing how many guys if met who's wives for pregnant on the pill. I knew a few that out right admitted they stopped taking it without telling their partner. Often because the mother in law was anxious for grandchildren...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This is exactly why I joined the alt-right and now only have sex with other men (no homo, though). Women are scum!
OK, but so what? This pill isn't there for women. Women have their own pill. They're able (in civilized parts of the world, including civilized parts of the United States) to make their own reproductory decisions (and where they aren't they should be.)
This pill is for men. The problem it's solving is that men aren't, to some extent, able to have their own veto on reproduction, or at least our options aren't as good. Condoms kinda interfere with the moment and have been known to break, vasectomies are permanent, and so on. Yes, our investment in reproduction may be lesser than that of the woman whose entire body will be hijacked for nine months, but we still are invested in it, we will still be expected (rightly) to give up the next 18-21 years and a sizable amount of income bringing the kid up.
Which, if we want the kid, we will do gladly because believe me fatherhood is a wonderful thing.
Unwanted fatherhood? Not so much.
So, yes, we need a pill too. Not for the sake of the would-be mother, but for the sake of the would-be father. This is a legitimate men's rights issue. I'd like to say it's surprising it's taking this long to bring such a pill into being, but the people who claim to be all about men's rights usually, instead, are whining about paying child support and pretending feminism is preventing them from getting jobs. This is what we'd get if we focused on what we need, rather than focusing on preventing others from getting what they need.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I wonder if this might help overcome some of the distrust that has arise over the last decade. When the female pill was invented it was very liberating for women, and while things are different for men today perhaps it might also help some men who have anxiety about unwanted pregnancy.
My guess is that it won't. A woman can have multiple partners, become pregnant, and pick which one she wishes to raise a child with. The claim would be that the birth control somehow . Not all countries allow the man to DNA test his presumed children. I'm not even certain that a vasectomy would be protection.
Yup, trust has sunk that low. And not without very good reasons.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
And in my (European) country, you can bet your ass you will pay through the nose for a child that you didn't choose.
This is true in the States as well.
Enforcement has been automated (and getting more automated) for decades, and there are all sorts of fun things like imputed income (you could be making more, so we'll assess you on that basis, etc.)
LOL, all it takes is ONE to reach the egg.
Not true. An ovum has a protective membrane called the zona pellucida. Sperm bind to the zona pellucida in a process known as sperm binding. This triggers a chemical reaction by enzymes to digest the membrane and allow the sperm to tunnel toward the egg’s plasma membrane.
If not enough sperm reach the ovum, this reaction doesn't happen, and none can penetrate.
One is not enough. It is a group effort.
Yup, trust has sunk that low. And not without very good reasons.
It is time somebody told you about these: https://www.walgreens.com/stor...
Western family law can hold you responsible for the child even if you are not the birth father. Men are in a very precarious position legally because of common law relationships which hold you in the role of a "father figure" especially if the woman is living under your roof. In that circumstance you have less than three months to verify paternity. Any more than that and you are on the hook for child support payments until the child is 18.
There is very little downside for women putting men in this position and it's a big reason why men commit suicide.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Which western countries are these? In all of Europe you can't be held responsible for someone else's child, although if you did contribute to their upbringing and only found out later you often can't recover that money either.
Do you have any stats for the causes of male suicide? Everything I can find that isn't an MRA blog only lists relationships as one of many causes, usually not the first in the unordered list, so I'm interested to know if this claim has any statistical basis.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Unsure about Europe but it's definitely a possibility in the US. Here some citations from different states: https://nypost.com/2017/07/23/... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... https://wgno.com/2016/07/28/co...
In the US it doesn't work so rationally. In many states, there are limited circumstances in which you can challenge paternity, and if you miss the window (e.g., were living in a different state after the breakup and ooopsie didn't get notified) you can be on the hook for child support. 18 years.
No modern study of paternity statistics can be trusted, of course, because the issue is political now.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"Only" 2%?? That's 1 in 50. For a huge life altering consequence, those odds are absolutely high enough to treat it as a big deal. You people who claim things like that and the 2-10% (1 in 50 to 1 in 10) percent of false rape accusations make them so rare that no rational person should ever assume that's the case are batshit insane.
Socialism!
I'm pretty sure when everyone cooperates toward a final goal and yet a single person claims credit and takes ownership and benefits for all the work done by everyone we call it capitalism.
Which western countries are these? In all of Europe you can't be held responsible for someone else's child, although if you did contribute to their upbringing and only found out later you often can't recover that money either.
Unless something has changed, in pretty much all of the US, the husband is the "putative father", and even if paternity is later established to be someone else the court can leave child support orders in place if in the "best interests of the child" (e.g. if the neighborhood hood who was the genetic donor has a lower income )
Which western countries are these? In all of Europe you can't be held responsible for someone else's child, although if you did contribute to their upbringing and only found out later you often can't recover that money either.
Do you have any stats for the causes of male suicide? Everything I can find that isn't an MRA blog only lists relationships as one of many causes, usually not the first in the unordered list, so I'm interested to know if this claim has any statistical basis.
If you read French, here is the statute. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr...
https://www.ibdna.com/paternit... > I believe you told me before that you are too busy to red my citations, but here is the rationale.
"The reasons for which the Government said the ban should remain were related to the preservation of peace within French families. According to some online articles, Germany, has also banned (or plans to ban) paternity testing for similar reasons. French psychologists suggest that fatherhood is determined by society not by biology. For this reason, the President’s wife Carla Bruni describes her father as the man ‘from whom she takes her name’. She is friends with her biological dad too but she doesn’t refer to him, or think of him as, her father.
So the woman retains her money supply, the Child is raised by someone other than the father, and the guy who the wife fucked and got pregnant with is ruinning around, legally allowed to fuck any woman and father children that he never has to spend a cent for.
Who has the better deal? I don't know about you, but I don't think it is wise and proper to force men to pay for children their wives purposely have with other men? It is the law, enforceably by a year in priison if you don't raise your cuckhold children, so apparently a lot of people believe that.
Ah..... male privilege in it's highest form.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Unless something has changed, in pretty much all of the US, the husband is the "putative father", and even if paternity is later established to be someone else the court can leave child support orders in place if in the "best interests of the child" (e.g. if the neighborhood hood who was the genetic donor has a lower income )
You can even be held liable if you are a sperm donor. https://montesfamilylaw.com/ca...
And here is the bill they are workin on passing (SB 115) http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/...
In Canada, Sperm donors are not allowed anonymity, which means that a sperm donor is easy to find. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada... . And don't for a minute think that the known Sperm donor will not be sued for support. The child and th emother are the Important parties.
And some women are demanding the absolute right to find and know who donated sperm https://www.wbur.org/npr/14047...
tl;dr version - a man would have to be a fool do donate sperm, and not that smart to enter into a marriage contract these days of institutionalized cuckholdery.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.