Stateside boffins think that they may have delivered a long-sought boon: a male oral contraceptive without undesirable side effects. There are already drugs which men can take to render sex a mildly athletic recreational activity rather than a potentially life-altering financial and emotional commitment, but these generally have …
One half of the equation
You'll just need to sell it with a companion Credulity Pill, to be given to female partners in order for them to genuinely believe the guys when they say "don't worry love I'm taking this male contraceptive pill"!
Missed the point
That is such a silly point women always make when they feel threatened and intimidated by the prospect of a male 'pill'.
It's there to protect MEN and put THEM completely in control of their own progeny, not to empower women. Women already have their own pill for all that, and if you don't like the idea of men empowering themselves, tough. This century is going to be for men what the 20th was for women, so hopefully we'll have a little more balance by the end of it.
Anything that reduces the number of kids going around calling the wrong man 'Daddy' is a good thing, even if certain women are mortified by the prospect.
trust works both ways
Having known two people suckered into becoming fathers unexpectedly when their partners admitted that they'd stopped taking the pill, then trust works both ways. In one case it all worked out, in the other it went horribly wrong.
So don't think of this as a way of stopping unwanted fatherhood...
Re: Missed the point
Amazing. Boy, I'm gonna miss this shit.
Potting the brown
You could, of course, take the question out of the act...
ah, the old 'don't trust the men to take it' conundrum :)
to be fair, if I was a woman, I wouldn't trust a man to take it either.
I base this on, that as a man, I certainly don't trust a woman to take the pill... not 100% anyway... there's too many women out there who thinks babies save relationships for that :)
I guess if a woman takes her pills so that she knows she's safe then the man can do the same.. and if she decides to forget to take her's (or the other way around) then the other party is still able to retain control over their reproductive lives (2 way authentification, it-angle, natch).
I think we may be on the road to sexual equality at last (we still haven't got around to male pregnancies I guess).
for those no-trusty situations there's always still the old condoms :)
Never, ever, use an old condom!
Re. "Boy, I'm gonna miss this shit."
As in "when this pill arrives" or are you leaving us?
nothing wrong with
and whats wrong with an empty crisp packet?
As well as counting to 28
There is always the option of counting to 28 too. It is rather unpopular, but reasonably reliable if you do not push the safety limits too far.
For those who are going to say something about the lack of point of reference - in a state of relationship both parties have it, while in a state of promiscuity...
wher is miss bee going
to add to my previous statement...
as I find myself sandwhiched in between some angrier sounding posts on the matter i feel compelled to clarify my stance, as my tongue-in-cheek reply now looks a bit on the angry side as well.
I do think that a fair bit of the female populace can be trusted with the reproductive responsibilities of a couple, same as a fair bit of the male can as well.
I would like to think my long term female partner would trust me to take care of the baby-blockers for a while, just as I trust her at the moment.
What I wanted to point out is that this offers men the same kind of 'certainty' over the process as women have had up until now (if you look away from condoms/surgical procedures).
Should you stay in a relationship where the trust has been lost? probably no, that's why people break up, but breaking up is a long process.. and not all 'rough patches' in a relationship leads to breakups. When you still want to try to make things work with your partner, but you don't feel like you can fully trust them, then this would give both parties the same protection/control over their own lives.
but but but...
it's so expensive to buy new ones :(
and the value of them drops even more than cars do the first time you use them :(
Re: IT won't miss you
'Milifemod' was cryptically short for Militant Female Moderator, in anticipation of your predictable response.
Re: trust works both ways
It's as reliable a way as the effectiveness of the pill itself. If a man *really* doesn't want to be a father, he wont be. The same goes for women. If the bloke thought "Oh, I'm sure we'll be safe just this once" then clearly getting his end away for three minutes was more important to him than not becoming the father of an unwanted child for the rest of his life. And perhaps that sums up the regard he'll have for his own offspring throughout its childhood, should he choose to be part of it? The same goes for all those mothers who just use a man to 'acquire' a baby like it's a cute doll or quick fix for a boring life, then get shot of the father and use the child as a weapon against him, harming *it* in the process.
The male pill's here to allow men to cop off with easy lays like this without causing it to breed:
And the female pill is there to allow women to get themselves easily laid without providing an unnecessary route for the propagation of oxygen-starved corners of the gene pool:
if you don't mind the rustling, although I'd advise avoiding a packet thats had salt and vinegar flavour in it
If you're concerned about initial purchase price and depreciation
Consider heat-shrink tubing.
As a side benefit, you'll be able to sing the high parts...
whaddya mean by "miss this shit"?
Ms Bee, are you heading off for a higher calling than scooping crud out of the comment trough?
I didn't have these pills in time, and, well .... you know what happened ;-)
"as well as counting to 28"
well there's one good thing you can say about Catholics... they've got natural rhythm...
"This century is going to be for men what the 20th was for women"
Re: "This century is going to be for men what the 20th was for women"
I know, right?
I read that as a pill to make males work. Now that would be some miracle drug.
Re: Would suggesting a pill that made women savvy be any less sexist?
I'm surprised there's no balanced reply to this particular comment by the mod, as there have been to male posters.
I know the "they put one of ours in hospital, we put three of theirs in the morgue" attitude would never overcome her more mature view that two wrongs don't make a right...
Re: no balanced reply by the mod
That's because the mod is a feminist, or hadn't you noticed?
What woman would be foolish enough to trust a guy that he is "on the pill?"
If it goes wrong, who is left holding the baby...?
The female contraceptive pill isn't 100% effective. Very few forms of contraception are, in fact. If you're in one of those relationships where everything should be fine (or where one of you is allergic to latex) and you want a backup, it makes sense.
And condoms can break. So if you're NOT in one of those relationships you have a backup too. Paternity suits can be ruinous.
Why would you trust a woman who says it?
After all, they seem to be far more interested in children than us blokes do, and as the old ovary clocks tick away they tend to go to increasingly desperate and sometimes devious lengths to get one.
Not all women want children. I would estimate that many women who do want children don't want to achieve them through deception, especially deception liable to result in single parenthood.
If you can't trust your partner to take responsibility to this end then your relationship ain't worth a damn.
Let's try and not make this another massive gender shitstorm liberally sprinkled with girl-bashing, shall we?
Re: Re: Well...
I meant if one can't trust one's partner, ie either partner. If you're in a relationship where that suspicion would be reasonable then you shouldn't be in it. Amazing how that's the first place everyone goes to with this debate. It makes me sad.
The only decent girl-bashing...
...is when you "bash their back doors in"!
Speak for yourself, mate
"they seem to be far more interested in children than us blokes"
Trust me, that changes if you've got one. However, if you don't both want a child you must evaluate your relationship because it *will * crack eventually.
"the first place everyone goes"
Only the eternally single ones, and they're just speculating.
When you've seen it...
When you've seen a baby trap sprung on a close friend, knew the couple well for a few years before she deliberately got herself pregnant and ran away, saw what happenned to him and what the kid got put through that he couldn't help prevent, well it kinda stays with you. And no, that kind of suspicion was not reasonable in their relationship, she would never have been the kind of person to do that, except she did.
So yes, I would like a male pill please. It would make me feel better, as well as make the world a happier place overall.
Sarah, you're probably right.
I'll freely agree that many women who do want children don't want to achieve them through deception, especially deception liable to result in single parenthood.
I'll even give you the upgrade to Most.
However, that's *still* not all.
Several of my sister's friends* and certainly my cousin-in-law's husband's** 'bit on the side' got a baby through deception. Their motives vary, but are roughly based upon the idea that either the father or the state will be forced into providing financial support for the child and the mother.
*She's in a bad crowd. It's tough trying to get her out of it before something goes badly wrong.
** He's a turd, and she was a muppet. She's finally learnt from the mistake, and it does appear that he hasn't.
Panda - Eats, shoots and leaves.
While there *may* be a select few women who are trying to get pregnant at the hands of any random guy who isnt interested. There may even be ones who think a child will cement a fragile relationship.
However, I dont think that is the point of the "risk" here.
If you are about to sleep with someone for the first time and they say "its ok, I am on the pill" there should be alarm bells ringing. The loudest bells should be going off for the women as, at the end of the day, if it goes wrong, she is the one pregnant - the guy will find it easier to do a runner.
It might be my biased social contacts but I dont know any women who "dislike" the feel of a condom, while at least 90% of the men I know do. Sadly, the majority of my friends (and my younger self) would happily trick their partners into unprotected sex.
Encouraging a situation where men can, with a straight face, claim to be on the pill to avoid condoms is not going to bode well for sexual health or unwanted pregnancies.
Yes, people do grow out of the stupidity over this - but for a significant number, it is already too late.
Partner maybe the wrong word?
Actually when I wrote the original post I was thinking more of the one night stand type of 'partner', in which situations trust is very much more a leap of faith!
Are we aiming for the OED again?
I've always thought the old one from assasin to assasinee applied
"you have to be lucky every day. I just have to be lucky once".
Given that the average male ejaculate comprises 250,000,000 individual spermazootoa, and it only takes ONE to cause pregnancy, I would never trust a pill designed as male contraceptive.
You're right- there's only 2,000,000/ml in mine on a good day (that's roughly 3% of the average value), but then I'm a certified Jaffa. Nonetheless, having had a BOGOF deal by IVF and with no intention of creating a third by accident, I'm still taking no chances.
Actually, contrary to popular belief, one is *not* enough. It takes a few of those buggers to pave the way for the lucky one.
Amazing then, that in couples that try for pregnancy deliberately without any form of aid whatosever, you're expected to give it at least a year before you even think about seeing your doctor about it, and a couple or more before they think you might have a fertility problem, and a few more before they will actually do anything about it (if you still want kids that badly by then).
It's a statistical game, always, but sperm can slip through solid rubber (yep, you don't need to have any kind of tear), avoid the women's monthly shedding of the uterine lining, work its way up the tube and STILL fertilise an egg just the same. The chances are low but even with all the precautions in the world, you'll be lucky to achieve 99.5% avoidance.
Having just watching Inside The Human Body, I can also tell you that probably only half-a-dozen or so sperm would get to the egg even *with* perfect conditions and no contraception. That's *why* there's 250,000,000 of the buggers in the first place.
And anyone who relies on JUST a male pill is as silly as someone who relies on JUST a condom, or JUST a female pill, or JUST a diaphragm, or JUST a coil, etc. Without putting all the burden on the woman's body (have you seen the changes that happen when a women goes on/off the pill?), it would be a cinch to just get the man that you want a serious relationship with (serious enough to discuss contraception) to take a pill too to increase the chances at virtually zero cost.
P.S. I'm a man. I have a (planned well in advance) daughter. And would seriously consider taking these if they were free on the NHS.
don't forget you only get a bucket and a half!
(I'm the Jaffa AC from above)
I got lucky- if you can call it that- because I got a proper test only 5 months after we started trying. This was largely due to a home test kit I bought on the internet on a whim. Don't laugh- I expected the doctor to, but to her credit she took me at least half seriously. The home test was unambiguously "negative", and that was concerning to say the least. She arranged a proper count, mainly it seemed at the time to reassure me, and it turned out the first test was right.
We had a total of 11 months from starting trying to conceive to embryo implantation from IVF, and we had twins 8¾ months after that . As you suggest, that's quicker than a lot of "normal" couples. So, the moral of this story is- I'd thoroughly recommend a home test if you're trying to conceive. It's only about 20 quid, and it could prevent a lot of wasted time and worry. IVF isn't fun, but it's a lot better if you find out early.
Is it just me...
or does anyone else read that in their head as "RAAARGH! antagonist" ?
Did anyone else think soma?
Or was that just me?
Sounds useful to me!
That some women cannot take the pill due to medical issues etc, and that some couples might find this method useful as part of their (non) family planning.
Also, it hasn't been unknown for the odd and thankfully rare bunny boiler to 'forget' to take her pill in order to get pregnant to secure a relationship. So maybe there are some paranoid guys out there that would take it just for that!
An interesting development.
While I know women who don't want kids, just sex and have proved it by marrying and then still not having a family, I've never really believed the assertion by some women that the kids were somehow an inconvenience to them. In my experience, it's more a case of "Hooray! I've got kids, but if I pretend I was desperate for them, my man/the government/the local council will take it was contributory negligence and I'll get less handouts."
That said, I also understand why women pretend why they don't want kids. Who wants a woman who wants three of your sperm, your future earnings and your house? They have to pretend, and can't be blamed for it.
However, having seen it go seriously badly wrong (for men,) I couldn't criticise a man for taking this pill, as I suspect "forgot to take the pill" is an excuse used by women who haven't forgotten at all. I base this among others on this case (http://wikileaksnews.net/woman-had-two-children-after-secretly-taking-ex-husbands-frozen-sperm-from-clinic.html)
I'd imagine though that women will still want to retain control. My own doctor wouldn't put me forward for a vasectomy without first speaking to my wife to ensure she knew (it was all very subtly done, but happened nonetheless,) but I'll wager I wouldn't be consulted if my wife wanted to go on the pill.
My guess is the women's lobby will campaign against this when they realise control has been taken from women's hands.
Re: An interesting development
Bitter divorced guy detected.
Not in the UK..
"My own doctor wouldn't put me forward for a vasectomy without first speaking to my wife to ensure she knew (it was all very subtly done, but happened nonetheless,) "
In the UK that is a clear violation of doctor-patient privilege. A snip is your problem, not your wife's, and any discussion about this with 3rd parties (including your wife) MUST be authorised by you or it's plain illegal. If your doctor does not put you forward without your wife knowing it is classified as coercion and is ALSO illegal - given the topic this could lead to fines as well as problems with the UK GMC.
Don't know how it is abroad, but the whole idea of confidentiality is to keep things confidential. Your wife has no say over what you do with your body (although I would indeed have questions about your relationship if you kept such an important "mod" from your wife)..
- Review Reg man looks through a Glass, darkly: Google's toy ploy or killer tech specs?
- MEN WANTED to satisfy town full of yearning BRAZILIAN HOTNESS
- +Comment 'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder
- Apple tried to get a ban on Galaxy, judge said: NO, NO, NO
- Banking apps: Handy, can grab all your money... and RIDDLED with coding flaws