Male (Non-Condom) Contraception

Terodil

Hi gents,

I've been researching a bit and found this interesting site:
http://www.newmalecontraception.org/index.htm

• Would you consider using non-condom contraception?
• Have you ever used/heard about the use of one of these methods?
• Why do you think progress on this front in the EU/US is so slow?

I personally think it's a shame that there has been next-to-no progress here. RISUG is certainly one of the more promising methods and has been in active use on other mammals for almost two decades. AFAIK it's now in the last stage before public release in India and China, but I've heard nothing about it here.

I would love to be able to use non-condom contraception myself, preferably physical, as long as it's effective and reversible. A pill would be fine too I guess, as long as the side effects are manageable (if it just kills libido entirely it may achieve its end but... meh :pac:)

Anyway, opinions? Experiences?

Hellrazer

Terodil wrote: »

[*]Would you consider using non-condom contraception?--Yes if there was one thats reliable.

[*]Have you ever used/heard about the use of one of these methods?--Nope.

[*]Why do you think progress on this front in the EU/US is so slow?--Probably bureaucratic nonsense or else the pharmacutical companies dont want it out in the open.

Good site Terodil.Personally Mrs Hellrazer and myself have been discussing the snip for a while now but I find the whole finality of it hard to go through as does herself.Im only 34 but our family is complete.

Suppose the other side of it is that we battled infertiltiy for 7 years and now we`re considering it as a method of contraception--we never thought we`d ever say that tbh.

That reversible "vasectomy" RISUG. would be something Id consider if it was available over here.

Wibbs

I think the ill for men has been difficult from a practical standpoint. The medical chaps will explain this better of course. With the female pill you only have to stop one egg from being produced or stop it implanting, once a month. With men you have to stop millions of the buggers on a daily basis. Plus women are naturally only fertile at times(pregnancy for a start). The rest of the time they're "infertile" so if you mimic that bobs your mothers brother. Men are fertile all the time. We don't have an infertile period to mimic. It seems to be a far more difficult thing to achieve without serious side effects, short and long term.

I would bloody love to take a pill TBH. It would give me control over my own fertility, but all the current methods make me think no, not yet. I don't trust them and I don't trust the side effects. Yes they're rolling it out in China, but I read recently that it may not work as well with different human populations. It seems to be effective with Chinese(asians) but not so much with other populations like africans and europeans.

Wibbs

The wet heat method(and the underwear) is interesting and cheap and non invasive. A charm for poorer countries if it can be proven effective. The only worry there may be the slightly elevated risk of cancer. then again women have a fair few risk factors of their own when it comes to contraception.

Terodil

Hellrazer wrote: »

discussing the snip for a while now but I find the whole finality of it hard to go through as does herself.Im only 34 but our family is complete.

Yeah, it seems that currently, reversing the vasectomy, while surgically possible, is very much a gamble =(

Wibbs wrote: »

I think the ill for men has been difficult from a practical standpoint. The medical chaps will explain this better of course. With the female pill you only have to stop one egg from being produced or stop it implanting, once a month. With men you have to stop millions of the buggers on a daily basis.

Yeah, but what I don't get: Why do we hear about substantial research being done in relatively poor countries like India or China for years (who are under pressure from overpopulation, granted), whereas such a 'lifestyle issue' (for the people in the west at least) would surely garner a lot of financial backing here?

Or is this just a hope that too few cherish while the majority of men just leave contraception to the women in their lives?

Wibbs

Terodil wrote: »

Yeah, but what I don't get: Why do we hear about substantial research being done in relatively poor countries like India or China for years (who are under pressure from overpopulation, granted), whereas such a 'lifestyle issue' (for the people in the west at least) would surely garner a lot of financial backing here?

Or is this just a hope that too few cherish while the majority of men just leave contraception to the women in their lives?

With the poorer countries like you said when needs must and I would agree that men usually leave the contraception up to the women. I really would love the reversible choice myself. I think for many for the same reasons women want that. Control over our fertility. Its not just women who get caught out and lets face it with the financial and emotional burdens on men that can come with an unwanted pregnancy, some control woul be nice. At least on a parity with women. It's bad for both genders when only one is in that driving seat I think. Yes you can just go the condom route, but personally I can't stand the bloody things outside of one nighter/casual things where they're de rigeur. Or you can go with trust but I would be dubious of that at times. TBH I've been shocked how many women will take a risk and go condom free and contraception free. Men too.

shellyboo

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes you can just go the condom route, but personally I can't stand the bloody things outside of one nighter/casual things where they're de rigeur. Or you can go with trust but I would be dubious of that at times.

Just sticking my female nose in here... but outside or inside one-night stands, there's no way I'd be putting my fertility in someone else's hands.
I realise that's what men do when they "trust" their partner to take contraception effectively... but as a woman, I couldn't. I think the male pill would be really useful for single guys who want make doubly sure no accidents happen, but within a relationship where there is trust - I can see it being a tad redundant.

Wibbs

shellyboo wrote: »

but within a relationship where there is trust - I can see it being a tad redundant.

Aye but IME it's all too often in relationships where there was thought to be trust that it was needed nearly as much. At this stage in my life I've had far too many male mates being the unwilling partners in "accidents". Of course some were the real deal, but way to many weren't or were highly suspicious and they ended up paying for that on many levels.

Then again if there ever is an effective male pill or whatever, I would put damned good money that some men will have "accidents" and quite a few women will end up being unwilling partners in a pregnancy too and have to pay themselves. I can think of a couple of men I've known that were clucky and obsessed with wanting kids or more kids, but their partners were saying no or not yet. I can see that type of guy "forgetting" to take their contraception alright.

shellyboo

Wibbs wrote: »

Then again if there ever is an effective male pill or whatever, I would put damned good money that some men will have "accidents" and quite a few women will end up being unwilling partners in a pregnancy too and have to pay themselves. I can think of a couple of men I've known that were clucky and obsessed with wanting kids or more kids, but their partners were saying no or not yet. I can see that type of guy "forgetting" to take their contraception alright.

Yeah, but clearly the amount of women doing that would be much higher.

I guess as a woman I'm just unwilling and opposed to the idea that my fertility should be anyone's responsibility but my own. And, without trying to stir or be controversial - when a guy is trapped into pregnancy, he always has the option of walking away. With a woman, it's less clear-cut. Yes, termination is an option, but one with much greater emotional implications and zero option of changing your mind a few months, or years, down the line.

Wibbs

shellyboo wrote: »

Yeah, but clearly the amount of women doing that would be much higher.

Funny I'm not so sure. Maybe not as high, but I'd say more men would do it than you may think.

I guess as a woman I'm just unwilling and opposed to the idea that my fertility should be anyone's responsibility but my own. And, without trying to stir or be controversial - when a guy is trapped into pregnancy, he always has the option of walking away. With a woman, it's less clear-cut. Yes, termination is an option, but one with much greater emotional implications and zero option of changing your mind a few months, or years, down the line.

Oh I agree, I think there are big diffs between the reproductive responsibilities, outcomes and strategies of men and women. I think it's were we're the most different as genders. Yes men can walk away and women can have terminations, but both are very difficult things to do, both are illegal in Ireland and both can have repercussions down the line.

I think where men and women differ on this score is that the man has far less say over the progression of a pregnancy than a woman(naturally as she's carrying the child). He basically can ask for nothing, but when the child is born he then has to take responsibility under law and society. So overall men have much less power over their genetic legacy from the get go. Less contraceptive options(condom or sterilisation), none during the pregnancy itself and are automatically in the frame when after the birth. Women have many more contraceptive choices(though less with sterilisation for some daft reason), more choice during the pregnancy and more choice after the birth if they go through with it(adoption). All choices the man has no say in, even though it's half of his genetic material. Thats cool, it's biology diffs as much as anything but I think good reliable male contraception would even out the balance.

shellyboo

Wibbs wrote: »

Overall men have much less power over their genetic legacy from the get go. Less contraceptive options(condom or sterilisation), none during the pregnancy itself and are automatically in the frame when after the birth. Women have many more contraceptive choices(though less with sterilisation for some daft reason), more choice during the pregnancy and more choice after the birth if they go through with it(adoption). All choices the man has no say in, even though it's half of his genetic material. Thats cool, it's biology diffs as much as anything but I thI think good reliable male contraception would even out the balance.

I concur!

Isn't it nice when we all get along? *hugs*

:P

Wibbs

I hope you're taking protection cos I'm not. *runs off to hop into hot bath*...:D

shellyboo

Wibbs wrote: »

I hope you're taking protection cos I'm not. *runs off to hop into hot bath*...:D

Too late! Am pregnant with your cyber-baby. Now pay up! :pac:

Terodil

shellyboo wrote: »

I guess as a woman I'm just unwilling and opposed to the idea that my fertility should be anyone's responsibility but my own.

That's exactly my take on it. And while I am in a loving and trusting relationship now, there are several aspects to it that make me want this too and not consider it 'redundant'. Firstly, to avoid accidents, double protection is better than single. And also from a principle point of view (game theory raises its ugly head ): It's bad if one side only of the relationship retains the power over something and can determine what happens, even if she deviates from a prior agreement. As we determined, once the woman has conceived, it is out of the man's hands, he has NO say whatsoever.

So from a male emancipation point of view, it's not redundant at all but highly necessary.

It's also highly necessary from a female emancipation point of view, by the way, because it finally gets rid of the default 'the woman is responsible for contraception'. She's not. It rests on the shoulders of both.

shellyboo wrote: »

And, without trying to stir or be controversial - when a guy is trapped into pregnancy, he always has the option of walking away. With a woman, it's less clear-cut. Yes, termination is an option, but one with much greater emotional implications and zero option of changing your mind a few months, or years, down the line.

Sorry, but with all respect: I disagree completely.

A man cannot simply walk away these days, even if he had no emotional attachment (yes, such men exist too, and they suffer greatly after a split when they cannot see their kids any more due to excessive restrictions imposed by the mother and seriously lopsided courts, but I digress...). They'll have to pay mother/child-support for pretty much the rest of their working life. They will be stigmatised for leaving the mother, live with the permanent question of 'what if', and quite possibly feel guilty for the rest of their lives too.

shellyboo

Terodil wrote: »

Sorry, but with all respect: I disagree completely.

A man cannot simply walk away these days, even if he had no emotional attachment (yes, such men exist too, and they suffer greatly after a split when they cannot see their kids any more due to excessive restrictions imposed by the mother and seriously lopsided courts, but I digress...). They'll have to pay mother/child-support for pretty much the rest of their working life. They will be stigmatised for leaving the mother, live with the permanent question of 'what if', and quite possibly feel guilty for the rest of their lives too.

If the mother pursues him for it, yes... but that's not true in every case. I meant on a more basic level, however - you have to agree that when the foetus is inside your actual body, that presents are more urgent dilemma than the financial aspect of it.

I know of several men who walked away from their kids and faced no financial claims from the mother of the child, and later decided they wantedback into their child's life. Financial issues aside - if a woman decides she does not want a part of her child's life she must either terminate it, or put it up for adoption. Neither of these options are reversible. Walking away (with our without financial support given to the mother) is entirely reversible. You can walk back if you want.

Terodil

shellyboo wrote: »

when the foetus is inside your actual body, that presents are more urgent dilemma than the financial aspect of it.

For 9 months, yes, because women carry the baby for biological reasons.

Afterwards I see no difference between a mother's or a father's attachment to a child. I did mention a series of other concerns than just the financial one.

Anyway, this debate is derailing the thread.

tribulus

Mmmm, an oral daily/weekly contraceptive assuming it's safe and doesn't cause future fertility problems, sure.

Longer term stuff that's mentioned in the link, probably not.

Vasectomy, most likely never.

Otis Driftwood

If the time comes that I ever have kids then when the reproducing is done I would have no problems getting a vasectomy.

Id be less inclined to/probably never would,take contraceptive pills.

Hellrazer

nedtheshed wrote: »

If the time comes that I ever have kids then when the reproducing is done I would have no problems getting a vasectomy.

Ned I felt the exact same way about getting the snip.Always said Id have no problems getting it done but when the reality hits you and youre discussing actually getting it done its a different story altogether.

SheRa

Jepers a male pill would be BRILLIANT:). I'd still stay on the pill, but the extra peace of mind would be wonderful.

shellyboo

Terodil wrote: »

For 9 months, yes, because women carry the baby for biological reasons.

Afterwards I see no difference between a mother's or a father's attachment to a child. I did mention a series of other concerns than just the financial one.

Anyway, this debate is derailing the thread.

Yes, hence 'more urgent' and not 'more important' since those nine months come before the child is born, immediately after conception I agree with your other points.