Male Contraceptive Injections - Is this male libeeration

CDfm

This article caught my eyes as I had seen some articles on volunteers for tests. Anecdotally you hear of intentional pregnancy where the woman forgets to take her pill or the pill is ineffective etc.

Now lots of guys rely on their partners but would you go to the doctor every two months for an injection to keep the tadpoles from swimming?

By Lyndsay Moss
Health Correspondent
A NEW contraceptive that promises to make long-term birth control more acceptable to men is to be tested in Scotland.

Previous attempts at popularising the male "pill" have foundered because, although effective, they have involved weekly injections. But a new combination of hormones means that the jabs now only have to be administered once every two months.
http://news.scotsman.com/health/Scots--to-help-test.5701824.jp

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

Now lots of guys rely on their partners but would you go to the doctor every two months for an injection to keep the tadpoles from swimming?

Lots of women go to the doctor every 12 weeks for an injection to stop their eggs being released, so why not men?

Have to say if it was my bf, I'd have to personally escort him there and see him getting the needle in the ass, no way I'd trust a guy on this.

No offense to guys, and I trust my bf a lot, but I don't want to be left holding the baby, which imo is the primary reason male contraception would fail to be taken up by lots of couples.

I may well be wrong tho

cooperguy

Definaty something I would consider once safety is proven.

minidazzler

nouggatti wrote: »

Lots of women go to the doctor every 12 weeks for an injection to stop their eggs being released, so why not men?

Have to say if it was my bf, I'd have to personally escort him there and see him getting the needle in the ass, no way I'd trust a guy on this.

No offense to guys, and I trust my bf a lot, but I don't want to be left holding the baby, which imo is the primary reason male contraception would fail to be taken up by lots of couples.

I may well be wrong tho

Exact same reason I still use condoms if my GF claimed she took the pill Religiously. [/sarcasm]

It's one thing about not trusting a Guy, but if it's your BF it can be assumed you probably trust him, why not on this?


I'd be interested in this injection, just for extra safety really, I'd wanna hear what the side effects are first though. If it kills Libido then they can keep it.

congo_90

If this is the same one I read about several months back (sorry no linky)
then it can have some adverse side affects. The main problem they're having is apparently stopping the production of sperm but without stopping testosterone production too. There was mention of a mans body physically changing.

To be honest I personally am happy to continue to use condoms instead of the injection.
This is because i'm single, so I don't have the peace of mind from knowing a partners sexual health/ contraception.

If they do develop this and maybe a year or two afterwards I would probably consider it over current contraceptive if I was in a relationship or just for nights when a condom may have been forgotten.

shellyboo

minidazzler wrote: »

Exact same reason I still use condoms if my GF claimed she took the pill Religiously. [/sarcasm]

It's one thing about not trusting a Guy, but if it's your BF it can be assumed you probably trust him, why not on this?.

Because it's the woman's body, and thus her responsibility. I'd be extremely nervous not being in control of whether or not I was going to get pregnant. It's not so much to do with trust, it's about the psychological certainty, the peace of mind. That's available to men as well, if they wear a condom on top of using the pill. But many men choose not to, and choose to trust their gfs. That's fine - but as a woman, I wouldn't be able to do that. I need to have control over my own fertility. My body, my womb, my responsibility as far as I'm concerned.

I definitely think it's a great advancement, it will offer men a chance to ensure they're not getting anyone pregnant; but I don't think it will ever be a substitute for the female pill. It'll be an extra safety measure.

Macha

shellyboo wrote: »

I definitely think it's a great advancement, it will offer men a chance to ensure they're not getting anyone pregnant; but I don't think it will ever be a substitute for the female pill. It'll be an extra safety measure.

After reading so many threads in PI about guys who have been casually sleeping with girls who got pregnant, if I were a guy I'd be loving something like this.

I would definitely ask my boyfriend to use it but I certainly wouldn't trust a more casual partner with it. I find it very odd when women say they wouldn't trust their long-term partner to do it. It makes me wonder why they are with that person if they don't trust them.

shellyboo

taconnol wrote: »

After reading so many threads in PI about guys who have been casually sleeping with girls who got pregnant, if I were a guy I'd be loving something like this.

I would definitely ask my boyfriend to use it but I certainly wouldn't trust a more casual partner with it. I find it very odd when women say they wouldn't trust their long-term partner to do it. It makes me wonder why they are with that person if they don't trust them.

Again, I don't think it's to do with trust, it's to do with peace of mind. I'd liken it to condom usage - say you're on the pill and your bf wants to have sex without a condom - he says he's clean. Do you just trust him, or do you take responsibility for your own health and insist on a test?

Accidents happen, you know? I'd just rather be 100% sure that whatever contraception was happening in my relationship was being taken correctly and there were no issues with it. I'd be nervous if the control was out of my hands.

Without doubt though, it's liberating for guys who want to be able to have that same peace of mind. As I say, I'm not sure I could hand over control of whether or not I have kids to someone else.

Hierotochan

Women+pill+shagging=no babies

Women+forgot to take pill/lied about taking pill+shagging=babies

Man+injection+women+shagging=no babies

Man+women+baby=less money for gadgets

Gadget-less man=fail

Man needs gadgets or is not man.

hatrickpatrick

testosterone + progesterone? LETHAL combination if you ask me. Hello manboobs & muscle loss...

Unless this is proved to be safe I wouldn't touch it. As any bodybuilder will know, excess testosterone which is directly injected is aromatized to estradiol, and progesterone is a weak estrogen. So you'd get all the major side effects associated increased estrogen levels - muscle loss and boob growth. Unless they combine it with some sort of aromatase inhibitor it doesn't sound like a good idea - and even then the progesterone would probably do enough damage by itself...?

Stheno

Because it's the woman's body, and thus her responsibility. I'd be extremely nervous not being in control of whether or not I was going to get pregnant. It's not so much to do with trust, it's about the psychological certainty, the peace of mind. That's available to men as well, if they wear a condom on top of using the pill. But many men choose not to, and choose to trust their gfs. That's fine - but as a woman, I wouldn't be able to do that. I need to have control over my own fertility. My body, my womb, my responsibility as far as I'm concerned.

shellyboo wrote: »

Again, I don't think it's to do with trust, it's to do with peace of mind. I'd liken it to condom usage - say you're on the pill and your bf wants to have sex without a condom - he says he's clean. Do you just trust him, or do you take responsibility for your own health and insist on a test?

Accidents happen, you know? I'd just rather be 100% sure that whatever contraception was happening in my relationship was being taken correctly and there were no issues with it. I'd be nervous if the control was out of my hands.

Without doubt though, it's liberating for guys who want to be able to have that same peace of mind. As I say, I'm not sure I could hand over control of whether or not I have kids to someone else.

Thats exactly it for me too, I'd be the person who'd end up pregnant, and having the baby etc. I've no problem with guys choosing to use this themselves, but I'd want the reassurance I get from my contraception, knowing that I was being responsible for my fertility.

metrovelvet

Ladies, you could go take your own precautions as well. Let's see how this coctail of injections affects the male sex drive, then we'll see how many men take it and stay on it.

Stheno

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ladies, you could go take your own precautions as well.

That's exactly what I'd be doing

Let's see how this coctail of injections affects the male sex drive, then we'll see how many men take it and stay on it.

True

Novella

I think it's great that they're trying this out or whatever but realistically, pregnancy will always be something which will affect a woman more than it will a man so in that sense, I'd still prefer to take The Pill myself.

If I got pregnant, they guy could easily walk away, whereas my body would be the one carrying the baby so running isn't an option. It's not that I think any man would purposefully want to get me pregnant or anything but to be able to relax and enjoy sex, I can't be thinking "Oh, what if..." in my head! I couldn't abolish the what if's unless I'd physically taken The Pill myself. I am very paranoid though!

CDfm

It seems to be a trust thing with the ladies and a side affect thing with the guys.

Another thing that strikes me is that the girls posting are very much against getting pregnant. It seems to me that a guy who does not want to be a parent could see the benefits.

What about the feel of condoms?

Lots of guys seem to trust their partner to take her contraception.

shellyboo

CDfm wrote: »

Another thing that strikes me is that the girls posting are very much against getting pregnant. It seems to me that a guy who does not want to be a parent could see the benefits.

What about the feel of condoms?

Lots of guys seem to trust their partner to take her contraception.

At this stage in my life, I'm very much against getting pregnant. I'm 25 and in no position financially to be having a kid, never mind emotionally. It would be a disaster.


And lots of guys do just trust their gfs; but similarly I've been with guys who insisted on wearing condoms even though I was on the pill, just to be doubly safe. I think it's a matter of choice though, tbh - I'd wager that the proportion of men who *choose* to trust their gfs so that they don't have to wear a condom is far, far greater than the proportion of men who *have* to trust them because their gfdoesn't want to use condoms. If that makes sense.

I wouldn't get stroppy with a guy who wanted to continue using condoms if I was on the pill, I'd respect him for having the gumption to take responsibility for his sexual health and reproduction.

Herbal Deity

shellyboo wrote: »

Again, I don't think it's to do with trust, it's to do with peace of mind.

If you trusted your partner, you'd have peace of mind

That said, no one attains 100% trust in their partner until well into a long term relationship, and this is completely understandable. But do call a spade a spade - no point in complicating what is quite a simple concept.

seamus

Trust issues aside, women are more risk averse than men.

This basically means that by and large, men will take the risk of going 2 months and 3 days before getting another injection whereas women are more likely to be there in the last week of the second month.

It's a common feature of the male to say, "Ah, it'll be grand", and this is probably why most women while they say they trust their partner, wouldn't be massively confident in this one. There are two mains reasons for this:

1. You're submitting control of contraception entirely onto your partner's shoulders.
2. Men (in general) don't take the risk of pregnancy as seriously as women (in general).

Pregnancy and the subsequent child affects the woman's life a hell of a lot more than the man's (like it or not guys) which is why these two issues, particularly the issue of control, will prevent couples from swopping the female pill for the male injection.
On the point of number 2, you can go on and on about "trust", but the fact is that many men take it about as seriously as emptying the bins. If it can wait until tomorrow, then I'll do it tomorrow. Women however tend to take if far more seriously.

For single men though, particularly those who are serial sleepers-around, this injection is something of a godsend. In the heat of the moment (especially while pissed), the suggestion of losing the condom can be hard to refuse, so at least if you have this injection as a backup, you avoid one disaster.

Macha

seamus wrote: »

Trust issues aside, women are more risk averse than men.

Can you provide study/link on that? I'd be interested to read it.

TBH, if I were male I'd be a bit insulted by the suggestion that men put contraception at the same level of importance as taking out the bins..sounds a little too much like a 'Just so' story.

Emme

Male pill or no pill I'd take my own precautions. I always make the guy wear a condom when we first start sleeping together even if I'm taking other precautions myself. That cocktail of hormones sounds horrific by the way. I wouldn't like somebody I cared for taking it.

Emme

seamus wrote: »

For single men though, particularly those who are serial sleepers-around, this injection is something of a godsend. In the heat of the moment (especially while pissed), the suggestion of losing the condom can be hard to refuse, so at least if you have this injection as a backup, you avoid one disaster.

Serial sleepers-around who don't wear a condom are putting themselves and their partners at risk of STDs. Always wear a condom unless you're in an established monogamous relationship.

CDfm

shellyboo wrote: »

At this stage in my life, I'm very much against getting pregnant. I'm 25 and in no position financially to be having a kid, never mind emotionally. It would be a disaster.


I wouldn't get stroppy with a guy who wanted to continue using condoms if I was on the pill, I'd respect him for having the gumption to take responsibility for his sexual health and reproduction.

But some girls might pull a strop for trust reasons etc and there are thise who entrap guys by getting pregnant.

For the benefit of the guys here - other than a woman telling a guy that she is on the pill and isn't - arent there reasons that the pill fails.

Antibiotics? Tummy upsets?

I should know but I dont.What are the reasons?

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

But some girls might pull a strop for trust reasons etc and there are thise who entrap guys by getting pregnant.

For the benefit of the guys here - other than a woman telling a guy that she is on the pill and isn't - arent there reasons that the pill fails.

Antibiotics? Tummy upsets?

I should know but I dont.What are the reasons?

The pill is rendered potentially ineffective by one or two types of antibiotics, but standard pharmacy/doctor advice is to take additional precautions if you are taking the pill and on any antibiotics.

If you are suffering from vomiting you are also advised to take additional precautions.

Also if you forget to take a pill obviously that's another reason to take other precautions, particularly with those pills which have to be taken in a small window each day.

Herbal Deity

taconnol wrote: »

Can you provide study/link on that? I'd be interested to read it.

TBH, if I were male I'd be a bit insulted by the suggestion that men put contraception at the same level of importance as taking out the bins..sounds a little too much like a 'Just so' story.

Agreed.

If my partner got pregnant, I couldn't "easily" just walk away, as has been mentioned in this thread. I find that highly insulting. If any women posting here feel that their partners would walk away should they get pregnant, then they should get out of their relationship ASAP.

Personally, I reckon I have as much fear of my partner getting pregnant as she does...

seamus wrote: »

Pregnancy and the subsequent child affects the woman's life a hell of a lot more than the man's

wtf? I can understand how pregnancy would affect a woman's life more than a man's, but why would the child affect a woman's life more?

metrovelvet

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Agreed.

If my partner got pregnant, I couldn't "easily" just walk away, as has been mentioned in this thread. I find that highly insulting. If any women posting here feel that their partners would walk away should they get pregnant, then they should get out of their relationship ASAP.

Personally, I reckon I have as much fear of my partner getting pregnant as she does...


wtf? I can understand how pregnancy would affect a woman's life more than a man's, but why would the child affect a woman's life more?

The thing is ... you just never know. And the consequences for a woman are far greater than they are for a man. She has to live with it in a way the man never ever will.

But - the whole trust thing kind of blew up with AIDS anyhow. You are still recommended to get tested single or with someone.

Macha

Herbal Deity wrote: »

wtf? I can understand how pregnancy would affect a woman's life more than a man's, but why would the child affect a woman's life more?

Well, as long as the mother has to breastfeed, she will be slightly more involved. But most mothers only breastfeed up to 6 months (I think...).

CDfm

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Agreed.

If my partner got pregnant, I couldn't "easily" just walk away, as has been mentioned in this thread. I find that highly insulting. If any women posting here feel that their partners would walk away should they get pregnant, then they should get out of their relationship ASAP.

Personally, I reckon I have as much fear of my partner getting pregnant as she does...


wtf? I can understand how pregnancy would affect a woman's life more than a man's, but why would the child affect a woman's life more?

And the mother could claim maintenance for the child etc. Good point.

metrovelvet wrote: »

The thing is ... you just never know. And the consequences for a woman are far greater than they are for a man. She has to live with it in a way the man never ever will.

Thats an opinion and not really a fact. Guys are equally effective parents.

The Corinthian

Herbal Deity wrote: »

wtf? I can understand how pregnancy would affect a woman's life more than a man's, but why would the child affect a woman's life more?

The problem is not how (unplanned) pregnancy affects a woman more as much as the attitude that how it affects men is irrelevant or unimportant.

When a woman gets pregnant she has a number of options available to her - abortion, adoption and parenthood. The man naturally does not have to go through nine months of pregnancy, on the other hand, however he has no options open to him whatsoever and is entirely dependant on the option chosen by the woman - an opinion that may have been the diametric opposite prior to the pregnancy.

Men are in a similar position to the one women were in fifty or a hundred years ago now, where if a woman "got into trouble" she had few if any choices left to her and would have to pay for the consequences for the rest of her life. Abstinence was a woman's only protection - and now the reverse it true.

Men also have no right to 'keep' a child. You cannot force a woman go go through with a pregnancy and if she decides to put the child up for adoption she can do so without the consent and knowledge of the father.

Even if the woman opts for parenthood, men have no automatic right to guardianship and even if we have it can lose it (women can only lose guardianship if the child is adopted). And that's before you consider that guardianship affords very few rights, most of which are unenforceable (or simply not enforced). Fathers also never get custody from birth and rarely thereafter.

Additionally, there is practically no support and even less sympathy for men in this situation. We are expected to have sympathy for women who don't want to be mothers and have abortions or put their children up for adoption, but men who don't want to be fathers are considered the lowest of the low.

And while numerous agencies and councilling groups exist, all are geared towards the mother and/or the child. The father is simply seen as someone to support the other two.

Personally I think it is absolutely insane that something as life changing as parenthood is decided entirely by only one of the parents. A woman may be the one to get pregnant, but a baby is not just for nine months and the consequences affect both parents (and the child) for life.

As such the development of any male contraceptive is a good thing (if used) as given men have no options once the egg splits, we might as well expand those options that exist before the fact.

dearg lady

There's a lot of guys suggesting that a baby affects a mans life as much as a womans, and I'm sorry but it just does not!! Aside from the fact that women have the 9 months carrying the baby, breastfeeding if they choose, there are other implications further down the road. If the relationship happened to break down(unrelated to the child) who would be have teh child full time, almost always the mother, and the father would be seeing the child x number of days per week. It's very rare this situation is reversed!

There's also the fact that the father could technically leg it, now that would obviously make him a jackass, but just saying, the woman couldn't do that.

In general i think women take the risk more seriously than men, but there'll always be exceptions!

The other side of teh coin of course is that men have a lot less options as Corinthian said, often have no choice in the case of a crisis pregnancy, the mother could reasonably easily stop the father from seeing the child, move to another country etc. fathers rights are lagging in this country.

I'd imagine men wouldn't be too keen to take this pill for a while til they see that it is safe, and what the side effects are like. Don't forget lads, we have side effects from our pill too!!

metrovelvet

The woman will most certainly be left holding the pregnancy, possibly the abortion and possibly the baby.

Yes it most certainly does affect the woman more.

The Corinthian

Ironically the two responses following my post on this issue managed to ignore the very first line my post and opted for a strawman argument instead:

The Corinthian wrote: »

The problem is not how (unplanned) pregnancy affects a woman more as much as the attitude that how it affects men is irrelevant or unimportant.

dearg lady

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ironically the two responses following my post on this issue managed to ignore the very first line my post and opted for a strawman argument instead:

I'm sorry, was I supposed to refer to every part of your post? I was replying to the thread as a whole, not your post specifically. For the record, excellent post

Novella

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that pregnancy has no affect on a man or that it's an easy thing for a man to walk away after getting his partner pregnant. I was merely saying that pregnancy does affect the woman more because no matter what choice she makes in the end, she's the one who'll lie on a table to have an abortion, she's the one who'll give birth, she's the one society would look down on more if she chose to leave her baby.

I think, perhaps, many of the female posters here are quite young (myself included) and are thinking less of sex in trusting relationships and more of casual trysts. I mean, at twenty, I couldn't really take the risk of sleeping with a guy who told me he'd had his contraceptive injection. At least if I take The Pill myself, I know I'm ok.

I don't think either that it's just women who have trust issues. Like shellyboo, I have had guys who've used a condom even though I'm on The Pill, just to be extra safe. Tbh, I didn't think, "Oh, he doesn't trust me!", I actually thought it was really respectful 'cause so many people complain about loss of sensation etc with condoms but he was more concerned about keeping us both safe.

I think that if I was in a relationship (and maybe a bit older where getting pregnant would be less of a disaster for me), I could trust a man with contraception. At least I'd like to think I could.

The Corinthian

Novella wrote: »

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that pregnancy has no affect on a man or that it's an easy thing for a man to walk away after getting his partner pregnant.

It's not. The closest a man can do is not be involved directly. Otherwise he will legally have to pay maintenance to the tune of potentially several hundred thousand Euro during the duration of the child's dependency. Add to this the social stigma, endless summonses and claims upon inheritance and you'll find there is no walking away for men.

This is not saying that the price of adoption or abortion for women should be dismissed either, but it appears that for many women it is preferable to the social and economic ones of not choosing one of those options.

metrovelvet

When they come up with a morning after pill for men, I will start taking this discussion seriously.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

When they come up with a morning after pill for men, I will start taking this discussion seriously.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The problem is not how (unplanned) pregnancy affects a woman more as much as the attitude that how it affects men is irrelevant or unimportant.

Q.E.D.

Herbal Deity

dearg lady wrote: »

If the relationship happened to break down(unrelated to the child) who would be have teh child full time, almost always the mother, and the father would be seeing the child x number of days per week. It's very rare this situation is reversed!

That's a completely and utterly ridiculous statement. It translates into "having a child affects a woman more because should the relationship break down, the woman will be stuck with the child."

The problem with this? If a mother doesn't want her child she can give it up for adoption... There's no way for a woman to be stuck with a child she doesn't want. A man, however, can be stuck paying for a child he doesn't want, or can be denied access to a child he wants and loves.

There is an argument to be made that men generally don't consider the implications to them of getting a girl pregnant as much as girls consider the implications of them getting pregnant, but I don't think it's fair to say that, pregnancy and childbirth aside, having a child (unexpectedly or otherwise) affects a woman's life more than a man's.

I wish my gender would consider these implications more. The fact that once one of your sperm fertilizes an ovum, your freedoms and rights are potentially blurred and compromised, and you become potentially emotionally and financially vulnerable, is something pretty heavy and serious to consider.

dearg lady

The Corinthian wrote: »

Q.E.D.

Whats QED?

Apolgies if I implied that the attitude that how it affects men is irrelevant or unimportant, I genuinly didn't mean to suggest that. More so by virtue of biology, it does have more of an effect on the mother, and in some cases this continues through the childs life.

dearg lady

Herbal Deity wrote: »

That's a completely and utterly ridiculous statement. It translates into "having a child affects a woman more because should the relationship break down, the woman will be stuck with the child."

The problem with this? If a mother doesn't want her child she can give it up for adoption... There's no way for a woman to be stuck with a child she doesn't want. A man, however, can be stuck paying for a child he doesn't want, or can be denied access to a child he wants and loves.

There is an argument to be made that men generally don't consider the implications to them of getting a girl pregnant as much as girls consider the implications of them getting pregnant, but I don't think it's fair to say that, pregnancy and childbirth aside, having a child (unexpectedly or otherwise) affects a woman's life more than a man's.

I wish my gender would consider these implications more. The fact that once one of your sperm fertilizes an ovum, your freedoms and rights are potentially blurred and compromised, and you become potentially emotionally and financially vulnerable, is something pretty heavy and serious to consider.

To be fair, that was only PART of the reasoning I put forward to suggest that it affects mothers more than fathers.

While women can potentially pursue a man for maintenance, it can be extremely time consuming, and probably expensive to do, and the judge will rule base on the mans earnings. I know of one man who left his job the week before the case came to court so he had no means to pay maintenance. Extreme yes, but it happens. A man can also disappear, again extreme, but it happens.

CDfm

dearg lady wrote: »

Whats QED?

Its an abbriviated latin expression meaning this demonstrates/proves the argument or heres the proof and it comes at the end of a particular argument or solution.

So what the poster means is that the quotations he has used prove his point.

Q.E.D signals the end of his argument his point being proven.

'Nuff said.

CDfm

dearg lady wrote: »

While women can potentially pursue a man for maintenance, it can be extremely time consuming, and probably expensive to do, and the judge will rule base on the mans earnings. I know of one man who left his job the week before the case came to court so he had no means to pay maintenance. Extreme yes, but it happens. A man can also disappear, again extreme, but it happens.

I have to disagree here and it isnt expensive to pursue as you do not need a lawyer to make a claim at the district court for free.Neither is it time consuming. A person who becomes wilfully unemployed will be assessed for maintenance.

Most guys I know who are seperated or single dads end up going to ncourt to get access and non payment is not an issue.

I would like to see statistics saying that Irish fathers default on maintenance.

dearg lady

CDfm wrote: »

I have to disagree here and it isnt expensive to pursue as you do not need a lawyer to make a claim at the district court for free.Neither is it time consuming. A person who becomes wilfully unemployed will be assessed for maintenance.

Most guys I know who are seperated or single dads end up going to ncourt to get access and non payment is not an issue.

I would like to see statistics saying that Irish fathers default on maintenance.

Hmm, I'm only trying to portray an extreme position, I'm definitely not suggesting that Irish fathers do default in general. I think I'm making a bags of my posts today, not just here, in other threads too. Sigh. I'll come back in a while

CDfm

dearg lady wrote: »

Hmm, I'm only trying to portray an extreme position, I'm definitely not suggesting that Irish fathers do default in general. I think I'm making a bags of my posts today, not just here, in other threads too. Sigh. I'll come back in a while

Its Ok dearg lady - I think its the opposite that Irish fathers in general don't default. I just didnt want anyone in the position reading to have the idea that its difficult to make a claim. Thats all.:)

I found these figures from the Indo last year under the headline "deadbeat dads " (perjorative term IMHO)etc. If the Dept of Social Coomunity and Family Affairs only pursued 1800 then that doesnt seem a huge number does it?

By Michael Brennan Political Correspondent

Friday February 29 2008

Around 1,800 "deadbeat dads" were forced to pay maintenance for their children last year, according to new figures.

But of around 11,000 absent parents investigated by the Department of Social and Family Affairs, 1,700 could not be traced and another 1,800 could not be identified because the mother was unable or unwilling to give the information (sometimes due to fear of violence).

The department's maintenance recovery unit found that 4,200 of the absent parents -- who are mainly fathers -- were found to be working but did not have sufficient income to contribute, while another 1,900 were on social welfare.

It makes you think.

RMD

Only thing I want to know is where is the injection administered to:eek: Don't want any thing sharp and point near my lovelies.

If it is proven to be safe, this could be very popular.

Pherekydes

The Corinthian wrote: »

...and you'll find there is no walking away for men.

You'll find that there is walking away, for both genders. According to CDfM's stats, 11000 absent parents were investigated by the Dept in 2007. My partner's husband left her and went to live in the UK, paying not a penny of maintenance. It's a lot more common than you think.

metrovelvet wrote:

When they come up with a morning after pill for men, I will start taking this discussion seriously.

How would this work?

CDfm

Pherekydes wrote: »

You'll find that there is walking away, for both genders. According to CDfM's stats, 11000 absent parents were investigated by the Dept in 2007. My partner's husband left her and went to live in the UK, paying not a penny of maintenance. It's a lot more common than you think.

I am not saying that it doesn't happen in Ireland just that it is as not as common as people think. My understanding was that in 2007 the Dept started to investigate claims for Lone Parents Allowance but out of the 11,000 -6100 were not assessed for maintenance because of means-so they are hardly deadbeat dads they are just poor. 1,800 had to make payments after investigation.

Bearing in mind that the department tightened its position in 2007 - it does not seem to be a huge number.

Terodil

I'm just staring at this thread in disbelief.

The aggressiveness of some of the posts here towards men who actually care about their potential kids just as much as women would is unbelievable.

I know for a fact that we'd have had bans in tLL if men marched in there and told the ladies how they were supposed to feel about their kids.

I sincerely resent some of the statements made in here. You have absolutely no business telling me that I would not care for my kids as much as my partner would.

And @OP: Yes, definitely, I'd be very much looking for a reliable contraceptive. I guess my OH and I would agree on using both the pill and the needle, just for our common peace of mind. I would like to get rid of the condoms tho >.>

CDfm

RMD wrote: »

Only thing I want to know is where is the injection administered to:eek: Don't want any thing sharp and point near my lovelies.

You could contact them and ask them and let us know -the contact details were in the Article

Couples interested in taking part in the study should call 00 44131-242 6196 or e-mail j.george@hrsu.mrc.ac.uk.

Pherekydes

Terodil wrote: »

I'm just staring at this thread in disbelief.

The aggressiveness of some of the posts here towards men who actually care about their potential kids just as much as women would is unbelievable.

I know for a fact that we'd have had bans in tLL if men marched in there and told the ladies how they were supposed to feel about their kids.

I sincerely resent some of the statements made in here. You have absolutely no business telling me that I would not care for my kids as much as my partner would.

And @OP: Yes, definitely, I'd be very much looking for a reliable contraceptive. I guess my OH and I would agree on using both the pill and the needle, just for our common peace of mind. I would like to get rid of the condoms tho >.>

That's strange, but I didn't get that vibe (if that's the word) from any of the female posters.

I think the whole thing regarding contraception is that women are more likely to be left holding the baby, so they feel more responsibility towards contraception in general. This should not be interpreted to mean anything about any individual male (father or not).

That's the way I interpret their (the females') posts, anyway.

Terodil

Pherekydes wrote: »

That's strange, but I didn't get that vibe (if that's the word) from any of the female posters.

I think the whole thing regarding contraception is that women are more likely to be left holding the baby, so they feel more responsibility towards contraception in general. This should not be interpreted to mean anything about any individual male (father or not).

That's the way I interpret their (the females') posts, anyway.

Well, we had several statements not just about contraception (and the corresponding immediate consequence of childbirth, which, of course, is far more taxing on the woman than on the man), but about life in general:

seamus wrote: »

2. Men (in general) don't take the risk of pregnancy as seriously as women (in general). [...] the fact is that many men take it about as seriously as emptying the bins. [...]
Pregnancy and the subsequent child affects the woman's life a hell of a lot more than the man's (like it or not guys)

metrovelvet wrote: »

The thing is ... you just never know. And the consequences for a woman are far greater than they are for a man. She has to live with it in a way the man never ever will.

dearg lady wrote: »

There's a lot of guys suggesting that a baby affects a mans life as much as a womans, and I'm sorry but it just does not!!

And that is something that I sincerely disagree with. I see absolutely no difference in the grand scale of things (when we're looking at 20+ years of close parent-kid-relationship and usually much longer) between mother and father.

I'm actually really offended by the above statements. Comparing responsible family planning to taking the trash out is just out there.

And the golden star goes to *drumroll*

metrovelvet wrote: »

When they come up with a morning after pill for men, I will start taking this discussion seriously.

Thank you for belittling this entire discussion about the concerns of men w.r.t. contraceptives and kids in general. Seriously, why do you even bother posting that.

shellyboo

CDfm wrote: »

You could contact them and ask them and let us know -the contact details were in the Article

Off the top of my head and with no actual medical knowledge - I was on a contraceptive injection for years, and it was injected into my bumcheek If I'm right in thinking that this is a similar thing to the female contraceptive injection, it's just a dose of hormones, it doesn't need to be directly delivered to the site or anything. I wouldn't be letting anyone near my lady parts with a needle either :eek: