"100% effective" male birth control

cython

The Revolutionary 100% Effective Birth Control For Men

By Emma Hutchings on June 2, 2011
17 Reactions and 5 Comments

A new birth control method for men has been developed by scientists in India that has proven to be 100% effective. The injection, called RISUG (Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance) works for 10 years with no side effects and is reversible with another injection. It works by injecting a non-toxic, positively charged polymer into the man’s body which makes them unable to fertilize an egg.

Phase III trials are starting in India, the last step before it is available for the public to use, and a private foundation called Parsemus is working to get it approved in the United States.

Link here

It's an interesting idea, effectively implanting a spermicidal mechanism inside the penis, but I would be wary of just how true the claims of 100% efficacy are (hence the quotation marks in the title, no other reason). Also, while they say it works for up to 10 years, can they put a guaranteed lower/minimum bound on that too? Obviously it's never going to outright replace condoms either, due to the still present risk of STIs, and plenty of people will be hesitant at the idea of a needle inserted in their genitalia, but it's novel given that attention has traditionally focussed on hormonal birth control for men, in terms of medical research.

Dravokivich

To be honest, that's not something I'd be interested in taking up.

I'd be curious though, does the injection have to be there?

Sky King

I remember they came close (no pun intended) to releasing (no pun intended) a male pill a couple of years back but it was a flop (no pun intended) and they pulled out (no pun intended) after the clinical trials because it didn't work on all participants.

I think there would be trust issues there as well.

"C'mon baby, I'm on the pill... Honest!"

parker kent

Dravokivich wrote: »

To be honest, that's not something I'd be interested in taking up.

I'd be curious though, does the injection have to be there?

Why would you be against it? Is it the injection or something else? It's just an injection, they are not chopping it off!

If it was proven to be effective, it might be something I'd consider were I in a relationship.

Galvasean

"Keep that needle away from mah god-dayum penis!"

Sounds interesting for those in long term relationships. Of failry little use for bed hoppers IMO.

Sky King

From the website:

and it could possibly even be appropriate for men who want child-spacing or young men who want to complete their schooling before having children.

Heh heh. At 28 my 'schooling' is fairly complete but I still don't want to have children...

Dravokivich

parker kent wrote: »

Why would you be against it? Is it the injection or something else? It's just an injection, they are not chopping it off!

If it was proven to be effective, it might be something I'd consider were I in a relationship.

I just don't like the idea of taking something to make me sterile, even if having the option to reverse it by taking something else.

parker kent

Dravokivich wrote: »

I just don't like the idea of taking something to make me sterile, even if having the option to reverse it by taking something else.

Depends on where you are in life really. I'd never say never.

Galvasean

or young men who want to complete their schooling before having children.

IMO this strikes me as irresponsible. Gonna be a lot of sterile young dudes laced with STDs.

frag420

Keep that prick out of my prick!!

28064212

Dravokivich wrote: »

I just don't like the idea of taking something to make me sterile, even if having the option to reverse it by taking something else.

From the sounds of it, it's essentially a much more effective spermicide, the only difference is that it's injected into the vas deferens, and is good for ten years. It's not making you sterile anymore than putting a condom on is making you sterile til you take it off.

Galvasean wrote: »

"Keep that needle away from mah god-dayum penis!"

Sounds interesting for those in long term relationships. Of failry little use for bed hoppers IMO.

Don't know about that. Condoms would of course still be used, but I would much rather the peace of mind of a back-up, given "typical-use" condom failures.

I'd also much rather this than a girlfriend being on the pill. I've never been a fan of something that fundamentally alters a person's hormonal make-up. If this is as good as it sounds, I'll be definitely using it.

There is still a fair bit to go though, the wikipedia page has some more information, and it's been around since 2006. Hopefully this news means there's going to be some movement

parker kent

Galvasean wrote: »

IMO this strikes me as irresponsible. Gonna be a lot of sterile young dudes laced with STDs.

Not really their fault if they do though. It will almost certainly have a disclaimer about STDs.

SugarHigh

lol I'm not putting anything in my dick unless I have to. I'm actually amazed at how easily women were convinced to take the pill which plays havoc with their hormones. Not a chance would I take it if I was a woman.

I guess it's because the consequences of pregnancy are bigger for a woman so they have more motivation.

Dravokivich

28064212 wrote: »

From the sounds of it, it's essentially a much more effective spermicide, the only difference is that it's injected into the vas deferens, and is good for ten years. It's not making you sterile anymore than putting a condom on is making you sterile til you take it off.

i'm not weary of any effects, i just have no interest in temporialy putting the entire team on the bench.

saying that i am curious about the methods in which it works.

Naryclaire

SugarHigh wrote: »

lol I'm not putting anything in my dick unless I have to. I'm actually amazed at how easily women were convinced to take the pill which plays havoc with their hormones. Not a chance would I take it if I was a woman.

I guess it's because the consequences of pregnancy are bigger for a woman so they have more motivation.

You hit the nail on the head. At the end of the day, you are never going to be saddled with a pregnancy you hadn't planned and no physcial means of walking away (not saying you would for a second now). I found the pill wreaked absolute havoc with my hormones, literally had me all over the shop, but my other option is leaving myself open for possible pregnancy, and that is just not an option to me. The negative aspects I found to be really really substantial, and they impacted considerably on my day-to-day life, but were hugely outweighed by the preventative aspects for me. Anyway, if you chop and change enough-and are vocal enough to your doctor, many of whom are fairly dismissive of the -hormonal thing-you should find one to suit, or at least another form of contracteption that'll do the job.

28064212

Dravokivich wrote: »

i'm not weary of any effects, i just have no interest in temporialy putting the entire team on the bench.

Why? Seriously, I don't understand where you're coming from. You "put the entire team on the bench" when you put a condom on, this is just a more convenient, effective procedure

Galvasean

28064212 wrote: »

Why? Seriously, I don't understand where you're coming from. You "put the entire team on the bench" when you put a condom on, this is just a more convenient, effective procedure

Not to be pedantic, but isn't using a condom like letting the team run down the tunnel only to spring a big net over them before they reach the pitch?

Cocaine

This will never work. No man in their right mind would nuke their soldiers even be it temporarily. Girls should stick to the pill.
Also half of all babies are accidents, so...

28064212

Galvasean wrote: »

Not to be pedantic, but isn't using a condom like letting the team run down the tunnel only to spring a big net over them before they reach the pitch?

Yeah, and then killing them. This is more like killing them as they're coming out of the dressing room

Wolfe Tone

You have to get the injection into your dick?


Not a chance would I get that done.

Dravokivich

28064212 wrote: »

Yeah, and then killing them. This is more like killing them as they're coming out of the dressing room

actually... its more like locking the door.

but do i really have to justify my position just becuase it looks like in the pipeline it there is a solution that will become avail that will mean i wont be able to get someone pregnant (on a temporary basis)?

all i said was i have no interest in doing it myself, to get out of the way, that i have no issue with any reason that someone else would be interested in doing it for themselves.

although with that, i find the method behind how it's done interesting.

28064212

Dravokivich wrote: »

actually... its more like locking the door.

No, that's a vasectomy. The players still get on to the pitch, they just can't play.

Dravokivich wrote: »

but do i really have to justify my position just becuase it looks like in the pipeline it there is a solution that will become avail that will mean i wont be able to get someone pregnant (on a temporary basis)?

all i said was i have no interest in doing it myself, to get out of the way, that i have no issue with any reason that someone else would be interested in doing it for themselves.

Justifying your position the point of a discussion. I'm just trying to understand what your position is

parker kent

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You have to get the injection into your dick?


Not a chance would I get that done.

They are not taking a hatchet to it, you'll survive.

Maguined

I would seriously consider getting this done. I don't like the thought of an accidental pregnancy removing all control and choice in my life so having a lot more protection against that without the invasiveness and permanency of a vasectomy is appealing.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think bodybuilders are temporarily infertile whilst using steroids. Their testicles don't actually shrink as is commonly stated - they just stop producing sperm which take up a considerable amount of space in the adult testicle.

If they made a male pill based on this it would be so typically male. Plays havoc with your hormones alright but in such a manner that instead of making you fat and moody you become lean and horny.

OutlawPete

I can see the plus sides to it for sure.

Obviously it is not going to protect against STDs and the like, but if a couple didn't want to get pregnant and didn't like to use condoms or her take the pill, then for sure it seems a good option.

For men who doubt that their wives or girlfriends are being 100% honest with them about taking the Pill, it is also an option for them without having to make that obvious by sticking on a condom.

liah

Tbh, if I were a dude, I wouldn't do it til the little "the effect the chemical has on sperm is not completely understood" (wiki quote) matter is cleared up..

the_syco

It's going ahead in India. It has to be done from scratch in the USA, and a lot of progress has been made. It's called RISUG in India, but not in the USA. IN the USA, it'll be called "Vasalgel".

Read the entire article here: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff_vasectomy/all/1

DO NOT WATCH THE VIDEO if you just had lunch :P

Also worht noting:

While an antidepressant would be considered a success if it worked in 75 percent of patients, a contraceptive like RISUG will be compared to a conventional vasectomy, which works more than 99 percent of the time. Furthermore, it has to be free from the serious side effects that were common with early experimental hormone-based male contraceptives

slowburner

"Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance"

- this means they give you a kick in the goolies.

WeeBushy

28064212 wrote: »

No, that's a vasectomy. The players still get on to the pitch, they just can't play.

So basically they remove the ball from the pitch?



*Pun very much intended.

parker kent

WeeBushy wrote: »

So basically they remove the ball from the pitch?



*Pun very much intended.

They take the air out of your balls.....:pac:

Velocitee

If this was proven to be safe, I'd instantly take it up though I'd take the 100% effective with a grain of salt personally (or as a 100% so far if you will).

Would it hurt at the time? Sure (more so the local anesthetic). (and the still of the video in the link the_syco provided made me squeamish without having to press play!)

Still is it better than buying/wearing condoms for ten years/ messing up your partners hormones if they're on the pill - definitely.

I will watch how this develops with a keen interest.

Fluorescence

I'm kind of surprised at the amount of resistance by men on these boards to this. If it did turn out to be 100% effective and reversable, then it would be far safer than the female partner taking hormonal contraception which often ****s around with their moods and sexual attractions. This injection doesn't seem to have those side-affects.

28064212

fluorescence wrote: »

I'm kind of surprised at the amount of resistance by men on these boards to this. If it did turn out to be 100% effective and reversable, then it would be far safer than the female partner taking hormonal contraception which often ****s around with their moods and sexual attractions. This injection doesn't seem to have those side-affects.

+1. I could understand the hesitance if it was something that actually stopped you producing sperm (similar to the pill), or if it actually blocked the sperm (like a vasectomy does), but it doesn't, it just works pretty much like a spermicide except it kills it earlier in the process.

If it works like it claims to, and it's shown to not be either toxic or carcinogenic, it's pretty much the perfect contraceptive

Fluorescence

28064212 wrote: »

+1. I could understand the hesitance if it was something that actually stopped you producing sperm (similar to the pill), or if it actually blocked the sperm (like a vasectomy does), but it doesn't, it just works pretty much like a spermicide except it kills it earlier in the process.

If it works like it claims to, and it's shown to not be either toxic or carcinogenic, it's pretty much the perfect contraceptive

I agree. Most of the posts here seem to be along the lines of, "I'm not putting that needle near my special parts!" :pac:

That said, we still need to wait and see if it lives up to its claims.

OutlawPete

fluorescence wrote: »

I'm kind of surprised at the amount of resistance by men on these boards to this. If it did turn out to be 100% effective and reversable, then it would be far safer than the female partner taking hormonal contraception which often ****s around with their moods and sexual attractions. This injection doesn't seem to have those side-affects.

Agree, I don't get it either.

I wonder could they come up with a way to mark a man (with his consent obviously) that would show that he has had it and that it is still active. Something like a dye that fades on a small are of skin.

Maybe in the future they will have a special website where you enter a man's name and you can tell if he has had it and how long his birth control will be active for

Seriously though, with all the health problems associated with the Pill, it sure seems like a good option, even if it was just for couples.

Dravokivich

fluorescence wrote: »

I'm kind of surprised at the amount of resistance by men on these boards to this. If it did turn out to be 100% effective and reversable, then it would be far safer than the female partner taking hormonal contraception which often ****s around with their moods and sexual attractions. This injection doesn't seem to have those side-affects.

Taking the pill would be a choice they are making for themselves. I've never put a woman into a position where she felt she had to, nor would I.

Just because this is coming through as an option doesn't mean there's an obligation for me to take it.

What is suprising about that?

28064212

Dravokivich wrote: »

Taking the pill would be a choice they are making for themselves. I've never put a woman into a position where she felt she had to, nor would I.

Just because this is coming through as an option doesn't mean there's an obligation for me to take it.

What is suprising about that?

No-one has said you should have an obligation to take it. Just wondering why you wouldn't use what appears to be far and away the best contraception option

Dravokivich

28064212 wrote: »

No-one has said you should have an obligation to take it. Just wondering why you wouldn't use what appears to be far and away the best contraception option

No one is directly saying I'm obligated to take it, it's just being made to look foolish not to take it. An obligation is then being implied.

I've already said why I don't want to here.

Fluorescence

Dravokivich wrote: »

Taking the pill would be a choice they are making for themselves. I've never put a woman into a position where she felt she had to, nor would I.

Just because this is coming through as an option doesn't mean there's an obligation for me to take it.

What is suprising about that?

I find it surprising that men here see the possibility of a more effective and safe method of contraception, but dismiss the idea entirely because it involves an injection in their junk. If it meant their partners could get off the pill, and included no real drawbacks for them, then yes, it is a bit of a surprise for me to be honest.

I never said there was an obligation for anyone to take any contraception, but you have to admit that if it does what it says on the tin it would be a far better option than pumping women full of hormones that wreak havoc on their systems. Of course women make the choice to take whatever contraception they want, and they make that choice for themselves. However it strikes me as a little (dare I say it?) selfish that some men here would rather their partners remain on hormonal drugs if there was a safer contraceptive available for them.

Dravokivich

fluorescence wrote: »

I find it surprising that men here see the possibility of a more effective and safe method of contraception, but dismiss the idea entirely because it involves an injection in their junk. If it meant their partners could get off the pill, and included no real drawbacks for them, then yes, it is a bit of a surprise for me to be honest.

I never said there was an obligation for anyone to take any contraception, but you have to admit that if it does what it says on the tin it would be a far better option than pumping women full of hormones that wreak havoc on their systems. Of course women make the choice to take whatever contraception they want, and they make that choice for themselves. However it strikes me as a little (dare I say it?) selfish that some men here would rather their partners remain on hormonal drugs if there was a safer contraceptive available for them.

From what I've seen, none of the men here that said that they don't want to do this have implied that their respective partners are on the pill.

I'm not put off by where the injection is done.

Fluorescence

Dravokivich wrote: »

From what I've seen, none of the men here that said that they don't want to do this have implied that their respective partners are on the pill.

I'm not put off by where the injection is done.

Fair enough. I'm still surprised there aren't more positive reactions on thread yet though *shrug*

28064212

Dravokivich wrote: »

No one is directly saying I'm obligated to take it, it's just being made to look foolish not to take it. An obligation is then being implied.

Where did you get that from? If there was a car in development that got 10,000km on a single tank of petrol, people would be wondering why you wouldn't want to get it. That doesn't imply some sort of obligation to get it

Dravokivich wrote: »

I've already said why I don't want to here.

And it was pointed out that it does not make you sterile any more than spermicide or a condom does. It just lasts longer and the sperm are killed earlier in the process.

What would be your contraceptive method of choice?

Dravokivich

28064212 wrote: »

Where did you get that from? If there was a car in development that got 10,000km on a single tank of petrol, people would be wondering why you wouldn't want to get it. That doesn't imply some sort of obligation to get it


And it was pointed out that it does not make you sterile any more than spermicide or a condom does. It just lasts longer and the sperm are killed earlier in the process.

What would be your contraceptive method of choice?

you are seriously compairing this to fuel economy? your analogy is even implying a folishness not to go through with it.

i may not be as learned as you in biology, but from my viewpoint taking something to make you incapable of getting someone pregnant is in affect rendering you sterile. i have also akowledged earlier that i'm aware its reversable.

my preference would be to use a condom and before you say its not foolproof, even unprotected sex doesnt garentee a woman would get pregnant.

28064212

Dravokivich wrote: »

you are seriously compairing this to fuel economy? your analogy is even implying a folishness not to go through with it.

I'm using fuel economy as an analogy to demonstrate why I'm asking for your reasons, I'm not comparing it to contraception. Would it be better in the general?

If "something" is in development which appears to be better than any current solution, people would be wondering why you wouldn't want to get it. That doesn't imply some sort of obligation to get it

I am not implying foolishness, I'm asking for your reasons., which you haven't explained.

Dravokivich wrote: »

i may not be as learned as you in biology, but from my viewpoint taking something to make you incapable of getting someone pregnant is in affect rendering you sterile. i have also akowledged earlier that i'm aware its reversable.

In that case, you're "sterile" while wearing a condom, and every woman on the pill is "sterile"

Dravokivich wrote: »

my preference would be to use a condom and before you say its not foolproof, even unprotected sex doesnt garentee a woman would get pregnant.

That's not a standard to aspire to. The typical-use failure rate for condoms is 15%. That's 15 pregnancies per year per 100 women. RISUG could reduce that to zero, as well as removing the other drawbacks of condoms (interrupts moment, sensitivity, repeat use)

Dravokivich

28064212 wrote: »

I'm using fuel economy as an analogy to demonstrate why I'm asking for your reasons, I'm not comparing it to contraception. Would it be better in the general?

Better in general to use a more efficient and cheeper to run motor, yeah. How is that logic a valid comparison to this? Purely because it's a better "method" of contraception?

28064212 wrote: »

I am not implying foolishness, I'm asking for your reasons., which you haven't explained.

I have as follows:

Dravokivich wrote: »

I just don't like the idea of taking something to make me sterile, even if having the option to reverse it by taking something else.

I don't like mushrooms so I don't eat them, is that a reason for not eating mushrooms?

28064212 wrote: »

In that case, you're "sterile" while wearing a condom, and every woman on the pill is "sterile"

So this means I should take it as opposed to using a condom if it's available. Is that not what an obligation is?

I have only made one reference to women on the pill in response to fluorescence and that it was by their own choice to do so. I have no intentions to influence one to take it.

28064212 wrote: »

That's not a standard to aspire to. The typical-use failure rate for condoms is 15%. That's 15 pregnancies per year per 100 women. RISUG could reduce that to zero, as well as removing the other drawbacks of condoms (interrupts moment, sensitivity, repeat use)

I never said it was, I was merely making that comment in anticipation. As you've put it, there's failure rates with condoms.

28064212

Dravokivich wrote: »

Better in general to use a more efficient and cheeper to run motor, yeah. How is that logic a valid comparison to this? Purely because it's a better "method" of contraception?

YES!!! That's the whole f*cking point. I'll expand it to the general case again:

• X is in development. It appears to be better than any current solution
• You say you wouldn't use it
• I'm wondering why

That's all there is to it. There's nothing about any obligations or foolishness, you've created those implications where there are none

Dravokivich wrote: »

I don't like mushrooms so I don't eat them, is that a reason for not eating mushrooms?

You're still missing the point. I don't care what you personally decide to choose. But this is a discussion forum. It's supposed to be about discussing the topic at hand.

Dravokivich wrote: »

So this means I should take it as opposed to using a condom if it's available. Is that not what an obligation is?

Seriously? I'm asking you why you wouldn't use a method of contraception that appears to be much better, and that's implying an obligation? The only "obligation" I'm asking of you is to explain the reasons for your position

Dravokivich wrote: »

I never said it was, I was merely making that comment in anticipation. As you've put it, there's failure rates with condoms.

....yes, yes there is. And now there's this (apparently) much better method. And you say you wouldn't use it. All I'm asking is: why?

SugarHigh

And now there's this (apparently) much better method. And you say you wouldn't use it. All I'm asking is: why?

I'd rather the woman take the risk than me tbh. There is problems with every procedure and I definitely wouldn't be first in line for a procedure that isn't necessary.

There is more motivation for a woman to take the pill and more to lose if she doesn't. She's the one taking the bigger risk if she gets pregnant so big deal if she has to take bigger precautions.

Up de Barrs

SugarHigh wrote: »

I'd rather the woman take the risk than me tbh. There is problems with every procedure and I definitely wouldn't be first in line for a procedure that isn't necessary.

There is more motivation for a woman to take the pill and more to lose if she doesn't. She's the one taking the bigger risk if she gets pregnant so big deal if she has to take bigger precautions.

Is this a wind up? Its not as if an unplanned pregnancy doesn't have consequences for guys as well.

Personally I'd be very happy to take, assuming its doesnt have any side effects and is 100% reversible. I wouldn't see it as an alternative to condoms, johnnies still have to be used for protection against STIs, however much guys dislike them but this does give us much more control over ensuring that we dont become a dad before we want to.

SugarHigh

Up de Barrs wrote: »

Is this a wind up? Its not as if an unplanned pregnancy doesn't have consequences for guys as well.

Personally I'd be very happy to take, assuming its doesnt have any side effects and is 100% reversible. I wouldn't see it as an alternative to condoms, johnnies still have to be used for protection against STIs, however much guys dislike them but this does give us much more control over ensuring that we dont become a dad before we want to.

Of course there are consequences for a guy but there are more for the woman so it's not unreasonable to expect her to put more effort into stopping it happening.

28064212

SugarHigh wrote: »

I'd rather the woman take the risk than me tbh. There is problems with every procedure and I definitely wouldn't be first in line for a procedure that isn't necessary.

There is more motivation for a woman to take the pill and more to lose if she doesn't. She's the one taking the bigger risk if she gets pregnant so big deal if she has to take bigger precautions.

At least you have a reason, even if I don't agree with it.

The risk/reward equation depends on the situation. In a stable relationship, I'd much rather take a one-off small risk than have my partner take an on-going option with a high chance of side-effects (mood-swings, depression etc). Even more so since the pill has a typical-use failure rate of 8%, and RISUG looks like it could be as low or lower than 0.4%.

In a "single" lifestyle... well, my choice would still be RISUG. From a purely personal viewpoint, I would rather not have to worry about whether a one-night-stand has taken her pill that day, or whether she is as committed to not getting pregnant as I am. I don't care that she has a bigger risk, I only care about my risk. A pregnancy would have a major effect on my life, so I want to do what I can to minimize that risk.

Obviously, the decision is dependent on the potential side-effects of RISUG which are unknown at this point.