"100% effective" male birth control

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.

Dravokivich

28064212 wrote: »

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.

I've never said anything against the method either. I've expressed curiosity in it, but with no intention of taking it. Nor have I said anything dismissive towards anyone with intentions to take it.

28064212 wrote: »

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
....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?

I have although that does not appear to be sufficient.

SugarHigh

This is probably a silly question but if you got something like this done but still get a girl pregnant can you sue them for child maintenance?

Fluorescence

SugarHigh wrote: »

This is probably a silly question but if you got something like this done but still get a girl pregnant can you sue them for child maintenance?

Probably not. I'd say it's officially something like 99.6 or 99.7% effective.

kiffer

...
I wouldn't get go for this... Currently I'm single, I'm not going out and having one night stands, if I was I'd have to continue condom use because of STI risks...

I'm pretty sure that I want kids in the future and I don't want something that migh damage my firtility later on.

If I had a partner, and we had kids, and didn't want more, I'd be ok with it, heck even though we might change our minds later and want another kid I'd be ok risking it... But untill I have some sprogs things that even might damage my swim team are right out.
Even though this is reported as reversable, I'd like to see lots and lots of info on it, like lots of before and after sperm quality assesments for men that have had it in place for long periods and had it reversed.

That 15% failure rate for condoms seems very high, is it the failure rate for "usage" or for "correct usage"?

28064212

kiffer wrote: »

That 15% failure rate for condoms seems very high, is it the failure rate for "usage" or for "correct usage"?

Typical use. It's the expected number of pregnancies per year per 100 women using the method - source

kiffer

28064212 wrote: »

Typical use. It's the expected number of pregnancies per year per 100 women using the method - source

There's a pretty big gap there between perfect use and typical use...
They're not complicated... Does typical use failure include things like "we usually use condoms but in a fit of passion we didn't bother and then didn't bother getting the morning after pill"?

5live

28064212 wrote: »

Typical use. It's the expected number of pregnancies per year per 100 women using the method - source

15 % typical use failure rate for condoms?

100 women useing condoms as a contraception device and 15 get pregnant per year, right?

Say they have sex 100 times each so intercourse occurs 10000 times so the failure rate is 15/10000 or 0.0015% rather than the implied 15% ie for 100 sexual encounters you get 15 pregnancies?
Or more probably 10 sexual acts per woman and 0.015% failure rate?

28064212

5live wrote: »

15 % typical use failure rate for condoms?

100 women useing condoms as a contraception device and 15 get pregnant per year, right?

Say they have sex 100 times each so intercourse occurs 10000 times so the failure rate is 15/10000 or 0.0015% rather than the implied 15% ie for 100 sexual encounters you get 15 pregnancies?
Or more probably 10 sexual acts per woman and 0.015% failure rate?

Or a couple using condoms could have 1 sexual act a year and fall pregnant, so it has a 100% failure rate. That's not what the stats are measuring. It's called the Pearl Index, and is the most common method of measuring contraceptive effectiveness.

It would be totally unfeasible to measure the effectiveness of contraceptives on a per-use basis

5live

28064212 wrote: »

Or a couple using condoms could have 1 sexual act a year and fall pregnant, so it has a 100% failure rate. That's not what the stats are measuring. It's called the Pearl Index, and is the most common method of measuring contraceptive effectiveness.

It would be totally unfeasible to measure the effectiveness of contraceptives on a per-use basis

You cant argue with the figures(well i cant anyway:o. Stats not my best elective choice). Just a 15% failure rate seems to be way way higher than common sense would imply.

Slightly off topic, a friend was recently surprised when his partner became pregnant because they were useing homoepathic contraception. I wonder what the failure rate on that was:rolleyes:

Thanks for the link:p

coffee_cake

for condoms i suppose you have stuff like "left in my wallet for the last x months" or wrong size or popping from not being put on right, etc etc