SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the if-you-build-it-they-will-come dept.
Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd
After more than a decade of work, government researchers in the U.S. are ready to test an unusual birth control method for men—a topical gel that could prevent the production of sperm.
And no, gentlemen, you don't rub it on your genitals.
The clinical trial, which begins in April and will run for about four years, will be the largest effort in the U.S. to test a hormonal form of birth control for men.
[...] The new gel contains two synthetic hormones, progestin and testosterone. Progestin blocks the testes from making enough testosterone to produce normal levels of sperm. The replacement testosterone is needed to counteract the hormone imbalances the progestin causes but won't make the body produce sperm.
[...] The gel can suppress sperm levels for about 72 hours, so if men forget a dose, "there is a bit of forgiveness," says Régine Sitruk-Ware, distinguished scientist at the Population Council, a nonprofit for reproductive health that is sponsoring the trial alongside the NIH.
[...] Even if the trial is successful, Blithe says it will likely be several years before the gel would be available to the public.
Source: A Contraceptive Gel for Men Is About to Go on Trial (archive)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by lentilla on Thursday December 21 2017, @11:45AM (6 children)
I have long believed that a male contraceptive would be a fundamental milestone in gender equality - book-ending the journey that began in the 1960's with the [female] "pill". I can only wish this breakthrough results in a safe and effective product. It would be a very great boon to society and a leap forward in equalising the inter-relationships between men and women the world over.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday December 21 2017, @12:08PM
Read your subject as "bullshit" for a brief moment. Hormones must be killing my mood. Like the ones in this
pillgel.I think the reversible injectable polymer gel [bloomberg.com] is a saner approach, assuming it is *repeatably* proven to be safe and effective.
TFA describes this topical gel as more effective than hormone shots [sciencealert.com], and it includes testosterone to counter the effect of the blocked testosterone. So you are still monkeying around with hormone levels, which I think we know is a bad idea by now (cue "just give me the testosterone in a gel, doc!").
A single, reversible injection that is as effective as condoms (with effectiveness rising as you add in other forms of birth control) and allows you to swing your dick around willy-nilly, or a patented gel you'll have to pay Big Pharma for and apply daily. Let's give India a chance.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21 2017, @03:55PM (4 children)
If we want gender equity, the place to start would be to stop forcing men to pay for babies they don't want. We don't make women have children they don't want, so why on Earth should men be forced to pay even when the baby was over their objections?
This stuff is a good thing, but I wouldn't trust it unless I didn't want kids at all or already had at least one. This took a long time in coming because it's a much more complicated problem than it was for women and I wouldn't trust it not to make men sterile without a lot more testing and actual use by real men outside of research studies.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21 2017, @06:11PM
One funny exchange I saw at the local college was between one of those modern "feminists," an older feminist from the second wave, and a conservative lady.
The modern one was literally arguing that men should literally have to sign contracts before having sex with a woman.
2nd wave, calling back to an earlier point in the discussion about reproduction rights, asked if that contract could include a provision where the woman waives all rights to support for the father if they accidentally have a child.
The modern one said that shouldn't be allowed because "they need to have consequences to their decision."
But 2nd wave replied with the fact that contraception fails, so not all pregnancies are the result of not using them and that women have multiple chances to get out of such a failure, including safe-haven abandonment after birth, purposeful failure to identify the father and abortion, and unilateral adoption. Why shouldn't men have the right to do the equivalent of abandonment and after-the-fact abortion, at least in terms of contact with the child and money.
Modern rebuts with the fact that doing so allows hurts the fetus, you are taking away its right to financial support to the father.
Conservative jumps in immediately with, "Well, since you believe the child has rights, then I guess you are also anti-abortion then? Wouldn't want to take away the poor thing's right to life."
Modern one gets a priceless look on her face.
In fairness, she then attempted to explain the body autonomy argument and the difference the decision to carry it to term makes, but had to be saved by 2nd wave feminist.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 21 2017, @07:25PM (2 children)
If we want gender equity, the place to start would be to stop forcing men to pay for babies they don't want. We don't make women have children they don't want...
We don't make men have children they don't want since that's impossible.
We do, however, make women pay for babies they don't want just like men. [fivethirtyeight.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday December 21 2017, @08:48PM (1 child)
1. GP said "have" not "pay for". Women can usually choose to have an abortion. Men can't usually force women to have an abortion. I put "usually" there because they could use coercion tactics. But if they aren't convincing/threatening enough and they aren't going to commit a crime, then the woman ultimately has the power to choose (unless state/federal abortion restrictions kick in).
2. The 538 article says:
So in practice, mothers are going to be awarded custody 4.5-to-1, and mothers are awarded child support 8.2-to-1, but since they pay a bit less, that's where the 9-to-1 figure comes in.
It's hardly equitable for the men, at least in the sense that if they get involved in a custody battle, the odds are stacked against them. Anecdotally I would say that women have to fuck up really badly in order to be denied custody if they want it. Think: hard drugs and prison, while the father is squeaky clean.
3. "We don't make men have children they don't want since that's impossible."
Ignoring redefinition/edge cases like transgender male pregnancy or the possibility of male uterine transplants [wikipedia.org] (unlikely to be realized due to a combination of ethics concerns and relative difficulty), we may see a situation in the future where a man+woman or man+man or man+nobody/database creates an embryo artificially or synthetically and gestates it in an artificial womb.
Since the artificial womb isn't part of anybody's body, will abortion be legal under any circumstances (other than medical)? Maybe not. In that case, once you press play, you have to go all the way. Which would be comparable to a normal couple having sex with the intention of having a child, but then one or both of the partners deciding against wanting the child at a later point during the pregnancy. This point of mine is really just nitpicking/speculation, but I thought I would mention it.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Magic Oddball on Friday December 22 2017, @12:24AM
Only if they can afford the cost, can get the time off from work to travel far enough to reach a clinic/hospital that offers abortions** and have someone to look after their existing kids (most abortions being performed on mothers) during the trip & while the pills do their thing (if they use that form).
**Back in 2014, before many states added laws & regulations that closed a lot of providers, many women had to travel 30 - 180+ miles [shinyapps.io] for one. That doesn't take into account teenagers in states that require parental permission, which could cause some girls to travel much farther to reach a clinic/hospital in a state that doesn't require it (e.g. if the girl fled an abusive home).
As they say, anecdotes are not data. ;-) I looked it up, and it turns out that child custody only goes to trial
4% of the time, with 1.5% completing the process [liveabout.com] — 51% of the time, both the mother & father already agreed on custody arrangements, 29% of the time they handled it without involving a third party, and 11% sorted it out with a mediator. The rare times that custody disputes do reach the court system, the arrangement hinges on which parent has been the primary caregiver and which has the strongest bond with the kid [divorcenet.com] along with individual circumstances. Most states no longer honor the old idea that the child should automatically be with the mother, and some states have actively outlawed that approach.