Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday April 06 2015, @06:23AM   Printer-friendly
from the tadpole-blocker dept.

In present day 2015, the available options for contraception aren’t great, and the burden still rests largely on women to mitigate the damages of our wanton impulses. Aside from the copper IUD, all the birth control devices and pharmaceuticals available to women alter our hormones with various weird side effects. When it comes to birth control for men, aside from condoms and pulling out (neither of which are very​ reliable in practice), a vasectomy has been the only other option for preventing unwanted pregnancies. Though there’s about a coin-flip chance of it being reversible, those odds aren’t enough to make it something guys under 40 typically consider. A few other male contraceptives are being explored, but there are no approved male contraceptive drugs in the United States.

But what if there was a simple way a man to fire blanks until he and his partner were ready to have a kid—without the snip s​nap?

The pro​cess takes about 15 minutes. A doctor injects a tiny dot of a synthetic gel into the sperm-carrying tube just outside of each testicle. Once injected, the gel sets in the tube and acts like a filter, allowing fluid to pass through but not sperm. “Like water might percolate through Jello,” said Elaine Lissner, director of the Parsemus Foundation.

This isn’t like a Depo-Provera shot you have to get once every few months either—once injected, the sperm-filtering gel would remain in place for 10 years. If the recipient decides he wants to take a shot at having kids at any point in between, all it takes is another injection of sodium bicarbonate (aka baking soda) to dissolve the liquid, and the sperm factory becomes operational again.

It may sound too good to be true, but clinical and animal trials in India have shown that the method works with near-pe​rfect results and no serious s​ide effects. And unlike the birth control pill and condoms, which have a real-life efficacy rate far lower than the ‘perfect use’ scenarios advertised on the packages, the birth control injection, like an IUD, comes with virtually no room for human error.

So why isn't this in widespread use? Well, one reason might be that commercially, there is more money to be made selling contraceptive pills than a 10-yearly injection, and secondly, I guess "needles in close proximity to testicles" is not something that many men like the sound of...

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by dltaylor on Monday April 06 2015, @07:58AM

    by dltaylor (4693) on Monday April 06 2015, @07:58AM (#166885)

    For single (and not having some male on the side) women, far too many out there would claim the treatment, but no sane woman would believe it, so she still has to protect herself. If she's already using an IUD, or insisting on condoms, why have the shot? For sanity's sake with other claimed female methods, though, it might save an unplanned paternity.

    In marriage, maybe, although not all husbands are that reliable, either.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by K_benzoate on Monday April 06 2015, @08:10AM

    by K_benzoate (5036) on Monday April 06 2015, @08:10AM (#166888)

    I'm celibate but if I had sex I wouldn't trust the woman because of the legal system in the US favoring them. There's no financial incentive for the man to trick a woman into pregnancy, and plenty of reasons for him to take every precaution against it. The more options for preventing pregnancy the better, for men and women.

    --
    Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday April 06 2015, @01:39PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Monday April 06 2015, @01:39PM (#166965)

      There may be no financial incentives, but there are definitely enough non-financial incentives that lots of men don't take the precautions they should. Some of them, in rough order of importance:
      1. Getting laid without a condom feels great.
      2. In some subcultures, if you get a girl pregnant she pretty much has to marry you. If you want somebody to be your wife but she's a bit more reluctant, getting her pregnant can change her mind.
      3. There is a very good chance that the man in question can avoid the financial consequences. Some of the many methods:
            a. If the woman is promiscuous enough, then there's a good chance she won't know who the father is. If the father successfully avoids DNA testing, then he's scot-free.
            b. It's not uncommon for men in this situation to show 0 income, but be getting paid under the table in cash as a way of avoiding child support responsibility.
            c. If either the mother or father moves to a different state, collecting the awarded child support becomes significantly harder.

      In addition, as much as it sucks to be sending a significant chunk of cash every month to someone else, I'm not convinced that's worse than spending a majority of your waking life taking care of a child. And odds are very good she's taking on some of the expenses of the child as well. I'll put it this way: I've known enough single mothers to know that their life is rarely made easier by the child, even if that child's father is paying support like he's supposed to (and often he isn't).

      All that boiling down to: If you think that lots of women are intentionally trying to trick men into getting them pregnant, think again. It happens, but it's nowhere close to the majority. If it were, you'd be seeing women clamoring for abortion to be illegal, and they're not.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday April 06 2015, @03:48PM

        by nitehawk214 (1304) on Monday April 06 2015, @03:48PM (#167015)

        We do see women clamoring for abortion to be illegal. They are called Republicans.

        --
        "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @09:56PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @09:56PM (#167200)

          We do see women clamoring for abortion to be illegal. They are called Republicans.

          Yeah but they're just parroting the party lines and don't actually believe, want, or follow any of the crap they say (correction, Republicans want it for everyone except themselves). How many vehemently anti-gay Republicans have been caught engaging in gay sex so far?

  • (Score: 3, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @08:25AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @08:25AM (#166892)

    no sane woman would believe it

    Whoa whoa, wait a second there, professor. There are sane women? Do you have proof of this claim?

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @08:32AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @08:32AM (#166893)

      Put yourself on the other end of the penis for a minute, or 20 seconds in your case, and consider the consequences.

      • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @09:08AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @09:08AM (#166898)

        A mouthful of jizz? Sounds tasty.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:07AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:07AM (#166904)

    Ugh, typical nerd failure to understand intimacy and trust.

    How is trusting someone not to give you an STD any different? It isn't. There is no visible proof of being disease free and catching something likes aids is a lot worse than getting pregnant.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by VortexCortex on Monday April 06 2015, @10:31AM

    by VortexCortex (4067) on Monday April 06 2015, @10:31AM (#166906)

    For single (and not having some male on the side) women, far too many out there would claim the treatment, but no sane woman would believe it, so she still has to protect herself. If she's already using an IUD, or insisting on condoms, why have the shot? For sanity's sake with other claimed female methods, though, it might save an unplanned paternity.

    I once caught a woman sabotaging my condoms by poking pinholes in them and throwing away birth control pills that she swore she was taking.

    When in doubt, just reverse the sexes to discover sexism:
    "For single (and not having some female on the side) men, far too many out there would claim they're on some form of birth control, but no sane man would believe it, so he still has to protect himself. The only other contraceptive option men have is to insist on condoms at present, so why have the shot? For sanity's sake with other claimed male methods, though, it might save an unplanned paternity."

    For nearly the same reason a woman would take birth control pills or get an IUD a male would get an even less invasive and non-hormone-screwing-up procedure that's more reversible than a vasectomy; As well as for ALL the reasons you listed against men lying about the treatment, except with the sexism removed by considering BOTH men and women capable of being faulty in the contraceptive / birth control department.

    A man has just as much at stake as a woman, and for him there is less opportunity to avoid risk. E.G. In case of pregnancy:
    Woman can take the morning after pill -- Man has no recourse in this situation, he can not (nor should he be able to) force her to take the morning after pill.
    Woman can have an abortion -- Man has no recourse in this situation, he can not (nor should he be able to) force her to have an abortion.
    Woman can drop child off at a safe drop (police station or firehouse) with no questions asked, without even informing the father, and with no 18 years mandatory child support payments required for her -- Man can not do so and, if found, will be liable for 18 years child support even though he may not know she has done this.
    Woman can give child up for adoption -- Man has no recourse in this situation, in most states she is not even required to inform him she was pregnant or that the child is going up for adoption; He may get slammed with child support for a child he didn't know he had at some later time, esp. if the adopter goes on welfare (yes, this does happen and it's fucked up).
    Men are far more likely to be required to pay child support. Some under age male rape victims are required to pay child support for children born to the older female rapist after the rape victim turns 18 (yes, this does happen and it's fucked up). Some fathers are required to pay child support to women who no longer have custody of the child while this father is taking care of the child. Failure to pay child support will result in revocation of voting rights, revocation of drivers license -- Making it harder to make payments -- and jail time (debtor's prison was outlawed, except if you're male).

    Today, motherhood is extremely voluntary for women but Fatherhood is not very voluntary for men. More states should adopt legal paternal surrender so that both men would be able to opt-out of parenthood, since women can. Equality, and all that, eh? However, legislation put forth by father's rights groups seeking to correct the aforementioned inequalities are unilaterally attacked by feminists (so much for Equaility, eh?)

    IMO, It's about damn time there is a long-term male contraceptive like mentioned in TFA. I've also seen male contraceptive pills that block a protein that sperm require to clling to and travel along the tubules. Since the law (esp. family court) is heavily slanted against men and in favour of women, there should be more research into male contraceptives. Condoms can break, slip off, and be sabotaged, yet they're the only contraceptive available to men besides possibly irreversible vasectomy.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by tangomargarine on Monday April 06 2015, @09:30PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Monday April 06 2015, @09:30PM (#167185)

      A man has just as much at stake as a woman

      Um, the man is not at risk of being fired from his job for missing work to give birth, nor at risk of complications during pregnancy and birth.

      "Exactly the same" my ass. You took a short, concise post about assumptions being dangerous and blew it up into one 4x the length (at least), that sounds misogynistic. Congrats.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:13PM (#167470)

        Um, the man is not at risk of being fired from his job for missing work to give birth, nor at risk of complications during pregnancy and birth.

        Ending up having to pay for 18 years of child support and possibly ending up in debtor's prison is nothing to sneeze at, though. All while the courts are firmly against you because you're male.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:10PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:10PM (#168542)

          Yes, exactly. How much is dying during childbirth worth, spread out over 18 years?

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @07:32AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @07:32AM (#172325)

            I'm not seeing your point. Both are bad.

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday April 06 2015, @12:05PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 06 2015, @12:05PM (#166928)

    In marriage, maybe, although not all husbands are that reliable, either.

    I'm mystified by the 10 year claim. Sure, submit a sample, have it tested, next day I'd go for it. But at year 9 month 11? We have no chemical clocks that accurate, maybe I drink a little more water than the next dude and next thing you know, another kid 5 years in.

    It would be like selling a dissolving condom that lasts 10 years (aside from the whole having to pee issue). Seriously, what kind of idiot would trust that?

    So as best its a statistical booster. So you the pill is only 1% failure rate, this might be 20% failure in the real world (not in the self funded study based on predictions) so now the combo is 0.2% failure rate, roughly.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @12:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @12:39PM (#166941)

    Divorce and child support: a death sentence for many men. I've watched a neighbor drink himself into oblivion over it.

  • (Score: 1) by JBanister on Monday April 06 2015, @08:34PM

    by JBanister (5195) on Monday April 06 2015, @08:34PM (#167158) Homepage

    Regardless of whether she's trusting you or not, the shot sounds like cheap insurance against a paternity suit in the event of condom breakage, particularly considering it's an outpatient procedure where the material injected is less expensive than a syringe.