More Progress on the Male Birth Control Pill
December 16th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: I've long believed that a male birth control pill would be a great thing for men, and that women might not be as happy about it as they may claim. In my column Do Women Really Want a Male Birth Control Pill? (Newsday, 4/11/05), I wrote:
"Women have long lamented the unequal burden they shoulder in the area of contraception. Today researchers are reportedly moving closer to perfecting a male contraceptive that is free of side effects, easy to take, and reversible. But do women really want a male birth control pill?
"Power is the reward which comes with responsibility. For example, during the Cold War Americans complained about the money and manpower spent protecting a reputedly ungrateful world from communism. Yet these sacrifices also helped give the United States great geopolitical power, with its attendant perks and privileges.
"Similarly, while women legitimately complain that biology has condemned them to bear the burden of contraception, this burden also gives women control over one of the most important parts of any human being’s life--reproduction. The male birth control pill will shift much of that control from women to men. Is the following conversation far away?
"Woman #1: 'My [husband, boyfriend, significant other] is selfish. He's on the pill and won’t get off. I’ve asked him to stop taking it but he always says he’s not ready. He just won’t grow up. I don’t know what to do.'
"Woman #2: 'That’s what the pill has given men—a right to be perpetual adolescents. It’s given them veto power over women who want to have children'...
"While most women are responsible and want to have children with a willing, committed partner, studies show that lack of reproductive control can be a major problem for men today. For example, the National Scruples and Lies Survey 2004 polled 5,000 women in the United Kingdom for That’s Life! magazine. According to that survey, 42% of women claim they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners...
"The advent of the female birth control pill greatly aided women’s struggle for autonomy and fulfillment. The male birth control pill will also create great changes, but these changes will not be to some women’s liking. Be careful what you ask for—you might get it."
From Sara Feldkamp's Male Birth Control Pill and Digestive Health Top List of New Medical Discoveries, AAPS Annual Meeting and Exposition Kicks-Off in San Diego:
"New research presented at the 2007 American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Annual Meeting and Exposition indicates that a new oral option for men to prevent pregnancy may be possible. The study shows the efficacy and side-effects of an oral contraceptive for males, which is similar to birth control pills currently available for women.
"To date, effective male contraception has been restricted to physical methods, namely condoms and vasectomy. However, the research conducted by scientists at GTx, Inc., the Ohio State University, and the University of Tennessee provides the first male oral contraceptive that has been found effective in preventing pregnancy.
"Additionally, the option is reversible: after the medication is stopped, fertility is fully restored.
"For 13 years, these researchers have been examining the reversibility of a compound that inhibits infertility by utilizing a non-steroidal hormonal therapy known as a selective androgen receptor modulator.
"'Past clinical studies using testosterone for male contraception were not effective at preventing pregnancy without producing significant negative side- effects,' said James Dalton, Ph.D., AAPS Fellow and lead researcher at GTx, Inc. and the Ohio State University.
"'Our recent study was doubly successful because it completely and reversibly inhibited fertility without unwanted side-effects.'
"In fact, the study proved that this male pill had positive effects on muscle and bone. Clinical trials are expected to begin in one to two years."
"));
19 queries. 0.451 seconds.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
w00t!
December 16th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
I'm skeptical.
Most methods for male birth control pills have resulted in "chemical castration", impotence, and permanent sterilization.
I'll take a "wait and see" stance for awhile before I get excited.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Seeing as how so many studies have been said to restore fertility back to normal once a man stops taking it, I'm pretty damn optimistic. I can't friggin' wait.
As for the possiblity that men will actually prevent themselves from having children with the women in their lives: if a man wants to have children with his SO, chances are he'll say so and ditch contraception for it. Why? Because it shows that he'd be fully comfortable having children with said woman. If he's not willing to have children with someone, there's a good chance that it might reflect more on the woman's personality and their relationship, if he's not jumping at the bit to have kids with her.
Besides, God forbid that men have such a decision over when one of the most profound events in their lives will occur.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
"Moreover, most men realize that it’s difficult to remain a part of their children’s lives once the relationship with the children’s mother has broken down, particularly if the children were born outside of marriage. The pill will help ensure that men only have children in the context that’s best for men--a stable marriage."
Ah, you beat me to it, Glenn!
December 16th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
finnally!!
December 16th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I'd rather promote total abstinence and rejection of women feminists before I promote a male pill.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
I don't think women would be unhappy with a male pill. One thing that I have heard on feminist websites which boggles my mind is claims that men and MRA's really don't want it, and would have it already if they really did. They are incapable of attributing any motivation toward MRA's that is positive or even neutral.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I shouldn't have mashed the two thoughts into one paragraph.
Anyway, I should clarify why I think women will be fine with the male pill: it's because it wouldn't really increase men's reproductive power, it would just make our contraception more convenient. If a man really doesn't want to have a baby he will use condoms.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
On second thought, maybe you have a point. I suppose people would in general rather use a hormonal birth control method than a barrier if they can. Most guys wouldn't think to use a condom if his partner was on the pill, but he might use hormonal birth control of his own given the lack of a barrier or inconvenience.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
The real point here is thatere is a lack of an "invisible" contraceptive method, only either permanent solutions, or condoms - which a female partner can tell you is "unnecessary" cause she's "on the pill". What is often not said is that men are frequently accused of everything from not trusting the woman (why do you want to use a condom? I'm on the pill...don't you trust me?) to being outright lied to in order to get pregnant (think Spice Girls, Single mother by choice, that sort of business.
Plus, condoms suck, even if they do prevent disease, I hate the damn things and so does nearly every woman I have been with.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
If a male pill makes it to the market then it will be a choice for men to exercise if they want and there’s nothing wrong with that. However, I think large numbers of men will be compelled to take the pill because they are denied equal protection when it comes to decisions about parenting. In other words, the pill will be a substitute for justice, and I think that sets a dangerous precedent.
What if after years of countless men taking the pill, thinking there is no danger, it turns out there are devastating side effects? Would it be such a Godsend if it had dire consequences for those who had taken it in good faith? I’m very skeptical of drug manufacturers claiming that their products are safe. There will be a huge amount of money to be made from a “pill for men” and that could be a contributing factor in prematurely marketing an unsafe product.
What if I don’t want to take it? Should I be denied the equal protection of our laws because I don’t want to take the pill? Isn’t that a very dangerous precedent that might lead to other technological breakthroughs directly mandating a loss of freedom? How far fetched is it to then require people to have a chip-implant or be denied the right to vote or have a job? It would be your choice to have the chip, but refuse the chip and you can’t vote or hold a job. Sound crazy? You’re crazy if you don’t see the correlation.
The pill for men may turn out to be a safe and welcome addition, to the contraceptives market, and may turn out to be the best thing since baseball. It still will never be a replacement for our citizens being afforded the equal protection of our laws. A man should still have the same choices, available to a woman, (outside of abortion) regardless of whether he used a contraceptive. Otherwise, what happens if a pregnancy occurs when he is on the pill? Too bad it didn’t work, so guess what, now you’re a slave for 18 to 23 years. Is that justice? Is that equal protection?
There is no substitute for justice, and that justice demands the equal protection of our citizens. Equal protection is not just a “good idea” that would be nice if it were enforced, it’s the law of the land and “must” be enforced.
My suggestion to anyone who can’t deal with the harsh reality of that “truth” is to find somewhere else to call home. We don’t need you here, if your idea of justice is to find ways to “cope” with tyranny.
Kevin Merck
December 16th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Jean: "I'd rather promote total abstinence"
While I see where you age going, with all due respect, your mixing two completely unrelated movements:
On the one hand is the abstinence-only program which, as a scientist, I think is quaint non-sense (I don't think there is anything wrong with sex out of wedlock, and this belief is between me and my God - not you. If I could snap my fingers I would teach more science not less science about sex in school - these kids and our culture need more information, not less).
On the other hand is the much more pertinent argument to this discussion: not only teenagers (or unwed-folks) use birth control. Do you think that my wife and I should be abstinent just because we don't want children? Even most Catholics I know use BC and so they should! The Vatican's argument against BC has more to do with maintaining a growing flock, and less to do with "God's will."
In any case, in terms of the discussion at hand, I can't wait for the male BC pill! So many men stop worrying about BC when their wives/gf's are on the pill. This gives up far too much control.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Let's see..... take a pill every day (or simply have a transdermal patch) or...........
........ pay child support for 18+ years to a woman who may or may not actually spend the money on the child that SHE wants.
Hmmmmmm....... Difficult one........... Give me a moment.........
What a great idea (for men!). Add those vitamins essential to male health, promote it as a means of avoiding being leeched upon by egotistical women and the pharmaceutical companies have their market.
Women have long complained that men are "irresponsible".
As the article points out, with responsibility comes "power".
Those 42% of the women surveyed who indicated that they would willingly deceive men in order to get pregnant will have to pick and choose among the least wary, least parasite-averse men when these male birth control pills are widely available.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
A powerful form of male birth control has already been invented and is available in every city in the U.S.
It's called "family" court.
What male in his right mind would feel safe reproducing in this country after having seen what goes on in U.S. family courts?
December 16th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Good one AP. We need to start a advertisement campaign for this birth control method. It would make a nice tongue-in-cheek activism for the most people here.
Effective birth control - "family" court. Simple to read horror stories about fatherhood. Pictures and graphs detailing suicide statistics, PAS and false DV allegations would make an effective contraceptives that every man should carry.
Sounds catchy. Maybe if we sponsor advertisements on this new form of birth control on a major news network, people will take notice.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Something this loaded won't make it past the FDA. Men must be made to suffer for their sins.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Lance said in response to Jean...
Jean: "I'd rather promote total abstinence"
While I see where you age going, with all due respect, your mixing two completely unrelated movements:
On the one hand is the abstinence-only program which, as a scientist, I think is quaint non-sense (I don't think there is anything wrong with sex out of wedlock, and this belief is between me and my God - not you. If I could snap my fingers I would teach more science not less science about sex in school - these kids and our culture need more information, not less).
From my perspective an "abstinence-only program" has nothing to do with "sex out of wedlock" or God or any moral position. I encourage all men to say "no", to say it loudly and frequently. Consent is not taken seriously where men are concerned. The only way to make it so is to start exercising that right both socially and in their intimate relationships. It has the added bonus of giving men a chance to discover for themselves how some women can behave when they are told no.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
As people concerned about men, I'm really surprised that you would be so excited about a male pill. Messing with a man's body and it's normal functioning could very well have serious physical/medical consequences, just like the pill for women does...
December 16th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Giving American women access to your DNA can and has had very definite, life-ruining consequences for tens of millions of American men.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Hmm, 42% of women engage in FRAUD and DECEPTION in order to get pregnant, and that presumably through the person whose told he's the father to begin with ... if anyone is.
Seems to me that criminal justice needs to be gender normed.
Mike
December 16th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
If I wasn't still unsure about kids I would have gotten snipped a long time ago. If there was a male pill, I'd be on it right now.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
I had enough abstinance during my marriage. I am now single and I would like to enjoy my life. I am debating about getting a vasectomy. If the pill came along, I might delay my decision. But then I am older than most and I have kids, so maybe I will just go the permanent route. It's nice to have choice though. Men don't have as many choices as responsibilities.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Can't. Come. Soon. Enough. Seriously.
I would still wonder about having my husband on it until we're done with children, though... like Canarsee mentioned, who knows what the pill does to some women- it took me a loooooong time to get pregnant the first time, and I'm not on the pill now because we want to have more in a few years.
That said, I did want to mention that there IS a male-run form of birth control in the condom. Just like a woman has the right to say to her partner "no play without protection" a suspicious (or unsuspicious but cautious) man does too. Don't like it? I didn't particularly like remembering to take a damn pill every single day that messed with my hormones, having to go to the doctor to get it, etc. etc. Birth control is on my husband's shoulders this time around, and he's fine with it. But then again, we're that feminist couple who talked so much about life and our choices before we got married that "tricking" each other wouldn't ever happen. And as a person who tried really really hard (with my husband) to get pregnant the first time around let me say- it ain't all that hard to watch your timing if you're not keen on getting your partner pregnant. It means counting 2 weeks after her period, abstaining for a week, and you're pretty well in the clear. Take reproduction into your own hands.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Lance said: On the one hand is the abstinence-only program which, as a scientist, I think is quaint non-sense (I don't think there is anything wrong with sex out of wedlock, and this belief is between me and my God - not you. If I could snap my fingers I would teach more science not less science about sex in school - these kids and our culture need more information, not less).
You misinterpret my meaning. I'm not advocating abstinence from a religious perspective, I'm advocating abstinence as a political tool to promote the Men's Rights Movement. Reject women, reject dating, reject marriage, and make sure that everyone knows that you are doing it. Where a Tshirt all the time that says MRA on the front or perhaps "NO JUSTICE, NO MARRIAGE".
To quote King, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed.”
Rosa Parks didn't change things by riding the bus and participating in an institution which oppressed her.
Nor should we continue to participate and collaborate in an institution which oppresses us. Rejecting women is hard from a male point of view but it gets easier the more self-aware you become.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:02 am
WOW - that can't make it to market soon enough. Certainly it's not something that will be perfect, but I can't wait to see the whining from the feminist crowd. I'm looking for the next self-centered psycho to write the Advice Goddess whining that their boyfriend doesn't want to make a baby, and she found pills in his sock drawer.
I've been debating getting a vasectomy for a while. I'd really appreciate hearing from people who have - what they'd do differently, etc. My second child is the direct result of deception by someone who did not want to get a divorce, and if it was happening, wanted to put it off for as long as she could (can't get divorced if the woman is pregnant), and wanted to make sure the child support check was as big as possible.
For what it's worth, I don't think enough men know that antibiotics will render a woman's birth control pill ineffective, as well as some other types of hormonal birth control.
I'm all for having the mandatory male teenage sex course include several hours with a representative from the state AG's office and a family law attorney about how screwed they're going to be if the ever piss off Sally Snowflake or knock her up. I think THAT will do more for the abstinance program than any fear of an STD. It should also include a few honest statistics about the frequency and nature of female on male violence, as well as the gross differenece in prosecution rates and sentencing.
Sponsored by the Mary Winkler Shoe and Gun club. Remember, a spouse with a gun is worth two in the back..
December 17th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Offended_Dad: you know what else they should include in that class? How TO get pregnant... because when you know what it takes timing wise and all that, it's easier to avoid. they need frank discussions about sex instead of misleading 'condoms and pills don't work" BS.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Melissa L said: That said, I did want to mention that there IS a male-run form of birth control in the condom. Just like a woman has the right to say to her partner "no play without protection" a suspicious (or unsuspicious but cautious) man does too.
Firstly: If women were fertile every time a condom was used the actual success rate of condoms would be much lower. Simply put their efficacy is not nearly that of pill for contraceptives taken by women.
Secondly: If a man wears a condom the woman doesn't have to take his word for it. She knows he's protecting her. However, if a woman takes the pill the man must take her word for it. He believes and trusts that she is protecting him.
The reality is that many women break that trust.
Now that a man can protect himself all the time her "trustworthyness" is no longer an issue. Well as far as getting her knocked up.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:20 am
NICE!
December 17th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Canarsee Says:
December 16th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
As people concerned about men, I'm really surprised that you would be so excited about a male pill. Messing with a man's body and it's normal functioning could very well have serious physical/medical consequences, just like the pill for women does...
= = = = = =
Most everything you use has consequences including but not limited to, soap, antiperspirant (you are meant to sweat to control temperature I do not use it and because of vanity deodorant only is becoming harder to find), any meds over the counter or prescription, just about every cleaner you use for your house, pool chemicals, your gasoline and car emissions, but because these many consider would inconvenience them are over looked and that is hypocritical
b
December 17th, 2007 at 12:55 am
“We’re that feminist couple who talked so much about life and our choices”
“Take reproduction into your own hands.”
Oh sure, and how many times have we all heard these self proclaimed “feminists” talk about taking responsibility “into their own hands” when they’ve probably had multiple abortions, and if they haven’t, reserve the right. They have no problem advocating “choice” for the ruling class of females, but treat men who didn’t want a pregnancy that “happened” like second class citizens not worthy of equal protection.
Birth control is fine and dandy but will never take the place of equal protection under the law. Sometimes “shit happens”, and when it does, we all need to have the same options to deal with it. Equal protection is the law, if you don’t like it, leave the country.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:59 am
Kevin dear, if the argument is for equal "adopt out" rights for men, you ain't gonna find an argument with me. Who exactly are you fussing at to "leave the country"? I'm not entirely clear how the two are related. Yes, men have an ability to take their reproductive rights into their own hands (and a male pill will make it easier) and yes, men *should* have the ability to opt out of a pregnancy (not parenthood- the decision should be made BEFORE the baby is born) too. So... yeah, not seeing how those are two mutually exclusive goals.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:02 am
Jean said: However, if a woman takes the pill the man must take her word for it.
Yes... so if you don't trust a woman, use a condom, period. Right? And just because you put the word "many" into quotes and bold it don't make it a very good or descriptive word. Many women.. you know? Many documented cases... I'd like a link to the stat Mike had listed above about 42%. I find that odd, or there are just a LOT of men who don't want to reproduce ever and I don't think that's so much the case either. Yes, it happens. Yes, it sucks. Yes, men should have the ability to opt out of a pregnancy.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:07 am
(not parenthood- the decision should be made BEFORE the baby is born)
Oh; and how do you manage that when the female can keep the pregnancy a secret from you until after the baby is born and then come after you for child support.
If you have all the possible scenarios worked out, then please share them with us.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Times up.
I’m going to bed and will respond, if needed, in the morning.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Melissa, when I read your point that you believe in equal reproductive rights for men, I was pleasantly surpised.
Many, perhaps even MOST American women don't support equal reproductive rights for men, in my experience.
And so men will have to substitute birth control technology for equal reproductive rights, at least for the foreseeable future.
As Kevin points out, as a society, we progress from one bad precedent for men (inferior reproductive rights, few birth control choices) to another bad precendent, albeit a better one (inferior reproductive rights, more birth control choices).
Frankly I don't see the male birth control's appeal as appealing to women as much as it appeals to men who need protection against child-support payments.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:42 am
Melissa L. said Yes... so if you don't trust a woman, use a condom, period. Right? And just because you put the word "many" into quotes and bold it don't make it a very good or descriptive word. Many women.. you know? Many documented cases... I'd like a link to the stat Mike had listed above about 42%. I find that odd, or there are just a LOT of men who don't want to reproduce ever and I don't think that's so much the case either. Yes, it happens. Yes, it sucks. Yes, men should have the ability to opt out of a pregnancy.
I think what Mike may have been referring to is the 42% out of wedlock birthrate. A figure that at the least shows a lack of responsibility on the part of unmarried women. Also, that out of wedlock birthrate climbs for women in their late 30's. Apparently realizing they won't get married or don't want to get married but still want to have kids before they run out of follicles. The bonus for them is they can get a check for their fraud.
However, I have also seen data from the American Association of Blood Banks on paternity tests. Those tests revealed that women falsely designate men as the father about 35% of the time. That study is a couple years old now and I doubt things have gotten better.
Imagine a person pulling into a gas station and ordering the attendant to "filler up!". The attendant does so dutifully and sends the driver on his way. The driver is careless and loses control of the vehicle and smacks into a tree. The driver then sues the attendant for the damages saying, "The attendant put gas in my car and made it go."
That's how women and the government view pregnancy. Women have all the power and control of their body. They have a myriad of birth control options. They have the right of consent and can insist that a man use a condom. Yet, when they neglect their responsibility it is somehow the man's fault.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Blaming a man for an unwanted pregnancy is like blaming a rider on a ferrous wheel when it comes off it's axle.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:46 am
Kevin Merck said: Equal protection is the law, if you don’t like it, leave the country.
I've always disliked arguments like this. Kevin who are you to arbitrarily decide who belongs in this country? Anyone can and should speak their mind freely. That is what debate is all about.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:05 am
The 42% figure referred to was from a survey by That's Life! magazine in Britain, where 42% of women admitted they would lie to their partner and stop taking birth control if they wanted to get pregnant and the partner didn't want a child.
Sure, weird sampling, but any man who reads that should be writing a letter to every pharmaceutical company demanding a male pill. As I mentioned before, condoms suck, condemning men to their use for the rest of their lives is cruel and inhuman punishment. It's tantamount to smearing numbing cream on your clitoris then trying to enjoy sex.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:59 am
I'd want to know much more about the methodologies. Does it change testosterone level? Supposing it does, would this birth control pill be an illegal item in view of steroid use policies in sports teams?
How do sports teams handle female birth control pills?
December 17th, 2007 at 3:03 am
"As I mentioned before, condoms suck, condemning men to their use for the rest of their lives is cruel and inhuman punishment. It's tantamount to smearing numbing cream on your clitoris then trying to enjoy sex."
The sensation-deadening aspect of condoms is particularly critical to American men, who more often than not were subjected to neonatal male genital mutilation, a procedure which removes between 50% and 80% of males' genital nerve endings.
Furthermore, the unprotected penis (lacking a foreskin) undergoes a process called keratinization where the skin on the glans essentially becomes thicker and less sensitive.
One of the reasons why Europeans and Japanese society have had greater success convincing their men to use condoms regularly results from their protection of male genital integrity, which in turn provides those men with greater sensation during sex......
December 17th, 2007 at 3:30 am
Hormonal? Daily dosed? With all the attendent financial costs?
Uh, thanks. . .I'll keep it in mind. But I'm still a lot more interested in RISUG -- see
http://www.malecontraceptives.org/methods/risug.php .
December 17th, 2007 at 3:47 am
Glenn said: "Woman #1: 'My [husband, boyfriend, significant other] is selfish. He's on the pill and won’t get off. I’ve asked him to stop taking it but he always says he’s not ready. He just won’t grow up. I don’t know what to do.'
"Woman #2: 'That’s what the pill has given men—a right to be perpetual adolescents. It’s given them veto power over women who want to have children'...
I must admit I really look forward to women saying something like this. It would give me such pleasure.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:53 am
Fourthwire said: Furthermore, the unprotected penis (lacking a foreskin) undergoes a process called keratinization where the skin on the glans essentially becomes thicker and less sensitive.
You make an excellent point Fourthwire. I wish Oprah would have a show on male genital mutilation.
A man who exercises regularly must deal with a lot of chaffing. After awhile that destroys the nerve endings at the base of the head of the penis.
I will never circumcise my sons. Which is easy to say since I will never get married or have children.
Damn that works out better than I thought.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:10 am
This will be the antagonist pill that has been in research for years. Glad it has made it past first stage research. It may have health effects on men taking it, we will not know for many years, but even then it will probably be worth the risk.
I think it is safe to say many women will rise up in misandrist riot about five years after the pill is on the market. No one has told our womenfolk that men are people and thus have a say in whether or not to be a father. It will take a few generations for that telling to sink in and become a part of our social reality.
Many other women will welcome the male-pill as a healthy part of spreading the birth-control risk. With the reversible vasectomy (IVD) coming onto the market in a very few years and the IUD now well researched adding in the pill for each sex plus condoms we will have birth control options fit for all.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:19 am
I would love to see men have acess to the pill. Sorry to sound selfish, but it would take a lot of pressure off me. But, I think it would be better to get a law passed saying that a woman can not have an abortion without the fathers concent. Instead of working on things to prevent more children, let's work on getting fathers the rights they deserve to the children that already exist.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Sorry honey, no daddy-fishies today.
Its about time we got some real progress in this area. I think a lot of you are exaggerating the power it will give us though, as that power is already there. Just use a condom, and either ejaculate somewhere other than the vagina or simply wrap the condom up and take it home with you. But maybe that's easier to say given i'm a happily uncircumcised European.
You know, at the risk of sounding weird, I've often wondered why non-jewish cultures practice circumcision. Perhaps the idea was to weaken the emotional ties between men and women by reducing the amount of sexual pleasure they can give us. Part of a divide and conquer strategy. The usual excuse of hygiene doesn't wash (pun intended) given that girls have more folds etc down there in which to trap dirt and no ones removing their inner labia and clitoral hood, are they?
"Its a doberman.Let it have its ears" Lindsay Bluth.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:47 am
I'm concerned about side effects. How about RISUG? Why don't they push that through? I'm a little skeptical that they're working on a "male pill" with all the side effects and a steady stream of revenue for the drug companies instead of a cheaper, one-time deal for men. There would be less women on the Pill, so we know that will never happen. Less money for them.
I'm all for more contraceptive options for men, though, no matter how they come for now. I think most women will be in favor of the male pill. Many of the women who aren't are the ones that would force a man into becoming a father before he's ready.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Absolutely fabulous if this became reality. I will spread the word.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Jean: "You misinterpret my meaning. I'm not advocating abstinence from a religious perspective, I'm advocating abstinence as a political tool to promote the Men's Rights Movement."
Fair enough. I've just heard enough of this abstinence-only crap recently, and perhaps I'm overly sensitive! My apologizes!
Melissa: "That said, I did want to mention that there IS a male-run form of birth control in the condom....Don't like it?"
Funny...I've never had anything against condoms. But almost every woman I've been with has hated them. With some women who are adversely affected emotionally by the pill, I've offered to take care of the BC by using one (after all, they can be fun), and every time they prefer to stay on the pill even with the emotional side effects. Weird really.
Melissa: "Yes, men should have the ability to opt out of a pregnancy."
Amen sister. This is why I was happy to see you visit our corner of the web a few weeks ago - and it is good to see that you have stuck around. Now let's get your pro-choice-for-women sisters to agree, and blow minds!
MichaelC: "no ones removing their inner labia and clitoral hood, are they?"
In some countries they do, but going down that path in this discussion will muddy the water.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:23 am
And when the male pill comes in child support enforcement will become even more draconian.
The courts:
Didn't want to support kids? Why weren't you on the pill? You couldn't afford it while out of work?
Poor baby scared it would mess with his sperm? You say it is too new and until more info on long term effects become available you won't take it? Man up pussy. Here's your long term effect garnish this man's wages for the next 21 years.
Oh now you couldn't take it because of an allergic reaction. Some other guy tried that crap on me, said it inflamed his acne something fierce, pizza faced bastard didn't fool me either. Sell it somewhere else.
Oh you were on the pill and it failed? Get your story straight buddy. Some other guy tried that crap on me too the drug companies say this thing is 98% effective and I've already given 2 guys out of the last hundred a 2% break on their garnishments.
If you can't live up to your manly responsibilities we'll make you live up to real manly responsibilities. Get this loser who can't remember to take a pill everyday out of my courtroom.
Or maybe I'm just paranoid.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Oh I forgot.
She's your wife. What do you mean you aren't the father? You're on the male pill? So you're saying she was cheating on you and you want a paternity test? Well sorry I don't have to order that and I'd have to check but I don't think I can even if I wanted to. Someone has to support this kid and you have the job. You know if you aren't man enough to keep your woman from straying this is what you get. Maybe if you hadn't been lying to her about being on the pill she wouldn't have been cheating on you.
A male pill would be a help but I don't think it will solve a damn thing.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:37 am
I don' t know if i'll be a early adopter, but this is definitely a step-up for men who want to have a say in when they make children in their long-term relationships.
I just hope we don't see an increase in risky sexual behaviors as a result of this new drug.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Kevin said: Oh; and how do you manage that when the female can keep the pregnancy a secret from you until after the baby is born and then come after you for child support.
Time limits. 90 days from the time that you're legally notified (and I think paternity should be a legal notification for sure) to opt out. That's about the time a woman who learns of an unplanned pregnancy can legally abort a baby. You sign away all paternity rights AND obligations.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:51 am
I would expect to see the percentages of paternity fraud go down significantly. The male can take this pill without telling the parter. If she comes up pregnant then he would be able to walk away and she would be left wth the onus of not only providing informaiton on the father but dealing with the consequences of lying.
The idea of male brith control is overdue. The thing is is wont affect the majority of couples who have children and are fine. It will however put a damper on children born of unhealthy relationships or women being able to get pregnant without the partners consent.
Some men will use it to thier advantage I have no doubt but tey will only be doing what has been done to them for decades in this country.
I have a 13 yr old son and providing that the pill is safe will encourage him to use it to avoid being taken in by any women because she feels her "NEED" to have a child and that fact that currently SHE has all the rights in the reproductive process override any objections from the potential father.
There will be a distinct lessening of "Just write the check and go away"
December 17th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Melissa, watch out....you may actually convince Kevin that all feminists aren't out to get all men :)
December 17th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Jean Valjean Says:
December 17th, 2007 at 1:46 am
Kevin Merck said: Equal protection is the law, if you don’t like it, leave the country.
[I've always disliked arguments like this. Kevin who are you to arbitrarily decide who belongs in this country? Anyone can and should speak their mind freely. That is what debate is all about.]
It’s not arbitrary. If you think you are above the law, or if you think that everyone is not entitled to the equal protection of our laws - then leave the country. There are plenty of socialist countries around the world that think the same way.
In America, we all get equal protection under the law and that is not negotiable, and never will be. If you don’t like it then leave the country and stop trying to drag the rest of us down with you. There’s nothing “arbitrary” about my statements.
Lewis:
Great points. Thanks for using your head on this issue. It seems to be a vanishing ability in our fast-food-nation of nincompoops.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I'd have to side with Kevin on this one. While the "with us or against us" tone may be a little heavy for some, the fundamental truths of our legal system should be (and generally has been):
(1) Equal protection for all (ie: all men are created equal.....)
(2) One is innocent until proven guilty.
Now both truths are under attack and this should be bothersome to masculinists and feminists alike....
December 17th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Lance Says:
December 17th, 2007 at 10:59 am
[Melissa, watch out....you may actually convince Kevin that all feminists aren't out to get all men :)]
A statement like that is why I won’t engage you in any discussion. Trying to have an intelligent discussion with you would be like wrestling with a pig in the mud. I’m just not going to stoop to your level.
Very little you have to say is of interest to me and I don’t normally read any of your posts. I would appreciate it if you would kindly reciprocate. I don’t think the fact that you disagree with what I have to say gives you the right to harass me.
If you respond in general to one of my comments, I have no control over that. I would appreciate your refrain from unsolicited antagonistic remarks directed primarily at me.
There are plenty of people who post here that I vehemently disagree with, but I don’t taunt them, and usually just don’t read their comments.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
While a less intrusive and more reliable form of birth control aside from abstinence is certainly desirable I can't see how this too would not be turned into a yoke around men's necks. I don't see how this would not become something else that a "man's gotta do." Or...
I don't see how a male pill would not quickly make birth control another form of "patriarchal privilege."
I don't think it would be painted as men taking control of their lives but as denying women the right to bear children.
It would be used as evidence that men don't want to be Father's and used to further the crap that issues forth from that idea. It would further entrench the things that come from the idea that men must be forced to take on Fatherly duties.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Melissa:
I’m all for trying to find ways to enforce our laws giving everyone equal consideration and protection.
Your post that I responded to seemed to be placing undue emphasis on taking “personal responsibility” when only half of the equation is expected to be responsible, the other half having a variety of “choices”.
I’m glad you have other people’s interests in mind and not just your own. Maybe someday soon, we will all see the value in extending those thoughtful considerations, to the unborn child as well.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Oh calm down and breathe Kevin. No one is attacking you or harassing you just because they agree/disagree with you and like to poke a little harmless fun on occasion to lighten the load. I was making what most would take to be a humorous "inside joke" indicative of my knowledge and respect of your opinions (yes I said respect: I can disagree with someone and still respect them for their conviction). What you see as "harassing" is merely a little play - followed by my sincere agreement with one of your posts ~10 min later no less.
I sincerely apologize, as no offense was intended and I thought you would be adult enough to recognize the gesture and respond in kind. Instead I get a bunch of juvenile name calling ("pig in mud"?? - I'm about as consistent as they come). Again, my mistake and it won't happen again.
In terms of your posts in general, your decision is your own whether or not you want to engage me and I really couldn't care less. If you post here you invite criticism from me and all the other moderate and semi-moderate folks that also make up this group (as we invite criticism ourselves).... Whether you respond is your own choice. Open minded folks tend to enjoy hearing/reading/debating other points of view - even if we don't agree. Rest assured, I will continue to read your posts and I will respond as I see fit.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
The birth rates are already low.
We'll need to increase immigration.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
How well do reversals work for risug patients?
December 17th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
FWIW, I've heard that Japanese condoms are comfortable and allow much more sensation than American ones. I'm all for male birth control pills too. I'd be happy to have my guy take over that for a while.
RISUG sounds great too for the men. Why isn't it permitted here?
If only my medical insurance paid for IUDs. I'd get one in a second.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I've also read there is a non hormonal Birth control pill in research for men--at least I think It's non-hormonal. I've got a YouTube vid on my site filed under
Birth Control For Men
--Mike
December 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
keep in mind that in many states including NY if you are married you are AUTOMATICALLY deemed the father and hence responsible for child support until you can prove otherwise. I have experienced first hand how the courts work on this when my now wife and I had our daughter. She was at the time legally seperated (but not divorced) from her ex. They had been apart for about 7years and he lived in another state. Yet I had to go to court and "accept" paternity in front of a judge so that HE could not be held liable for child support. It was and is a complete and utter joke.
So, NO it might not matter if you are on a pill, used a condom, can prove its not yours - sorry buddy you could still be on the hook - goes back to english common law and a good article on it can be found here:
http://www.ancpr.org/why_truth_is_not_a_defense_in_pa.htm
December 17th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Offended Dad said:
“I'm all for having . . . a representative from the state AG's office and a family law attorney about how screwed they're going to be if the ever piss off Sally Snowflake or knock her up.”
and
“It should also include a few honest statistics about the frequency and nature of female on male violence, as well as the gross difference in prosecution rates and sentencing.”
I couldn’t agree with you more. If more men were aware of just how well the "law" provides them with equal protection, they would change their behavior considerably.
The notion that, “Equal protection is the law,“ is not the whole story. The various state and federal statutes (the laws) not only allow for but sanction the gross gender bias that affect men in “family courts” every day. They also empower enforcers of the law (judges) to, among others, i) legally declare men who are not fathers (in fact) to be fathers (at law), ii) creatively morph “debt” into penalty, iii) steal children under the “in the best interests” statutes (and various obiter dicta) and iv) apply any number of other legal sophistries and fictions you might care to mention whenever they want. We should add to that legal precedent masquerading as statute – in other words it is unwritten law but carries the same force as black letter law unless or until it is overturned or modified (by a court) or specifically legislated against by elected members of state or federal legislative bodies. The judiciary has equal power with the legislature and thus, judicial precedential decisions (no matter how bad (or technically illegal) they may be) carry the same (if not sometimes greater) legal weight as statutes. This is the “law”. Where is the equal protection?
If a man can avoid this mine field then I strongly suggest that he should. This does not in any manner detract from the need for all of us concerned with justice, ab initio, to carry the fight to the miscreants nor to inform those who are genuinely unaware nor stir those who are apathetic.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
This male birth control will take one of the most powerfull forms of control, out of the hands of the women!!
slowly as this seeps into society, we shall start to see feminist concessions to meet us half way!!
..Feminist lies ran around the world... while the truth was tying it's sneakers!!
December 17th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Some people shouldn't breed. Of course some smartass will say my parents shouldn't have bred either.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Figured I'd say it for them.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Dan M (6:49 pm) said, "Plus, condoms suck... I hate the damn things and so does nearly every woman I have been with."
Yeah, women generally dislike condoms yet they get away with promoting the lie that only men resist using condoms.
Oh, and as soon as Melissa L (12:59 am) tut-tutted "Kevin dear" her credibility plummeted to less than zero. I've never yet met a self-admitted feminist yet who could give up the habit of using belittlement and shaming ploys to bully men.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
michael i, darling, if coy attempts at humor to diffuse a situation serve to limit my credibility with you? I'm O.k. with that. Kisses! And I looooooooove condoms, so there :P
December 17th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Lance, i know in some undeveloped countries they are that barbaric enough to mutilate girls.What offends me is that in countries that suposedly care about human rights its only men-nay, male babies- who are subjected to this. No way would anyone tolerate this being done to the females.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Couldn't agree with you more Michael C!
December 17th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I recommend this link for answers to commenters' further questions about RISUG:
http://www.newmalecontraception.org/vas.htm
December 17th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
BTW, since the topic has been raised, I'll take the opportunity here to note that nonsurgical foreskin restoration is not only possible but highly recommended.
That possibility does not, of course, excuse 'circumcision', or more accurately, routine and ritual male genital amputation, in any way whatsoever. But it does mean that significant recoveries of the sensory and other functions stolen by prepucectomy can be accomplished.
I recommend these two sites in particular for more information:
http://www.norm.org/ (Bigelow's "The Joy of Uncircumcising", available for purchase there, is invaluable)
http://foreskinrestorationchat.info/
December 17th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
It will be interesting how this affects infidelity. Personally, I think someone who knocks up a married man's spouse should be made to pay for the husband's legal expenses to get divorced, plus a civil penalty. Sex is one thing, but I think people should be expected to some extent to honor other's marriage contracts.
When it comes to paternity tests, in both cases, the hospital staff (women in both cases) screwed it up, and I think, deliberately. In the first case, they asked me while my wife and I were togeather, and holding our baby girl, mere hours after birth. They had several opportunities to have me come out for 'paper work' when they could have asked me, but my one opportunity, my choice was to decline it or accept it and really cause a scene. Gee honey, she's real pretty and all, but I really want to make sure it's mine. Ya right.
Next time, different hospital, but this occaision, they DIDN"T EVEN ASK ME! They came around while I was out getting us some lunch, and when my wife asked what that person wanted, she told her. My wife declined on my behalf, then gave me an icy glare when she said that someone was in asking if I wanted a paternity test.
I'm the custodial parent, and my girls are my life. I don't want to know, and I have plenty of reason to doubt at least one of them, given all that my ex has lied about. I would have expected that if she had any doubts herself, she would have said something when she lost custody to me.
FWIW - there's a 3rd child, which is not mine, that she's in possession of. She's claimed a few dads, almost got one to acknowledge paternity, but he wised up to her problems, quick. Problem is, everyone in her family knows who the real dad is and has stated such, but CPS makes no effort to find him to see if he should have access or custody. This poor kid is certainly going to be screwed up as an adult. CPS was pretty shocked when no one in her family, including me, wanted anything to do with this third child. This child has no good role model, what she's teaching is how to be an alcoholic and a scammer. (yeah a bit of dancing to hide the gender, sorry, but necessary) If I had anyway to locate the real dad, (I know his name), I would.
Sorry, I diverged from the point. More to the point: If I had any way to be certain that I was not fertile during the uncertain times in our relationship, I would have. In both cases, my ex used her pregnancies and the children to stave off divorce and remain in control as much as she could (can't get divorced when your spouse is knocked up), and used them for as much emotional blackmail as she could. That, and paternity testing in hospitals should be MANDATORY at birth. Mom should be forced to make a statement under oath at that time. Don't like it, then don't f-ing sleep around without protection.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
If only my medical insurance paid for IUDs. I'd get one in a second.
Be very careful with IUDs. Have a gynecologist you really respect. My ex had an IUD "lost" and the gynecologist sent her to a surgeon that was supposed to use a very uninvasive operation through her belly button to look for it. Never having gotten an ultrasound, and with no need for it, that one operation while she was under and I was in the lobby turned into what was basically a C Section.
So here's a woman who was very careful about her fitness, and we had taken great care during pregnancy to stretch her body for the baby, and she was expecting an afternoon of discomfort, and some arrogant surgeon thinks nothing of ripping her open, ruining her muscle tone, her ability to pick up a six month old baby, and basically made it so that I needed to take the next month off of work to help her around the house.
So.... BE VERY CAREFUL WITH IUDs and with doctors.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Celia Says:
December 17th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
“The notion that, “Equal protection is the law,“ is not the whole story. The various state and federal statutes (the laws) not only allow for but sanction the gross gender bias that affect men in “family courts” every day. They also empower enforcers of the law (judges) to, among others, i) legally declare men who are not fathers (in fact) to be fathers (at law), ii) creatively morph “debt” into penalty, iii) steal children under the “in the best interests” statutes (and various obiter dicta) and iv) apply any number of other legal sophistries and fictions you might care to mention whenever they want. We should add to that legal precedent masquerading as statute – in other words it is unwritten law but carries the same force as black letter law unless or until it is overturned or modified (by a court) or specifically legislated against by elected members of state or federal legislative bodies. The judiciary has equal power with the legislature and thus, judicial precedential decisions (no matter how bad (or technically illegal) they may be) carry the same (if not sometimes greater) legal weight as statutes. This is the “law”. Where is the equal protection?
If a man can avoid this mine field then I strongly suggest that he should. This does not in any manner detract from the need for all of us concerned with justice, ab initio, to carry the fight to the miscreants nor to inform those who are genuinely unaware nor stir those who are apathetic.”
Celia:
Well said, and I think you’re a very intelligent person. I know where you’re coming from and I respect your view on the subject.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
I think it would be great when a male birth control pill does see the light of day. It will cause a fundamental shift in relations between men and women, and it would prevent many pregnancies that are the result of a woman tricking men into becoming unwilling parents. It's bound to have an impact on the repercussions marital infidelity brings. It should put a major dent in the feminists efforts to turn fatherhood into slavery, especially on the part of deceitful, conniving women.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Also, when it comes to condoms - they break, just about the time I'm able to focus on the sensation. 2nd, some women are allergic to latex, or discover that they are when using a condom.
Also, that film stuff that you're supposed to fold up into quarters then place up against the cervix - who the hell thought up that, and why do the breath mint films taste just like contraceptive films?
Depo provera (sp?) causes a number of issues, including weight gain, a complete lack of interest in sex, and exacerbating any 'brain chemistry problems', something I found out the hard way.
A neuvo ring sounded promising, but the second pregnancy interrupted that, and then the subsequent divorce made it a moot point.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Thanks Kevin, ditto!
December 18th, 2007 at 12:25 am
More than half a century after females got "the pill" there still isn't any equal rights for men. The reason is an almost totally sexist funding for birth control research that has been going on for most of a century. After a century of sexist discrimnation against men in BC research, women have dozens of available BC options, but men are still stuck with crude 19th century mechanical devices.
The article is very accurate that women want power and control over families and conception. The feminist are scared that their power will be taken away if men get control over pregnancy. The same feminists who would fight to the death to keep total sexist exclusion of "a woman's right to choose" are about as adamantly opposed to a man's right to avoid being a father.
It's about time that some small funding is being spent on men. Products like Viagra, Cialis, and prostrate treatments have demonstrated that men are a huge potential market for the drug companies. A little money is being spent on products for men. It's about time, and in fact its long overdue.
Bob
December 18th, 2007 at 11:25 am
"michael i, darling, if coy attempts at humor to diffuse a situation serve to limit my credibility with you? I'm O.k. with that. Kisses! And I looooooooove condoms, so there :P"
This is a great example of why women in general have fairly limited value to things like the MRM, no offense Melissa. It's impossible to argue this particular subject with women, because there is NO analog that they can wrap their heads around. It's probably comparable to women trying to explain things like childbirth to men. At the risk of getting too personal, I shall illustrate:
I am circumcised, and there is DEFINITELY a huge decrease in sensitivity because of that. Well, either that, or I'm just a sucky baby when it comes to feeling. I am a very highly sexed person, more an X times per day than X times per week sort of guy. When wearing a condom I have to periodically take it off, and either receive stimulation to refresh the ol guy, or I lose it. Every time. I usually go through about 5 condoms per "act", with a typically mediocre result. For contrast, the women I know that hate them too, hate them because they want to feel the "real thing", and with a condom it's more like a dildo than a penis. I don't know if this holds true for all, or even most women, but it seems to me, and the women have confirmed this, that condoms don't limit their "physical" enjoyment, but impede the "closeness" they crave.
So of course women "love condoms". They don't seriously hamper their enjoyment of sex. I would imagine women's reactions to condoms would be at least marginally different if they limited women's sensations to the same degree, say covering the clitoris and somehow cushioning the pressure inside the vagina.
But at least in my case, circumcision, coupled with a need for a condom, has directly resulted in me preferring manual stimulation to the "real thing" by orders of magnitude. That also means I can "get it" whenever I am alone just as well as if I am with someone, but that's pretty damn cold comfort. The male pill can't come soon enough, neither can reproductive rights for men.
December 18th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Dan: I was being a total brat because michael i was having issues with me and you took it way too seriously. I guess i hear you... I mean, when we were dating hubby and I had to go through a LOT of different brands to find one we both enjoyed, and after the baby was born that even changed things up a bit. So I GUESS I hear you, but have never had any personal experience since hubby has no objections or preferences one way or the other.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Re the sensitivity question: Im not circumsized and the very idea of directly stimulating the head with my hand makes me cringe. Its so sensitive it actually hurts to stroke it with something as rough and hard as a hand. Ive always wondered why so many circumsized men in porn can do that without discomfort, i guess now i know.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Melissa L said:
"So if you don't trust a woman, use a condom, period. Right? "
All it takes to defeat a latex condom is an little dab of petroleum-based lubricant. Until a reliable male pill comes along the only safe bets for men are vasectomy, oral sex, anal sex, or abstinence.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Melissa L said:
So if you don't trust a woman, use a condom, period. Right?
All it takes to defeat a latex condom is an little dab of petroleum-based lubricant. Until a reliable male pill comes along the only safe bets for men are vasectomy, oral sex, anal sex, or abstinence.