Male Birth Control

[Centurius]

I'll just stick with good old(well, new) condoms.

[DevilishBooster]

26 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It would be so much simpler if people were taught to take responsibility for their actions rather than relying on medical bails to fix their fuck-ups. In my opinion, when you have sex with a person it should be because 1) you love them and 2) you are prepared to the eventuality of conception. If these two criteria are satisfied there cannot be a situation where you get a son you weren't ready for or your partner bails. Unfortunately we live in a society where sex is considered a recreational act, something you do with the same nonchalance as you would watch a movie or play tennis. If a person gets "tricked" into conception by a stranger all I can say is they pretty much asked for it, and it shouldn't be the baby who has to pay the consequences.

 

So no, I don't feel the need for this or any other sort of "birth control" drug, be it for me or for my partner. I wouldn't want a relationship with someone who takes this sort of thing so lightly.

This. ^ I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking rationally.

 

I recognize that I have always been a bit old fashioned, but I have genuinely never understood how sex has become so casual and trivialized in today's society. I have always wanted sex to be a special connection between myself and the woman I love (and want to spend the rest of my life with). I had sex once my first year of university after an ugly breakup with my high school sweetheart as kind of an ego booster (I still feel kind of guilty about it, but she was a damn hot redhead), but after that first time I was abstinent because I was never had a relationship (what few I had in college) go beyond a couple months and I never felt that special connection. I am now in a very happy relationship after 8 years of failed dating, and we bump uglies on the regular, but that is because we got to know each other and developed our relationship for over 6 months before we started dating, and we have such a deep connection that it just feels right and we both can see this relationship being the long game. That being said, we have already talked a number of time regarding kids and, while neither of us wants a child right now, we do both want to have kids someday and we have accepted the possibility of conception and the responsibility that goes with it. People really do need to start taking responsibility for themselves and stop trying to pawn it off on some other person.

 

EDIT: I suppose I can answer the OP's question: No, I don't think I would take it. I don't like the idea of messing with my hormonal ballance, and I would never ask my woman to take BC if she didn't want too. My GF used to take hormonal BC but didn't like it so she switched to an IUD and she is much happier with that, plus it is much more effective. 

[dalekphalm]

23 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It would be so much simpler if people were taught to take responsibility for their actions rather than relying on medical bails to fix their fuck-ups. In my opinion, when you have sex with a person it should be because 1) you love them and 2) you are prepared to the eventuality of conception. If these two criteria are satisfied there cannot be a situation where you get a son you weren't ready for or your partner bails. Unfortunately we live in a society where sex is considered a recreational act, something you do with the same nonchalance as you would watch a movie or play tennis. If a person gets "tricked" into conception by a stranger all I can say is they pretty much asked for it, and it shouldn't be the baby who has to pay the consequences.

 

So no, I don't feel the need for this or any other sort of "birth control" drug, be it for me or for my partner. I wouldn't want a relationship with someone who takes this sort of thing so lightly.

I agree with some of your points here, but not fully.

 

While sex was a biological function to reproduce, we must acknowledge that modern society views recreational sex as an acceptable act. With that, comes responsibilities, yes. But if we can create reliable contraceptives, there is no ethical problem with people using them, with the sole purpose of preventing pregnancy while having recreational sex.

 

Sure, having sex with a stranger is risky - especially with no barrier contraceptives, because of the risk of STI's. But if you are with a person whom you know the medical history and current condition of (say, a girlfriend or wife), using non-barrier contraceptives are totally acceptable. Most, if used properly, are very very effective.

 

The biggest reason contraceptives fail is human error (eg: forgetting to take the pill, or putting on a condom incorrectly, etc). That's why something like an IUD are such a great invention, as their effectiveness is incredibly high, and there's no user intervention required to ensure effectiveness.

 

Lots of people simply don't want kids - ever. Are you saying that person should become celibate and never have sex? Not only is there ethical concerns of that, but the practical matter is that celibacy doesn't work. Time and time again it's shown that those who abstain - especially who are forced to by outside pressures, eventually give in and have sex, often unprotected.

 

If you are okay with barrier protections (Condoms, for example), then why not drug or hormonal based ones? An IUD for example, is essentially MORE effective then a condom, because there's no risk of the condom breaking or tearing.

 

Ideally, multiple forms should be combined and used: Both parties using a form (Eg: IUD + a condom), but there are downsides with a condom that the drugs in the OP hope to remove.

[Space Reptile]

why take pills if you have the condom , that thing pretty much never fails unless you are stupid and bought a crap one , its been in your wallet for 3 months or its too big / too small 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

57 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It would be so much simpler if people were taught to take responsibility for their actions rather than relying on medical bails to fix their fuck-ups.

(...)

So no, I don't feel the need for this or any other sort of "birth control" drug, be it for me or for my partner. I wouldn't want a relationship with someone who takes this sort of thing so lightly.

What in contraception has anything to do with "fixing fuck-ups"? Contraception is prevention, not after-the-fact reactions.

 

What about planning and preventing undesired outcomes is taking things lightly?

[dalekphalm]

42 minutes ago, DevilishBooster said:

This. ^ I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking rationally.

 

I recognize that I have always been a bit old fashioned, but I have genuinely never understood how sex has become so casual and trivialized in today's society. I have always wanted sex to be a special connection between myself and the woman I love (and want to spend the rest of my life with). I had sex once my first year of university after an ugly breakup with my high school sweetheart as kind of an ego booster (I still feel kind of guilty about it, but she was a damn hot redhead), but after that first time I was abstinent because I was never had a relationship (what few I had in college) go beyond a couple months and I never felt that special connection. I am now in a very happy relationship after 8 years of failed dating, and we bump uglies on the regular, but that is because we got to know each other and developed our relationship for over 6 months before we started dating, and we have such a deep connection that it just feels right and we both can see this relationship being the long game. That being said, we have already talked a number of time regarding kids and, while neither of us wants a child right now, we do both want to have kids someday and we have accepted the possibility of conception and the responsibility that goes with it. People really do need to start taking responsibility for themselves and stop trying to pawn it off on some other person.

 

EDIT: I suppose I can answer the OP's question: No, I don't think I would take it. I don't like the idea of messing with my hormonal ballance, and I would never ask my woman to take BC if she didn't want too. My GF used to take hormonal BC but didn't like it so she switched to an IUD and she is much happier with that, plus it is much more effective. 

I'm sure you're already aware of this, but most IUD's are hormonal birth control. The other kind are copper IUD's (naturally toxic to sperm), but copper IUD's have much MUCH WORSE potential side effects (and they are more common), so Hormonal IUD's are considered vastly superior and preferred by professionals. Sometimes you can't have the Hormonal one of course, because of medical reasons or complications, but for the average person, the copper IUD is definitely worse (and tends to make periods heavier, more painful, and might even swing your moods out of wack).

[DevilishBooster]

13 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I'm sure you're already aware of this, but most IUD's are hormonal birth control. The other kind are copper IUD's (naturally toxic to sperm), but copper IUD's have much MUCH WORSE potential side effects (and they are more common), so Hormonal IUD's are considered vastly superior and preferred by professionals. Sometimes you can't have the Hormonal one of course, because of medical reasons or complications, but for the average person, the copper IUD is definitely worse (and tends to make periods heavier, more painful, and might even swing your moods out of wack).

Yeah, she said she has a copper IUD.

[dalekphalm]

27 minutes ago, DevilishBooster said:

Yeah, she said she has a copper IUD.

But you said "it's more effective", which might be the case when comparing IUD's in general to other contraceptive, but hormonal IUD's are generally (if only slightly) more effective over copper ones.

 

Sorry if I misunderstood your statement. Just making sure we're clear.

[Litargirio]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

You never took an aspirin? What about a cup of coffee or a glass of wine?

I do in fact not take any kind of medicines nor vaccinations. I always let my body solve its ailments on its own, and I never get sick, except for very minor and superficial stuff, which solves itself very quickly.

 

I also don't drink coffe. Not because of anything, it just makes me feel sick and drained of energy.

 

Also, I don't like wine.

[Litargirio]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

lol yeah by definition, consuming literally anything messes with your chemistry.

By messing with, I mean alter the way it works naturally, so not really. You can eat stuff which complements it.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Litargirio said:

I do in fact not take any kind of medicines nor vaccinations. I always let my body solve its ailments on its own, and I never get sick, except for very minor and superficial stuff, which solves itself very quickly.

 

I also don't drink coffe. Not because of anything, it just makes me feel sick and drained of energy.

 

Also, I don't like Wine.

Err - you don't take any vaccines? You realize that means you're actually literally putting others, with compromised immune systems (cancer patients, people with immunodeficient diseases, etc) at direct risk?

 

That's... that's kind of insane actually. Vaccines are perhaps the greatest scientific achievement of the last 5000 years. You can be a carrier for many vaccine preventable diseases without being sick or suffering any symptoms, just giving it away to others unknowingly.

 

1 minute ago, Litargirio said:

By messing with, I mean alter the way it works naturally, so not really. You can eat stuff which complements it.

Sure, there are many examples in evidence based medicine of natural plants, etc, that provide benefits to humans. Those things are often what pharmaceutical companies take, find out what the active ingredient is, and distill the ingredient into it's base form to make it more effective.

 

Whether you care to use the natural source for that ingredient, or it's pharmacological derivative, is up to each person.

 

But you should be using evidence based medicine to make decisions about your health, and frankly, avoiding all medicines and vaccines is not using evidence based medicine.

[Litargirio]

15 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

evidence based medicine of natural plants bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla

I was actually talking about food.

 

17 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

That's... that's kind of insane actually. Vaccines are perhaps the greatest scientific achievement of the last 5000 years. You can be a carrier for many vaccine preventable diseases without being sick or suffering any symptoms, just giving it away to others unknowingly.

How do you know?

 

[Taja]

Here in Brazil almost every girl i know takes birth control pills. If the male pill arrived, with the same eficiency of the fenale pill, i would take it só my gf would stop taking the female pill.

If the male pill has less eficiency than the female pill , i would still take it, but i wouldnt Tell my gf to stop taking hers.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Litargirio said:

I was actually talking about food.

 

How do you know?

 

Because science has told us so?

 

Here's a quick primer from the CDC that lays out some of the risks (It's aimed at parents who decide to not vaccinate their kids, but it applies to adults too):

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/downloads/not-vacc-risks-color-office.pdf

 

Furthermore, how do you know which foods are good for you? Ones that may you feel good may or may not be good for your diet, long term health, etc.

[KuJoe]

No thanks to the birth control, if the vasectomy and condoms fail then so be it.

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

What in contraception has anything to do with "fixing fuck-ups"? Contraception is prevention, not after-the-fact reactions.

 

What about planning and preventing undesired outcomes is taking things lightly?

My comment was more general, not just about contraceptives - but, and correct me if I'm wrong, some contraceptive drugs are intended to be taken after the act.

 

As for taking things lightly, the thread introduced the idea that people might "trick" each other into an unwanted pregnancy. To me, having sex with a person you don't know enough to be certain they wouldn't use you for money is taking things lightly.

[Litargirio]

17 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Furthermore, how do you know which foods are good for you? Ones that may you feel good may or may not be good for your diet, long term health, etc.

You can study the way the human body reacts to different foods and substances and determine whether something is healthy or not. Over time there has been plenty of studies made on all food groups, and you can look at these studies to know what substances are beneficial. Though you still have to be wary of sponsored studies, like the ones paid for by the american egg board which claim that the egg is the healthiest food in the world, the answer to life, the universe and everything. Or the ones by the milk and dairy association, who would like you to believe that it is necessary to drink over 9000 liters of milk a day.

 

23 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Because science has told us so?

 

Here's a quick primer from the CDC that lays out some of the risks (It's aimed at parents who decide to not vaccinate their kids, but it applies to adults too):

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/downloads/not-vacc-risks-color-office.pdf

Okay. Those are some pretty bold claims. Now I will say that countries with the most vaccines have the worst infant death rates, and that the health of unvaccinated children and adolescents does not seem to differ from those who have been vaccinated (click the links).

 

And I don't want to get into conspiracy stuff here, but FYI big pharma makes bazillions a year by selling vaccines, and it is in their best interest to promote vaccination by creating leaflets like the one you just linked.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

My comment was more general, not just about contraceptives - but, and correct me if I'm wrong, some contraceptive drugs are intended to be taken after the act.

 

There's exactly one, that must be used within a few hours of the event, and its consideration as contraceptive or abortive is always under debate. I don't think it can be assimilated with the kind of methods being discussed in this thread, which are of a preventive nature and involve some degree of planning.

[PlayStation 2]

You're also 100% unlikely to make someone pregnant if you are gay.

That being said, is there any reason this needs to exist.

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

Feminazis and gold diggers will scream how it's MUH SOGGY KNEE and how women should have complete control over reproductivity.

there are several articles by feminazis saying just this about this male birth control.

[dalekphalm]

50 minutes ago, HughMungusCynicalAnarch said:

Feminazis and gold diggers will scream how it's MUH SOGGY KNEE and how women should have complete control over reproductivity.

there are several articles by feminazis saying just this about this male birth control.

Women ARE in complete control... of their own reproductive organs. If a man wants to use contraceptive, it's because he doesn't consent to procreating.

 

Though to be fair, it's not just women that intentionally trick or mislead their partners into believing the sex is protected via contraceptive. This is something that men do too.

 

[CantThinkOfAUserName]

Just use condoms people!

[Misanthrope]

Condoms are kind of tricky. I have mostly always suffered from anxiety related ED (lately aggravated by diabetes: I am definitively just a morning person now night time = dogshit half boners at best) and putting on a condom even when done really quickly kills at least half my boner. Luckily many of my partners are awesome enough to just stimulate back into readiness (particularly when I go for the flavoured versions) but well it actually is a problem for me. 

 

One I'll take over STDs and unwanted pregnancies mind you, but often times I actually preferred to just go overboard giving my partners oral until they finish and then either just call it a day or jerk off to conclusion. Who knows maybe I'm just not a penetration person (I get way more into oral and heavy foreplay honestly) but there's that.

[CantThinkOfAUserName]

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

Condoms are kind of tricky. I have mostly always suffered from anxiety related ED (lately aggravated by diabetes: I am definitively just a morning person now night time = dogshit half boners at best) and putting on a condom even when done really quickly kills at least half my boner. Luckily many of my partners are awesome enough to just stimulate back into readiness (particularly when I go for the flavoured versions) but well it actually is a problem for me. 

 

One I'll take over STDs and unwanted pregnancies mind you, but often times I actually preferred to just go overboard giving my partners oral until they finish and then either just call it a day or jerk off to conclusion. Who knows maybe I'm just not a penetration person (I get way more into oral and heavy foreplay honestly) but there's that.

Dont know what your dick not working has to do with using a condom versus raw doggin it. That being said people should just use a condom or pay out of pocket for contraceptives. Its not the responsibility of the government and tax payers dollars for you to get your rocks off without getting pregers. My opinion goes for either gender use a condom or by the pills yourself. Our tax payer dollars should go to support you bumping uglies with your significant other. Worried about having a baby you cant afford? Then use a condom they are just as effective as birth control just make sure they are still good.Basic point is condoms are cheap and do the job if you mate like rabbits well thats a you problem not a tax payer problem. 

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, CantThinkOfAUserName said:

Dont know what your dick not working has to do with using a condom versus raw doggin it. That being said people should just use a condom or pay out of pocket for contraceptives. Its not the responsibility of the government and tax payers dollars for you to get your rocks off without getting pregers. My opinion goes for either gender use a condom or by the pills yourself. Our tax payer dollars should go to support you bumping uglies with your significant other. Worried about having a baby you cant afford? Then use a condom they are just as effective as birth control just make sure they are still good.Basic point is condoms are cheap and do the job if you mate like rabbits well thats a you problem not a tax payer problem. 

For a 1st world nation, that's not a problem.

 

However, it's indisputable that free condoms (and other contraceptive) in developing nations does help to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and the spread of STI's, which cost the countries in question FAR MORE then the cost of said contraceptive.

 

Also, the whole bareback vs condom thing, the time it takes to put the condom on can make it too late to make the "insertion" for people who suffer from ED.

 

Plus, anyone who's done both can generally corroborate that "direct stimulation" feels better.