|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see, its nonsurgical, one injection lasts 10 years, reversible also without surgery, and women don't have to "trust men to have taken it". Sounds good to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...with one failure out of a group of 250, that turned out to be due to a botched "installation." This places it in the same league with vasectomy and abstinence in terms of success rate (and above that of condoms to boot.) This is absolutely wonderful news! Especially in the third world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article sounds very promising! It'd be wonderful finally to have a relatively simple, non-surgical means of giving men some control over contraception.
I think we'll see vehement political opposition to it, however, simply *because* of that control. Currently, women enjoy almost total, unilateral control over procreation -- and all the family, security, and financial percs that come with it.
Feminists will not give this up easily. Indeed, I expect them to oppose it at every step.
And not only because women would have less than total control, but because it's something good for *men;* it gives men choices. And feminists, just on 'principle,' will oppose anything that reduces men's disadvantages.
We can expect to hear cries:
- of how male contraception is 'anti-woman.'
- that the researcher 'hates women.'
- that it's a 'plot of the patriarchy' to oppress the unfortunate women of India
- that any man who uses it is 'childish and insecure'
- that, if he were a man, he'd trust the woman he's with when she says she's on the Pill.
...and all the usual puke.
And, of course, women would never lie about their fertility.
"But even if men used RISUG, would women trust them? It's doubtful that the whispered promise of having been RISUGed would fly during a one-night stand."
Hah! Woman trust the man? Why on earth would any man trust a woman? Especially in the West where he has *everything* to lose, and she has everything to gain, at very small personal risk. Yet men are expected to trust cute little Honeypie's words when she says there's no worry, as all the while she's plotting to get pregnant. And then they're surprised at the ice cold, grasping, greedy, immoral harpy she turns into once the seed germinates.
We can also expect to see lots of delaying tactics before this treatment gets approved in the West. It'll have to be tested, probably repeatedly and for years, to ensure that it's not in any way 'harmful to women or their rights.' Then, when it passes, it'll be sent back for more testing.
Testing on men (the group that's actually affected) will be under-funded if funded at all. This allows the out, when the testing on women has been exhausted, to say, "Oh, look, it hasn't been tested on men yet. We need to spend years doing that."
I'm actually more optimistic than my statements above would indicate. Things are turning around a bit for men. Two years ago they would have been true. Now, I think there'll be opposition, but it'll fizzle out and just end up making feminists look like the spoiled, greedy, thoroughly corrupt bigots they are.
This men's contraceptive has great potential. Expect a fight getting it into the country.
Ragtime
The Uppity Wallet
The opinions expressed above are my own,
but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>We can also expect to see lots of delaying tactics before this treatment gets approved in the West.
With this injection being so effective and long lasting, I wonder how many men will travel to India to get it done. Whatever the round trip plane fare and the one night hotel cost would be, it'd be a drop in the bucket compared to the alternative of 18-23 years of involuntary child support.
I would consider the cost a downright bargain.
I'd sure like to give it time to be tested on humans for a while though before I allowed anyone messing with me down there on an experimantal or any other basis. After all, it's only been tested on 250 men and it's going to be available to the general public next year?
Maybe restricting our sexcapades to women 45 years of age or above would be a simpler birth control method, although no doubt not nearly as much fun.
I wonder how women over 45 compare in bed, on the average, to their younger counterparts.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how women over 45 compare in bed, on the average, to their younger counterparts.
Quite well, if they've been paying any attention to their partners at all. And they can often hold a conversation - as long as they haven't been excessively feministed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe restricting our sexcapades to women 45 years of age or above would be a simpler birth control method, although no doubt not nearly as much fun.
I think it was George Gilder who said the two most sexually under-appricated groups are older women and younger men.
Sure sounds (and feels) true enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I think it was George Gilder who said the two >most sexually under-appricated groups are older >women and younger men.
An older woman once told me I shouldn't "put out" for my boyfriend as older men were much better. O.O I think she meant I should save myself until I was closer to the age of older men, but ya never know.
my boyfriend thought the birth control gel sounded morbid because of the sperm rupturing part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It might even be cost-efficient compared to an unreversable vasectomy, including the recovery downtime. . . .
I will also point out that one of those 250 men has had it for approximately ten years now. I don't disagree with sufficient testing, but I also don't think that level is as far away as you appear to do.
Remember, there is a lot of existing research on just what artificial substances you can stick into the human body for a long time without problems. The nice thing about good experimental scientific knowledge is that it's inherently additive, and even sometimes multiplicative, and on very rare occasions even exponential. Which means that RISUG researchers can build on previous work, which could indeed cut down on the trials time considerably. . . .
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most 45 year old women are still fertile. I wouldn't stick to that as a strategy. Menopause doesn't kick in for most women until 50+ and even then some women have become pregnant.
I know a woman who got pregnant at 53 after she thought she had completed menopause. Her 65 year old husband had just retired when they found out. He went back to work. (She attended her 28 year old son's wedding 9 months pregnant. Yikes.)
They had the child, a beautiful boy. They were devout Catholics. The kid is 15 now and the father has since died, leaving his 68 year old widow to raise the son on her own.
Never say never.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's say, then, that the odds are substantially better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not officially on the market in India yet, is it? I imagine it would be held up for awhile there, even if it has tested safe on 250 men. And how is that UK male pill going along? I last heard about it years ago. :P
And the over 45-year-old women thing isn't
sure-fire, I do know a lady who popped out her youngest at 55. :P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what can we do to counter the opposition before it develops?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We can expect to hear cries: ...
...and all the usual puke."
Yep. And some we can't yet imagine. Remember, these are the people who argued that if short time limits for contesting paternity were removed, then "a man who suspected he wasn't a child's father would just go along, acting as father and receiving the benefits of having a child until he got tired of it, knowing he could get out of his obligations with a paternity test."
What kind of person could even imagine a scenario like that? (Rhetorical question)
I've spent the afternoon twisting my brain into that kind of narcissistic logic and predict that we will soon hear:
"It's not fair that men should have a safe, cheap, reversible method of birth control when women don't. Especially when it's a woman who is assuming all the risk of pregnancy. Therefore, funds should be diverted from research and testing of this method and devoted to finding a method for women that is just as safe, cheap and reversible. It's only fair."
Call me an optimist, but I really don't expect feminine objections to get very far. I see the much bigger obstacle as:
"The only people who should be excited about the male Pill are pharmaceutical companies," he said. He believes so much money has been poured into researching the Pill because pharmaceutical companies want something consumers will have to buy again and again – as opposed to an inexpensive, one-time injection.
I'm thinking we'll see a procession of day trips to Tijuana for a quick injection long before anyone even considers approval in the U.S. (Provided this method actually lives up to its promise.)
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article says it is male docs who are poo-pooing the idea.
I think its great news for everyone and I doubt many would oppose the advance unless they are anti-contraceptive across the board.
Any fighting over approval in this country, as with other drugs, will be over who controls the mechanism for making money off the invention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. . .(rolleyes)
Typical Bore-ianne blindness and misrepresentation -- just consider this femelitist editorializing from the article's author:
"However, in the context of a committed relationship, RISUG could shift some of the responsibility for family planning off the women who have borne (and born) too much of it for too long, at the expense of their health, time, finances and emotions."
Ah yes, of course. . .same as it ever was, with femelitism. As soon as a responsibility can be shoved off onto men's shoulders, the perks or powers derived from it by women somehow, magically, just disappear, and it becomes instead an onus or victimization which men are *obligated* to assume in the interests of 'equality'.
Typical. And how similarly typical that Bore-ianne fails to notice it, and thus fails to draw the correct conclusions about the culturally institutionalized gender prejudices of the author -- and the corollary conclusions about how questionable her 'journalism' may be.
Not a word is said, for example, about women's reproductive privileges, and how those privileges cause crushingly inequal and unfair consequences for men.
It's hardly surprising, therefore, that Bore-ianne, again as usual, gets it factually wrong, ignoring the following statement:
"That shift is definitely possible, according to Ronald Weiss, a vasectomy specialist in Toronto, who says men's attitudes toward contraception are changing. 'In Canada, 10 years ago, it used to be tubal ligations [the more-invasive female equivalent of a vasectomy] to vasectomies were performed at a ratio of 2 to 1. Now that number is reversed.'
Weiss believes a lot of men would prefer a procedure that wasn't permanent. And, he says, RISUG is the most promising male contraceptive out there."
Doubtless Bore-ianne thinks 'Ronald' is a woman, or has some other excuse for her error.
Not that The Little One-Trick Pony That Cried Wolf is likely to believed around here in the first place.
Nevertheless, he's a male doctor, and thus directly contradicts poow poow pitifuw widdlwe Bore-iannie's statement. . .
Bore-ianne's wrong *again*. . .Big 'Effin Surprise. . . .
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no idea what you are talking about. I think the news is great. I didn't post the article, I just commented on it.
I don't see that feminists would be opposed to this contraceptive option. Indeed, in the article (which I did not post, someone else did) it cites that the main persons poo pooing the idea were male doctors. I have no idea if that's true, I didn't write the article or interview the doctors.
However, the overblown pre-emptive hype about feminists placing roadblocks for this contraceptive is just trash talk. No evidence that this is true and I'd bet the bank that most feminists would find this news encouraging as I do.
We can't have too many contraceptive options and the fact that this one is for men and would last up to 10 years! and is reversible, is good news for everyone, men and women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I think the doomsayers here are just wrong. I posted this article at a feminist board to see the reaction and it was all positive about the news of this new contraception. The general consensusu was that we need more contraceptive methods, particularly men need more options
As usual my contention that this site and feminists sites are clones, many there projected that MEN would reject this contraceptive method. (However one person countered that all her men friends thought the news was encouraging and they would use it if it became available in the US.)
No matter how good the news is, there are always conspiracy theorists around to project what some group or other "will do".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I posted this article at a feminist board to see the reaction and it was all positive about the news of this new contraception.
Can we see a link?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can we see a link?
Not holding your breath, I hope.
Of course, it was predicted (she said) that men wouldn't use it, and I refer you to my earlier response #21 to another post, to wit:
And don't forget the old , "oh, Pooh, those men will never be responsible enough to use it, so why waste time developing it? Anything that gets around their lil' weewee and they go all weird. It'll be up to women, as usual, to be responsible for birth control, so we need to spend more money on that, because everything impacts women harder, blah blah blah"
Can I call 'em, or what?
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 23, @01:00PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Well Lorianne, one of the reasons the guys might take this view could be previous experiences of feminists with this type of thing.
For example, Viagra was invented to help with male impotence - a situation which you would also believe would be of benefit to women. Viagra was not invented to help with masturbation, so presumably it's helping men and women to have a sex life that may not have been possible before.
So what have we seen? Cries that money was "wasted" inventing it, it was sexist research and the money could have been used in much better ways (probably breast cancer research if certain people got their way), another example of women's health problems being ignored in favour of mens etc etc.
We're now being told that sexual dysfunction in women is greater than in men and we must find a "female viagra".
How ironic then that the usual stereotype of the sex crazed male gender versus the "normal" female sex drive is wrong. If it wasn't for their sexual dysfunction, women would "want it" just as much as us.
This may explain why some men feel that even with a drug which would appear to offer benefits to all, some women will find something to complain about.
My own view is that one of the arguments we'll hear will relate to how men have waited until now to ensure that the 30 years of "experimentation" with contraceptives have been carried out on women, and now it is safe for them to experiment.
Of course, this will ignore the other fact about how women demanded liberation through contraception, it was sexist not to give women control of their reproduction etc etc. at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Honestsly, I've never heard those criticisms of Viagra. Instead, what I've heard is criticism of Viagra being covered by insurance but contraceptives are not. (Of course, they miss the point that private insurance companies should be able to cover what they want and if we don't like it we should shop around).
I think that is a valid criticism. Without contraceptives, many women would be sexually inhibited (from fear of becoming pregnant) and unable to enjoy sex. So in a very real sense, contraception IS a female sexual aid.
In any case, the major beef I've heard over Viagra is over the insurance issue.
Regarding so-called "female Viagra" many feminists oppose such a thing being mass marketed as was Viagra on the grounds that women would be pressured to view their sexual response as entirely chemical and mechanical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 25, @04:33PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I've heard this criticism too - but surely you mean contraceptives for men be included too? Condoms are not cheap either, and in my case, I certainly don't like to take the word of someone that she's disease free and on contraception herself.
I don't really understand the point about women's sexuality being viewed as mechanical or chemical. This is what we've done with men. Impotence is sexual dysfunction in medical terms. Very serious and respectable sources tell us that women also suffer from sexual dysfunction.
Why should feminists be concerned that drug companies mass-market it aggressively? Would it not be helping plenty of women? And does that not also suggest that while feminists are happy for men to be portrayed as mechanical and chemically obsessed emotional inadequates, women can't be.
Knowing something of the feminist mindset, this is probably exactly what they want.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My expectation is that feminist reactions to male contraceptives will not be objected to directly but (like everything else) will be used to trash men in the same old ways with a slightly different spin. Maybe something like the following:
1. “Males have been getting away with irresponsibility forever. Now there’s no excuse, so courts have to get tougher and crack down on deadbeats … blah, blah, blah”. (Rhetoric implying that even with the current despotic approach to family law, men have been getting off easy. Tied in with lobbying for more anti-male family law.)
2. “The medical profession has just removed one of the last deterrents for those violent, evil monsters called men to not rape every woman in sight. Law enforcement must be aware of that and finally get serious about stopping rape… blah, blah, blah” (The implication being that the law should assume that men are so inherently evil that only the fear of child support orders stops us from being serial rapists. Tied in with lobbying for more laws that allow women to imprison men through accusation only)
3. “Should a woman want children, she needs to be more selective in her relations with men. She shouldn’t be tied to a relationship that doesn’t fulfill her personal needs…blah, blah, blah.” (More encouragement for women to dump their old man.)
Initial reactions by feminists may even be polite and positive, but in my estimation this type of spin will emerge.
that, if he were a man, he'd trust the woman he's with when she says she's on the Pill
I became a father by using this standard of manhood. I recommend against it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And don't forget the old , "oh, Pooh, those men will never be responsible enough to use it, so why waste time developing it? Anything that gets around their lil' weewee and they go all weird. It'll be up to women, as usual, to be respoinsible for birth control, so we need to spend more money on that, because everything impacts women harder, blah blah blah"
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
