In India right now, RISUG— the reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance– is undergoing Phase III clinical trials.
If it ends up working out, RISUG would make a truly amazing contraceptive. It’s a “set it and forget it”contraceptive, like Depo or an IUD: the procedure takes fifteen minutes, is effective after three days, and lasts about ten years. The chemicals cost less than the syringe used to administer them. It’s way more easily reversible than a vasectomy: one more injection of baking soda and water, and in two to three months you have your healthy sperm again.
How does it work? (Description of medical stuff in this paragraph– the squeamish might want to skip it.) The doctor applies some local anesthetic, makes a small pinhole in the base of the scrotum, pulls out the vas deferens, injects the polymer gel (called Vasalgel in the US) and puts a Band-Aid over the hole. Repeat it with the other one and you’ve got ten years of contraception. The chemicals form a polymer that thickens over the next three days: with polymer lining each side of the vas deferens, the sperm flow between them and, because of the flow of negative/positive polarization, are torn apart by the polyelectrolytic effect.
Unfortunately, a series of delays, none of which reflect the usefulness of the contraceptive, have left it stymied in development for a whole. Even being in Phase III means it could be years, if the contraceptive ends up being effective, before it’s publicly available.
Nevertheless, an effective contraceptive for those with penises would be revolutionary. A whole slew of issues would suddenly be… not. Right now, cis men are left with abstinence, condoms, and vasectomies as the only contraceptive options 100% under their control. While condoms are good (they prevent against STIs! Use one every time!), many couples are fluid-bonded or want a backup contraceptive, but do want to still be able to have children at some point in the future. With an effective contraceptive for cis men, they’ll be able to put their reproductive health under their own control.
Or consider child support! It’s unfair to keep people with uteruses from having control over those selfsame uteruses, so ultimately whether to take hormonal contraception or have an abortion lies with them. It’s unfair to children to not receive the financial support they need. And it’s unfair to people with penises to have to support kids they didn’t want, although since it is the least unfair option it is the option we kind of have to go with. But if RISUG ends up becoming an actual drug we can just tell the people with penises that they should use RISUG if they don’t want kids.
In addition, it offers a lot more freedom for cis women. Many people with vaginas can’t take hormonal contraception: it affects their libidos or moods, it interacts with a medication they use, they’re a smoker, etc. For these people, RISUG could offer them more freedom and less risk of a condom failure.
aliarasthedaydreamer
Ami Angelwings
Hershele Ostropoler
Cheradenine
jlandrith
kaija24
2020
noahbrand
Cliff Pervocracy
ozymandias
Shora
sirgabe
figleaf
John Hawkins
No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz? 
The obvious question is: what the ETA for this is in my country? Of course that might not really be settled. The USA FDA is strict, and you don’t mention if they would count these trials towards approval.
If I may be pessimistic, one has to remember that there will need to be at least some enthusiasm in one’s given country before it shows up in an Urology doctor’s office. Either some corporate executives figure it’s worth the trouble, or a grassroots campaign talking to those executives.
I talked to my room mates about contraception a month ago, the concept of an IUD didn’t cause them to bat an eyelash, but the RISUG instilled visible, audible, disgust.
I’m cynical enough to believe that the fact that this drug is cheap and lasts ten years is enough reason it will never see the light of day, in other words there’s no money in it.
If it works as advertised I’d be 100% on board. Unfortunately I’m a bit pessimistic about it actually becoming available, because I’ve been reading stories about it being “right around the corner” for years. Still, I hold out hope.
I’m also really interested to see the social implications of changing having a child from “requires a conscious effort not to get pregnant” to “requires a conscious effort to get pregnant” (assuming boys get the procedure as they enter puberty and only go off it when they intend of having kids).
“It’s way more easily reversible than a vasectomy: one more injection of baking soda and water, and in two to three months you have your healthy sperm again.”
Bear in mind that as far as I can tell, this “easily reversible” thing has never been observed in humans. It has in other primates, but there’s still something of a question mark hovering over it.
So yes, if it works as advertised, great. I suppose even if it isn’t often reversible it would still be a cheaper, less complication prone vasectomy.
Am really hoping that this works.
In overly idealized dreams, it would be the norm for everyone to get this _early_ and hopefully world population would start to drop a bit. The cheapness of it makes it potentially useful in poorer places which are those having the worst population growth.
Might it still get manufactuered on account of being unprofitable but still really, really cheap?
@ik:
That’s not why there’s a lot of population growth in the third world.
While I’m fully behind this, I’d personally want an option that doesn’t involve being conscious while someone nicks and injects into my junk. If I can’t see it or feel anything down there at the time, I’ll be all over this.
“if RISUG ends up becoming an actual drug we can just tell the people with penises that they should use RISUG if they don’t want kids.”
That’s not a great thing to say, since it assumes that everyone with a penis would be aware of RISUG, financially capable of getting it, and able to find a doctor willing to perform it on them.
It’s not likely to be as difficult as it is for people with vaginas, since there’s the stereotype that all of them want to bear children, but I think the problem would still exist. I’m also afraid that doctors will be able to refuse reversing it if they feel like their patient “doesn’t deserve” to have biological children, or push it on patients for the same reason.
Yes but it still might be useful there.
“many couples are fluid-bonded or want a backup contraceptive, but do want to still be able to have children at some point in the future. ”
You mean, beyond a form of female contraception? Quick, get an IUD, go on the pill, wear a condom, practice coitus interruptus, and male birth control!
“In addition, it offers a lot more freedom for cis women. Many people with vaginas can’t take hormonal contraception: it affects their libidos or moods, it interacts with a medication they use, they’re a smoker, etc. For these people, RISUG could offer them more freedom and less risk of a condom failure.”
Trufax: more than one way to skin a cat. Or in this case, sterilize a pussy.
I am really excited for this to get approval. My partner and I really don’t want kids but neither of us are stoked on getting surgery and my partner doesn’t like the pill. Granted I have no problems with using condoms but this would just be one less thing to worry about, you know?
Odd thought, but applied to the falopian tubes, this could work for females also.
Great, as another contraceptive choise (if it works).
Not so great, I guess, as another hurdle in getting people to use condoms as a STD prevention method?
I think this is would/will be a great thing because it would be totally convenient to my life–my wife and I waited six years before deciding to have kids, and it would have been great not to have to deal with the constant side effects and doctor visits for her being on the pill.
But really, the key here is that MRAs should be all over this thing–Writing Congress, petitioning the FDA, shouting it from the rooftops–because this could end their fears of “the baby trap” forever. All those dudes terrified that some evil woman will trap them for 18 years of child support by lying about birth control? This is a cheap, effective and utterly-under-their-control solution.
@Jared: Would it? Sperm and eggs are quite different, there’s no guarantee what neutralises one would effect the other.
@Jared
Even if it does work for eggs as well as sperm, I think the location of the fallopian tubes might be an obstacle.
I so desperately wish this were currently available, or would be available soon. It’s easy to say that people have plenty of options, and sure many do! But sometimes you just have the counter indications stacking up to the heavens. I can’t tolerate any form of hormonal birth control, have a latex allergy, and my gender-related dysphoria rules out anything that goes in my uterus. I have a tendency to develop allergies to any substance I’m over exposed to as well, so I don’t think essure would be a good plan for me. On top of this, my partner is severely allergic to spermicide.
Having a 100% reliable option other than vasectomy, tubal ligation, or hysterectomy would be amazing!
“All those dudes terrified that some evil woman will trap them for 18 years of child support by lying about birth control? ”
Sounds like a cheap shot to me.
@Acid Queen and Myoo, The second I wrote that I knew I should have been more specific 🙂 , my idea is that the sperm be disrupted while they are on their way up to the egg.
@Myoo specifically, not that big of one, (think long thin hoses and ultrasound guidance, you wouldn’t even need the pinhole the boys are getting)
I’ve been tracking progress on this for a while, and I wish they would hurry the hell up getting this approved. I want it. I want control over my body too! (And on the “control over my own body” note, I’d also really like my goddamn foreskin back, thank you very much.)
If there’s a war on women with all the reproductive health stuff going on right now, then this is bureaucracy from hell on men.
I with you on that Xakudo.
If there’s a war on women with all the reproductive health stuff going on right now, then this is bureaucracy from hell on men.
Nah you kid. Don’t you know the government works in the interests of men. Or at least that’s what I often hear.
@Jared: Errr, sperm don’t pass through the fallopian tubes unless something has gonna severely wrong.
@groundedchuck: “Congress, petitioning the FDA, shouting it from the rooftops–because this could end their fears of “the baby trap” forever. All those dudes terrified that some evil woman will trap them for 18 years of child support by lying about birth control? ”
I have to agree with debaser, this sounds like a cheap shot. You know rape by fraud is a thing, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception In the future, I would try to avoid sounding like that as to avoid sounding like you are mocking peoples fears about being rape. Otherwise someone with less faith in humanity than I might think you were mocking peoples fears about rape.
@Hugh, fertilization typically occurs in the ampulla of the fallopian tube. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallopian_tube
From the wikipedia page:
The thoroughness of carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and toxicity testing in clinical trials has been questioned. In October 2002, India’s Ministry of Health aborted the clinical trials due to reports of albumin in urine and scrotal swelling in Phase III trial participants.[8] The Indian Council for Medical Research noted that dimethyl sulfoxide used as a solvent for the injection is known to cause kidney damage.[9] Although the ICMR has reviewed and approved the toxicology data three times, WHO and Indian researchers say that the studies were not done according to recent international standards.[10]
I’m not saying this thing isn’t safe [and if it were safe it would be a fucking godsend], but I’d certainly like a lot more data before anyone evaluates it.
You know rape by fraud is a thing, right?
Indeed it is.
Erm… not sure exactly what your point is. If its actual agreement then cool! If your point is it also happens to women cool. However the first line of the link is problematic. The study didn’t seem to talk to men at all. So it doesn’t really challenge that “cultural view” in the least. Also important to note is this doesn’t seem to be a random sample.
However on that note: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf go to page 48, and we see that the rates are about 9% and 10% for women and men respectively when it comes to that kind of crap int he general population.
Nice to know this didn’t completely fall off the radar.
Should the drug actually be approved and released, I would be interested in seeing if liberal organizations would start pushing to make it mandatory for males at a certain age. My friends and I were just discussing this and I think mandatory contraception would be a relatively messy battle as it would never make it past the religious organizations. It is an interesting concept. I brought up the “If it is mandatory for males it should be mandatory for women” argument and my friend pointed out that as IUD’s and the Depo shot are more invasive and cannot be considered equal.
I will go on record and say I am in full support of RISUG. If I could get it it in India right now I would fly there tomorrow. I don’t have any fears of reproductive coercion or fraud even though many men do have legitimate concern. my wife and I simply do not want any more children and a minimally invasive procedure such as RISUG is ideal. In the US it is already patented under the name Vasalgel. Though I don’t believe there is currently any movement forward with testing at this time. Though I could be wrong.
As far as I am concerned male reproductive freedom is in desperate need of attention. As it stands, men have no legal recourse with regard to reproduction whether they consented to be parents or not. RISUG is merely one aspect on the prevention side of the equation. Legal Paternal Surrender is also necessary to bring reproductive freedom of men on par with that currently enjoyed by women.
@we are fractions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_humanity Wide spread forced sterilization is considered a crime against humanity. Look at all the terrible things one can do WITHOUT qualifying for that. That would be considered worse.
@ Lamech thanks for the link! Of course that was part of the discussion is if it was a human rights violation. However, would you consider this comparable since the affects would be reversible?
@we are fractions: Would you consider false imprisonment as not a human rights violations since it can be reversible?
Of course they did.
Yes, yes it is still a crime against humanity.There isn’t an exception for things that can be reversed. Why is this even a question?
While it may not become mandatory, it might become the norm. It poses an interesting question on the ethics of parents temporarily sterilizing their children, effectively without their consent. I don’t know how much parents push their daughters to get on birth control, or how many would be comfortable if society mandated it. Judging from the HPV vaccine controversy, I’d guess the minority.
@ Tamen – I like the comparison. Yes, of course I would consider it a human right violation. I don’t really understand your other comment; however, it may or may not help if I point out that my friends in the room that brought up the option of making the drug mandatory and made the IUD comment are male. So it was not like it was a bunch of vaginas stating that men should not be allowed to procreate until a certain age.
@ Lamech – Questioning any change that will have an impact on society is healthy. Especially within the realms of human sexuality. Why would you not question these things and all possible outcomes? I didn’t say I agreed, I simply said I would be interested to see if any organizations pursue to have mandatory temporary sterilization legalized 🙂
@we are fractions
The second half of my comment was regarding the ubiquity of double standards. No, it doesn’t help if the one’s who came up with this suggestion and the IUD remark is men. I can’t say that I am any more surprised that those friends of your coming up with that double standard were men than I would be if they were women. Double standards, gender essentialism and misandry are held by women only.
A piss-poor joke, right? You know like, “all men are beer-chugging brutes that love football and beat their girlfriends”?
Ignoring that obvious lapse in Tamen’s brain activity, I am actually pleasantly surprised by how many dudes here would like to have this procedure done. Like, really really pleasantly surprised, considering that I’m going to be spending the rest of my life in a certain circle of hell for people blessed with a number of reproductive system issues that cismen can’t even begin to comprehend (I guess, unless you’re an OBGYN), it makes me extremely happy to know that there are actually dudes out there who would gladly help shoulder the burden of doing something more to prevent pregnancy than carry condoms in their wallet to be used and disposed of only as necessary, and likely to experience a negligible amount of side effects from doing so.
And I take it from some of the responses from the diehard MRAs that this, even in theory, isn’t popular? Because fucking with your body in order to prevent pregnancy is the women’s responsibility, amirite?
@L: Actually, on several of the MRA sites RISUG and some kind of non-hormonal male birth control pill that’s debuting in Indonesia (all I really know about that one is that it’s based on some compound found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justicia_gendarussa) are being talked about like they’re the best thing since sliced bread. One of them even had a bizarre rant regarding them and suspicions that certain branches of feminism would push against them that resembled a gender-flipped version of radfemhub.
@Schadrach: Wow, that’s first thing in a veritable sea of ew that has thus far impressed me. I guess even broken clocks are right twice a day, though…
Also, I’d like to point out that I’m not talking about the reality of this procedure specifically, as of course the claims that have been made about it are a little suspicious and a lot more testing needs to be done, especially about the long-term effects, before it gets my complete support, but I’m more talking about procedures like that specifically allow men and penis-havers to take a more active role in pregnancy prevention and just the general idea of it. (And say what you will, but I would consider RISUG, as well as intra-muscular injections of the likes of Depo Provera, IUDs, and that new “matchstick” dermal implant to be invasive procedures.)
“And I take it from some of the responses from the diehard MRAs that this, even in theory, isn’t popular? Because fucking with your body in order to prevent pregnancy is the women’s responsibility, amirite?”
Do you mean in this thread? A quick skim through makes it look like to me that lots of people are in support of it being made available (assuming it doesn’t cause cancer, zomification, or vampirism), and quite a few want access too it.
@L: I wouldn’t cheer them on too much on it. A lot of it is from the perspective of not being caught in the “baby trap.” Or from the perspective of changing “the market” regarding dating and sex. I’ve certainly seen less horrible things come out of some of those sites in the past.
Honestly, the number of MRA positions I actually fundamentally agree with makes me sad that the people that are MRAs are MRAs, because way too many of them are horrible people.
L:
Yes, that was a lapse in my brain activity which cause my fingers to fail to insert the crucial word “NOT” in there.
The previous sentence:
obviously were not enough of an indicator of a typo/missing word in the next sentence.
@Schadrach:
I trust you are not saying that men’s access to birth control is dependant on his motivation being on your “white-list”?`Because it kinda sounds that way when you don’t want to cheer on men’s positivity towards a male birth control because some (a lot according to you) of their motivations for doing so don’t sit well with you.
@Schadrach:
I wouldn’t cheer them on too much on it. A lot of it is from the perspective of not being caught in the “baby trap.” Or from the perspective of changing “the market” regarding dating and sex. I’ve certainly seen less horrible things come out of some of those sites in the past.
Even if giving them this new method would at the very least quiet them? You might think those motives are not good but as some like to say about MRAs wouldn’t “removing themselves from the gene pool” be a good thing?
@Schadrach: You know, I find it weird that I don’t see it the same way that you do. I’m mostly just happy that men are excited about the existence of such a thing, and don’t much care about why they want it. I really can’t think of any downside to it, even the “sperm-stealing bitch” variety, because they’re going to believe that no matter what. So long as they’re not leaving pregnancy prevention entirely up to us, IHDGAF.
@Tamen: Excellent, thanks for clarifying.
@L:
For me it’s not just a matter of being glad to help “shoulder the burden”. It’s a burden on me to not have any options other than condoms. I certainly understand that many (most? all?) of the options women have available can sometimes have nasty side effects. But from my perspective that’s still a hell of a lot more awesome than not having any options at all. It makes me a lot more dependent on my partners. And it’s not a matter of trust (personally, I don’t have sex with people I don’t trust–or if I did, I’d be using a condom anyway for STI reasons), it’s a matter of feeling independent and in control of my own reproduction. I’m sure many women would feel the same if the tables were turned.
But having said that: yes, as someone who has had two gf’s that experienced such side effects, I also want male birth control available to me so that I can relieve my partners from negative side effects if they suffer from such. That’s basic human compassion and practicality, I think. I’m sure my partners would feel similarly if the situation were reversed!
@L:
One other thing:
carry condoms in their wallet to be used and disposed of only as necessary, and likely to experience a negligible amount of side effects from doing so.
Women can do this too, if they don’t wish to use other methods. Although women aren’t the ones wearing the condoms, due to a condom’s nature they really are something either gender can take responsibility for having on hand and making sure are used. It’s not men have condoms, and women have things that fuck with their bodies. It’s men have condoms, and women have condoms + a bunch of other options.
I understand that this creates a situation where women feel an obligation/responsibility to use birth control when condoms aren’t used. And I understand that can suck. But… well, practically speaking, right now it is their responsibility since women are the ones with other options available to them. It’s the whole “with power comes responsibility” thing.
So while I absolutely sympathize with the negatives that come with women’s current position in this whole issue, it’s still a nicer position to be in with respect to independence and control over one’s life and body. And I feel like that’s played down waaaay too much to make it seem like men are somehow getting away with something and are actually in a superior position, which IMO is not the case (it certainly doesn’t match with my experience, at least).
I mean, if the situation were precisely reversed, and men were the ones with all of the long-term, non-condom, “fuck with my body” options available to them, and women had none… I’m pretty sure people would be painting the picture quite differently (e.g. “men have all the control”).
Oops, that first paragraph was supposed to be a blockquote.
Can’t believe I missed this thread. Yeah, I’ve been hearing about this procedure from everywhere recently. As soon as it hits the market, I’m getting it done. You can’t buy peace of mind like that.
Also, girls seem to really hate being on the pill because it messes up their internal balance. Once this technology develops I’m hoping it will obviate the need for traditional female birth control pills, which in terms of side effects per efficacy rate seems like an increasingly outdated technology.
+1 to what Xakudo said in his post. Very eloquently put.
@pocketjacks:
That’s not true for everyone. Some women like some of the “side”-effects of the pill. Some finds that it help alleviate menstrual pains/cramps. In fact I know couples where the women continues with the pill for that reason even after the man have had an vasectomy.
Oh, I know that some women actually need the pill and that doctors actually prescribe it as a medicine for certain conditions.
But it should be prescribed for that minority as a minority; it’s not for everyone.
Xakudo,
“So while I absolutely sympathize with the negatives that come with women’s current position in this whole issue, it’s still a nicer position to be in with respect to independence and control over one’s life and body. And I feel like that’s played down waaaay too much to make it seem like men are somehow getting away with something and are actually in a superior position, which IMO is not the case (it certainly doesn’t match with my experience, at least).”
This isn’t just preventing parenthood and all that entails, like it is for men, but also pregnancy and all that entails which is continually ignored since only uterus-havers shoulder it. The contraception issue doesn’t start and stop with options and thus amount to power with the teensy burden of side effects and the obligation. It is also social stigma and politics as (mostly male) politicians make it their business to compromise options at any time, not to mention existing barriers to access, the side-effects of not taking it on time/missing one, and the cost of said options.
Tamen,
“That’s not true for everyone. Some women like some of the “side”-effects of the pill. Some finds that it help alleviate menstrual pains/cramps. In fact I know couples where the women continues with the pill for that reason even after the man have had an vasectomy.”
When the default is cramps/constant breast pain and swelling/ovarian cysts/bleeding all the time/bloating, it is sometimes (but not always) better to worry about access/cost/taking the pill regularly/other side effects. I “like” candy. I need birth control pills and only hope I can get them.
@Colette: I was trying to put it nicely, but yes, this is basically what I was trying to get at.
Also, just something about the “pregnancy and all that entails” bit: childbirth is a medical procedure, plain and simple. And an expensive one at that; that’s something like 20K down the toilet as it is, right off the bat. That’s a burden that I’m sure many more unmarried pregnant uterus-bearers shoulder than unmarried penis-bearers.
But yes. Do I “like” taking the pill? No, but when the alternative is chemical castration or having my body attack itself because I was born with some unknown flaw, yeah, it’s worth risking the heightened chance of fatal blood clots, developing certain kinds of cancers, having my sex life do a 180, dealing with mood swings, suffering through night sweats… you know, when I can afford it.
I didn’t intend to use the word like as in liking candy; as a word to diminish and bagatellize the fact that for some women it is a necessity, but rather as in them considering the beneficial effects of the pill (other than as a birth control) to outweigh the known negative side-effects of it and deciding for themselves whether they should take it or not. That someone would interpret that as me thinking that women who take the pill against menstrual pains does so with the same carelessness and frivolity as someone takes candy didn’t enter my mind. No other excuse for the poor choice of word than english not being my first language so I’ll take this as a learning experience to be careful with the use of the word like.
@Colette Wedding:
I’m confused what any of that has to do with what I wrote…? I mean, it’s relevant in the sense that we’re both talking about birth control, sure. But the wording of your post comes across as attempting to contradict or correct me somehow, and yet I can’t find anything in my post that conflicts with what you’ve written in response to me. Am I misinterpreting your intent? Are you just intending to expand upon what I’ve said?
L,
Precisely. Also, none of these methods are entirely reliable. If a pill fails, if a condom fails, if getting tubes tied fails, if pulling out fails, if a vasectomy fails (IIRC those are quite reliable), if a shot fails, if conception takes place despite being told it is impossible, if a hysterectomy doesn’t do the job, pregnancy is a reality. If abortion is the choice, the pregnant one still must undergo invasive uterus scraping. Whereas both will be burdened with the financial and emotional toll of raising a child, only the uterus-haver will be pregnant. Period.
Xakudo,
“I want control over my body too!”
Somebody to come up with a particular method for sperm-providers of preventing pregnancy in addition to condoms, vasectomies, abstinence, choosing only partners incapable of becoming pregnant, pulling out, and non-PIV sex? The implication being that since egg-providers have more options, then sperm-providers have no control over their bodies regardless of the fact that egg-providers bear more of the burden and risks to begin with, and regardless of a desire for pregnancy his/her being is impacted by everything associated with having a uterus.
“I’m confused what any of that has to do with what I wrote…?”
You conclude egg-providers are in a “better position” when it comes to “independence” compared to sperm-providers because egg-providers have more (invasive, cumbersome) options for pregnancy prevention regardless of the fact that egg-providers, unlike sperm-providers, are also the uterus-havers. Uterus-havers are not sperm-providers except with eggs instead, and having a uterus and eggs impacts one’s body regardless of pregnancy.
If sperm-providers were the ones that bear such risky stages, then there would be logic to the comparison. But it is apples to oranges. That isn’t to say that men shouldn’t want to have additional options; that’s always a great thing. But there is reason enough on its own terms rather than because uterus-havers (with more at stake and additional physical burden) have a couple more shitty catch-22 options, particularly with a perfection being demanded (reversible! Non-invasive! Simple! Painless!) that doesn’t exist.
@Colette: “condoms, vasectomies, abstinence, choosing only partners incapable of becoming pregnant, pulling out, and non-PIV sex” All of which are trivial for anyone who wants to get pregnant by a sperm provider to overcome. You did see the CDC report on reproductive coercion, and “forced penetration” a.k.a. rape? Secondly abstinence? “Men, if you want control of your body just don’t have sex.”? What kind of plan is that? And doesn’t it apply to woman? “Women, if you want control of your body just don’t have sex.”?
Lamech: Reproductive coercion is also a concern for women, despite their wider selection of birth control options– in fact, about one in five family-planning clinic patients between 16 and 29 report that their partner has attempted reproductive coercion. So I don’t think the solution to reproductive coercion is more birth control options for men, because despite the multitude of birth control options for women abusers still manage to coerce them into pregnancy.
Very true, however if person A even has a knife that won’t allow them to get person B pregnant against their will if B is on the pill, the depo-shot or RISUG. While all of the options above (minus vasectomy, which may or may not be reversible) are overcome by said knife. In addition condoms can’t be discretely used while the depo-shot, RISUG, (or even pills if you’re careful) can, and the deop-shot or RISUG, would be more tamper resistant too. Plus condom’s can fail and all the other options other than being sterilized or abstinent
P.S. Actually the vasectamy option isn’t easily overcome now that I think about it, however that isn’t really an option in a lot of cases. Also rape by fraud is still a thing in case anyone asks.
Hmm… I suddenly got distracted by the P.S. and cut off at “eing sterilized or abstinent…” So while reproductive coercion and rape do affect woman, a number of the options would allow men greater control over their body. The options they have right now are either “get sterilized, or hope everyone is nice enough to respect your bodily control.”
PPPS. And “a number of options” should really be “RISUG”
tl;dr: Ozy you are essentially right woman do face the same trouble, however I think that they do have a few options that give them a bit more control and the RISUG or options similar to what woman have would give men that same increased level of control. And evidenced from Xakudo men want that level of control. Also Lamech is bad at Internets and apologizes for that.
tl;dr for myself: Yes the issue is asfkdjh complicated but yay a step in the right direction and yay for men actually being interested in getting this regardless of the reasons right now and here’s to hoping for a promising future for male birth control options.
Oh no! What about teh wimminz?
Condoms aren’t very reliable (12% chance of failure).
Vasectomy is the most reliable birth control option, but has serious risks of complication. A retrospective postal survey of 396 men found that 4% had significant genital pain for more than one year that required surgical intervention.
Only the uterus-haver can choose whether to have an abortion or not. The sperm-provider has little choice in the matter once conception takes place.
Having another option would be nice.
@ozymandias42:
“Reproductive coercion is also a concern for women, despite their wider selection of birth control options– in fact, about one in five family-planning clinic patients between 16 and 29 report that their partner has attempted reproductive coercion. So I don’t think the solution to reproductive coercion is more birth control options for men, because despite the multitude of birth control options for women abusers still manage to coerce them into pregnancy.”
How many of those patients were sperm-providers? Oh that’s right, sperm-providers can’t get abortions.
Uterus-havers who are pregnant due to reproductive coercion can still get an abortion, but sperm-providers are stuck paying child support for 18 years whether they wanted to or not. If the sperm-provider is financially successful, the payoff in many jurisdictions is a significant pension to be spent as the uterus-haver sees fit.
Men have good reason to be concerned about reproductive coercion:
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/139/139613_women_lie_cheat_and_steal.html?ref=emtaf&archive=archive
And that’s just the nice ones. (not that men are any better, of course)
Can you imagine not only being raped, but your rapist also has custody of your child which you may never even meet, and having to fork over a third of your income to your rapist for 18 years?
@daelyte: You sorta missed the point, but I’m glad you at least got the opportunity to spew more MRA tropes. I’m happy for you.
L`YOu mssed the point that reproductive rights for ferttile males are WAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY down the concern people have for fertile females. Heck they actually have laws about fertiles females. And NONE ever bout fertile males.
I’m so glad to be drunk and infertile, so called male but really female. Couln’t impregante anything, ever. And glad for it. What world is glad for being impotent? A world where the impotent are forced into slavery.
The not-impotent are forced into slavery
@L:
“You sorta missed the point, but I’m glad you at least got the opportunity to spew more MRA tropes. I’m happy for you.”
Yes, I was worried it might seem that way. I left out a lot of the paranoid misogynistic hyperbole I saw along the way… yuck.
I think only a few women really are “sperm-stealing bitches”, but the consequences can be devastating and it’s not always obvious until it’s too late. FWIW, I blame the same conservative politicians for those consequences who keep trying to limit women’s options as well.
That said, how many women use contraceptives for purely altruistic reasons? Why would men be any different? In the end, more options is good for everyone.
Lol I don’t think anyone here has said anything in disagreement with that. 😛
Just to close the circle on this, Lamech and debaser: I may have been a bit flip about it–I admit, I personally find the fears of reproductive coercion of men by women as described on MRA sites to be a bit irrational–but I was totally sincere in my comment. Invisible, effective, incredibly cheap birth control for men? Good for ten years, and easily reversible, but only by a doctor? This is an incredibly powerful counter to virtually all of those MRA concerns. It gives men complete control over their fertility!
RISUG might or might not be everything it’s claimed to be, but because it won’t be a profit center for the drug companies, they don’t have an incentive to go through the (entirely necessary) testing process in the US. MRAs have voices, and promoting and pushing this would be such a valuable use for them, I cannot begin to say.
Lamech,
Sperm-providers and egg-providers face reproductive concerns of lying, coercion, rape, and the financial/emotional/lifestyle strain of raising an unplanned-for child. Options, imperfect as they may be, exist for both. Yet regardless of the additional concerns facing uterus-havers, posters have ignored that can of worms in order to fit the thesis that uterus-havers are in a better position. Providing sperm doesn’t impact the body like providing eggs and having a uterus does. Providing sperm means one will never, ever have to be pregnant.
‘“Secondly abstinence? “Men, if you want control of your body just don’t have sex.”?’
No, but that isn’t what I was saying. I’m saying it’s an option.
“What kind of plan is that? And doesn’t it apply to woman?”
Yes, because it is an option. But you know what? Even if she is abstinent she still might need a form of birth control. Can of worms, open.
“Very true, however if person A even has a knife that won’t allow them to get person B pregnant against their will if B is on the pill, the depo-shot or RISUG.”
It is still their burden to prevent pregnancy and all it entails. This also assumes they can get any of that, that their body is compatible with any one of those, that they don’t get pregnant anyway, or that something else (anxiety medication, anti-biotics, etc.) doesn’t interfere. I became impregnated while I was on The Pill because the sperm-provider decided he didn’t like the way the condom “felt” and pulled it down far without informing me so it came off. I miscarried very early (I didn’t even know I was pregnant!) and it also caused a UTI. Still have collections chasing me for the medical bills.
Daelyte,
“Only the uterus-haver can choose whether to have an abortion or not.”
Only the uterus-haver can become impregnated. Only the uterus-haver must endure the uterus scraping that in an abortion, although you talk about these things like it’s turning on the TV. Only the sperm-provider can choose whether to engage in PIV intercourse or whether to use a condom.
“The sperm-provider has little choice in the matter once conception takes place.”
But the sperm-provider isn’t burdened with the gestation period or giving birth, nor the associated risks (including death which is increased with certain contraception use). The sperm provider does, however, have effective means of contraception available (including a condom which is basically the best, most accessible, and cheapest). They’re not perfect or convenient but nor are those available to the uterus-haver which faces risks and burdens the sperm-provider never, ever, ever will.
“Having another option would be nice.”
Of course it would! I fully support many additional options for sperm-providers and would love for my tax dollars to be involved to boot.
@Colette:
Okay, I think we have miscommunication here, mainly of context.
I do not in any way mean to minimize pregnancy and the risks therein. That is an important biological difference, and I acknowledge that it is significant and relevant. If neither gender had options available to them, obviously I would consider women’s circumstance more dire due to that. And, in fact, especially due to class issues, many women cannot reasonably afford or gain access to contraceptives (beyond, e.g. condoms, abstinence, etc.–pretty much the same options available to men for non-permanent contraceptives). And especially in those circumstances, I agree that women’s situation is more dire. These are important and relevant issues. I think we agree on these points?
So with that out of the way, please let me explain the context in which I was responding to L.
I have frequently run into the attitude that lack of male contraceptives is a women’s issue. The idea being that women are forced to take on the burden of handling contraceptives, and that this is somehow oppressive. Moreover, men are supposedly “getting away” with not having to shoulder that burden, and this is somehow a meaningful benefit to men. In short, this framing posits that the lack of contraceptives available to men primarily harms women and benefits men. Therefore lack of male contraceptives is really a women’s issue, and is yet another oppression committed by the patriarchy.
Even the most sympathetic framings in this vain only view it as being “nice” or “great” for men to have options, rather than “important”.
Can you see how these kinds of framings are not only insulting, but also belittling?
In my post, when I was referring to women being in a “better position”, I was speaking relative to the issue of “burden of handling contraceptives”. I was speaking in response to this framing, which I felt L was implicitly referencing (even if only inadvertently). To paraphrase, my intended meaning was: “Having options–especially statistically more effective options–is not a ‘burden’, it is a freedom, and it is a freedom that men currently do not have. In that respect, women are currently in a superior position to men with respect to contraceptives.”
Of course women bear the risk of pregnancy of the further health risks therein. And, again, I agree that makes contraceptive options a more dire issue for women. And, again, class and other economic issues play a role in this such that there are still a lot of women who do not have reasonable access to these options, which is a critical issue IMO.
What was bothering me was this quote from L:
Which takes a men’s issue (lack of contraceptive options) and reframes it to sound like it’s a women’s issue, and which seems to hint at an attitude similar to the highly twisted and belittling framings I outlined above.
@Colette
The uterus-bearer can give the child off in adoption, without even so much as naming the father. Future dad might not even know his sperm is now a fetus and/or a baby, but he’s strapped for 18 years of child support regardless…
and that’s equal, right?
The guy gets told abstinence, and hope condoms work and don’t break, Or permanent infertility. Or non-PIV at all times.
The girl gets told abstinence, calendar, hope condoms work, the pill, other barrier methods, abortion and giving up for adoption. She can also be permanently infertile or do non-PIV acts, as well.
As I said before, I can’t do PIV as its mechanically dubious that it could happen. And I’m chemically castrated and probably was idiopathically infertile from the very start anyways. I’m just so glad I don’t have to worry at all about it. And like I said before, in what world can you consider it a blessing to be infertile since birth? A world that can enslave you if you were not.
Colette Wedding: “They’re [condoms] not perfect or convenient but nor are those available to the uterus-haver which faces risks and burdens the sperm-provider never, ever, ever will.”
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/female-condom-4223.htm
You can use a condom no matter what anatomy you have. Interior condoms* are more expensive but not absurdly so. It’s just factually wrong to state that having a vagina limits your options in that way.
*I despise the term “female condom.” Even if everyone who had a vagina identified as female (they don’t), anuses are universal.
@Xakudo: You’re bothered by my being happy that the responsibility is a bit more egalitarian? The surprise was genuine, really. And more directed at the idea that nearly 100% of the guys here are chomping at the bit to have this done, despite that the description of the procedure is, you’ve got to admit, kind of cringe-worthy. (Coming from a gal that had black, bleeding gunk cut out of her abdominal cavity with “argon lasers”.)
Xakudo,
But isolating certain truths to make an argument work still isn’t being honest. I don’t know what L meant in his/her heart of hearts either but the thread was completely erasing the reality of what egg-proving and uterus-having does to one’s body. Sperm-providers should have more options. Sperm-providers should have less invasive options. Sperm providers should have affordable options. But before what uterus-havers may have available to them are dragged into it, remember what uterus-havers must deal with. :0)
Tobias,
I do know vagina condoms exist (albeit they’re more expensive and less effective). Be that as it may, my argument isn’t that egg-havers don’t have condoms available to them. Its that it is unfair to use what’s (theoretically) available to egg-providers as “proof” they’re in a better position considering the nature of what egg-providing and uterus-having entails versus sperm-providing.
@L:
I’m not bothered that you’re happy about it. I’m happy about that too. It was just very striking to me that that was the first place you went: to the “burden/responsibility” aspect instead of the “freedom/control” aspect. It gave me the impression that you view lack of male contraceptives in terms of the twisted framings I outlined in my previous post, which I take great issue with. But if you do not view it that way, and recognize that male contraceptives are primarily a men’s issue, and primarily benefit men rather than women (just as the reverse is true with women’s contraceptives) then I have no beef with you.
Then why state that condom options aren’t available if you have a vagina?
I’m not jumping into the rest of the argument since it concerns sex that has nothing to do with me (trans-dermal testosterone is my preferred form of birth control), but I don’t like to sit idly by and see misconceptions passed off as fact. Even if you know that interior condoms exist I’m willing to bet that at least a few readers do not.
Tobias,
“Then why state that condom options aren’t available if you have a vagina?”
??? I didn’t.
@Colette:
I was never making the argument you seem to think I was making. The closest quote from my posts I can find is this:
But even there I carefully qualified in which respect women currently have a better position.
You seem to be taking issue with me claiming that women are entirely in a better position than men as far as reproduction goes, but I have never made that claim! And at this point I have even specifically disavowed that claim. Please stop putting words into my mouth.
I will say again: the context of my responses to L were specifically the whole “lack of male contraceptives primarily harms women” narrative. Please read them with that in mind. I have told you, and am continuing to tell you now, how I intended my posts to read, and what I meant by them. If you continue to insist on reading them in a different way than that, then I’m not sure what else to tell you.
Perhaps I misinterpreted this:
“The sperm provider does, however, have effective means of contraception available (including a condom which is basically the best, most accessible, and cheapest). They’re not perfect or convenient but nor are those available to the uterus-haver which faces risks and burdens the sperm-provider never, ever, ever will.”
But it reads to me as though condoms are one of the things available to sperm providers that are not available to uterus-havers. Regardless, if that’s not what you meant, then I’m sorry for the mistake.
Also, regarding price:
Most interior condoms are non-latex and are comparable in price to many exterior condoms made with non-latex materials (~$2 each, or roughly twice the price of many latex condoms). Your mileage may vary based on available brands.
@Xakudo: I’m just pretty bitter about the entire reality of contraception and all issues stemming from having “functioning” reproductive systems, regardless of the person. My opinion is that the current options for everyone are pretty shitty, and the consequences for fucking up or being taken advantage of are shitty. So yes, I see it as a burden. My personal ideal would be that my circumstance made me sterile– but sterility is far from the optimum choice for most folk.
Xakudo,
I know what you’re saying. I can’t repeat myself anymore so I don’t know what to tell you either.
Tobias,
That isn’t what I meant. I was responding to another poster’s complaint that sperm-providers have little say once the process becomes the sole burden of the uterus-haver and noting the sperm-provider can refuse to provide sperm even during PIV intercourse regardless of what the uterus-haver wants too. Any method has its risks and invasiveness but at the end of the day only the uterus-haver can become pregnant.
The argument going on here seems weird to me. Reproductive coercion is a purely social issue, rather than one of contraceptive technology. Just as a woman being so coerced would have a hard time relying on the morning-after pill, a man being so coerced might not be able to rely on RISUG as a complete solution. It seems like this whole thing has devolved into yet another tit-for-tat argument about which gender has it worse, and that’s both stupid and irrelevant. Men might have a new, permanent and easily reversible option for birth control soon, which is not a thing they have now. Regardless of other, unrelated issues, this will allow men more freedom, and be a complete answer to the traditional MRA “sperm-stealer” narrative, even if it doesn’t solve the issue of reproductive coercion in an abusive relationship. Yay.
@Schala: You forgot IUD. I’ve always thought that was a funny thing to name it, really. Intrauterine device? It could be a laser gun, for all that says about it.
L,
I see it as mostly a burden as well although better than the alternative of stinging breast pain for 99% of the month and almost constant bleeding. I guess taking it exactly when I should all the time, explaining to SOs that my anxiety meds make it close to useless when it comes to contraceptive, dealing with DHS (especially when they screw up and it starts all over again), having to drive to another county (mine doesn’t provide it), and the reapplication process is worth it. I guess I should appreciate this “freedom” and “control” since sperm-providers’ reproductive system can impact their bodies and life in negative ways outside of the actual reproductive process that just a condom can’t take care of too.
@Colette: “… sperm-providers’ reproductive system can impact their bodies and life in negative ways outside of the actual reproductive process that just a condom can’t take care of too.”
I’m sorry is this sarcasm? It seems like sarcasm, except… you can’t possibly be saying “sperm-providers’ reproductive system can NOT impact their bodies and life in negative ways outside of the actual reproductive process that just a condom can’t take care of too”
“noting the sperm-provider can refuse to provide sperm even during PIV intercourse regardless of what the uterus-haver wants too. ” Unless the uterus-haver has access to sharpened pieces of metal. Or a bat.
“noting the sperm-provider can refuse to provide sperm even during PIV intercourse regardless of what the uterus-haver wants too. ”
Wait, what? That’s not reeeeally the case. I guess to a certain extent there’s a little more control, but this makes it sound like men can’t have an orgasm unless they want to, and are OK with what’s going on. That’s not the case, as has been discussed on this very blog pretty regularly.
@Colette:
Okay, yes, women’s reproductive systems are much more likely to cause them issues in ways that “just a condom can’t take care of”. And I suppose in a sense, that can be viewed as a reproductive rights issue. I personally consider that more of a general women’s-health issue (along with ovarian cancer, yeast infections, and other issues related to women’s reproductive organs). But regardless, yes, reproductive systems causing nastiness independent of reproducing or not = suck. And women are more likely to suffer such things than men. I think we can all agree with that?
And the fact that some female contraceptives can also serve to treat some of those issues to greater or lesser extents (depending on the woman) is a very important point, and certainly adds to the importance of women having those medical options available.
But… do you seriously not see that as a somewhat separate issue from women being able to choose when, whether, and from whom they will get pregnant and/or have kids? Because it is that issue which I have been speaking about. And if you seriously see everything that has anything to do with women’s reproductive organs as being a collective, monolithic, singular, inseparable issue, then I’m afraid we’re not going to be able to have a productive discussion at all, because… well, I just simply disagree.
@Xakudo: “But regardless, yes, reproductive systems causing nastiness independent of reproducing or not = suck. And women are more likely to suffer such things than men. I think we can all agree with that?”
I would seriously question this, at least in places like America. In America having a penis leads to mutilation at a rather high rate. (It would also depend on how you count said problems)
P.S. That isn’t to say men have the higher rate, simply that we shouldn’t assume they have a lower out of hand.
Dancingbojangles,
“Wait, what? That’s not reeeeally the case. I guess to a certain extent there’s a little more control, but this makes it sound like men can’t have an orgasm unless they want to, and are OK with what’s going on.”
Not what I mean. Orgasms, erections, vaginal lubrication, etc. are simply physiological responses, not clap-on-clap-off lights. Daelyte complained that a sperm-provider has no control once the uterus-haver bears the gestation and delivery burden and thus ha sno choice in the FUN! decision to abort. I pointed out the uterus-haver has no control over what the sperm-provider chooses to do with said sperm, and also that the sperm-provider can choose to wear a condom. Sperm-provider can’t choose an abortion because sperm-provider isn’t a uterus-haver.
Lamech,
“Unless the uterus-haver has access to sharpened pieces of metal. Or a bat.”
That can go the other way too and, as was *finally* noted by dancingbojangles (thanks, dancingbojangles!), things of that nature are social problems. But it is telling that in response to pointing out a sperm-provider does in fact have control and that a condom is one method, you bring up the sperm-stealing. Is your only concern that a uterus-haver might steal your sperm? Because this is what I’m talking about. Uterus-havers aren’t just concerned about birth-control sabotage (which happened to me and happens to many of us), coercion, fraud, and rape. We must also worry about what being equipped with our reproductive organs, which are not The Same as the sperm-provider’s, will entail, and not just when it comes to pregnancy. So, yes, it is pretty silly to tell a uterus-haver that s/he’s in a better position compared to sperm-providers due to a couple more methods being available when sperm-providers only deal with a small bit of what we do. Apples to oranges.
Daelyte,
“That said, how many women use contraceptives for purely altruistic reasons? Why would men be any different? In the end, more options is good for everyone.”
Use it for whatever reason you want but make an honest argument that doesn’t erase the reality of the uterus-haver’s reproductive system. Not directing that to you, just in general, because I agree sperm-providers should have many, many, many birth control methods. Endless even, and their motives shouldn’t be questioned (they’re already trying to legislate that for uterus-havers though and may already have in at least one state).
Xakudo,
“But… do you seriously not see that as a somewhat separate issue from women being able to choose when, whether, and from whom they will get pregnant and/or have kids?”
And this is what you don’t understand, but in practice (rather than theory), NO, it cannot be separated both because of how uterus-havers’ reproductive systems work and because of how these birth control methods not available to sperm-providers work. For sperm-providers it might be nearly as simple as that* given the way a sperm-provider’s system is set up, but for anybody with no understanding of how a functioning egg-provider/uterus-haver’s system works it is just awfully convenient to pretend it’s the case with uterus-havers. This is exactly what people were doing.
*I’m actually genuinely concerned. People mention methods like IUDs and the shot as if its eating cupcakes. No mentions of how detrimental and risky these things can be; the important thing to them is that they exist. Once an additional male birth control method is approved, I fear this ignorance will result in underestimating the side-effects it may present to their bodies (unless it’s just a symptom of Women’s Body’s Are Weird and one shouldn’t bother to learn about it anyway). But then I’m sure they’ll just say uterus-havers are in a better position because their methods are safer, LOL!
@Colette Wedding:
Why do you always assume ill intent?
@Lamech:
I don’t count that. Circumcision is a horrible and critically important issue, but it’s not the same kind of problem. IMO it is more properly considered a human rights violation rather than, e.g., a men’s health issue.
@Colette:
Okay then. I disagree with you. So I guess we’ll just have to leave it at that.
No, people have not been mentioning them like that. They simply haven’t been talking about them like they are prohibitively risky or a horribly frightening experience. Which they are not. They are viable options.
It may surprise you to know that some of us men here actually take an interest in women’s health. It may further surprise you to know that some of us men here have had partners who have had these procedures done, and who have been very open with us about the experience.
I do expect male contraceptives (whatever form they may take) to have some issues. But it’s also not going to be some horrible, terrible, prohibitive experience for most men. I mean, vasectomies are certainly not a walk in the park either, but lots of men get it done (including men I know) and consider it totally worth it. It’s not major surgery, it’s reliable, and it’s pretty affordable IIRC. Its main issue is that it is not reliably reversible, and therefore not viable for anyone who thinks they may want to have kids in the future.
If your standard for “a viable option” is “like eating cupcakes”… well, then yet again we seem to not even be having the same conversation.
Am I the only one her who is just blown away by the coolness of the fact that this is essentially a sperm-destroying force-field. There are too many nerds here for me to be the first one to just be appreciating this for how awesomely sci-fi that is.
@SonofRyan: Haha, hate to burst your bubble, but I think it’s just a spermicide suspended in a gel.
@Xakudo:
“Its main issue is that it is not reliably reversible, and therefore not viable for anyone who thinks they may want to have kids in the future.”
That and the risk of needing to be rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery to deal with excruciating testicular pain.
@SonofRyan:
Look up ultrasound contraceptive. That’s another cool one on the radar.
@daelyte:
Yes, of course there can be complications:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-vasectomy_pain_syndrome
I was not intending to suggest otherwise. And, of course, due to the surgical nature of it, handling complications is more complex/expensive compared to something that could just be removed or usage stopped. But it is still not a terribly risky procedure.
In any case, it’s a moot point since it is not reliably reversible, and therefore not a real option for people who may want (additional) children at some point in the future.
@dancinbojangles: Though the exact method of action isn’t entirely understood yet, “Professor SK Guha theorizes that the polymer surface has a negative and positive electric charge mosaic. The differential charge from the gel ruptures the sperm’s cell membrane as it passes through the vas, stopping the sperm before they can start their journey to the egg.”
Which would make referring to it as a “sperm destroying force field” not entirely far off, assuming he’s right as to it’s action.
About the only thing they are sure of is that it doesn’t function like a typical chemical spermicide, though.
@Schadrach: Dang, well… My mistake! Shields up!