Honestly after hearing all the nightmares that hormonal birth control can cause in women, I'm not too keen to step up to the plate with an experimental solution. I'm interested to see if there any...
Honestly after hearing all the nightmares that hormonal birth control can cause in women, I'm not too keen to step up to the plate with an experimental solution. I'm interested to see if there any long-term side effects to something like this
What's really frustrating is how many side effects there are for HBC for women and how often the side effects are described as the reason for the HBC for men studies to be discontinued. When they...
What's really frustrating is how many side effects there are for HBC for women and how often the side effects are described as the reason for the HBC for men studies to be discontinued. When they seem incredibly similar in description.
This isn't a shot at you, yeah it's not great. But also some level of parity in the expectations would be nice.
I don't expect any women to take a birth control (or medicine in general) that they aren't comfortable with the possible side effects of. I don't think that it's unfair to feel the same way about...
I don't expect any women to take a birth control (or medicine in general) that they aren't comfortable with the possible side effects of. I don't think that it's unfair to feel the same way about my own health. There are plenty of effective methods of contraception outside of hormonal BC, including vasectomies, condoms, abstinence, etc.
I explicitly stated this wasn't a shot at you. It's a hundred percent a shot at the system in the aggregate. You're free to make whatever choices you want with your body, and I have zero opinion...
I explicitly stated this wasn't a shot at you. It's a hundred percent a shot at the system in the aggregate. You're free to make whatever choices you want with your body, and I have zero opinion about it. That's why I framed the comment as I did.
And the reality is, many women will take the side effects for the security of not becoming pregnant. The weight of the two against each other isn't comparable. And it's why so many women take oral HBC or have IUDs and implants (about 37% of women between 15 and 49) and another 28% use permanent female sterilization (which may have hormonal side effects depending on the method). Cis men don't have the same cost/benefit; they have the same financial risk that women do of a born child that they don't want custody of, but they don't have the physical and mental health risks and collateral social/school/career effects of pregnancy weighting that end of the scale.
Add in that women's complaints about side effects are often ignored and well, perfect storm.
That there isn't even money being put into it is even more infuriating honestly. But as I said, not about you. I have no opinion about your personal choices at all.
It's fair for you to have mindset about what you are personally comfortable with. But it isn't fair to let that mindset prevent the option from being available to others. Not saying that you're...
It's fair for you to have mindset about what you are personally comfortable with. But it isn't fair to let that mindset prevent the option from being available to others.
Not saying that you're the one calling the shots, but many pharma companies seem to be stating that men don't want BC with any side effects.
I'm confused, where did I say that the option shouldn't be available to others? My original statement was this: Never did I imply that no one should have the option to take birth control if they...
I'm confused, where did I say that the option shouldn't be available to others?
My original statement was this:
Honestly after hearing all the nightmares that hormonal birth control can cause in women, I'm not too keen to step up to the plate with an experimental solution. I'm interested to see if there any long-term side effects to something like this.
Never did I imply that no one should have the option to take birth control if they want to. I'm not even sure why my comments are even getting replied to with statements that are totally unrelated to what I said. I think people are trying to use my comment as a staging field for an argument that no one here is making against them and I would appreciate it if they didn't.
I'm replying to your comment where you said: I interpreted that as "there's already enough alternatives, so it doesn't matter how this one plays out." I'm not looking to nitpick or start a back...
I'm replying to your comment where you said:
I don't think that it's unfair to feel the same way about my own health. There are plenty of effective methods of contraception outside of hormonal BC, including vasectomies, condoms, abstinence, etc.
I interpreted that as "there's already enough alternatives, so it doesn't matter how this one plays out."
I'm not looking to nitpick or start a back and forth, just sharing that this is the part that led me to respond to you that way, and possibly why others did as well.
Wasn't staging an argument, nor trying to have one with you. Was tangenting off of the topic of side effects and expressing a systemic frustration. But if you want to express the disatisfacton...
Wasn't staging an argument, nor trying to have one with you. Was tangenting off of the topic of side effects and expressing a systemic frustration.
But if you want to express the disatisfacton with my comments and their placement, it's more helpful to say it to me and not to @ShroudedScribe. /Gen
One of the reasons for that is that medication under trial have their side effects evaluated against the symptoms when not taking the medication. Which in woman means comparing HBC side effects...
What's really frustrating is how many side effects there are for HBC for women and how often the side effects are described as the reason for the HBC for men studies to be discontinued.
One of the reasons for that is that medication under trial have their side effects evaluated against the symptoms when not taking the medication. Which in woman means comparing HBC side effects against the various symptoms (and their risks) of pregnancy. This results in a much higher tolerance for side effects.
Since men don't directly mediate a symptom/risk by taking HBC medication, the tolerance for side effects is lower. And there's no mechanism to account for indirectly preventing symptoms in others when evaluating side effects.
Empathy is a pretty good mechanism for that. We know the negative effects pregnancy has on a woman. Men should have the choice to deal with the bad side effects to take away some of the burden...
And there's no mechanism to account for indirectly preventing symptoms in others when evaluating side effects.
Empathy is a pretty good mechanism for that. We know the negative effects pregnancy has on a woman. Men should have the choice to deal with the bad side effects to take away some of the burden from women without having to get a surgery that you need another to undo.
We’ve established that both pregnancy and the hormonal birth control have negative effects on a woman’s body, if I can take something to prevent both of those things in my wife I’d do it in a heartbeat. I’ll get a vasectomy after we have kids but until then we have to rely on condoms which aren’t perfect. With abortions becoming illegal all over the country it’s more important now than ever to make some progress with male birth control.
Yeah, I said the above in a later comment in the chain. Although in the article I linked the men in the study themselves overwhelmingly said they'd consider continuing to take the medication...
And the reality is, many women will take the side effects for the security of not becoming pregnant. The weight of the two against each other isn't comparable. And it's why so many women take oral HBC or have IUDs and implants (about 37% of women between 15 and 49) and another 28% use permanent female sterilization (which may have hormonal side effects depending on the method). Cis men don't have the same cost/benefit; they have the same financial risk that women do of a born child that they don't want custody of, but they don't have the physical and mental health risks and collateral social/school/career effects of pregnancy weighting that end of the scale.
Yeah, I said the above in a later comment in the chain. Although in the article I linked the men in the study themselves overwhelmingly said they'd consider continuing to take the medication despite the side effects.
Female HBC has other known benefits (controlling periods which is especially useful in endometriosis). The female surgical alternative (having your tubes tied) is comparatively very high risk. We...
Female HBC has other known benefits (controlling periods which is especially useful in endometriosis). The female surgical alternative (having your tubes tied) is comparatively very high risk. We are, for better or for worse, not comparing apples to oranges. Vasectomy is high efficacy, low risk, and has few known side effects. The only real downside is that it is not reversible. I am personally of the opinion that in any committed relationship, men should be more willing than they are to undergo vasectomy if you both decide you do not want any more children and the woman wants to be off hormonal birth control.
I suspect that male HBC would have similar useful side effects for certain conditions, we just don't necessarily know what they are yet. I agree that both partners in a monogamous relationship,...
I suspect that male HBC would have similar useful side effects for certain conditions, we just don't necessarily know what they are yet. I agree that both partners in a monogamous relationship, and perhaps even more so outside of one, should be actively responsible for managing birth control. It's really in everyone's best interest.
My wife and I didn't want children so I got a vasectomy after we got married at age 30 for the reasons you mentioned, and she was able to go off of birth control after being on it for over a...
My wife and I didn't want children so I got a vasectomy after we got married at age 30 for the reasons you mentioned, and she was able to go off of birth control after being on it for over a decade. It was a little bit of a battle to convince someone to do the procedure since I was relatively young and childless. Urologist wouldn't just do it. I had to fight for it with my primary who then gave me a referral and told the urologist that I was making this decision of sound mind. Then it was another round of that with the urologist himself before he agreed.
I've heard that it's even more difficult for young childless women to get tubal ligations. And I get it - doctors have been sued for performing the procedure and then the patient changing their mind. But yeah, sometimes the "obvious" route of permanent birth control is difficult to obtain.
Is insurance going to cover IVF procedures 10 years down the line? I don't know what insurance companies would think but it sounds like a ton of money and would remove the chance of having a more...
Is insurance going to cover IVF procedures 10 years down the line? I don't know what insurance companies would think but it sounds like a ton of money and would remove the chance of having a more natural... process (??). IDK, it weirds me out a little.
Besides all that, in the article they describe a procedure that's like a temporary vasectomy performed by injecting a gel into the tubes (I lost my spot and I don't know the term)
Injecting the gel, called ADAM, involves a single, 15-minute procedure, said Kevin Eisenfrats, Contraline’s CEO and co-founder. Then, the gel is meant to stay in place for years
If this works out it sounds like it might be the best option for male birth control and given the various issues with female birth control, maybe the best option period.
I suppose it depends on your insurance, but they already cover IVF, so I’m unclear on why that wouldn’t be true in the future. Barring any crazy legal barriers that some states might try to enact,...
Is insurance going to cover IVF procedures 10 years down the line? I don't know what insurance companies would think but it sounds like a ton of money and would remove the chance of having a more natural... process (??). IDK, it weirds me out a little.
I suppose it depends on your insurance, but they already cover IVF, so I’m unclear on why that wouldn’t be true in the future. Barring any crazy legal barriers that some states might try to enact, it seems reasonable to expect it’ll continue to be covered.
Fewer than half of states mandate the coverage currently Fertility/IVF coverage by state, resolve.org And I know "crazy legal" stuff might seem unlikely, the number of states prohibiting abortion...
And I know "crazy legal" stuff might seem unlikely, the number of states prohibiting abortion is having some real side effects in the area of fertility care too.
When I got mine, my doctor said to assume that it would be permanent. A reversal is possible, but not guaranteed. It's also expensive and not covered by my insurance. There is a 10-30% chance that...
When I got mine, my doctor said to assume that it would be permanent. A reversal is possible, but not guaranteed. It's also expensive and not covered by my insurance. There is a 10-30% chance that reversal does not work.
Also, when you go for your consultation, they make sure that you're final about your decision. If you tell them that you would consider reversal for some reason, they won't even do the procedure. The permanency is actually why many young men are refused the procedure. I had to talk my doctor into it at age 30.
Wow, had no idea the odds were so low. I had heard a while back that it was reversible and even had a chance of reversing itself, which was apparently a load of bull someone fed me. Thanks for the...
Wow, had no idea the odds were so low. I had heard a while back that it was reversible and even had a chance of reversing itself, which was apparently a load of bull someone fed me.
Yeah, there are a ton of misconceptions about vasectomies. It does have a chance of reversing itself, but the odds depend on the method used. An old way of doing it is to just cut the vas deferens...
Yeah, there are a ton of misconceptions about vasectomies. It does have a chance of reversing itself, but the odds depend on the method used. An old way of doing it is to just cut the vas deferens and use clips to clamp them together. A newer method is to remove a section of the vas deferens and then cauterize both remaining ends. This makes it nearly impossible for them to ever grow back together.
If there's a failure (meaning it reverses on its own), it generally happens early on. You're supposed to submit a sperm test a couple of months after the procedure to make sure it didn't reverse, but apparently many men neglect to do this which can cause surprise failures.
Came in a big pump bottle like hand sanitizer. Apply after showering on shoulders and upper arms, basically where a T-shirt covers. No contact with wife/kids until it dries, so I would do it right...
Came in a big pump bottle like hand sanitizer. Apply after showering on shoulders and upper arms, basically where a T-shirt covers. No contact with wife/kids until it dries, so I would do it right before leaving for work.
You weren't allowed to use other birth control so they only recruited couples who were ok with having a kid! That was part of the reason it took the study a long time to find enough people.
I had no side effects other than increased energy. When I get blood work done as part of my physicals I have lower than average testosterone, and the gel kills your natural production and then includes a supplement, so my testosterone level increased slightly while using it.
The only difficult part was that you cannot miss days and it has to absorb for a couple hours. We took a beach trip while I was using it and I had to wake up at 6 to apply it so it would dry in time before we went to the beach.
Androgens (such as testosterone, which is part of this treatment) traditionally can't be administered orally because they don't have good bioavailability after passing through your digestive...
Androgens (such as testosterone, which is part of this treatment) traditionally can't be administered orally because they don't have good bioavailability after passing through your digestive system. Iirc they get filtered out by your liver. Absorbing them through the skin means they go straight into your bloodstream rather than passing through your digestive system, avoiding that issue.
Not interrobang but my wife uses a similar gel for HRT, and it's not particularly hard to avoid getting any on me or my cats as long as she doesn't hug me or rub that part of her arms on anything...
Not interrobang but my wife uses a similar gel for HRT, and it's not particularly hard to avoid getting any on me or my cats as long as she doesn't hug me or rub that part of her arms on anything right after applying. At least her gel only took ~30 minutes to dry. So that's what I'd hope for if this ever came to market.
The "issue" with male birth control is that it will never be a replacement for or equivalent of female birth control simply because in a lot of cases the woman is the interested party at risk....
The "issue" with male birth control is that it will never be a replacement for or equivalent of female birth control simply because in a lot of cases the woman is the interested party at risk.
Consider this, you're a woman getting in bed with a new fling or a one night stand and he says "don't worry baby I'm on birth control". Do you even give the tiniest sliver of consideration to this unprovable claim? Of course not, you proceed as if this was never uttered.
It's good for overall responsible people and committed couples.
I mean, yeah, it'll obviously be safer as a woman to continue to have your own method of birth control. But what about men out there in the same situation now? Sure, they don't have to suffer the...
I mean, yeah, it'll obviously be safer as a woman to continue to have your own method of birth control. But what about men out there in the same situation now? Sure, they don't have to suffer the physical impact of unplanned pregnancy, but they are impacted by it legally and financially. Having some agency over preventing that themselves (beyond just condom usage but less serious than a vasectomy) can be a benefit -- they no longer have to trust their female partner is on birth control.
That's no different than it is now, just with the genders reversed. It's a form of redundancy, which is never a bad thing. I don't think the goal here is to replace HBC for women. More than half...
That's no different than it is now, just with the genders reversed. It's a form of redundancy, which is never a bad thing.
This argument is a little bit misandrist. If worst come to worst, as a woman, you can have an abortion, while if you are male you are screwed. Thankfully it doesn't happen often, but it happens....
This argument is a little bit misandrist. If worst come to worst, as a woman, you can have an abortion, while if you are male you are screwed.
Thankfully it doesn't happen often, but it happens. There is this guy in my family that was dating an abusive woman. She convinced him to give themselves some time to fix the relationship, secretly stopped taking the pill and got pregnant. They are still together "for the sake of the kid", with her being a stay-at-home mother (who doesn't really do much) and still abusive.
So yeah, I wouldn't trust any woman to take the pill either, so your argument actually works both ways.
This is not true for women in an increasing number of places, and it ignores the physical toll pregnancy and abortion can have on a woman's body. I absolutely acknowledge that male birth control...
If worst come to worst, as a woman, you can have an abortion, while if you are male you are screwed.
This is not true for women in an increasing number of places, and it ignores the physical toll pregnancy and abortion can have on a woman's body. I absolutely acknowledge that male birth control gives men more agency over avoiding the legal and financial consequences fathering a child can have for them (and I brought that up myself in a sister comment -- I think this is a good reason many guys would take birth control if available to them), but it's disingenuous to treat the consequences of unplanned pregnancy as equivalent between both parties when only one party bears any physical risk.
That's why I said "if worst comes to worst", it shouldn't be and it isn't a first option. Abortion is available in most developed countries, specially in Europe where I am from. That option,...
That's why I said "if worst comes to worst", it shouldn't be and it isn't a first option. Abortion is available in most developed countries, specially in Europe where I am from. That option, terrible as it might be, is not available for men. And while it's true that only one party bears any physical risk, that one party has the final say in the legal and financial consequences men face.
OP said that the "issue" with male birth control is women can't trust men to take it. The same is true for men, but it would be misogynist to say that female birth control is an issue for men since you can't really trust women. If something is misogynistic, inverting the genders makes it misandrist.
It's a pity that in 2024, men's reproductive rights are seen as a problem for women, as if having a male birth control pill or gel will completely erase every other form of contraception in the planet.
If you don't trust your one night stand or partner, you can always use one contraceptive method each.
I definitely agree with you that having male birth control available is broadly a good thing and that a man's interests in needing to trust that his partner is using birth control to avoid...
I definitely agree with you that having male birth control available is broadly a good thing and that a man's interests in needing to trust that his partner is using birth control to avoid unplanned fatherhood parallels the description above. I replied to the same comment you originally replied to expressing exactly that sentiment. I also agree that the existence of birth control for men doesn't harm its availability for women. We agree on most thing here.
My issue is solely with framing the issue as though women have it easier through language like "women can just get an abortion". Even setting aside the physical toll that takes on one's body, I think you would be surprised by how poor abortion rights can be even within Europe -- women here in Germany still sometimes travel to the Netherlands for abortion access -- and that's to say nothing of the absolutely dire situation in parts of the US. Male birth control being available is good for both men and women, but let's not argue for it by dismissing very real reproductive rights issues faced by those who can become pregnant.
Fair enough, I completely agree with you and with your other comment. My main gripe was OP's comment and I never meant to underestimate the secondary effects of abortion and/or its availability, I...
Fair enough, I completely agree with you and with your other comment.
My main gripe was OP's comment and I never meant to underestimate the secondary effects of abortion and/or its availability, I just said that at the end of the day, while not the best one, it is another option, an option that my family member didn't have and he's stuck in a relationship for the sake of the child. His girlfriend even said that if he dared to break up with her, he'd sue him for domestic violence (but this is something egregious that mostly happens in Spain and not an issue in most countries). That's why, while being a feminist, I also take men's (reproductive) rights seriously.
Perhaps I came across as too strong since I am tired of reading how male reproductive rights are a women's issue when (and I agree) it's not true the other way around. At the end of the day: "my body, my choice" applies.
Again, I think you are right and completely agree with you. Sorry if it came off as anything other than that.
Ah yeah I suppose it was just ambiguously worded in a way that rubbed me the wrong way. No offense taken at all, and I absolutely agree that male reproductive rights are important independently of...
Ah yeah I suppose it was just ambiguously worded in a way that rubbed me the wrong way. No offense taken at all, and I absolutely agree that male reproductive rights are important independently of how they affect women (and honestly male birth control being available seems like a win-win regardless).
Fair enough, I guess women like that have never been in my orbit nor of anyone in my social circle. I guess at the end of the day each method serves the person taking it first and foremost.
Fair enough, I guess women like that have never been in my orbit nor of anyone in my social circle.
I guess at the end of the day each method serves the person taking it first and foremost.
I think that is overstating the issue a bit. I would gladly use something like this. My partner is considering having her IUD removed for other medical reasons and this would be a great way to...
I think that is overstating the issue a bit. I would gladly use something like this. My partner is considering having her IUD removed for other medical reasons and this would be a great way to make that sort of decision easier.
Yes. The lack of trust in a woman I don't know is why I never put myself into that situation in the first place. I always made sure that we were on the same page about STDs and what could happen...
Do you even give the tiniest sliver of consideration to this unprovable claim?
Yes. The lack of trust in a woman I don't know is why I never put myself into that situation in the first place. I always made sure that we were on the same page about STDs and what could happen during an accidental pregnancy before having sex with someone. And even after that conversation, there's still a chance that she's lying or could change her mind.
Giving men some direct control over their ability to reproduce is only a good thing. And if both partners were paranoid about pregnancy like my wife and I, both partners would use it as a redundancy.
Sounds like an "apply directly to the forehead" scam with that kind of title. It's long past time male birth control was available so hopefully this works. Even if this one doesn't go anywhere it...
Sounds like an "apply directly to the forehead" scam with that kind of title.
It's long past time male birth control was available so hopefully this works.
Even if this one doesn't go anywhere it can help push demand for another solution to get funding.
Good catch. Thanks. I thought by now that system would be dead, but I guess we're still suffering the consequences of it. @cfabbro thanks for updating the link.
Good catch. Thanks. I thought by now that system would be dead, but I guess we're still suffering the consequences of it.
If they're Catholics, they'll be opposed to it still. If they're not, most would be fine with it like they are with women's HBC and other contraceptives.
If they're Catholics, they'll be opposed to it still. If they're not, most would be fine with it like they are with women's HBC and other contraceptives.
Honestly after hearing all the nightmares that hormonal birth control can cause in women, I'm not too keen to step up to the plate with an experimental solution. I'm interested to see if there any long-term side effects to something like this
What's really frustrating is how many side effects there are for HBC for women and how often the side effects are described as the reason for the HBC for men studies to be discontinued. When they seem incredibly similar in description.
This isn't a shot at you, yeah it's not great. But also some level of parity in the expectations would be nice.
I don't expect any women to take a birth control (or medicine in general) that they aren't comfortable with the possible side effects of. I don't think that it's unfair to feel the same way about my own health. There are plenty of effective methods of contraception outside of hormonal BC, including vasectomies, condoms, abstinence, etc.
I explicitly stated this wasn't a shot at you. It's a hundred percent a shot at the system in the aggregate. You're free to make whatever choices you want with your body, and I have zero opinion about it. That's why I framed the comment as I did.
And the reality is, many women will take the side effects for the security of not becoming pregnant. The weight of the two against each other isn't comparable. And it's why so many women take oral HBC or have IUDs and implants (about 37% of women between 15 and 49) and another 28% use permanent female sterilization (which may have hormonal side effects depending on the method). Cis men don't have the same cost/benefit; they have the same financial risk that women do of a born child that they don't want custody of, but they don't have the physical and mental health risks and collateral social/school/career effects of pregnancy weighting that end of the scale.
Add in that women's complaints about side effects are often ignored and well, perfect storm.
From 2016
That there isn't even money being put into it is even more infuriating honestly. But as I said, not about you. I have no opinion about your personal choices at all.
It's fair for you to have mindset about what you are personally comfortable with. But it isn't fair to let that mindset prevent the option from being available to others.
Not saying that you're the one calling the shots, but many pharma companies seem to be stating that men don't want BC with any side effects.
I'm confused, where did I say that the option shouldn't be available to others?
My original statement was this:
Never did I imply that no one should have the option to take birth control if they want to. I'm not even sure why my comments are even getting replied to with statements that are totally unrelated to what I said. I think people are trying to use my comment as a staging field for an argument that no one here is making against them and I would appreciate it if they didn't.
I'm replying to your comment where you said:
I interpreted that as "there's already enough alternatives, so it doesn't matter how this one plays out."
I'm not looking to nitpick or start a back and forth, just sharing that this is the part that led me to respond to you that way, and possibly why others did as well.
Wasn't staging an argument, nor trying to have one with you. Was tangenting off of the topic of side effects and expressing a systemic frustration.
But if you want to express the disatisfacton with my comments and their placement, it's more helpful to say it to me and not to @ShroudedScribe. /Gen
One of the reasons for that is that medication under trial have their side effects evaluated against the symptoms when not taking the medication. Which in woman means comparing HBC side effects against the various symptoms (and their risks) of pregnancy. This results in a much higher tolerance for side effects.
Since men don't directly mediate a symptom/risk by taking HBC medication, the tolerance for side effects is lower. And there's no mechanism to account for indirectly preventing symptoms in others when evaluating side effects.
Empathy is a pretty good mechanism for that. We know the negative effects pregnancy has on a woman. Men should have the choice to deal with the bad side effects to take away some of the burden from women without having to get a surgery that you need another to undo.
We’ve established that both pregnancy and the hormonal birth control have negative effects on a woman’s body, if I can take something to prevent both of those things in my wife I’d do it in a heartbeat. I’ll get a vasectomy after we have kids but until then we have to rely on condoms which aren’t perfect. With abortions becoming illegal all over the country it’s more important now than ever to make some progress with male birth control.
Yeah, I said the above in a later comment in the chain. Although in the article I linked the men in the study themselves overwhelmingly said they'd consider continuing to take the medication despite the side effects.
Female HBC has other known benefits (controlling periods which is especially useful in endometriosis). The female surgical alternative (having your tubes tied) is comparatively very high risk. We are, for better or for worse, not comparing apples to oranges. Vasectomy is high efficacy, low risk, and has few known side effects. The only real downside is that it is not reversible. I am personally of the opinion that in any committed relationship, men should be more willing than they are to undergo vasectomy if you both decide you do not want any more children and the woman wants to be off hormonal birth control.
I suspect that male HBC would have similar useful side effects for certain conditions, we just don't necessarily know what they are yet. I agree that both partners in a monogamous relationship, and perhaps even more so outside of one, should be actively responsible for managing birth control. It's really in everyone's best interest.
My wife and I didn't want children so I got a vasectomy after we got married at age 30 for the reasons you mentioned, and she was able to go off of birth control after being on it for over a decade. It was a little bit of a battle to convince someone to do the procedure since I was relatively young and childless. Urologist wouldn't just do it. I had to fight for it with my primary who then gave me a referral and told the urologist that I was making this decision of sound mind. Then it was another round of that with the urologist himself before he agreed.
I've heard that it's even more difficult for young childless women to get tubal ligations. And I get it - doctors have been sued for performing the procedure and then the patient changing their mind. But yeah, sometimes the "obvious" route of permanent birth control is difficult to obtain.
at a certain point for men, it's probably both more effective and cheaper (with insurance) to freeze some sperm and get a vasectomy
Is insurance going to cover IVF procedures 10 years down the line? I don't know what insurance companies would think but it sounds like a ton of money and would remove the chance of having a more natural... process (??). IDK, it weirds me out a little.
Besides all that, in the article they describe a procedure that's like a temporary vasectomy performed by injecting a gel into the tubes (I lost my spot and I don't know the term)
If this works out it sounds like it might be the best option for male birth control and given the various issues with female birth control, maybe the best option period.
I suppose it depends on your insurance, but they already cover IVF, so I’m unclear on why that wouldn’t be true in the future. Barring any crazy legal barriers that some states might try to enact, it seems reasonable to expect it’ll continue to be covered.
Fewer than half of states mandate the coverage currently
Fertility/IVF coverage by state, resolve.org
And I know "crazy legal" stuff might seem unlikely, the number of states prohibiting abortion is having some real side effects in the area of fertility care too.
And just because a carrier covers it now doesn't mean that they'll cover it 10 years from now.
Don’t forget to practice the 3-2-1 backup system
3-2-1 implies a live copy, though, which is kind of the opposite of the goal here. ;)
Why not just get the vasectomy and if you want kids later get a reverse vasectomy?
Vasectomy reversals don't always work.
When I got mine, my doctor said to assume that it would be permanent. A reversal is possible, but not guaranteed. It's also expensive and not covered by my insurance. There is a 10-30% chance that reversal does not work.
Also, when you go for your consultation, they make sure that you're final about your decision. If you tell them that you would consider reversal for some reason, they won't even do the procedure. The permanency is actually why many young men are refused the procedure. I had to talk my doctor into it at age 30.
Wow, had no idea the odds were so low. I had heard a while back that it was reversible and even had a chance of reversing itself, which was apparently a load of bull someone fed me.
Thanks for the info!
Yeah, there are a ton of misconceptions about vasectomies. It does have a chance of reversing itself, but the odds depend on the method used. An old way of doing it is to just cut the vas deferens and use clips to clamp them together. A newer method is to remove a section of the vas deferens and then cauterize both remaining ends. This makes it nearly impossible for them to ever grow back together.
If there's a failure (meaning it reverses on its own), it generally happens early on. You're supposed to submit a sperm test a couple of months after the procedure to make sure it didn't reverse, but apparently many men neglect to do this which can cause surprise failures.
Because despite pop culture, it's not a 100% thing. That said, it's not a bad option, just unreliable.
I participated in this study, AMA. Took it for 18 months with no side effects and no children, then successfully had children afterwards.
Are you able to speak more about it? The process, did you use other birth control methods, did you trust it etc
Came in a big pump bottle like hand sanitizer. Apply after showering on shoulders and upper arms, basically where a T-shirt covers. No contact with wife/kids until it dries, so I would do it right before leaving for work.
You weren't allowed to use other birth control so they only recruited couples who were ok with having a kid! That was part of the reason it took the study a long time to find enough people.
I had no side effects other than increased energy. When I get blood work done as part of my physicals I have lower than average testosterone, and the gel kills your natural production and then includes a supplement, so my testosterone level increased slightly while using it.
The only difficult part was that you cannot miss days and it has to absorb for a couple hours. We took a beach trip while I was using it and I had to wake up at 6 to apply it so it would dry in time before we went to the beach.
If it were available today I would use it again.
Is there a reason to use a gel instead of a pill?
Androgens (such as testosterone, which is part of this treatment) traditionally can't be administered orally because they don't have good bioavailability after passing through your digestive system. Iirc they get filtered out by your liver. Absorbing them through the skin means they go straight into your bloodstream rather than passing through your digestive system, avoiding that issue.
Would you recommend it? How hard was it to avoid getting the gel on your partner?
Not interrobang but my wife uses a similar gel for HRT, and it's not particularly hard to avoid getting any on me or my cats as long as she doesn't hug me or rub that part of her arms on anything right after applying. At least her gel only took ~30 minutes to dry. So that's what I'd hope for if this ever came to market.
The "issue" with male birth control is that it will never be a replacement for or equivalent of female birth control simply because in a lot of cases the woman is the interested party at risk.
Consider this, you're a woman getting in bed with a new fling or a one night stand and he says "don't worry baby I'm on birth control". Do you even give the tiniest sliver of consideration to this unprovable claim? Of course not, you proceed as if this was never uttered.
It's good for overall responsible people and committed couples.
I mean, yeah, it'll obviously be safer as a woman to continue to have your own method of birth control. But what about men out there in the same situation now? Sure, they don't have to suffer the physical impact of unplanned pregnancy, but they are impacted by it legally and financially. Having some agency over preventing that themselves (beyond just condom usage but less serious than a vasectomy) can be a benefit -- they no longer have to trust their female partner is on birth control.
That's no different than it is now, just with the genders reversed. It's a form of redundancy, which is never a bad thing.
I don't think the goal here is to replace HBC for women. More than half of women reportedly use HBC for purposes other than contraception.
This argument is a little bit misandrist. If worst come to worst, as a woman, you can have an abortion, while if you are male you are screwed.
Thankfully it doesn't happen often, but it happens. There is this guy in my family that was dating an abusive woman. She convinced him to give themselves some time to fix the relationship, secretly stopped taking the pill and got pregnant. They are still together "for the sake of the kid", with her being a stay-at-home mother (who doesn't really do much) and still abusive.
So yeah, I wouldn't trust any woman to take the pill either, so your argument actually works both ways.
This is not true for women in an increasing number of places, and it ignores the physical toll pregnancy and abortion can have on a woman's body. I absolutely acknowledge that male birth control gives men more agency over avoiding the legal and financial consequences fathering a child can have for them (and I brought that up myself in a sister comment -- I think this is a good reason many guys would take birth control if available to them), but it's disingenuous to treat the consequences of unplanned pregnancy as equivalent between both parties when only one party bears any physical risk.
That's why I said "if worst comes to worst", it shouldn't be and it isn't a first option. Abortion is available in most developed countries, specially in Europe where I am from. That option, terrible as it might be, is not available for men. And while it's true that only one party bears any physical risk, that one party has the final say in the legal and financial consequences men face.
OP said that the "issue" with male birth control is women can't trust men to take it. The same is true for men, but it would be misogynist to say that female birth control is an issue for men since you can't really trust women. If something is misogynistic, inverting the genders makes it misandrist.
It's a pity that in 2024, men's reproductive rights are seen as a problem for women, as if having a male birth control pill or gel will completely erase every other form of contraception in the planet.
If you don't trust your one night stand or partner, you can always use one contraceptive method each.
I definitely agree with you that having male birth control available is broadly a good thing and that a man's interests in needing to trust that his partner is using birth control to avoid unplanned fatherhood parallels the description above. I replied to the same comment you originally replied to expressing exactly that sentiment. I also agree that the existence of birth control for men doesn't harm its availability for women. We agree on most thing here.
My issue is solely with framing the issue as though women have it easier through language like "women can just get an abortion". Even setting aside the physical toll that takes on one's body, I think you would be surprised by how poor abortion rights can be even within Europe -- women here in Germany still sometimes travel to the Netherlands for abortion access -- and that's to say nothing of the absolutely dire situation in parts of the US. Male birth control being available is good for both men and women, but let's not argue for it by dismissing very real reproductive rights issues faced by those who can become pregnant.
Fair enough, I completely agree with you and with your other comment.
My main gripe was OP's comment and I never meant to underestimate the secondary effects of abortion and/or its availability, I just said that at the end of the day, while not the best one, it is another option, an option that my family member didn't have and he's stuck in a relationship for the sake of the child. His girlfriend even said that if he dared to break up with her, he'd sue him for domestic violence (but this is something egregious that mostly happens in Spain and not an issue in most countries). That's why, while being a feminist, I also take men's (reproductive) rights seriously.
Perhaps I came across as too strong since I am tired of reading how male reproductive rights are a women's issue when (and I agree) it's not true the other way around. At the end of the day: "my body, my choice" applies.
Again, I think you are right and completely agree with you. Sorry if it came off as anything other than that.
Ah yeah I suppose it was just ambiguously worded in a way that rubbed me the wrong way. No offense taken at all, and I absolutely agree that male reproductive rights are important independently of how they affect women (and honestly male birth control being available seems like a win-win regardless).
Fair enough, I guess women like that have never been in my orbit nor of anyone in my social circle.
I guess at the end of the day each method serves the person taking it first and foremost.
I think that is overstating the issue a bit. I would gladly use something like this. My partner is considering having her IUD removed for other medical reasons and this would be a great way to make that sort of decision easier.
Yes. The lack of trust in a woman I don't know is why I never put myself into that situation in the first place. I always made sure that we were on the same page about STDs and what could happen during an accidental pregnancy before having sex with someone. And even after that conversation, there's still a chance that she's lying or could change her mind.
Giving men some direct control over their ability to reproduce is only a good thing. And if both partners were paranoid about pregnancy like my wife and I, both partners would use it as a redundancy.
Sounds like an "apply directly to the forehead" scam with that kind of title.
It's long past time male birth control was available so hopefully this works.
Even if this one doesn't go anywhere it can help push demand for another solution to get funding.
I actually thought this would be some Axe Body Spray joke.
non-amp link: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mens-health/male-birth-control-gel-results-promising-rcna153349
Good catch. Thanks. I thought by now that system would be dead, but I guess we're still suffering the consequences of it.
@cfabbro thanks for updating the link.
I wonder what the pro life people will do when it's mens bodily autonomy in question?
If they're Catholics, they'll be opposed to it still. If they're not, most would be fine with it like they are with women's HBC and other contraceptives.