First off, this thread seems to bring out the most "reddit-like" posts on HN.
If you've come here to shoot a funny one-liner comment, please reconsider - the point is discussion, not karma farming.
Now, on the topic itself - I really wonder about the safety profile of these. While this selectively inhibits only RARα and is thus "biased" towards mostly acting on testes, it could also have side-effects - and while the effect might not be pronounced yet, with long term use it definitely could be, especially if all the RARα receptors get inhibited (will beta and gamma pick up the slack? what is it going to cause?).
Considering the 99% effectiveness claim and the method of action, I wonder if the embryos in that 1% case can even survive.
1) Long-term effects are surely a topic but as with female birth control and the risks connected to it, as well as female-male couples where the female has an incompatibility with birth control, the male partners might take the risk of using it
2) Does it matter if the embryo will survive even in the 1% case? Somebody who uses birth control would not want a child anyway, right?
Contraception should be readily available for those that want it. Abortion should absolutely and definitevely be available for those that want and need it. There are far too many opinions connected to religious dogma, both consciously and unconsciously, that seek to deny women and couples access to abortion. Even the damned bible offers up instructions on abortives and how to use them, but this seems to be glossed over by hand wringing people who want to insert their rosaries into women's ovaries.
That quickly breaks down when you apply it to some of the recent culture war topics. For instance:
* as it relates to vaccine mandates: "As they have the right to…for themselves.
* as it relates to calling people by their preferred pronouns: "As they have the right to…for themselves."
Of course, both issues are far more nuanced than a simple "As they have the right to…for themselves" can refute, but so is abortion. You can't take complex issues and take potshots at them with one sentence comments.
It's all so much more simple than that. It boils down to a social contract.
The contract being common decency. Vaccinations are part of that contract (it affects others), pronouns are part of that contract (they affect others), abortions _are not_ (the only affect those having them, and potentially the medical professionals).
There is no nuance at all. You are free, of course, to not "sign" that contract - but that means that those who have are not obligated to apply it to you.
The anti-abortion "argument" (everyone on all sides are really just asserting things because there doesn't appear to be anything to argue about) is that abortion is murdering a child.
If someone accepts that frame, would you attempt to argue that there is no social contract to protect the lives of children? That seems like a tough argument to carry.
Unfortunately, that argument tends to break down almost immediately after birth, so “protecting the children” becomes a cheap catch-all excuse for selective engagement. Defunding education, defunding school food, defunding numerous programs that actually protect children in favor of cash in their pocket. Morality sold cheaply or abandoned for convenience, except when forcing their will on others, especially if it only affects someone else.
Did you narrow down that topic to American conservatives? I'm not familiar with your politics but that doesn't sound familiar in context of my country.
Also, this is whataboutism. If someone cares about A but not enough about B, it doesn't mean that A is not a good thing.
Of course this predicates that there are differences between A and B. The GP is, I believe, making the point that claiming to protect unwanted unborn children (A) when campaigning for anti-abortion regulation is just a power-play to dictate a lifestyle choice, if it does not follow up with protecting the unwanted born children (B). I think, there is merit to this.
Observations shows that most societies forbid woman to throw their unwanted born child into a garbage bin, so if you claim that women are or should be as free as men in their lifestyle choices, where does that leave the woman? Either you need birth control to prevent that situation, or a social security network that takes care of the unwanted child after the fact. In my simple, male mind this should be a given. Otherwise, if I were a woman, I would refuse sex. The ancient Greeks have a funny story about that [0].
Of course, you can also say that women aren't allowed to be as free as men in their lifestyle choices. And I think, I'm not going too far out on a limb when I say that's actually at the bottom of this issue. Some people think it is OK to make women less free than men in the service of their ideals, while others think it is not. Resolve this tension and you will make progress.
> It does if A always comes at the expense of another person C. Morality only via the sacrifice of others isn’t belief, it is control and punishment.
Hypothetically [0], if someone saved another person from being murdered by a close relative would that count as proving to you their morality system is based on freedom and forgiveness?
I think that framing makes the argument vacuous. If an action is framed as murder, how would OP defend in the first place? Any argument would be tough to carry. It would be arguing against a tautology. You are right to mention how the "debate" here is people asserting their arguments.
What I find most tough to carry is the consequent: there are ~600,000 (rough number of abortions per year in USA) people "murdering" their own "children" every single year. I suppose in the process of putting their faith in god these people have removed all their faith in humanity...
If you view the fetus? embryo? as a human life, then abortion doesn't just affect the person having it, but also the life being aborted. Not only that, but what are the moral implications to the rest of society if "murder" is allowed?
I must be misunderstanding because that seems like the most common morality basis in the world. People who equate running over a squirrel in the road to vehicular manslaughter (as if you had hit a human child) are seen as extremists, and someone who was OK with hunting deer as well as humans would be seen as having some sort of mental condition. The majority view is that species matters
I’m all aboard for that when it is something that exists in our world as the same species rather than a collection of DNA. It’s a miracle that must be protected for about 9 months until it’s then fine to die in a gutter as long as we punish the parent after, all because we need to respect that one collection of DNA happened to hit and another collection of DNA and therefore multiplied. Further, the claimed examples of “protection” were only examples of things resolved by punishment, not protection, which is telling about what goal is truly fundamental.
I'm pro commenting, but let me play devil's advocate.
If you view leaving a comment as murder, then commenting doesn't just affect the person partaking in it, but also the life of everyone reading the comments. Not only that, but what are the moral implications to the rest of society if "murder" is allowed?
Here's is my point though: if you assume something is murder, of course you will conclude that it is bad. There's no "Devil's advocate"—or for that matter—any argument at all to be had. The entire debate revolves around the assumption you simply asserted for "Devil's advocate".
Well if we go to an even more extreme degree with the devil’s advocate thing: what is the difference between an ~4 month embryo (or any cutoff after which miscarriage becomes very unlikely) and a newborn?
Either of them isn’t a real person, neither is fully conscious. Sure a newborn can feel pain but infanticide can be done in a humane way. What we are depriving from the newborn is the opportunity to live and experience the rest of its life but the same applies in both cases.
And in a quite a few ancient societies infanticide was fully acceptable (killing slightly older children was generally not) and used as a somewhat safer alternative to abortion.
> Well if we go to an even more extreme degree with the devil’s advocate thing: what is the difference between an ~4 month embryo (or any cutoff after which miscarriage becomes very unlikely) and a newborn?
From a practical perspective, giving up the newborn for adoption is significantly easier than the 4 month embryo - it's already been carried to term and birthed. And quite a few humans, correctly or otherwise, feel a lot more 'ick' around the idea of infanticide vs. abortion. But they also feel a lot more 'ick' around late gestation abortion too - most states have had gestational limits around abortion. Very few have had none. (Many of those with gestational limits do have exceptions around health/safety issues for the mother, or significant medical issues with the fetus, etc.)
It's kind of a strange argument because most of the US did accept the premise that at a certain point in the embryo's development abortion becomes less acceptable. I can't speak as definitively for the rest of the world, but a cursory google shows that the situation is quite similar - most countries that allow for abortion have gestational restrictions.
Why so snarky? It's pretty clear cko understands that and is trying to convey your exact point to the person they responded to (who made the opposite assumption)
>abortions _are not_ (the only affect those having them, and potentially the medical professionals).
Strong disagree. They affect at minimum 2 (potentially 3 depending how you define life/person) by default. Both the parents are impacted by the choice either physically, emotionally, financially, and responsibility.
Situations where the two parents conflict on this choice are common and the power is incredibly asymmetrical and can/does lead to abuse.
The female has asymmetrical power in this situation regarding the two parents.
Example:
- Most pro-choice supporters would support the female deciding that she was too young to become a mother and terminating a pregnancy not because of any medical reason, but because of the changes to her life it would cause (ie, "I'm not ready to be a mother yet"). This same option is not available to males. If the female has decided to keep the child, the male in most countries is now automatically bound to this decision and generally, at least financially, will have their life impacted even if they have the same reasoning (ie, "I'm not ready to be a father yet"). Alternatively, if the female has decided to terminate and the male desperately wants the child, there is no recourse.
I say asymmetrical because the results/responsibility of the decision are forced to be shared, however, the power to make said decision lies only with a single party.
I do not propose a solution here or make a judgement I'm simply pointing it out because the person I replied to made it sound like this decision is a simple and doesn't impact others.
I for one reject your social contract and despise the self-righteousness of people who think a social contract overrides personal liberty.
You want others to partake in your social contract, but you would probably be appalled if that contract demanded people not be overweight (affects others wherever healthcare is in limited supply), or maybe the contract demands people not be gay (lowers birth rates and therefore societies GDP… also increases disease transmission). Social contracts come and go with time and yours is as wrong tomorrow as my proposed one is today
Personal liberty is fine, until it starts infringing on my own, which these include. You don't want to vaccinate? You being infringing on my ability to stay healthy while participating in society. Vaccines aren't fully effective, not everyone can be vaccinated, etc., so to eradicate disease we rely on the majority of people getting vaccinated.
You not using my preferred pronouns or name is simply a rude thing to do. If we remove the bizarre political fixation on it, if I tell you my name is John and you call me Joanna just because you think I look more like a Joanna, you're an asshole. I'm not in favor of making being an asshole illegal, but I will call you one.
I'm actually fully OK with there being consequences to being overweight! It does put a large burden on the healthcare system. Right now the healthcare system is largely privatized so, well, it's not like public health is the primary concern for it anyway, but if it were, sure I believe that there should be actions taken to reduce obesity. We have a lot of promising anorectic medications right now, primarily in the form of the GLP-1 and related medications, and I'd be in favor of overweight and obese people needing to also go on these if they want access to public healthcare for issues that are related to metabolic disorder, etc. But we're in a privatized system, so...
You're starting to really stretch the argument thin with the gay bit, though. Disease transmissions here still requires the informed consent of both parties - I'm not going to get HIV from a gay person without having some form of consensual sex with them, outside of behaviors that are already criminal - rape, contaminating something I'm eating with their semen, etc. This isn't the same as refusing vaccination and then participating in society for diseases that are transmissible like covid or ebola or similar. For birth rate/GDP, we do not enforce actions on straight couples when it comes to childbirth (or STDs, which while transmission rate is generally lower for some STDs for heterosexual intercourse it's obviously not exclusively limited to homosexual intercourse) so these suppositions seem to be targeted based not on the general outcome but simply on the fact the person is gay. If we started mandating child birth for straight people for whatever reason, then we can start having this conversation - but even in a fairly dystopic world where we are requiring married couples have kids, we can still provide options for gay people. Require them 'sponsor' an additional child for a straight couple, require them adopt, require surrogacy and them raising a child, etc. But targeting them just because of their sexual orientation would be quite obviously bigoted.
"Social contract" is a made up term used to legitimatize government intervention, i.e. statist by nature, and built upon violence. It is a myth used to justify state coercion and centralized authority.
> A society is certainly conceivable in which there was no governmental intervention in family life or education and in which the sole function of law enforcement was the upholding of universal rights.
I am in favor of "common decency, mutual respect, live and let live".
That is not what "social contract" is about (unless you keep playing the redefinition of words game, which many people do when arguing in favor of "muh social contract"), and no, we do not need the Government for that.
Dude, it doesn’t matter if it’s Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Islam; any religion that says infants have souls, is not likely to have a God lenient to that action.
It’s a bet on atheism, declaring that any religion whatsoever preaching infant ensoulment must be false. Be careful what you bet on.
For most of it's history Protestantism did not take any specific issue with abortion and considered it a weird Catholic thing similar to their views on birth control. It wasn't until the 1960s that this shifted, largely due to political machinations.
Each of those has sects that do not follow the talking point you're putting forward. If it isn't clear to them, then by what right do you get to declare the truth for everyone else? Go debate some more, before trying to unilaterally rule for all mankind.
Islam typically sides with people doing what they have to to live, including eating pork if that is what it takes to survive. In regards to abortion, the mothers life takes paramount.
Case in point, quit waving your religious dogma in my face. Its not wanted. I've no desire, and quite frankly, absolutely no need, to be careful what I bet on in terms of beliefs. Anything that requires belief without proof meeting even the most meagre bar height is nonsense.
Since you seem to be giving others here a hard time about Abrahamic ideas of belief, hell, and morals, I'll leave you with a quote from your own book:
Matthew 6:1: “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.
I'm not sure why people get religious about this. The far more interesting approach is to try to use reason along side other current laws to determine the answer to two questions - what defines a human life, and when is it acceptable to take one? For example, trying to compare things like medical support for preterm babies to medical support of coma patients to investigate the logic behind viable fetuses vs various life support methods, etc.
I didn't say anything; I'm not the person you were replying to. But I will say that I suspect your arguments that God has the authority over a document people wrote is, again, unlikely to find an audience among those who don't think He exists.
Many things in life are traumatic. Me leaving the Catholic church was traumatic for my parents. My years-long girlfriend cheating on me was traumatic for me.
Does trauma for the 1% outweigh the benefits of the 99%?
Did I say that it does? The post above mine asked if it mattered. It matters, but it is one factor among many that goes into family planning or sexual relationships.
The target group may well be strongly biased towards failures resulting in children born. Using birth control for, well, being in control.
And we lack data on how bad messing with RAR regulation really is.. too much confounding effects from how bad deficiency & over-supplementation are on the mother.
> YCT-529 works by interfering with vitamin A signaling necessary for sperm production and fertility.
> The importance of dietary vitamin A and retinoid signaling for male germ cell development and differentiation has been recognized for many years6. All trans-retinoic acid (Fig. 1a) is an active metabolite of vitamin A that exerts its function, at least partly, by binding to retinoic acid receptors (RARs). The RARs α, β, and γ, are encoded by the Rara, Rarb, and Rarg genes in mice, and Rarα and Rarγ have been validated as contraceptive targets by genetic knockouts resulting in male sterility7,8. Notably, the effects on spermatogenesis in the absence of RARα most resemble the loss of RAR signaling in vitamin A deficiency, and the mice are otherwise normal7,8. Further, the effects on spermatogenesis in animals treated orally with the dual RARα/RARγ antagonist BMS-189453 (Fig. 1a, b) closely phenocopied the absence of RARα function. Importantly, the resulting male sterility is reversible9,10,11. We, therefore, wished to identify RARα−selective inhibitors for potential male non-hormonal contraception. Our study describes the development of YCT-529, a highly selective RARα antagonist that reduces sperm counts in mice and non-human primates. Mating studies with male mice treated with 10 mg/kg/day for 4 weeks show that YCT-529 is 99% effective in preventing pregnancies and that the mice fully regain fertility after drug cessation.
This raised concerns in my mind. Retinoids are associated with birth defects, so they'd have to make sure there isn't crossover of the drug to the woman and that it wouldn't cause these problems.
Shouldn't be an issue if the contraception is doing it's job since the retinoids are only a risk while taking them while pregnant. I also doubt semen contain retinoids or any rel level of vitamin A.
We had alpha-blockers for a long time now, which prevents ejaculation but not orgasm; read: it can completely block the emission phase of ejaculation, while orgasmic function is retained.
Example: Silodosin.
You need to experiment with it. Sensitive clinical trials measured rates as high as 90-99%.
It is entirely non-hormonal. It does not affect libido (rarely), while hormonal male contraceptives do, and it is reversible upon cessation, without any delay, unlike hormonal male contraceptives.
Circulatory side effects like dizziness or orthostatic hypotension do occur, though they tend to be mild and dose-dependent.
You're right that it doesn't stop sperm production, just emission. As for "the drip"; that's pre-ejaculate, which doesn't contain sperm inherently, but can pick up residual sperm in the urethra from a prior ejaculation.
And that's true, anejaculatory orgasms can feel strange or less satisfying for some, but it is not universal.
> Otherwise if taken as a single dose fresh, side effects like orthostatic hypotension are vastly increased.
That is true.
Edit: I / We will have to research the side-effect profile and mechanisms of the mentioned pill (in the submission). I have not yet done so. They mention no side-effects but it might be too early to tell.
> You're right that it doesn't stop sperm production, just emission. As for "the drip"; that's pre-ejaculate, which doesn't contain sperm inherently, but can pick up residual sperm in the urethra from a prior ejaculation.
I’d like to stress that point a bit.
I had a vasectomy about a year ago, and being the weirdo that I am, I figured I’d see how much sperm remained in my ejaculate (and for how long) after the procedure.
I waited maybe two or three days after the procedure, and then for the next three days, I’d collect three samples per day and take a look under my microscope. In the first four or five samples, the swimmers were swimming hard. Told my brother (who had been trying for a kid for a couple years, and had observed his own samples trying correlate diet and other factors to improved motility) about the straight laser beams I was seeing in the scope — he nearly had a fit when I described how long it took them to go from one side of the slide to the other under the given magnification.
It was the ninth sample when there were very few observable sperm, and what remained looked kinda drunk and unmotivated.
All of that to say: if you’re going to get a vasectomy, when your doctor tells you to abstain from condom-less/birthcontrol-less sex until you come back for a sperm count, take that seriously. It’s amazing how motile they are even when kinda old, and also amazing how many hang around downstream of the vas deferens after many ejaculations. And, while rare, sometimes the vas deferens do manage to reconnect.
And a bonus tip along these lines: testosterone replacement, even without hCG, is not a reliable form of birth control. I’m on (and was on) TRT, without hCG, and the concentration of sperm under the scope looked higher than any YouTube video I could find at the same magnification (meanwhile my bro is taking silly amounts of hCG and struggling). I hear a lot of people joke about TRT having the beneficial side effect of infertility, but that’s far from a certainty.
Relatedly, this is also why the “failure” rate for vasectomy isn’t vanishingly close to 0%: it’s almost all dudes having unprotected sex in the first month or so after the procedure.
Spontaneous reconnection happens but is extremely rare. If you can follow the doctor’s orders for a few weeks, vasectomy’s failure rate may as well be 0%.
What's the mechanism for that? Maybe a few sperm are stuck in the sperm ducts past the point they were severed, but the ducts are cut and sealed, aren't they? Even if they weren't sealed, it would be Russian Roulette trying to get across the gap in what's effectively just body cavity space.
My expectation would be the first sample might have lower but significant sperm count, and each subsequent sample would decrease dramatically until any residual sperm died and the count was zero. You're talking about motility, not count, but it doesn't sound like you noticed a drastic decrease from sample to sample. That doesn't seem right according to my understanding.
Well, to be clear, I didn’t actually count the sperm, as I was more interested in a rough, qualitative (rather than rigorous, quantitative) observation.
That said, yeah, the relative amount of sperm didn’t drop off noticeably at the offset. And I think that kind of makes sense: as someone with a relatively short refractory period, let’s suppose I ejaculate two or three times in 5 minutes: I doubt (though I could be wrong) that my body actually evacuated all of the seminal fluid (and fully replaced it) each time. I would bet there’s simply a bunch “left in the tank”. Would be interesting to hear from a urologist (or someone with similar expertise).
> And that's true, anejaculatory orgasms can feel strange or less satisfying for some, but it is not universal.
I would have been ok with less satisfying but it felt horrible, like it was going somewhere else instead of coming out. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone
> Both mice and non-human primates fully regained fertility after stopping the drug. Mice regained fertility within six weeks, and non-human primates fully recovered their sperm count in 10-15 weeks.
Hard pass on messing with my fertility like that, too, TBH.
What exactly is your point? I have already stated my preferred methods, none of which involve hormonal birth control pills. Moreover, I have never attempted to persuade or pressure anyone into using such medications.
In relationships, mutual understanding and compromise are essential. I fully acknowledge that certain decisions come with trade-offs. For example, I would not hesitate to take Silodosin and deal with its potential side effects if it benefited the relationship. I would expect the same level of consideration in return (reciprocity), but that does not equate to coercion or irresponsibility.
My position remains unchanged: I would avoid hormonal contraceptives for myself, and I do not advocate their use by others. My preferred approaches are non-hormonal and do not carry such implications (as I have stated in previous comments). That said, I believe that in a committed relationship, some level of shared sacrifice or compromise is not only inevitable, but necessary.
Given that, I fail to see how your point is relevant to the context of our discussion. If your intention was to imply that I expect others to make sacrifices I would not make myself, then I outright reject that assumption. Mutual responsibility, respect, and voluntary compromise are foundational to any relationship I engage in, coercion has no place in it.
If this conversation is shifting from an exchange of ideas to personal insinuations, I see little value in continuing it further.
If no semen is emitted, the chance of pregnancy is null (more about it in my other comments).
Plus 90–99% suppression of ejaculation has been recorded and suggested that it has a potentially high contraceptive efficacy, so that is way better than withdrawal.
Experiment, maybe it affects you in a way that you get 99%, which would make it a very efficient hormone-free male birth control pill.
Side-note: personally I prefer IUDs, and/or a medication that has been extensively studied, so this pill can wait.
The "as typically used" quoted figure for pulling out ("withdrawal") is 80% success, but the ideal use figure is 96-98%. If you know a little bit about yourself and also aren't going back to back without peeing, you can do a lot better than the 80% figure. (Also yeah, it's amusing that both of these figures are more or less identical to male condoms.)
(Meta-comment: probably best to keep everything in "success" percentage figures for direct comparison, instead of switching to failure percentages for some figures.)
I have always been amazed at how effective the pull out method was.
I had sex for years with my wife and always pulled out. 2x a week for probably 10 years. After we decided to have a kid, she was pregnant in a month.
Really incredible how effective such a simple solution is
What's the point? Well, the other 99% of the experience and all its pleasure, intimacy and sensation adds up to a lot more than those few seconds of ejaculation.
To be fair, I think most normal people in a relationship use this method, but if you tell people on the Internet about it, they get upset for some reason.
Most normal people? The implied judgement aside, that is wildly untrue. Most people (80+ % who are not trying for a child) use birth control, this is an easy stat to look up. Maybe people “get upset” because you’re making things up?
I'm not saying it's a very common method (maybe, maybe not), but cycle timing is often included in "birth control" stats and used as a secondary measure with other forms of birth control.
You can just look up these numbers, of various forms of birth control. That exclude cycle timing.
And none of them say it’s “most people”. Perhaps some unmeasured population uses it as a secondary method, that’s total speculation and kind of beside the point
Are we (or the grandparent) talking most people at one point in time, or most people at any time during their life? If it's the latter, then I do think it's a valid claim, but I haven't seen any stats that cover those sorts of numbers. Eg have more than 50% of people in a committed relationship never used the timing method? Most of the couples I am good friends with have used the cycle timing method when they want another kid, want to delay it, but are open to having one sooner. This is also commonly combined with secondary measures, such as condoms, pulling out, or even abstinence during the fertile window (why measure cycle timing if you're not changing your behavior, using another method, based on the observation).
no, this doesn’t seem to be the case. more than 80% of those avoiding pregnancy use condoms, pill, tied tubes, vasectomy, iud, etc… this 80% does not include withdrawal. [0]
i could be misinterpreting what you mean by “most normal people” but it’s a wildly strange use, most people who aren’t seeking pregnancy use some form of contraceptive [0], the pill, condoms, etc… it’s almost 90% of sexually active and its been this steady since 2002.
> … who were not seeking pregnancy, 88% were using a contraceptive method in 2016, and this proportion has remained steady since 2002.
it seems most normal people are using contraceptives.
> …they get upset for some reason
im sure very few people are “upset” about this. are you misinterpreting someone correcting your overestimations as if they’re being upset?
Couples using this method tend to be mostly fine with any "failure". They might want a child but not now, or are not completely sure but would do their best if it happens.
Couples who clearly don't want children typically have already discussed their stance in the couple and will be way more thorough about birth control. That's typically not the demographic that will YOLO it, so I guess you'd get much more pushback on that front ?
I agree and want to add that the scenarios you point out could also be for a single couple at different points in time. Risk tolerance changes over time with different circumstances.
What? This is the definition of anecdotal evidence. It’s not very effective at all in practice, statistically.
> For every 100 people who use the pull out method perfectly, 4 will get pregnant.
> But pulling out can be difficult to do perfectly. So in real life, about 22 out of 100 people who use withdrawal get pregnant every year — that’s about 1 in 5.
> For every 100 people who use the pull out method perfectly, 4 will get pregnant.
Are those 4-in-100 distributed randomly?
Did the pregnancies result despite 100% adherence to the method, or was there occasional failure to adhere?
There's a big difference between a method being ineffective from the perspective of a health care provider, and a method being ineffective in absolute terms.
A provider has to care about what broad cross sections of people will actually do, rather than what they say they will do.
If you're an individual person who knows they can adhere to the method perfectly, the fact people on average cannot or will not adhere perfectly has no particular relevance to you.
I have no horse in this race, but the same difference in the meaning of "efficacy" arises in all sorts of aspects of health care, like advice on diet and exercise, or the prescription of specific exercises for physical therapy.
The body has several well-regulated mechanisms for handling it.
If semen isn't ejaculated, the body reabsorbs the sperm in the epididymis and recycles the cellular material. Seminal fluids, which are produced during arousal, are either reabsorbed or, in cases like retrograde ejaculation (e.g., with alpha-blockers), pass into the bladder and are later urinated out. The system self-regulates; there's no harmful buildup to worry about. :)
So, TL;DR: You will just urinate it out in our case.
From what I gathered, it does not appear to have an impact on prostate cancer risk since the prostate still undergoes stimulation and fluid production, and the contents are still expelled.
Silodosine-induced retrograde ejaculation does not prevent ejaculation from occurring, it simply redirects the pathway (different anatomical exit).
It is different from chronic ejaculatory abstinence.
Hmm, I wonder if it's really unaffected. Have they found a mechanism for the small but statistically significant increase in prostate cancer rates related to vasectomy?
Sperm is virtually entirely absent from pre-ejaculation fluids if you've peed since the last time you ejaculated. Almost all of the "sperm can be in pre-ejaculate" effect is from having sex a second time in a row without anything flushing out the tubes.
It's not. I think johnisgood and loeg both know this, but they're being dangerously simplistic in some of their replies.
If you recognize emission — not just when expulsion is imminent — and if you pull out and that's the end of vaginal intercourse until you've cleared the urethra again, then that's probably nearly perfect at preventing pregnancy.
Fair, and it needs clarification to avoid conflating pre-ejaculate, seminal plasma, and sperm emission.
It may be confusing, so to clarify: "seminal fluids" is a term typically used to refer to the fluid released during ejaculation, not throughout the arousal phase. The idea that sperm would be in the mix before the emission phase goes against standard reproductive physiology.
Sperm are only actively introduced into seminal fluid during the emission phase of ejaculation; the so-called "grand finale." :D. Before that, in the arousal phase, the fluids released (like pre-ejaculate) typically contain no sperm unless there's residual contamination from a previous ejaculation.
Take it a step further into 'Demolition Man' territory to get the orgasm without any physical contact. Certainly would be good for reducing STDs though no doubt would come with a whole range of societal impacts.
In all honesty, orgasm without physical contact is entirely possible already (mental orgasm / psychological stimulation), but it is not common and not easy.
Fantasy, meditation, hypnosis, Kegel exercises... They could lead to orgasms and sometimes even ejaculation (which would be bad in this case).
Some medications rarely may cause spontaneous orgasms, even, without physical contact, arousal or stimulation.
There is a hormone-free option for men today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat-based_contraception. It's not widely known but has solid science backing it up and even though the wikipedia article claims no long term studies were done, in the 1930s IIRC there was a series of tests done in India and it had men conceive healthy children after a couple of years of using this method. And there have been other long term studies suggesting the same absence of long-term effects if anyone is interested I looked them up a while ago and could go looking for the links.
Could also positively affect offspring if spermatogenesis is blocked at the right step, stopping the gamete progenitors from accumulating somatic mutation. The majority of rare genetic diseases arising from de-novo mutations has its origin in the fathers gamete formation (with increasing risk (i.e accumulation of mutations) at older paternal age). Maybe this could block/slow down this process (i.e cell division) and in 20 years all males that still may want to have kids will take a RARα blocker.
It's not hard to set up nearly fault proof routines and reminders.
For example, I have a pill container for the days of the week. Pills go directly into my pocket and don't come out unless they're going in my mouth (almost always during breakfast.) The pocket to mouth routine makes sure I don't set them down somewhere and the pill box gives proof later that I took them.
Only tangentially related really but almost all of the variance I have ever observed in ability to remember things like this is just trying at all to use a mnemonic or routine.
The above routine is a specific practice to remember something — I basically think it would be effective for anyone that actually did it, and almost all non-adherence would be at step zero.
This is why it won’t succeed. The person getting pregnant is going to want some proof that the contraception is being used properly. And that means something that they can see or something that they do themselves.
That's a solid argument for why a male birth control pill won't substitute for a female birth control pill.
But I don't think it needs to in order to succeed. For women, the stakes are higher. For men, they're still high enough. There's no reason both people can't be on the pill. Yes, it's a bit redundant, but when your goal is safety, redundancy is usually good.
"Trust me, babe, you won't get pregnant because I'm on the (male) pill!" is going to be tough sell in the bedroom. But "guys, control your own fate with a once-daily pill!" will be an easy sell in the inevitable TV ads.
I don't want to get someone pregnant. If I can take a pill to largely ensure this is the case, I'm going to take a pill.
Hell, if I'm engaging in casual sex, I'm going to take both the pill and wear a condom. I've had condoms break and not notice it immediately - thankfully never at the point where I've reached climax, but I could see it happening.
Anecdotal polling from my peer group strongly suggests you are wrong. Every guy I know would rather be responsible for taking an equivalent pill than the woman taking it. Every single one of us has experienced one or more women who missed taking the pill a day here or there and those women weren't that concerned about it. As an add-on (depending on jurisdiction), women have the backup of the abortion decision whereas men do not.
You don't think men worry about having a kid with someone they don't want to, being responsible for 18 years of child support, making hard decisions about whether they want to be involved in the kid's life, etc.?
Men are terrified of getting someone pregnant. At least women have a choice as to what to do about it. If they don't want to keep it, they don't, assuming the law permits it or the law is easy to get around. Men don't ever have that choice.
I believe when they report this, they're talking about whether there has been an unplanned pregnancy over the course of a year with either typical use or "perfect" use. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Cabergoline. Lowers prolactin which peaks after ejaculation. Can reduce or eliminate the refractory period. Problem is there is risk of significant cardiovascular side effects, including valvular disease. And they appear to be cumulative: the more pills you take, the higher the risk.
Men would literally invent and take untested meds instead of using all-natural, granted to them from birth "climax-extra-hard-multiple-times" button in their anus, smh.
As a man who loves anal stimulation and the climaxes I get from it, and does it rather often, I've never managed to have multiple orgasms that way. I assume this is because I haven't managed to orgasm purely from the prostate stimulation and needed to also stimulate my penis, which causes me to hit the refractory period.
Do you have any tips or links on ways to have the orgasms you describe here?
What would that look like? Women complain it's unfair they have to be responsible for birth control in relationships. Now there's the ability for men to shoulder the responsibility too. Will voters, male and female, be ok with not taking the egalitarian path? Obviously governments are concerned about falling birthrates but they already have shown a willingness to continue policies that get them re-elected, even at the expense of birthrates.
I hope you replied to the wrong comment, I don't think women complaining about paying for birth control is a valid reason for sterilizing a population. Also condoms exist.
While there are complaints about cost depending on location, most of the complains are about the side effects of the pill, which women endure and men don't.
> would highly doubt this pill will eliminate tradeoffs
I would, too. But it increases the pool of options, which means that for some people it really is a win-win. Get the same as you’re getting now, but with fewer (or less meaningful to you) side effects.
In a better world it would be sensible to allow the guy to split without child support and so on if he didn’t want the child, but in the real world that would end up hurting a lot of people and birthing lots of kids into poverty. Whether you think that’s worth it is up to you.
Abortion as a right is thinking of abortion as a medical procedure that people have the right to access. Universal access, but men don’t tend to utilize it.
It really is an important thing to be able to manage pregnancy. Pregnancy is exceptionally brutal on the body and causes innumerable permanent changes. I think it makes sense as an emergency fallback when other preventative methods fail.
Considering we allow women to have abortions for arbitrary reasons, which include financial and any other non-medical, a paper abortion for men would make things a lot more equal.
If the man wants the child, and the woman doesn't, the man "loses" - the child gets aborted.
If the man does not want the child, and the woman does, the man "loses" - he is forced to pay child support.
I have brought this up to feminists who have tended to respond just like the above: "if men don't want the financial risk, then they shouldn't be having sex", but that is itself a sexist sentiment that indirectly and unintentionally conveys the idea that women should have the "right" to have sex without having to worry about the financial risks of raising a child (women can always elect to abort if an unwanted pregnancy occurs - well, at least until recently in some states that are a bit backwards on women's rights), but that men should not have that same right (men should either remain sexless or be forced, at gunpoint by the state if necessary, to bear the financial costs of siring a child - men have zero rights, zero say, zero influence, zero protection if an unwanted pregnancy occurs).
I believe everyone should have the same rights. Women should be able to have sex without having to worry about being coerced by the state to bear the financial costs of raising an unwanted child. Men should also be able to have sex without having to worry about being coerced by the state to bear the financial costs of raising an unwanted child.
The current situation creates a power imbalance where women who do want children can financially railroad their male sex partners who do not want children.
If it is not fair to force a woman to raise a child she does not want, why is it fair to force a man to pay for raising a child he does not want?
Telling men they can have EITHER financial security in this one area of their life OR sex - but not both - is not fair to men.
Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine a man telling a woman that if she doesn't want to risk a pregnancy, she shouldn't be having sex. He'd be eviscerated online, almost certainly fired immediately, probably doxxed and SWAT'ed or subject to other forms of harassment and threats - it is unthinkably offensive to even suggest that women must choose between the right to have sex and the right to be free from the risks of pregnancy, right?
So why the double standard? Why is it okay to give men this kind of ultimatum, but not women?
>You do the crime, you do the time. Don't want kids? Don't have sex.
If having sex with someone who isn't on the same page as you about having kids is a "crime", why are women (almost) always exonerated from the consequences while the men are (almost) always guilty and (almost) always forced to bear the consequences? Why the double standard?
And for what it's worth: I am firmly pro choice. The solution to inequality is ALWAYS to increase the rights of the "losing" side of the power imbalance, NEVER to take rights away from the "winning" side.
>If the man wants the child, and the woman doesn't, the man "loses" - the child gets aborted.
>If the man does not want the child, and the woman does, the man "loses" - he is forced to pay child support.
Interesting that you focus here on whether the man wins or loses but spare no thought to the child itself.
That is after all the whole point of child support: to support the child. That you decide after the fact that you don't want it is, for that reason, not relevant.
>but that is itself a sexist sentiment that indirectly and unintentionally conveys the idea that women should have the "right" to have sex without having to worry about the financial risks of raising a child (women can always elect to abort if an unwanted pregnancy occurs - well, at least until recently in some states that are a bit backwards on women's rights), but that men should not have that same right (men should either remain sexless or be forced, at gunpoint by the state if necessary, to bear the financial costs of siring a child - men have zero rights, zero say, zero influence, zero protection if an unwanted pregnancy occurs)
Both men and women have a choice whether to take the risk of having a child. If they take the risk they have to deal with the consequences. Women can choose to kill the child but many do not. If they do, then there is no child to support. If they don't, there is.
Men are not "forced at gunpoint" to do anything.
>If it is not fair to force a woman to raise a child she does not want, why is it fair to force a man to pay for raising a child he does not want?
This is where you are confused. It is not unfair for a mother to be expected to support her child, just as it is not unfair for a father to be expected to do the same.
>Telling men they can have EITHER financial security in this one area of their life OR sex - but not both - is not fair to men.
Men and women are not the same.
>Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine a man telling a woman that if she doesn't want to risk a pregnancy, she shouldn't be having sex. He'd be eviscerated online, almost certainly fired immediately, probably doxxed and SWAT'ed or subject to other forms of harassment and threats -
What are you on about? People say this all the time and rightly so. People that have sex outside committed relationships prepared for children are always taking a risk of an unplanned pregnancy. If you don't want to take that risk, don't do so.
Nobody is getting swatted or "eviscerated" for saying this. It is just common sense.
>If having sex with someone who isn't on the same page as you about having kids is a "crime", why are women (almost) always exonerated from the consequences while the men are (almost) always guilty and (almost) always forced to bear the consequences? Why the double standard?
More nonsense. Women who have unplanned children have to support their children. They are their legal guardians and often have to do it on their own. In no sense do they escape the consequences.
>And for what it's worth: I am firmly pro choice. The solution to inequality is ALWAYS to increase the rights of the "losing" side of the power imbalance, NEVER to take rights away from the "winning" side.
There is no "winning side" or "losing side" and being against abortion has nothing to do with it being "unfair" that women can do it and men cannot. It is because (apparently controversially?) killing people is... wrong! Especially killing vulnerable children because of the inconvenience of their existence.
I recognize that kids in poverty is not a desirable outcome.
That said, I'd also point out that 18 years of child support (which many states assign as an uncapped percentage of the man's income - not based on what it actually costs to feed, clothe, house, and support a child) is exceptionally brutal on the finances and causes permanent financial loss that many men never financially recover from.
That is not a desirable outcome either - especially for high-income men who may end up risking child support payments in excess of the total gross income of the average person.
Telling men they can have EITHER financial security in this one area of their life OR sex - but not both - is not fair to men.
Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine a man telling a woman that if she doesn't want to risk a pregnancy, she shouldn't be having sex. He'd be eviscerated online, almost certainly fired immediately, probably doxxed and SWAT'ed or subject to other forms of harassment and threats - it is unthinkably offensive to even suggest that women must choose between the right to have sex and the right to be free from the risks of pregnancy, right?
So why the double standard? Why is it okay to give men this kind of ultimatum, but not women?
The double standard is because of the difference in practical consequences. I’m inclined to agree with you on principle, but it would be extremely harmful in practice. I think the move is to change society so that it would be less harmful, eg provide tons of government support to parents.
If the consequences for following through with a poorly-planned pregnancy are so tragically high for the children, why do we not simply restrict and have licensing requirements for the privilege to have children?
We use the power of the state to protect kids from alcohol, drugs, tobacco, mature content, etc. Why not use the power of the state to protect kids from poverty?
We don't let people operate automobiles on public roads, forklifts, practice medicine, sell insurance, manage investments, perform plumbing work, become a teacher, or even become a surveyor, an interior designer, or a hairdresser in many states without an evaluation of their competency and license from the state, why should the ability to become a parent be treated with less scrutiny than the ability to become a hairdresser or an interior designer?
If harm reduction is the primary operating principle here, isn't the unrestricted ability to have kids in direct opposition to that goal? There are objectively wrong and dangerous/harmful ways to parent (physically abusing kids, starving them, emotionally neglecting them, etc) just as there are objectively wrong and dangerous/harmful ways to operate a car (not following speed limits, not following traffic control devices, reckless driving), no?
Why is it perfectly fine for the state to restrict someone from selling insurance on the grounds of harm reduction, while there are no state restrictions whatsoever on parenthood?
Really? It seems like there's already plenty of non-reproductive sex happening! Leaving aside condoms and non-PIV sex acts, there are lots of women on birth control, men who have vasectomies, post-menopausal women, and infertile people in the world, who could certainly have lots of unprotected sex without any reproduction. Those people seem way better off than heroin addicts!
Uhh this is important because the onus and health risks of contraceptives have been entirely shouldered by women. Not because a very low percentage of men have been “coerced” into fatherhood.
There’s lots of comments in this thread on the risks of cancer and this and that risk with male contraceptives. meanwhile, these are already real issues women have to consider when using modern day hormonal contraceptives. The discourse in this thread is so dude-centric tone deaf.
Discussions around pregnancy, childbirthbirth and raising children are very gynocentric and minimising men.
They are disregarding men having to face a disproportionate economic burden paired with lower (often, NO) rights to have a say. For example, even if they desire abortion, women can force men to pay alimony. Another example would be the common paternity testing prohibition, allowing women to plant cuckoo children as they see fit.
Pharmaceutical contraception for men gives then back their reproductive rights.
> Both mice and non-human primates fully regained fertility after stopping the drug. Mice regained fertility within six weeks, and non-human primates fully recovered their sperm count in 10-15 weeks.
Great recurring source of revenue for the drug company!
Though I'm more interested in feral animals like dogs. It looks like this drug may work on dogs too? If so, it would be a huge boon for cities and villages in India.
There's already a permanent and cheap dog contraceptive. It's called neutration.
The problem in places that have feral dog problems isn't the lack of a contraceptive, it's lack of funds, skilled vets, or (and I think this is the main one) political and cultural will to get it done.
I'm not sure why India is getting singled out here, lots of places around the world have a dog problem. India might have the largest number of strays on paper but only because it's huge.
Having people go out and give a pill to feral dogs daily or near daily seems like a waste of time. Just go out and shoot them, or capture them and put them down. Its a cheaper and more permanent solution.
Wtf? This is ridiculous. Who the fuck is going to be giving feral dogs a pill everyday? And why would you want a reversible contraceptive for feral dogs? You want a one-and-done irreversible one, which neutering is.
If it could be mixed into dog food it could be fairly easy to use. You'd just have to feed stray dogs for a decade or two and have the problem mostly solved. With added benefit of stray dogs being less of a nuisance if they are getting a bit domesticated by feeding them regularily.
What is the purpose of this comment? This is reporting on a phase 1 trial, which is when side effects and potential toxicity are evaluated. Of course there are no known side effects yet, that's what the trial exists to identify.
> In male mice, the drug caused infertility and was 99% effective in preventing pregnancies within four weeks of use.
I don't know if they mean 99% reduction compared to normal or 99% of mice did not cause a pregnancy. Either way this does not mean that every intercourse has a 1% chance of causing a pregnancy.
Also you are assuming an unconditional probability. It could very well be a conditional probability. It might completely work for 99% that do not cause any pregnancies at all and not work for 1% that cause pregnancies as without the drug.
Anyway I am looking forward to getting the perl index for humans from clinical trials.
With the female contraceptive pill 0.3% of women get pregnant within a year if taken perfectly (which is rarely the case, but the figure here is also from lab conditions). This drug leads to 1% pregnancies in 4 weaks, which is much worse.
That said this is still great news especially as the condom is also much less safe then the female contraceptive pill.
Condoms are extremely effective also, if used perfectly, which is rarely the case. Statistics should be based on real-world experience not theoretical best case.
Mostly misuse. The studies are all nonsense AFAIK, they rely on the participants to use the condoms correctly, which predictably doesn't happen. Problems the studies mention, like slippage and breakage are the result of misuse, probably due to choosing the wrong condom size.
The only reason for a properly used condom to not work would be a manufacturing defect, which should be extremely rare, certainly not 2%, that's plainly ridiculous and immediately disqualifies any study that claims so.
The statistics are based on real world experience rather than theoretical best case. Not to pick on you but really surprised to hear people confidently express so much misinformation on this topic when it's not even particularly hard to find information on it:
What throws me off about this, is it's not difficult to use perfectly. Condoms are the only method I trust. Pull-out? Can screw it up. With birth control you're (until now) relying on your partner to use it perfectly.
This would make it a lot harder... they can already do that with their own pills, after this, they would have to find an exact match for the men's pills and somehow replace them without the guy noticing, which would be realatively harder.
You guys are reading from my comment some sort of aggressive anti-pill stance that isn't there. I'm just predicting something that will happen, because predicting the future and seeing if reality later plays out that way is fun.
Whoops, you’re right! I read the article and then some comments that were (I see now) tangentially related. Stuff got jumbled up, and I confidently posted something incorrect.
This is one of the annoying things about life. Testosterone effectively already does this and is quite safe. It's just that society is not comfortable with men taking steroids for no particularly good reason.
Taking outside sources of testosterone permanently alters your body's ability to make testosterone naturally, to the extent that many people who previously took steroids find they have be on testosterone therapy for the rest of their lives.
I wouldn't call "creating a lifelong requirement to take artificial hormones in order to function at your previous baseline" qualifying as "no particularly good reason".
Most people who go on Testosterone can go off it just fine. Here's a random study:
>Ever since that study, testosterone has undergone extensive clinical trials as a hormonal method of male contraception and many have found testosterone to be efficacious, reversible and safe with minimal short-term side effects
To be clear, the snippet you quoted is your study summarizing the claims of other studies which are among the cohort analyzed.
Let's quote the short, succinct conclusion of the study you picked:
> Testosterone therapy is a contraceptive, albeit a poor one. Men of reproductive age with low testosterone should be counseled on the adverse effects of TRT on fertility. Obtaining a semen analysis and possible cryopreservation of sperm should be offered if TRT is prescribed to men interested in preserving fertility. Options such as clomiphene citrate and hCG along with a referral to a reproductive urologist should be considered to naturally increase testosterone levels in those men with low testosterone who want to avoid TRT.
Whether a contraceptive that is sufficiently irreversible that men using it are advised to freeze sperm if they ever want kids should be considered "reversible" is left as an exercise to the reader.
You're misunderstanding what they're saying here. They are saying TRT will have an impact on fertility while they are on TRT. The prospects for when they go off TRT are fine:
>If a patient currently desires fertility, TRT should be avoided or discontinued immediately. A semen analyses should be performed if the patient has discontinued TRT. Azoospermia or severe oligospermia may be seen in these patients, but most men should return to baseline semen analyses in 6 to 9 months after cessation of TRT [13,14,15]. A 2006 integrated analysis showed that 90% of patients were expected to return to baseline sperm concentration values 12 months after cessation of treatment and 100% after 24 months [50].
I'm not misunderstandings, you are conflating several different things: TRT, testosterone as a contraceptive, and testosterone as a body building steroid.
TRT is a very low dose of testosterone, used to supplement the body when it doesn't produce enough. It is reversible as you say, and has a negative effect on fertility but not enough to be reliably effective as a contraceptive at TRT dosages.
Testosterone as a contraceptive or steroid is a far higher dose. This is the one that has permanent effects.
According to Sapolsky, testosterone amplifies current behaviors. If you’re already aggressive, you become more. If you’re already X, it amplifies. Just because it’s safe doesn’t mean people want to be in affected states permanently.
Roid rage is probably a myth. The causation likely goes the other way. Meaning aggressive people are more likely to use steroids than steroids are causing them to be aggressive:
While I disagree with your claim that steroids are a viable form of birth control, I do agree a bit with this, though not for the stated reason.
What many people don’t realize (probably in large part because they see testosterone and estrogen as diametrically opposed things) is that testosterone levels impacts estrogen levels. Why? Because the body produces estrogen through the aromitization of testosterone. Increasing testosterone will increase estrogen.
A common struggle for those on TRT (both those at true replacement levels, as well as those taking supraphysiological doses) is elevated estrogen. I know that when my estrogen levels have gone too high, I become more neurotic than I usually am.
If you couple increased neuroticism with an elevated sense of dominance (especially at bodybuilding doses), and top that off with a general lack of poor management of one’s emotions (which I suspect is common amongst bodybuilders), what you likely get is a very volatile person. Not because of testosterone, but because of the elevated estrogen and their existing psychological issues.
I agree, and not even just that, it is associated with hair loss, among many other things. In fact, psychiatric medications are less effective (sometimes completely) if your T is high.
This is what I mean. Why is everyone so weird about it? It's hormonal birth control for men. Even if it works for only 65% of them it's better than nothing since it can be tested to see if it's working easily.
I’m on TRT, without hCG. I went and had a vasectomy a year ago. Because I’m weird and infinitely curious, two or three days after the procedure, I took three samples per day, and looked at each under the microscope. What I saw put to shame just about any video I could find online of a “good” sperm sample. Straight laser beams, zipping from one side of the slide to the other. If you were to scale Micheal Phelps down to these swimmers, he’d stand no chance. And the concentration was ridiculous, too. And this all 2-5 day old (at least) sperm!
Now, on the topic itself - I really wonder about the safety profile of these. While this selectively inhibits only RARα and is thus "biased" towards mostly acting on testes, it could also have side-effects - and while the effect might not be pronounced yet, with long term use it definitely could be, especially if all the RARα receptors get inhibited (will beta and gamma pick up the slack? what is it going to cause?).
Considering the 99% effectiveness claim and the method of action, I wonder if the embryos in that 1% case can even survive.
2) Does it matter if the embryo will survive even in the 1% case? Somebody who uses birth control would not want a child anyway, right?
Contraception should be readily available for those that want it. Abortion should absolutely and definitevely be available for those that want and need it. There are far too many opinions connected to religious dogma, both consciously and unconsciously, that seek to deny women and couples access to abortion. Even the damned bible offers up instructions on abortives and how to use them, but this seems to be glossed over by hand wringing people who want to insert their rosaries into women's ovaries.
* as it relates to vaccine mandates: "As they have the right to…for themselves.
* as it relates to calling people by their preferred pronouns: "As they have the right to…for themselves."
Of course, both issues are far more nuanced than a simple "As they have the right to…for themselves" can refute, but so is abortion. You can't take complex issues and take potshots at them with one sentence comments.
The contract being common decency. Vaccinations are part of that contract (it affects others), pronouns are part of that contract (they affect others), abortions _are not_ (the only affect those having them, and potentially the medical professionals).
There is no nuance at all. You are free, of course, to not "sign" that contract - but that means that those who have are not obligated to apply it to you.
If someone accepts that frame, would you attempt to argue that there is no social contract to protect the lives of children? That seems like a tough argument to carry.
Also, this is whataboutism. If someone cares about A but not enough about B, it doesn't mean that A is not a good thing.
Observations shows that most societies forbid woman to throw their unwanted born child into a garbage bin, so if you claim that women are or should be as free as men in their lifestyle choices, where does that leave the woman? Either you need birth control to prevent that situation, or a social security network that takes care of the unwanted child after the fact. In my simple, male mind this should be a given. Otherwise, if I were a woman, I would refuse sex. The ancient Greeks have a funny story about that [0].
Of course, you can also say that women aren't allowed to be as free as men in their lifestyle choices. And I think, I'm not going too far out on a limb when I say that's actually at the bottom of this issue. Some people think it is OK to make women less free than men in the service of their ideals, while others think it is not. Resolve this tension and you will make progress.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata
Hypothetically [0], if someone saved another person from being murdered by a close relative would that count as proving to you their morality system is based on freedom and forgiveness?
[0] Imagine my poker face.
What I find most tough to carry is the consequent: there are ~600,000 (rough number of abortions per year in USA) people "murdering" their own "children" every single year. I suppose in the process of putting their faith in god these people have removed all their faith in humanity...
If you view the fetus? embryo? as a human life, then abortion doesn't just affect the person having it, but also the life being aborted. Not only that, but what are the moral implications to the rest of society if "murder" is allowed?
So for some people it's not that simple.
If you view leaving a comment as murder, then commenting doesn't just affect the person partaking in it, but also the life of everyone reading the comments. Not only that, but what are the moral implications to the rest of society if "murder" is allowed?
Here's is my point though: if you assume something is murder, of course you will conclude that it is bad. There's no "Devil's advocate"—or for that matter—any argument at all to be had. The entire debate revolves around the assumption you simply asserted for "Devil's advocate".
Either of them isn’t a real person, neither is fully conscious. Sure a newborn can feel pain but infanticide can be done in a humane way. What we are depriving from the newborn is the opportunity to live and experience the rest of its life but the same applies in both cases.
And in a quite a few ancient societies infanticide was fully acceptable (killing slightly older children was generally not) and used as a somewhat safer alternative to abortion.
From a practical perspective, giving up the newborn for adoption is significantly easier than the 4 month embryo - it's already been carried to term and birthed. And quite a few humans, correctly or otherwise, feel a lot more 'ick' around the idea of infanticide vs. abortion. But they also feel a lot more 'ick' around late gestation abortion too - most states have had gestational limits around abortion. Very few have had none. (Many of those with gestational limits do have exceptions around health/safety issues for the mother, or significant medical issues with the fetus, etc.)
It's kind of a strange argument because most of the US did accept the premise that at a certain point in the embryo's development abortion becomes less acceptable. I can't speak as definitively for the rest of the world, but a cursory google shows that the situation is quite similar - most countries that allow for abortion have gestational restrictions.
Strong disagree. They affect at minimum 2 (potentially 3 depending how you define life/person) by default. Both the parents are impacted by the choice either physically, emotionally, financially, and responsibility.
Situations where the two parents conflict on this choice are common and the power is incredibly asymmetrical and can/does lead to abuse.
Example:
- Most pro-choice supporters would support the female deciding that she was too young to become a mother and terminating a pregnancy not because of any medical reason, but because of the changes to her life it would cause (ie, "I'm not ready to be a mother yet"). This same option is not available to males. If the female has decided to keep the child, the male in most countries is now automatically bound to this decision and generally, at least financially, will have their life impacted even if they have the same reasoning (ie, "I'm not ready to be a father yet"). Alternatively, if the female has decided to terminate and the male desperately wants the child, there is no recourse.
I say asymmetrical because the results/responsibility of the decision are forced to be shared, however, the power to make said decision lies only with a single party.
I do not propose a solution here or make a judgement I'm simply pointing it out because the person I replied to made it sound like this decision is a simple and doesn't impact others.
You want others to partake in your social contract, but you would probably be appalled if that contract demanded people not be overweight (affects others wherever healthcare is in limited supply), or maybe the contract demands people not be gay (lowers birth rates and therefore societies GDP… also increases disease transmission). Social contracts come and go with time and yours is as wrong tomorrow as my proposed one is today
I have a radial nerve injury (and no text-to-speech) so I cannot find it right now nor re-write it.
I absolutely agree with you and your conclusions.
I made my reply here, from a slightly different perspective: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43749123
You not using my preferred pronouns or name is simply a rude thing to do. If we remove the bizarre political fixation on it, if I tell you my name is John and you call me Joanna just because you think I look more like a Joanna, you're an asshole. I'm not in favor of making being an asshole illegal, but I will call you one.
I'm actually fully OK with there being consequences to being overweight! It does put a large burden on the healthcare system. Right now the healthcare system is largely privatized so, well, it's not like public health is the primary concern for it anyway, but if it were, sure I believe that there should be actions taken to reduce obesity. We have a lot of promising anorectic medications right now, primarily in the form of the GLP-1 and related medications, and I'd be in favor of overweight and obese people needing to also go on these if they want access to public healthcare for issues that are related to metabolic disorder, etc. But we're in a privatized system, so...
You're starting to really stretch the argument thin with the gay bit, though. Disease transmissions here still requires the informed consent of both parties - I'm not going to get HIV from a gay person without having some form of consensual sex with them, outside of behaviors that are already criminal - rape, contaminating something I'm eating with their semen, etc. This isn't the same as refusing vaccination and then participating in society for diseases that are transmissible like covid or ebola or similar. For birth rate/GDP, we do not enforce actions on straight couples when it comes to childbirth (or STDs, which while transmission rate is generally lower for some STDs for heterosexual intercourse it's obviously not exclusively limited to homosexual intercourse) so these suppositions seem to be targeted based not on the general outcome but simply on the fact the person is gay. If we started mandating child birth for straight people for whatever reason, then we can start having this conversation - but even in a fairly dystopic world where we are requiring married couples have kids, we can still provide options for gay people. Require them 'sponsor' an additional child for a straight couple, require them adopt, require surrogacy and them raising a child, etc. But targeting them just because of their sexual orientation would be quite obviously bigoted.
> A society is certainly conceivable in which there was no governmental intervention in family life or education and in which the sole function of law enforcement was the upholding of universal rights.
I would also refer you to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43748473.
https://store.mises.org/Myth-of-the-Social-Contract-Refuting... and https://cdn.mises.org/1_3_3_0.pdf and whatnot.
the government has a role in doing the most good for the most people. for example, keeping companies from dumping poison into rivers.
That is not what "social contract" is about (unless you keep playing the redefinition of words game, which many people do when arguing in favor of "muh social contract"), and no, we do not need the Government for that.
https://www.academia.edu/7185307/Libertarianism_and_Pollutio...
https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-government-pollution-contro...
https://mises.org/mises-daily/libertarian-manifesto-pollutio...
Among others... Please do ask if you want to read more about it. I personally like to read a lot of things with what I disagree.
Please reply to the other person's comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43748473), too, I wonder what you'd come up with. :)
my reply to this bit is: Take your personal liberty to Libertarian Island.
It’s a bet on atheism, declaring that any religion whatsoever preaching infant ensoulment must be false. Be careful what you bet on.
Since you seem to be giving others here a hard time about Abrahamic ideas of belief, hell, and morals, I'll leave you with a quote from your own book:
Matthew 6:1: “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.
You can indeed live a life in fear of holy retribution, but you do not have the right to force others to do so as well.
By what divine authority do you say we need not concern ourselves with even the possibility of a divine authority?
You said that people who are against abortion have no right to say other people can’t get abortions.
By what authority do you declare them to have no right? The UN wrote a document and is humanity’s moral conscience? Yourself and your own head?
Does trauma for the 1% outweigh the benefits of the 99%?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-025-00752-7
> YCT-529 works by interfering with vitamin A signaling necessary for sperm production and fertility.
> The importance of dietary vitamin A and retinoid signaling for male germ cell development and differentiation has been recognized for many years6. All trans-retinoic acid (Fig. 1a) is an active metabolite of vitamin A that exerts its function, at least partly, by binding to retinoic acid receptors (RARs). The RARs α, β, and γ, are encoded by the Rara, Rarb, and Rarg genes in mice, and Rarα and Rarγ have been validated as contraceptive targets by genetic knockouts resulting in male sterility7,8. Notably, the effects on spermatogenesis in the absence of RARα most resemble the loss of RAR signaling in vitamin A deficiency, and the mice are otherwise normal7,8. Further, the effects on spermatogenesis in animals treated orally with the dual RARα/RARγ antagonist BMS-189453 (Fig. 1a, b) closely phenocopied the absence of RARα function. Importantly, the resulting male sterility is reversible9,10,11. We, therefore, wished to identify RARα−selective inhibitors for potential male non-hormonal contraception. Our study describes the development of YCT-529, a highly selective RARα antagonist that reduces sperm counts in mice and non-human primates. Mating studies with male mice treated with 10 mg/kg/day for 4 weeks show that YCT-529 is 99% effective in preventing pregnancies and that the mice fully regain fertility after drug cessation.
Example: Silodosin.
You need to experiment with it. Sensitive clinical trials measured rates as high as 90-99%.
It is entirely non-hormonal. It does not affect libido (rarely), while hormonal male contraceptives do, and it is reversible upon cessation, without any delay, unlike hormonal male contraceptives.
Plus the thing does not stop the drip so you do have to pull out sooner rather than later or else. It does not stop sperm production.
Also dry ones tend to result. They're sometimes uncomfortable.
Tamsulosin is I believe the modern one but all of them are for long term. Probably least side effects.
Otherwise if taken as a single dose fresh, side effects like orthostatic hypotension are vastly increased.
You're right that it doesn't stop sperm production, just emission. As for "the drip"; that's pre-ejaculate, which doesn't contain sperm inherently, but can pick up residual sperm in the urethra from a prior ejaculation.
And that's true, anejaculatory orgasms can feel strange or less satisfying for some, but it is not universal.
> Otherwise if taken as a single dose fresh, side effects like orthostatic hypotension are vastly increased.
That is true.
Edit: I / We will have to research the side-effect profile and mechanisms of the mentioned pill (in the submission). I have not yet done so. They mention no side-effects but it might be too early to tell.
I’d like to stress that point a bit.
I had a vasectomy about a year ago, and being the weirdo that I am, I figured I’d see how much sperm remained in my ejaculate (and for how long) after the procedure.
I waited maybe two or three days after the procedure, and then for the next three days, I’d collect three samples per day and take a look under my microscope. In the first four or five samples, the swimmers were swimming hard. Told my brother (who had been trying for a kid for a couple years, and had observed his own samples trying correlate diet and other factors to improved motility) about the straight laser beams I was seeing in the scope — he nearly had a fit when I described how long it took them to go from one side of the slide to the other under the given magnification.
It was the ninth sample when there were very few observable sperm, and what remained looked kinda drunk and unmotivated.
All of that to say: if you’re going to get a vasectomy, when your doctor tells you to abstain from condom-less/birthcontrol-less sex until you come back for a sperm count, take that seriously. It’s amazing how motile they are even when kinda old, and also amazing how many hang around downstream of the vas deferens after many ejaculations. And, while rare, sometimes the vas deferens do manage to reconnect.
And a bonus tip along these lines: testosterone replacement, even without hCG, is not a reliable form of birth control. I’m on (and was on) TRT, without hCG, and the concentration of sperm under the scope looked higher than any YouTube video I could find at the same magnification (meanwhile my bro is taking silly amounts of hCG and struggling). I hear a lot of people joke about TRT having the beneficial side effect of infertility, but that’s far from a certainty.
Spontaneous reconnection happens but is extremely rare. If you can follow the doctor’s orders for a few weeks, vasectomy’s failure rate may as well be 0%.
My expectation would be the first sample might have lower but significant sperm count, and each subsequent sample would decrease dramatically until any residual sperm died and the count was zero. You're talking about motility, not count, but it doesn't sound like you noticed a drastic decrease from sample to sample. That doesn't seem right according to my understanding.
That said, yeah, the relative amount of sperm didn’t drop off noticeably at the offset. And I think that kind of makes sense: as someone with a relatively short refractory period, let’s suppose I ejaculate two or three times in 5 minutes: I doubt (though I could be wrong) that my body actually evacuated all of the seminal fluid (and fully replaced it) each time. I would bet there’s simply a bunch “left in the tank”. Would be interesting to hear from a urologist (or someone with similar expertise).
I would have been ok with less satisfying but it felt horrible, like it was going somewhere else instead of coming out. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone
Hard pass on messing with my fertility like that, too, TBH.
In relationships, mutual understanding and compromise are essential. I fully acknowledge that certain decisions come with trade-offs. For example, I would not hesitate to take Silodosin and deal with its potential side effects if it benefited the relationship. I would expect the same level of consideration in return (reciprocity), but that does not equate to coercion or irresponsibility.
My position remains unchanged: I would avoid hormonal contraceptives for myself, and I do not advocate their use by others. My preferred approaches are non-hormonal and do not carry such implications (as I have stated in previous comments). That said, I believe that in a committed relationship, some level of shared sacrifice or compromise is not only inevitable, but necessary.
Given that, I fail to see how your point is relevant to the context of our discussion. If your intention was to imply that I expect others to make sacrifices I would not make myself, then I outright reject that assumption. Mutual responsibility, respect, and voluntary compromise are foundational to any relationship I engage in, coercion has no place in it.
If this conversation is shifting from an exchange of ideas to personal insinuations, I see little value in continuing it further.
Thank you. :)
"I would avoid hormonal contraceptives" -> "I would avoid hormonal contraceptives and pills affecting fertility in the aforementioned ways".
This is in the same range as, like, pulling out, for what it's worth.
If no semen is emitted, the chance of pregnancy is null (more about it in my other comments).
Plus 90–99% suppression of ejaculation has been recorded and suggested that it has a potentially high contraceptive efficacy, so that is way better than withdrawal.
Experiment, maybe it affects you in a way that you get 99%, which would make it a very efficient hormone-free male birth control pill.
Side-note: personally I prefer IUDs, and/or a medication that has been extensively studied, so this pill can wait.
(Meta-comment: probably best to keep everything in "success" percentage figures for direct comparison, instead of switching to failure percentages for some figures.)
Really incredible how effective such a simple solution is
Was completely effective for us.
And none of them say it’s “most people”. Perhaps some unmeasured population uses it as a secondary method, that’s total speculation and kind of beside the point
5.8% rely on withdrawal.
[0] https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-method-u...
i could be misinterpreting what you mean by “most normal people” but it’s a wildly strange use, most people who aren’t seeking pregnancy use some form of contraceptive [0], the pill, condoms, etc… it’s almost 90% of sexually active and its been this steady since 2002.
> … who were not seeking pregnancy, 88% were using a contraceptive method in 2016, and this proportion has remained steady since 2002.
it seems most normal people are using contraceptives.
> …they get upset for some reason
im sure very few people are “upset” about this. are you misinterpreting someone correcting your overestimations as if they’re being upset?
[0] https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-unit...
again, “most normal people” are not relying on pulling out. most people, by a significant amount, are relying on other methods.
Couples who clearly don't want children typically have already discussed their stance in the couple and will be way more thorough about birth control. That's typically not the demographic that will YOLO it, so I guess you'd get much more pushback on that front ?
> For every 100 people who use the pull out method perfectly, 4 will get pregnant.
> But pulling out can be difficult to do perfectly. So in real life, about 22 out of 100 people who use withdrawal get pregnant every year — that’s about 1 in 5.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/withdr...
These are not hard stats to look up.
Are those 4-in-100 distributed randomly?
Did the pregnancies result despite 100% adherence to the method, or was there occasional failure to adhere?
There's a big difference between a method being ineffective from the perspective of a health care provider, and a method being ineffective in absolute terms.
A provider has to care about what broad cross sections of people will actually do, rather than what they say they will do.
If you're an individual person who knows they can adhere to the method perfectly, the fact people on average cannot or will not adhere perfectly has no particular relevance to you.
I have no horse in this race, but the same difference in the meaning of "efficacy" arises in all sorts of aspects of health care, like advice on diet and exercise, or the prescription of specific exercises for physical therapy.
If semen isn't ejaculated, the body reabsorbs the sperm in the epididymis and recycles the cellular material. Seminal fluids, which are produced during arousal, are either reabsorbed or, in cases like retrograde ejaculation (e.g., with alpha-blockers), pass into the bladder and are later urinated out. The system self-regulates; there's no harmful buildup to worry about. :)
So, TL;DR: You will just urinate it out in our case.
Silodosine-induced retrograde ejaculation does not prevent ejaculation from occurring, it simply redirects the pathway (different anatomical exit).
It is different from chronic ejaculatory abstinence.
If you recognize emission — not just when expulsion is imminent — and if you pull out and that's the end of vaginal intercourse until you've cleared the urethra again, then that's probably nearly perfect at preventing pregnancy.
It may be confusing, so to clarify: "seminal fluids" is a term typically used to refer to the fluid released during ejaculation, not throughout the arousal phase. The idea that sperm would be in the mix before the emission phase goes against standard reproductive physiology.
Sperm are only actively introduced into seminal fluid during the emission phase of ejaculation; the so-called "grand finale." :D. Before that, in the arousal phase, the fluids released (like pre-ejaculate) typically contain no sperm unless there's residual contamination from a previous ejaculation.
(And FWIW, if one might wonder: thankfully this aforementioned "residual contamination" poses no health risk or birth defects.)
Alpha blockers also give one hell of a stuffy nose. Worst sleep ever after taking one.
Fantasy, meditation, hypnosis, Kegel exercises... They could lead to orgasms and sometimes even ejaculation (which would be bad in this case).
Some medications rarely may cause spontaneous orgasms, even, without physical contact, arousal or stimulation.
Hope this makes my fellow Americans reconsider science funding :/
Long-term safety seems doubtful. Offspring could be affected. In a rational world there would be no volunteers for the trials.
I'm terrible at remembering to take pills. Maybe it's because they're pretty low stakes?
For example, I have a pill container for the days of the week. Pills go directly into my pocket and don't come out unless they're going in my mouth (almost always during breakfast.) The pocket to mouth routine makes sure I don't set them down somewhere and the pill box gives proof later that I took them.
The above routine is a specific practice to remember something — I basically think it would be effective for anyone that actually did it, and almost all non-adherence would be at step zero.
But I don't think it needs to in order to succeed. For women, the stakes are higher. For men, they're still high enough. There's no reason both people can't be on the pill. Yes, it's a bit redundant, but when your goal is safety, redundancy is usually good.
"Trust me, babe, you won't get pregnant because I'm on the (male) pill!" is going to be tough sell in the bedroom. But "guys, control your own fate with a once-daily pill!" will be an easy sell in the inevitable TV ads.
Hell, if I'm engaging in casual sex, I'm going to take both the pill and wear a condom. I've had condoms break and not notice it immediately - thankfully never at the point where I've reached climax, but I could see it happening.
Men are terrified of getting someone pregnant. At least women have a choice as to what to do about it. If they don't want to keep it, they don't, assuming the law permits it or the law is easy to get around. Men don't ever have that choice.
"Insert coin to continue"
Do you have any tips or links on ways to have the orgasms you describe here?
Europe is struggling with low birth rates. They wouldn’t do it here, as is right now it’s already a calamity.
> the side effects of the pill, which women endure and men don't.
women are free to choose to not take the pill or take it and accept the consequences. Also, there are many alternatives to the pill.
Either way, I don't understand what point you are trying to make. You are just making random statements and ignoring the context of the discussion.
Yes, but some people want all the benefits with none of the side effects. Of course there is no perfect solution.
Life is about making tradeoffs. There is no such thing as a free lunch, except while you are still a child.
Progress is about eliminating them. We don’t need to trade off seafaring against scurvy, for example.
I would, too. But it increases the pool of options, which means that for some people it really is a win-win. Get the same as you’re getting now, but with fewer (or less meaningful to you) side effects.
You want a 100% way of avoiding pregnancy ? You have it, today. Not tomorrow. Today. Just move your ass.
But indeed, it appears that some people are more capable of crying than of acting.
Sounds like a fairy tale
Or am I misunderstanding what you're proposing with "universal"?
Abortion as a right is thinking of abortion as a medical procedure that people have the right to access. Universal access, but men don’t tend to utilize it.
It really is an important thing to be able to manage pregnancy. Pregnancy is exceptionally brutal on the body and causes innumerable permanent changes. I think it makes sense as an emergency fallback when other preventative methods fail.
If a woman has an abortion there is no more baby to support.
If a man has a "paper abortion" then there is still a baby to support, but the woman has to bear all the cost.
How is that equal?
You do the crime, you do the time. Don't want kids? Don't have sex.
If the man does not want the child, and the woman does, the man "loses" - he is forced to pay child support.
I have brought this up to feminists who have tended to respond just like the above: "if men don't want the financial risk, then they shouldn't be having sex", but that is itself a sexist sentiment that indirectly and unintentionally conveys the idea that women should have the "right" to have sex without having to worry about the financial risks of raising a child (women can always elect to abort if an unwanted pregnancy occurs - well, at least until recently in some states that are a bit backwards on women's rights), but that men should not have that same right (men should either remain sexless or be forced, at gunpoint by the state if necessary, to bear the financial costs of siring a child - men have zero rights, zero say, zero influence, zero protection if an unwanted pregnancy occurs).
I believe everyone should have the same rights. Women should be able to have sex without having to worry about being coerced by the state to bear the financial costs of raising an unwanted child. Men should also be able to have sex without having to worry about being coerced by the state to bear the financial costs of raising an unwanted child.
The current situation creates a power imbalance where women who do want children can financially railroad their male sex partners who do not want children.
If it is not fair to force a woman to raise a child she does not want, why is it fair to force a man to pay for raising a child he does not want?
Telling men they can have EITHER financial security in this one area of their life OR sex - but not both - is not fair to men.
Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine a man telling a woman that if she doesn't want to risk a pregnancy, she shouldn't be having sex. He'd be eviscerated online, almost certainly fired immediately, probably doxxed and SWAT'ed or subject to other forms of harassment and threats - it is unthinkably offensive to even suggest that women must choose between the right to have sex and the right to be free from the risks of pregnancy, right?
So why the double standard? Why is it okay to give men this kind of ultimatum, but not women?
>You do the crime, you do the time. Don't want kids? Don't have sex.
If having sex with someone who isn't on the same page as you about having kids is a "crime", why are women (almost) always exonerated from the consequences while the men are (almost) always guilty and (almost) always forced to bear the consequences? Why the double standard?
And for what it's worth: I am firmly pro choice. The solution to inequality is ALWAYS to increase the rights of the "losing" side of the power imbalance, NEVER to take rights away from the "winning" side.
Interesting that you focus here on whether the man wins or loses but spare no thought to the child itself.
That is after all the whole point of child support: to support the child. That you decide after the fact that you don't want it is, for that reason, not relevant.
>but that is itself a sexist sentiment that indirectly and unintentionally conveys the idea that women should have the "right" to have sex without having to worry about the financial risks of raising a child (women can always elect to abort if an unwanted pregnancy occurs - well, at least until recently in some states that are a bit backwards on women's rights), but that men should not have that same right (men should either remain sexless or be forced, at gunpoint by the state if necessary, to bear the financial costs of siring a child - men have zero rights, zero say, zero influence, zero protection if an unwanted pregnancy occurs)
Both men and women have a choice whether to take the risk of having a child. If they take the risk they have to deal with the consequences. Women can choose to kill the child but many do not. If they do, then there is no child to support. If they don't, there is.
Men are not "forced at gunpoint" to do anything.
>If it is not fair to force a woman to raise a child she does not want, why is it fair to force a man to pay for raising a child he does not want?
This is where you are confused. It is not unfair for a mother to be expected to support her child, just as it is not unfair for a father to be expected to do the same.
>Telling men they can have EITHER financial security in this one area of their life OR sex - but not both - is not fair to men.
Men and women are not the same.
>Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine a man telling a woman that if she doesn't want to risk a pregnancy, she shouldn't be having sex. He'd be eviscerated online, almost certainly fired immediately, probably doxxed and SWAT'ed or subject to other forms of harassment and threats -
What are you on about? People say this all the time and rightly so. People that have sex outside committed relationships prepared for children are always taking a risk of an unplanned pregnancy. If you don't want to take that risk, don't do so.
Nobody is getting swatted or "eviscerated" for saying this. It is just common sense.
>If having sex with someone who isn't on the same page as you about having kids is a "crime", why are women (almost) always exonerated from the consequences while the men are (almost) always guilty and (almost) always forced to bear the consequences? Why the double standard?
More nonsense. Women who have unplanned children have to support their children. They are their legal guardians and often have to do it on their own. In no sense do they escape the consequences.
>And for what it's worth: I am firmly pro choice. The solution to inequality is ALWAYS to increase the rights of the "losing" side of the power imbalance, NEVER to take rights away from the "winning" side.
There is no "winning side" or "losing side" and being against abortion has nothing to do with it being "unfair" that women can do it and men cannot. It is because (apparently controversially?) killing people is... wrong! Especially killing vulnerable children because of the inconvenience of their existence.
Nature does not seem to agree that "killing people" is wrong.
That said, I'd also point out that 18 years of child support (which many states assign as an uncapped percentage of the man's income - not based on what it actually costs to feed, clothe, house, and support a child) is exceptionally brutal on the finances and causes permanent financial loss that many men never financially recover from.
That is not a desirable outcome either - especially for high-income men who may end up risking child support payments in excess of the total gross income of the average person.
Telling men they can have EITHER financial security in this one area of their life OR sex - but not both - is not fair to men.
Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine a man telling a woman that if she doesn't want to risk a pregnancy, she shouldn't be having sex. He'd be eviscerated online, almost certainly fired immediately, probably doxxed and SWAT'ed or subject to other forms of harassment and threats - it is unthinkably offensive to even suggest that women must choose between the right to have sex and the right to be free from the risks of pregnancy, right?
So why the double standard? Why is it okay to give men this kind of ultimatum, but not women?
We use the power of the state to protect kids from alcohol, drugs, tobacco, mature content, etc. Why not use the power of the state to protect kids from poverty?
We don't let people operate automobiles on public roads, forklifts, practice medicine, sell insurance, manage investments, perform plumbing work, become a teacher, or even become a surveyor, an interior designer, or a hairdresser in many states without an evaluation of their competency and license from the state, why should the ability to become a parent be treated with less scrutiny than the ability to become a hairdresser or an interior designer?
If harm reduction is the primary operating principle here, isn't the unrestricted ability to have kids in direct opposition to that goal? There are objectively wrong and dangerous/harmful ways to parent (physically abusing kids, starving them, emotionally neglecting them, etc) just as there are objectively wrong and dangerous/harmful ways to operate a car (not following speed limits, not following traffic control devices, reckless driving), no?
Why is it perfectly fine for the state to restrict someone from selling insurance on the grounds of harm reduction, while there are no state restrictions whatsoever on parenthood?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_fatherhood
There’s lots of comments in this thread on the risks of cancer and this and that risk with male contraceptives. meanwhile, these are already real issues women have to consider when using modern day hormonal contraceptives. The discourse in this thread is so dude-centric tone deaf.
This dismissal is in bad taste and detracts significantly from the rest of your points made.
They are disregarding men having to face a disproportionate economic burden paired with lower (often, NO) rights to have a say. For example, even if they desire abortion, women can force men to pay alimony. Another example would be the common paternity testing prohibition, allowing women to plant cuckoo children as they see fit.
Pharmaceutical contraception for men gives then back their reproductive rights.
Great recurring source of revenue for the drug company!
Though I'm more interested in feral animals like dogs. It looks like this drug may work on dogs too? If so, it would be a huge boon for cities and villages in India.
The problem in places that have feral dog problems isn't the lack of a contraceptive, it's lack of funds, skilled vets, or (and I think this is the main one) political and cultural will to get it done.
I'm not sure why India is getting singled out here, lots of places around the world have a dog problem. India might have the largest number of strays on paper but only because it's huge.
I don't know if they mean 99% reduction compared to normal or 99% of mice did not cause a pregnancy. Either way this does not mean that every intercourse has a 1% chance of causing a pregnancy. Also you are assuming an unconditional probability. It could very well be a conditional probability. It might completely work for 99% that do not cause any pregnancies at all and not work for 1% that cause pregnancies as without the drug.
Anyway I am looking forward to getting the perl index for humans from clinical trials.
Edit: fixed wrong wording
But yes, if they said something is 100% effective and it wasn’t, I would imagine they would be sued into bankruptcy pretty fast.
How much would an accidental child cost these days?
That said this is still great news especially as the condom is also much less safe then the female contraceptive pill.
We only have the numbers for the lab environment with I assume perfect use for this new drug, so we can only compare perfect use.
https://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(04)0...
The only reason for a properly used condom to not work would be a manufacturing defect, which should be extremely rare, certainly not 2%, that's plainly ridiculous and immediately disqualifies any study that claims so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_me...
Birth control effectiveness is measured by calculating the number of pregnancies per 100 women using a specific method for a full calendar year.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/family-plan...
>Effectiveness of methods is measured by the number of pregnancies per 100 women using the method per year.
Most women would never do this, but a few definitely would.
birth-control pills (male or female) are powerless against sexually-transmissible diseases.
But their so called "solutions" seem to become ever more destructive long term.
Neem is a natural alternative that has been used for a long time.
It is [1]. But it also trashes your liver if used chronically [2].
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34092456/
[2] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JPhCS1025a2043J/abstra...
“These [studies] suggest that frequent ejaculation after puberty offers some reduction of the risk of prostate cancer.”
I think we need more/bigger studies to get a handle on how big the effect is though.
[1] NSFW warning - this is a Wikipedia article with a picture of a guy ejaculating riiiiight at the top: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejaculation#Health_issues
Taking outside sources of testosterone permanently alters your body's ability to make testosterone naturally, to the extent that many people who previously took steroids find they have be on testosterone therapy for the rest of their lives.
I wouldn't call "creating a lifelong requirement to take artificial hormones in order to function at your previous baseline" qualifying as "no particularly good reason".
>Ever since that study, testosterone has undergone extensive clinical trials as a hormonal method of male contraception and many have found testosterone to be efficacious, reversible and safe with minimal short-term side effects
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6305868/
It's not super reliable but it's also easily testable if it's working or not.
Let's quote the short, succinct conclusion of the study you picked:
> Testosterone therapy is a contraceptive, albeit a poor one. Men of reproductive age with low testosterone should be counseled on the adverse effects of TRT on fertility. Obtaining a semen analysis and possible cryopreservation of sperm should be offered if TRT is prescribed to men interested in preserving fertility. Options such as clomiphene citrate and hCG along with a referral to a reproductive urologist should be considered to naturally increase testosterone levels in those men with low testosterone who want to avoid TRT.
Whether a contraceptive that is sufficiently irreversible that men using it are advised to freeze sperm if they ever want kids should be considered "reversible" is left as an exercise to the reader.
>If a patient currently desires fertility, TRT should be avoided or discontinued immediately. A semen analyses should be performed if the patient has discontinued TRT. Azoospermia or severe oligospermia may be seen in these patients, but most men should return to baseline semen analyses in 6 to 9 months after cessation of TRT [13,14,15]. A 2006 integrated analysis showed that 90% of patients were expected to return to baseline sperm concentration values 12 months after cessation of treatment and 100% after 24 months [50].
TRT is a very low dose of testosterone, used to supplement the body when it doesn't produce enough. It is reversible as you say, and has a negative effect on fertility but not enough to be reliably effective as a contraceptive at TRT dosages.
Testosterone as a contraceptive or steroid is a far higher dose. This is the one that has permanent effects.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-myth-of-roid-rag...
What many people don’t realize (probably in large part because they see testosterone and estrogen as diametrically opposed things) is that testosterone levels impacts estrogen levels. Why? Because the body produces estrogen through the aromitization of testosterone. Increasing testosterone will increase estrogen.
A common struggle for those on TRT (both those at true replacement levels, as well as those taking supraphysiological doses) is elevated estrogen. I know that when my estrogen levels have gone too high, I become more neurotic than I usually am.
If you couple increased neuroticism with an elevated sense of dominance (especially at bodybuilding doses), and top that off with a general lack of poor management of one’s emotions (which I suspect is common amongst bodybuilders), what you likely get is a very volatile person. Not because of testosterone, but because of the elevated estrogen and their existing psychological issues.
"Testosterone as a contraceptive can suppress spermatogenesis and lead to azoospermia in 65% of normospermic men within 4 months of use"
Does this sound like a convenient and effective contraceptive? Where are you really coming from with this statement?
As I wrote over in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43746406
I’m on TRT, without hCG. I went and had a vasectomy a year ago. Because I’m weird and infinitely curious, two or three days after the procedure, I took three samples per day, and looked at each under the microscope. What I saw put to shame just about any video I could find online of a “good” sperm sample. Straight laser beams, zipping from one side of the slide to the other. If you were to scale Micheal Phelps down to these swimmers, he’d stand no chance. And the concentration was ridiculous, too. And this all 2-5 day old (at least) sperm!
TRT is not a reliable form of birth control.