"100% effective" male birth control

Dravokivich

28064212 wrote: »

You're still missing the point. I don't care what you personally decide to choose. But this is a discussion forum. It's supposed to be about discussing the topic at hand.

I've never said anything against the method either. I've expressed curiosity in it, but with no intention of taking it. Nor have I said anything dismissive towards anyone with intentions to take it.

28064212 wrote: »

Seriously? I'm asking you why you wouldn't use a method of contraception that appears to be much better, and that's implying an obligation? The only "obligation" I'm asking of you is to explain the reasons for your position
....yes, yes there is. And now there's this (apparently) much better method. And you say you wouldn't use it. All I'm asking is: why?

I have although that does not appear to be sufficient.

SugarHigh

This is probably a silly question but if you got something like this done but still get a girl pregnant can you sue them for child maintenance?

Fluorescence

SugarHigh wrote: »

This is probably a silly question but if you got something like this done but still get a girl pregnant can you sue them for child maintenance?

Probably not. I'd say it's officially something like 99.6 or 99.7% effective.

kiffer

...
I wouldn't get go for this... Currently I'm single, I'm not going out and having one night stands, if I was I'd have to continue condom use because of STI risks...

I'm pretty sure that I want kids in the future and I don't want something that migh damage my firtility later on.

If I had a partner, and we had kids, and didn't want more, I'd be ok with it, heck even though we might change our minds later and want another kid I'd be ok risking it... But untill I have some sprogs things that even might damage my swim team are right out.
Even though this is reported as reversable, I'd like to see lots and lots of info on it, like lots of before and after sperm quality assesments for men that have had it in place for long periods and had it reversed.

That 15% failure rate for condoms seems very high, is it the failure rate for "usage" or for "correct usage"?

28064212

kiffer wrote: »

That 15% failure rate for condoms seems very high, is it the failure rate for "usage" or for "correct usage"?

Typical use. It's the expected number of pregnancies per year per 100 women using the method - source

kiffer

28064212 wrote: »

Typical use. It's the expected number of pregnancies per year per 100 women using the method - source

There's a pretty big gap there between perfect use and typical use...
They're not complicated... Does typical use failure include things like "we usually use condoms but in a fit of passion we didn't bother and then didn't bother getting the morning after pill"?

5live

28064212 wrote: »

Typical use. It's the expected number of pregnancies per year per 100 women using the method - source

15 % typical use failure rate for condoms?

100 women useing condoms as a contraception device and 15 get pregnant per year, right?

Say they have sex 100 times each so intercourse occurs 10000 times so the failure rate is 15/10000 or 0.0015% rather than the implied 15% ie for 100 sexual encounters you get 15 pregnancies?
Or more probably 10 sexual acts per woman and 0.015% failure rate?

28064212

5live wrote: »

15 % typical use failure rate for condoms?

100 women useing condoms as a contraception device and 15 get pregnant per year, right?

Say they have sex 100 times each so intercourse occurs 10000 times so the failure rate is 15/10000 or 0.0015% rather than the implied 15% ie for 100 sexual encounters you get 15 pregnancies?
Or more probably 10 sexual acts per woman and 0.015% failure rate?

Or a couple using condoms could have 1 sexual act a year and fall pregnant, so it has a 100% failure rate. That's not what the stats are measuring. It's called the Pearl Index, and is the most common method of measuring contraceptive effectiveness.

It would be totally unfeasible to measure the effectiveness of contraceptives on a per-use basis

5live

28064212 wrote: »

Or a couple using condoms could have 1 sexual act a year and fall pregnant, so it has a 100% failure rate. That's not what the stats are measuring. It's called the Pearl Index, and is the most common method of measuring contraceptive effectiveness.

It would be totally unfeasible to measure the effectiveness of contraceptives on a per-use basis

You cant argue with the figures(well i cant anyway:o. Stats not my best elective choice). Just a 15% failure rate seems to be way way higher than common sense would imply.

Slightly off topic, a friend was recently surprised when his partner became pregnant because they were useing homoepathic contraception. I wonder what the failure rate on that was:rolleyes:

Thanks for the link:p

for condoms i suppose you have stuff like "left in my wallet for the last x months" or wrong size or popping from not being put on right, etc etc

parker kent

bluewolf wrote: »

for condoms i suppose you have stuff like "left in my wallet for the last x months" or wrong size or popping from not being put on right, etc etc

Yep the problems are nearly always related to the user screwing up somehow or not buying the right size (leading to slippage etc). The other issues would be related to condoms splitting.

cython

28064212 wrote: »

In a "single" lifestyle... well, my choice would still be RISUG. From a purely personal viewpoint, I would rather not have to worry about whether a one-night-stand has taken her pill that day, or whether she is as committed to not getting pregnant as I am. I don't care that she has a bigger risk, I only care about my risk. A pregnancy would have a major effect on my life, so I want to do what I can to minimize that risk.

Even in that situation, while I might consider RISUG as a means of preventing pregnancy, I would still not rely solely on it for protective/contraceptive purposes, as whether or not a ONS has some form of crotch-rot would be just as big an issue for me as potential pregnancy, so condoms would still be in play. So basically in that sense, RISUG would play a role as backup protection/reinforcement to condoms, as the latter covers more bases, even if with lower effectiveness rates where they overlap.

28064212

cython wrote: »

Even in that situation, while I might consider RISUG as a means of preventing pregnancy, I would still not rely solely on it for protective/contraceptive purposes, as whether or not a ONS has some form of crotch-rot would be just as big an issue for me as potential pregnancy, so condoms would still be in play. So basically in that sense, RISUG would play a role as backup protection/reinforcement to condoms, as the latter covers more bases, even if with lower effectiveness rates where they overlap.

Oh absolutely, I wasn't saying RISUG would replace condoms in that situation

28064212

5live wrote: »

Slightly off topic, a friend was recently surprised when his partner became pregnant because they were useing homoepathic contraception. I wonder what the failure rate on that was:rolleyes:

Presumably that works by implanting a small zygote into the womb in the hope it will vaccinate you against children :rolleyes: I suppose it works in a sense, you won't be able to get pregnant again for 9 months :pac:

Jam

cython wrote: »

So basically in that sense, RISUG would play a role as backup protection/reinforcement to condoms, as the latter covers more bases, even if with lower effectiveness rates where they overlap.

Contraception is like data backups: N = N - 1. If you're using one layer of contraception, you're using none.


I quizzed my friends about this before and I got a similar reaction, half of the men said they'd never take it. I had to query the double-standard of 'I'm not taking anything that makes me infertile.' But it's okay if she does? Some machismo of you're only as strong and masculine as you are fertile? I never did get a satisfactory answer. Baby-preventing is baby-preventing.

I'd take it in a heartbeat, I've no desire to be a daddy. All other common forms of contraception rely on one thing: fallible humans. Condoms slip, tear, expire, and the pill requires perfect routine/memory.

the_syco

Velocitee wrote: »

Still is it better than buying/wearing condoms for ten years/ messing up your partners hormones if they're on the pill - definitely.

People who have gotten the snip are not suddenly immune to STDs...

fluorescence wrote: »

This injection doesn't seem to have those side-affects.

It has to be 100% proven safe. Thalidomide used to be used a birth control, but it was blocked in the USA as a birth control (it's now used for other illnesses).

28064212 wrote: »

RISUG could reduce that to zero, as well as removing the other drawbacks of condoms (interrupts moment, sensitivity, repeat use)

And help spread STDs by foolish men thinking they no longer need condoms.

fluorescence wrote: »

Probably not. I'd say it's officially something like 99.6 or 99.7% effective.

I beleive it has to be 99% effective to pass in the USA. Not sure what percentage in India.

28064212

the_syco wrote: »

People who have gotten the snip are not suddenly immune to STDs...

And help spread STDs by foolish men thinking they no longer need condoms

Like the pill. And vasectomies. And every other method of contraception except condoms.

In reality, anybody who'd get this and think they were protected from STDs most likely wouldn't have used a condom anyway

parker kent

28064212 wrote: »

Like the pill. And vasectomies. And every other method of contraception except condoms.

In reality, anybody who'd get this and think they were protected from STDs most likely wouldn't have used a condom anyway

True. It is not the manufacturers fault if the users are idiots.

Morgase

28064212 wrote: »

Like the pill. And vasectomies. And every other method of contraception except condoms.

In reality, anybody who'd get this and think they were protected from STDs most likely wouldn't have used a condom anyway

I find it strange how people shoot down certain male contraceptives like RISUG because they do not provide protection from STDs. You just don't hear these arguments when you're talking about female hormonal contraceptives.

I'm surprised actually at the level of opposition to RISUG on this thread. If I were a man I would cheer at the thought of being able to have a contraceptive as good as this.

the_syco

Morgase wrote: »

I'm surprised actually at the level of opposition to RISUG on this thread. If I were a man I would cheer at the thought of being able to have a contraceptive as good as this.

If a pill came out that has yet to be proven effective outside a small lab in India, which you take only once and claims to be reversible, would you jump for it before it's proven by an independent lab?

We are talking about a drug that has been made in one lab in India, but has not been tested anywhere outside India. Thus, when it came to the States, they were told that they'd have to make it from scratch in the USA, and show that it works without causing defects in children, as well as not creating children, and that it's very effective.

Morgase

You're right, the_syco, I wouldn't take something that hadn't been fully tested yet. Having said that, I'd still be interested to keep an eye on its development (perhaps that is because I'm interested in any sort of medical developments generally). Though I wouldn't be rushing out to buy it immediately, I'd make a mental note about it and not say no to it straight off.

I'll put it this way: if I were a man, and had any concern about being made to pay for child maintenance (whether through one-nighters, or a girlfriend who was forgetful about her pill), I'd be interested in a drug or device that would allow me to take control of my own reproduction.

parker kent

the_syco wrote: »

If a pill came out that has yet to be proven effective outside a small lab in India, which you take only once and claims to be reversible, would you jump for it before it's proven by an independent lab?

We are talking about a drug that has been made in one lab in India, but has not been tested anywhere outside India. Thus, when it came to the States, they were told that they'd have to make it from scratch in the USA, and show that it works without causing defects in children, as well as not creating children, and that it's very effective.

Many of the people who are questioning the hesitance of others are saying IF it works. If is a small but important word. Nobody should need to be told that any drug needs to verified and tested stringently. But all many are saying is that IF it is proven to work as described and to be safe, then it may be a decent option for many men.

HellFireClub

SugarHigh wrote: »

lol I'm not putting anything in my dick unless I have to. I'm actually amazed at how easily women were convinced to take the pill which plays havoc with their hormones. Not a chance would I take it if I was a woman.

I guess it's because the consequences of pregnancy are bigger for a woman so they have more motivation.

Any chance some of them made an adult decision off their own bat to go on the pill???

SugarHigh

HellFireClub wrote: »

Any chance some of them made an adult decision off their own bat to go on the pill???

Don't twist sh1t for the sake of an argument.

HellFireClub

SugarHigh wrote: »

Don't twist sh1t for the sake of an argument.

I'm not twisting anything, you have claimed that women are somehow pushed onto the pill, the reality of 2011 is that if a woman wants to use oral birth control she can and if she is uncomfortable with it for any reason, she can choose to not use it, this isn't North Korea...

SugarHigh

HellFireClub wrote: »

I'm not twisting anything, you have claimed that women are somehow pushed onto the pill, the reality of 2011 is that if a woman wants to use oral birth control she can and if she is uncomfortable with it for any reason, she can choose to not use it, this isn't North Korea...

No sh1t.:rolleyes:

When a pill is created they have to convince people to take it. They wouldn't have been able to convince me to take it because of the side effects.

HellFireClub

SugarHigh wrote: »

No sh1t.:rolleyes:

When a pill is created they have to convince people to take it. They wouldn't have been able to convince me to take it because of the side effects.

No that only happens in the childrens ward. Adults can make an adult decision not to take oral medication and instead use condoms if they wish, I know several girls who have made that decision and are 200% respected by their partners, nothing unusual about it at all...

SugarHigh

HellFireClub wrote: »

No that only happens in the childrens ward. Adults can make an adult decision not to take oral medication and instead use condoms if they wish, I know several girls who have made that decision and are 200% respected by their partners, nothing unusual about it at all...

What are you on?:D

If a company makes a pill they still have to convince people to take it just like any company has to convince any customer to buy their product. I'm just that I wouldn't take medication that has the side effects of the pill unless it was absolutely necessary.

I think you know this but you're just bored or something. So I'm not replying to you again in this thread.;)

HellFireClub

SugarHigh wrote: »

What are you on?:D

If a company makes a pill they still have to convince people to take it just like any company has to convince any customer to buy their product. I'm just that I wouldn't take medication that has the side effects of the pill unless it was absolutely necessary.

I think you know this but you're just bored or something. So I'm not replying to you again in this thread.;)

I'm not bored at all, if people are concerned about the health risks of something, they can just choose not to take it. If they are comfortable with the information that they have been provided with, then can then make an informed decision to use a product. If they make a decision to use a product, then advertising can influence their decision to purchase and use that product. If they are not satisfied that the product is safe or suitable for them, then no amount of advertising can "convince" someone to use medication that they believe will be unsuitable or harmful to them.

28064212

the_syco wrote: »

If a pill came out that has yet to be proven effective outside a small lab in India, which you take only once and claims to be reversible, would you jump for it before it's proven by an independent lab?

We are talking about a drug that has been made in one lab in India, but has not been tested anywhere outside India. Thus, when it came to the States, they were told that they'd have to make it from scratch in the USA, and show that it works without causing defects in children, as well as not creating children, and that it's very effective.

Virtually none of the posters rejecting the possibility of using it have given "it's not yet proven to work as it claims" as the reason:

Dravokivich wrote: »

To be honest, that's not something I'd be interested in taking up.

frag420 wrote: »

Keep that prick out of my prick!!

SugarHigh wrote: »

lol I'm not putting anything in my dick unless I have to.

Cocaine wrote: »

This will never work. No man in their right mind would nuke their soldiers even be it temporarily.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You have to get the injection into your dick?

Not a chance would I get that done.

Most of the pro-RISUG posters have included a disclaimer somewhere along the line that their support is predicated on there being no side-effects and it being shown to work as intended

Malari

SugarHigh wrote: »

No sh1t.:rolleyes:

When a pill is created they have to convince people to take it. They wouldn't have been able to convince me to take it because of the side effects.

Some people don't suffer side effects. Also the side effects of not taking it is what I'd worry about. :cool:

the_syco

28064212 wrote: »

Virtually none of the posters rejecting the possibility of using it have given "it's not yet proven to work as it claims" as the reason:

Meh. Quick question: how soon after the pill being invented in 1960 did it become a popular method of prevention?

28064212

the_syco wrote: »

Meh. Quick question: how soon after the pill being invented in 1960 did it become a popular method of prevention?

Pretty damn fast as far as I can see. Approved by the FDA in June 1960, 400 million were sold in the US in 1966 URL="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843551-4,00.html"]source[/URL. And that's at a time where information was nowhere near as easy to come by and the moral/religious position had a lot more influence. What relevance does that have?

I have no problem with anyone saying they wouldn't use it until it's independently verified and fully tested. That's what I've been saying since my very first post on this thread:

28064212 wrote: »

If this is as good as it sounds, I'll be definitely using it. There is still a fair bit to go though....

My surprise is at the opposition from people saying they wouldn't use it even if it is independently verified and fully tested

parker kent

The speed at which the pill was approved has zero relevance to 2011. The FDA are far, far more stringent in the tests needed to get approval for any drug. Many popular, helpful drugs would not be passed were they to be released today.

Malari

parker kent wrote: »

The speed at which the pill was approved has zero relevance to 2011. The FDA are far, far more stringent in the tests needed to get approval for any drug. Many popular, helpful drugs would not be passed were they to be released today.

Really? How come they don't get recalled? I mean, I know, multi-billion Dollar pharmaceutical industry...but do they not apply tests retroactively for side-effects they find out afterwards?

parker kent

Malari wrote: »

Really? How come they don't get recalled? I mean, I know, multi-billion Dollar pharmaceutical industry...but do they not apply tests retroactively for side-effects they find out afterwards?

They have proven over decades and decades that they don't cause harm (or are only harmful to an extremely small amount). Whereas nowadays, any sign of potential harm could lead to the drug being scrapped at the development stage.

5live

the_syco wrote: »

Thalidomide used to be used a birth control, but it was blocked in the USA as a birth control (it's now used for other illnesses).

Thalidomide was used as an anti nausea drug for women with morning sickness not as a contraceptive. It reduced the growth of blood vessels in the embryo and is used with some sucess as an anti cancer drug to reduce the blood supply to tumours

the_syco

28064212 wrote: »

My surprise is at the opposition from people saying they wouldn't use it even if it is independently verified and fully tested

It depends where you look. Here, not many people will be interested in the snip, as the snip equals irreversible. When the FDA says the procedure is safe, this mindset will probably change.

Also, you have to ask its target audience. Asking those without kids, this would be a bad thing. Those with kids, this is a good thing. Many Indians and westerns view this as a very good thing, and many male parents are looking forward to this, esp as it's 100% - some of the other methods of vestocomy (as in, total snip) are not 100% effective.

28064212 wrote: »

400 million were sold in the US in 1966 URL="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843551-4,00.html"]source[/URL.

Uh, that was 400 million condoms sold in 1966... Of the 39 million American women capable of motherhood 7 million had taken the pill in the time that article was written.

5live wrote: »

Thalidomide was used as an anti nausea drug for women with morning sickness not as a contraceptive. It reduced the growth of blood vessels in the embryo and is used with some sucess as an anti cancer drug to reduce the blood supply to tumours

Then, it caused birth defects. Now, it's used by billions of people. Seems it's very effective in some diseases.

Eric Cartman

id be all over this, not as a replacement for condoms but as one of those backups incase something happened