×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Reliable Male Contraceptive In the Works

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the aichmophobia-belonephobia dept.

Medicine 519

Hugh Pickens writes "The BBC reports that recent tests in China indicate a monthly injection of testosterone, which works by temporarily blocking sperm production, could be as effective at preventing pregnancies as the female pill or condoms. In trials in China only one man in 100 fathered a child while on the injections, and six months after stopping the injections the mens' sperm counts returned to normal. The lead researcher said that if further tests proved successful, the treatment could become widely available in five years' time. Previous attempts to develop an effective and convenient male contraceptive have encountered problems over reliability and side effects, such as mood swings and a lowered sex drive. However, despite the injection having no serious side effects, almost a third of the 1,045 men in the two-and-a-half year study did not complete the trials; no reason was given for this."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

519 comments

Possibly because it worked? (5, Funny)

powerlord (28156) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843821)

... almost a third of the 1,045 men in the two-and-a-half year study did not complete the trials; no reason was given for this."

however their recent child support filings may lend a clue.

Re:Possibly because it worked? (5, Funny)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843861)

Actually, if I remember correctly, excess testosterone gets converted into estrogen doesn't it?

I suspect those that stopped... Didn't like man boobs.

Re:Possibly because it worked? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27844005)

The real news here is the medical breakthrough hidden by the researchers: the 1/3 of the men that quit the treatment did so because they got pregnant.

Re:Possibly because it worked? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27844087)

The real news here is the medical breakthrough hidden by the researchers: the 1/3 of the men that quit the treatment did so because they got pregnant.

Nope. It was that the other 2/3 got the 1/3 pregnant.

Re:Possibly because it worked? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844331)

I would expect that to be considered a serious side-effect...

the article said despite the injection having no serious side effects

Re:Possibly because it worked? (4, Insightful)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844047)

I'd bet on 'not wanting to be repeatedly poked with a giant needle'

I remember seeing videos of some trials, it was really scary.

(was very afraid of needles, now so, so, still, not 'omg I'm getting a shot this is so cool!!')

Re:Possibly because it worked? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27844167)

Hmm, I think it needs to be a single shot that lasts a year. Going to the doctor to get this sorted out is just difficult for working people.

Or put it in the water supply, especially that of schools. That'll sort out the underage pregnancy statistics.

Re:Possibly because it worked? (5, Insightful)

SausageOfDoom (930370) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844101)

Irrelevant - any good journalist knows that 33% is statistically insignificant...

It really frustrates me whenever the media do a science story, especially one regarding medicine. In their desperation to focus on the human angle and "won't anybody think of the children" - and of course, increase number of readers - they completely ignore any basic scientific analysis.

A classic example was the MMR-gives-you-autism scare - they make a sensational headline from a report without investigating the background of Wakefield (the author who made the public statement that started it - he received money from lawyers trying to build a case), without giving any consideration to the statistical significance of his findings (the paper looked at 12 patients), and completely ignoring the fact that the paper said it couldn't link MMR to autism. Even though it has now been proven that there is no link, the doubt lives on in the public mind.

Perhaps this is due to scientific journalists having no real understanding of science. Perhaps they do, but have a better understanding of how their job depends on selling a story. Either way, they must take more responsibility for their power over the public.

Returning to the MMR story, Wakefield has been widely discredited and hauled in front of the GMC and could be struck off. Meanwhile, what has happened to the journalists who built the story into the frenzy that led to measles and mumps outbreaks in the UK? Nothing - they're still writing stories like this.

Re:Possibly because it worked? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27844229)

no, it's because a triple effect of testosterone

1) Makes you temporarely sterile, but...
2) impotent and therefore frustrated, ultimately leading to...
3) beating up your wife, who then refuses to have sex with you

Then you no longer want to participate with the trials; without giving any particular reasons for that.

So 1 in 100 chance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27843833)

That only matters if you actually have sex, so /.'ers should be fine.

But really, screw those odds. Or rather, don't.

quit rate... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27843835)

2.5 years of *injections* and 1/3 did not complete the term of the trials. Not surprising. Make it in pill form and you may have a higher completion rate...

Re:quit rate... (5, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843985)

2.5 years of *injections* and 1/3 did not complete the term of the trials. Not surprising. Make it in pill form and you may have a higher completion rate...

But on the bright side we've created a form of contraception that heroin addicts can get behind ;)

Huh? (4, Funny)

lars_boegild_thomsen (632303) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843841)

And this story was posted to /. why?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27843897)

Because now slashdoters can stop avoiding sex. After all, the nonexistence of a male contraceptive is why most slashdoters don't have sex frequently, right?

Trials are done in China... (3, Funny)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843923)

Less Chinese being born, less tech jobs can be outsourced to China.

It's not the medical relevance - it's economy.

1% ! (5, Informative)

Bibz (849958) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843843)

1% got pregnant, that seems pretty high for contraceptive. It would have to be used with other means

I stand corrected, the pill is 92-99.7% effective, about 5% of couples will get pregnant. So it seems this way is pretty darn effective.

Re:1% ! (3, Informative)

Strilanc (1077197) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844013)

A 1% pregnancy rate over two and a half years actually sounds very effective. I don't know the rates for other protection methods, or even unprotected, but I know they're not as good as 99% (in practice) over 2.5 years.

But 1/3 of the sample dropping out is not very promising. Side effects? Cherry picking? Guess we'll find out later.

Re:1% ! (5, Insightful)

Bibz (849958) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844055)

Maybe they just wanted to have childs...
2.5 years is a long time and they probably changed their mind

Re:1% ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27844045)

The Pill, at least some, are 100% if taken properly. At least the last one my other half was on claimed to be anyway (Microgynon I believe).

Re:1% ! (4, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844191)

Yeah it's 100% effective for some and 0% for others. What we're trying to figure out is how many there are of each.

No offence but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27844171)

This is what I would call an irritating pointless post. You started by beginning to post your initial impression - basically an ill-informed assumption. Then you thought you'd better do some research - dno't want to look ill-informed! Then the research told you you were wrong, so you changed what you were saying half way through your post. Why couldn't you have had a thought, done the research, come back with a more considered opinion, then posted that? You still would have got modded Insightful!

say goodbye to your testicles! (2, Funny)

denominateur (194939) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843849)

And as a useful side-effect, those pesky testicles will shrink and get out of the way.

Re:say goodbye to your testicles! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27843869)

Would be interesting to know if this happens. I have a daily prescription for Androgel and would be in the same boat...

Just the tip and I promise I'll pull out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27843851)

I tipped 20% IN CASH at a restaurant last night before I pulled out my wallet and paid with my credit card.
Anyway... about the story... I think it's a good idea.

Only 99% (1)

linumax (910946) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843853)

I know of a 100% guaranteed method. :)

Re:Only 99% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27843877)

Read slashdot?

Re:Only 99% (3, Funny)

arth1 (260657) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843887)

Me too. Keep a picture of Janet Reno in your wallet.
That's as close to a 100% effective prophylactic as you can get.

Re:Only 99% (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843889)

So do I. My ex girlfriends best friend.

You'd look at this woman and not have interest in anything for a month.

But, a month after seeing here, and all of a sudden, cute gals are once again cute.

gay sex? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27843937)

Is that what you do? Is it gay sex?

Re:Only 99% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27844033)

Aim for the chin is 100%. So is a pearl necklace... wait, this is slashdot so maybe that should be a perl necklace.

Re:Only 99% (2, Funny)

griffjon (14945) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844115)

You know, I practice abstinence. I practice it more than anything else - 20+ hours EVERY DAY I practice it, but still it doesn't work for me.

It's those other hours that I'm not practicing -- steep drop off effects.

IIRC, IANAD, but the 99% effective rating is not a per-encounter rating, but for a year of usage - i.e. 99% effective means that among 100 couples using it as their only form of birth control, 1 couple will conceive over the course of that year. Them's the breaks, and why it's usually a good idea to use 2 different methods. Bagging it also prevents things other than babies...

Morning after? (5, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843855)

But where is the male morning after pill?

Re:Morning after? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27843957)

They already have one - it changes your blood group!

Re:Morning after? (5, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844003)

But where is the male morning after pill?

It's called the over-the-counter female morning after pill and breakfast in bed ;) "Here honey, I love you so much that I made you breakfast!"

Yeah, I'm going straight to hell.....

Re:Morning after? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27844205)

A pill that changes your DNA sequence would make the perfect morning after pill for men.

Bad science (3, Interesting)

forand (530402) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843859)

When researchers don't address a loss of a 3rd of their sample they are not doing their job. Something is fishy from that end.

Also who wants only a 1/100 chance of NOT getting your SO pregnant? For most Americans that would be on the order of once year (assuming the women is only fertile for a few days a month).

Re:Bad science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27843899)

Hiding the fact that a 3rd of the sample died maybe? "No signi

Re:Bad science (4, Informative)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843993)

Also who wants only a 1/100 chance of NOT getting your SO pregnant? For most Americans that would be on the order of once year (assuming the women is only fertile for a few days a month).

It's not 1% chance per time, it's 1% per couple per 2.5 years (the length of the study). So once every 250 years for you and your SO, assuming you have sex about as frequently as the people in the study.

Unless of course the "almost a third" quit the study because it killed them, or made it impossible to get it up, or something.

Re:Bad science (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844001)

Also who wants only a 1/100 chance of NOT getting your SO pregnant? For most Americans that would be on the order of once year (assuming the women is only fertile for a few days a month).

You must not be married.

Well... (1)

Iburnaga (1089755) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843867)

Immensely effective but I'd trust the results more if it came from...well not-China. They have huge heads and trust like to fake results as often as money grubbers here.

You're doing it wrong! (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843881)

So, instead of wearing a condom (which also protects wearer from STDs) guys will start taking monthly medical appointments so he can be pricked with a needle?

Riiiight... I can so see that happening.

Re:You're doing it wrong! (2, Funny)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843909)

Well, in this initial prototype, yes. Eventually when they get it in the water supply, you won't notice a thing. Does that thought depress you? Don't worry about that; the lithium in the water will curb those feelings of desire for suicide.

I'm going to take the tinfoil hat off now.

Re:You're doing it wrong! (1)

mewsenews (251487) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843913)

Spoken like someone who has never worn a condom.

Re:You're doing it wrong! (-1, Flamebait)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843995)

Spoken like someone who has never worn a condom.

Oh... So you are one of those guys who goes around claiming that he doesn't wear condoms because they are all way too tight?

Hint... While you can't change your dick factor you CAN change the size and/or brand factor.

Re:You're doing it wrong! (4, Interesting)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844049)

I hate condoms. For a couple years I used them with my wife as the pill was creating undesirable side effects. Regardless of brand or style, you DO NOT get the same level of sensation as without. Tight, loose or somewhere in between.. the condom just didn't matter. Sure, it was still fun, but "unprotected" I could feel more sensation in my skin as it rubbed against hers. I am glad that since I had my two kids I went the vasectomy route. Sex life has improved, and it is a lot more fun.

On another note, it is also fun to be able to get half-way into it... take a breather and go back at it later. Repeat as much as I am able. With a condom, that just ain't practical.

Re:You're doing it wrong! (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844321)

I hate condoms.

I'd wager that all men hate condoms, and women probably aren't too fond them either (flavoured varieties included). That said, it's also worth pointing out that unless you're Jewish, or born in the last few decades when circumcision became almost routine, they really don't work too well.

Complicating things is the issue of size. How many here have had trouble finding something at your local drugstore that isn't just too fucking small? Don't feel obliged to answer unless you're aiming for a +5 Funny.

Re:You're doing it wrong! (1)

daybot (911557) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843929)

Dude you've got it all wrong. It's much easier for the Chinese government to inject contraceptives while you sleep than it is to sneak a condom on you every time you have sex.

Re:You're doing it wrong! (1)

sadness203 (1539377) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844027)

Hum... They just have to train some ninja, some stealthy ninja, unseen, unheard, just a legend... Oh yeah ... Now I can imagine ninja, entering house by night, and then the victim is now wearing a condom.

If they want to keep it ancestral, they could use sheep intestine.

Intriguing idea. (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844079)

Contraceptive-Ninja might use Shuriken-condoms - Shrondoms or Condrikens.

There is a weird Japanese commercial in here somewhere... Maybe something with Jackie Chan. [youtube.com]

Re:You're doing it wrong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27843955)

I have a 100% effective form of contraception. Instead of getting pricked in the butt with a needle, I get pricked in the butt with a prick.

"Homosexuality: preventing unwanted pregnancies since 776 BC."

Re:You're doing it wrong! (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844025)

Somehow, I have a feeling that accidental pregnancy is not one of your main concerns.

Re:You're doing it wrong! (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844019)

I'd assume that the use case is similar to the female equivalent. Physical barrier methods are great for dating purposes, cheap, effective, substantially mitigate the risk of disease transmission; but for people in the "longer term; but not spawning a crop of brats longer term" phase, something like this would make more sense.

People generally dislike physical barrier methods, when they can avoid them, and people generally suck at using them correctly when they are otherwise distracted(which is precisely when they need to be using them correctly). Compliance numbers on something you can schedule routinely once a month would be way higher, particularly if it becomes routine enough that it can simply be administered by nurse practitioners in clinics, rather than a full doctor's visit.

Gah, do not want (1)

snarfies (115214) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843901)

I'd be willing to take a pill everyday, but I HATE needles. I'll just stick with condoms for now.

Not that one ought to just whip it out if you're on these injections anyhow - I'm pretty sure they can't block disease like a condom can.

Side effects include... (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843903)

[This information witheld by government officials], male contraceptives are not for everyone, consult your physician if the [Information available on official request] outbreaks last for more than thirty hours at a time or result in [censored].

Oh yeah, I'm reassured now.

RISUG (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27843927)

We already have a reliable male contraceptive. It's called RISUG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISUG

Re:RISUG (1)

harris s newman (714436) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844089)

"RISUG works by an injection into the vas deferens, the vessel through which the sperm moves before ejaculation." Just knock me out first....

Re:RISUG (1)

Bobb9000 (796960) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844211)

We already have a reliable male contraceptive. It's called RISUG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISUG [wikipedia.org]

Second that with everything I've got.

I've been following the progress of RISUG for years, and it's been incredibly frustrating. It's by far the most promising-sounding male contraceptive out there (hey, they think it might even slow the transmission of AIDS!), but the clinical trials have been held up over and over again by various bureaucratic hassles, and that's just in India, which is so far the only country with trials in place.

If they offered clinical trials in this country, I'd jump at the chance, but I'm really starting to wonder why the hell they can't get their act together. It's almost as if there's some pharmaceutical-company conspiracy that prefers the idea of regular doses of expensive hormones to a good-for-ten-years injection of cheap plastic...

Re:RISUG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27844245)

I developed a better male contraceptive. I tmakes semen taste like chocolate.

interesting but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27843935)

99% effective rate on such a small population sample is worrying. Assuming it is pure testosterone, what are the side effects? It may be a naturally produced chemical in men, but it has been shown to have serous side effects in large doses. It is also one of the main ingredients in steroids. My best guess is that the roughly 400 men who dropped out of the study had side effects. How embarrassing would it be to have to admit that you were having a side effect to testosterone?

I did RTFA and it really doesn't say much more then the snippet.

Re:interesting but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27844105)

The most common side effect, and the one that probably caused the high dropout rate in this study, is that anyone receiving exogenous testosterone needs regular digital prostate exams.

Hint: "digital", in this case, does not mean it's done by a machine with blinking lights and an X-ray sensor.

Insanity Body Builders Already Learned The Effects (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843941)

Are they fucking serious? If injecting yourself with testosterone in any amount was safe every gym rat on the planet would already be doing it, AND SO WOULD EVERYBODY ELSE.

There is no way that the long term effects are acceptable.

Re:Insanity Body Builders Already Learned The Effe (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844107)

You're a dolt.

At the hospital my wife works at, they are using steroids to treat a range of problems, some of them as silly as "I think my sons penis is too small" or "my daughter doesn't have breasts yet / is already starting to grow breasts." So yes, appearly T is safe in some dosages, even when mommy doesn't know what she's doing and turns up the dosage inadverently to 2.5x the amount the doctor prescribed.

Like anything, too much is not a good thing, and once you introduce blanket bans you get black market effects... just like your cocain might contain some rat poison the black market steriods could contain just about anything, or might not even be for the right species.

Hah, they dropped out because (5, Funny)

new death barbie (240326) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843943)

"almost a third of the 1,045 men in the two-and-a-half year study did not complete the trials; no reason was given for this"

Nobody told them WHERE the injection goes.

Re:Hah, they dropped out because (5, Funny)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844189)

Injections (plural). You need to have two. One in each...

Oh my Lord. Brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it.

Re:Hah, they dropped out because (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27844235)

on my.... why did I read your comment!

similar to pill then... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27843963)

A lowered sex-drive is also very common among women taking the pill.

If you don't believe me, ask your girlfriend/wife to stop taking it for a while and post the amazing results here on this thread.

No side effects? Huh? (1)

sw155kn1f3 (600118) | more than 4 years ago | (#27843967)

Bodybuilders well know that after testosterone is discontinued you will have man's breasts in no time.
Well, after that you of course won't need to have females to play with titties.
No, thanks.

Oh great! (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844035)

After they fucked with women's hormones for decades, in the process fucking up many a life, they now turn their eyes on us?

Well, thanks, but I'll keep using condoms during the time my wife is fertile, thank you very much.

Re:Oh great! (1)

DarkSarin (651985) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844289)

Enjoy your next baby, pal. Cause I guarantee that you WILL end up pregnant if you go bareback at all and you have a reasonably fertile wife and you aren't firing blanks.

That's how I (and a BUNCH of other fathers) ended up with my second kid. Sorry, but a reliable male contraceptive sounds great. And honestly, something that quits farking around with my wife's sex drive (as in, killing hers) sounds freaking awesome to me. Even if it drops mine by a bit, if she's up for it, I'd be happy.

There's one major problem with this..... (5, Insightful)

benwiggy (1262536) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844057)

"Have you got any protection?"

"Don't sweat it, babe, I've had the injection. Honest."

"Oh, OK, then. On you go."

Re:There's one major problem with this..... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27844147)

"Oh, OK, then. On you go."

I think the word you're looking for is in.

Sigh.

I guess it's too much to expect the average Slashdotter to know that.

Re:There's one major problem with this..... (2, Insightful)

slim (1652) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844173)

Condoms for casual sex and burgeoning relationships.

Other methods for long term relationships between people who trust each other.

Re:There's one major problem with this..... (4, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844317)

If you're sleeping with with someone you can't trust to be on contraception, you should be using a condom to protect from STDs anyway.

Steroids (1, Informative)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844069)

Steroids are basically synthesized testosterone, and it's known that heavy users become temporarily sterile (as long as they're on the drug). And all those muscles will get you laid a lot more, so it's not really a bad side effect :-)

6 months to regain fertility (1)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844081)

So if you decide you want children you have to wait 6 months for the injections to wear off, or stop taking them 6 months early, possibly having a child before you planned because your fertility returned in 2 months instead of 6.

No relevence to Slashdot crowd... (-1, Redundant)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844083)

...who naturally have a 100% effective method of birth control.

Reliable Male Contraceptive Already Exists (4, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844097)

It's called Neem [wikipedia.org] oil, and the Indian military ran a one-year trial without side effects or pregnancies. The reason you're not going to see any Neem-based contraceptives go through the FDA process is that so far attempts to control it have been largely unsuccessful [pbs.org].

Next week, we'll talk about olive leaf extract...

Terrible report! (1)

tkjtkj (577219) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844121)

I thank the contributor here for showing us this news item, but the item itself is terribly flawed! How on earth may one assess the effectiveness of an injection this way! One might think that a measure of 'fertility rate change' would be included .. Sadly, none is. The unwary public is led to believe that it might be that only 1 baby produced by 100 men equals a rate of 1% !!! And that is fallacious at best! Just how many men were even having sex??? how often??? with whom?? with partners also on the pill??? NO mention of complications, and we note that prostate cancer can be stimulated by testosterone... Those who did not complete the study regimen stopped for some reason(s), none of which are given. It refers to sperm counts , yet gives no information on pre-treatment counts, post-treatment counts, or to just what 'normal' values did at least some of the sperm counts return. Sperm counts are only significantly associated with reduced fertility if they are quite low. This is worthless, shamefully-inadequate reporting. And that is not the fault of the /. contributor. tkjtkj, md

Could be even more effective (2, Interesting)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844177)

In trials in China only one man in 100 fathered a child while on the injections,

But was that child actually his and not the postman's or milkman's (or whatever the Chinese cultural equivalent is)?

Won't Someone Think of the ... Men (4, Insightful)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844179)

Quoth the article:

Family planning campaigners welcomed the news and said they hoped an injection would give couples more choice and enable men to take a greater share of the responsibility for contraception.

Now assuming that "family planning campaigners" are predominantly female (a fair and perfectly reasonable assumption), contrast the above with the following opinion from fertility expert Mr. Laurence Shaw:

"It would empower men to make a decision which involves more than just a condom. At the moment the onus is on the woman and men do not have that much choice.

The difference in both perspective and opinion is somewhere between funny and tragic. If you're a woman, the former is most true (men are all-powerful and don't need any "empowerment"). If you're a man who's been involved in custody or child support proceedings, it's likely that you've been made painfully aware that the notion of men's rights is routinely ignored, dismissed as unecessary, or taken away in a gesture of deference to the "weaker" sex.

1% of what? (1)

Thaelon (250687) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844181)

How is that 99% effective doesn't sound that good, but it depends heavily on how it was measured.

Is it 1% of couples? That would be excellent?

Is it 1% of all intercourses produced a baby? That would be about as effective abstaining when you think she's fertile, which is to say bad.

RISUG VS Systemic Hormones? (2, Interesting)

Gerafix (1028986) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844213)

I've read on a male contraceptive site about RISUG (Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance) that method injects a polymer into the vas deferens, but it doesn't block the vas deferens. So it is much better than a vasectomy as you don't get the pressure or pain associated with that build up. Also it is MUCH easier to reverse, as all they have to do is inject something else that dissolves the polymer. The polymer "deactivates" the sperm, or something like that.

Link is: http://www.newmalecontraception.org/vas.htm [newmalecontraception.org]

It's the best of both worlds, and you don't have to deal with the horrible side effects of systemic hormonal treatment. Males really got the short end of the stick for so long when it comes to contraception, either condoms which are unreliable or potentially non-reversible sterilization. I really hope RISUG gets passed in Canada soon as I don't want to have to rely on methods that have been proven to be less than ideal. I've even considered a vasectomy. Although I'm young so they probably wouldn't do it, I don't think I want kids at all perhaps that will change though. The reversibility of a vasectomy isn't very uncertain though. Sucks that it's free to get a vasectomy in Canada although it's so unreliably reversible, if RISUG would be free that would make my day.
Condoms are prone to failure or women poking holes in them to get themselves pregnant without your consent. Happens more than you'd think.

It's time for a Maleism Movement.

Alternate headline (1, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844221)

"Evil, Manipulative Women Everywhere Suddenly Deprived of Only Method to Trap Husband"

In the Works? (1)

PapaSmurph (249554) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844263)

There's been a male contraceptive for a long time! All you need to do is put a sharp rock in your left shoe. It makes you limp.

Didn't know (2, Interesting)

madjia (1233520) | more than 4 years ago | (#27844311)

"Previous attempts to develop an effective and convenient male contraceptive have encountered problems over reliability and side effects, such as mood swings and a lowered sex drive."

The side effects that are very normal and accepted for hormonal birth control for women are apparently not acceptable for men?

I would really welcome more options for men to control their fertility and be able to take a more active role in preventing pregnancy while in a relationship. I'd love to stop taking my hormonal birth control, but the alternatives right now seem too uncomfortable for both of us.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...