Oh, heaven forbid you poor men should have to go through exactly the crap women have to go through as a matter of course to prevent pregnancy. *Staples hand to forehead* Oh, a monthly injection! Oh, the trauma!
He's complaining about having needles stuck into him on a regular basis. Further down he says he's fine with implants or a pill, but doesn't think that people fancy having a needle stuck into them on a monthly basis.
Which doesn't strike me as being the kind of response that needs a sarcastic response like yours there.
Firstly, there are injection options for women. They stand at two-monthly and quarterly, but they were I believe monthly when they were first made available. With further research it's highly likely that the male-jab will end up being two-monthly or quarterly, I'd've thought - as a_pawson observes, the likelihood would seem to be that once the dosage and marketability is worked out more options will become available. If, of course, there's any uptake at all, which...
Secondly, a pill every single day is in some way less inconvenient than an injection? Personally, if I was actually in need of contraception I'd be much more likely to go for a jab than the pill. We also have the option of implants inserted under our skin, or physical coils fitted (some on slow hormone release). All very pleasant. Poor tortured boys having to have a widdle needlyweedly in their armywarmy.
And, I'm sure, when it comes in more useful forms, there will be more uptake.
Pills aren't painful to take. People dislike pain. You may want to debate the merits of different levels of pain, and decide to plump for the painful solution, but the fact remains that it will put people off, and understandably so.
Poor tortured boys having to have a widdle needlyweedly in their armywarmy.
Whatever contraceptive options have been made available to women over the decades, we have jumped at. We have messed with our hormones with pills, surgery, implants, injections (including monthly ones), whatever we could find. We've risked permanent damage to our fertility, metabolisms and skin. We've put up with increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer - both in potentia due to unknown effects and known risks. We have basically, as a population, been part of one decades-long medical trial, popping, injecting, implanting whatever seemed like the best (or least-worst) idea at a time.
Why? Because we have been given the impression that we have no other option. However it's supposed to be, the real fact is that most guys I ran into in my years of shagging them didn't even carry their own condoms. The onus was always on the woman to prevent pregnancy because she was the one who stood to lose the most.
This is all ancient history, so I won't bang the drum too hard. But surely then you can appreciate that it rises my hackles a little to see someone moaning about the fact that for the first time he might have the option to take responsibility for once and shoulder some of the crap that women already go through by default.
And my worry is that this is going to be the pervading attitude. This is my worry: there'll be no uptake because guys don't want to take those risks and as it stands, well, they don't have to. And when there's no uptake, there's no further funding or research. And so there's no working male pill. No male implant. No male quarterly injection instead of monthly. And nothing changes. And women continue to shoulder the burden of contraception alone.
You said yourself "This is probably for guys in relationships." Why? Single women still take the pill if they want casual sex... Don't guys have casual sex? Shouldn't they want to double-up (along with a condom that is) too?
It reminds me of a conversation on cangetmad's journal about male paternity leave. When surveyed men said they wouldn't take paternity leave because it was too badly paid. They were being offered the same leave as women. Of course, women don't get a choice about whether they take maternity leave... Same old story.
What's wrong with going month-about? Then the guy would only be getting a jab every other month and you'd both get a regular break from the hormone influx. Or maybe, since they take a wee while to settle, quarter-about or something. Seems to me like the best of both worlds.
Secondly, the one really solid argument for the guy taking the contraception is that in the rare event that long-term use did affect fertility (and assuming the same risk level, for the sake of the argument), sperm is (a) a lot cheaper (ie: potentially free) and easier to store than eggs and (b) much, much easier to have a successful pregnancy with after storage. Turkey basters are a lot more straightforward than egg-implantation.
The same link between the pill for women and hairyness/baldness, it's a hormonal thing. Same risk you take when you take any old medication - they all have a huge long list of possible side-effects. Hormonal medications are a little more likely than most, but often they're negligible and the most common side-effect is minor weight-gain and skin problems, both of which are only rarely unmanageable. By the same token I know a woman whose skin cleared up when she started on the pill, so you never know.
I told myself (and Morag) I wasn't going to follow the comments and get annoyed, because this is a big step forward in the way that society possibly looks at responsibility for contraception, so ultimately it's a good thing, but... argh! Are we really going to have to slog through all this crap first?
No, it's not for everyone, but the fact that there is a choice available is great. Making it so men and women have an equal responsibility, or at least the potential for one and all the risks that assumes, is a very positive thing.
I think it's about damned time you guys had the kind of 99% reliable option that us women have. Shame its hormonal, but still, progress. Will be a welcome extra safety net for those who do not fancy being caught out by condom accidents, sickness (if you throw up the Pill it don't do much) or female deception (this last possibility having always struck me as a rare, but most unfair asymmetry).
LOL. we all suffer unpleasant side-effects from hormonal messing, it's just that some are worse than others and some don't make the connection, and some side-effects take years to manifest. That's what I said it was a shame that the male version was hormonal.
The chances of me trusting a partner to totally take care of contraception are zero. I have no idea how men manage to do so (as many appear to).
It doesn't seem wise to trust one's own subconscious either, thus IUD.
by which I mean that refusing to reproduce is HARD. Your body will do things "of itself", make you forget, make you think "ach it'll be OK, make you take risks.
and also, you may be a fantastic judge of character - but *I* wouldnt' bet the course of my own life on it. Which it just as much is for men as women..
They started with 1045 volunteers and only 100 finished the study, not what I'd call a startling success. Since it's based on testosterone there are a wide variety of common side effects which being pessimistic is possibly why so many failed to finish the study. Much more work is needed but indeed a solution should be found.
I believe this is untrue. A BBC article states 'Despite the injection having no serious side effects, almost a third of the 1,045 men in the two-and-a-half year trial did not complete it and no reason was given for this...' which means perhaps 300 men dropped out. If you're referring to the '1 in 100' statistic they quote, that's been scaled down to give easier visualisation.
Oops, sorry my concentration is not what is was and I missed that bit - I should refrain from commenting on stuff these days that requires close reading.
Slow-release implants have been around for a while now. If the injections contain the same stuff each month, it's only a matter of time before an implant will be developed.
I knew there were going to be responses to this thing that would make me want to hit people. I didn't realise they would be people on my own friends-list.
Should specify, this is because I have a particular dislike of needles - not quite a phobia, but close to it. This is probably related to fainting the second-last time I had blood taken (as part of a diabetes study).
I'm also not entirely comfortable with the idea of taking testosterone, for medical reasons.
Haven't they been on about this for a few years now? Anyway, they should bloody hurry it up, me having had a very interesting conversation with my previous-lesbian-now-seeing-a-man friend going on the pill when she didn't want to. The whole conversation with her about it had me gritting my teeth in rage, yet I think if this option existed he would happily take it.
Mind, I was idly looking at the ASDA own brand lube in the supermarket the other day and wondered why, when I'm all OK not having sex of a certain type if my lady partner doesn't want it like that, this is apparently never, ever, ever an option with hetero-sex. I think this might be a pub discussion..
Also, are condom failure rates significantly low? Is the pill 100%?
Pill is about 2% failure rate, I think. Condoms, when they work/are used perfectly, are about the same, but in the real world are about 10% failure rate.
I suppose I'd've been having non-heteronormative sex all this time until this fabby new jab appeared for my bloke? That or I'd have a non-hormone-release coil or maybe be using a diaphragm, which used properly and in conjunction with a condom is pretty effective.
sorry - I was being a bit shy, I meant penetrative sex. Also I'm not sure I even know how to spell it.. Apparently it's not sex with a boy without it? Ick, it made me feel queasy, having someone clearly a bit upset because they didn't want to be on the pill but felt like they had no choice.
Of course not all sex needs to be penetrative. But most men focus on it - it's (mostly) what they want. Some relationships may work around this, of course, but most want. I'd have thought the reasons behind this would be a tad obvious...
And nobody needs to be on the pill. There are alternatives.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2009-05-06 12:01 pm
no subject
no subject
no subject
He's complaining about having needles stuck into him on a regular basis. Further down he says he's fine with implants or a pill, but doesn't think that people fancy having a needle stuck into them on a monthly basis.
Which doesn't strike me as being the kind of response that needs a sarcastic response like yours there.
no subject
Secondly, a pill every single day is in some way less inconvenient than an injection? Personally, if I was actually in need of contraception I'd be much more likely to go for a jab than the pill. We also have the option of implants inserted under our skin, or physical coils fitted (some on slow hormone release). All very pleasant. Poor tortured boys having to have a widdle needlyweedly in their armywarmy.
no subject
Pills aren't painful to take. People dislike pain. You may want to debate the merits of different levels of pain, and decide to plump for the painful solution, but the fact remains that it will put people off, and understandably so.
Poor tortured boys having to have a widdle needlyweedly in their armywarmy.
Well, that's _me_ convinced.
no subject
Whatever contraceptive options have been made available to women over the decades, we have jumped at. We have messed with our hormones with pills, surgery, implants, injections (including monthly ones), whatever we could find. We've risked permanent damage to our fertility, metabolisms and skin. We've put up with increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer - both in potentia due to unknown effects and known risks. We have basically, as a population, been part of one decades-long medical trial, popping, injecting, implanting whatever seemed like the best (or least-worst) idea at a time.
Why? Because we have been given the impression that we have no other option. However it's supposed to be, the real fact is that most guys I ran into in my years of shagging them didn't even carry their own condoms. The onus was always on the woman to prevent pregnancy because she was the one who stood to lose the most.
This is all ancient history, so I won't bang the drum too hard. But surely then you can appreciate that it rises my hackles a little to see someone moaning about the fact that for the first time he might have the option to take responsibility for once and shoulder some of the crap that women already go through by default.
And my worry is that this is going to be the pervading attitude. This is my worry: there'll be no uptake because guys don't want to take those risks and as it stands, well, they don't have to. And when there's no uptake, there's no further funding or research. And so there's no working male pill. No male implant. No male quarterly injection instead of monthly. And nothing changes. And women continue to shoulder the burden of contraception alone.
You said yourself "This is probably for guys in relationships." Why? Single women still take the pill if they want casual sex... Don't guys have casual sex? Shouldn't they want to double-up (along with a condom that is) too?
It reminds me of a conversation on
no subject
I just don't think that
no subject
Plus I'm hormonal.
Just think, if you were on the jab you would get to use that excuse. :P
no subject
What's wrong with going month-about? Then the guy would only be getting a jab every other month and you'd both get a regular break from the hormone influx. Or maybe, since they take a wee while to settle, quarter-about or something. Seems to me like the best of both worlds.
Secondly, the one really solid argument for the guy taking the contraception is that in the rare event that long-term use did affect fertility (and assuming the same risk level, for the sake of the argument), sperm is (a) a lot cheaper (ie: potentially free) and easier to store than eggs and (b) much, much easier to have a successful pregnancy with after storage. Turkey basters are a lot more straightforward than egg-implantation.
no subject
no subject
Or at the least it should bleeding well warn you before it commits the comment.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
There are going to be side-effects, and people are going to complain that it's a pain. It's not going to be for everyone.
But I'd go with it, providing the side-effects aren't too bad.
no subject
No, it's not for everyone, but the fact that there is a choice available is great. Making it so men and women have an equal responsibility, or at least the potential for one and all the risks that assumes, is a very positive thing.
*isn't able to resist responding on the site*
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The chances of me trusting a partner to totally take care of contraception are zero. I have no idea how men manage to do so (as many appear to).
It doesn't seem wise to trust one's own subconscious either, thus IUD.
no subject
Possibly because women are even more invested in making sure they don't get pregnant?
no subject
no subject
no subject
and also, you may be a fantastic judge of character - but *I* wouldnt' bet the course of my own life on it. Which it just as much is for men as women..
no subject
Since it's based on testosterone there are a wide variety of common side effects which being pessimistic is possibly why so many failed to finish the study.
Much more work is needed but indeed a solution should be found.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
*Glowers*
(not you)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'm also not entirely comfortable with the idea of taking testosterone, for medical reasons.
no subject
Mind, I was idly looking at the ASDA own brand lube in the supermarket the other day and wondered why, when I'm all OK not having sex of a certain type if my lady partner doesn't want it like that, this is apparently never, ever, ever an option with hetero-sex. I think this might be a pub discussion..
Also, are condom failure rates significantly low? Is the pill 100%?
I love how clueless I am about all of this :D
no subject
no subject
And your friend shouldn't go on the pill if she doesn't want to. Julie's not on the pill - it's not mandatory...
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And nobody needs to be on the pill. There are alternatives.
no subject
no subject
(Look at the stats for over 50s and STI because they think they're safe as they can't conceive.)