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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2009-05-06 12:01 pm
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.