New male contraceptive may be submitted for Indian approval this year
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Hormone-based contraception feels like something from the middle ages. It has serious side effects, it has "harmless" side effects that aren't even related to the pill anymore after years of intake, but still an annoyance (migraine, headaches, yeast infections, high blood pressure, ...)
Non-hormonal contraception has its own negative aspects:
- Copper IUDs can cause a lot of pain, inserting them isn't that easy, they are ethically troublesome (eggs can be fertilized after ovulation, but the copper IUD prevents nidation)
- Natural family planning methods are way safer than many people believe (the sympto-thermal method), but don't allow unprotected sex during fertile days
- Condoms are way safer than many people believe as well (as long as you use the correct size) and won't go away because of STDs, but are a bit annoying in relationships
And there really aren't any other alternatives right now. The state of contraception in 2017 is incredibly sad and RISUG is the first attempt, which truly can disrupt (and I don't use this word lightly) the entire industry.
It will require some social shift. Men must be willing to take responsibility for contraception, but it's already happening: Recently, the pill for men was stopped because of side effects, but the men were disappointed. They WANT to have alternatives to condoms.
Me and my partner were planning on me getting a vasectomy in a year, when her implant runs out.
We've had to bring that forward a year because one side effect is also a symptom of cancer or polyps.
After removal, she experienced a huge lift in energy levels and greater stability of mood.
I have 2 children so a vasectomy isn't so bad an idea. Even still, it is an invasive and permanent treatment and I'd prefer something less so. Nobody likes the thought of a scalpel down there. Even a physician who wants to get it done.
Can you please elaborate on this, or link me something? Without going into too much detail, my partner has an implant, and has been having a cancer scare recently. I would really like to know more about these side effects of the implant, which as you say, are also symptoms of cancer / polyps.
It was only by the doctor's mention that we got the implant removed ASAP so we could see if it was that. If not, we could explore straight away.
Fortunately it was the implant. I'm not so sure about giving false hope as I don't know the ins and outs but it is possible.
The particular cancer is endometrial.
I've relayed it to my wife, and hopefully that's all this is. She's seeing a doctor today, so the timing couldn't have been better.
Edit: I would reply to your below comment, but I can't for some reason. But, just wanted to say, thank you.
I understand the fear, but I've seen people (even here) spread a lot of FUD about it. If you prefer something else: Sure! If you're merely uneasy about the process: Don't be, it's so common, fast and easy.
Mine hurt for more than a month. It's worth it and I'd do it again in a heartbeat, but hate it when people go around telling everyone that it will all exactly be the same. It ain't. Muzzle velocity is lower and the ammunition is visibly no longer standard issue. Further, the recoil action is quite a bit less intense. There's a lot of psychological stuff going on in this mind space, and discounting people's feelings about what is ultimately a primal urge is just foolish.
Source: all too painful personal experience (guess what doesn't always work on the first try? That's right. Local anesthetic.)
There is a real risk of chronic pain, which can be devastating, and it is much more common than the literature would have you believe.
I'm not aware of mainstream (or any, really) permanent solutions for women, at least not to replace contraceptives (medical reasons - like cancer - for an invasive surgery don't count).
So, if women usually don't decide to become sterile (?), the process to collect and store eggs seems less relevant.
Spanking one (or many) out in a cup at a collection center has virtually no risk to the man.
Check into Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome...
http://www.advancedfertility.com/ovarian-hyperstimulation.ht...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/periodic-abstinen...
although we do have this:
> "You really can't extrapolate from this paper," says David Grimes, an obstetrician-gynecologist and vice president of biomedical affairs at the nonprofit public health organization Family Health International. "Naive readers see these results, and they think [STM] is the greatest thing since laptop computers. The researchers on this paper went back and cherry-picked this data from an ongoing study from the past 20 years. They chose the users who were the best users for this method."
and there aren't any references there at all. Besides, the requirement that a couple perfectly adhere to the rules is pretty ... unergonomic.
(caveat: I'm of course not remotely anti-contraception, but it was a fun couple of searches)
That's only if you have some outdated religious beliefs (to put it kindly).
If you look at nature ~50% (various research points to 40% to 60%) of fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's menstruation cycle. So half are lost without attaching to the uterine wall and anybody noticing it.
There is also IVF that fertilizes many more eggs then end up being used / viable.
So the whole ethical concern about copper IUDs and preventing nidation is a misguided at best. And more realistically, it is a harmful and outdated belief clocked in arbitrary religious rules ... meant to exert control over women and families.
That strikes me as a bit of an unfair argument. I can't speak for all religious people, but for many there's a huge difference between losing fertilized eggs 'naturally' and inducing this outcome. Within their world-view, this distinction makes sense.
> So the whole ethical concern about copper IUDs and preventing nidation is a misguided at best. And more realistically, it is a harmful and outdated belief clocked in arbitrary religious rules ... meant to exert control over women and families.
While I agree on the arbitrariness, and while I'm not religious anymore, I once again don't think it's fair to argue that 'realistically' these beliefs exist to exert control. I'm sure many people have used religion to exert control, but most of the deeply religious people I know can do a decent job arguing why they believe what they do, I just disagree with their axioms.
Why should that be that the case? Their intent is already to lower fertility, and with IUDs, sometimes that (unintentionally) happens with identical symptoms to naturally "failed" implantations. ;-)
Parsemus apparently got started by licensing the technology from Guha, then developed its own solution inspired by that technology.
Although Vasalgel and RISUG® are based on the same concept of using a polymer gel injected into the vas deferens, the formulations are not the same. And RISUG has been developed and tested in India over multiple decades, while Vasalgel is being developed in the United States to conform to the latest FDA and international codes of production and safety.
And
only a small percentage of men who have had a vasectomy experience chronic pain (1-2% according to the American Urological Association). Our current understanding of Vasalgel is that fluids can pass through the gel, but sperm cannot. This will likely reduce the incidence of back-pressure. Sperm granulomas are formed when the vas deferens is severed in a vasectomy and sperm leak into surrounding tissue. Since injection of Vasalgel does not involve cutting the vas deferens, this should not be an issue.
Notice the non-answer below:
Our understanding is that Vasalgel works by blocking or filtering out sperm. In the past, RISUG (a different product) was described as working by shredding sperm by an electrical charge process as they went past the contraceptive that lined the walls of the vas deferens. Vasalgel makes no such claims.
https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/vasalge...
Contraline: http://contraline.com
Unfortunately, finding this initial stuff out takes time.
It'd still take some years to get some things to market, however, because some things need studied for a longer time.
Why does it have to be cheap for the consumer? They can charge $5k for this (honestly a bargain) even if the gel and syringe cost $5 to make. Isn't that what patents are for?
It shames me to think that we have a for-profit healthcare system.
One nit though: A ton of research is funded by the government, including drug research. We just don't have a federal program that requires commercialization of research to pay a royalty back into the program. If we did it would be a nice virtuous cycle, assuming some research continued to lead to viable products over time. Some universities have such programs in place for obvious reasons.
In the US, we suffer from an insane degree of regulatory medical conservatism. No one else in the world takes as long to approve life-saving medications as the FDA, and this is not rational; it's a reflexive political reaction to the Thalidomide disaster that isn't grounded in sound reason or statistics.
Here is an extensively cited analysis demonstrating that the FDA's extreme standards kill vastly more people than they save.
http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php
This isn't an inevitable problem; medical regulatory bodies like the EMA are much closer to the optimal level of caution.
It has _also_ published such gems as "The Scientific Case against the Global Climate Treaty" and “New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn't Telling Us”.
In light of that, I'll take their advocacy with a grain of salt.
---
On topic, while I can't comment on the EMA specifically, during my (extremely) brief period working alongside a medical device manufacturer, fear of FDA was oftentimes the primary motivating factor in keeping them honest.
While that's entirely anecdotal, when there are _significant_ financial incentives on the table people's morals tend to get more than a little flexible. Pharmaceuticals represent an area with _significant_ financial incentives, and, while I do agree that the FDA takes more time than is strictly necessary, it's a little fallacious to say they "kill vastly more people than they save" through regulation.
Not that this product is a bad thing, very useful for people in monogamous relationships.
http://www.catie.ca/en/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-ris...
This is not accurate in the US. HIV diagnoses among gay men have increased less than 1% from 2010-2014 according to the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/
> “Chemsex is a rapidly emerging pattern of drug use, not just amongst men who have sex with men as often assumed, but heterosexual patients as well,” Dr Richard Ma of the Royal College of GPs’ Sex Drugs Group told the Telegraph. [https://www.rt.com/uk/320758-chemsex-hiv-outbreak-doctors/]
I see this as something related to the bar/disco/club culture rather than something linked to condoms.
In my city, the old STD clinic was in a random building with mixed use (commercial, health, residential). The clinic was on the 5th floor and not marked. You only really knew it was a STD clinic if you had an appointment there. The clinic moved into a new building and were lucky to expand into a large space. Like many new buildings, way finding is important and the waiting room was marked with Sexual Health Clinic and the elevator level was marked with Sexual Health Clinic. Even though you don't need to use your own name at this clinic, they saw a huge decline in visits since it was quite obvious when someone was attending the clinic. People didn't want to be seen in the Sexual Health Clinic.
Unwanted children are typically not good for getting out of poverty.
This smaller subset would be at higher risk of STDs if they adopt use of this contraceptive and stop condom use while still sleeping around. If the trend continued, the incidence of STDs would increase, which would change the risk factor of STDs, which would sway a subset back into condom use.
All is balance.
So India in general has an extremely progressive acceptability for sex education. We have ads on national TV promoting condoms (by the govt. With Bollywood jingles) as well as female contraceptives.
You can pretty much walk into any govt hospital (which are not much to look at) and get free contraceptives and contraception operative procedures.
We have a huge govt funded initiative around sanitary napkins, which is also considered a marketing case study in general [1]. Remember this was done through schools.
The contraception debate in the US (including abortion) seems weird.
India does have a significant proportion of female foeticide for cultural reasons, which is why it is banned in India to do prenatal sex determination. This has entered the cultural psyche to such a degree, that my friends who have conceived in the USA, will explicitly tell their doctors to not tell them about the gender (yes. An Indian citizen can be arrested upon entry to India if it can be proved you paid for sex determination outside of India).
However the impact of contraception innovation in India reaches far beyond it's shores. We are the largest supplier of generics and contraceptives to several third world countries including Africa.
[1] https://scroll.in/article/802833/how-the-advertising-industr...
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_...
Having said that, I would also say that contraception (and its weird, twisted forms) are very much part of our culture ;)
To quote the article referenced below:
"..Nine Indian states (Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, West Bengal, Delhi, Karnataka and Maharashtra) had fertility rates less than the replacement level of 2.1.
Kerala and Tamil Nadu, at 1.7, had lower fertility levels than Norway and the Netherlands, at 1.9 and 1.8 respectively."
http://www.indiaspend.com/cover-story/ageing-india-south-ind...
"India has more married women with an unmet need for family planning than any other country, and social stigma and a lack of privacy in stores has kept condom use to less than 6 percent."
Progressive acceptability maybe - but it appears Indians have very poor compliance, at least with condoms. Here's some data from the UN in 2015. India does OK compared to the rest of the world in regards to contraception. Most contraception use in India is by permanent sterilization - which is likely BTL (bilateral tubal ligation).
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publication...
It's what you'd expect where adults, especially lower- or lower-middle-class adult women, will almost never talk about sex, resorting to grown-up versions of "wee-wee", or oblique "that time of the month"-ish circumlocutions, if they do at all.
India also has a pretty grim history of adult men being forced to undergo (often botched) sterilization during the infamous Emergency declaration in around 1977, with a significant number of casualties. This kind of history obviously muddies the waters (as if the almost-institutional cultural reluctance to engage with these matters wasn't enough).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(India)#Forced_s...
I must say, though, that there are more TV ads than ever, and even the occasional billboard (which residents' unions will often try to shutter on the grounds of "public morality") for condoms or contraceptive pills. AFAIK (and it's no wonder why) the government doesn't advertise morning-after pills at all, but Indian Big Pharma does (and, again, I doubt how many of the people who'd actually benefit from the ads see them or act upon the information). Unlike the situation in the US, here the driver is some kind of ill-defined "decency" rather than the threat of swift retaliation from an enraged petty deity: not that it makes much of a difference.
The condom issue has been well known for decades. Since the 60s, contraceptive health in India has been entirely focused on women for this same reason .. as a way to give them the choice instead of asking men.
The compulsory sterilization was an extremely tiny slice of history..For which the political party in question is being punished TO THIS DAY.
You are right about the colloquialism around talking about sex. Actually it's funnier than "wee wee". There is a cultural bias against women being "impure" at a certain time of the month - and then being disallowed in the family kitchen. The marketing campaign around this was a version of "don't touch the pickle".
Point being - this is not unusual. But the Family Planning bodies in India are now masters or crafting the marketing and the messaging to bring the conversation out in the open.
They did this very successfully with contraception in villages by organizing women committees..And for sanitary napkins in schools.
Personally I consider immediately after having second child vasectomy, though if wife would agree I would do it already now (one child is more than enough for me) plus store sperm in bank just in case if changing mind, since I heard reversing vasectomy ain't that successful. Seem safer with 0.15-1% failure rate than this method.
Efficacy for contraceptives is almost always measured per year. That is, of every 100 couples using this method for a year, two will become pregnant. As the article says, this is about the same level as (perfect use of) condoms.
Obviously, for many patients, the benefits will massively outweigh the risks (assuming the clinical testing bears out the initial results).
Hm, in America you can get a patent term extension due to regulatory delays in bringing a product to market at other agencies, such as the FDA
Does that not exist in India?
The reason is that they don't know it exists. Condoms are OK, but for that drunken one night stand, not necessarily good enough. Female birth control has the problem that you have to trust your partner (spoiler: not everyone is trustworthy.)
When my son has his first girlfriend and if it is getting serious, I would get this done for him if it was available.
Disregarding that, this is such a non-issue that you're being downright silly. Women have IUDs and implants and don't suddenly "forget" they have them.
Ignoring that there's absolutely no reason not to bring this to market because there's a small chance of user error. That's like saying "condoms shouldn't exist because you can run out."
Men don't generally get vasectomies until they (think they) are done having children. This would be a reasonable procedure to have when you are young, have it reversed when you are settled and want to have kids, then have re-done (or get a vasectomy) when you're done.
2) Surgery requires healing time, this doesn't.
3) The risk of injection is significantly less than the risk of surgery.
4) LARCs - Long Acting Reversible Contraception, those that work for an extended period of time without user action but are reversible when pregnancy is desired, are pretty much the holy grail of contraception. Currently we have IUDs and implants as the only LARCs. The Depo Provera shot is sorta-kinda LARC-ish, it requires user action 4 times a year. This is intended to be reversible with a second injection, eventually.
5) Adding more contraceptive options, especially for men, is pretty much never a bad idea. Choice is good. Even with all the options there are my spouse and I have not found not a single option that is ideal for us. THIS would be absolutely ideal for us and I'm stoked to hear about it.
6) Its much cheaper!
> 2) Surgery requires healing time, this doesn't.
> 3) The risk of injection is significantly less than the risk of surgery.
> 4) LARCs - Long Acting Reversible Contraception, those that work for an extended period of time without user action but are reversible when pregnancy is desired, are pretty much the holy grail of contraception. Currently we have IUDs and implants as the only LARCs. The Depo Provera shot is sorta-kinda LARC-ish, it requires user action 4 times a year. This is intended to be reversible with a second injection, eventually.
> 5) Adding more contraceptive options, especially for men, is pretty much never a bad idea. Choice is good. Even with all the options there are my spouse and I have not found not a single option that is ideal for us. THIS would be absolutely ideal for us and I'm stoked to hear about it.
> 6) Its much cheaper!
2) it's not like you would have that much sex after children it could not wait for healing
While you can go back to day-to-date activities after a few days, there is still extra time to heal fully. Pain can hang around for a long time in some cases—even years. Infection is also a big concern, so take it should be taken very seriously.
With all of that said, a vasectomy is a much better and simpler option than female sterilization for a majority of people and has a high success rate.
In the clinic I went to they hand you a subscription for pain medication as routine and give you an ice pack to put on your scrotum.
I was happy to have taken the pain meds before the anesthetics wore off I'll tell you!
http://fortune.com/2017/03/16/vasectomies-during-march-madne...
Though this was in a major urban area.
i am more worried about cost of freezing sperm since i am relatively young and you never know
Not only that, but even when a woman is in obvious pain and having issues which only a hysterectomy will solve (ovarian cysts) - if she is under 30 or so, they won't give it to her.
My wife and I made the decision not to have children a long time ago. In the meantime, she's had times where she went into the hospital ER for pain caused by ovarian cysts. She attempted to inquire about a hysterectomy from her doctor after these episode, only to be rebuffed about "what about having children later", etc.
To this day she still has problems, but it has waned greatly now that she's approaching menopause. She'd still like to do it just to stop having a period, but it's no longer the crazy amount of pain that it was.
I found it frustrating for her that as an adult, she was being restricted from making choices about her own body to improve her health and quality of life.
and yes i am aware you could sue such doctor or hospital, bit it's just too much have to force someone to do something they don't wanna do
Downside is that in the US, testosterone is, hilariously, Schedule III. But 5 minutes with Google should have you sorted. Can get OTC in other places.
You're of course free to attempt to convince a doctor to prescribe. Or you can buy the drugs and get a $100 blood test to verify it's real as well as do a fertility test. It's just an affront to liberty to pay a gatekeeper to allow you to change your own hormones.
Here's a study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15126550
You need an anatomy lesson or you need to read the article before commenting
It is difficult to understate the importance of bringing only wanted children into this world, and that both parents agree on it. The cultural importance of this invention will be revealed in time, I hope.
Fear of it not being as reversible as it was supposed to be would be a pretty good reason not to use this one.
If you're married, with children, and looking for an alternative to vasectomy, that risk is lower in the sense that should the reverse procedure not go as expected, it would probably be less crushing than the same experience as a newlywed.
It's really rare to find anyone who merely wants to argue for it. Most either keep it to themselves or try to impose their morals on others.
"Morals are a good thing" whose morals, exactly? Let me guess, yours happen to be the correct ones?
Abrahmix religions and Hinduism generally disagree on several moral issues, such as how many gods may be worshiped.
/s (for "scottish")
Fast forward a few centuries and that (very practical) advice has become 'word of god' moralistic. Now with modern birth control we have better ways to avoid pregnancy than abstinence. But (unsurprisingly) the church's practical advice hasn't caught up with modern technology.
/"chewed gum" arguments?
Also regardless of political correctness, the US at least doesn't seem to have any problems ruining young people's lives in order to appease to religious groups demanding to dictate what consenting adults can and can't do to their own bodies.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/30/health/male-birth-control/
I mean, one would think that anyone with the minimum sense of logical thinking would understand that it is way easier to prevent 1 (as one, singular) single egg to get fixated in the uterus during the course of 28 days, than to prevent millions (as in > 1000000) of spermatozoids to be produced every single day.
But perhaps it's just me that actually looked at the obvious numbers...
And in any case, basic biology and the presented numbers still stand as the reality.
It also has literally nothing to do with the thread in question, which is discussing whether one should advocate for these kinds of contraceptives when they may increase the rate of STDs.
The side effects of female hormonal birth control are really bad for plenty of women.
I think you lack at least some grasp of basic statistics.
As for the 99%, just read TFA.
I can't think of many other situations in which (all else equal) a parent would choose to increase a child's risk of life-altering mistakes because reducing that risk would not reduce other risks as well. Don't tell Becky to brush her teeth; she might just fall down and break them out anyway.
Everyone's child is a special snowflake, but we know abstinence-only education is a failure at reducing unwanted pregnancy and STDs. What it doesn't fail at is increasing human misery by weaponizing moral choices about sex.
The original comment didn't encourage high risk behavior or say anything about ignoring the risk of STDs.
Personally I would preach Condoms over pills (although I freely acknowledge they can fail, and indeed suspect it's even more likely when teens are the ones using them).
Just like you can and should preach the value of abstinence and the consequences of sex to your teen while also teaching about safe(r) sex.
Otherwise: money, sleep, free time, dating pool shrinks significantly, peace of mind, ability to travel
> I don't know what kind of peace of mind you get by living for your own pleasure
> If you're not dedicated to raising others up, either your kids or in some kind of missionary work, then not really sure you can say you're living your life and are doing anything worthwhile
Are you unable to look at life through any lens other than your own? There are lots of different types of people in this world living a myriad of different lifestyles, many of which offer plenty of personal satisfaction, add real value to the world, and should be considered worthwhile. Having kids and doing missionary work might personally give you a sense of self worth, but that doesn't mean there aren't other paths to finding self worth/meaning that aren't just as valid. Your worldview is not the only one that matters.
Yes, having kids brings meaning to a lot of people's lives. It's certainly not the only way to lead a fulfilled life, though. In fact, with populations booming everywhere, I'd say it's a good thing that less people want kids.
I know of many people who DO have kids who are constantly bitching about how annoying it is to have kids. They smile through their teeth and say it's the best thing they've ever done, but it's obvious they're reading the script society has handed them while silently thinking "what the hell have I gotten myself into?"
Nothing wrong with not having kids!
The peace of mind that my non-existent children cannot get hit by a car or get cancer or get killed in Iraq or any of the myriad worries that are at the forefront of every parent's mind.
> On ability to travel: most people eat sleep go to work go to the bathroom and spend time with their families
I'm lucky to have a lot of opportunities by living in a first world country with a high salary and a strong passport. It seems wasteful to give them all up just to live like 'most people'.
That said, you may be surprised to learn you can live a pretty normal life with a child.
My wife and I made the decision not to have children a long time ago, and we don't regret it in the slightest. What we have found, though, is that our friends and co-workers continue to have on-going "problems" with their children.
Issues of sickness, parent-teacher and other school things, dealing with unruliness or other behavioral problems, the on-going costs of raising kids, finding daycare, time off for activities - or simply picking the kids up from school, having to get a more expensive (larger) car(s) because of having a kid (or more kids)...it just goes on and on, all the way through (and sometimes beyond) high school graduation and college. If the parents are lucky, the kid goes to college and moves away. But increasingly, that doesn't seem to be the case - we hear and see about many parents (friends, co-workers, and strangers) whose children stay at home, without a job. So they (the parents) continue to complain about that, wondering when their children will leave, or get a better education, or whatever.
It's gets tiresome after a while; it is also tiresome that you want to tell them about something you bought, or something you're doing or going to do (a vacation, higher education, a new job opportunity, or a business venture) - but you sometimes have to hold back, because you know that you're just throwing it in their faces that "this is what I have, and you don't because you're dealing with your kids".
...then there's the relief we've seen on our friend's and co-worker's faces when they (finally) say that their children have bought a house, and have moved out, or have a job, after graduating college or high-school or whatever; they look like a burden has been lifted from them (while at the same time a bit sad - I imagine because of their kids no longer being around - I can empathize with that).
It seems like children are a double-edged sword. Are there good times and good (great!) experiences to be had with children? Surely! I'll never know the thrill or excitement of teaching my child how to ride a bike, or use powertools, or how to code, or any number of other experiences (and there would be many). But with that loss, I also won't ever know the debt and trials children put parents through, the loss of time and energy, the fear when they don't come home on time.
I and my wife have chosen this; to say our life is abnormal because we came to that decision based on many discussions is to devalue our ability to make our own adult and independent decisions. Similarly, I can't honestly criticise someone for having children. All I do ask is to quit complaining about the decision(s) you made. Because that is the adult thing to do.
The fact is, just by the numbers, having children is normal. But that doesn't mean you should do it!
There used to be a time when we as a society valued things like self-control, discipline, and tradition. No more.
What you are alluding to here is a world where we are ruled by our emotions and our basest desires without the fear or potential for having to deal with our actions. To divorce sex from children is to misunderstand intimacy, the family, and the entire underpinning of our society.
EDIT: Yeah, I know conservative positions on HN are ways to make your Karma go down, but hey, that's what forums are for right, to have your opinions regarded as trolling instead of interacting with them, right?
Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man.
Seriously, we've had modern birth control for a century. Not only has society not collapsed but a whole number of hidden evils have been abolished (Tuam passim), and needless poverty avoided. It's our perfect anti-Malthusian weapon.
This is Hacker News in the 21st century. Tradition alone is a terrible reason to do things. I'm astonished that your comment seems to have been upvoted here.
Edit: I'm trying to keep it civil but I'm really disappointed not just that this appears on HN but it's sitting at the top of its thread tree not greyed out at the bottom.
Oh, and it's "alluding" not "eluding".
When such hardships are made optional by technological or social progress, most find new challenges to conquer but many regret their loss.
Birth control is old news in the Western world. But the cycle will repeat with new technologies. Suppose you're serious about fitness, you spend hours every week spinning and cross-fitting, and your abs are rippling. And tomorrow, a pill is developed that lets everyone be perfectly fit with zero effort. What do you get for all your hours at the gym? Can you imagine being bummed that everyone else is getting for free what you worked so hard for? That might give some idea what pre-birth-control nostalgia is like.
For a clear-eyed view of these less inspiring aspects of human nature, read Sapiens and Homo Deus by Harari.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
And it used to be that, in order to eat food, you had to work 12 hours a day under the hot sun, which was great because only the righteous could be fed.
Now anyone, even those born to a weakling family, can get a job as a software developer and spend time chatting on Hacker News, and still feed a family. It's shameful.
Many people do not want a family. We have a sizeable population problem and many unwanted children are already born into poor conditions.
Safe sex is important, but "self-control", implying denying oneself sex, is a choice you can make, but certainly most would not. The "tradition" in the past was (still is in many places) patriarchal oppression and to expect or TAKE sex, forcefully if necessary. Colour me unimpressed by tradition.
Despite those values it never worked for preventing children.
A lot of us here just accept that reality and are open to removing the human element from it.
What evidence do you have for this fantasy? The extremely high number of children per family/couple before contraception came along?
> There used to be a time when we as a society valued things like self-control, discipline, and tradition. No more.
Is that also the time when people died from rubella and mumps, or when women weren't allowed to vote? Usually an appeal to a bygone era is a secret yearning to go back to a time when the holder of that view had more power over others who now have equality.
> What you are alluding to here is a world where we are ruled by our emotions and our basest desires without the fear or potential for having to deal with our actions.
Yeah, because humans /never/ let themselves get ruled by emotions for the first ~100,000 years of history. /s
> To divorce set from children is to misunderstand intimacy, the family, and the entire underpinning of our society.
And yet, I (a man) had some lovely martinis with my poly boyfriend last night before falling asleep with him. Today, I'm being productive and contributing money to our gorgeous house, and contributing to both my local economy and my various levels of government by paying a decent portion in taxes. Tonight I think I'll spend time with friends and our lives will all be that much better for spending time together.
But please, tell me more about how my lack of child-bearing sex is ruining society.
I don't agree with the GP at all, but I think you're reading something that just isn't there.
By the way, we've been controlling our fertility since the sexual revolution which started around half a century ago. Since our society hasn't collapsed in 50 years I can assume additional and safer options to control our fertility won't bring a collapse.
No, no there has never been a time. People in the past were just big liars. People have always done whatever they want. The only difference today is that many people have the option of being honest about it
That's not to say your partial understanding is not valid, it's just incomplete.
Not only am I adopted (thus not "wanted"), but neither of my children were planned and my wife and I initially couldn't agree. From my real world experience, and not speculation, it only takes one person to "want" a child, and biology literally has nothing to do with it. I'm also not angry, sad, or pained with regret; it's impossible to generalize how individuals will respond.
All of that said, I'm all for increasing the availability and effectiveness of birth control, and hope that children make their way to an environment of love and nurturing. So, what really can't be understated is the importance of parents and guardians being emotionally equipped to respond to those responsibilities in a way that is positive to all involved.
Your birth parents may not have wanted you, putting you for adoption. However, you were wanted in a different sense, chosen for adoption by whomever adopted you.
-shrugs- Don't know what point I wanted to make, just a thought
Instead, what may have happened are situations changed for the couple. Maybe a nasty divorce occurred, or one of the partners abruptly left the relationship for reasons? Or maybe the father suddenly died? Or lost his job (or she did - or they both did)? Or any one of those coupled with already having other children. Any one of those, and other reasons, could be the case. Had something like that happened late in the pregnancy, where a legal late-term abortion wasn't available or allowed, then adoption might be the only choice for the parent(s).
That doesn't mean s/he wasn't wanted by the birth parents, but that they instead (perhaps) loved the resulting infant so much that they decided adoption would give a better chance for life than keeping him/her. Maybe that was the wrong choice, maybe not.
Adult choices are rarely easy.
No one is attempting to cast aside unwanted children. We're trying to prevent conception from happening in the first place for people who are not ready. In this sense, there would be no need for adoption (optimistically speaking), because the only children conceived were done so with intent. It takes out the whole, "Oh crap, I'm not ready aspect," (again, optimistically speaking), because both parties would have had to agree that they were attempting to have children.
To reiterate, this is optimistically speaking. There are always instances where parties agreed but then realize mid- or post-pregnancy that having a child isn't for them for any number of reasons. Contraceptives won't fix that. I'm not trying to trivialize your experience nor your feelings. I just think that you're addressing something completely different.
So are you saying that, despite the effort, time, and money it takes for adoption, your adoptive parents didn't want you?
That doesn't make any sense.
While it might be true that your birth parent(s) didn't want you, there might be reasons why that is so; of course, I can't speak to that as I don't know your situation.
What I can say, though, is that my parents wanted me when I was adopted. I can't really say why my birth mother (let alone whoever my father is/was) gave me up for adoption (what I was told as a child, doesn't sit completely right with me as an adult - I'll never know the truth, though - and that's ok). But I do know that my adoptive parents spent a lot of time and money to keep me (I was a foster child before that, at 2 years of age). That and the rest of my life growing up makes me know that I was wanted.
Perhaps I'm just misinterpreting what you wrote; if so, I apologize.
No. I'm pretty confident that the "not wanted" statement was made in reference to the biological parents.
p(parents are generous/caring/loving | parents are the type of person to adopt a child) > p(parents are generous/caring/loving | parents bring pregnancy to term)
In addition, for adopted parents, we know that both parents want the child. Whereas with birth parents, we know that the mother wanted a child but we do not know if the father did.
I can think of many situations where this wouldn't be the case. Poor women in states with restricted access to abortion (requiring multiple visits to a clinic that's hundreds of miles away for example); women trapped in controlling relationships where leaving could be physically risky; teens who get pregnant for socially immature reasons and end up not wanting the child.
> That's not to say your partial understanding is not valid, it's just incomplete.
Thank God somebody who understands everything has shown up to set them straight.
"Kids" are going to have sex, we should take every opportunity to provide them with a means to do it as safely as possible.
1. Herpes. It's usually on the level of "slightly annoying" rather than catastrophic. Pretty much the biggest downside of having herpes is the obligation to tell sexual partners that you have herpes.
2. Things that die to antibiotics. Syphilis, Chlamydia, etc. You get them, you get sick, you get treatment, you get better.
3. HIV/AIDS. Treatment is much better than it used to be for this, but it's definitely still the scariest one.
Basically, getting tested regularly is probably enough precaution. You'd feel more regret over picking up an STD than putting too much effort into avoiding STDs, so it makes sense that people over-invest in this area (see also: hiring decisions).
Maybe I'm reading your comment entirely wrong, but this sounds ridiculous? What even is regular testing anyway? I should suddenly be just fine going on tinder or taking men from bars home and not require any condoms, instead just check myself every month and take a bunch of medication if things did go wrong? Or do you mean me and my partner can have sex in our monogamous relationship without condom but instead a regular checkup?
I see the first idea as a terrible idea, and the second as - while safe - a little excessive after the initial checkup when you both are ready for it.
Unanswered however is, "How will this affect relationships between men and women"?
The "MGTOW" crowd laud this development, arguing that once control of fertility is in the hands of men rather than women (a woman can always "forget" to take the pill)... something good, as they define it, will happen. (IANAMGTOW - I am not a MGTOW)
In terms of total fertility rate, what does this mean for a country/nation when one population group greatly restricts having kids in terms of moral suasion, societal acceptability, etc. while offering money to those who do have kids? e.g. upper middle class (children discouraged, at least beyond 2 kids) vs. other classes in society (have a bunch of kids).
Living in the USA I have often heard complaints along the lines that we seem to be "discouraging the smart and hard-working people from having kids, while paying stupid people to have them".
Further, your notion of "Idiocracy" (believing that the "smart hardworking people" have fewer kids) doesn't match at all with the fact that IQ keeps rising in every generation in the US, and fewer people are poor or jobless than they were in the 50s or before.
Others have calculated that USA/UK have lost as much as 14 IQ points since Victorian times. see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2730791/Are-S... .
The Richard Lynn they quote, has been published in Nature, amongst many other other publications: http://www.rlynn.co.uk/
The Prof. Woodley they quote, is also a real person: http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/cgi-bin/homepage.cgi?email=michael...
As is Jan te Nijenhuis: http://www.uva.nl/en/about-the-uva/organisation/staff-member...
Sorry, but I don't think your comment added anything to the discussion.
Presumably the reason that the parent commenter thought it appropriate to to mention that it was a tabloid article was because it used the standard tabloid technique of putting a sensational notion in a headline that is almost entirely unsubstantiated in the text.
You offer as support several links, mostly just proving that people exist. But your first link, with actual information, completely refutes your statement. [1] It refers to the effect that IQ has risen by 3-10 points per decade for several decades, and in the past few years it "may" have leveled off, or dropped by 1.5 points.
The actual author of the study has said that leveling off is to be expected, and any "decline" is quite likely noise due to chance.
But regardless of whether the 1.5 point decline in the past couple years is true, the entire article the opposite of the claim that we have lost "14 IQ points since Victorian times," since you cannot reconcile that with the Flynn effect actually being discussed in the article.
Combing down through the tabloid article, almost every other study refers to a decline of "about 1 point." Your headline claim is one single interesting (though bizarre) study that uses reaction time to try to estimate IQ, and tries to compare it to reaction times in studies from the Victorian era. [2] As you can imagine, published responses to this article from other scientists has been that of skepticism, to put it mildly. [3]
1. http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2014-September/015965.html
2. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613...
3. http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/nettlebeck201...
The rest of your comment doesn't apply to my point, seeing as I was pointing out that it was easy to find the actual people at the actual uni's quoted, via simple Google searches, and that their published papers did in fact make the various claims.
Thus the original response of "this is from a tabloid" added no value.
Being poor or jobless has vastly more to do with (lack of) technology and access to resources than it does with your position on the intelligence distribution.
Hormonal BC is 99.9% in comparison but is not in the man's control :(
Sadly, among wealthy and famous men, there are even cases where the woman uses the contents of the used condom to impregnate herself - and then successfully sues for child support.
Like female BC, this is something that is completely invisible and does not rely on an external or mechanical method of prevention.
It's not a conspiracy theory to point out that there are a lot of men out there who are living lives of poverty due to child support payments due to supporting a child they had absolutely no voice in deciding to carry to term. This at least offers them some protection.
"The fact that the big companies are run by white, middle-aged males who have the same feeling—that they would never do it—plays a major role"
I think it's far more likely that these companies don't want to fund trials as it won't be nearly as profitable to them as current contraceptive options. If this was a pill instead, I have no doubt that the companies would champ at the bit for it. I think it's not coincidence that they could only find a non-profit to fund the trials for this specific product/procedure.
Today, most reversible contraceptive methods (pill, rhythm, IUD, abortion) rely on the woman owning responsibility (one which they may be unwilling or unable to carry out). Male contraception relieves women of that burden.
That's the problem right there...
You would think so, but... there are women (maybe a lot of them) who think the loss of power over conception would be bad for women [0]. Read the column. I don't know about you, but it gives me a very queasy feeling. Like there is some subtext that this woman believes she should be able to force parenthood on an unwilling partner.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/apr/28/malepi...
The rest of that article is… creepy. That's way more than subtext.
> At the moment it is the woman who retains control over the moment at which that melting in the bones feeling is allowed to over-take the firm "no this would ruin my life" feeling in the head.
Is not the whole point of contraception insurance againt emotional losses of control?
It's not an either-or question. Both statements about male contraception are true: it relieves women of the responsibility (by allowing couples to decide to place the burden on the man) but it also gives control to men that previously only women had.
Yes, lying about contraception in order to trick a man into getting you pregnant is unethical, but it's not unheard of. Women are humans (duh), some humans do unethical things, some of those humans are women, using pregnancy as leverage.
Personally I wouldn't think this behaviour is very widespread (although I have heard women joke about it being an option -- not implying any of them would actually consider it) but considering the significance of the consequences, I think it's understandable why some men might value this risk far greater than its actual prevalence would suggest, regardless of whether this risk assessment is rational or not. The tired meme of the poisoned M&M springs to mind.
This method seems to have no side effect and would reduce the chance with another contraceptive method with 98% success of prevention would make the odds of pregnancy within 1 year negligible (and they only go down over time)
The article claims that since the executives of pharma companies are rich, white men they would not be inclined to threaten their manhood by using this contraceptive and therefore don't see a market to bring it to.
Perhaps Western would be a better adjective. I agree with you though, as it stands skin colour seems to have little to do with it.
I want to (and do) have sex and I never use contraceptives. Were I interested in curtailing the birth of my children, even before I was married, I would absolutely NOT use a drug that is brand new.
Ultimately this needs to be recognized as a convenience thing. Condoms are a very effective, extremely low-risk option. They require no modifications to your biological system and reliably prevent pregnancy (not to mention STDs).
Even drugs like "the pill", now old-school, put people at risk for scary complications that sometimes happen and significant undesirable side effects that frequently happen.
We all love science and technology and that's great, but drugs are risky, and effects are often not visible until they've been in public use for some years. There are a lot of really sad examples of this, where some widely-prescribed drug has a little-known side effect or misunderstood risk profile for some patients, and it can, and literally has, resulted in death.
One should consider the risk involved when weighing "Would I rather take five seconds to slip on a condom, or inject myself with this experimental and/or brand new drug?"
I'm sure there will be early adopters, but as someone who wants to have sex, there is no way I will be among them.
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/presents18969358/tinder...
"Indeed, various apps have done for sex in the NBA what Amazon has done for books. One no longer needs to leave home to find a party. The party now comes to you. And lifestyle judgments aside, the NBA road life is simply more efficient -- and less taxing -- when there aren't open hours spent trolling clubs.
"It's absolutely true that you get at least two hours more sleep getting laid on the road today versus 15 years ago," says one former All-Star, who adds that players actually prefer Instagram to Tinder when away from home. "No schmoozing. No going out to the club. No having to get something to eat after the club but before the hotel."
https://theringer.com/the-inside-story-of-the-nbas-newest-ga...
This seems like a very good thing, and I'm excited for it to be available in the US.
- "The pill" is a bit more than just a contraceptive. A variety of issues, ranging from skin problems to hormonal imabalances are regulated through the pill, which quite efficiently normalizes outliers in female hormone levels alongside acting as a contraceptive.
The pill is rarely "just" a contraceptive. It reduces menstrual pain significantly and allows women to forego the pleasure of planning for a week of unnecessary discomfort every month.
Every woman I've been sufficiently intimate with to have such conversations describes the daily pill as a small price to pay for all the benefits it comes with.
A male vasectomy is 800 bucks and certainly reversible.
I'm male and would gladly to take a birth control that doesn't effect me on a hormonal level, especially if it meant my partner could could stop taking a hormonal birth control. Also just of respect of sharing the burden, sounds like it would be way easier to have this injected into my vas deferens and last 13+ years then to have to remember to take a pill every day.
That is not "certainly reversible."
I have taken the pill for years I feel like I am ruining my body. I have side effects. I switched brands, I switched to the shot (that was much worse), every one is awful. I put up with it because I won't risk unwanted pregnancy. It's the less of two very evil evils.
You're also ignoring the large population of women who the pill is contraindicated for. It also requires regular doctor visits and requires you to to remember to take it.
I'm not saying it's great for some women, it certainly is. People also take it for non contraceptive reason. Not great for everyone and not for me.
I'd classify that as patronizing, and as a male, I had the same reaction to his comment as the responder...I've known lots of women, partners included, who avoided the pill because of its horrible side effects.
There's a lot wrong in the comment but I don't see what you see in it.
For my part, as a man who is done with having kids, but is not ready to get the "snip" yet, a side-effect free injection would be greatly preferable to an operation that sometimes takes months to fully-heal from, or a lifetime of condoms.