COSO, an ultrasound-based and reversible approach to male contraception
jamesdysonaward.org
jamesdysonaward.org
First, men a notoriously squeamish when it comes to their testicles. "Heating" without telling the temperature won't fly with many. I guess it doesn't have to be hot as it probably only needs to be warm enough to relax the cremaster muscles. If it has to be uncomfortably hot, I see little chance in the market.
Second, I'd expect the ultrasound to hurt. The epididymis is pretty sensitive to pain.
Third, it will feel like gambling as the female partner doesn't really know whether all sperm is killed or whether she will end up pregnant. And for the male, it will be a leap of faith as well. That should improve if a lot of users report no unwanted pregnancies, but in the beginning...
That's quite an inaccurate blanket statement.
> Second, I'd expect the ultrasound to hurt.
Ultrasound treatments are actually used to treat pain. Maybe you have evidence of ultrasounds causing pain, but I can't find anything of the sort.
> Third, it will feel like gambling as the female partner doesn't really know whether all sperm is killed or whether she will end up pregnant.
Unprotected sex is always gambling, for BOTH parties, not just the female.
Anecdotally, I had an ultrasound years ago and it was most certainly uncomfortable. The body of the testicles was fine, but moving over the epididymis wasn't that great.
And no, no inflammation or anything.
I'd imagine you'd destroy them and maybe their precursors, then have protected sex for 2-3 times to get rid of the viable sperm and only after that end up with 1-2 weeks of infertility.
Although, if you look at the graphs/numbers it seems there still are a small number of motile sperm (looks to me like approximately 50% reduction in count with 20% motility). Seems like it doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of pregnancy.
>don't they get the right to be squeamish about having an IUD or their hormones altered?
IUD exist without any hormones, and taking hormones generally are safe and extemely well tested. Saying "hormones altered" shows your bias, and you don't think blasting your balls with heat "alters" your hormones? Certainly men who get vasectomies produce less testosterone.
It literally doesn't, it's a weird repeated myth about vasectomies.
https://www.vasectomy.org.au/faqs/sex-life-myths/#:~:text=A%....
>> and taking hormones generally are safe and extemely well tested.
Well, if you are willing to accept an increased risk of cancer, sure, "extremely safe". Like, don't get me wrong, it's still one of the best options for pregnancy prevention, but let's not pretend like the pills are candy - they aren't.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/h...
Condoms require proper use every time and are not as effective as other methods.
What is "Shows your bias" supposed to mean here? Look: There are women who don't like hormonal birth control. They feel bloated &etc. Trust me on this.
> IUD exist without any hormones
Yes, and theoretically and by the numbers it's effective, but did you know that it hurts to put one in? It's actually not a small ask. If a woman chooses it herself without prompting, fine. And in the context of a really long term relationship where you can "have a conversation", maybe. But it's not a little thing. In fact, it hurts enough that it can create a fair amount of resentment.
> you don't think blasting your balls with heat "alters" your hormones?
Actually no, that's not the mechanism at work here.
> Use condoms.
Well, that's reasonable advice, though you still do want to use multiple methods.
The "important problem" should be to have _even safer_ birth control, not male birth control.
The other methods can fail due to misuse (missing a pill or get the timing wrong) or be removed without the partners knowledge - which does happen surprisingly often.
IUDs dont fail, and certainly a guy can miss his ball heating session or stop without the partners knowledge.
They absolutely do, and it's often life threatening when it happens. It's very unlikely, but it's not absolute protection.
Never heard about an IUD failing at all so thanks for the link anyhow
"It is the most common cause of death among women during the first trimester at approximately 6-13% of the total"
IUDs greatly reduce overall risk of pregnancy. The risk is not zero, though. When IUDs do fail, and they will, they increase the risk of ectopic pregnancies. The vast majority of those are located in the uterine tubes. Those are life threatening. There is no space for the fetus in the tube, it will rupture and cause severe bleeding which can and will kill the mother if left untreated. It's an important cause of acute abdomen.
But the problem we want to solve is poor control over family planning, not blaming people for making human mistakes. We do that by developing better contraception options, for both men and women.
Not saying either side is the only one who ever does weird things - noting that ideally, each side would be able to make a choice and have it stick, and it would require both sides consent for a child.
Assumes perfect use. The real figure is lower. Condoms simply can't compete with other contraception methods. Their main purpose is prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.
Females have a wide range of birth control options, all highly effective. However, they are all entirely under the woman's control. They can stop birth control without the man even knowing about it.
This isn't some conspiracy theory, either. Women do show up to gynecologists to ask them to remove their IUDs with the explicit intent to have a child regardless of their partner's wishes. This is not considered rape.
Male contraception eliminates this problem. Men are now in direct control of whether their sperm is able to fertilize. Just like women are currently in control of whether they ovulate.
As men, this is absolutely something that we should worry about.
> People often lie and act irrationally.
If that is your fundamental truth in interacting with your partner(s), your relationships will never really get anywhere. It is just not good advice to tell people to do so, unless you want them to never create meaningful connections with their partners.
I guess. I've never had reason not to be open about these issues and it's never disrupted trust in the relationship. I've discussed these ideas with every partner I've ever had. They weren't offended, they understood. Many even had their own stories of unplanned pregnancies to share.
My girlfriend lets me give her the trimestral birth control injections.
But this doesn't make a difference either because now the man can stop going to the ball blasting session.
The main issue is trust, and why are you having unprotected sex with people you don't trust in the first place?
I guess you never had a condom break? As rare as it is, it happens.
It makes a huge difference. Actually it changes everything. With male birth control, there are 4 possible outcomes:
1. Man and woman don't use birth control.
Conception is likely.
2. Man uses birth control. Woman doesn't.
Conception is unlikely.
3. Man doesn't use birth control. Woman does.
Conception is unlikely.
4. Man and woman use birth control.
Chance of conception is astronomically low.
When only women have access to effective birth control, they have a lot more leverage and therefore power:
1. Man has no birth control. Woman doesn't use hers.
Conception is likely.
2. Man has no birth control. Woman uses hers.
Conception is unlikely.
> The main issue is trust, and why are you having unprotected sex with people you don't trust in the first place?
Trust should not be necessary for a matter of this importance. Children should only be born when both partners consent. It's as simple as that.
Also, condoms are not particularly effective at contraception. The statistics assume perfect use and that doesn't happen in reality. Their main purpose is protection against sexually transmitted diseases. That isn't perfect either.
Let the fairer sex have some power
One where I don't end up with children I didn't plan to have.
> Let the fairer sex have some power
They do have the power to prevent conception. That's nice.
They should not have the power to have our children without our consent. The reasons for this should be obvious to anyone. I'm honestly surprised it's not considered rape.
This isn't really true. Despite getting disparaged often - pulling out is an effective form of birth control (If done correctly, only slightly less effective than condoms: 96%).
Combined with tracking periods and being extra careful around ovulation dates, it works quite well.
Even if we assume improper methods in real world conditions, it's still about 75% effective.
It's not a method I recommend for casual encounters, but with a long term partner you trust - it can be extremely effective without the downsides of other birth control.
But the previous work on this doesn't make it look like it's the answer: https://www.parsemus.org/humanhealth/ultrasound-male-contrac...
See the section "Effective contraception in humans remains elusive"
https://endocrinenews.endocrine.org/one-step-closer-is-male-...
I’ve done two drug trials with this stuff and it’s pretty cool. It appears to make men totally infertile while they’re on the drug, with a quick recovery once off of it. It might help prevent balding, too.
Isn't that the same organization that has been claiming to bring RISUG to the US for the last 10 years with ZERO results? I'm starting to think they're actually a shill claiming to tackle this issue so that nobody else will. Their goal seem to be the opposite of what they say.
In related news: "coso" is used in italian to mean d.
Nevertheless, it's an interesting idea to speculate about. And it seems to be one of the more promising ideas in this area.