The Best Birth Control In The World Is For Men
techcitement.com
techcitement.com
Most of the time, men trust women when they say they're on birth control. Women get pregnant--a big deal. It's less likely (but not unheard of) that a woman wants to get pregnant and then lies about birth control.
Men, on the other hand, would love to not use a condom. And men don't get pregnant. So saying "yeah baby, I've had my shots" would probably be a lot more common.
You'd need to market this to couples. Relationships with trust--not teenagers. Or, as an "and-1", extra step prevention. Not as a first line of defense. Then, the low cost would be more of an extra procedure that would get them thinking more about being safer. You wouldn't hang your business model on it but could actually do more business by offering it.
Lastly, being a man, the idea of someone putting forceps in my scrotum gives me the willies. Just sayin'.
All the other types prevent pregnancy only. Condoms prevent disease as well.
For historical reasons IUDs are uncommon in the US. This is unfortunate. They aren't perfect, but they are relatively cheap, extremely reliable, and remarkably safe. Depending on the type, they also have few or no side effects. Worth considering...
[1]: This one arguably isn't a health benefit, but in many ways it's huge. With a few exceptions, humans are sexual beings, and frequency of sexual encounters correlates highly to a range of positive health outcomes, happiness, avoidance of depression, and strong long-lasting relationships.
[2]: This one confuses people, because it also prevents cancer. Best evidence is that it has a fairly strong protective effect on ovarian cancer, but causes breast and cervical cancer. The net effect on total cancer rates is still unknown; it's certainly not a clear cut benefit though, and it may be a clear net negative. (As always, these sort of epidemiology numbers are a real headache to parse. Comparing a big effect on a rare event to a small effect on a common event is very tricky. Still, anything that boosts breast cancer rates is kind of scary.)
[3]: This one is clearcut. Hormone based birth control causes a range of heart issues, from heart attacks via clots, to cardiovascular diease. We're still trying to figure out how big this factor is, but it's already clear that if you have any risk factors (ie, you're overweight, or have a family history of heart disease) you should NOT be on combined oral contraceptives, and any hormone based birth control is very iffy.
The pill is an incredible win for women's health. Unfortunately, not all women can use it effectively, safely, or comfortably.
The impact on sex drive is fairly well known, I think. Google turns up a bunch of references[1][2]. The impact on weight is apparently cloudy; birth control pills almost universally list that as a side effect on the packaging, but studies have failed to turn up a reliable link. (Silly me; never trust drug company materials, even if they seem to be casting the drug in a negative light.)
I understand there's some evidence that birth control may cause depression, but I don't know that there's a definitive answer. (Google mostly just turns up anecdotes from people convinced that their depression is caused by their birth control; not really helpful.)
The argument over which way the cancer risk goes on balance is all over the net; there's a decent roundup on Wikipedia[3]. If you dig into it a bit, it's still pretty unclear, mostly because there haven't been a lot of studies.
The heart stuff is, compared to cancer, much more solid. Again, the internet is full of stuff about this. I don't know of any comprehensive roundups, but google will turn up a TON of stuff.
[1]: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11...
[2]: http://www.epigee.org/guide/pill_sex.html
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormonal_contraception#Effects_...
It must be noted that the anecdotal 'warnings' IE weight gain, depression, etc. may be a result of the well known drop in sex drive. Because, you know, sex has this mystical property that releases pleasure chemicals that reduce depression. Depression having the obvious side effect of weight gain. Also the impact on the hormone cycle anecdotally causes cravings.
The pill itself might not have side effects of weight gain, but I'd bet it's side effects do.
The book references tons of studies.
No silver bullet.
My partner and I use Implanon, which has no associated cancer or heart risk. See my post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3774010
It's not perfect, but the side-effects are small and it's the most effective form of birth control besides true abstinence (as opposed to "virginity pledges," et al). Works for three years, nothing to remember, no risk of uterine perforation like IUDs, and none of the nasty estrogen side-effects.
Most issues with hormones is that they do all sort of stuff on yourbody. not only one controlled thing
Side effects of Oestrogen-containing contraceptives that don't seem to be caused by Progestin-only contraceptives include:
Increased risk of cancer
Increased risk of heart disease
Bone density reduction
Blood clots / Stroke
Increased sensitivity to UV (and associated skin cancers)
Reduced breast-milk production. This isn't very detrimental to one's own health, but does effect the health of the child.
The only down-side of Progestin-only pills versus Oestrogen-containing pills is that it is extra important that it be taken at the same time every day for full efficacy. Obviously the implant doesn't suffer from this drawback.
also, i have a paranoia that no hormone/protein/enzyme does less then a few things in your body. if they list only one or two effects, it's because they have no clue what else they do.
prolactin was believed to only affect the milk production in mamals for a long time (and water-salt control in fishes). now there's some other dozen effects on the body including neuron fiber formation.
In general, when the IUD is installed correctly, the body does not perceive it as a foreign object or try to reject it or move about and puncture holes or increase the levels of copper in the blood or [insert another myth that seems to make intuitive sense but has no scientific or observed basis].
(There is one myth that has near truth to it. The common misconception that you have to have been pregnant to get it. This is not true either - the uterus just has to be big enough to house the IUD comfortably and and it's virtually guaranteed that a post-pregnancy uterus is. However for most pre-pregnancy women this not a problem either, and a size check is the first step during the installation process).
The benefits on the other hand are real, and huge. Reduced risk of hormone-associated cancers, noticeably increased sex-drive, better hair, nails, and skin, not having to take a pill every day, less money, statistically better protection from pregnancy, the list goes on.
Cancer and heart problems are side-effects of estrogen or combination (estrogen + progestin) hormonal contraceptives. Progestin-only contraceptives (which include Implanon, Jadelle, and Mirena) have never been shown to cause cancer or heart problems.
As always, don't look for medical advice from HN.
(dfc was obviously referring to contraceptive treatments for debilitating menstrual pain and irregularity)
A woman's body is likely to find and destroy the defective cells before it's too late, but when you're taking hormones to overpower your body, you also have the risk of feeding the cancerous cells.
"Sex is a beautiful thing shared between two people and a latex condom from a reliable brand"...
Aren't they all required by law to be reliable?
I just know that I'm going to trust an established brand that's sold by the box in the drug store over a no-name brand sold singly from a vending machine in the bathroom of a bowling alley.
[1] I mean 18 to 21 year olds.
It's because he or she offers no references or even any explanation of where this bold (if not just flat out wrong) claim comes from. Your supporting evidence, commonly derided as anecdata, is not much better.
Granted, this procedure is only helpful for the community if it actually is shown to reduce the risk of HIV transmission, and it's not a cure, but anything that helps reduce the risk is a good thing.
Most of the men and women in his (initial) target audience are illiterate and do not understand / care for methods of contraception that require any kind of anticipatory action - like taking regular pills, putting drunken desire on hold to find a condom, or even paying for either of these. (On $2 a day, all existing contraceptives are luxuries).
That said, I think is a perfect fit for his target demographic. Looks like the characteristics of that demographic are a lot more universal than he thought :D
You could divorce (or be widowed) and remarry. You could tragically lose your existing children. You could simply change your mind - it does happen.
Should this happen to you, a shot into the vas to reverse things would be far, far easier on you and more likely to succeed than a vasovasostomy or a vasoepididymostomy.
Female birth control puts the power of reproduction back in the hands of the woman, which is a comfort for most women. Relying on your partner to be the one safeguarding your body is a tough choice, but is a wonderful choice for, as you said, couples.
So if the guy doesn't want the girl to get pregnant, or wants to avoid STIs - he should use the appropriate protection.
If the girl doesn't want to get pregnant, or wants to avoid STIs - she should use the appropriate protection.
(Both people want to avoid pregnancy/disease? Then both should use protection!)
That way you don't need to worry about what the other person is doing - you manage your own expectations.
If you're in a stable long-term relationship and have talked about it, then sure, you can rely on one person, but otherwise each person should, imho, manage their own contraceptives.
I think this is more a secondary defense. For me personally it wouldn't replace condoms (1, I have never had issues with them, and 2, STD's can still be transmitted) unless in a committed relationship, but also to make sure that if something goes wrong with the female birth control, that there is a second stop-gap measure.
I as a 23 year old love the idea. If it is affordable and easy to get done I wouldn't have an issue going to get it done. And from the sound of it, it will not cause pressure to build up much like getting them cut would...
There are liars the world over. I don't think that is necessarily a trait that is just for men. I've know quite a few guys in high school that had unprotected sex because their girlfriend was on the pill end up with a baby because that is the way she thought she could keep him forever.
Secondly, I see orgasm as a highly pressurised, highly tuned, intense thing. It feels like I'm straining every part of my balls to the limit when I'm doing this - if I had medical procedures down there, anything that could psychologically make me feel they were frail, that would utterly ruin it.
And I don't think it does anything to make you feel like your balls are "frail". So far the only side-effects I've read about are a possibility of swelling for 1 week after the operation. Then, you're back to your old non-frail-balls self!
A friend's x-girlfriend got pregnant because she poked a hole in the condom without him knowing. If you are male and don't want to have kids, make sure you use your own condoms. Woman has many more options to avoid pregnancy, man has one shot with the condom (AFAIK vasectomy can be permanent).
I think this type of birth control has the potential of lowering paternity fraud since man will know the child is not his. It also reduces unwanted pregnancy when woman poke hole in condom or other condom issues.
This birth control for man is great news and I hope to see more male birth control options in the future.
Doesn't mean you can't market it to couples too, of course.
RISUG isn't a cure-all. Transmission is still possible through microtears and directly through the skin of the glans penis and the meatus. And RISUG does nothing to prevent female->male transmission.
It's far too easy for "RISUG inactivates HIV in some components of semen" to transmute into "It's ok baby, I got a shot that protects me from HIV!"
How do men (heterosexuals) get infected then?
Also, HIV transmission is more likely with other STDs. If you have open syphlitic sores on your penis, you are more likely to contract HIV.
There's been some speculation about why rates of HIV vary so widely across Africa.
(http://www.irinnews.org/Report/91305/AFRICA-Risky-sex-does-n...)
Unsafe injection is the most efficient way to transmit the virus. It's scary that so many injections in the developing world are unsafe. (UNICEF say "16 billion injections are administered each year, of which 90 percent are for curative purposes; 50 percent of the total number of injections are unsafe.")
(http://www.irinnews.org/Report/85278/AFRICA-Poor-syringe-hyg...)
The amount of money needed to make a difference is probably (relatively) small. But changing behaviour is hard.
Assuming 1% of partners have AIDS and someone had 10 partners and 35 events per partner.
.01 * (1 - .98)^ 35 = 0.5% per partner. And 1- (1 - .005) ^ 10 = ~5% chance of an infection in a lifetime.
Or working the other way if the average person with aids has 35 'events' per partner and 2.1 partners after infection the infection rate will increase.
PS: Real models include differing M/F infection rates, stratification by age and other vectors like transfusions and IV drug use.
You should complete this survey like I did if you are interested: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TSKSKGM
(There are only two real risks/side effects: Heavier bleeding, and it's important not to get Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (which is another way of saying, it's even more important than normal not to get STDs. If she can handle the first, and is in a monogamous relationship - or at least, always uses condoms with people who aren't guaranteed STD free - then neither issue is severe.)
Mind you, vasalgel sounds even better to me. :)
My girlfirend reacted very badly to a well-known and tested brand, however she seems to do much better with a local-brand product with different composition (started that one a few months ago).
Blood clots, heart problems, cancer, bone loss, and sun sensitivity are all associated with estrogen-containing birth controls. From my research, progestin-only methods don't have those drawbacks.
As always, IANAD and this is not medical advice, but you should talk to one.
This means that during that time, you don't need any condoms or anything.
Unfortunately, while being extremely well-researched in Germany for more than 30 years, it is quite uncommon in the US and only known as "Fertility Awareness", which is not the "pure" symptothermal method. The method is oftentimes associated (wrongly) with Christian groups.
You can check out Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_awareness
Edit: Perfect use application of the "pure" symptothermal method has a Pearl Index of 0.4 (99.6% effectiveness) and typical use is 1-3 (97-99%). This is quite comparable to the pill.
Please let this be real.
Male birth control is one of the top things that I wish for everyday.
The really great thing is that this isn't just a first-world problem. Birth control is obviously a huge issue in developing nations. So, while I can chase the dream of male birth control for purely selfish reasons, to address my privilege problems, I'm at the same time involved in a solution for a very real problem in the world.
If you read the steps necessary for the procedure and manage to maintain your enthusiasm, you have my awed and confusion admiration.
Except with a vasectomy you have the risk of chronic testicular pain.
Should You Get a Vasectomy?
>The operating room is cold. The walls are busy with gruesome anatomical diagrams, cross sections that make the male genitalia resemble charcuterie. I lie back on the table, draw the paper sheet over my crotch, and seconds later the doctor and an older, hen-shaped nurse enter the room.
I know that all reporting is biased, but the signal-to-noise ratio here is abysmal.
The idea that people will casually do this is ... hilarious.
Birth control that involves body modifications is anything but casual, but to draw the line of it being ridiculous at when it involves male genitalia is a bit narrow-minded.
In my sample group, it's not as large as you think. I'm a 43 year-old post-vasectomy father and out of a group of ten close male friends/relatives I've encountered 2 close calls and 2 oops babies. And these are intelligent responsible men. The majority of the excuses range from "I just never got around to it" to "I don't want to get cut". Seriously?
That's happened to be with 2 back surgeries, one on my arm, and every filling I've ever had done.
Anyway, I'd get this procedure done in a heartbeat anyway.
Would you still be okay with the hormones if they caused you to gain 15 lbs of fat, lose your libido and render your SO unattractive to you? It's not as simple as swallowing a pill every morning and getting on with your life -- hormonal treatments have very real and sometimes significant side effects.
This type of claim always comes up whenever there is any story about new birth control. The effects of the hormones cannot possibly be worse than just not having sex since you always have the option to not have sex or always use condoms. I simply cannot believe that it is so bad considering literally every girl I know, even the ones without boyfriends and who aren't having sex or planning to have sex in the immediate future. Everyone I know in person talks just as much about how it clears up their acne as the negatives that are always posted in the comments here.
There are contraceptive pills that are just pop-on-demand - the morning-after pill - and they're really unpleasant.
I was on depo provera for over 3 years. It destroyed my sex drive, nearly caused the end of my relationship, gave me terrible recurring headaches and mood swings. I came off it, and after 18 months my body was still all over the place; I ended up taking different hormone-based contraceptives to try and re-jig my system.
Few months after all that I became pregnant with twins but miscarried at 8 weeks. I know that logically miscarriage is 'normal' and common, but a tiny part of me can't help but think that screwing with my body + hormones was the cause there.
I cut myself several times a month, badly a few times year. (too lazy to wear gloves when doing yard work, accidents etc). I know what a cut is / does. No idea what putting crap in my body will do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/health/11patient.html
> about 527,000 vasectomies were performed in this country each year.
I have a vasectomy and would have preferred this.
I have always wondered why there are so few contraceptive options for men. I know a lot of guys who have had the kids they want and contraception is a hassle. Something like this for couples which is inject once and forget for a decade sounds ideal.
From the sounds of it though, you'd still have the same side effects of a traditional vasectomy: sperm granuloma. So one is mostly permanent (reconnection can happen, though super rare).. and one is only good for a few years? Yeah.. I think I'd wait for the first 10 years to see the efficacy.
No, thanks.
It's really amazing to me how many people believe anything they want to hear...
http://thebrowser.com/articles/final-cut
For example, compare "one little injection" to "I don't scream, but I clamp my jaw so tightly it clicks. I arch my back so much I end up looking behind me at the door."
There's a level called 'unconscionable pain' that is essentially always malpractice, and if you're clamping your jaw and arching your back reflexively, you've hit it and then some.
There's no reason not to mildly sedate a patient, and no reason why anyone should suffer undue pain. Sure, it'll hurt during recovery, but that's why they should issue with vicodin.
Good birth control comes from empowering both partners, and protecting those who are unwilling partners.
For women, an IUD is a great option. For men, barrier methods have been the only reliable, reversible methods until now. This is exciting, but let's not forget about the whole scope and meaning of self-control over reproduction.
This crass garbage has no place on HN.
Where does the OP say anything about a change of sensation in men?
For a single person considering the question on their own, the best choice is limited to what's available to them. Since there are (approximately) equal numbers of men and women considering this, neither population affects the universal rankings.
But for a couple considering their birth control options, it doesn't matter on which of them the responsibility and direct benefit fall. What matters is the effectiveness and side effects. So they can agree on which is best without worrying about who holds the responsibility, etc.
So, for example, the pill is better than condoms, because it has a lower failure rate and doesn't have the side effect of severely reduced pleasure. The fact that a single woman can't depend on condoms and a single man can't take the pill cancels out, because there's one of each of them, and the couple is making the choice for both of them.
IUDs can also make the cervix more sensitive to pain in general. IUDs also can slip out.
Clearly.
(seriously: making a kid should be && not || )
Its as if most people think that the pill would have been as revolutionary if it were for men instead of women.
I intended to imply disagreement with your claim, mostly due to the one-sided nature of it (as my parent reply suggested). I imagine the downvotes are due to the fact that your phrasing seems to imply that the male should have no say in the matter.
It's not that women should not have control over the process (perhaps even most of it), but that both parties need to have the ability to say, finally and without being overruled, "no this will not result in a child."
That was the purpose of my comment, it should be a
(she->wantsChild() && he->wantsChild()) makeChild();
(she->wantsChild() || he->wantsChild()) makeChild();
EDIT: "Its as if most people think that the pill would have been as revolutionary if it were for men instead of women."
I think you've hit it right on the head here, though. The advent of the pill allowed for equality of sexes in the manner suggested above. Had it been for men, I don't think it would've changed much at all.
However, now that that is the case, we've kind of got a situation where women can choose to have relations without getting pregnant regardless of what their partner is doing, whereas for men the options are both limited and uncomfortable. A woman on the pill can have sex without protection (though there are obvious caveats, of course, know/trust your partner, etc. etc.) and still be assured of results, whereas for a man he pretty much has to either be wearing a condom (uncomfortable) or have had a vasectomy.
This would be another round of equalization, better for everyone.
My point was that given the biological constraints females ultimately are the most impacted by pregnancy. As a male I definitely value improvements for male birth control. However from a societal point of view I think the best birth control is one that is either controlled by women or is verifiable by women.
Since you are being so helpful and I seem to be so hard-headed/clueless on this one. What do you think the general disagreement is with my "best neccesarily implies one or the other comment."?
"Um, "best" neccesarily implies a "one or the other" proposition."
How can best be interpreted to mean anything other than a one or the other proposition.
Whoops.
> How can best be interpreted to mean anything other than a one or the other proposition.
(Simplified)
You said: I think the best thing is X (vs Y).
He said: I disagree that this is an either-or proposition.
You said: Um, "best" neccesarily implies a "one or the other" proposition
He was never confused about the meaning of "best", he just disagreed that it applied.
You missed his point by a country mile, and got downvoted accordingly.
"Because men clearly are not as invested in the possible rearing of a child. Clearly."
Does not seem to mesh with this:
"It's not that women should not have control over the process (perhaps even most of it)"
I think men (especially "honorable/good" men) are invested in the possibility of a pregnancy/child, but they are definitely not equally invested/impacted by a pregnancy/child.
This simply gives men additional choices and allows couples where the female isn't able to use birth control to have sex without producing a baby.
The only 'choice' this takes away is the females choice (properly rare, but still feared) to claim she is on the pill and really that has never been reliable.