effects of male birth control in the future

I just made a post in another topic that touched on the subject of male long-term birth control. I think it sucks that guys have no options aside from condoms. The "last line of defense" is always left in the hands of just one partner, and that's got to be scary for guys. I know I'd be scared shitless about trusting another person THAT much. If I were a guy, I'd be very, VERY reluctant to ditch the condoms, ever.

Guys need better options and more control over their own fertility. I know there's various options being developed. I just wish they'd hit the market sooner.

I can't help but wonder, though. Once those male bc options are out on the shelves, the entire dynamic of family planning will change, and I think it'll be for the better. Guys won't be able to be oopsed nearly so easily. If he says "no" to kids, he can really mean it.

I am willing to bet that the number of children born will drop drastically, and hopefully with that will go mommies' annoying, condescending treatment of their spouses. I'm so sick of "He says he doesn't want kids yet, but I know what's best for us, really. He'll thank me in a few years, tee hee hee....". Ugh.

Any guesses about other effects?

I don't think much will change honestly. 95 out of 100 men will still probably still leave it up to the woman to be in charge of birth control. I know this probably isn't the case with men here but most of my male friends who are whining about getting oopsed by a surprise kyd will tell me that they weren't doing anything to prevent pregnancy. I am glad men will have more options, but for all the male blathering about not wanting kyds I have only met 2 (one being my husband) who actually too responsibility for their own fertility. I don't think there will be much of change honestly. Too many tit fed until they were 12 darling baybee boys.

Well, there is Neutersol, used to promote infertility by chemical disruption of the testicle. Testosterone isn't completely eliminated, and those it's used on become completely sterile. Unfortunately it's mainly for use in dogs.

I don't think that family planning dynamics will change unless there's an accompanying cultural shift that emphasizes that birth control is the responsibility of all partners, not just women. Men have options now. They don't have as many as women, to be fair, but they have them. Most men are too complacent about birth control despite having options.

Given the current choice between rubbers and the snip, this spring I took the later. I was tired of FAM and condoms ( wife can not get pregnant, medical reasons. condoms all the time no sexy times during fertility window.) Still waiting for the all clear. Will be nice to not have to worry about potentially killing my wife everytime I bust a nut.

If vasogel was an option I might have gone that way instead. I had concerns about PVPS.

A lot of guys just don't care enough to use protection, and when the opportunity for pussy presents itself and there is no condom around, most men will think with their cocks and not their brains. On top of that, I think a lot of them figure that even if the woman does get pregnant, she's the one who has to carry it, birth it and take care of it, so he feels he has little to lose since his responsibilities end at ejaculation. But they'll be the first to start bitching when their girlfriends or wives make them "babysit."

It does seem that women are expected to be in charge of BC because they have so many more options and they suffer more from pregnancy than men do. Not only that, but if a woman goes bareback without planning a pregnancy, she might be accused of being a slut or a whore, but if a guy gets laid with no condom and without a care in the world, he'll get high fives. But there are plenty of women who also don't give a fuck about preventing pregnancy, or who will get knocked up by any guy that gives them a second glance.

If a guy really genuinely does not want to be a father, then he needs to accept some responsibility in regard to protection too. It would definitely be nice for guys to have more options for BC, especially ones that don't decrease sensation for him. As it stands, all guys have is abstaining, condoms, vasectomy, or anal. A lot of them are often so glad to get laid that they don't want to miss out on a good time in the event they have no condom. But if we see more BC choices for guys, there needs to be a bit of a tide shift to let them know that they need to man up and do something to prevent unwanted bastards and that it's not all the woman's job. If this happened, especially if male birth control was available in a tamper-proof way (to prevent oopsie wannabe-Moos from fucking with it), I think the birth rate would decline nicely.

It's too bad guys don't have their own version of Depo and they just go back and get another shot every few months to keep them in a state of temporary sterility. I bet there'd be a LOT of screaming from Moos and wanna-Moos over it, though, bitching about how they can no longer just quit their BC pills in order to oops their partners and I foresee protests, petitions, and general clamoring about how unfair it is that pharmaceutical companies are robbing women of babies by giving control of contraception to men too.

Behind every trashy moo is an equally trashy or more trashy duh. I know there are women who tamper with their own birth control and rarely will poke holes in condoms but for the most part, it is just laziness. I have stopped feeling sorry for all these ridiculous men who don't do shit to prevent kids from being born and then blame the woman. I'm tired of paying for it. If guys don't want to keep their DNA to themselves they can start paying for it and taking care of it. Men who don't take responsibility for their own birth control end up with spawn, just like women but women always get blamed.

There actually is an effective birth control for men in the works:

The best birth control in the world is for men

Yup, that is what I was referring to.

I do think that men have it rough in terms of the number of contraceptive options available to them, and I welcome more options for men to take control of their reproductive choice. Certainly there are many who wouldn't take advantage of it, just as there are many women who don't take advantage of the options available to them, but for the 20% or so who consistently say in polls that they'd be interested in something like a male pill, additional options with low failure rates cannot come too soon. If I were a man, and wanted children sometime but not necessarily now (thus ruling out the vasectomy option), I'd be quite worried about the failure rates of condom and having to put so much trust in my partner - at least if a woman is betrayed like that she has the backup of abortion. Even if large numbers of men are feckless idiots, those who aren't deserve better options. Those who want these options may be a minority, but they are not insignificant. If nothing else, I do expect the availability of these options would quickly remove all sympathy for men who don't take responsibility and claim to have been oopsied.

I have strong doubts that any male-only contraceptive will ever make it to market.

Another recent thread discusses doctors and why they aren't supporting efforts to encourage more contraception and sterilization. One answer is that docs are patriarchal pronatalists and also want to keep future patients coming for the $$$. Some are now not wanting to prescribe existing contraception to women, and we're hearing about pharmacists who won't fill such prescriptions. Well, these medical types will also lobby to keep a male contraceptive unavailable. Mark my words.

I agree with kman. I'm pretty sure we've been hearing about RISUG for at least a decade now.

Here's an online article from Science Based Medicine dot org describing how RISUG works -

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/risug-birth-control-for-men/

The article says things like the procedure sounds "crazy", goes on to point out "worrisome red flags" such as "battling the establishment" (which apparently is a negative thing?), and the usual "no contraceptive measure is 100 percent effective" - even though the paragraph above this statement does indeed say it has been proven 100 percent effective (barring snarky comments from the author who suggests that the few reported pregnancies may have been the result of sexual affairs and not incorrectly implanted RISUG).

This is in an article for a publication whose editors are medical doctors. It is obviously slanted against RISUG use and approval. The tone I get from it is quite condescending.

The female author of this article also wrote a piece about water births and describes birthing as "the greatest achievement of your life".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't journalism supposed to be free of personal bias?

There is no such thing as no bias. Especially journalism. First thing my grand dad taught me about journalism is follow the money. Second is follow the ideology/dogma...