Male Birth Control
 

Okay, so this is a subject I think is very retarded. You go to the doctor or clinic and get a shot that inturn makes men temporarily infertal. I honestly think that if this shot goes to the market that there will be even more spread of disease. I think that condoms and normal female birth control should be only used. This shot is going to make a higher risk for STD's. Not to mention that guys will probably lie to girls and say "Oh yeah I got the shot". I think there are some risks with this also, liek testicular cancer and blood clots and other health risks. I'm an old timer on this. I think a condom is the only way. Who else thinks this shot is a fail? Pull and pray works pretty good also. BAHA.


Discuss.

I don't think it's fail. I think it's good that if guys also get some other alternatives to condoms. Of course, if you have casual sex, then you could still choose to wear a condom just to protect yourself against STDs.

I don't think I know anyone who would lie and say "yeah, I had the shot" to a girl so he could have sex with her. You and me might be from different worlds, though.

I'm in America where lies and hate flourish.

people reject science here. I'd say its another world entierly.

there are ups and downers to it

your saying it could cause blood clots and cancer and stuff well if they know that this is possible than they wont get the shot, or they could anyway if they wanted, its optional obviously.

STDs are just as easy to get without the shot so i dont think it would raise the STD ratings any higher than they already are

and i dont think someone would lie about that, i doubt the person thats lying would want kids anyway

i'm totally with cory on this one. stick to condoms. they aren't just for birth control.

the idea that STDs are just as easy to get without the shot only applies if the man in question does not use a condom.

seriously, safe sex isn't rocket science.

id stick to rubbers... i wouldnt consider cory a credible source but the idea of blood clots in my **** is enough to scare me off

You read an article about this, or you arbitrarily decided that this would be the case just 'cus?

I agree that the condom is the best thing for contraceptives. If you're in a light relationship or having one night stands you shouldn't be messing with anything else to replace it though double protection is never a bad thing (e.g. condom and pill, not two condoms ....). If you're in a mutually exclusive relationship with a person, condoms can be a hassle because they're uncomfortable and require effort at the beginning of sex to pause and think "rubber up" in which case, as long as you're both getting tested, foregoing the condom in favour of other options is an a-okay thing.

If male contraceptives become out there and on the market, and are shown not to have significant side effects then I'm all in favour of it. Especially considering I know some people that won't/can't take the pill for medical reasons - in their case the potential of a male contraceptive would be a phenomenal step forward.

It's illogical to say you support female birth control, but not male birth control. I mean, I understand your reasoning behind saying that- but that's like saying "I don't support the Nazi's, but I do support killing Jews". Eh?

I have a stash of morning after pills next to my bed for whatever lady when situations arise. I'm not getting some needless shot.

Alejo, I hope that's sarcasm ... morning after pills are not designed as a dependent contraceptive but as a last chance get out clause. Taking them has significant short time side effects and is at best around 85% effective (compared to the pill and condoms which are 99%).

I support your first point but the example is flawed.

That's why they're there if the condom busts, I forget, or I figure she's on the pill and she ends up not being. It's the last line for me. The shot for me will not be entering the equation.

Mea culpa, the impression I got was basically along the lines of "it's ok baby, we don't need a condom, I've got these". I must say however I disagree with your expectation that it should be the women alone responsible for taking chemicals into their body in aid of contraception. What if you eventually settle down with a woman who happens to be allergic to the pill? Rubbers fo' lyfe?

Pull and pray or her tubes tied. Assholish...but probably true.

Am I the only one who immediatly thought of Jason Bateman's character from Juno like, immediatly?
Like secretly taking it around baby obsessed chick's back and she freaks out and thinks shes infertile and you just don't want to be a daddy so you use this as a form of procrastination?

Yeah, thats possiple, but I guess its good for long-term relationships where you've both been tested and all that junk. And I don't really think it will spread disease any more then the female birth control shot would.

Dryhumping

The safest sex.

.

I agree with Fal, another contraceptive for men could be useful for those who are in a relationship where the shot is the best alternative for contraception. Maybe the girl has problems with pills for example which can also lead to fatal blood clotting and other adverse effects on health.

Furthermore, I agree that it's a bit egoistic to expect the girls to pump themselves full of chemicals without being willing to do the same. I don't know about this shot, but perhaps the side effects are not so bad and overall, it could be a safer alternative than many of the female contraceptives.

As for casual sex, as I said, you could just keep using condoms. I wouldn't get a shot if I didn't know if I was maybe going to have casual sex. Rubber is (probably) easier, safer (protects against STDs, no side effects) and cheaper.

There's no shot out yet, it's just something in development. All discussion about side effects are pure conjecture based on assumptions about what the shot will be when it's finally deemed marketable.

I still think that with this shot, it will open alot of people to not use condoms. Honestly, who uses a condom JUST too stop STD's. Truthfully, I only used them to not have a baby. Alot of people do not think about the STD part of the condom.

It's a bit sad to have to say no to advances in medicine to save the dumb people from hurting themselves by being stupid.

Anyways, money, accessibility, education .. All that could help. If it's more expensive, the dumb ****ers will probably go for condoms. If they can get free condoms at school and other places, that could also help and if you educate them on STDs and protection, maybe (just maybe) that would help too.

If people were to get this shot though. If I was the person who was marketing this product, I would highly advise my clients to both get tested for HIV, HPV and any other STD's. I would also say even though this product has been proven to cause temp. infertility in males, there is no "wonder" drug. It could fail, everyone reacts diffrently to a medicine. Therefore use a condom everytime.

Plus personaly, if there is a shot that causes infertality for a short time I would'nt use it because...

1.) I hate needles with a passion.

2.) What if it dose'nt work right and makes me permanently infertile?


It's kind of scary.

I don't think your personal worries about the drug is a worry we have to consider. New drugs are thoroughly tested.

You set yourself up there .. *waits for inevitable joke*

Toretorden, you know as well as I do that no drug is flawless. It could back fire. Not everyoen reacts to this drug the same.


And I did'nt get the shot if thats what your getting at.

Peoples stupidity isn't an argument against medical and scientific advancement, it's an argument against stupid people. I've had relationships with people on the pill but still used condoms because we weren't tested.


Which is why any GP prescribing the pill to women advise regular STD and pregnancy tests. To make sure everything is ticking over properly.

Cancer treatment can kill you, anti-depressants can cause suicide, painkillers can cause headaches/death ...

These things happen only in exceedingly rare cases and almost always when they're over prescribed or abused in some way. I've said it once and I'll say it again: this drug is not even out yet. It hasn't reached a stage where they can say "this works 99.9% of the time exactly as intended with no significant side effects". It won't be released until such a time as this is.

Your point about being **** scared of needles is personal to yourself and fair enough but not applicable to the majority of people who would think about using such a drug.
Your point about potential negative side effects are based on pure conjecture regarding a non-existent drug (by merit of the fact that regardless of whether or not such drugs are in development stages, none have been released to mass market) with no basis nor providence of sources to back up your assertions.
Your point about prevalence of STDs is negated by the fact that people using the pill or any other form of long term contraceptive which would include such a drug, should only be doing so without condoms if they're in a long term mutually exclusive relationship.

If you're having a one night stand or "casually" dating somebody you should be using a condom. If you're only have sex with one person, and they're only having sex with you, and you're both tested and neither have STDs then and ONLY then should you think about stopping using condoms and relying on drugs as contraceptives. You can use the pill, the hook or whatever else as back up with somebody you're in a casual relationship with in case the condom splits, but because of STDs you should not stop using the condom until you're only boinking one another. Any divergence from this is caused by poor sexual education or sheer stupidity.

Obviously, but what you are'nt seeing is that I live in America. Where people lie about stuff like that.

I've always thought this would be a great thing. If it were available I would definately get it. I shot in this **** is the worst thing I could possibly ever imagine.

What he's getting at is that your infertality probably isn't a bad thing.

Erm ... ok?