I do see a market with this, but it's got a lot of problems you'd need to navigate. Nothing a smart team couldn't figure out.
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'.
The way I see it, contraceptive is for the person using it.
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 disagree completely. Sure there are guys who might lie, but a lot of guys would love to be able to not ever have to worry about the female using birth control. Males (and females) hate condoms, but the idea of having a child before you are ready is a very scary proposition. I think this would sell very well if the surgery were painless and not too invasive.
You hit the nail on the head, here. Even if you're in a committed relationship, there's still a need, as a woman, to protect yourselves at all costs from pregnancy if you aren't looking to have a child. That's why many women in relationships will use secondary birth control. (Condoms + the pill, IUD + spermacide, etc.)
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.
While putting forceps into my scrotum also gives me the willies I am more than willing to get the procedure done.
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.
You could also go a different route and seek endorsements from pro athletes known to have a large and expensive number of baby mamas around the country. Market it as the "Player's Club Membership Card." It could become really trendy.
It is not the business problem if some guy lies to get sex (welcome to the human world). And there is a market among men with many sexual partners to get this procedure -- every man fears that she lies about the pill.
Doesn't mean you can't market it to couples too, of course.
RISUG is indeed a great contraceptive, but when talking about its benefits for HIV we should be incredibly careful.
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!"
Agreed, but spread knowledge of this in Africa where HIV is a big problem, and isn't well understood or cared about (to western standards) and not only could it be a cheap and affordable birth control, but if it reduces the risk in transmission of HIV then its still coming up double.
There's a highly effectivy method called symptothermal method. It is basically a combination of temperature measuring and cervical mucus observation, as both symptoms change during the menstrual cycle and when ovulation occurs, you can tell from the symptoms. After you successfully determined that the ovulation passed, a woman is infertile until her next cycle starts.
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.
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.
My fiancée cannot use hormonal birth control for the same reason. Instead, she has a copper based IUD. Your girlfriend has probably considered this already, but if not I strongly recommend looking into it. They're not perfect, but they're very good.
(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.)
You should talk to you doctor about progestin-only contraception.
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.
I guess she already did, but have you tried switching pills? (after asking a gynaecologist I guess)
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).
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.
I've asked my guy friends whether they would get this procedure, and none of them will. Guys expect women to mess with their bodies, but are not willing to make the sacrifice themselves when it comes down to it, even though this is more safe and harmless than pumping your body with hormones every day.
While this is generally fantastic, it seems like it would be a real bummer in an apocalyptic modern-medicine-eliminated need-to-repopulate type of situation (only mostly kidding).
It sounds great. My partner's family has a history of cancer so she doesn't want to go on any kind chemical birth control. Nor is she keen on something like the coil.
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.
I would be concerned about forgetting to get it redone on year 11.. then surprise!
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.
I believe we've already waited 10 years. That's why it's “10+”—the oldest trials are about 10 years old at this point, and the effect is still the same (as far as I've been able to read). More, as usual, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_... , including critique.
I don't see how it sounds like you'd get a granuloma. It sounds like the sperm are destroyed as they pass through the vas deferens but are still washed out as they normally would be.
This would be so awesome. The world is overpopulated, largely because of recklessness. Most people don't plan on having 4 children, it just happens. I would instantly have this procedure.
First of all, it's still in trials. Second of all, what should set off an immediate alarm is the claim of "100% effectiveness" (and safety for that matter, what if the doctor screws up and cuts your tubes?).
In fact, if you check the Wikipedia article for this thing you will see a large amount of controversy and problems that the article just ignores. That alone is enough for me to not consider this seriously. It would indeed be nice if this form of birth control were real, but as things stand it's just vaporware for medicine.
It's really amazing to me how many people believe anything they want to hear...
I am always surprised that every discussion of vasectomy, and even this solution, hand-waves away the experience one undergoes in the process. Before doing this yourself, at least know what your getting into:
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."
That doctor was incredibly negligent about pain management.
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.
Let's not trivialize birth control with a title like this.
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.
In what way does this trivialize birth control?
The ideal of birth control as a technology would allow anyone to cheaply turn their ability to reproduce on or off with no side effects. It's no more concerned with unwilling partners than willing, the technologies work the same for both. Judging from this article the method in question is getting pretty darn close to that ideal.
I don't see how this title trivializes birth control. Good birth control comes from controlling birth. I don't believe any other method can claim 10+ years of effectiveness, with practically no side effects and high reversibility.
Reportedly, when the pill was introduced, it empowered women by giving them much more control over their reproductive options. Afaik, this is the first non-barrier method of contraception that reliably provides the same freedom for men.
[+] [-] silentscope|14 years ago|reply
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'.
[+] [-] dkersten|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ianferrel|14 years ago|reply
All the other types prevent pregnancy only. Condoms prevent disease as well.
[+] [-] dkrich|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oodalolly|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dminor|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] X-Istence|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tesseractive|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomjen3|14 years ago|reply
Doesn't mean you can't market it to couples too, of course.
[+] [-] vacri|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schiffern|14 years ago|reply
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!"
[+] [-] electromagnetic|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dr_|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d2vid|14 years ago|reply
You should complete this survey like I did if you are interested: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TSKSKGM
[+] [-] WA|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Lazare|14 years ago|reply
(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. :)
[+] [-] dfc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schiffern|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] GFischer|14 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] raju|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pinchyfingers|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jason_tko|14 years ago|reply
If you read the steps necessary for the procedure and manage to maintain your enthusiasm, you have my awed and confusion admiration.
[+] [-] natasham25|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sanderjd|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] radu_floricica|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnnyFlash|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] spydum|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] shadowfiend|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] busted|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doah78|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schiffern|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nesterov|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spurgu|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] celerity|14 years ago|reply
No, thanks.
[+] [-] celerity|14 years ago|reply
It's really amazing to me how many people believe anything they want to hear...
[+] [-] dbg9|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] joeycfan|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] eurohacker|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] swah|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Lost_BiomedE|14 years ago|reply
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."
[+] [-] jaggederest|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] carbocation|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jdoliner|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Resident_Geek|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hoprocker|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdoliner|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dfc|14 years ago|reply