Will this cause an increase in sexually transmitted diseases? If straight men don't have to wear condoms for pregnancy-avoidance, and straight men & women don't like to pretend/boast that they've had lots of sex (unlike gay couples), then the pressure to go bareback (without a condom) increases and there might be more HIV/AIDS/STIs
The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men
21–30 of 167 posts
Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men
#22A 100% effective, low maintenance, reversible birth control method could have an incredible effect on the future of the species. I'm guessing the benefits of fewer unwanted children will be incredible. The possible downsides include a dangerously low birth rate and forced temporary sterilization, but I think the long term effects will be very positive.
dangerously low birth rate will be the biggest impact in long-long term - i wont be surprised if every other men uses this technique secretively to NOT to have a child ... as someone mentioned here "A SEXUAL REVOLUTION" is underway ...
Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men
#23In its report, the WHO team agreed that the concept of RISUG was intriguing. But they found fault with the homegrown production methods: Guha and his staff made the concoction themselves in his lab, and the WHO delegation found his facilities wanting by modern pharmaceutical manufacturing standards. Furthermore, they found that Guha’s studies did not meet “international regulatory requirements” for new drug approval—…
I'm sure it's not as black and white as that. There's a certain level of safety requirements, and we could probably relax them with only a small percentage of people suffering or dying as a result. We could also raise them, and decrease that number. Etc, etc., it's all a numbers game, and I'm already boring myself with this argument.
Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men
#24This is going to change the world ... this is by far going to have deepest sociological impact (good & bad) on the society ... because many men will use this secretly without telling their partner to avoid having kids ... which eventually will bring enormous decrease in population ... Now someone should come out with novel technique to avoid STD without using condoms ... combination of these 2 techniques will be VIOL…
We'd see the return of the sexual revolution.
Exactly - this takes away the one of the biggest fear a man has while having sex ...
Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
So that means that once you have the procedure done on you, you don't have to do anything (no regular medicine) until you want it reversed?
Yes.
Sign me up!
I have 3 kids and the existing methods available for ensuring we don't have a 4th are, at best, inconvenient. (Condoms are annoying; the pill messes with my wife's emotions; and either of us getting snipped seems scarily irreversible.)
I'll be keeping an eye open for trials here in the US and on any more news about this procedure trickling out from India.
hooray for science!
Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men
#26Yet another illustration about how broken the health care system is in the US. Pharmaceutical and medical device companies are disincented to produce cost effective treatments, it's really an outrage. Medicine in the US is geared towards costly treatments that are needed on a recurring basis; we're inundated with marketing and profit driven medicine. IMO, the NIH and FDA should be promoting a research-rewarded system that promotes cost effective and potentially society-shifting treatments such as RISUG.
Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men
#27I have nothing to add except that reading the description of the process made me feel physically uncomfortable.
Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men
#28In its report, the WHO team agreed that the concept of RISUG was intriguing. But they found fault with the homegrown production methods: Guha and his staff made the concoction themselves in his lab, and the WHO delegation found his facilities wanting by modern pharmaceutical manufacturing standards. Furthermore, they found that Guha’s studies did not meet “international regulatory requirements” for new drug approval—…
Do these "modern pharmaceutical manufacturing standards"
actually buy us extra safety?
* Evaluations take a really long time. So it's hard to get the drugs into the hands of people.
* Development is now extremely expensive. That forces just about everyone except the largest drug mega-corporations out of the market.
* Drugs that would be a net benefit to the world sometimes never make it through the entire process because the ROI isn't good enough, or the associated side effects are deemed too harsh. (We would likely not have aspirin today if it hadn't been developed prior to the modern way of drug development... it has too many high-risk side effects)
--
On the plus side:
* The drugs you do get are generally far safer and better understood than they otherwise would be
* You can feel safe that each batch of the drug was made the same way, using the same process, and ends up having the same strength/effectiveness as every other batch of the same drug... even when made by a different company. (We take that for granted now... but it's actually a really big deal if you look at medication from a historical perspective.)
* We have far fewer snake-oil salesmen ripping people off for cures that are, at best, useless and at worst, cause the condition to get worse, or cause birth defects, or some other harm. If we do find the drug doing harm, it gets pulled off the market
Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men
#29Will this cause an increase in sexually transmitted diseases? If straight men don't have to wear condoms for pregnancy-avoidance, and straight men & women don't like to pretend/boast that they've had lots of sex (unlike gay couples), then the pressure to go bareback (without a condom) increases and there might be more HIV/AIDS/STIs
>straight men & women don't like to pretend/boast that they've had lots of sex (unlike gay couples), then the pressure to go bareback (without a condom) increases and there might be more HIV/AIDS/STIs
If I'm reading this right, you're under the impression that a condom protects you against the vast majority of STIs, correct?
Yeah no. Condoms are primarily preventative towards towards diseases that are spread via Semen, vaginal fluids, and skin to skin contact only on the area it covers. Syphilis, Herpes( which can also be spread via oral sex ), Genital Warts, and crabs as a loose example ( There's more ) are not prevented by a condom. Aside from HIV/Aids ( in which case African American women are the highest rate of infected ) that quip was pointless as was this post.
Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men
#30Will this cause an increase in sexually transmitted diseases? If straight men don't have to wear condoms for pregnancy-avoidance, and straight men & women don't like to pretend/boast that they've had lots of sex (unlike gay couples), then the pressure to go bareback (without a condom) increases and there might be more HIV/AIDS/STIs
Probably not. Insurance already covers vasectomy since it's much cheaper than paying for a pregnancy/childbirth/child medical expenses/etc and it doesn't seem to have resulted in increase in STD.
Odds are, if you have medical insurance, you can get a vasectomy for a co-pay of $20 and the procedure only takes about 15 minutes.
I'm fairly sure that Planned Parenthood in the US also does it cheaply.
My gut tells me that the guys who are responsible enough to get vasectomies if they really don't want kids are also responsible enough to wear condoms. The converse is likely also true!