I think nature is very unnatural. – Bob Dylan
Two questions this time:
What’s your opinion on the social implications of the male contraceptive pill? I think it may have as big an effect as the female contraceptive pill on relationships, male/female interaction, etc. I can certainly see more women annoyed and angry that men can control when they become fathers.
I’ve never written on the “male pill” that I can remember, but I think you’re absolutely right in saying that it could have profound effects on society. Obviously, guys will still be on the hook if their wives decide to leave them after having a planned-for baby, but a man who takes proper precautions will not have to become a father in the first place if he doesn’t want to. I’m sure you’re right in saying that some women will not at all like men having that kind of control, but I think more enlightened women will recognize it as a step toward real legal equality of the sexes (since right now reproductive decisions are almost completely in the hands of women). The only drawback I can see is that while women are naturally infertile roughly ¾ of the time, and hormonal contraception works by imitating that perfectly natural state, there is no natural point at which post-pubescent men are infertile. In other words, hormonal contraception for women creates an analogue of a natural state, while the same for men would create a state which was not at all natural, which is why just about every one tested so far causes a loss of sex drive or even more pronounced effects. Current research is concentrating on a chemical designated JQ1 which seems to have the ability to make a man’s testes temporarily “forget” how to produce sperm, without any detectable side effects. But even after the drug is pronounced “safe”, I think men should do their research and weigh the pros and cons before deciding to use it when reversible vasectomies are already available.
Are you familiar with the claim that one out of every five women who have been raped report orgasms from the act? I haven’t been able to lock down any definitive data sources on this and thought you might know something.
Orgasm during rape isn’t all that uncommon; I don’t know if it’s 20% or some other number, but it’s enough of a fraction to be noteworthy. In fact, orgasm during rape can be a major cause of rape trauma; because women have been fed nonsense about rape being due to “hate” and “power” and all that malarkey instead of biology, women who orgasm during rape feel there’s something wrong with them. If I don’t want to eat at a particular restaurant because the place is filthy and the owner is a dick who exploits his staff, does that mean my mouth won’t water and my stomach rumble if I’m forced into the place? Of course not; some people even salivate at the smell of blood, despite the fact that they have no real desire to drink it. In other words, the reaction is a biological one which has NOTHING to do with what the person might want. But because of all the dogma that rape is “cultural” rather than biological (despite the fact that it has been observed frequently among our closest relatives, the chimpanzees), a woman who orgasms during rape may feel as if she’s committed some political crime or religious sin (in the words of Sheila Jeffreys, “eroticizing her own oppression”), when in actuality she had no more control over it than some men have over premature ejaculation.
One of the more interesting male contraception methods in the works seems to be RISUG, which is injected in the vas deferens and works by rupturing the membranes of the sperm that passes through it. The procedure is very cheap, easily reversible (the chemical injected is easily dissolved by sodium bicarbonate, and since the vas deferens is not blocked, there is no sperm buildup and no chance of the body creating anti-sperm antibodies, which is, afaik, the main reason standard vasectomies aren’t reliably reversible) and, since it’s not hormonal, it neatly bypasses the no-natural-infertile-state problem. If this gets approved, it’ll get straight to the top of most convenient contraceptive methods, methinks.
I totally agree on the potential for huge cultural implications. The fact is that there is currently no male contraception method that is
1) non obvious (condoms fail here)
2) reliable
3) reliably reversible (vasectomy fails here)
A method satisfying all 3 would indeed be a step toward true equality, especially since men are considered liable for a child as soon as they have unprotected sex, while women can refuse that responsibility later (up to giving up a child for adoption at birth). This is totally backward: the burden of responsibility is most strictly enforced on the side without the power of decision.
Just to correct you on one point “men are considered liable for a child as soon as they have unprotected sex”, no, men are considered liable for a child if born. It’s an important distinction on the margin for men that have been charged with paternity from semen in a condom, misuse of stored sperm, and little guys that impregnate grown women.
To correct you on another, women can’t give up children for adoption if the father won’t sign off, after all he is a parent. So, if a woman is dead set on adoption she hides the pregnancy, she hides the father’s name, or uses other legal tactics.
So Maggie’s parenthetical “(since right now reproductive decisions are almost completely in the hands of women)” covers more than just contraception or abortion.
Just as an aside, shhhh, don’t tell anyone, but if she got pregnant she had unprotected sex too.
And this is the point “This is totally backward: the burden of responsibility is most strictly enforced on the side without the power of decision.”
The cynical side of me writes that women go for abortion and adoption because they don’t want to pay child support (women are the biggest deadbeats on child support, queue in excuses which actually do apply to both sexes). The realistic side of me knows that’s a very small minority.
Not really related Maggie, and you’ve probably seen it already, but the BBC ran a news story yesterday where they referred to sex workers as “sex workers” and outlined their fears of visiting police etc. to report crimes. Progress?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-21940666
The obligatory “trafficked children” sentence is still there of course. I just found the change of tone from their usual THINK OF THE CHILDREN rhetoric refreshing in the article as a whole.
I would think that the answer to the assertion about orgasm during rape would be that 12 out of 9 statistics quoted about rape are utter hogwash.
The male contraceptive is extremely stupid. I have spent most of my life researching the male HPTA.
Just take an “impotence” pill – or go for “abstinence” … same thing as any “male contraceptive”.
Men have to show up for the date in MORE than the proper uniform. They have to do more than SMILE to make sex successful. They have to get it up and keep it up. That is something that women do not have to do. Women show up with the right attitude and that’s all they have to do. Men need their hormones to get an erection and make sex possible at all. The only way you can stop sperm production is to interrupt something in the HPTA and all that stuff contributes to virility. Good luck with playing around with it. I think it’s funny that scientists laugh at bodybuilders who interrupt their HPTA with exogenous hormones and here we have the scientists themselves playing around with it.
It would be okay – if they knew everything about the HPTA – but so much male virility is an unknown to them (and everyone). I never even got a vasectomy. I told my wife she was welcome to tie her tubes but our sex life would be OVAH if I stopped having erections. I didn’t even trust that a vasectomy was safe.
I’m not at all sure that men would accept a pill to make themselves infertile, though I guess that big pharma has researched this; it just doesn’t seem to be in male psychology to me. And there are almost no pills with active ingredients that don’t have side effects.
Secondly, big pharma always looks for pills that need to be taken on a long term basis — maximising profits, so commercially a male fertility pill makes sense. But — a big but — there are far more significant diseases that they could concentrate on, but don’t; the lack of any search for new antibiotics will soon be a major problem.
2 points;
1) I am deeply suspicious about any statements made publicly about one gender’s psychology. The field is so sowed with political mines that I don’t think any honest research has been done in my lifetime, and if any has it is being kept jolly quiet.
2) Big Pharma look for pills that are unlikely to result in huge class action suits (and who can blame them?). I think that’s a large factor in their not doing aggressive research into significant diseases. It doesn’t seem to matter if they spell out possible side effects beforehand; if somebody gets the bit in their teeth a handful of adverse effects in a large population of serious sufferers can still result in a huge liability.
They aren’t angels, but let’s take into account the incentives society forces on them, eh?
I’m with you … the word “Big Pharma” is a slur in my opinion. If you’re going to say it … then be consistent and say … “Big Union” … “Big Global Warming” … etc. Drug company profits are no more suspect in my opinion than the profits East Anglia makes off it’s climate change nonsense.
But … I ACTUALLY HAVE A USE for the stuff that “big pharma” puts out … and I have a use for the stuff “big oil” puts out. East Anglia? The AFLCIO? No use for anything they do whatsoever.
@cspschofield Many men have the belief that a vasectomy will make them impotent — which, unless they already have problems — it won’t. But this fear isn’t anyway logical, even if it’s understandable. Such men might well think that a male “pill” could have the same effect.
You’ve only got to look at a few drugs to see that big pharma concealed the results of their own trials when the results weren’t what they wanted — specially for drugs that users would take long-term; and long-term = profits. Some bad effects were known when the drugs were launched, but this was hidden from regulators etc. Short-term drugs like antibiotics don’t generate the necessary profits. The understandable desire to maximise profits doesn’t sit well with drugs that are (socially) necessary.
Don’t take this the wrong way – but it’s kind of funny the way you condemn circumcision as having all these devastating effects yet you have no problem with a much more complicated and dangerous surgical procedure such as vasectomies. On the one hand – you insist there are all these “deleterious” effects on males who have been circumcised – while on the other you insist that no down sides exist for vasectomies. I just think that’s kind of strange.
A male “pill” will have a negative effect on the male sex drive because, in order to eliminate sperm production you have to play with the HPTA. Let me tell you – there’s no free rides with the HPTA just ask any body builder who uses steroids. There’s “No Way Out”. You cannot outsmart it. You do one thing to it – and it screams by responding in another way that you don’t like.
However, I maintain that lowered male sex drive, for most doctors in the west these days – is considered a FEATURE and not a BUG – so of course they aren’t going to count this as a negative side effect.
Look – I monitor my hormone levels every six months and … if I don’t eat the night before then my levels are LOWER than they usually are. If I’m stressed they are LOWER. A gastrointestinal problem can cause lowered test. Just about anything can cause lower test.
But not the male birth control pill? Which specifically manipulates the male HPTA?
Not buyin’ it.
(Bit slow to pick up on this; apologies)
Vasectomy is a very simple procedure; it’s not complicated and it’s not dangerous. Circumcision is more technically challenging than vasectomy — getting the exactly correct amount of prepuce to excise isn’t as straightforward as you might think: it’s only too easy to remove too much.
Wow, a male contraceptive.
For 50 years, women have had to fight sneaky and manipulative attempts to restrict our access to birth control. For the most part, we have to go through two middlemen to get contraception–the doctor and the pharmacist. And there are doctors and pharmacists who refuse to give any due to “personal beliefs”. Yet that male contraceptive called a condom is given out free like candy on the streets. No doubt this *new* male contraceptive will be available over the counter.
Well, Susan, you might well be right, how male professionals would be much more eager to pass out male contraception than female contraception– but not because the Patriarchy is conspiring to keep women barefoot and pregnant.
Suppose the wife of the doctor, or the wife of the pharmacist, feels “stifled in the marriage,” and so she files for no-fault divorce. Then it’s a certainty in the USA that if Hubby has sired a child with her, she and her lawyer are going to get rich at Hubby’s expense.
But if Hubby can make sure Wifey doesn’t get pregnant (at least not by him) until he’s damned good and ready, the imbalance lessens. THAT’S why there is such interest in a “male pill.”
As it is now, if Wifey tells Hubby that she’s taking the Pill but she’s lying, he can’t force her to get an abortion. But she can skip the Pill, file for divorce, and he’s legally on the hook for years of child support.
If only a marriage were required for this to happen!
I’ve got no problem with male contraceptives. I just wish that more female contraceptives were available over the counter. It’s really not too much to ask for, is it?
Susan, the problem is that female contraception is a spectrum of strengths/mixture that really needs to be reviewed by a doctor over time. Over-the-counter isn’t a good idea.
However, you can keep a supply of the male contraceptive in your purse, glove box, or bed stand, and it is over-the-counter. Be aware the only spectrum there is large or extra-large because both the manufacturer and end-user lie. Pardon me, there is also thin, thinnest, and “OMG it did what?”.
Susan, what GrimGhost said, and for most of my life women could buy that male contraceptive and force it on the male.
A law that gave sole right to either established parent to sign off on adoption would go a long way to protect women and men from unwanted children.
Hi, Susan,
1. The Pill came out for contraception in 1960. Was it an uphill battle to get all states to allow its use for that purpose? Sure. You can get a good timeline here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/timeline/timeline2.html
2. “Yet that male contraceptive called a condom is given out free like candy on the streets.” It wasn’t years ago, whatsoever. It had age restrictions and required asking for it (those with military service can ignore this). It is passed out like candy now for the purpose of reducing STDs, not as contraception, however it may be portrayed on your streets. This came about with HIV. “Safe Sex” is a term post HIV (though it should be more honestly called safer sex).
3. “No doubt this *new* male contraceptive will be available over the counter.” Now, you’re just giving in to pitying sexism. Admit it. The likelihood is it will require a prescription for the same reason the Pill does; adverse side effects and a need to dial in the dosage.
4. From 3, Susan, these days you can buy that male contraception all day long. Stuff your purse, your bed stand, and your glove box. You’ll never leave home without one. And you’ll never need the Pill again. They are also cheaper than the Pill by about 50% (based on sex only once per day, $75 for the Pill per month, breakage and spillage not accounted for in this cost estimate).
I once read that amoung males, erections, and occassionally full orgasms, are a common reaction to intense fear. Supposedly, it’s common amoung combat soldiers (Krulac might know more about it than I do). If this is true, it would make sense for females to sometimes have a similar reaction during rape and other frightening experiences.
May be that, but more likely you’re dealing with an area that if rubbed enough yields an orgasm. Oh wait, that’s how it works.
I am not making light of rape, whatsoever, but I can certainly believe that a small percentage of raped women achieve orgasm just by my first paragraph. That’s a physiological reaction not psychological. Everyone’s mileage differs. Nothing to be ashamed of and has no meaning beyond physiological.
Totally agree with SomeGuySomewhere, but it’s worse than that: most states presume that an accused father is the real one unless proven otherwise within a short deadline (even if she has since left him and he doesn’t even know she is pregnant); and nearly all states assume that the husband (if any) is the father of any offspring, often even if this is disproven by DNA.
Thus, while the male pill will help some guys avoid being taken advantage of, the paternity/welfare extortion system can still find ways to do it, and there is no substitute for reforming that system.
A lot of that is driven by money from the Feds. California now pushes, if not requires, a father on every birth certificate. This leads to einey-miney-moe by a woman who doesn’t actually know or a woman who does but weighs the possible worth of each partner.
I have no dog in this fight now, but I think all birth certificates should have a DNA test result stapled to it. Maternity is almost certain (think maternity ward), but paternity is always less certain. No man should pay for a child not his unless he wants that child. Nor should any woman.
Remember the tired “if men got pregnant…”? Well, if men gave birth, women would demand DNA tests by law. CAWA.
@jdgalt: I don’t live in the US, so I wasn’t specific about there (I also don’t know how skewed the system is in Europe, because I haven’t been confronted to it).
@Susan: the condom has one major disadvantage compared to the pill: it’s obvious when a man has a condom on (or at least easy to check), while it’s impossible to know when a woman is on the pill. As for distribution, I had the impression it’s pretty easy (and I think it should be) to get a prescription for a pill where I live (though I haven’t tried for obvious reasons).
It is really easy to get a prescription in the US too. The doctor prescribing will take her through varying strengths to avoid side-effects (as well higher incidence of various cancers) while still being effective.
“it’s obvious when a man has a condom on (or at least easy to check), while it’s impossible to know when a woman is on the pill.” She’ll tell you. What, women don’t always tell the truth? I know men don’t.
“What, women don’t always tell the truth? I know men don’t.”
That’s the point: people lie sometimes. When a man says he is using a condom, his partner can check. When a woman says she is taking the pill, her partner cannot check.
About when you corrected me on adoption: where I live, women can give birth anonymously, without the biological father even being informed.
Yeah, it’s state by state. How would you feel if you’re child was given up for adoption without you knowing?
Oh, wait, we’re male. Children are only the female’s and only they care about children. We, as males, could care less.
Maggie, thanks for recognizing ” In other words, hormonal contraception for women creates an analogue of a natural state, while the same for men would create a state which was not at all natural, which is why just about every one tested so far causes a loss of sex drive or even more pronounced effects.”
I’m shocked by both women and men who have no understanding of the differences between the two systems. The woman’s was the easier to approach, the man’s is more problematic. Per Mensem v Semper Paratus.
Way OT, but maybe still on “natural processes” and how BS gets made fact. I’m sure all of you have read something like “fetuses are all female until testosterone” which is a misconstruing of “female is default”. My long ago bio-classes gave “neither until differentiation but set by chromosomes” so I looked it up.
Male ducts (Wollfian) develop first, female ducts (mullerian, umlaut on the U) develop second, male differentiation takes place first, female second. Females retain the male structure longer than the male retains the female. Female is default for XY if male differentiation doesn’t take place, that depends on both testosterone and AMH (anti-mullerian hormone). Female is default because only the male has a sex-determining gene (SRY, and duh) which must activate to make a male.
Point is a fetus isn’t female or male by structure until differentiation. Female differentiation comes after male, which only makes sense.
Yeah, way OT.
The most common female objection to a male Pill I’ve run into is, “Hmph, I wouldn’t trust a MAN to remember to take it!”
Which might be a legitimate concern if we were talking about taking the female Pill away and replacing it with a male Pill. But AFAIK there is not one single solitary human being in the entire world advocating such, and so the objection is an overwhelmingly stupid one. A woman won’t have to to trust a man to remember to take his Pill, nor will she have to trust that he isn’t lying about it. She can just take her own damned Pill, and not worry if he took his.
And of course, he can just take his own damned Pill, and not worry if she forgot. Or is lying.
Again, I’ve not encountered mention of orgasms during rape outside of porn, except for here. I’m guessing the subject is sort of un-PC.*
Well, I’m catching up gradually, slowly, but I am getting there.
* PC has always existed, it just hasn’t always been called that.
“Hmph, I wouldn’t trust a MAN to remember to take it!”.
And of course, if a woman wants a child, I shouldn’t trust her to take it. Whether I want a child or not, if she lies to me, I must still pay for the child she’ll likely try to keep from me. After all, it’s hers not mine, except for the support part.
My third paragraph addresses exactly that.
A relevant paper here is Levin & van Berlo 2004
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353113103001536
Their conclusion–orgasm does not equal consent
While a male pill might be a worthy goal, the whole STI thing still makes barrier contraception important in a nonexclusive setting. Which covers a lot of the world’s sexual relations.