332
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
332 points (95.6% liked)
Technology
60101 readers
3201 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This kind of thing pops up repeatedly. There's some big, splashy news about a male contraceptive, and then it flames out, or ends up being vaporware.
The problem is that you need to stop a few million sperm with every single ejaculation; reducing that number by 99% means that you're still risking pregnancy. Severing the ductus deferens (a vasectomy) means no sperm get through; trying to clip or block them means that some can potentially get through. Hormonal BC has the same issue; while it significantly reduces sperm count, it may not eliminate it entirely. (And there can be some really significant negative side effects from eliminating endogenous testosterone production, since hormonal levels need to be pretty far out of whack before there's a really big cut in sperm production.)
OTOH, women have to stop two eggs per month, or stop them from being implanted in the uterine wall. A 99% reduction in fertility for women means that it's very, very unlikely that they're going to be able to get pregnant.
(Yes, women suffer from hormonal BC as well, but some women need it just to be able to live normal lives. It's overall less of a problem than it ends up being for men. And women have the option of an IUD as well.)
Personally, I'm in favor of vasectomy; it's allowed me to avoid having any children for 20-odd years now.
Ive also avoided making kids for the last decade or so but I was born with personality-based contraceptives so I dont know that it counts
Andrew Tate apparently made money selling his, if you want to try it as a business
You are comparing sperm count and egg count as if the amount it an issue. For eggs not to be released, you end up nuking estrogen production. Hormonal BC for women is a lesser evil when comparing it to unwanted pregnancies and health conditions like endo, but you are underestimating just how bad constantly taking the pill for women is.Vasectomy is the way.
Vesectomy is the way if you know for sure that you never want children - they aren’t reversible like birth control are and shouldn’t really be considered reversible at all because there’s a very real risk of them not being so
That's because it is. If you have a 95% reduction in number of eggs, then your odds of pregnancy are very, very low. If you have a 95% drop in sperm count, then it's still pretty easy for a woman to get pregnant.
Yes, taking hormonal BC is pretty bad for a number of women. OTOH, it's a life saver for some women, like the ones that have 3.5 week periods. For women that experience adverse side effects from hormonal BC, I'd suggest IUDs. For the very, very small number of women that neither IUDs nor hormonal BC work for, I'd suggest using condoms, and avoiding states run by Republicans.
For men that aren't sure, I would always suggest vasectomy first, or just learn to be gay (since it a choice, dontcha know, /s). If you end up changing your mind, be a foster parent.
The problem I've read with Vasalgel is that they had trouble getting enough voulenteers to test it. Trials are dragging out. It does appear to work otherwise.
I was holding out on it for a while, but ended up getting a vasectomy.
I thought that it, and the vasclips, had both failed in the larger clinical trials at achieving birth control rates that were even on par with hormonal BC. This is what I'm remembering from like seven or either years ago though (and internet search is such garbage now that I don't know if I could find the sources I'm remembering).; there might be a different formulation now, or something.
From what I understand the problem with Vasagel isn't it's efficacy but with the reversibility. You can remove it from the tubes easily but the sperm might not perform as before.
Unfortunately no. The issue is. I worked under my supervisor that has been at the forefront of this tech for years.
The issue is men refuse to get the injection or any contraception that has side effects. Time and again the biggest obstacle for both men and women was that the procedure was not 100%.
Therefore the side effects could be permanent. Same as women but for some unknown reason both men and women were not happy to take the risk with a sperm reduction system that could fail in 2 ways.
It doesn't stop sperm or it doesn't stop stop sperm. The risks were too great that it wouldn't be reversible or it wouldn't be as effective as condom or pill. Both bring 99%.
They should be offered the opportunity to freeze their sperm at no cost if they have the vasectomy, as an insurance policy. Then the risk is null.
Freezing only lasts 10 years. I know because I have it.
What are you going to do at year 9 and 12 months 29 days?
So they can extend it but the quality will be reduced and likely I won't be able to have kids. It was already pretty shot due to surgical trauma. Likely I just won't be able to sire children.
Probably best for the world in that case
I eat lots of stuff after the expiration date and I’m just fine. However, that’s probably not the best analogy to use when we’re talking about spermcicles.
Under proper storage, sperm will last indefinitely. At least based on what sperm banks say
Not according to the hospital where mine is stored.
Do you think vasectomies are free?
In countries with proper national health, yes. Source: live in EU and got mine for the cost of the uber to get home.
I think they could be.
You mean we can't blame the patriarch for under investment in men's contraceptives and that it's actually biology to blame? I'm SHOCKED.
Also, maybe I don't want a needle stuck into my balls.
Maybe my partner taking oral contraceptive is better to ensure she doesn't get pregnant.
Also are women supposed to just trust guys, or are they going to protect themselves every time.
Maybe the real reason we don't have a male oral contraceptive is because the female ones protect the female first and foremost because people suck.