Justices Thomas and Alito and same-sex marriage

[gs11rmb]

Oct 9, 2020 8:31:36 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Oct 9, 2020 8:25:18 GMT -5 gs11rmb said:

And 3 years for others

Or the first 3 months vs a few years in. 😬

Now you're making me sad!

[justme]

Oct 9, 2020 8:07:03 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Oct 8, 2020 22:31:51 GMT -5 justme said:

Your own source points out that in the real world condoms are only 85% effective. That means for every 100 people that use a condom over a year there are 15 babies are born 9 months (not accounting for abortion and miscarriage).

Birth control pills also have an effective rate lower than their "prefect and never going to actually happen" rate. It doesn't drop as much as condoms - it's around 91%. So that's 9 babies each year for every 100 people.

I mean, it's better than pull and pray, but if I had a son I'd greatly prefer he had a method that was more effective than condoms.

Not every 100 people, but every 100 times a couple has sex. That could be 3 months for some people. 😍😍

I've heard it both ways.   Maybe it's birth control that the failure rate is over a year and condoms are on a certain number of times? I dunno. I've been on an IUD for like 7 years that doesn't have a user error so I stopped caring about specifics with them when it comes to birth rates. lol

[pulmonarymd]

Oct 9, 2020 8:19:45 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

Oct 8, 2020 17:25:47 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

You are only looking at half the equation. Risks are always balanced by benefits. The benefit for a women is she no longer is pregnant with its inherent risks as well as the benefits of not raising a child. For men, the benefit is only not raising the child. So the risk benefit calculation, if the risks are exactly the same, is significantly beneficial to women over men. That is never pointed out when this is discussed. Pregnant women die and get serious and not so serious consequences from pregnancy. Preventing them is only beneficial to a women.

You're adding a bunch of superfluous factors to try to prove why men dont need to be responsible for bc and I'm not buying it.

Most peoole have a period of life when they want to have sex and don't want to have kids. Making that as simple as possible benefits everyone. The less effort involved in said bc options being effective also benefits everyone. Condoms require significant in the moment effort which makes it the most likely to fail. Daily bc requires effort but less than condoms. Fix it and forget it (for a set period of time) options are ideal.

Again, nothing is saying women shouldnt or wouldnt continue to take their own bc. It also has nothing to do with using a condom to protect against std's. Plenty of people in a monogamous relationship dont want kids.

Saying that men can't possibly be expected to protect themselves because it might cause a lower libido paints men in a such a gross and self serving light. I would hope that is an minority, but I know better. That is why we have to change the conversation, and it should be men at the forefront. It benefits themselves.

That is not what I am saying. Every time this subject com s up, women make all kind of degrading comments about men, and claims as to why there are not options for men. There are counterpoints to those claims, the biggest being that men do not have the risks of pregnancy, so side effects need to be weighed against that. There was the claim about the risk of blood clots. Well, that risk is significantly higher in pregnant women. So the risk benefit calculation changes.

Nowhere did I claim that both persons are not responsible for getting pregnant. Having to support a child for 18+ years is a daunting prospect, and should be considered far move heavily than it is. But, the unequal burden pregnancy, childbirth, and what society expects on mother’s means mothers need to ensure they are protected. No one can count on someone else protecting them as well. We n a committed relationship, these things are easier to negotiate

[justme]

There's plenty of medicine out there that takes in more than just medical risks.

Viagra I'm looking at you. There's absolutely no risk to the man if he can't get an erection. Taking viagra doesn't stop any negative health conditions. In fact it's SAFER for guys to not use it at all thanks to the many side effects viagra can have. Yet it was passed by the FDA and insurance companies spend millions on. And guys don't care about the risks as long as they get a woody (yes, I know the risks of the two are not equal). 

So the medical community is a-ok with risk if a guy can't get it up, but not if it means controlling his fertility. 

Fuck with your arguments vasectomies shouldn't exist because there's no risk to men if he keeps knocking women up, but there's risks to the surgeries. 

And your argument of "no one can count on someone else protecting them" is the exact reason why guys should have more options to control their fertility! 

[pulmonarymd]

Oct 9, 2020 9:08:31 GMT -5 justme said:

There's plenty of medicine out there that takes in more than just medical risks.

Viagra I'm looking at you. There's absolutely no risk to the man if he can't get an erection. Taking viagra doesn't stop any negative health conditions. In fact it's SAFER for guys to not use it at all thanks to the many side effects viagra can have. Yet it was passed by the FDA and insurance companies spend millions on. And guys don't care about the risks as long as they get a woody (yes, I know the risks of the two are not equal). 

So the medical community is a-ok with risk if a guy can't get it up, but not if it means controlling his fertility. 

Fuck with your arguments vasectomies shouldn't exist because there's no risk to men if he keeps knocking women up, but there's risks to the surgeries. 

And your argument of "no one can count on someone else protecting them" is the exact reason why guys should have more options to control their fertility! 

Careful with your argument. Women don’t need reconstructive surgery after mastectomy, does nothing to improve survival, but we do it to improve quality of life. Women seem to want it. How is that any different than viagra, and you have surgical risk. Many drugs and procedures are approved to improve quality of life.

I think it is important from r male contraceptives to be developed. What I have an objection to is ridiculing men and the reasons why it is not available

[oped]

Its the conception of men that keeps it from being available. That they won't use it. 

I was listening to Chastain Buttigieg's autobiography and he said, yes there were death threats and evangelical 'repent' messages, but for the most part when they traveled people cared a lot less about them being gay than he thought they would... that it felt the obstacle to a gay president was less 'people aren't ready for a gay president'... than people THINKING people weren't ready for a gay president and acting in concert with that belief. 

Same thing here. The assumption that guys won't take birth control pills for instance is enough to keep them from being available. So how do we change that, because I think there are several reasons why a man might want to do that, personally.  

[justme]

Oct 9, 2020 13:11:52 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Oct 9, 2020 9:08:31 GMT -5 justme said:

There's plenty of medicine out there that takes in more than just medical risks.

Viagra I'm looking at you. There's absolutely no risk to the man if he can't get an erection. Taking viagra doesn't stop any negative health conditions. In fact it's SAFER for guys to not use it at all thanks to the many side effects viagra can have. Yet it was passed by the FDA and insurance companies spend millions on. And guys don't care about the risks as long as they get a woody (yes, I know the risks of the two are not equal). 

So the medical community is a-ok with risk if a guy can't get it up, but not if it means controlling his fertility. 

Fuck with your arguments vasectomies shouldn't exist because there's no risk to men if he keeps knocking women up, but there's risks to the surgeries. 

And your argument of "no one can count on someone else protecting them" is the exact reason why guys should have more options to control their fertility! 

Careful with your argument. Women don’t need reconstructive surgery after mastectomy, does nothing to improve survival, but we do it to improve quality of life. Women seem to want it. How is that any different than viagra, and you have surgical risk. Many drugs and procedures are approved to improve quality of life.

I think it is important from r male contraceptives to be developed. What I have an objection to is ridiculing men and the reasons why it is not available

You do realize that is my argument right? That there's more in the equation of male birth control than just men don't carry any health risks of pregnancy so they shouldn't accept risks in birth control. 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Oct 9, 2020 13:22:30 GMT -5 oped said:

Its the conception of men that keeps it from being unavailable. That they won't use it. 

I was listening to Chastain Buttigieg's autobiography and he said, yes there were death threats and evangelical 'repent' messages, but for the most part when they traveled people cared a lot less about them being gay than he thought they would... that it felt the obstacle to a gay president was less 'people aren't ready for a gay president'... than people THINKING people weren't ready for a gay president and acting in concert with that belief. 

Same thing here. The assumption that guys won't take birth control pills for instance is enough to keep them from being available. So how do we change that, because I think there are several reasons why a man might want to do that, personally.  

DH and I talked about it once and he said when he was younger he would have loved a male equivalent birth control.   Then the main concern could have been making sure to prevent STDs.  Having his side of the pregnancy equation be reliant on more than condoms and trusting she's on it/using it correctly would have been huge.

I think there are more, especially younger men, who would be interested in it IF we could change the societal narrative regarding sex.  Maybe it's time for a new clinical trial with a new generation of men who might not be as attached to the idea that maleness = virility.

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 8, 2020 22:39:16 GMT -5 justme said:

Oct 8, 2020 21:36:12 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I never said it’s unfair that men have to pay child support. If one of my posts read that way it was a typo. When a man has sex, he is taking a chance on making a baby. Once the baby is conceived the man has zero choice so he needs to be prepared to pay for the child. Which is why no man should have sex without a condom. Plus, we should all encourage condoms as they prevent STD

ETA: I went back and read the post you quoted. The last sentence I said we can and must make men pay child support. But I don’t believe in forcing visitation or shared custody. If a man doesn’t want to be a father, we can’t make him. Just like we can’t make a woman who is pregnant be a mother. But the same people aging woman have a choice are calling out men for making the choice to not be a father.

Your posts before this one read quite different than this one.

There's two different responsibilities with children 1) financial and 2) actual parenting. Unless you clarify you're only talking about one, referring to responsibilities and children most will assume you are talking about both.

I've never thought men should be forced to be a parent to a child from their sperm (and in fact think in most instances that's worse than no second parent), but they need to be financially responsible. I don't think anyone on this thread was talking about forcing a parental role on men, but I can't for certain speak for them.

Nowhere in this thread or anywhere else did I ever say that men shouldn’t have to pay for their child. I did say that women are the ones that have the choice whether or not to have a baby. If birth control fails, women have the final say in whether a baby is born or not.

But the tone of this thread is that men should have to take a birth control pill because women have to take them. But men do have condoms and if used correctly, are almost as effective as birth control pills. And yes, if they aren’t used correctly or from start to finish, the rate drops. But guess what, if a man didn’t take his pill regularly it would also drop.

If there was money in male birth control pills, there would be a mad rush to make them. And that is just in the US. Where are Canada, the UK and other countries at with this? Just because US pharm companies don’t think there is money to be made shouldn’t stop other countries from doing it.

[tallguy]

Oct 9, 2020 8:25:18 GMT -5 gs11rmb said:

Oct 9, 2020 8:07:03 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Not every 100 people, but every 100 times a couple has sex. That could be 3 months for some people. 😍😍

And 3 years for others

You know you don't have to look very far to find people for whom three lifetimes would still leave them a hefty surplus. 

[justme]

Oct 9, 2020 13:59:34 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Oct 8, 2020 22:39:16 GMT -5 justme said:

Your posts before this one read quite different than this one.

There's two different responsibilities with children 1) financial and 2) actual parenting. Unless you clarify you're only talking about one, referring to responsibilities and children most will assume you are talking about both.

I've never thought men should be forced to be a parent to a child from their sperm (and in fact think in most instances that's worse than no second parent), but they need to be financially responsible. I don't think anyone on this thread was talking about forcing a parental role on men, but I can't for certain speak for them.

Nowhere in this thread or anywhere else did I ever say that men shouldn’t have to pay for their child. I did say that women are the ones that have the choice whether or not to have a baby. If birth control fails, women have the final say in whether a baby is born or not.

But the tone of this thread is that men should have to take a birth control pill because women have to take them. But men do have condoms and if used correctly, are almost as effective as birth control pills. And yes, if they aren’t used correctly or from start to finish, the rate drops. But guess what, if a man didn’t take his pill regularly it would also drop.

If there was money in male birth control pills, there would be a mad rush to make them. And that is just in the US. Where are Canada, the UK and other countries at with this? Just because US pharm companies don’t think there is money to be made shouldn’t stop other countries from doing it.

In general, whenever there's talk of women can abort men should have a choice to it's a choice of both financial and parental responsibilities. It doesn't get discussed here much since it goes with such a hot button topic - but other forums and places and articles I've read have all included financial in the men should have a choice too argument. If you are only talking about the choice on whether or not to be present in their child's life you should specify - otherwise most people will take your "men should have a choice" argument as believing they should be able to chose not to pay child supprt. Until your post that I quoted I 100% thought you meant men should be able to chose not to pay child support based on what you wrote. 

And it's not "if used correctly" it's if "perfectly used" which doesn't happen. Condoms are only 85% effective. The perfect use rate is unobtainable because humans aren't perfect. 

[weltschmerz]

If you don't want women deciding what happens during a pregnancy.....STOP GIVING US YOUR SPERM!

[Miss Tequila]

Oct 9, 2020 14:20:30 GMT -5 justme said:

Oct 9, 2020 13:59:34 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Nowhere in this thread or anywhere else did I ever say that men shouldn’t have to pay for their child. I did say that women are the ones that have the choice whether or not to have a baby. If birth control fails, women have the final say in whether a baby is born or not.

But the tone of this thread is that men should have to take a birth control pill because women have to take them. But men do have condoms and if used correctly, are almost as effective as birth control pills. And yes, if they aren’t used correctly or from start to finish, the rate drops. But guess what, if a man didn’t take his pill regularly it would also drop.

If there was money in male birth control pills, there would be a mad rush to make them. And that is just in the US. Where are Canada, the UK and other countries at with this? Just because US pharm companies don’t think there is money to be made shouldn’t stop other countries from doing it.

In general, whenever there's talk of women can abort men should have a choice to it's a choice of both financial and parental responsibilities. It doesn't get discussed here much since it goes with such a hot button topic - but other forums and places and articles I've read have all included financial in the men should have a choice too argument. If you are only talking about the choice on whether or not to be present in their child's life you should specify - otherwise most people will take your "men should have a choice" argument as believing they should be able to chose not to pay child supprt. Until your post that I quoted I 100% thought you meant men should be able to chose not to pay child support based on what you wrote. 

And it's not "if used correctly" it's if "perfectly used" which doesn't happen. Condoms are only 85% effective. The perfect use rate is unobtainable because humans aren't perfect. 

Except I also said earlier in the thread that men should pay child support. My other comments were to you when you said only 45% of child support is paid. There are deadbeats out there. It’s not always men but it is definitely a higher % of them. I’m not giving them a pass and in my area the judges toss them in jail. It is taken seriously where I live and I think it should be.

[pulmonarymd]

Oct 9, 2020 13:39:13 GMT -5 justme said:

Oct 9, 2020 13:11:52 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Careful with your argument. Women don’t need reconstructive surgery after mastectomy, does nothing to improve survival, but we do it to improve quality of life. Women seem to want it. How is that any different than viagra, and you have surgical risk. Many drugs and procedures are approved to improve quality of life.

I think it is important from r male contraceptives to be developed. What I have an objection to is ridiculing men and the reasons why it is not available

You do realize that is my argument right? That there's more in the equation of male birth control than just men don't carry any health risks of pregnancy so they shouldn't accept risks in birth control. 

But you continue to gloss over that preventing pregnancy, in the short term, is of more benefit to women. So, when risk benefit calculations on methods of contraception, women derive more benefit. I have no issue with that statement, but it does have an effect on decisions about risk of drugs.

Other interventions have similar issues. The HPV vaccine is one. Women derive more benefit from the vaccine. But it is recommended for all people. Part of the reason for that is to eradicate the virus entirely. But giving the vaccine to boys does not have nearly the same benefit as it is for girls. And before you jump down my throat, yes, I gave it to all 3 of my sons, and I agree with the rationale for the recommendations

[oped]

Ok. so see it could be marketing too because stopping pregnancy wasn't one of the primary benefits I was thinking would make it attractive to men, even if it is the primary goal. Its about positioning pills as a beneficial alternative. 

[justme]

Oct 9, 2020 15:52:48 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Oct 9, 2020 13:39:13 GMT -5 justme said:

You do realize that is my argument right? That there's more in the equation of male birth control than just men don't carry any health risks of pregnancy so they shouldn't accept risks in birth control. 

But you continue to gloss over that preventing pregnancy, in the short term, is of more benefit to women. So, when risk benefit calculations on methods of contraception, women derive more benefit. I have no issue with that statement, but it does have an effect on decisions about risk of drugs.

Other interventions have similar issues. The HPV vaccine is one. Women derive more benefit from the vaccine. But it is recommended for all people. Part of the reason for that is to eradicate the virus entirely. But giving the vaccine to boys does not have nearly the same benefit as it is for girls. And before you jump down my throat, yes, I gave it to all 3 of my sons, and I agree with the rationale for the recommendations

And it's of more benefit to women because we've decided to double down on the burden that biology gave women. And are ok ignoring the sophies choice that occurs to women whose bodies can't handle the hormones. And ok ignoring that guys should have as much control over their fertility as women, and that part of the consequence of that is men not caring about the offspring.

Personally whether or not women have access to birth control should not be a factor in whether or not there should be male birth control. That's why I'm "glossing" over it because it has nothing to do with the conversation, except maybe as a very ancillary point that it would help women who cannot handle hormonal birth control. I wasn't alive when women's birth control came out so I can't say whether it came up or not, but the fact that men didn't have birth control pills should have had no part in discussion about women's birth control pills. And I don't think it has any part it in. "Yeah but women have birth control" is not a valid argument in my opinion when it comes to male birth control. Just like "yeah but there's condoms" isn't a valid argument to not have women's birth control. 

[pulmonarymd]

Oct 9, 2020 16:07:31 GMT -5 justme said:

Oct 9, 2020 15:52:48 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

But you continue to gloss over that preventing pregnancy, in the short term, is of more benefit to women. So, when risk benefit calculations on methods of contraception, women derive more benefit. I have no issue with that statement, but it does have an effect on decisions about risk of drugs.

Other interventions have similar issues. The HPV vaccine is one. Women derive more benefit from the vaccine. But it is recommended for all people. Part of the reason for that is to eradicate the virus entirely. But giving the vaccine to boys does not have nearly the same benefit as it is for girls. And before you jump down my throat, yes, I gave it to all 3 of my sons, and I agree with the rationale for the recommendations

And it's of more benefit to women because we've decided to double down on the burden that biology gave women. And are ok ignoring the sophies choice that occurs to women whose bodies can't handle the hormones. And ok ignoring that guys should have as much control over their fertility as women, and that part of the consequence of that is men not caring about the offspring.

Personally whether or not women have access to birth control should not be a factor in whether or not there should be male birth control. That's why I'm "glossing" over it because it has nothing to do with the conversation, except maybe as a very ancillary point that it would help women who cannot handle hormonal birth control. I wasn't alive when women's birth control came out so I can't say whether it came up or not, but the fact that men didn't have birth control pills should have had no part in discussion about women's birth control pills. And I don't think it has any part it in. "Yeah but women have birth control" is not a valid argument in my opinion when it comes to male birth control. Just like "yeah but there's condoms" isn't a valid argument to not have women's birth control. 

That’s not the argument

1 if both forms of hormonal birth control has similar risks, the risk benefit ratio is not the same
2 interfering with sperm production is more difficult. If you reduce sperm production by 90%, many men could still produce enough sperm to impregnate a women
3 male hormonal birth control, like women’s does nothing to prevent stds, so condoms would be needed in many scenarios

Again, the issue I have is calling men names and insinuating that we do not care. The name calling and belittling is unnecessary and does not help discussion. Pharmaceutical companies all over the world have not manufactured a male contraceptive. It is not just misogyny that has prevented one, there a practical matters. Finally, oral contraceptives were revolutionary, women finally had control over their fertility. It was a breakthrough so they no longer had to depend on a man, nor were they at the mercy of men to determine if they got pregnant

[justme]

Oct 9, 2020 17:58:36 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Oct 9, 2020 16:07:31 GMT -5 justme said:

And it's of more benefit to women because we've decided to double down on the burden that biology gave women. And are ok ignoring the sophies choice that occurs to women whose bodies can't handle the hormones. And ok ignoring that guys should have as much control over their fertility as women, and that part of the consequence of that is men not caring about the offspring.

Personally whether or not women have access to birth control should not be a factor in whether or not there should be male birth control. That's why I'm "glossing" over it because it has nothing to do with the conversation, except maybe as a very ancillary point that it would help women who cannot handle hormonal birth control. I wasn't alive when women's birth control came out so I can't say whether it came up or not, but the fact that men didn't have birth control pills should have had no part in discussion about women's birth control pills. And I don't think it has any part it in. "Yeah but women have birth control" is not a valid argument in my opinion when it comes to male birth control. Just like "yeah but there's condoms" isn't a valid argument to not have women's birth control. 

That’s not the argument

1 if both forms of hormonal birth control has similar risks, the risk benefit ratio is not the same
2 interfering with sperm production is more difficult. If you reduce sperm production by 90%, many men could still produce enough sperm to impregnate a women
3 male hormonal birth control, like women’s does nothing to prevent stds, so condoms would be needed in many scenarios

Again, the issue I have is calling men names and insinuating that we do not care. The name calling and belittling is unnecessary and does not help discussion. Pharmaceutical companies all over the world have not manufactured a male contraceptive. It is not just misogyny that has prevented one, there a practical matters. Finally, oral contraceptives were revolutionary, women finally had control over their fertility. It was a breakthrough so they no longer had to depend on a man, nor were they at the mercy of men to determine if they got pregnant

1 But you keep harping on only the risks of pregnancy - specifically what pregnancy does to a woman's body. There's still risks, not strictly medical, to men having children they didn't want (though one could argue the psychological damage children could endure having a father that doesn't want them would fall under a medical risk). And while the benefit is skewed towards women since they're carrying the pregnancy for 9 months - since parents are responsible for a child many multiples of the time its spent in the womb I would argue the benefit of a man having more control of choosing when he signs up for 18 years of at minimum financial responsibility is great.

2 I'm aware of how it's more difficult. Stopping something once a month is a lot more difficult than stopping something 24/7. But the argument on this thread on the side opposite than you has never been about how difficult or not creating male birth control is on a biological level. I personally think vasagel is a better deal for these reason (in my non medical opinion), but also acknowledge it'll be easier to talk guys into taking a pill than a couple shots to their balls. 

Furthermore - I know your 90% is hypothetical, but condoms have a real world efficacy of only 85%. So a pill that gets it up to 90% is already better than what men currently have to control their fertility. 

3 Just like no one that's arguing on the same side of me is saying male birth control is a free for all for women to not use birth control, neither is it a free for all to not use condoms. Plus your argument for why male birth control isn't needed in this instance could easily be used for why female birth control isn't. You still need a condom to help guard against STDs (it's not full proof, though better than not) could just as easily be used for doing away with female birth control. 


But your position seems to be that misogyny is not an over arching reason for why it hasn't been created. Though to be honest if I was narrowing down a more over arching reason would be more toxic masculinity than misogyny because I think society's thoughts of what makes a man a man is more central than its biases against women, but it's definitely still there. As for not caring - I'd argue that only 45% of child support being paid in full argues that a significant chunk do not care. As for name calling I get it's not the productive argument, but in this instance I just can't give more than the littlest of damns. 

[pulmonarymd]

Oct 9, 2020 21:31:36 GMT -5 justme said:

Oct 9, 2020 17:58:36 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

That’s not the argument

1 if both forms of hormonal birth control has similar risks, the risk benefit ratio is not the same
2 interfering with sperm production is more difficult. If you reduce sperm production by 90%, many men could still produce enough sperm to impregnate a women
3 male hormonal birth control, like women’s does nothing to prevent stds, so condoms would be needed in many scenarios

Again, the issue I have is calling men names and insinuating that we do not care. The name calling and belittling is unnecessary and does not help discussion. Pharmaceutical companies all over the world have not manufactured a male contraceptive. It is not just misogyny that has prevented one, there a practical matters. Finally, oral contraceptives were revolutionary, women finally had control over their fertility. It was a breakthrough so they no longer had to depend on a man, nor were they at the mercy of men to determine if they got pregnant

1 But you keep harping on only the risks of pregnancy - specifically what pregnancy does to a woman's body. There's still risks, not strictly medical, to men having children they didn't want (though one could argue the psychological damage children could endure having a father that doesn't want them would fall under a medical risk). And while the benefit is skewed towards women since they're carrying the pregnancy for 9 months - since parents are responsible for a child many multiples of the time its spent in the womb I would argue the benefit of a man having more control of choosing when he signs up for 18 years of at minimum financial responsibility is great.

2 I'm aware of how it's more difficult. Stopping something once a month is a lot more difficult than stopping something 24/7. But the argument on this thread on the side opposite than you has never been about how difficult or not creating male birth control is on a biological level. I personally think vasagel is a better deal for these reason (in my non medical opinion), but also acknowledge it'll be easier to talk guys into taking a pill than a couple shots to their balls. 

Furthermore - I know your 90% is hypothetical, but condoms have a real world efficacy of only 85%. So a pill that gets it up to 90% is already better than what men currently have to control their fertility. 

3 Just like no one that's arguing on the same side of me is saying male birth control is a free for all for women to not use birth control, neither is it a free for all to not use condoms. Plus your argument for why male birth control isn't needed in this instance could easily be used for why female birth control isn't. You still need a condom to help guard against STDs (it's not full proof, though better than not) could just as easily be used for doing away with female birth control. 


But your position seems to be that misogyny is not an over arching reason for why it hasn't been created. Though to be honest if I was narrowing down a more over arching reason would be more toxic masculinity than misogyny because I think society's thoughts of what makes a man a man is more central than its biases against women, but it's definitely still there. As for not caring - I'd argue that only 45% of child support being paid in full argues that a significant chunk do not care. As for name calling I get it's not the productive argument, but in this instance I just can't give more than the littlest of damns. 

1 women also are on the hook for supporting children, so the benefit is similar
2 when the “right” approach to male birth control is developed, it will be successful. The approaches being tested have not yet hit the sweet spot.
3 condoms plus another form of birth control is over 95%, and if used correctly, likely 99% effective, and will help prevent stds. This is the best approach in non-monogamous relationships.

[justme]

Oct 9, 2020 21:55:52 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Oct 9, 2020 21:31:36 GMT -5 justme said:

1 But you keep harping on only the risks of pregnancy - specifically what pregnancy does to a woman's body. There's still risks, not strictly medical, to men having children they didn't want (though one could argue the psychological damage children could endure having a father that doesn't want them would fall under a medical risk). And while the benefit is skewed towards women since they're carrying the pregnancy for 9 months - since parents are responsible for a child many multiples of the time its spent in the womb I would argue the benefit of a man having more control of choosing when he signs up for 18 years of at minimum financial responsibility is great.

2 I'm aware of how it's more difficult. Stopping something once a month is a lot more difficult than stopping something 24/7. But the argument on this thread on the side opposite than you has never been about how difficult or not creating male birth control is on a biological level. I personally think vasagel is a better deal for these reason (in my non medical opinion), but also acknowledge it'll be easier to talk guys into taking a pill than a couple shots to their balls. 

Furthermore - I know your 90% is hypothetical, but condoms have a real world efficacy of only 85%. So a pill that gets it up to 90% is already better than what men currently have to control their fertility. 

3 Just like no one that's arguing on the same side of me is saying male birth control is a free for all for women to not use birth control, neither is it a free for all to not use condoms. Plus your argument for why male birth control isn't needed in this instance could easily be used for why female birth control isn't. You still need a condom to help guard against STDs (it's not full proof, though better than not) could just as easily be used for doing away with female birth control. 


But your position seems to be that misogyny is not an over arching reason for why it hasn't been created. Though to be honest if I was narrowing down a more over arching reason would be more toxic masculinity than misogyny because I think society's thoughts of what makes a man a man is more central than its biases against women, but it's definitely still there. As for not caring - I'd argue that only 45% of child support being paid in full argues that a significant chunk do not care. As for name calling I get it's not the productive argument, but in this instance I just can't give more than the littlest of damns. 

1 women also are on the hook for supporting children, so the benefit is similar
2 when the “right” approach to male birth control is developed, it will be successful. The approaches being tested have not yet hit the sweet spot.
3 condoms plus another form of birth control is over 95%, and if used correctly, likely 99% effective, and will help prevent stds. This is the best approach in non-monogamous relationships.

1 Sure, if you ignore the fact that more and more children are being born out of wedlock - which plenty of studies show that in those cases women share the brunt more than men (see 44% that get child support paid. Yes, there are non custodial mothers, but they are a very small portion of the overall numbers). And then moving on to married but now divorced mothers, again things fall negatively against them more than men (this also ties into the child support percentages). While one can make a decent argument that in a marriage the financial burden does not fall on women with the whole shared finances thing (even if you don't share bank accounts), but there's plenty of studies that show how childcare falls disproportionately to women.
2 the right method will never be developed if the sweet spot is something where the only side effects are essentially nothing because men don't face the medical risk of pregnancy
3 And both partners on birth control with condoms is even a higher rate. Considering 45% of children born in the US are unintended your 95%+ rate isn't exactly what happens in the real world. Or more aptly horny humans suck at making good decisions so it's best if we give them as many options before they reach horny critical mass which is what condoms rely on. 

[raeoflyte]

I can't understand why parents of boys wouldn't want better protection for their sons. I don't want him relying on someone elses birth control method, but based on the fact that his brain wont be fully developed until 25, and teen boys are known for making dumb choices I hate that his only option is a condom. I can't be alone in this. I haven't seen any side effects that would make me caution him against it.

Are most straight sexual relationships non-monogamous? I have no data on that but it's the outlier in my world. Most couples are together for months/years to my knowledge monogamous which reduces the need for std protection after the first 3-6 months. Any complaint I've heard of with using condoms is from men, not women so again I can't understand why or how this isn't something that men should be pushing for without assuming those mean and nasty accusations toward the male attitude as a whole.

What side effects are so terrible to prevent men from even trying it? Everything has potential side effects. If the side effects are too much, we stoo taking it and find an alternative.

[raeoflyte]

utswmed.org/medblog/pill-guys-male-birth-control-option-passes-safety-tests/

From April of last year.

[raeoflyte]

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6419257/

I'm not seeing anything here either that women don't also deal with on bc. It's also interesting the percentage of men on the placebo in these studies that reported side effects.

[thyme4change]

Oct 10, 2020 8:37:45 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

I can't understand why parents of boys wouldn't want better protection for their sons. I don't want him relying on someone elses birth control method, but based on the fact that his brain wont be fully developed until 25, and teen boys are known for making dumb choices I hate that his only option is a condom. I can't be alone in this. I haven't seen any side effects that would make me caution him against it.

Are most straight sexual relationships non-monogamous? I have no data on that but it's the outlier in my world. Most couples are together for months/years to my knowledge monogamous which reduces the need for std protection after the first 3-6 months. Any complaint I've heard of with using condoms is from men, not women so again I can't understand why or how this isn't something that men should be pushing for without assuming those mean and nasty accusations toward the male attitude as a whole.

What side effects are so terrible to prevent men from even trying it? Everything has potential side effects. If the side effects are too much, we stoo taking it and find an alternative.

Exactly.

👏👏👏