
New male contraceptive may be submitted for Indian approval this year - rihegher
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-29/a-new-kind-of-male-birth-control-is-coming
======
WA
This is big. This is the future of contraception, because it works, it's
incredibly cheap, it has (almost?) no side effects. All current solutions are
a joke.

Hormone-based contraception feels like something from the middle ages. It has
serious side effects, it has "harmless" side effects that aren't even related
to the pill anymore after years of intake, but still an annoyance (migraine,
headaches, yeast infections, high blood pressure, ...)

Non-hormonal contraception has its own negative aspects:

\- Copper IUDs can cause a lot of pain, inserting them isn't that easy, they
are ethically troublesome (eggs can be fertilized after ovulation, but the
copper IUD prevents nidation)

\- Natural family planning methods are way safer than many people believe (the
sympto-thermal method), but don't allow unprotected sex during fertile days

\- Condoms are way safer than many people believe as well (as long as you use
the correct size) and won't go away because of STDs, but are a bit annoying in
relationships

And there really aren't any other alternatives right now. The state of
contraception in 2017 is incredibly sad and RISUG is the first attempt, which
truly can _disrupt_ (and I don't use this word lightly) the entire industry.

It will require some social shift. Men must be willing to take responsibility
for contraception, but it's already happening: Recently, the pill for men was
stopped because of side effects, but the men were disappointed. They WANT to
have alternatives to condoms.

~~~
jwdunne
Bang on.

Me and my partner were planning on me getting a vasectomy in a year, when her
implant runs out.

We've had to bring that forward a year because one side effect is also a
symptom of cancer or polyps.

After removal, she experienced a huge lift in energy levels and greater
stability of mood.

I have 2 children so a vasectomy isn't so bad an idea. Even still, it is an
invasive and permanent treatment and I'd prefer something less so. Nobody
likes the thought of a scalpel down there. Even a physician who wants to get
it done.

~~~
darklajid
As a father of two: Said procedure is incredibly harm- and painless.

I understand the fear, but I've seen people (even here) spread a lot of FUD
about it. If you prefer something else: Sure! If you're merely uneasy about
the process: Don't be, it's so common, fast and easy.

~~~
5ilv3r
Isn't that a normal response to a voluntary procedure? Fear? Uncertainty?
Doubt?

Mine hurt for more than a month. It's worth it and I'd do it again in a
heartbeat, but hate it when people go around telling everyone that it will all
exactly be the same. It ain't. Muzzle velocity is lower and the ammunition is
visibly no longer standard issue. Further, the recoil action is quite a bit
less intense. There's a lot of psychological stuff going on in this mind
space, and discounting people's feelings about what is ultimately a primal
urge is just foolish.

------
ph0rque
There's Parmesus Vasalgel that is going through trials in the US, based on
this tech. Also, a startup whose name I forget is developing the same kind of
tech. They were part of YC Fellowship Batch 3.

~~~
ckastner
The article mentions this, although it's not quite clear to me how they differ
(and by how much).

Parsemus apparently got started by licensing the technology from Guha, then
developed its own solution inspired by that technology.

~~~
24gttghh
The tech in this article allow sperm through but damage the sperm. The
Parsemus tech seems to block the tubes entirely.

~~~
tgtweak
Untrue, actually they both use the same system (and almost identical
formulation). The difference being the focus on the FDA process and US market
that vaselgel is taking, you can see the cleverly worded non-answer on their
own FAQ, quoted below. They do "filter" the vasdeferentia and not block it.
This is actually preferential as it can alleviate a small chance of pain or
sperm granulomas after a vasectomy, also quoted below.

 _Although Vasalgel and RISUG® are based on the same concept of using a
polymer gel injected into the vas deferens, the formulations are not the same.
And RISUG has been developed and tested in India over multiple decades, while
Vasalgel is being developed in the United States to conform to the latest FDA
and international codes of production and safety._

And

 _only a small percentage of men who have had a vasectomy experience chronic
pain (1-2% according to the American Urological Association). Our current
understanding of Vasalgel is that fluids can pass through the gel, but sperm
cannot. This will likely reduce the incidence of back-pressure. Sperm
granulomas are formed when the vas deferens is severed in a vasectomy and
sperm leak into surrounding tissue. Since injection of Vasalgel does not
involve cutting the vas deferens, this should not be an issue._

Notice the non-answer below:

 _Our understanding is that Vasalgel works by blocking or filtering out sperm.
In the past, RISUG (a different product) was described as working by shredding
sperm by an electrical charge process as they went past the contraceptive that
lined the walls of the vas deferens. Vasalgel makes no such claims._

[https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/vasalge...](https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/vasalgel-
faqs/)

------
earlyriser
I remember reading about this maybe 6 years ago. What was memorable was that
the gel was even cheaper than the syringe. It's sad how slow these things move
and that we're not going to have that in North-America for a good time.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
I wish it could go faster, but the truth is this is exactly the sort of thing
that should go slowly. It is much better for birth control to have a certain
effectiveness, after all. Since this is an injection, probably best to have
good tests with longevity as well. It isn't bad to go back every couple years
for this, but this is the sort of information one needs to know upfront.

Unfortunately, finding this initial stuff out takes time.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
A problem in the US is that the company that wants to sell this is the company
that needs to pay for the studies required to make it legal. However because
it is so cheap, it's difficult for the company to make a profit. The same
thing can be found with many supplements. For example, N-acetylcysteine has
shown to be helpful in several forms of addiction and mood disorders, but
because it is so cheap, no company will front the money needed to make it a
medication. We need to change the system so that the research is paid for by
the government somehow, in my opinion.

~~~
aianus
> However because it is so cheap, it's difficult for the company to make a
> profit.

Why does it have to be cheap for the consumer? They can charge $5k for this
(honestly a bargain) even if the gel and syringe cost $5 to make. Isn't that
what patents are for?

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
Many of these drugs are cheap because the patent has expired. Many times, it's
not until the patent has expired that they learn the new use for the drug, but
by that point, they can't make money off of it.

It shames me to think that we have a for-profit healthcare system.

------
k-mcgrady
I wonder how this would effect STD rates in areas with bad sex ed? I could see
a lot of people thinking 'don't need a condom because I can't make someone
pregnant now'.

Not that this product is a bad thing, very useful for people in monogamous
relationships.

~~~
torrent-of-ions
I can't see how it would have a positive effect. HIV infection rates in the
gay community have shot up in recent years unfortunately as people have become
complacent with condoms. Without the risk of pregnancy one can only assume the
same thing will happen in the straight community.

~~~
digitalsushi
To be fair, the straight and gay communities are really just opposite sides of
the same fish tank, not two fish tanks, as a metaphor for compartmentalizing
the sharing of diseases.

~~~
JshWright
It's still reasonable to differentiate the primary motivation for condom use
in the two 'communities'.

------
Markoff
Sounds like interesting option, but 98% efficiency seem pretty unreliable, so
I will still be at risk 2 times out of 100 intercourses when not counting
other factors.

Personally I consider immediately after having second child vasectomy, though
if wife would agree I would do it already now (one child is more than enough
for me) plus store sperm in bank just in case if changing mind, since I heard
reversing vasectomy ain't that successful. Seem safer with 0.15-1% failure
rate than this method.

~~~
taejo
> Sounds like interesting option, but 98% efficiency seem pretty unreliable,
> so I will still be at risk 2 times out of 100 intercourses when not counting
> other factors.

Efficacy for contraceptives is almost always measured _per year_. That is, of
every 100 couples using this method for a year, two will become pregnant. As
the article says, this is about the same level as (perfect use of) condoms.

~~~
Markoff
seem very inaccurate since every couple has very different frequency of sex
per year, some couple can have 100 intercourses, other will have 20 and they
have same odds according some average couple?

~~~
scott_karana
The inaccuracy would depend on the sample size of the test groups. It might be
useful to get standard deviation, or maybe the methodology excludes outliers?

------
Batro
This seems quite perfect in theory. Not invasive, lasts for a long time, just
one shot and then you're done... I hope the clinical tests will bring good
news for that project, because this is something I would do if it comes on the
market one day.

~~~
JshWright
While it is far _less_ invasive than some options, it is still an invasive
procedure, and not without risks.

Obviously, for many patients, the benefits will massively outweigh the risks
(assuming the clinical testing bears out the initial results).

~~~
Batro
Yeah, I spoke (or rather typed) too fast : it's still an injection, you're
right, but at least it's not a complete surgery operation.

------
Ericson2314
This would seem to be the best birth control for either sex. Fingers crossed
it makes it to market.

~~~
_archon_
I currently believe that birth control should be actively employed by all
parties. I look forward to a viable male contraceptive making it to market.

~~~
Ericson2314
Technically I beleive the only efficient systems are those where it is known a
priori who employs birth control. That basically means it must be the
responsibility of one sex or both. I agree with you: both sexes may be
overkill but is the only fair option.

~~~
manmal
I don't get it - what does that kind of fairness buy you or society? If it's
enough when one side takes contraceptives, what logic argument is there that
the other side must do the same? Economically (time, resources, even
environmentally; the pill and condoms eventually end up in our water or the
sea) this does not make sense.

~~~
nommm-nommm
To minimize the risk of failure. Same reason why you'd have a backup parachute
when you jump out of a plane even though you strictly only need one.

~~~
manmal
Sure, I get that. Grandparent mentioned fairness as driving factor though.

~~~
Ericson2314
Ah yes should not have forgotten redundancy being good. Fairness is obvious:
cost of procedures, risk of side effects, time spent in operation, etc is born
by both parties.

------
elastic_church
> Stories like that encourage Guha to persist with the project, he said, even
> though patents on his invention have long since expired and he won’t see any
> personal financial gain even if it takes off worldwide.

Hm, in America you can get a patent term extension due to regulatory delays in
bringing a product to market at other agencies, such as the FDA

Does that not exist in India?

------
ams6110
The reason male contraceptives don't get a lot of traction is that men don't
get pregnant.

~~~
cheez
Nope, that is not the reason.

The reason is that they don't know it exists. Condoms are OK, but for that
drunken one night stand, not necessarily good enough. Female birth control has
the problem that you have to trust your partner (spoiler: not everyone is
trustworthy.)

When my son has his first girlfriend and if it is getting serious, I would get
this done for him if it was available.

------
jlebrech
I thought it was going to be a pill, we already have vasectomies.

~~~
aianus
They will not give you a vasectomy in the US as a young childless man.
Something about 'changing your mind later'. It's very patronizing.

~~~
cr0sh
Definitely patronizing!

Not only that, but even when a woman is in obvious pain and having issues
which only a hysterectomy will solve (ovarian cysts) - if she is under 30 or
so, they won't give it to her.

My wife and I made the decision not to have children a long time ago. In the
meantime, she's had times where she went into the hospital ER for pain caused
by ovarian cysts. She attempted to inquire about a hysterectomy from her
doctor after these episode, only to be rebuffed about "what about having
children later", etc.

To this day she still has problems, but it has waned greatly now that she's
approaching menopause. She'd still like to do it just to stop having a period,
but it's no longer the crazy amount of pain that it was.

I found it frustrating for her that as an adult, she was being restricted from
making choices about her own body to improve her health and quality of life.

~~~
nommm-nommm
Stupid question but why would a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus) prevent
cysts from forming on the ovaries? The ovaries are the hormone producing
organs.

------
MichaelGG
Testosterone will also do this. There are long release esters so you only need
an injection every few months. Even with a bimonthly shot, it costs about
$10/mo. (On mobile, but there was a study in China with T undecanoate showing
amazing effectiveness.)

Downside is that in the US, testosterone is, hilariously, Schedule III. But 5
minutes with Google should have you sorted. Can get OTC in other places.

~~~
mohaine
No thanks. No way I'm offsetting the cost/work of having a child vs the
reliability of a Hackernews doctor and a Googled drug source.

~~~
MichaelGG
... Obviously my comment was meant as a suggestion to look into things and
note the availability of a well known substance that already accomplished
birth control in men. It wasn't intended as a "read this comment and start
injecting yourself".

You're of course free to attempt to convince a doctor to prescribe. Or you can
buy the drugs and get a $100 blood test to verify it's real as well as do a
fertility test. It's just an affront to liberty to pay a gatekeeper to allow
you to change your own hormones.

Here's a study:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15126550](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15126550)

------
imloquacious
This article fails to realize the true reason men would never use this
product: You have to inject it into your testicles.

~~~
glibgil
> You have to inject it into your testicles

You need an anatomy lesson or you need to read the article before commenting

------
neuralk
Cyberpunk headline of the day!

------
duopixel
Should I have children, I see myself walking my teenage son to the clinic to
get this done. A rite of passage of sorts.

It is difficult to understate the importance of bringing only wanted children
into this world, and that both parents agree on it. The cultural importance of
this invention will be revealed in time, I hope.

~~~
nvahalik
Indeed, the cultural "importance" will be revealed in time. However, I fear
not in the way you intend.

There used to be a time when we as a society valued things like self-control,
discipline, and tradition. No more.

What you are alluding to here is a world where we are ruled by our emotions
and our basest desires without the fear or potential for having to deal with
our actions. To divorce sex from children is to misunderstand intimacy, the
family, and the entire underpinning of our society.

EDIT: Yeah, I know conservative positions on HN are ways to make your Karma go
down, but hey, that's what forums are for right, to have your opinions
regarded as trolling instead of interacting with them, right?

~~~
pjc50
Marie Stopes would like a word with you from beyond the grave.

Seriously, we've had modern birth control for a century. Not only has society
not collapsed but a whole number of hidden evils have been abolished (Tuam
passim), and needless poverty avoided. It's our perfect anti-Malthusian
weapon.

This is Hacker News in the 21st century. Tradition alone is a terrible reason
to do things. I'm astonished that your comment seems to have been upvoted
here.

Edit: I'm trying to keep it civil but I'm really disappointed not just that
this appears on HN but it's sitting at the top of its thread tree not greyed
out at the bottom.

Oh, and it's "alluding" not "eluding".

~~~
gum_ina_package
Sure society hasn't collapsed, but we've lost a lot all in the name of
"progress".

~~~
YCode
What all have we lost due to birth control?

~~~
tlb
Before birth control, it was an accomplishment one could be proud of to have
children at the right time. It required stable relationships and self-control.
Your family and church would give you a lot of respect if you succeeded, and
contempt if you failed. It was a test that separated the virtuous from the
lazy, weak, and sinful.

When such hardships are made optional by technological or social progress,
most find new challenges to conquer but many regret their loss.

Birth control is old news in the Western world. But the cycle will repeat with
new technologies. Suppose you're serious about fitness, you spend hours every
week spinning and cross-fitting, and your abs are rippling. And tomorrow, a
pill is developed that lets everyone be perfectly fit with zero effort. What
do you get for all your hours at the gym? Can you imagine being bummed that
everyone else is getting for free what you worked so hard for? That might give
some idea what pre-birth-control nostalgia is like.

~~~
idreyn
The problem with this lovely wheat-from-chaff heuristic is that "failure"
results in the introduction of a new human life into a world that may not be
prepared for it and will be strained ecologically for its existence. I would
much rather have a world where the lazy, weak, and sinful pop pills towards an
ecologically sustainable population than one where the virtuous are lauded for
bringing five or six new people into existence, but, you know, at the "right
time".

~~~
tlb
Me too. The failure mode of pre-contraceptive society (unwanted children) was
terrible. But human nature is what it is, and many people are willing to
accept terrible externalities in order to have a means to display their
comparative virtue. The recent attack on universal health care in the US is an
example. Many voters seem to desire a world where people who have their
financial shit together will live, and others will die.

For a clear-eyed view of these less inspiring aspects of human nature, read
_Sapiens_ and _Homo Deus_ by Harari.

~~~
YCode
Reminds me of a Steinbeck quote:

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as
an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

------
patrickg_zill
There is a lot of social commentary on this thread.

Unanswered however is, "How will this affect relationships between men and
women"?

The "MGTOW" crowd laud this development, arguing that once control of
fertility is in the hands of men rather than women (a woman can always
"forget" to take the pill)... something good, as they define it, will happen.
(IANAMGTOW - I am not a MGTOW)

In terms of total fertility rate, what does this mean for a country/nation
when one population group greatly restricts having kids in terms of moral
suasion, societal acceptability, etc. while offering money to those who do
have kids? e.g. upper middle class (children discouraged, at least beyond 2
kids) vs. other classes in society (have a bunch of kids).

Living in the USA I have often heard complaints along the lines that we seem
to be "discouraging the smart and hard-working people from having kids, while
paying stupid people to have them".

~~~
SamBam
How is any of that different from the contraceptives that already exist?

Further, your notion of "Idiocracy" (believing that the "smart hardworking
people" have fewer kids) doesn't match at all with the fact that IQ keeps
rising in every generation in the US, and fewer people are poor or jobless
than they were in the 50s or before.

~~~
patrickg_zill
I would point out that you are relying on government statistics for your "poor
or jobless" point - and many have pointed out sources of bias that call those
stats into question; and also, you are assuming that the Flynn effect will be
ongoing rather than just reflecting a topping-up due to better nutrition and
more widespread education.

Others have calculated that USA/UK have lost as much as 14 IQ points since
Victorian times. see
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2730791/Are-S...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2730791/Are-
STUPID-Britons-people-IQ-decline.html) .

~~~
tptacek
Do you have a more authoritative cite for this than a tabloid article?

~~~
patrickg_zill
In less time than it took you to type this comment, I clicked on the embedded
link in the article:
[https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329830-400-brain-
dr...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329830-400-brain-drain-are-we-
evolving-stupidity/)

The Richard Lynn they quote, has been published in Nature, amongst many other
other publications: [http://www.rlynn.co.uk/](http://www.rlynn.co.uk/)

The Prof. Woodley they quote, is also a real person:
[http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/cgi-
bin/homepage.cgi?email=michael...](http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/cgi-
bin/homepage.cgi?email=michael.woodley03%5Bat%5Dgmail.com)

As is Jan te Nijenhuis: [http://www.uva.nl/en/about-the-
uva/organisation/staff-member...](http://www.uva.nl/en/about-the-
uva/organisation/staff-members/content/n/i/j.tenijenhuis/j.tenijenhuis.html)

Sorry, but I don't think your comment added anything to the discussion.

~~~
SamBam
You quoted "USA/UK have lost as much as 14 IQ points since Victorian times"
and cited a tabloid article.

Presumably the reason that the parent commenter thought it appropriate to to
mention that it was a tabloid article was because it used the standard tabloid
technique of putting a sensational notion in a headline that is almost
entirely unsubstantiated in the text.

You offer as support several links, mostly just proving that people exist. But
your first link, with actual information, completely refutes your statement.
[1] It refers to the effect that IQ has risen by 3-10 points per decade for
several decades, and in the past few years it " _may_ " have leveled off, or
dropped by 1.5 points.

The actual author of the study has said that leveling off is to be expected,
and any "decline" is quite likely noise due to chance.

But _regardless_ of whether the 1.5 point decline in the past couple years is
true, the entire article the opposite of the claim that we have lost "14 IQ
points since Victorian times," since you cannot reconcile that with the Flynn
effect actually being discussed in the article.

Combing down through the tabloid article, almost every other study refers to a
decline of "about 1 point." Your headline claim is one single interesting
(though bizarre) study that uses reaction time to try to estimate IQ, and
tries to compare it to reaction times in studies from the Victorian era. [2]
As you can imagine, published responses to this article from other scientists
has been that of skepticism, to put it mildly. [3]

1\.
[http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2014-September/015965.html](http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2014-September/015965.html)

2\.
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470)

3\.
[http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/nettlebeck201...](http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/nettlebeck2014.pdf)

~~~
patrickg_zill
I covered this in my original statement with the comment about "topping up"
the Flynn effect.

The rest of your comment doesn't apply to my point, seeing as I was pointing
out that it was easy to find the actual people at the actual uni's quoted, via
simple Google searches, and that their published papers did in fact make the
various claims.

Thus the original response of "this is from a tabloid" added no value.

~~~
tptacek
I think the only value it sought to add was to point out that the source cited
was, in fact, a tabloid. I don't mean that in the sense of "it's a trashy,
tabloid-like article". It may be that, or it may not be. But what I can say
for sure is that it appeared under the masthead of The Daily Mail, which is,
literally and uncontroversially, a tabloid.

------
TheAdamAndChe
It's definitely too popular to blame everything on middle-aged white guys.
It's sad that even bloomberg is jumping on the bandwagon.

~~~
foepys
It doesn't even make sense. Women have the possibility to abort a pregnancy
while men have no say whatsoever (in regions where the big pharma companies
are coming from). So the argument that women would do more for male birth
control is somewhat strange considering they have all the power in their hands
right now.

~~~
colanderman
That's adversarial thinking. If the man and woman are in a trusting
relationship, the question changes from one of "power" to responsibility.

Today, most reversible contraceptive methods (pill, rhythm, IUD, abortion)
rely on the _woman_ owning responsibility (one which they may be unwilling or
unable to carry out). Male contraception relieves women of that burden.

~~~
chongli
_Male contraception relieves women of that burden_

You would think so, but... there are women (maybe a lot of them) who think the
loss of power over conception would be bad for women [0]. Read the column. I
don't know about you, but it gives me a very queasy feeling. Like there is
some subtext that this woman believes she should be able to force parenthood
on an unwilling partner.

[0]
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/apr/28/malepi...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/apr/28/malepillwomensloss)

~~~
nommm-nommm
Contraception isn't a zero sum game. Giving men more contraceptive power
doesn't take anything away from women.

~~~
colanderman
You are right, but that's not what the article the GP linked is about. It's
based on two (IMO very flawed) arguments, one, that men having the option of
birth control forces women to trust them (which may be true, but is a problem
faced by men today), and two, the – quite creepy – belief that women should be
able to unilaterally decide when a couple starts having offspring. (As if men
were not legally beholden to care for their offspring.)

------
nailer
I can imagine the early adopters: male actors, athletes and other men of high
social value as a way to enjoy sex without the chance of unwanted offspring.

~~~
frandroid
Promiscuous people should be using condoms at all times, first of all.

~~~
nailer
If your sperm is a meal ticket for life, then condoms might not be enough. And
condoms decrease the pleasure of sex for many people.

~~~
thraway2016
In the US, the meal ticket typically only lasts 18 years, not a lifetime.

~~~
aianus
The court doesn't enforce that the woman spends all the child support money.
So if you get impregnated by a rich enough man it can certainly be a meal
ticket for life.

------
jlebrech
at first it doesn't seem as convenient as a pill but I don't think any man
would want to "oops i forgot my pill", or say they took it but didn't and if
they did that it's not fair on the woman isn't it.

------
chadlavi
Shut up and take my money/sperm!

~~~
chadlavi
Not a lot of Futurama fans here I guess.

This seems like a very good thing, and I'm excited for it to be available in
the US.

~~~
JBReefer
No, it's that this isn't the place for memes

------
wayn3
\- I'm not paying money to have needle injecting chemicals with unexplored
potential (longterm) side effects into my private parts when the potential
success rate is that of a condom. Condoms kind of work.

\- "The pill" is a bit more than just a contraceptive. A variety of issues,
ranging from skin problems to hormonal imabalances are regulated through the
pill, which quite efficiently normalizes outliers in female hormone levels
alongside acting as a contraceptive.

The pill is rarely "just" a contraceptive. It reduces menstrual pain
significantly and allows women to forego the pleasure of planning for a week
of unnecessary discomfort every month.

Every woman I've been sufficiently intimate with to have such conversations
describes the daily pill as a small price to pay for all the benefits it comes
with.

A male vasectomy is 800 bucks and certainly reversible.

~~~
creepydata
Stop your patronizing bullshit!

I have taken the pill for years I feel like I am ruining my body. I have side
effects. I switched brands, I switched to the shot (that was much worse),
every one is awful. I put up with it because I won't risk unwanted pregnancy.
It's the less of two very evil evils.

You're also ignoring the large population of women who the pill is
contraindicated for. It also requires regular doctor visits and requires you
to to remember to take it.

I'm not saying it's great for some women, it certainly is. People also take it
for non contraceptive reason. Not great for everyone and not for me.

~~~
Dylan16807
Being wrong about side effects is not the same as being patronizing.

~~~
orthecreedence
His tone is very "Male contraceptive is ridiculous because it already works
just fine for women! Here's some shitty anecdotal evidence to support my
claim!"

I'd classify that as patronizing, and as a male, I had the same reaction to
his comment as the responder...I've known lots of women, partners included,
who avoided the pill because of its horrible side effects.

~~~
Dylan16807
I don't get that tone. He suggested a vasectomy was good too. The critique of
this method was only the effectiveness, not that it was unnecessary.

There's a lot wrong in the comment but I don't see what you see in it.

