Oh hell no. Half my turkey sandwich fell out of my face just now because my jaw dropped when I saw that Slate graphic/text.
Way to suggest that women should always be on the pill, for the sake of their boyfriends. Maybe some girlfriends aren't on the pill because they don't *want* to be on the pill. Or they use another form of BC.
It's a travesty that Congress throws up roadblocks, but the absence of roadblocks would not mean that every sexually active woman *should* be on the pill.

That Sacks piece would be a lot more convincing if it had actually quoted, you know, women. Do we have a huge rush of complaints now from guys whose girlfriends/wives refuse to get pregnant?
That being said, I've had several platonic female friends who said they wouldn't trust a guy who claimed he was on birth control. What's the sentiment on that around here?

Shadow, it's utterly ridiculous. If men *wanted* a male pill and expressed the desire to *use* it, pharmaceutical companies would follow the money and create one.

I love the idea that companies are making decisions based not on what will earn them money from willing consumers, but what will keep those whiny women (who wouldn't consume the product either way) happy.

If there were a male pill, I'd still want to use another form of protection during sex. I can't leave my uterus' future in the hands of another person, no matter how much I trust him to *try* taking the pill correctly.

Even if there was a male pill, and it was as effective as the female one, I'd still take the pill. I am the one who'd have to bear the burden of abortion or pregnancy if it failed, and I can't completely trust that someone else will take it effectively. Maybe I have control issues, but that's just me.

Anyhoo, Congress is one of many reasons a woman may not be on the pill. Stupid Slate.

Yes Mr. Sacks, thank you for making me realize that any trepidation I have with regards to the male pill does not (as I had previously thought) have to do with a fear that I will have to bear the bun in the oven if my man forgets the pill. Now I know that it's because I actually just like to complain.

Yeah. I would not trust my partner with a male pill. I love him like crazies, but he doesn't remember to eat food on a regular basis.
Sacks is a assface who thinks women are either 1)fuckholes or 2) baby incubators. Get your fuckhole on the pill or it'll turn into a baby incubator.
If he wants to spend his life trying to make life worse for over half of the world's population, then I REALLY want to believe in hell, because if there IS a hell, there's a special place reserved for people like Sacks.

The trick is to make a male birth control pill option that enlarges the penis at the same time. I bet THAT would get guys to use BC, impotency or no impotency.

Others have mentioned a strong reason why a male birth control pill would be problematic (the person who has the responsibility to take it correctly and consistently is not the same person who has the uterus and the physical ramifications should it fail). I'd add that--though I'm no scientist--it's got to be harder to take down billions of sperm than one egg.

Personally, I would not take a birth control pill. But I wouldn't advocate it for women either: it doesn't protect against disease, and too often it also has negative psychological effects. The female reproductive system is incredibly complex, and the hormones in the pill are very crude by comparison.

That said, my current partner does take the Pill and has done so since before I met her. She swears by it, that it has been all upside for her. But I've seen a dark side to it in every previous relationship where the woman I was involved with got extremely moody (to put it mildly) after starting the Pill.

Alan

These are both quotes from the first comment on the Glenn Sacks article:

"For one thing, I don't think women have ever really "struggled" for autonomy beyond the feminist movement itself which sought to undermine heterosexual relationships between men and women. On the contrary, women are as dependent upon men and the state for financial support for themselves and their children as 100 years ago."

The usual "feminists must be lesbians and hate straight relationships" and "women need men to support them, no matter what" crap.

and

"The pill is incredibly complicated to use. I've read the instructions on the packaging and I still, to this day, don't fully understand them. The side effects of the hormone were so bad that my wife went off of them. If you're ever had to figure out how to change the gas filter on a late model car, that's _simple_ in comparison to this stuff."

Yup. The pill is IMPOSSIBLE. How can we women with our teeny and non-technical brains understand how to use it? We can't, and so we can't be trusted to not have babies all the time. Except that we're all lesbians, so how would we be having babies anyway?

The problem with the male pill right now is biological. I am all for it, but it is harder to create a safe one for men because there is no time in a man's life when they are infertile. The female pill mimics the natural time of pregnancy in which women are not ovulating. This is much easier to do than "taking down billions of sperm" as you say because biology did all the research. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies just had to figure out how to copy it.

"women are as dependent upon men and the state for financial support for themselves and their children as 100 years ago."

That's just factually incorrect. How can a person say this and believe it?
Someone send him the study about how much more STABLE feminist relationships are (for both partners). We don't need to undermine your relationships with women, buddy. I'm sure you do a bang-up job all by yourself.

What I want to know is what he found so difficult in the pill instructions. Was it the "take one" or the "at about the same time every day"?

"What I want to know is what he found so difficult in the pill instructions. Was it the "take one" or the "at about the same time every day"?"

Clearly it was the part that said, "The last seven pills are placebos." He probably couldn't understand why they existed.

"That's just factually incorrect. How can a person say this and believe it?"

It's kind of ironic that you're making this comment in response to a post calling upon the government to use tax revenues collected from men to fund contraception for women. Were women not dependent upon men and the state for financial support they could presumably pay for these themselves.

Sorry for the rather nasty snark, I couldn't help it. I think his point is that women traditionally got financial support directly through a relationship with a man - and feminist was meant to free them of this and make the autonomous. Now after feminism lots of women don't live in these relationships. Instead they get financial support either from the state, or through the state compelling transfers from men through things like divorce or child benefit. I'm sure lots of you 20 somethings are financially independent - but you're the exception. Most women who aren't in relationships, aren't. They are still dependent and just get financial support through other routes.

I think everyone who's seriously considered this thinks it's correct. It's just people take different sides depending on whether they think this is a good or a bad thing.

"It's kind of ironic that you're making this comment in response to a post calling upon the government to use tax revenues collected from men to fund contraception for women. Were women not dependent upon men and the state for financial support they could presumably pay for these themselves."

Actually, what's happening here is that Congress is no longer allowing *pharmaceutical companies* to provide a *discount* to the health service centers at colleges and universities, so that in turn these colleges and universities can prescribe birth control to students at a lower cost.

This is not a demand for a subsidy. For all intents and purposes taxes are not involved; a line on a piece of paper stating that universities and colleges, like other organizations such as Planned Parenthood, are *exempt from* Congress' ruling.

leederick: "Now after feminism lots of women don't live in these relationships. Instead they get financial support either from the state, or through the state compelling transfers from men through things like divorce or child benefit."

Men take advantage of financial support from the state. Welfare, Medicare-- those are not exclusively female programs.

They also get child support if they have custody.

It has more to do with socioeconomic status than gender; however, since women are more likely to receive custody of children they are more likely to get child support. That's just the court, and they work to supplement the check, or use the check as a supplement.

Thanks Slate, I'd forgotten that it was my woman-granted right to complain and just generally make teh menz lives suckatastic! for the heck of it.

OTOH, I'm all for a hormonal male birth control, as far as I figure the more options the better. And, if the dude in question is really against having children, it would be one more safety guard that he could add to the condom to help prevent that.

And I would imagine that it could potentially be a great option for couples where the woman can't take hormonal birth control.

But I also agree that if I were straight and single, it wouldn't make as much of a difference to me as I couldn't be certain that dude was following directions accurately, and it probably wouldn't help with STIs.

First, leederick, what Ariane said.
Second, many men are "dependent" on women (women pay taxes too) for medical care/drugs if you're going to look at it that way. We're all dependent on one another.

Women have jobs now. We don't need to say "I do" to a man to get by in life anymore. It is insane to say that in 2007, women are just as financially dependent on men as they were in 1957.

It's funny because his name is "Sacks".

OK, back to the serious discussion...

i admit that if i were hooking up with a guy on a one-night stand or casual basis, i would be on the pill (or some equivalent) anyway and not be all that trusting of a guy who said he was on the pill, but that's just for my own protection.

however, given that i'm in a stable, adult relationship, i would totally trust my current bf to take the pill and if he wanted to get on it, i'd happily forego the female pill. i think it's wrong to completely discount that men are capable of taking a tiny pill at the same time every day or that a significant number of them would want to.

I think it's easier for a lot of men, like Sacks, to put the focus on women and say that we love complaining about BC, rather than admit that they really don't want any responsibility when it comes to sex. Then the question is why are men (like Sacks) so scared to admit that they have a responsibility when it comes to sex? And if a guys is in a committed relationship why wouldn't he also want to contribute to protecting him and his partner from an unwanted pregnancy?

What "Girlfriend Not on the Pill? Blame Congress" conjures up in my mind is all the annoying, disappointing, and frustrating sexual experiences I've had with men who are reluctant to wear condoms because they're big stupid babies. It's like guys are being encouraged to think, "Damn, I would really like to get my dick wet without this condom on, but my girl isn't on the pill. Because I saw that article, the next time I'm pressuring her to let me fuck her bare I'll tell her to be mad at Congress, not me!"

"I've had several platonic female friends who said they wouldn't trust a guy who claimed he was on birth control."

Considering the many guys who are supposedly around who try to get into women's pants with the old, "Come on baby, I'm safe" type attitude, this kind of understandable distrust of males will probably continue until the use of male bc becomes widespread*. And their steady partners might distrust them without some supervision, too. A man who cannot get other women pregnant could be trouble.

*And why not? A woman one meets for the first time does not necessarily have empirical evidence for being on the Pill either.

I'll have three kids if my wife gets pregnant (she has Yasmin), but then I'll get a vasectomy. I'd kind of like to try it anyway.

"Personally, I would not take a birth control pill. But I wouldn't advocate it for women either:"

Dude. Informed consent, as we in health care like to call it. "Choice" for others. Many readers don't like it, but that is one reason many doctors prefer patients visit to get their bc. The disadvantages you bring up are what the Japanese anti-bc, pro-abortion docs have been using for 40 years to keep women from having [another] choice than condoms, rhythm method, and abortion.

SlackerInc -

I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure the male pill stops spermatozoa from maturing, similar to the female pill stopping ovulation. So it wouldn't be a matter of numbers, but instead stalling a process.

Just my personal opinion, but I wouldn't trust a man to take BC until I knew him for a very long time. It's not to say that men are inherently untrustworthy or anything like that. But I'm skeptical they can appreciate the risks of unplanned pregnancy in the same way that women can: it's not the man who get pregnant after all.

That said, yes the graphic is repugnant.

leederick -- Are you just kidding? It's hard to tell, because your argument makes so little sense. Yes, taxes from both women and men go to some things where men don't see direct benefit, but that's how taxes work, and it has nothing to do with gender. I have no car, but I pay for roads through taxes. I have no children, but I pay for schools through taxes. Other people pay for services I use every day that they'll never use. Also, university students (men AND women) are often pretty poor, which is why university health care systems do their best to keep costs down. So saying something like "Were women not dependent upon men and the state for financial support they could presumably pay for these themselves" is just malarky. Male students who need cheap healthcare are just as dependent on these low costs as female students.

I bet if mens contraception were available, those states that give the pharmacists the "right" to refuse reproductive prescriptions would be revoked.

Also, university students (men AND women) are often pretty poor, which is why university health care systems do their best to keep costs down.

Let's not forget the outrageous mark-ups on pharmaceuticals in this country (averages about 1000-1500%, I believe, and, no, that's not a typo). Even if you aren't poor or a struggling student, BC and other drugs are mighty expensive, especially without insurance.

Also, well said about taxes roro80, we all pay for taxes services we don't use.

"Also, well said about taxes roro80, we all pay for taxes services we don't use."

Um, yeah. That should say:

"we all pay taxes for services we don't use"

Who cares whether or not men say they wouldnt use a male pill. Make it anyways, and the female partner will push it onto him. I wouldnt trust a man to take BC as the only contraceptive method as its the woman who gets pregnant, but it would be an added barrier along with other contraceptive methods to impede pregnancy.

"Who cares whether or not men say they wouldnt use a male pill. Make it anyways, and the female partner will push it onto him."

- Who cares whether or not women say they will use the Pill.
- The male partner will push it onto her.

I fail to see how this attitude is any different from the ad being protested. I did not push bc on my wife, and I buy the condoms. My wife *wanted* low dose hormones to control her irregular and heavy menstruation. Contraception was not even on her mind.

"I wouldnt trust a man to take BC"

Neither would I. Not properly, anyway. Not because patients are stupid, but because I am a nurse.

SlackerInc,
"the person who has the responsibility to take it correctly and consistently is not the same person who has the uterus and the physical ramifications should it fail"

Why burden a woman with any negative reproductive risks by only using one BC method, and up the likelihood that she wont get pregnant by using two methods; the male and female Pill. Or better yet, take the hormonal aspect off of her and use both a condom, and the male Pill. Its like saying because a man doesnt get pregnant he doesnt have to take BC, or be concerned about BC because he doesnt have a uterus. Technically repercussions do affect the male if she gets pregnant.If she chooses to have and keep the child he would have to pay child support.

"It doesnt protect against disease, and too often it has negative psychological effects"

The female Pill doesnt protect against diseases either, and if a condom brakes she or he is not protected. Theyre no psychological negatives for men to use the male Pill. What kind of affects are you suggesting, and where is the data to back it up? Thats like saying because mankind is hypochondriatically concerned about losing some ficticious 'male virility' that it supports an excemption for him not to use it. That perspective only perpetuates the idea that his false sense of himself is to be catered to and insulated in spite of the irrationality of its origin and supports the concept that men are privileged and it should be maintained in society. It doesnt pose any negative psychological risks, and probably poses less mental risks than the female BC. The male Pill is created to be kind to the male body unlike some of the effects female birth control methods have on some women.

"I've seen a darker side to it in every previous relationship where the woman I was involved with got extremely moody (to put it mildly) after starting the Pill"

Then why dont you use the male Pill? It doesnt have side effects.
In short, youre posting on a feminist website, but you sound exactly like the author of Slate article. You would rather create excuses not to use a male birth control pill, because you want to preserve some sort of 'male virile' projection. Grow up.

I was similarly disturbed by Gopher's statements, A Male.
I don't advocate anyone pushing pills on another person. I wouldn't want a guy slipping me the Pill or forcing it down my throat, and I really don't think it's advantageous to depend on or advocate the reverse. I don't *want* women to have to "push" the male pill on their guys. I want guys to *want* to take it.

A Male,
(this is why I hate it when men post on this website)

The only reason men wouldnt want a male Pill is because they want to preserve some sort of 'virile' identity. In order for men to get over this stupid concept, women would have to encourage men to use it once its made. The link shows that men hold resistance to using the male Pill, for no rationally based reason other than holding sexist attitudes about themselves, and the convenience of taking for granted the burden women majoritively take by using BC.

Thanks for taking my statement out of context.

I know that Slate graphic looks repugnant for a variety of reasons but I wanted to offer a different take.

Recently in one of my classes (university) someone came in to announce a new feminist group on campus. She also passed around a petition for people to sign to fight against the recent price hikes in birth control at university health centers (including ours). When I got the petition, I noticed that nearly all (if not all) of the signatures were from women. Furthermore, some of the men sitting near me were giggling about the petition, apparently because women's reproductive rights are so funny to them, and because they found it amusing that only women bothered to sign the petition. With that they passed it along without signing it, not a care in the world. The lack of interest in affordable birth control among the men in my class was astounding, and the immaturity was worse. All I could think was "Wow, I hope they pay the arm and a leg for the pills if they end up having a girlfriend who decides to use birth control."

The lack of interest in birth control issues in [straight] men is a problem, if you ask me, because they don't seem to care or realize that they have something at stake too.

My hope is that the Slate article/graphic was intended to address that demographic, and to increase interest and awareness in birth control issues for men (because women who take birth control don't need a graphic to tell them they have something at stake in its costs!) Of course I can't guarantee that the intent was that, but if it worked that way for anyone, then great.

SarahMC,
I wasnt suggesting 'drugging a guy and making him swallow any pills!' Isnt that illegal?

bc,
you illustrate exactly the kind of attitude carried among many men. That is why they should make the male Pill, regardless of male support because their female partners will encourage the men to use it. Society should not wait until men get off their pedestal to take equal responsibility in BC with women. If I were a man I would be ecstatic about a male BC. Less fear of impregnating my partner, and happy with the ability to lessen abortion (which I hear can be painful for some women), and helping to alleviate fears for us, and especially her.

"Then why dont you use the male Pill? It doesnt have side effects."

Gopher,

While I do believe that development of a male BCP is potentially worthwhile, how do you know it doesn't have side effects? It doesn't exist yet...

I tend to be wary of most new medications, as the long-term side effects are not known until people have been using it for a long time. And the FDA has approved things in the past which did horrible, horrible things (like, meds for morning sickness for pregnant women that caused birth defects...)

Personally, I believe that women are faced with the burden of responsibility simply because there are more contraceptive methods for women than for men. I will agree that some men are jerks, but to claim that men are totally uninvolved in BC, or they wouldn't take a BCP for fear of losing their virility, isn't giving men enough credit. My partners have been happy to talk about BC options and use condoms when necessary.

"(this is why I hate it when men post on this website)"

Why? Can't take it when roles (as of "pushing" bc on a partner [or talking about aggressors in DV]) are reversed to expose specious (sometimes anti male) arguments? A lot of men may not like bc for precisely the reasons you describe. [I personally believe a man should be expected to take the same risks a woman does, in taking bc.] Women do not particularly "like" the Pill or its effects either, but we must not question their reasoning, as it is their CHOICE what they do or do not put into their bodies. Same for men, even if their reasoning is COMPLETELY self-centered and idiotic. Feminism is about CHOICE, no? Or only choices that benefit women?

Only men have viewpoints like mine, and deserve to be attacked for their gender alone? Are you really reading this website to see what people say? Are you really reading my other comments in support of women's rights? Feminists should be glad I'm reading this site.

"The lack of interest in birth control issues in [straight] men is a problem, if you ask me, because they don't seem to care or realize that they have something at stake too."

I agree. Educating men about a potential male bc will be a long and difficult road.

Something to consider: successful male bc will be just one more excuse for men to deny paternity.

"It's your baby."
"Can't be. I'm on the ManPill(tm). You've been screwing around."

Also, a successful male bc will be just another excuse for men to refuse using a condom.

Even with successful male bc, the safest thing for a woman to do would be to continue her own bc regimen, because I agree, there are many men who shouldn't be trusted to prevent pregnancy of their own accord, or even be truthful about it. I've heard of the studies mentioned here of men who *sabotage* their partners' bc, or deliberately impregnate their partners. Same here.

All I could think was "Wow, I hope they pay the arm and a leg for the pills if they end up having a girlfriend who decides to use birth control."

I don’t mean to be flip, but why would they [men] be paying for their girlfriend’s BC?

"Then why don't you use the male Pill? It doesn't have side effects."

Um, because it doesn't exist yet, isn't predicted to exist for five years, and, for all we know, may not actually work in humans as advertised?

Those seem like pretty good reasons to me....

In any case, I'm not sure who all these pill hating men are. The articles I've read in the past had their own sets of scientists with very long waiting lists.

Now, CONDOM-hating men are a dime a dozen. I would lay very good odds than most males who are forced to choose between a condom and a pill will climb a barbed wire fence to get to the pharmacy.

Which is why:
I don’t mean to be flip, but why would they [men] be paying for their girlfriend’s BC?
Well, some women want (but can't afford) to be on the pill. And if you happen to be with a woman who wants to be on the pill, it is the safest* and most pleasurable BC out there. I've known plenty of men who paid for BC.

*as in "least chance of pregnancy." It has different risks/benefits for the women of course, but my statement only applied to people who WANT to be on the pill.

"I don’t mean to be flip, but why would they [men] be paying for their girlfriend’s BC?"

I pay for my wife's hormonal therapy to control her heavy and irregular menstruation. It just so happens that Yasmin also functions as bc. I use condoms anyway.

If both partners agree the woman will use bc (not because man selfishly refuses condoms, refuses future male bc, etc.), many men might be willing to pay because they want to avoid unwanted pregnancy, the same as a woman may want to avoid unplanned pregnancy. Or perhaps they understand their partner's economic situation may not be the same. I see posters concerned about paying $60 per month or whatever for bc, or worrying about how to pay their other bills. Why *not* ask/have a male partner assist them? This is being responsible, as a man and a woman. It's better than being without, if bc is what they want.

[Of course, I believe in universal health care, so I would not agree with reduced funding or cutting subsidies in the first place.]

A male, what about the studies that show how woman have sabotaged their own birth control program to get pregnant, lying to their significant others in the process? Vanity Fair ran an article awhile back on that very issue. That is why I am a man and I am all for male birth control. The risks for men are just as high as for women if there is an unwanted pregnancy. I am not arguing that some men won't lie, just like some women lie, but for us guys the insurance of knowing we are on the pill even if our girlfriends or spouses aren't is a great value and I am one of the men who fervently wait for the male pill to be released.

On another note, please be respectful of dissenting opinions. You can disagree with Glenn Sacks all you want, but directing vulgar language won't get people to listen to your message. You made some valid points, but the hate speech turns a lot of people off to what you are saying.

OK, stupid question perhaps as this really doesn't apply to me...

but why is "refusing to use condoms" seen as selfish? It's just a desire like any other. If you don't want to use a condom, then your partner can have sex with you, or not.

[shrug] What's the big deal? If my choices are "we can have condom free sex or no sex, but not condom sex" where's the selfishness in that? How is it any more "selfish" than the (perfectly valid) similar statement "we can have sex with a condom or not at all?"

ShelbyWoo,

I didn't mean that all men should pay for their partner's BC pills, that was the expression of my frustration at THOSE particular men not caring about the price of birth control. Since they don't care about the price and want to giggle about it, then I would find it appropriate for those particular men to pay for it.

Who pays for birth control is something that people should work out in the context of their own relationships, obviously. But there's no reason to think women should pay it by default either, as I think you are suggesting (forgive me if I am misinterpreting).

Sailorman,

Asking for condom-sex is protecting yourself from disease transmission and pregnancy.

Asking for no-condom-sex is asking for an increase in your own sensation of sex.

Both desires are legitimate, but I think one carries more weight than the other.

Both of those are inherently to the benefit of the asking party. Condom free sex is more dangerous, which is why it makes more sense to decline if that is the only option for sex. But it's not more selfish to ask for it.

(OK, it just occurred to me that we may be talking about different things. I'm working off a "monogamy" concept, where disease transmission is possible but far less likely than a "one night stand" concept.

Still, i have a problem with the "selfish" label. I think it's A-OK for people to make their own preferences known, and the other person can either accept or decline. Stating a preference isn't selfish.

If the person I'm dating wants to have sex only up until she orgasms, and then expects me to pull out, cool with me. I might decline to have sex at all, but that's her call to ask.)

Sigh. Male pill. If only... I've got a vasectomy scheduled in less than a month, and I confess it's not exactly on my "Yippee, i can't wait!!" list. Still, 5 years is too long.

"why is "refusing to use condoms" seen as selfish?"

I said "selfish-LY refusing." Not all non-use of condoms is selfish. Obvious example: latex allergy, which could be fatal to man or woman. Many in health care have a latex allergy or are sensitized to latex. They better avoid latex condoms. You would hate to find out you/a partner have a latex allergy during sex.

Selfishly refusing to use condoms would be, for example, man refusing because it allegedly reduces sensation, *forcing* the woman to take her own measures (including the Pill) to avoid unwanted pregnancy, because except for abstinence, there are no practical alternatives for a man. Man refusing to use condoms or follow the rhythm method automatically makes artificial bc (like the Pill) the woman's responsibility. Unfairly.

[Because you see, Gopher, pushing or forcing someone to use bc is wrong. It has absolutely jack to do with the fact I was born with a penis, do you understand?]

If a woman has to take actual physical risks to avoid being pregnant, a man can be expected to take measures as well, which *may* include giving up some sensation by using a condom. (There are published ways of countering this, such as lubricating the inside of the condom.) Unless a man has a latex allergy or the condom is reducing circulation to the penis because of poor fit, there is very little or no risk to the man.

"what about the studies that show how woman have sabotaged their own birth control program to get pregnant, lying to their significant others in the process?"

For men who want to avoid pregnancy in their partners, they also have the responsibility to use condoms, take advantage of future male bc, and *respect* partners' bc regimen, eg, "Not tonight, honey, this is one of my 'dangerous' days," which can be seen in the rhythm method.

"On another note, please be respectful of dissenting opinions."

Are you talking about me? I'll listen to dissenting opinions all day and night. 80% of articles and maybe 90% of posts, I will simply keep my mouth shut. What hate speech am I responsible for? I'm not the one saying I "hate" a certain gender for daring to come to this wonderful educational site and having an opinion. Men should shut up and listen when feminists talk, too. I see no vulgar language here.

"The risks for men are just as high as for women if there is an unwanted pregnancy."

nathan, are you mental?
i'm not trying to be a jerk here, but seriously, how can you even say something like this?

"Still, i have a problem with the 'selfish' label. I think it's A-OK for people to make their own preferences known, and the other person can either accept or decline. Stating a preference isn't selfish."

Stating a preference isn't selfish. Not allowing the partner options because she then must then take her own bc measures, or not respecting a partner's rhythm method, simply because they do not want to reduce sensation, would most certainly be selfish. Men should be expected to make sacrifices like women do. Like wearing a condom if asked.

Well since no one here mentioned teh physical risks like death and pain and stuff I wasn't talking about that. Most of the opinions here seem to be about the fact that if the woman has an unwanted pregnancy because she "trusted" the man she's got to deal with teh consequences. Well, a guy does too. He has to provide for the kid if they are married, child support if they are not. A man doesn't get away scot free like you think when a woman gets pregnant and they aren't living together.

But yes, the physical aspects of pregnancy are something a man cannot share with a woman, but no one here is mentioning them so that's why I didn't take them into consideration.

Re: the Slate teaser. Oh, come off it, you're annoyed because "dudes" also have an interest in birth control? What the hell are you talking about?

Hamsterific,
If she has to put up with side effects, then why shouldnt he? The more the male Pill is in use the more likely over time that corrections will be made to it, and other forms will evolve from the original. I'm saying that any excuse against using a male pill is due to privileged insecurity that arises only because men havent had to own up to using BC and have the pressure of keeping from getting pregnant.They have only had two choices, but only one if they want kids someday. If a woman doesnt want to use the pill, (due to uncomfortable side effects) what is her option? She can only using condoms, which makes her more vulnerable to pregnancy than if she was using two methods. Have you ever had to schedule an appointment with an abortion doctor who will scrape your uterus, usually without anesthesia? Many women use two forms of contraception so as to have added protection of not getting pregnant. It seems fair that any hormonal effects a women has to put up with, so should a man. For her, she usually has no choice as she doesnt want pregnancy, or abortion. Being that its more risky for her, she takes it more seriously than a man does and is more discerning if a man doesnt want to use a male Pill, and write him off.

Sailorman,
Prototypes have been created but still have certain kinks to work out. What I mean is if he can get it up, then it doesnt cause negative side effects that a woman doesnt also have (except in loss of libido for some women). If you dont want to use the condom then you dont have sex. Most partners want sex, and use the condom. I think it smart for a man to use a condom. If she has to take oral contraceptive, why shouldnt he take a load of the burden too with what methods are available for a man to use? Non-hormonal methods of BC arent as effective as hormonal and if he wasnt aiding to the sexual protection then hes an ass.

Why does a man's refusal make BC the woman's responsibility? She doesn't have to sleep with him at all. Right?

The language like "forced" or "[no] options" is what's confusing the shit out of me. Did this morph into a rape thread somewhere? Sure: forced sex is bad, forced condom free sex is worse. But why are we talking about that?

I mean, sheeeeeit. Does anyone seriously think that a woman who says "I'm not going to sleep with you unless you are on the male pill/use a condom/both" is forcing the guy to do anything?

That seems ludicrous. And it seems ludicrous in the other direction as well.

My example: I'm married with kids, I don't want to be in a sexless marriage, and it'd suck to get divorced.

But even in my situation my wife could say "Do X, or I won't sleep with you."

She wouldn't be forcing me to do anything in particular. She'd be forcing me to make a choice on my own as to whether I'd rather do X, or go without sex, or get divorced, or be unfaithful, etc. My choice. Not hers. Where's the force in that?

Tim,

I am sure many readers would welcome men's interest in the issue of contraception, and taking a greater role in it.

The problem with the ad is the apparent assumption that birth control is about making women responsible for being on the pill, or that women are not already the ones paying for it.

Nathan: "A man doesn't get away scot free like you think when a woman gets pregnant and they aren't living together."

Yes, if the man is not a runaway or deadbeat, the financial and legal obligation on fathers for the next 18 years or so are considerable. One of my female classmates learned the hard way what an economic challenge having a husband with previous commitments can be. I respect her husband for fulfilling his commitment to his children and ex-wife of course, but it is too bad for my classmate and their current children. It was yet another reason for her to make her own money as a nurse. She said in hindsight, she would not be able to marry a man with an ex-family like that. (Not that she regrets marrying her husband personally!) I can understand that viewpoint perfectly well.

Technically, the person asking to use the condom is suggesting a course of action which protects both parties, not just themselves. It can't be considered selfish when it helps them both to avoid disease. It's not like condoms only work one way. It's a two way kind of thing.

Nathan: Maybe the fact that it is an ever-present threat for all sexually active heterosexual women is why even if we aren't talking about health issues associated with pregnancy, we sure as hell are thinking about it.

Also, in general: Sometimes women sabotage their own BC. Sometimes men insist on stupid BC methods that don't work like withdrawal because they dislike condoms. Some men would prefer a pill for them (which wouldn't cycle like female BC, thus decreasing mood swing problems) rather than deal with their partner's bad emotional reaction to the drugs. Sometimes condoms fail and you want to have a backup but the woman can't use hormonal BC.

Besides, even the female Pill fails once in a blue moon. If you're in a monogamous relationship and there's no chance of STDs, both partners on BC pills would most likely guarantee no kids, and would also guarantee that any decision to have children would be the choice of both partners if the relationship is rocky. So I think this is a good idea for a lot of men.

That said... I will tell you, right now, a campaign supporting male BC will not talk about alleviating the burden of birth control from one's partner. It will say things like "Take control of your life!" "Don't let others determine when and with whom you have kids!" "Can you really trust her? [insert image of random partying here]" "Pill: $XX a month, paid by health insurance. Child support: $XXXX dollars a month, paid by the money you worked hard for."

I highly doubt it will be a positive campaign in the eyes of feminists.

Gopher,

I can't explain it, but when I read your post I get this "well, I'm getting rained on so YOU should be wet, too!" feeling. It's almost as if you'd be happier if all men experienced a bit o' physical BC unpleasantness, just to balance all us folks back out. (as for me, you can feel smug in a month.) But it seems off, somehow.

Like this:
...if he wasn't aiding to the sexual protection then hes an ass
Oh, please. Lots of things are one sided. Is my partner an ass every time she asks for a hand job, or a position that does nothing for me? Are women being an ass if they ask their partner to wear a condom, but don't "do their part" by duplicating BC on their own end? I say "no" to all these things.

The reality is that for every person, it'll be a choice. Some men will think it's worth pleasing their partners, and do it for that reason. Some men will want to avoid the possibility of unwanted kids. Some men will want to avoid the possibility of their partner having an unwanted abortion. Some men will just hope that it will get them laid more.

This is pretty much the exact same calculus that women went (and still go) through over the pill. But since men aren't women, we have different motivations, different worries, etc.

One thing is for sure, though, (w/r/t any "they deserve a hit" feeling) which is that any extra side effects will only mean that more men decline to take the pill.

"It seems fair that any hormonal effects a women has to put up with, so should a man. For her, she usually has no choice as she doesnt want pregnancy, or abortion. Being that its more risky for her, she takes it more seriously than a man does and is more discerning if a man doesnt want to use a male Pill, and write him off."

Gopher, I wish you could see how much we are really in agreement.

"Why does a man's refusal make BC the woman's responsibility? She doesn't have to sleep with him at all. Right?"

I believe you are a decent man, Sailorman. But we can see what a woman exercising her human right to refuse a man sex gets in our society, yes? And in any case, women want sex, too. Oh, I guess it did turn into talk about rape. Yes, that is what could happen if there were a woman who only insisted on condom sex or no sex for the man.

"Does anyone seriously think that a woman who says "I'm not going to sleep with you unless you are on the male pill/use a condom/both" is forcing the guy to do anything?"

If two parties want sex, and the male refuses a condom, what are the options? Unless the woman wants to go without sex, or be at high risk of pregnancy, she is yes, forced to take measures of her own, like using a female condom, pop pills, put in a sponge, diaphram, implant or IUD, or take her temperature and watch a calendar. A little more risky and inconvenient than men taking 15 seconds to put on a condom, yes? Women make actual sacrifices to have sex (like possible pain and tissue trauma) and prevent pregnancies, unlike men. This is why this is one case where simple gender reversal does not apply.

"The language like "forced" or "[no] options" is what's confusing the shit out of me."

Because men do not have to experience what women do. If my dick sometimes hurt and bled from sex, or I had to carry a baby cuz I don't like hormones, I might just quit having sex if my partner always refused a condom.

While I think it would be great if men did have a pill, practically, at this stage of the game, you'd have to be an idiot to trust them. Seriously, women, how many times have we had to go through the immediate-pre-coital-stage argument about condom use? I hope that I live to see the day where we do not have to act like our partners' mothers in the bedroom, reminding them to wear their rubbers!

Gopher,

I understand that it is fair for both partners to deal with side effects. However, side effects for the female HBC are well-known and can often be avoided/minimized with a well-chosen HBC formulation. Side effects for the male BC are totally unknown at this point. I'm not trying to suggest that the male BCP shouldn't be researched more, I'm just saying it'll be a while before I jump on board, or encourage others to do so, or start to believe that this is a great option for people.

I disagree with you on men "not owning up to BC." Condoms have been around longer than the pill, and yes, men will use them, even if they don't always want to.

I also think that if a woman doesn't want to use HBC, she still has lots of choices. There are condoms (very effective if used correctly and consistently, plus STD prevention bonus), IUD (more effective than sterilization), FAM (natural birth control - my favorite! but requires periodic abstinence), female barriers, spermicides, the much-maligned withdrawal method (but OK as a backup method IMHO), and combinations of the above.

I don't see how the status of my uterus re: scraping has anything to do with anything.

The thing that bothers me the most is all the posts comparing us to adolescent boys, immature, and too stupid and untrustworthy to use birth control responsibly.

Several posters here have balked at the supposed fact that guys consider women untrustworthy and stupid to use birth control, so why should you be able to do the same to use men?

Maybe the question we should be asking Bush is more like Would you be happy for your daughter to work for Halliburton?

A Male,
(how have you even been tolerated on this website?)

"Why? Can't take it when roles (as of "pushing" bc on a partner [or talking about aggressors in DV]) are reversed to expose specious (sometimes anti male) arguments? A lot of men may not like bc for precisely the reasons you describe."

If she is taking oral contraceptives he should do his part and take them too. She has negative side effects, then he can have them too. One of these male BC Pills stops a man from ejaculating. Many women dont want semen in their pussy.

"Women do not particularly "like" the Pill or its effects either, but we must not question their reasoning, as it is their CHOICE what they do or do not put into their bodies."

But unlike men, if a woman doesnt "like" using oral contraceptives she may get pregnant. So she overlooks the risks so as not to get her uterus scraped out.

"Same for men, even if their reasoning is COMPLETELY self-centered and idiotic."

Theres no excuse for supporting a mans frivolity in society based on sexist privilege.

"Feminists should be glad I'm reading this site."

That proves your sexism. I'm a feminst and I want you off. Why should feminists be 'glad' an asshole is reading this site? Who do you think you are? Clearly youre a sexist ass.

"Are you really reading my other comments in support of women's rights?"

Oh, should I reward you? I'm so ectstatic a 'mans' reading this site! Oh golly gee gosh! I think feminists can use without to have a man come on this site and think just because he superficially supports womens rights (which would be impossible for you based on your comments here alone) that we should overlook your sexism? That we as women should be so grateful for the support of a 'man?'

"It's your baby."
"Can't be. I'm on the ManPill(tm). You've been screwing around."

Thats idiotic! Its called a 'paternity test' asshole!If the female Pill is not 100% then neither would be the male pill! If he can falsely claim that hes not the father, then clearly the contraceptive would not be 100% and his argument would be void. What are you, some freakin right winger!?

"Also, a successful male bc will be just another excuse for men to refuse using a condom."

If the woman doesnt like semen in her vaginal canal one of the male Pills out there stops him from ejaculating which would mimic one of the reasons a woman might want to use a condom aside from disease prevention. Why would a man NOT care about catching diseases, and NOT wear a condom? He could make all the excuses in the world, but for every man that doesnt use a condom, theres another who will, and eventually hell be 'outsourced' cuz no one wants to fuck him, then he'll wear one. Two methods of contraceptive are better than one, and a man has a stake in not getting her pregnant as much as she doesnt want to get pregnant. Who cares if a man wouldnt use a condom? If theyre in a stable relationship it doesnt matter, unless she doesnt like come in her pussy and the male Pill theyre using doesnt prevent his coming. Otherwise why wouldnt a man want to protect himself from diseases?

"Even with successful male bc, the safest thing for a woman to do would be to continue her own bc regimen, because I agree, there are many men who shouldn't be trusted to prevent pregnancy of their own accord, or even be truthful about it. I've heard of the studies mentioned here of men who *sabotage* their partners' bc, or deliberately impregnate their partners. Same here."

Dont you think thats a social ill that should be stopped? Why keep a male pill from being introduced because of some abusive men? If he would sabatoge his male pill, then he would be trying to impregnate her out of control. If he didnt want to use it, why would he say that he would? Why would a woman sleep with a man she didnt trust? I'm sure if she didnt know the guy, theyd use a condom, so even if he lied and told her she was using the pill she would have added security in preventing disease and knowing if hes lying at least theirs a condom. No basis for any of your arguments. Why dont you go on O'Reillys website, and beat off.

"[Because you see, Gopher, pushing or forcing someone to use bc is wrong. It has absolutely jack to do with the fact I was born with a penis, do you understand?]"

Oh my freakin @#$%! I wrote that a male contraceptive shouldnt be NOT looked into because there is not support by men. A pill should be made, and then the female partner would encourage a man to use it. DO NOT twist my words.

"I'm not the one saying I "hate" a certain gender for daring to come to this wonderful educational site and having an opinion."

Dont twist my words to make me a 'man-hating' feminist on a feminist site. You come to this site and spout sexist crap. Youre as much a misogynist as this site is in opposition to, and shouldnt be allowed on this site. This is why I support a membership only website, where you have to pay and have a special code for entering so you dont get crazy sexist assholes toying around on feminist sites. No feminist womyn should have to put up with mens sexism and their self-delusion that theyre feminists just to include them. That just dilutes the political ideas behind feminism. I have witnessed outright sexist pricks claim that theyre feminists. Calling yourself one doesnt make you one.

"Some men would prefer a pill for them (which wouldn't cycle like female BC, thus decreasing mood swing problems) rather than deal with their partner's bad emotional reaction to the drugs. Sometimes condoms fail and you want to have a backup but the woman can't use hormonal BC."

Exactly! Some women cant take BC, as every body is different, and having a male version would give her (especially) and him greater odds of preventing pregnancy. If you wouldnt have a male pill then that would lessen options and up the risks. Just a quick visit to Planned Parenthoods website reveals the diversity with use of birth control methods, and the differing circumstances that women (and men) use them in. For example, according to their website a woman has a higher percentage of contraceptive failure if she sporadically uses BC, like if she doesnt have a long-term BF/ or in the case of contagious diseases a GF, than with consistent use.

"Some men would prefer a pill for them (which wouldn't cycle like female BC, thus decreasing mood swing problems) rather than deal with their partner's bad emotional reaction to the drugs. Sometimes condoms fail and you want to have a backup but the woman can't use hormonal BC."

Exactly! Some women cant take BC, as every body is different, and having a male version would give her (especially) and him greater odds of preventing pregnancy. If you wouldnt have a male pill then that would lessen options and up the risks. Just a quick visit to Planned Parenthoods website reveals the diversity with use of birth control methods, and the differing circumstances that women (and men) use them in. For example, according to their website a woman has a higher percentage of contraceptive failure if she sporadically uses BC, like if she doesnt have a long-term BF/ or in the case of contagious diseases a GF, than with consistent use.

A Male,
(how have you even been tolerated on this website?)

Maybe because the majority of readers, but more importantly, the gracious admins, are not as intolerant or agitated as you. I believe I have called you no names or used vulgarity yet. I have alerted the admins in my own posts numerous times about my comments, to no effect. If they make the decision to remove me or my comments, I will return to being a reader.

"If she is taking oral contraceptives he should do his part and take them too. She has negative side effects, then he can have them too. One of these male BC Pills stops a man from ejaculating. Many women dont want semen in their pussy."

"unlike men, if a woman doesnt 'like' using oral contraceptives she may get pregnant. So she overlooks the risks so as not to get her uterus scraped out."

Why are you limiting yourself to oral contraceptives for man and woman? What about all the other alternatives to prevent pregnancy? (I agree almost all unfairly fall upon the woman to practice.) What about male or female condoms, to prevent undesired fluid exchange?

Also note my numerous comments that men should have an equal responsibility and be expected to take risks like taking a male Pill. But man and woman should not be forced or pushed to take the pill.

"Theres no excuse for supporting a mans frivolity in society based on sexist privilege."

I was not supporting a man who would ignorantly or falsely claim he did not cause a pregnancy. Just warning it could happen.

"Who do you think you are?"

Someone who came to read about issues for women.

"'Feminists should be glad I'm reading this site.'"

"That proves your sexism."

How so?

"Thats idiotic! Its called a 'paternity test' asshole!"

It's called men on the pill will have another excuse to deny paternity. I didn't say it was valid, or that I approved.

"If he can falsely claim that hes not the father, then clearly the contraceptive would not be 100% and his argument would be void."

A man's argument that he cannot possibly be the father of a sex partner's child is always void. I just said a pill for men would be another excuse for such men.

"What are you, some freakin right winger!?"

No. You clearly are not reading my comments.

"Otherwise why wouldnt a man want to protect himself from diseases?"

Because some men really are short sighted and selfish in refusing to use condoms, if they insist on having sex.

[men sabotaging women's bc] "Dont you think thats a social ill that should be stopped?"

Yes it is. But from a legal standpoint, I don't know what we would call it, or how to penalize it. As someone in health care, we can only support the choice of a woman who would like to remove herself from such a relationship, as well as provide education.

"Why keep a male pill from being introduced because of some abusive men?"

I would never do so. Some policy makers would, for reasons of their own.

"If he would sabatoge his male pill,"

I mean a man could lie about taking it at all. I refer to reports that men sabotage women's bc to deliberately get them pregnant.

"then he would be trying to impregnate her out of control. If he didnt want to use it, why would he say that he would?

Because he is a liar trying to gain a woman's trust, in a stable relationship, or a casual encounter.

"Why would a woman sleep with a man she didnt trust?"

Reproductive freedom means a woman can sleep with who they want, even if they do not trust them completely. Women have the right to casual sex. Also, many men lie to betray that trust.

Gopher: Wait, clarify your last sentence. "in the case of contagious diseases"-- BC doesn't do anything to prevent contagious diseases unless it's a barrier method. Do you mean barrier methods like condoms, female condoms, or dental dams are less likely to be used correctly if there are periods between them?

Also, I would like to say that many people who do not agree on one topic feminism covers are ardent supporters of another. If someone is consistently sexist on this website, I believe the moderators have a right to kick them off-- but A male at least and probably Nathan (can't remember) have come out on the side of feminism on other topics. Simply disagreeing with a feminist on one or two of the many many important issues feminism covers does not mean a person can't be a feminist. Even if they are male.

Also, A male, minor point: Male condoms have an 11% common-use failure rate (21% for female condoms) and thus many women are not comfortable with using them on their own, and prefer to couple them with a backup of some sort.

"A pill should be made, and then the female partner would encourage a man to use it."

Yes. And it would have been clearer if you had said so. Respectful males should also educate themselves and use any male pill on their own accord, because as I write, it is not fair to force contraception to be the woman's responsibility.

"Dont twist my words to make me a 'man-hating' feminist on a feminist site."

Your comments sound like the angry one, purely because I identify myself as male.

"You come to this site and spout sexist crap."

I welcome other readers or admins to point out what sexist crap you are referring to so we can talk about this more. I have been checking my mailbox for the entire week, and can find no e-mails from admins regarding my presence or behavior this site.

Sailorman:

"Oh, please. Lots of things are one sided. Is my partner an ass every time she asks for a hand job, or a position that does nothing for me? Are women being an ass if they ask their partner to wear a condom, but don't "do their part" by duplicating BC on their own end? I say "no" to all these things."

Pretending that those who request that men equally shoulder the burdens of pregnancy prevention are, ipso facto, demanding perfect symmetry in all relationship affairs is the definition of a straw man. Our having this discussion flows from the fact that certain kinds of "one-sidedness" are more consequential than others, and many women have learned the hard way just how much more enduring the consequences are for a man's refusing to wear a rubber than his balking at a certain sex position.

I suppose a case can be made that we shouldn't give a woman a hard