Howstuffworks (http://health.howstuffworks.com/male-bc-pill.htm)

This stuff seems like garbage to me. With a woman she can take a patch or a pill every day. With the men's versions it looks like, realistically, the guy is going to need testosterone injections every 4-6 weeks _in addition_ to the "pill", which could be a patch or pill _or an implant_. Second last page talks about a rod that can be implanted every three years.

In most cases, though, you still would need a test injection. Anybody else get the feeling that the medicine is in over its head if you're buggering around with hormones that much? I sure as heck would not take a birth control pill that screwed up my hormones so badly I needed test injections. My wife also thought the idea was comical.

I would NEVER take it.

ewwww i could use that. although some times i wish i did :p

Women's birth control pills are no picnic either :p

ewwww i could use that. although some times i wish i did :p

Use what? What are you talking about? This honestly sounds like the worst idea ever. Every proprosal is frought with very damaging side effects or huge obstacles to overcome. Like condoms or the pill are so bad? Which by the way doesn't cause any of the huge problems for women is actually prescribed to some girls who are not (supposedly) sexually active just to regulate hormone function. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Women's birth control pills are no picnic either :p

But MUCH better than this stupid idea.

personally, I think it's a banner idea. They mess around with women's hormones just as much, why not shoulder some of the burden as well in the same manner (and just so you know, women have the whole "implanted rods" and shots also, deprovera, and I forget the name of those rods....) so none of that is anything we haven't had as options for a while.

it's not like they're trying to get you to BE pregnant and really messing with your hormones.....of course, THAT I would like to see too. :D

personally, I think it's a banner idea. They mess around with women's hormones just as much, why not shoulder some of the burden as well in the same manner (and just so you know, women have the whole "implanted rods" and shots also, deprovera, and I forget the name of those rods....) so none of that is anything we haven't had as options for a while.

it's not like they're trying to get you to BE pregnant and really messing with your hormones.....of course, THAT I would like to see too. :D


Just one more way to make the men pay huh? I myself use domes, my wife gets to cranky on the pill and the drive dissapeers.....

Has nobody heard of the IUD? Practically foolproof, painless, and cheap. (The only downfall, I think you may have to have already had children in order for it to work properly.)

personally, I think it's a banner idea. They mess around with women's hormones just as much, why not shoulder some of the burden as well in the same manner (and just so you know, women have the whole "implanted rods" and shots also, deprovera, and I forget the name of those rods....) so none of that is anything we haven't had as options for a while.

it's not like they're trying to get you to BE pregnant and really messing with your hormones.....of course, THAT I would like to see too. :D

Men are more delicate though ;)

Isn't ther e some risk of toxic shock syndrome with IUDs? Or is that something I learned back in high school that they fixed?

My friend's girlfriend was on Depo and got pregnant. The fecundity of the human being astounds me sometimes.

Heck, even one or two out of a thousand sexually active guys with a vasectomy will get a woman pregnant over the course of only one year.

And a thousand guys isn't as many as it sounds.

Has nobody heard of the IUD? Practically foolproof, painless, and cheap. (The only downfall, I think you may have to have already had children in order for it to work properly.)

personally, I think it's a banner idea. They mess around with women's hormones just as much, why not shoulder some of the burden as well in the same manner (and just so you know, women have the whole "implanted rods" and shots also, deprovera, and I forget the name of those rods....) so none of that is anything we haven't had as options for a while.

it's not like they're trying to get you to BE pregnant and really messing with your hormones.....of course, THAT I would like to see too. :DIt seems to me that the side effects/implications for a male on this are more so than a female on BCP.

It seems to me that the side effects/implications for a male on this are more so than a female on BCP.

After reading the article completely, I am not sure I can agree with that. Perhaps it is just a matter of gender perspective.

After reading the article completely, I am not sure I can agree with that. Perhaps it is just a matter of gender perspective.Female BCP is a simple pill and often the hormones can be quite low. In the case of the solutions being mentioned by howstuffworks the realistic approach for men is not just an initial pill but a supplementary hormonal injection.

Isn't ther e some risk of toxic shock syndrome with IUDs? Or is that something I learned back in high school that they fixed?

My friend's girlfriend was on Depo and got pregnant. The fecundity of the human being astounds me sometimes.

Heck, even one or two out of a thousand sexually active guys with a vasectomy will get a woman pregnant over the course of only one year.

And a thousand guys isn't as many as it sounds.
From a report written in 2001:
In the 1970s, safety problems with the Dalcon Shield discouraged many women from considering the IUD as a contraceptive option. Now, the Mirena IUD, which releases the hormone levonorgestrel into the lining of the uterus, has gained wide acceptance in Europe and Australia. Why? Because it's proving to be as effective as being sterilized -- except that it's reversible.
I used the copper T for about three years twice, which does not release hormones.
http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/women/00018537

After reading the article completely, I am not sure I can agree with that. Perhaps it is just a matter of gender perspective.

Seriously? My girlfriend absolutely agreed that the problems, side effects, and complications associated by this proposed 'male birth control' pill are exponentially higher than those currently available for women. I would reread the article. I'm all for fair play, but we ain't there yet. This pill needs years more in development if it's ever to approach the safety and efficacy of female birth control.

Seriously? My girlfriend absolutely agreed that the problems, side effects, and complications associated by this proposed 'male birth control' pill are exponentially higher than those currently available for women. I would reread the article. I'm all for fair play, but we ain't there yet. This pill needs years more in development if it's ever to approach the safety and efficacy of female birth control.

Even with the lose-dose pills there are increased risk factors for all sorts of things, including heart attack, stroke, and certain cancers. The older ones (where they have longer-range data were certainly worse). The male ones under study don't yet have the data to really investigate, but speculation that they may raise heart attack risk or lead to high cholesterol... Sure, that's bad, but not necessarily *worse* than the early female birth control pills before dosage was lowered.

I think both men and women take it for granted that the side effects will be minimal and that their convenience is far more important. It's not always the case, and right now it's women who bear all the risk. Mind you, I would not want my husband to take a pill that altered his hormones but I also don't take one myself, based on my discussions with my physicians over the years.

Even with the lose-dose pills there are increased risk factors for all sorts of things, including heart attack, stroke, and certain cancers. The older ones (where they have longer-range data were certainly worse). The male ones under study don't yet have the data to really investigate, but speculation that they may raise heart attack risk or lead to high cholesterol... Sure, that's bad, but not necessarily *worse* than the early female birth control pills before dosage was lowered.

I think both men and women take it for granted that the side effects will be minimal and that their convenience is far more important. It's not always the case, and right now it's women who bear all the risk. Mind you, I would not want my husband to take a pill that altered his hormones but I also don't take one myself, based on my discussions with my physicians over the years.

I don't know. I acknowledge that there are risks and side effects to female birth control. But from that article, at least as things currently stand, there are significantly greater problems and roadblocks with the male version. That's not to say that research and applied science won't ultimately be able to bring the risks down to the level of the female birth control pills. But I don't think it's there now. None of the women I sent the article to did either.

I don't know. I acknowledge that there are risks and side effects to female birth control. But from that article, at least as things currently stand, there are significantly greater problems and roadblocks with the male version. That's not to say that research and applied science won't ultimately be able to bring the risks down to the level of the female birth control pills. But I don't think it's there now. None of the women I sent the article to did either.

The article described early trials and a number of options that were under investigation. My point was just that since the 60s people have taken it for granted that female birth control is safe. Of course many people find it a worthwhile risk, but I do think men seem a little touchier about tampering with their hormones and from what I read it did not sound all that more risky than what was considred ok or even obligatory for women in the 60s. Certainly most men should not use these things until they are well studied and risks are reduced. I just can't help seeing a little "perceptual inequality" here though ;)

The article described early trials and a number of options that were under investigation. My point was just that since the 60s people have taken it for granted that female birth control is safe. Of course many people find it a worthwhile risk, but I do think men seem a little touchier about tampering with their hormones and from what I read it did not sound all that more risky than what was considred ok or even obligatory for women in the 60s. Certainly most men should not use these things until they are well studied and risks are reduced. I just can't help seeing a little "perceptual inequality" here though ;)

Fair enough. :lol:

The article described early trials and a number of options that were under investigation. My point was just that since the 60s people have taken it for granted that female birth control is safe. Of course many people find it a worthwhile risk, but I do think men seem a little touchier about tampering with their hormones and from what I read it did not sound all that more risky than what was considred ok or even obligatory for women in the 60s. Certainly most men should not use these things until they are well studied and risks are reduced. I just can't help seeing a little "perceptual inequality" here though ;)

Ditto that. I wonder how many men know that the birth control pill actually contains hormones in the first place. As well, systems in the body are all interconnected - like checks and balances. You can't really take in a hormone without having some others fall off balance. Those effects may not be seen initially. . .

Also the birth control pill doesn't contain *true* hormones. They are synthetic chemicals. What I really "love" to see being used on women (not) is premarin - hormones given to women around menopause - it's made from HORSE URINE.

Women's health care has progressed, and not to start a battle of the sexes here, but not nearly to the point of the research done on men's health.
-Amie

Ditto that. I wonder how many men know that the birth control pill actually contains hormones in the first place. As well, systems in the body are all interconnected - like checks and balances. You can't really take in a hormone without having some others fall off balance. Those effects may not be seen initially. . .

Also the birth control pill doesn't contain *true* hormones. They are synthetic chemicals. What I really "love" to see being used on women (not) is premarin - hormones given to women around menopause - it's made from HORSE URINE.

Women's health care has progressed, and not to start a battle of the sexes here, but not nearly to the point of the research done on men's health.
-Amie

I was at my friend's house and saw her Premarin. She refused to believe it stands for PREgnant MARe's urINe. Kind of scary :eek: I have not reached menopause but I am hoping I can manage without any of that when I do.

I was at my friend's house and saw her Premarin. She refused to believe it stands for PREgnant MARe's urINe. Kind of scary :eek: I have not reached menopause but I am hoping I can manage without any of that when I do.Sounds like an urban legend, but snopes (http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/premarin.htm) says you're right! A lot things are made from weird places though. Are some insulins made from (or were in the past) pigs?

Sounds like an urban legend, but snopes (http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/premarin.htm) says you're right! A lot things are made from weird places though. Are some insulins made from (or were in the past) pigs?

Yes, there were beef and pork insulins as I recall. I am pretty sure I took an NPH insulin that was.