How does this unscientific instagram vomit has 500 votes on lemmy? Are we turning into reddit?
I’m not sure who’s she targeting because I know a lot of guys who would love to have birth control pills.
Nah, this isn’t a great point at all… even at face value really.
Put slightly differently, if we’re assuming people sleep around as much as the text implies, if we focus on birth control solely for men, then one ‘failure’/non-controlled man would result in a ton of pregnancies. If the onus is on women, then one ‘failure’/non-controlled woman would result in one pregnancy.
Counterpoint: a woman taking birthcontrol is empowered because she is taking charge of her own reproduction. She doesn’t have to rely on or trust the man to take his pill. After all, she would be the one bearing most of the burden in case of an unwanted pregnancy.
Additionally, purely biologically it is much easier to reliably stop conception on the female side than on the male side. A woman only produces one egg cell per month, whereas a man produces millions of sperm cells per day.
I think if I busted a nut 9 times a day, I would just simply just vanish.
Not everything is a conspiracy against women
I do think that birth control pills having 1 week of sugar pills to force periods rather than 1 week of optional pills to allow skipping periods is pretty fucked up though. The term conspiracy is pretty intense though. But it’s super fucked.
Was curious about the placebos and came across this if you are interested.
https://srh.bmj.com/content/familyplanning/44/3/214.full.pdf
A paper that suggests there is no medical evidence why there should be a break in hormonal pills and that you can simply just start a new pack of pills and continue going on with your life
Yes and your prescription then runs out early, leaving you without birth control for multiple weeks
Sounds like a logistical problem, not a medical problem.
I used the word should.
As in the system right now is flawed and could be better.
What point are you trying to make because I’m not picking up on what you are putting down
Gotcha, I thought you were implying that women on birth control can just skip the placebo pills by starting the next pack each time to avoid having a period altogether. Which is absolutely true, and has been known for decades.
My point was: because of the placebos being factored into the number of days for a prescription, if a woman decides to do that, then she will eventually run out of birth control well before her next prescription is available for refill. Afaik, doctors can’t prescribe an additional pack or 2 of birth control for a specific prescription timeframe, and insurance would likely deny that anyways if they did. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s my understanding here in the US.
(Sorry for the slow reply, I’m terrible about checking notifications)
It’s less of a conspiracy and more that it didn’t even occur to society until pretty recently (in historical terms) that reproduction isn’t solely a woman’s responsibility
Well yes. But it also occured to society that stopping 1 egg per month is easier than millions of sperm every day.
This sounds like it would make sense on the surface, but is just not true. You can look up pretty easily that there wasn’t really any research on the viability of male hormonal birth control until half a century after female hormonal birth control became a thing, so it’s not like they made a rational decision based on scientific findings. When they found out how to do it for men, it was roughly comparably complicated, with similar side effects. This too is easy to look up.
It makes sense that the side effects were too much to legalize hormonal male birth control because today’s standards are much higher. Which is a good thing ofc- im glad they don’t allow new medication as easily as they did in the past. Female birth control wouldn’t be legalized if it was invented today, and neither would, for example, aspirin. They get to stay around because they don’t take that stuff back out usually, even if it wouldn’t pass modern standards. That’s a bit of a tangent though.
Many men would LOVE a reliable, non-condom, male-controlled birth control method
Currently for men there are two options — condoms, which are problematic and difficult in several ways, or vasectomy, which is essentially permanent or at least difficult and uncertain to be reversed.
The third method is to take WAY too many TOO HOT baths, but that also has uncertainty and is a real hassle.
As it stands, really for men they either need to use a condom, or trust that your female partner is reliable.
100% agree. The fact that they’re only researching it now has been hurting everyone involved.
Is that why men have been wrapping their dicks in all sorts of weird shit for thousands of years? Animal intestines and bladders to name but a few. Fuck your “in historical terms”, youre talking out of your arse, just like every other sexist who makes hating men part of their personality.
Why is everyone in this thread acting like men are always the ones providing and insisting on using barrier methods? Have yall talked to a woman who’s had casual sex before about what it’s like out there?
Yes, men AND women are both taking responsibility. Just because you can point to few cases of morons, doesnt make “women are sluts who use abortion as birth control” anymore true than the bullshit youre pedalling. But nice try, trying to get out of the “historical terms” bullshit, but shifting the focus to modern day… Doesnt at all make you look desperate to be right, regardless of facts…
Theres bad apples in every bunch. Only a bigot tries to frame that bad apple as the whole bunch.
Ok I’ll ignore the name calling one last time.
I’ll put it super simply, in the hope that you misunderstanding me wasn’t as intentional as it comes across
-
barrier methods have always been, and continue to be, a shared responsibility
-
all other non-permanent methods have been purely on women until very recently.
Ignore whatever the fuck you like. Youre bigoted cunt, and thats all there is to it. You dont like being called out? Have you tried, not being a perpetually online sexist piece of shit? Fuck you.
Can you please point out the thing I said that you consider sexist, and why? I’m striving not to be, and like to learn where I can.
-
You say that as if women haven’t been treated like property in nearly every society ever since we learned how to farm
This is one of the dumbest wagons to hitch that argument to in particular.
The most commonly produced, available, and used birth control method worldwide is the latex condom, used by everyone who has a penis. Try again.
It’s the woman who’d get pregnant and who doesn’t want to. Should she rely on whether the men took their pills correctly? Taking hormones sucks for many women, but they’re happy to be able to have birth control in their hands.
Yeah, I think people forget why the pill was such a game changer: It allowed women, without the permission or knowledge of their husband/sexual partner, to decide whether or not they wanted to get pregnant.
Should there be an temporary contraceptive for men? Yes, it gives agency to men and also provides an alternative to women who can’t use female contraception for a multitude of reasons.
Will that be preferred by all women? Hell no
It’s called a condom.
It would be great if there was an alternative to them.
For people in trusting long-term relationships who want to have sex without a condom on.
So that the burden of birth control doesn’t default to the woman altering her hormonal balance.I don’t understand the downvotes. Condoms are great.
Please do not eat the condom.
Taking hormones can also be a significant positive, depends on the person.
Yes, but this is not about the poll having positive side effects.
What are you talking about?
This is just logically wrong.
If birth control was only made for men, and 90% of men were on birth control, you could end up with far more pregnancies than if it’s for women and 90% of women were on it.
The conclusion is exactly the opposite of the argument.
I don’t understand you logic. Are you saying the remaining 10% of men would impregnate a disproportionate amount of women?
By the logic of the image, yes.
Yes. Because 10% of men is enough to impregnate all the women.
As a guy though, I wish there was male birth control. I do not love that women get to decide if they are going to make me a father or not.
I mean there’s condoms, and there’s not ejaculating inside women. If you don’t want the risk of being a father, those are things you can control.
Not ejaculating inside is risky and not 100% reliable, but it surely gets the odds in your favor indeed
For what it is worth, my son was the result of the mother deciding where I would ejaculate through the use of “in the moment” physical force. So no, it was not really something I could control (though the risk of being there was my doing I understand).
What bejeesus does in the moment physical force mean?
Besides, I believe there have been drug trials for hormonal birth control for men, but they never got approved.
Take with this a mountain of salt though, I need to check my sources. I’ll update later if I can find them again.
Oh I see. In my head, the 10% of men weren’t having sex with 100% of women either way.
I assumed the number of partners they had wouldn’t change.
Yes, that’s exactly the point of the post in the first place, 1 man can impregnate many women, a woman can’t get impregnated (contemporary) by many men
But a woman can deny as many potential pregnancies. The count ignores women who are already pregnant, both as men or women.
A man can cause up to X pregnancies and thus prevent as much, a woman can only cause 1 but can prevent as much as a man. The important point is that this all matters before pregnancy. After, it doesn’t make sense anymore.
Idk why I got downvoted. I just don’t understand, I’m not trying to make a point.
I meant the 10% of men aren’t having more sex to make up for the 90% that are on birth control. They would be having the same amount of sex either way.
Maybe I’m over thinking it.
If the numbers were correct and your aim was to reduce pregnancies, you could prevent 90% of pregnancies by getting roughly 90% of sexually active women to take the pill. Getting 99.95% of sexually active men to take the pill would have NO effect whatsoever on the pregnancy rate, because the remaining 1 in 2000 men would continue to meet and impregnate a woman roughly once every hour for roughly 12 hours a day (with breaks for food and resting his dick a tiny bit) for 9 months straight, with time to visit 430 women a second time in case these miracle impregnators somehow didn’t always impregnate on first meeting a woman. (This would very drastically reduce diversity in the gene pool and the world would be very very very badly interbred within two generations.)
But of course humans don’t behave like the numbers suggest AT ALL, thank goodness.
It’s easier to prevent ovulation of one egg than stop a billion sperm cells from reaching their destination. Stop politicising biology.
The one who gets pregnant should probably take the birth control, as pregnancy would be more bothersome for them than for the other person.
Just FYI after the 5th one I’m just cumming air at that point, but if there are 2,430 women out there who want to give it a try anyway be my guest.
Someone tell her condoms exist and it’s men’s job to buy and wear them. Prevention is both genders responsibility. If they make a pill for men I’ll happily take it.
I don’t understand this logic. Sex is not any one person’s responsibility to be safe
If I wanted a penis inside me, I would take responsibility to have one available, because I wanted it inside me.
Condoms?
