7 ms·

This might be slightly off-topic, but maybe some here will find it interesting. My girlfriend and I have stopped using hormone-based contraceptives, for nearly

by slau 10y ago

This might be slightly off-topic, but maybe some here will find it interesting. My girlfriend and I have stopped using hormone-based contraceptives, for nearly 2 years now, I believe. The main reason is that the hormone-stuff had really messed up my girlfriend, and at some point, we were actually starting to get worried about not having the opportunity of having kids. When we met, she had an IUD (with hormonal stuff), which was uncomfortable to me, so she switched to an implant. The next nearly two years were fairly difficult because she would have extremely irregular periods (for up to two months at a time, in one case), and it messed with our relationship in more ways than one. At our request, her gynæcologist removed the implant, and she switched to the pill. This helped stabilise things, but it was still messed up. In the end, we decided to stop any hormone-based contraceptive, and decided to use condoms. Yes, it's annoying, and everything you want, but it's still a lot better than whatever we had before. The reason I'm telling this, is that I don't really understand the taboo around it. It's a normal part of a normal relationship---there's no point in pretending we're farting rainbows all the time. I'm also fairly annoyed at the fact that women have to put up with this, whereas us men get the sweet end of the deal. We don't have to pay a luxury tax for something which really is essential for most women, we don't have to worry about whether something works or not, or whether getting laid is worth having trouble at that level for the next 6 months. Note that I'm saying "oh poor women, you have to deal with periods," I'm only discussing the technical/monetary aspects of this. I understand that there's very little interest by most men to have a male contraceptive, but I for one would love to have one. Not necessarily hormone-based, and preferably not something that requires having that part of my body be approached by a scalpel. I seem to remember reading an article some time ago explaining why there was no male contraceptive available to those who wanted it. If I remember correctly, according to the labs/vendors, there was simply no market for it. The products existed, but either they're making too much money out of the female variants, or the male variants simply wouldn't sell. In any case, the situation is messed up.

tomp 10y ago
> I understand that there's very little interest by most men to have a male contraceptive What makes you think that? I believe the opposite, many men would be extremely glad not to have to rely on trusting another person to not make a baby, or having an additional fallback in case the condom breaks.
toolz 10y ago
I'm not sure where you got the idea men don't want contraceptives in the form of a pill, but every sexually active guy I know would love to have more security against unwanted pregnancy that had no negative effects on pleasure
di4na 10y ago
I have a lot of family working in obgyn or genetic. The main problems of the products so far for male contraception is that they are not easily reversible. And there is not yet a really succesful idea for a reversible treatment. Tbh, there would be a market. If the side effects are not too bad, and if it is reversible. Female contraception works because the side effect of not taking it are worse than the one of taking it. For male contraception, the side effect of not taking it are low. This is a sad thing about human, but i sadly don't see it change in the coming years :(
- tomp 10y ago
  > but i sadly don't see it change in the coming years What do you think about RISUG/Vasalgel? Reversible, cheap, safe (so far), effective (so far). The only issue is that it lasts a really long time, so there's not much profit in it, resulting in little-to-no incentive to actually bring it to the market.
chillydawg 10y ago
The fundamental issue for male contraceptives is that men have a far lower incentive to follow the rules and take them properly. If a woman gets pregnant, that's a very serious life event with serious consequences and potentially choices to be made. If a man gets a woman pregnant (possibly anonymously), there's much lower cost and stress. Thus, no sane woman would ever trust a man who said "I'm on the pill, don't worry".
- jsmith0295 10y ago
  I think the idea of child support would be more than enough to keep me taking them properly. Obviously that is much less serious of a consequence, but I think it's plenty to get someone to simply take a pill.
- cauterized 10y ago
  It may not make sense in stranger encounters or even early in a relationship, but it absolutely does later in an established relationship. Besides, with a stranger or early in a relationship you should be using a condom anyway, even if your partner insists they're clean. Because STDs. Never mind pregnancy.
- aianus 10y ago
  > If a man gets a woman pregnant (possibly anonymously), there's much lower cost and stress. It's exactly the other way around. If I get a woman pregnant by accident and she wants it and I don't, I lose $1000+ a month for the next 18 years. If it's the other way around, she can get an abortion and be back to normal in a couple of months. Not that this is easy on her, but it's easier than earning $200k...
  - InternetUser 10y ago
    $216k...unless she let you get away with that last year and 4 months.
- geebee 10y ago
  I've had this discussion with people, and your opinion is a common one. What can I say? I am personally bewildered that people think that men don't face really serious consequences. For what it's worth, I do agree with you that no sane woman would ever trust a man who said "I'm on the pill, don't worry." The difference is that I think it's a bad idea for anyone to rely on these assurances.
MustardTiger 10y ago
I don't get why people with reasonable intelligence don't just use fertility awareness. It is free, it has no side effects, and any time you decide you want to have kids you can use the same method to increase your chances. I get that dumb people often think you can always get pregnant. But people capable of passing high school biology should grasp the concept of ovulation.
- jsmith0295 10y ago
  That's got to be the least convenient option
- mcherm 10y ago
  Because people of reasonable intelligence also realize that ovulation has occasional hiccups in timing, that on rare occasions sperm can live a surprisingly long time, and that as a result"fertility awareness" (on its own) is a less reliable means of contraception than most other options.
  - y7 10y ago
    I'd really like to learn the proper numbers on this. What are the precise risks of a timing hiccup or second ovulation during a menstrual cycle? Also, how does regularity of one person's period affect these risks? How accurate are the indicators for ovulation most methods use (body temp, cervical mucus, etc.)?
    - LyndsySimon 10y ago
      Well... it depends. If you only rely on this method for a few days each month immediately after the end of menses, the chances of it failing are MUCH lower than if you rely on it for a week prior and a week after menses. That said, wiki claims[1] that the latter approach is >95% effective in perfect use, and 88% effective in typical use. Compare this to withdrawal[2], which wiki claims is 96%/78% effective respectively. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_contraceptive_methods#Standard_Days_Method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_contraceptive_m... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_interruptus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_interruptus
emp_zealoth 10y ago
Vast majority of women have no issues with contraception, other it takes just a little bit of setup. Often one product will cause some discomfort while another one will work with no issues whatsoever. Meanwhile I will not have sex if i have to use a condom, period. They are too unreliable to keep my sanity.
- themartorana 10y ago
  All contraception is very effective if used properly. Condoms have a generally 82% effectiveness [0] when improper use is figured in (98% if used perfectly). But hey, the pill is also only 91% effective when improper use is taken into account. [1] So, really, relying on any birth control you don't control is crazy. So your excuse for not using a condom isn't mathematically sound. Using it as the sole method is perhaps risky, but you control it. As a second-layer check against potential (unintentional) improper used contraception on the part of your partner, it still severely decreases your risk. [0] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom... [1] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/birth-control-pill https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/birth-...
  - emp_zealoth 10y ago
    I've had a condom fail on me and it was fucking traumatic. I am not going through that again. My friends had total failures too. Me and my exgf just opted for NuvaRings and they were hassle free and side-effects free. Also, proper use of one is pretty straightforward, so it is way more probable to have the perfect 0.3% rate (typical 9%) compared to condoms that you have to get right every SINGLE time (TYPICAL is 82%) http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CTFailureTable.pdf http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/20...
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
I'm female and have bad reactions to hormone-based contraception. I've not tried shots, implants, or IUD's because of my severe reaction to the pill. I've tried twice: Once I was incapable of feeling happy even though I logically knew I would normally be so - I only felt either very sad or very angry. The second attempt and I didn't want to leave the house. Stopping birth control and giving a bit of time for it to leave my system stopped the symptoms. The other caveats: I don't want children, and married a like-minded individual. In addition, I have a higher than normal risk of death during pregnancy (didn't know until a few years back though, and I'm in my late 30's). I'm happy this happened to me instead of someone that has always wanted children. But back to the point: I'd have been the one insisting a man take contraceptive if it were available. I think my spouse would have taken this in any relationship he's been in before we met as well. It actually makes me somewhat angry that this isn't a viable option by now. I've read there is no market, among other things - like in this list http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/11693171/Five-reasons-why-the-male-pill-isnt-coming-any-time-soon.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/11693171/F.... But I also tend to view some of this as ridiculous - surely, if they can market some of the crap we are currently buying, they can market this as well.
- InternetUser 10y ago
  As a serious question: In percentage terms, what's the enjoyment difference for you in using a condom vs. not using one? I ask this as a guy who's been using condoms for the past 14 years.
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    I'll answer - I'm male, 32, and have been married for >10 years. I would estimate condom use reduces pleasure by 50-70%.
  - Mz 10y ago
    There may be no easy, clear cut answer to that. Human sexuality is complex and a lot of what we respond to is rather Pavlovian.
  - 10y ago
fra 10y ago
Have you looked into copper-based IUD? No hormones, yet very effective. We've been relying on one for 3 years, and would highly recommend it.
- slau 10y ago
  As I said, her initial IUD was very uncomfortable (painful) to me during intercourse, so it's not something we're extremely keen about. I realise that things have probably changed since then, and the discomfort might have been an indication of other issues with her IUD (such as bad placement, considering that as far as I know, no other friend has ever "felt" an IUD, other than potentially the strings). The other thing is that we're getting to a place in our life where we're thinking about kids on a more serious note, so a long-term contraceptive doesn't seem as appealing any more. I do keep the copper IUD on the shortlist of long-term contraceptives, if required. Thanks.
  - shanacarp 10y ago
    That doesn't sound like it was properly put in. Why not cut the strings shorter (minimum issue of what you felt!
dpeck 10y ago
Friend of mine did a lot of research on contraception, doing her culmination project for her degree on it, looking into the history and current. The women in her family also had a history of complications with hormonal approaches and after all her research she settled on the copper IUD for her. Said it hurt like hell for a few weeks and made periods rougher than usual for the next 6 months but she was happy to trade (relatively) temporary physical difficulties for emotional/mental ones. Obviously different for everyone but worth looking into all the different options.
Mz 10y ago
FWIW, when the pill began causing me migraines and I advised my husband that I would be going off of them once my current prescription was gone, thus we had x months to find another solution, he volunteered to get a vasectomy. We already had two kids and he was done. He wanted no more. He observed this choice seemed more common in the military. From what I have read, it is generally easier for a man to get a vasectomy than for a woman to get a sterlization procedure. They are less picky about age and parental status. Women under age 25 and/or with fewer than two kids tend to run up against barriers. I did a college paper some years ago in one of my law classes. I don't know if the laws have changed, but, at one time, this was not just due to sexism or societal bias. It was encoded into law that women under age 25 or with fewer than two kids needed a compelling medical reason to get sterilized. I have known women with serious medical conditions who had trouble getting the procedure approved. It is galling.
cmurf 10y ago
In the very recent past: Boner pills paid for by insurance. Contraceptive pills paid out of pocket. Forward to 2016 and it's largely the reverse. Finally some sanity.
shanacarp 10y ago
Why no copper iud? No hormones
shanacarp 10y ago
Why no copper iud? No hormones

by slau 10y ago

tomp 10y ago

> I understand that there's very little interest by most men to have a male contraceptive What makes you think that? I believe the opposite, many men would be extremely glad not to have to rely on trusting another person to not make a baby, or having an additional fallback in case the condom breaks.

toolz 10y ago

I'm not sure where you got the idea men don't want contraceptives in the form of a pill, but every sexually active guy I know would love to have more security against unwanted pregnancy that had no negative effects on pleasure

di4na 10y ago

I have a lot of family working in obgyn or genetic. The main problems of the products so far for male contraception is that they are not easily reversible. And there is not yet a really succesful idea for a reversible treatment. Tbh, there would be a market. If the side effects are not too bad, and if it is reversible. Female contraception works because the side effect of not taking it are worse than the one of taking it. For male contraception, the side effect of not taking it are low. This is a sad thing about human, but i sadly don't see it change in the coming years :(

tomp 10y ago
> but i sadly don't see it change in the coming years What do you think about RISUG/Vasalgel? Reversible, cheap, safe (so far), effective (so far). The only issue is that it lasts a really long time, so there's not much profit in it, resulting in little-to-no incentive to actually bring it to the market.

chillydawg 10y ago

The fundamental issue for male contraceptives is that men have a far lower incentive to follow the rules and take them properly. If a woman gets pregnant, that's a very serious life event with serious consequences and potentially choices to be made. If a man gets a woman pregnant (possibly anonymously), there's much lower cost and stress. Thus, no sane woman would ever trust a man who said "I'm on the pill, don't worry".

jsmith0295 10y ago
I think the idea of child support would be more than enough to keep me taking them properly. Obviously that is much less serious of a consequence, but I think it's plenty to get someone to simply take a pill.
cauterized 10y ago
It may not make sense in stranger encounters or even early in a relationship, but it absolutely does later in an established relationship. Besides, with a stranger or early in a relationship you should be using a condom anyway, even if your partner insists they're clean. Because STDs. Never mind pregnancy.
aianus 10y ago
> If a man gets a woman pregnant (possibly anonymously), there's much lower cost and stress. It's exactly the other way around. If I get a woman pregnant by accident and she wants it and I don't, I lose $1000+ a month for the next 18 years. If it's the other way around, she can get an abortion and be back to normal in a couple of months. Not that this is easy on her, but it's easier than earning $200k...
- InternetUser 10y ago
  $216k...unless she let you get away with that last year and 4 months.
geebee 10y ago
I've had this discussion with people, and your opinion is a common one. What can I say? I am personally bewildered that people think that men don't face really serious consequences. For what it's worth, I do agree with you that no sane woman would ever trust a man who said "I'm on the pill, don't worry." The difference is that I think it's a bad idea for anyone to rely on these assurances.

MustardTiger 10y ago

I don't get why people with reasonable intelligence don't just use fertility awareness. It is free, it has no side effects, and any time you decide you want to have kids you can use the same method to increase your chances. I get that dumb people often think you can always get pregnant. But people capable of passing high school biology should grasp the concept of ovulation.

jsmith0295 10y ago
That's got to be the least convenient option
mcherm 10y ago
Because people of reasonable intelligence also realize that ovulation has occasional hiccups in timing, that on rare occasions sperm can live a surprisingly long time, and that as a result"fertility awareness" (on its own) is a less reliable means of contraception than most other options.
- y7 10y ago
  I'd really like to learn the proper numbers on this. What are the precise risks of a timing hiccup or second ovulation during a menstrual cycle? Also, how does regularity of one person's period affect these risks? How accurate are the indicators for ovulation most methods use (body temp, cervical mucus, etc.)?
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    Well... it depends. If you only rely on this method for a few days each month immediately after the end of menses, the chances of it failing are MUCH lower than if you rely on it for a week prior and a week after menses. That said, wiki claims[1] that the latter approach is >95% effective in perfect use, and 88% effective in typical use. Compare this to withdrawal[2], which wiki claims is 96%/78% effective respectively. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_contraceptive_methods#Standard_Days_Method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_contraceptive_m... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_interruptus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_interruptus

emp_zealoth 10y ago

Vast majority of women have no issues with contraception, other it takes just a little bit of setup. Often one product will cause some discomfort while another one will work with no issues whatsoever. Meanwhile I will not have sex if i have to use a condom, period. They are too unreliable to keep my sanity.

themartorana 10y ago
All contraception is very effective if used properly. Condoms have a generally 82% effectiveness [0] when improper use is figured in (98% if used perfectly). But hey, the pill is also only 91% effective when improper use is taken into account. [1] So, really, relying on any birth control you don't control is crazy. So your excuse for not using a condom isn't mathematically sound. Using it as the sole method is perhaps risky, but you control it. As a second-layer check against potential (unintentional) improper used contraception on the part of your partner, it still severely decreases your risk. [0] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom... [1] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/birth-control-pill https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/birth-...
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  I've had a condom fail on me and it was fucking traumatic. I am not going through that again. My friends had total failures too. Me and my exgf just opted for NuvaRings and they were hassle free and side-effects free. Also, proper use of one is pretty straightforward, so it is way more probable to have the perfect 0.3% rate (typical 9%) compared to condoms that you have to get right every SINGLE time (TYPICAL is 82%) http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CTFailureTable.pdf http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/20...

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

I'm female and have bad reactions to hormone-based contraception. I've not tried shots, implants, or IUD's because of my severe reaction to the pill. I've tried twice: Once I was incapable of feeling happy even though I logically knew I would normally be so - I only felt either very sad or very angry. The second attempt and I didn't want to leave the house. Stopping birth control and giving a bit of time for it to leave my system stopped the symptoms. The other caveats: I don't want children, and married a like-minded individual. In addition, I have a higher than normal risk of death during pregnancy (didn't know until a few years back though, and I'm in my late 30's). I'm happy this happened to me instead of someone that has always wanted children. But back to the point: I'd have been the one insisting a man take contraceptive if it were available. I think my spouse would have taken this in any relationship he's been in before we met as well. It actually makes me somewhat angry that this isn't a viable option by now. I've read there is no market, among other things - like in this list http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/11693171/Five-reasons-why-the-male-pill-isnt-coming-any-time-soon.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/11693171/F.... But I also tend to view some of this as ridiculous - surely, if they can market some of the crap we are currently buying, they can market this as well.

InternetUser 10y ago
As a serious question: In percentage terms, what's the enjoyment difference for you in using a condom vs. not using one? I ask this as a guy who's been using condoms for the past 14 years.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  I'll answer - I'm male, 32, and have been married for >10 years. I would estimate condom use reduces pleasure by 50-70%.
- Mz 10y ago
  There may be no easy, clear cut answer to that. Human sexuality is complex and a lot of what we respond to is rather Pavlovian.
- 10y ago

fra 10y ago

Have you looked into copper-based IUD? No hormones, yet very effective. We've been relying on one for 3 years, and would highly recommend it.

slau 10y ago
As I said, her initial IUD was very uncomfortable (painful) to me during intercourse, so it's not something we're extremely keen about. I realise that things have probably changed since then, and the discomfort might have been an indication of other issues with her IUD (such as bad placement, considering that as far as I know, no other friend has ever "felt" an IUD, other than potentially the strings). The other thing is that we're getting to a place in our life where we're thinking about kids on a more serious note, so a long-term contraceptive doesn't seem as appealing any more. I do keep the copper IUD on the shortlist of long-term contraceptives, if required. Thanks.
- shanacarp 10y ago
  That doesn't sound like it was properly put in. Why not cut the strings shorter (minimum issue of what you felt!

dpeck 10y ago

Friend of mine did a lot of research on contraception, doing her culmination project for her degree on it, looking into the history and current. The women in her family also had a history of complications with hormonal approaches and after all her research she settled on the copper IUD for her. Said it hurt like hell for a few weeks and made periods rougher than usual for the next 6 months but she was happy to trade (relatively) temporary physical difficulties for emotional/mental ones. Obviously different for everyone but worth looking into all the different options.

Mz 10y ago

FWIW, when the pill began causing me migraines and I advised my husband that I would be going off of them once my current prescription was gone, thus we had x months to find another solution, he volunteered to get a vasectomy. We already had two kids and he was done. He wanted no more. He observed this choice seemed more common in the military. From what I have read, it is generally easier for a man to get a vasectomy than for a woman to get a sterlization procedure. They are less picky about age and parental status. Women under age 25 and/or with fewer than two kids tend to run up against barriers. I did a college paper some years ago in one of my law classes. I don't know if the laws have changed, but, at one time, this was not just due to sexism or societal bias. It was encoded into law that women under age 25 or with fewer than two kids needed a compelling medical reason to get sterilized. I have known women with serious medical conditions who had trouble getting the procedure approved. It is galling.

cmurf 10y ago

In the very recent past: Boner pills paid for by insurance. Contraceptive pills paid out of pocket. Forward to 2016 and it's largely the reverse. Finally some sanity.

shanacarp 10y ago

Why no copper iud? No hormones

shanacarp 10y ago

Why no copper iud? No hormones