3 ms·

There seems to much more concern about side effects than is exhibited for women’s birth control. The unwillingness to even try to sell a male birth control bec

by olliej 5y ago

There seems to much more concern about side effects than is exhibited for women’s birth control. The unwillingness to even try to sell a male birth control because if fears about a side effect profile that matches what women can deal with is a good indicator of just how fragile the drug manufacturers think men are.

car_analogy 5y ago
> a side effect profile that matches what women can deal with Do we in fact know that the side effects (of which method?) are equivalent to female birth-control (again - which?), or are you speculating? And is avoiding unknown side-effects a sign of fragility, or caution?
chownie 5y ago
This comes up every time male contraceptives come up, it's emotionally compelling but just isn't true. The safety equation for men and women differs vastly. The pill is acceptable at its current safety level because the alternative is pregnancy which can be lethal. Plus the various uses in cycle control, important not just for fertility but also hormone management. For men there is no downside to not taking the contraceptive, so it must boast a much higher safety profile to be considered. As it stands, the current attempts were either much too dangerous (higher rate of adverse responses than the pill) or too permanent, nothing to do with the fragility of men - perceived or otherwise.
- oneoff786 5y ago
  That’s some bullshit reasoning. The risk of pregnancy to the female partner is a clear and obvious externality with the same level of risk. The pill can wreck women’s hormonal cycles. It’s hardly a given that it will “control” them.
  - A_non_e-moose 5y ago
    > The pill can wreck women’s hormonal cycles. It’s hardly a given that it will “control” them. One could also say the pill can control women's hormonal cycles. It's hardly a given that it will "wreck" them. Thankfully the pill is one of the many female contraceptive choices.
    - lots2learn 5y ago
      The pill is used by OBGYNs to treat irregular periods with some women with PCOS.
    - oneoff786 5y ago
      If you’re comfortable saying that then a pill that neuters testosterone can also control men’s hormonal cycles.
      - A_non_e-moose 5y ago
        Your sentence is illogical and reveals a lack of understand for the underlying biological processes. The women's pill emulates and controls an existing hormonal cycle that naturally regulates their fertility. There is no such natural hormonal cycle for men, that regulates their fertility. If I saw some technical similarities between those two processes I would not oppose hormonal control pills for men, but the male and female bodies work differently.
        oneoff786 5y ago
        There are absolutely hormonal cycles for men. They’re not as apparent as the menstrual cycle, but they’re there, and we need not fixate on the word “cycle” either. Hormonal birth control for males exists. Usually by dropping testosterone which isn’t a great idea. My point is not that hormonal treatments for men is advisable but that there are non trivial consequences for both genders.
      - A_non_e-moose 5y ago
        Sorry for the double post but I've just noticed another top level thread that you started before this reply and quoting you: > A hormonal approach for men would probably go very poorly. I would have liked to continue a discussion, but it seems like you actually understood the problem but pretend not to, in order to troll someone.
- olliej 5y ago
  What are you talking about? the pill can have severe health consequences, it is absolutely not harmless. The pill also doesn't necessarily work for cycle control - and frequently has the opposite effect - and the majority of women already have reasonably regularly spaced periods. "For men there is no downside to not taking the contraceptive," at least we're in agreement here that the entirety of the risk is placed on women, for whom requiring medication with major detrimental side effects is acceptable. Let's be very clear though, your comparison to the health risks of being pregnant is at best irrelevant: if the parties involved are using some form of birth control it is reasonable to assume that the goal is not to have a child. In which case it is incorrect to be comparing the risk of pregnancy with the risk of hormonal birth control. The correct comparison is between hormonal (or similar) birth control, and other forms of contraception, just as it should be in men. However as the comments in this thread indicate, all the risks that are present in women's hormonal birth control are considered too dangerous to be prescribed to men.
FinanceAnon 5y ago
Balls are very fragile though
retrac 5y ago
Or reversible infertility in males is much harder to induce by drug with relatively few side effects than in females. Hormonal birth control works by tricking the body into thinking its pregnant, a state in which fertility is naturally suppressed. There is no analog in males.
pyuser583 5y ago
Well if you look at what happens to women when they don’t have contraceptives, the cost/benefit ratio tends to allow quite a few costs. For example, blood clots. Hormonal birth control causes blood clots. But nowhere nearly as often as pregnancy. Would you apply the same reasoning for men? There’s a school of medical ethics that says treatments must focus exclusively on good outcomes for the patient. According to this school of thought, prescribing a man a pill that has a .001% chance of blood clots to prevent his female partner from having a .01% chance of blood clots is unacceptable. And this is a very, very influential line of thought among doctors.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  > There’s a school of medical ethics > very, very influential line of thought among doctors I'm not very "rah rah we currently live in a patriarchy", but wtf? Is it not elementary to consider GROUP effects when dishing out medicine? If a couple (most of the people where the women is taking birth control) come into a doctor's office with that blood clot predicament, it should not be very hard for a doctor to consider them as a couple, when they can clearly communicate that they care about their total health equally. If our medical system is mostly only able to consider the primary patient, unable to prescribe medicine taking into account the second order effects in that person's life to people they care about, then our medical institutions are (even more) flawed.
  - pyuser583 5y ago
    It’s fine if it’s something that benefits everyone. Like cleaner air reducing lung cancer. But when you adopt an attitude of “you’re going to have to take one for the team” that’s where the principal comes into play.
    - tangjurine 5y ago
      I think I would support some sort of government incentive for this. It's good for everyone if people are encouraged to make sacrifices that net benefit society. In the long run, everyone should benefit (if the sacrifices and benefitees are equally distributed enough).
coolso 5y ago
Are you getting fragile about there being two different reactions to… two totally different drugs with two completely different mechanisms of action and two incredibly different safety records? Hormonal birth control has been out for ages and has many benefits outside of preventing unwanted pregnancies. Male birth control still isn’t even a safe thing yet, in 2022.

by olliej 5y ago

car_analogy 5y ago

> a side effect profile that matches what women can deal with Do we in fact know that the side effects (of which method?) are equivalent to female birth-control (again - which?), or are you speculating? And is avoiding unknown side-effects a sign of fragility, or caution?

chownie 5y ago

This comes up every time male contraceptives come up, it's emotionally compelling but just isn't true. The safety equation for men and women differs vastly. The pill is acceptable at its current safety level because the alternative is pregnancy which can be lethal. Plus the various uses in cycle control, important not just for fertility but also hormone management. For men there is no downside to not taking the contraceptive, so it must boast a much higher safety profile to be considered. As it stands, the current attempts were either much too dangerous (higher rate of adverse responses than the pill) or too permanent, nothing to do with the fragility of men - perceived or otherwise.

oneoff786 5y ago
That’s some bullshit reasoning. The risk of pregnancy to the female partner is a clear and obvious externality with the same level of risk. The pill can wreck women’s hormonal cycles. It’s hardly a given that it will “control” them.
- A_non_e-moose 5y ago
  > The pill can wreck women’s hormonal cycles. It’s hardly a given that it will “control” them. One could also say the pill can control women's hormonal cycles. It's hardly a given that it will "wreck" them. Thankfully the pill is one of the many female contraceptive choices.
  - lots2learn 5y ago
    The pill is used by OBGYNs to treat irregular periods with some women with PCOS.
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    If you’re comfortable saying that then a pill that neuters testosterone can also control men’s hormonal cycles.
    - A_non_e-moose 5y ago
      Your sentence is illogical and reveals a lack of understand for the underlying biological processes. The women's pill emulates and controls an existing hormonal cycle that naturally regulates their fertility. There is no such natural hormonal cycle for men, that regulates their fertility. If I saw some technical similarities between those two processes I would not oppose hormonal control pills for men, but the male and female bodies work differently.
      - oneoff786 5y ago
        There are absolutely hormonal cycles for men. They’re not as apparent as the menstrual cycle, but they’re there, and we need not fixate on the word “cycle” either. Hormonal birth control for males exists. Usually by dropping testosterone which isn’t a great idea. My point is not that hormonal treatments for men is advisable but that there are non trivial consequences for both genders.
    - A_non_e-moose 5y ago
      Sorry for the double post but I've just noticed another top level thread that you started before this reply and quoting you: > A hormonal approach for men would probably go very poorly. I would have liked to continue a discussion, but it seems like you actually understood the problem but pretend not to, in order to troll someone.
olliej 5y ago
What are you talking about? the pill can have severe health consequences, it is absolutely not harmless. The pill also doesn't necessarily work for cycle control - and frequently has the opposite effect - and the majority of women already have reasonably regularly spaced periods. "For men there is no downside to not taking the contraceptive," at least we're in agreement here that the entirety of the risk is placed on women, for whom requiring medication with major detrimental side effects is acceptable. Let's be very clear though, your comparison to the health risks of being pregnant is at best irrelevant: if the parties involved are using some form of birth control it is reasonable to assume that the goal is not to have a child. In which case it is incorrect to be comparing the risk of pregnancy with the risk of hormonal birth control. The correct comparison is between hormonal (or similar) birth control, and other forms of contraception, just as it should be in men. However as the comments in this thread indicate, all the risks that are present in women's hormonal birth control are considered too dangerous to be prescribed to men.

FinanceAnon 5y ago

Balls are very fragile though

retrac 5y ago

Or reversible infertility in males is much harder to induce by drug with relatively few side effects than in females. Hormonal birth control works by tricking the body into thinking its pregnant, a state in which fertility is naturally suppressed. There is no analog in males.

pyuser583 5y ago

Well if you look at what happens to women when they don’t have contraceptives, the cost/benefit ratio tends to allow quite a few costs. For example, blood clots. Hormonal birth control causes blood clots. But nowhere nearly as often as pregnancy. Would you apply the same reasoning for men? There’s a school of medical ethics that says treatments must focus exclusively on good outcomes for the patient. According to this school of thought, prescribing a man a pill that has a .001% chance of blood clots to prevent his female partner from having a .01% chance of blood clots is unacceptable. And this is a very, very influential line of thought among doctors.

reducesuffering 5y ago
> There’s a school of medical ethics > very, very influential line of thought among doctors I'm not very "rah rah we currently live in a patriarchy", but wtf? Is it not elementary to consider GROUP effects when dishing out medicine? If a couple (most of the people where the women is taking birth control) come into a doctor's office with that blood clot predicament, it should not be very hard for a doctor to consider them as a couple, when they can clearly communicate that they care about their total health equally. If our medical system is mostly only able to consider the primary patient, unable to prescribe medicine taking into account the second order effects in that person's life to people they care about, then our medical institutions are (even more) flawed.
- pyuser583 5y ago
  It’s fine if it’s something that benefits everyone. Like cleaner air reducing lung cancer. But when you adopt an attitude of “you’re going to have to take one for the team” that’s where the principal comes into play.
  - tangjurine 5y ago
    I think I would support some sort of government incentive for this. It's good for everyone if people are encouraged to make sacrifices that net benefit society. In the long run, everyone should benefit (if the sacrifices and benefitees are equally distributed enough).

coolso 5y ago

Are you getting fragile about there being two different reactions to… two totally different drugs with two completely different mechanisms of action and two incredibly different safety records? Hormonal birth control has been out for ages and has many benefits outside of preventing unwanted pregnancies. Male birth control still isn’t even a safe thing yet, in 2022.