Men taking MHCs in clinical trials experience a range of side effects, including lean muscle weight gain, increased acne and changes in mood. These side effects are caused by the synthetic androgen in the MHC regimen. They could be minimized as researchers tailor the androgen dose and delivery method. However, as is the case with female hormonal contraceptives, it may not be possible to entirely eliminate these side effects for all men.
A more serious side effect of altering a man's androgen metabolism is a depressed level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in the blood. HDL-C is a healthy type of cholesterol which has been correlated with reduced risk of atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries). Volunteers in clinical trials of certain types of synthetic androgen experience a 15% drop in HDL-C levels. If this side effect can not be mitigated, men with a risk of heart disease should be advised to avoid MHCs (Brady 2002).
Researchers were originally concerned that high levels of T might over stimulate the prostate gland, but in trials up to 18 months long no one has observed this side effect (McLaclan 2000). Each new MHC formulation approaching market will likely undergo this type of screening.
It would be more accurate to say that they're "kind of" impermanent.
You can get them reversed but unlike other forms of birth control it's not something you can swap around on a week-to-week basis...
(unless you're Michael Scott).
The only people who should even consider getting one are people who know definitively they don't want kids anymore, ever, under any circumstances. It's best to avoid surgery unless it's necessary, after all.
Duffel on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited August 2009
Also there's a chance that vasectomies can be botched. Which would suck pretty hard.
Also put me down for the male BC pill. In my ideal world, the BC pill would be equally available to both parties. Because of possibility of failure and STDs, condoms would still be essential for sex most of the time (and to protect from either party bullshitting "oh yeah, i'm totally on the pill") but having three failsafes is always better than two, and it doesn't seem fair for the entire responsibility to fall on the woman should the condom break/fail.
Men taking MHCs in clinical trials experience a range of side effects, including lean muscle weight gain, increased acne and changes in mood. These side effects are caused by the synthetic androgen in the MHC regimen. They could be minimized as researchers tailor the androgen dose and delivery method. However, as is the case with female hormonal contraceptives, it may not be possible to entirely eliminate these side effects for all men.
A more serious side effect of altering a man's androgen metabolism is a depressed level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in the blood. HDL-C is a healthy type of cholesterol which has been correlated with reduced risk of atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries). Volunteers in clinical trials of certain types of synthetic androgen experience a 15% drop in HDL-C levels. If this side effect can not be mitigated, men with a risk of heart disease should be advised to avoid MHCs (Brady 2002).
Researchers were originally concerned that high levels of T might over stimulate the prostate gland, but in trials up to 18 months long no one has observed this side effect (McLaclan 2000). Each new MHC formulation approaching market will likely undergo this type of screening.
Damn, that sucks. I hope they work those things out. I have terrible cholesterol and the acne thing does not sound desirable.
As for Vasectemy- No fucking way. No one is altering my privates, I like them just the way they are.
Also, how have some people turned a thread on Abstinence into rape?
it's because abstinence is some kind of a boring subject to talk about for very long
Well, it's a well publicized but little understood cognitive dissonance that is popular with religious peoples, so it's off limits to ask "What the hell could make someone think this way when *all* evidence is to the contrary?"
I just find it odd that sex isn't stigmatized in other Western countries as much as it is in the US. But violence is OK. We need zoning laws for those sleazy video stores with impractical lingerie selections and deucedly odd toys which can't interact with my G.I. Joes in any meaningful way but a film about scalping Nazis doesn't get a second look.
I'll wait a couple years after release on the male pill, just to make sure a staggeringly large number of 16-35 year olds aren't suddenly dying of clots or brain bleeds.
it's because abstinence is some kind of a boring subject to talk about for very long
Well, it's a well publicized but little understood cognitive dissonance that is popular with religious peoples, so it's off limits to ask "What the hell could make someone think this way when *all* evidence is to the contrary?"
I just find it odd that sex isn't stigmatized in other Western countries as much as it is in the US. But violence is OK. We need zoning laws for those sleazy video stores with impractical lingerie selections and deucedly odd toys which can't interact with my G.I. Joes in any meaningful way but a film about scalping Nazis doesn't get a second look.
A movie where a war hero is brutally beaten to death by a terrorist with a baseball bat, no less.
I think I had a pretty good sex ed classes in Highschool. Now that I think back on it, it was pretty informative, and also sometimes funny. I remember the teacher started the first class by asking everyone to name as many sex related expressions as we could and she would write them all on the board. I think it was a great way to start the subject.
We had videos to explain most of the stuff we should know. Teacher even talked about oral sex. The only funny thing I remember in the videos was seeing a teenage girl in a school thinking to herself "why is there a feeling of wetness in my pants when I talk to this boy?" followed by an explanation.
I have no idea if we still have these sex ed classes in school, but I certainly hope we do.
We learned about rape in my sex ed class, but our sole source of information was a tv movie from the '80s about a freshman who's violently raped by the star quarterback after a frat party.
And then the teacher said, "None of you boys do that," or something to that extent.
You know, the word "pharmaceutical" comes from the Greek "pharmakeus" which meant both "poison" and "medicine." They knew that a medicine in one context might be a poison in another. Everything depends on the dose - and the chemical vulnerabilities of the dosed.
Edit: Also, pharmakeus pharmakeus. pharmakeus. rah-rah-rock me pharmakeus.
how many times have you dropped that tidbit
Casual Eddy on
0
Options
Gennenalyse RuebenThe Prettiest Boy is Ridiculously PrettyRegistered Userregular
edited August 2009
I don't even remember getting any sex education to tell you if it was abstinence-only or not. I think it may've been tucked into the high school health course I had to take? Not that that class taught anyone anything, as the teacher didn't seem to understand what she was teaching. Sad state of affairs here in Illinois, as usual.
You know, the word "pharmaceutical" comes from the Greek "pharmakeus" which meant both "poison" and "medicine." They knew that a medicine in one context might be a poison in another. Everything depends on the dose - and the chemical vulnerabilities of the dosed.
Edit: Also, pharmakeus pharmakeus. pharmakeus. rah-rah-rock me pharmakeus.
how many times have you dropped that tidbit
I've seen it at least twice in a very short timeframe. Its less profound than he thinks it is.
Being a male dominated forum I'm not sure how qualified we are to discuss which female birth control type is the best.
I don't hear about men who are eager to start taking the male birth control pill in addition to using a condom. Would you be comfortable with women telling you the best form of birth control is a man using the male pill + condom or getting something pushed through your urethra into your balls to mechanically prevent sperm from being expelled + using a condom?
I understand we have women here and men with gf/wives with relevant experience but even if we do want a birth control thread it should probably be a new thread.
re:abstinence
Teaching abstinence instead of sexual education in public schools is terrible and does not work. There is far too much mystery, moralizing, shaming and demonizing centering around a piece of basic biology.
Everyone should be given accurate information and left to make their own decisions, free from coercion one way or the other.
I'd be all over the male BC pill. Nothing like another line of defense that doesn't involve condoms, which my wife dislikes quite a bit.
One of these days I really should go through the freeze sperm and snip-snip dance. Anyone here have experience with that?
If you told a man that he would get more muscles and wouldn't have to wrap up, the whole acne thing would go right into the realm of oh look nobody is listening bloop bloop beep http://databong.ytmnd.com/
You know, the word "pharmaceutical" comes from the Greek "pharmakeus" which meant both "poison" and "medicine." They knew that a medicine in one context might be a poison in another. Everything depends on the dose - and the chemical vulnerabilities of the dosed.
Edit: Also, pharmakeus pharmakeus. pharmakeus. rah-rah-rock me pharmakeus.
how many times have you dropped that tidbit
I've seen it at least twice in a very short timeframe. Its less profound than he thinks it is.
Twice.
Both times in the last week.
You guys suck.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The thing which makes me skeptical about the male birth control pill is that the standards for success are somewhat less absolute - it is considered a stunning success if they manage to reduce the sperm count to a level where fertilization is extremely unlikely.
The problem I have with this is that there are still sperm being ejected with some motility, and mysteriously the idea is always about 5 years away and has been since the 90's - which suggests that the hormonal approaches at least don't work very well, or the side-effects are unacceptable.
The thing which makes me skeptical about the male birth control pill is that the standards for success are somewhat less absolute - it is considered a stunning success if they manage to reduce the sperm count to a level where fertilization is extremely unlikely.
The problem I have with this is that there are still sperm being ejected with some motility, and mysteriously the idea is always about 5 years away and has been since the 90's - which suggests that the hormonal approaches at least don't work very well, or the side-effects are unacceptable.
I'd assume that it's far easier to sabotage an organ that releases an egg once a month than it is to sabotage an organ that continuously cranks out sperm. I'd be impressed if there's a way to do it short of pretty much shutting the testes down.
The thing which makes me skeptical about the male birth control pill is that the standards for success are somewhat less absolute - it is considered a stunning success if they manage to reduce the sperm count to a level where fertilization is extremely unlikely.
The problem I have with this is that there are still sperm being ejected with some motility, and mysteriously the idea is always about 5 years away and has been since the 90's - which suggests that the hormonal approaches at least don't work very well, or the side-effects are unacceptable.
I'd assume that it's far easier to sabotage an organ that releases an egg once a month than it is to sabotage an organ that continuously cranks out sperm. I'd be impressed if there's a way to do it short of pretty much shutting the testes down.
There are a couple of approaches - the hormonal one is based on the observation that sperm production is keyed to testosterone levels, so if you keep the levels high all the time then it shuts it down. But, that has deleterious side-effects the worst of which is it predisposes you to testicular cancer (at the levels required, since it's exactly like shooting up steroids).
So the idea for homones then shifted to the secondary observation that progestogen has a reproductive inhibitor function in both men and women. But that can impact male sex characteristics. So the middle ground is that they want to up just enough progestogen that it blocks sperm production, and balance it out with enough testosterone to prevent the side-effects of that. But, it's always 5 years away and it's not a 100% process.
The one I liked better was the idea of finding an inhibitor protein which disable the flagellum of sperm in the vas deferens, so they couldn't actually swim.
Then there's my idea: switchable retrovirus which destroys the ovum when it encounters it!
EDIT: Also some of these ideas have some pretty retarded corrolaries built in - a protestogen implant, and then getting testosterone shots every 4-6 weeks to prevent the inhibition of male sex characteristics? I mean, I believe a major component of the female pills success is that the worst thing it can do is exaggerate female sex characteristics.
Our sex-ed was pretty good. Could have been more though. The most useful part was the teacher answering anonymous questions. Got kinda funny when it all segued into a discussion of whether or not dicks are beautiful.
Anyway, I got my sex ed from reading my dad's porn magazines, which isn't as bad as it sounds! It was a really good magazine, promoting openess about sex, and it taught me most things from how it all worked, to stds.
The one I liked better was the idea of finding an inhibitor protein which disable the flagellum of sperm in the vas deferens, so they couldn't actually swim.
There are other interesting mechanisms of action, too. You can alter the outer coating of the spermatozoa so they can no longer bind with or penetrate the ovum. There are also drugs that cause the vas deferens to clamp down during orgasm.
The biggest problem is that the known mechanisms of action are based on existing medications that are already in generic. Who wants to put the money into marketing a drug you can't patent?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I have to wonder if it'd be possible to modify a vasectomy to implant a valve instead.
This is the thing which was on New Inventors one time. It was some type of frequency-responsive polymer which could be opened and closed wirelessly.
Wouldn't work. Stopping ejaculation messes up the favoured immune status of sperm so the immune system clobbers them. That's why vasectomies aren't particularly reversible.
I have to wonder if it'd be possible to modify a vasectomy to implant a valve instead.
This is the thing which was on New Inventors one time. It was some type of frequency-responsive polymer which could be opened and closed wirelessly.
Wouldn't work. Stopping ejaculation messes up the favoured immune status of sperm so the immune system clobbers them. That's why vasectomies aren't particularly reversible.
Hey, that's really interesting. Do you have some references you can link or email? Because I remember the RISUG method (chemically reversible vasectomy method pioneered in India) being promoted quite a bit the last few years, and I was wondering where it went. I kind of assumed lolracism was involved in the lack of investment in the method, but if immune fuckery is hamstringing it I'd like to know.
Its funny, because in the last thread on this here we had a couple of people insisting that men were too stupid to take a pill or too selfish to risk their own hormones.
Its funny, because in the last thread on this here we had a couple of people insisting that men were too stupid to take a pill or too selfish to risk their own hormones.
I may have gotten a little snippy about that.
Yeah, the idea that men can't be bothered to do something as simple as take a pill every day is pretty fucking insulting and hilariously ludicrous.
Of course, we've had threads where people swear up and down that 9/11 was an inside job, so I guess anything's possible.
Its funny, because in the last thread on this here we had a couple of people insisting that men were too stupid to take a pill or too selfish to risk their own hormones.
I may have gotten a little snippy about that.
I already take a pill every morning (thyroid hormone). If male birth control was safe, effective, and affordable and my wife and I weren't trying to have a baby I wouldn't have any problem popping 2 pills every day instead of 1. There isn't some magic gene in women (that I know of) that makes them easier to condition to take a pill once a day.
Posts
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
See how many books I've read so far in 2010
They're kinda permanent, aren't they?
It would be more accurate to say that they're "kind of" impermanent.
You can get them reversed but unlike other forms of birth control it's not something you can swap around on a week-to-week basis...
The only people who should even consider getting one are people who know definitively they don't want kids anymore, ever, under any circumstances. It's best to avoid surgery unless it's necessary, after all.
Also put me down for the male BC pill. In my ideal world, the BC pill would be equally available to both parties. Because of possibility of failure and STDs, condoms would still be essential for sex most of the time (and to protect from either party bullshitting "oh yeah, i'm totally on the pill") but having three failsafes is always better than two, and it doesn't seem fair for the entire responsibility to fall on the woman should the condom break/fail.
Damn, that sucks. I hope they work those things out. I have terrible cholesterol and the acne thing does not sound desirable.
As for Vasectemy- No fucking way. No one is altering my privates, I like them just the way they are.
Also, how have some people turned a thread on Abstinence into rape?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Or the side affects of the female BC pills, or BC in general, can be nice like acne reduction, or the vast reduction of periods.
It really is.
That's probably part of why it doesn't work!
Well, it's a well publicized but little understood cognitive dissonance that is popular with religious peoples, so it's off limits to ask "What the hell could make someone think this way when *all* evidence is to the contrary?"
I just find it odd that sex isn't stigmatized in other Western countries as much as it is in the US. But violence is OK. We need zoning laws for those sleazy video stores with impractical lingerie selections and deucedly odd toys which can't interact with my G.I. Joes in any meaningful way but a film about scalping Nazis doesn't get a second look.
Pretty much this.
A movie where a war hero is brutally beaten to death by a terrorist with a baseball bat, no less.
We had videos to explain most of the stuff we should know. Teacher even talked about oral sex. The only funny thing I remember in the videos was seeing a teenage girl in a school thinking to herself "why is there a feeling of wetness in my pants when I talk to this boy?" followed by an explanation.
I have no idea if we still have these sex ed classes in school, but I certainly hope we do.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
And then the teacher said, "None of you boys do that," or something to that extent.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
how many times have you dropped that tidbit
I've seen it at least twice in a very short timeframe. Its less profound than he thinks it is.
I'd be all over the male BC pill. Nothing like another line of defense that doesn't involve condoms, which my wife dislikes quite a bit.
One of these days I really should go through the freeze sperm and snip-snip dance. Anyone here have experience with that?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Best. Typo. Ever.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Twice.
Both times in the last week.
You guys suck.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The problem I have with this is that there are still sperm being ejected with some motility, and mysteriously the idea is always about 5 years away and has been since the 90's - which suggests that the hormonal approaches at least don't work very well, or the side-effects are unacceptable.
I'd assume that it's far easier to sabotage an organ that releases an egg once a month than it is to sabotage an organ that continuously cranks out sperm. I'd be impressed if there's a way to do it short of pretty much shutting the testes down.
So the idea for homones then shifted to the secondary observation that progestogen has a reproductive inhibitor function in both men and women. But that can impact male sex characteristics. So the middle ground is that they want to up just enough progestogen that it blocks sperm production, and balance it out with enough testosterone to prevent the side-effects of that. But, it's always 5 years away and it's not a 100% process.
The one I liked better was the idea of finding an inhibitor protein which disable the flagellum of sperm in the vas deferens, so they couldn't actually swim.
Then there's my idea: switchable retrovirus which destroys the ovum when it encounters it!
EDIT: Also some of these ideas have some pretty retarded corrolaries built in - a protestogen implant, and then getting testosterone shots every 4-6 weeks to prevent the inhibition of male sex characteristics? I mean, I believe a major component of the female pills success is that the worst thing it can do is exaggerate female sex characteristics.
Anyway, I got my sex ed from reading my dad's porn magazines, which isn't as bad as it sounds! It was a really good magazine, promoting openess about sex, and it taught me most things from how it all worked, to stds.
So that's how it in norway.
There are other interesting mechanisms of action, too. You can alter the outer coating of the spermatozoa so they can no longer bind with or penetrate the ovum. There are also drugs that cause the vas deferens to clamp down during orgasm.
The biggest problem is that the known mechanisms of action are based on existing medications that are already in generic. Who wants to put the money into marketing a drug you can't patent?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That would at least simplify the spit v. swallow argument.
It would become swallow v. put on chocolate cake.
Should I leave?
Wouldn't work. Stopping ejaculation messes up the favoured immune status of sperm so the immune system clobbers them. That's why vasectomies aren't particularly reversible.
I may have gotten a little snippy about that.
Of course, we've had threads where people swear up and down that 9/11 was an inside job, so I guess anything's possible.