Male pill: The scientist working on 'progress for humanity'

Adding to this: as a mid-20s person, I was always told that I would not be able to get a vasectomy without certain stipulations, like already having children. That really pisses me off, since that defeats the entire point.

I recently talked to my doctor though, and they stated that that is not the case(for men, women evidently don't get to control their bodies). So for anyone else trying to get one, make sure to talk to your doctor. They may be able to hook you up.

Almost a year since I had mine done, my wife and I both enjoy it.

It wasn’t that bad. And I’m glad I did it. No more kids.

I saw what they did to women

Part of it is that women are currently using it and taking on all of the risks/consequences from it. Some couples would like the ability to transfer the risk to the other partner (different couples will have different reasons for their choice).

Another thing to note is that regulatory agencies are more strict now than back when there was a focus on birth control for women. Like that thing with alcohol would be banned if it was "invented" today. If a male pill IS approved, it would likely be a lot safer than what women are taking now.

Idk about this specific trial, I'm speaking generally

You have absolutely no idea if the side effects are comparable between male and female birth control pills. Nobody does. Maybe stop to consider the that side effects might be really bad, before just invalidating the experience of all those who have tested it?

From my understanding, its more along the lines of “risk averse regulators see the side effects as unacceptable”… not “crybaby men are crybabies” like your post infers. (Seriously, your post has some really toxic vibes)

Birth control has a lot of very horrible side effects.. in addition to the common hormonal changes, they also come with things such as an increased risk of stroke.

For women, child birth is extremely intense on the body with lots of increased risk. Lets look at the stroke side effect as an example.. birth control causes increased risk of stroke, but pregnancy causes an even higher risk of stroke. Its easy for regulators to justify the stroke risk of birth control because it actively prevents the higher stroke risk of pregnancy.

For men, child birth comes with no risk whatsoever because they cant physically get pregnant. lets look at that same stroke side effect for example.. birth control provides increased risk of stroke, but comes with no medical benefit. that increased risk is extremely difficult to medically justify.

Essentially, childbirth/pregnancy is extremely high risk for women, which makes it easier to justify the side effects for a medication that prevents it. The risks of childbirth/pregnancy dont exist for men though, so its much harder to justify the same side effects.

Yes, it feels unfair and fucked up, but thats because reproduction is inherently unfair and fucked up…

there may be something to be said about whether or not the regulators factor in the externalities of the pregnant partner when looking at approving such medication.. i have absolutely no clue though.

This is belied by the fact that one of the most common elective procedures for men is a vasectomy. It (actually) has more to do with numbers. In men you have to block millions of sperm- in women it’s one egg. Physiologically, it’s an easier problem to solve in women.

1. male BC requires stopping essentially thousands of sperm, while female BC only requires stopping one egg from attaching. That's why female BC is physiologically "simpler".

2. risk is relative. For example, woman's BC risk is weighed against childbirth, because childbirth is dangerous. That's why women's BC has a relative advantage. Childbirth isn't something that men face, which is why men's BC has no relative advantage. That's why the bar for BC is strict with men. It's because the situations are different.

3. (related to point #2) trust and liability. If the man lies about taking BC, the woman ends up pregnant. The risk and responsibility lie on the woman.

4. the reason why the BC responsibility typically falls on the woman has to do more so with the nature of our bodies and how far people want the sexual process to travel.

For example, we could just make it so that every man wear a condom during sex. But there are both men and women who don't like that, because they want to "feel a more natural sex". Condoms interrupt the natural process right at the start. What's ideal is that as much of the process happens normally, and it is only stopped at the end to prevent fertilization. Following that logic, the sperm travels towards the egg and you wanna stop it right then before the end (for example, a cervical cap perhaps).

Women are on the receiving end of the sexual process, so if the couple doesn't want a condom, or if they want the sex to feel as natural as possible, logic follows that the "stopper-plug" would be in the woman, because the finish line of fertilization takes place inside a woman.

If the couple is ok with a stopper plug closer to the beginning of the race, just use a condom then.

I'll address your comment now.

Your first paragraph honestly comes off as quite toxic and bitter now that I'm reading it again. Everybody has bodily autonomy and the right to refuse anything, and the reason is irrelevant. You have 3 choices.

1. The woman accepts the BC,

2. the man accepts the BC, or

3. both refuse and just decide that you can't have sex.

You don't want female BC that's fine. Nobody here is shaming you for your choice. If you don't want it that's fine. But the same standard applies to the men you're choosing to date. If they don't want it, that's the end of that conversation. Move on to option 3. What you don't have is the right to scold or shame your partner because they don't wanna take something they aren't comfortable with. You should accept option 3 if the first two aren't available.

I for one would have liked to get one in my twenties and skipped out on some of the worries.

You may be remembering the study from almost 10 years ago where a whole bunch of men got injections and some stopped because they got severe acne. Now, that seems like a wimp thing to do. It doesn't include the fact that some men had wild mood swings with it (doesn't happen with womens pill), one developed severe depression, and one successfully committed suicide.

I also disagree with the wording from NPR - men didn't "complain" about the side effects, they REPORTED them. Because they were on a clinical study. And that's what you do on clinical studies.

The boards overseeing the trial stopped it at that point. The men that stayed in on the trial would have kept going if they could have, even with the side effects. So no - men can and have dealt with the side effects.

"stealthing" is also a thing now. It's just women claiming to be on the pill to men instead of vice versa. Trust between two people always has to be there, and some people will break that trust to get their parts licked. It's human nature, not a man vs woman vs NB thing.

Stealthing still going to be a problem with STIs, even with a pill/injection male contraception. Condoms are still going to be necessary.

Looks like this one is not YCT-529, which is being developed by YourChoice and the University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy.

https://www.pharmacy.umn.edu/news/yourchoice-therapeutics-begins-first-human-trial-male-birth-control-pill