'Sperm-stopping' male pill hope

[moderator]

Scientists are developing a male contraceptive drug which stops the development process of sperm.

Tests on rats show blocking connections to cells which "nurture" developing sperm makes the animals infertile.

rest of story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6091582.stm

[moose_hd]

Have been hearing about this for quite a while ... I think it would be a godsend. I would love to have a personal, non-negotiable method of contraception that can't be trivially contravened.

Finally men would have protection against women who would try to gain power over the guy by having his child. (Not that this type of woman is exceedingly common, but if you're unlucky enough to run into one and she manages to get pregnant, the law is not on your side.)

[Morbid]

Yeah, not to mention that could be an easy sollution to stop accidental pregnancies.. It would increase sex in younger ages as well, but if it works, it's worth it.

[Newtolove]

it won't cause teenage sex to increase its already that as condoms and female BC pills have been around for years and it's never been the girl to reject using a condom. I like the idea boy girl both on the pill no problems double protection without the condom if it was to happen but that will still not stop std's so they may increase as men and women become more careless

[AnonymousGirl]

I totally agree with moose, and I'm surprised that other men seem not to see it the same way. I mean, yeah, you shouldn't be having sex with someone you can't even trust to take their damn pill, but really, I would think both guys and girls would in general want to know that THEY have control over their birth control, so to speak.

[LadyBug02]

It certainly would be nice for the man to be able to take more responsibility for birth control.

[Morbid]

Newtolove I don't quite understand your opinion.. If it were to stop sperm creation.. then how exactly would they pass STD's.. I might be wrong here or w/e, I've not really read a whole lot on STD's, but I would think it couldn't spread if no sperm was transfered.

[Newtolove]

well maybe I am wrong but are we refering to the whole fluid that is just a cartrier liquid and the sperm (yes I'm not sure on the terms) or just the sperm.

for example when a man is sterilized by the tube that carries the sperm from the testes being cut and tied up he still ejaculates the fluid produce by the prostrate gland that acts only as a carrier and so will not produce pregnancy and represents over 99 % of the seminal fluid so the difference is not note so if a desease can be transm,itted in this fluid then there is still a risk. if the pill spoken of has a similar effect only stopping the sperm but not the fluid then there is still an std risk although not a pregnancy risk.

I admit I am a bit mixed up on the terms so if I am wrong someone correct me but I think if the pill stops the ejaculation of any fluid then men are not going to like taking the pill as for them it will be like becoming impotent

[khyron717]

ok. being a man i find it a tad bit offensive if women think that we all expect them to use contraceptives and expect them to be more responsible than us, i think what the situation REALLY is, is that men expect women not to rely on the guy alone to provide protection. i share responsiblity in a heartbeat, but i think its a bit rude for a man to ALWAYS have to go pick up the condoms, it would be a nice jesture if she bought them once and a while too. and it takes two to tango, she should also bring a pair of dancing shoes just incase her partner forgot to bring them to the dance floor. get what im saying?

second. men dont want to take the pill because ITS EXPERIMENTAL! for all we know our penises will rot off, or the reduction in hormones will kill our sexdrive, making the male birth control useless. one thing ladies should know is we men are very sensitive to what things can do to our wedding tackle. even a slight risk of damage to the male genetailia makes us hesitant to take new drugs. after all us guys have everything hanging out in the open all vulnerable, we got to protect "our little guys." think about it, if you asked any guy if he rather got kicked in the nuts or punched in the face hed take face every time lol.

id volunteer for the experiment if,
1, if pregnancy results they compensate me and my new family so i dont get totally screwed from their experiment.
2, if the drugs have some nasty side effects they compensate me for the medical bills required to fix it
3, if it works out i would like a lifetime supply of the stuff, but i wont ask for that unless they offered it.

but will they do any of that? probably not, so if you think its a matter or a man being arrogent to assume the female has to be responsible with contraceptives your wrong, its a matter of risk of bodily harm and a risk that a child to feed may result if the experiment fails.

ps. dont buy statistics they can mean anything, you can pull anything you want out of them which is why few people trust them.it reminds me of high school when they totally inflated accedental pregnancy rates even with protection in order to scare us into not having sex. but yea sorry to go off on a tangent, just watch statistics carefully.

[blackrosesred]

They don't test it by telling guys to go out and have sex with their girlfriends. They ask you for a sample of your sperm and then test in under a microscope to see if their are sperm or not.


So, sorry, but compensation is highly unlikely :P.

Girls DO buy condoms a lot of the time. Most of us do our part to keep ourselves protected; it's not a bad thing if this works that the guy take a little more responsibility. And the fact that most women use the pill as their BC method, along with a guy taking a pill as well, would make it seem very equal and a shared responisibilty. Possibly like a 'bringing closer together' thing .


Love ya. You always have good points.