While this is awesome and lovely, it doesn't really change the biological asymmetry in hetero sex. If a guy forgets to take (or lies about taking) his Pill and his partner gets pregnant, he may (or may not, depending on the court) have to pay child support. If a woman forgets to take her Pill and gets pregnant, she gets 9 months of pregnancy and then 18+ years of childrearing.

So yeah, it's pretty sweet, and the idea of men taking responsibility like this is a really good one...but if I were having hetero sex, I wouldn't rely on my partner to take his Pill. Because in the end, it'd still come back to me and my uterus and my (socially constructed) expectation of motherhood.

I don't think this is a really great idea. Okay, yeah it prevents a guy from impregnating a girl for a few hours, but a) that isn't very consistent and doesn't allow for spontaneous intercourse b) why would a guy take it if it actually prevents him from ejaculating and achieving orgasm? I think if there was a female birth control pill that prevented women from orgasm, we'd be pretty pissed off.

I'm all for a reversible male contraceptive, especially in pill form, but I mean, how are they dealing with fact that this would seem to guarantee blue balls?

The more options, the better, but I'd be very interested in hearing exactly how it prevents ejaculation, and how reliably.

Cheers,

TH

It basically causes a dry orgasm.

Scientists develop male birth control pill

I'm concerned with it wearing off part-way through sex. Would the guy just take another pill? What's the maximum dose? What are the effects of taking multiple pills in one day?

I have to say that it really annoys me that everyone's so obsessed with the hormonal effects that a pill might have on men, but the female methods have all sorts of potential nasty side-effects.

not ejaculating does not equal no orgasm. people who practice tantric sex have been using that tactic for years. secondly, a woman has choices like an abortion or adoption, so in no way does anything guarantee 18+ years of child raising,. I still think that women bear the brunt of accidents during sex, but alot of that has to do with the fact that we indeed have the child. i do NOT think a man should have a pay for a child if he did not want the woman to keep it. keeping it is her choice bc its her body, but because of that,he should not be forced to pay for children he does not want. that being said, the hard part is determining how you avoid men who avoid responsiblity instead of actively stating they do not want the child when the woman is pregnant and she makes the decision to keep it.

in any case, i wouldnt trust a pill that only lasts a few hours bc how do you know it has stopped working before its too late?

According to the Broadsheet posting on Salon, it does allow for orgasm--just minus the sperm. So blue balls isn't the result of the pill, its lack of sperm in the ejaculate.

To address the first post regarding trust-worthiness of men taking the pill. That's absolutely a question, but rather than look at this as an issue of shifting the birth-control burden from one sex to the other, this could be looked at in terms of individuals taking the reigns of their own reproductive lives. I'm not trusting a man to take the pill--I have my own birth-control methods, but he is ALSO enlisting birth control to direct his reproductive destiny.

I think that its great and just imagine if men and women effectively used birth-control (or birth-control and condoms) everytime they had sex. One method slipping up is one thing, but two? Three? This is good stuff. This will give men a better sense of their own reproductive responsibilities and anatomy.

I agree with Heather; my first thought re: this pill is not "Oh, boy, no need to use condoms," but rather "Oh, boy, now if you use this and condoms your chances of getting someone pregnant are lower than your chances of getting struck by lightning while receiving a giant check from Ed McMahon."

I don't agree with Katie, who I am fairly certain is not named Katie.

Cheers,

TH

Haha, Tom... when I have to give my name to people I have no desire to talk to and don't want following me around, I tell them my name is Katie. (My own name is pretty unique.)

I definitely think this is a pill for men so that they can take control of whether they get someone pregnant, and I think that's not only awesome, but definitely something A LOT of men will be interested in.

I do, however, have a difficult time imagining sex without ejaculation. And I wonder, does it have an effect on some sexually transmitted diseases if there's no ejaculate?

Oh my God I freaking LOVE this idea.

Splooge grosses me out. No offense, guys -- I'm no fan of vaginal discharge, either. I'm an equal-opportunity disliker of gross bodily fluids ;)

And guys, trust me, just because your genitals don't vomit when you have an orgasm, doesn't mean it can't be mind-blowing and earth-shattering :)

I, too, am interested about the implications for STDs. Seems to me something like this has GOT to reduce the risk of transmitting HIV.

All I can say is Yay! I have no idea how a pill would stop ejaculation, since I think that is a muscular response (or perhaps nerves? Shows how much I know about the male process). Even without ejaculation small amounts of sperm leak out in pre-cum and without a spermacide to counter that, I don’t know how you could claim safety.

At any rate, if it is true, and we can still orgasm I think it’s a great idea. Despite the use of condoms and/or birth control pills women still get pregnant. In relationships where this has happened in the past, the lack of trust with traditional methods, and the fear of another pregnancy can put a real strain on intimacy. Another level of protection could greatly ease this fear.

Ken, it's possible for men to orgasm without ejaculating. I think transmen orgasm like cismen, but can't ejaculate.

Honestly, if I were sure this pill was safe, I might start taking it just as a sexual aid. I've read that men who can orgasm without ejaculating can have multiple orgasms, which should make things more enjoyable.

prairielily writes:
Haha, Tom... when I have to give my name to people I have no desire to talk to and don't want following me around, I tell them my name is Katie.

What a coincidence--so do I! Works every time, too... ;o)

Cheers,

TH

I completely agree with Jen on this, I would never fully rely on a guy taking a pill, but I think it's a great idea for "additional" contraception, on top of condoms or female pill.

I have to say that it really annoys me that everyone's so obsessed with the hormonal effects that a pill might have on men, but the female methods have all sorts of potential nasty side-effects.

Absolutely. That part of the article made me cringe too. It's a-ok for us to be a battlefield for hormonal wars (anyway, that's what it feels like sometimes :-p), but NOBODY would want those poor guys to suffer nasty side effects and hormonal changes. Who cares about the nasty side effects the pill has on most women anyway? (even though I know it's better than it was 20 years ago)

Sex with less mess? If I hadn't already had my husband fixed, that would sound pretty darn good.

I read in an article yesterday that this pill actually inhibits the ejaculatory muscle from functioning, which is why a man can achieve orgasm without all the mess (which is nothing new in tantric sex, as someone mentioned above).

The article glosses over exactly how the pill works, maybe because the company researching the pill doesn't have a patent yet? It doesn't even list the company unfortunately. Even if this idea does pan out, it will probably take at least 5-10 more years.

Damn, folks who seem to think fluid-free sex would be a good thing mystify me, but it takes all kinds, I suppose. This pill should make public sex more convenient at least. Or jacking it on the bus.

AWESOME. i mean, whatever--i'm married, I'm done with kids, i'm getting a vasectomy soon anyway.... but: AWESOME.

Scientifically, BTW: only a very very small percentage of ejaculate is actually sperm. If one stopped the sperm, "production" would continue, and the orgasm would still feel the same.

I gotta say I think this is a great thing. It would be nice to be able to control fertility without a condom.

And for those worried about hormones: Men aren't so different from women. When the Pill came out (and now, still) it caused/causes hormonal problems. but women flocked to it, because it was effective, reasonably idiot-proof, and a lot more pleasant and convenient than a diaphragm, condom, or sponge. I would bet my hat that men will do the same thing. And if not, hell there's always the condom route.

OK, perhaps if the hormonal stuff is really pronounced, some folks might reject it as a long term solution. But if the choice for a short term sexual encounter is condom or pill, then I think most men would go for a pill. (Not that that's necessarily a good thing for STD reasons, but...)

To me, the most important facet of this is verifiability. The major objection I have heard to male contraception is that women do not trust men to be honest and reliable about taking it. If this pill can be taken for a single encounter, a woman can see a man take it, mostly solving that problem (it would help if the form of the pill itself were easily recognizable, like the iconic blue diamond for Viagra). The key question, then, is how long it takes to take effect. If the period is several hours, that's too much lead-time. If it is fifteen or twenty minutes, it could actually lead to better sex by providing a sort of mandatory outercourse period, taking some of the focus off of PIV intercourse.

Of course, it's not a perfect STI solution, but any improvement that helps decouple sex from unwanted pregnancy and disease is welcome.

No No it wasnt me. I am actually Katie. I think I left myself signed in on another comp at the library. Had to change my typekey account. In any case, this is awesome, but I am not sure I would trust a guy with contraception. Maybe I will have to learn to try. Its about time some responsibility is put in someone elses hands other then the womans. And Katie is a common name, unfortunately it happens to be my real one.

"This would make it much more acceptable to men than other 'male pills' under development, which alter hormone levels and have to be taken over the long term."

so like, the definition of womens birth control???

I freaking screamed in my office when i read this. Been on the pill for a while, and will be for a long time. you just deal with it like a grown up. Like paying your bills or doing laundry. Do guys even do those? (not in college)

men.

katie: i do NOT think a man should have a pay for a child if he did not want the woman to keep it.

Once this pill becomes available, that argument will no longer be valid. No man can claim he was "tricked" into getting someone pregnant or that he's not liable because he objects to whatever decision his pregnant partner might make. That may be my favorite thing about this pill's many possibilities: No more excuses!

I think this is great too and seeing as we'll *hopefully* all be here in another 5-10 years, not to mention the generation behind us it'll be a much needed aid for couples and family planning. I agree though that I wouldn't trust a guy to take the pill without me seeing him take it (and, sometimes people just forget). What I wonder is what this will do for the evangelical fundies who are against birth control. I know most of them would say it's "unnatural" for men to be blocked teh sperm but once you put the power into the hands of men who own Teh Penis what else can they really say?

good luck. Ejaculation is too closely linked to masculinity and adulthood in males for this to be successful. Still I'm personally looking forward to it, and it's a great deal better than those crappy implants that were mentioned a while back.
and if semen is gross, sex has to be dirty. I can't see how the two concepts can be divided. Seriously, how mature would you think a guy was if he said 'periods are gross', or more co mparably, "vagina's are gross".

good luck. Ejaculation is too closely linked to masculinity and adulthood in males for this to be successful. Still I'm personally looking forward to it, and it's a great deal better than those crappy implants that were mentioned a while back.
and if semen is gross, sex has to be dirty. I can't see how the two concepts can be divided. Seriously, how mature would you think a guy was if he said 'periods are gross', or more co mparably, "vagina's are gross". - soullite

Bingo. The vast majority of guys orgasm when they ejaculate, so when they hear "prevents ejaculation" what they'll come away with is "prevents orgasm". That's already strike one against this thing, secondly (as soullite said) masculinity is tied ratherly closely ejaculation. Shooting blanks wouldn't appeal to these folks either.

Lately we've been hearing that so-and-so male contraceptive does this and that, as has been the case for YEARS. Is it just me or are these things seemingly in a state of permanent delay?

I think that the whole thing is a marvelous idea. As far as the hormone issue goes with the male birth control pill, I don't think we ought to complain too much, seeing as the same problems exist for the female pill. I personally cannot take birth control pills because of that very issue. When things aren't functioning quite right in the body, the first place it shows up is in the singing voice. And I happen to be a singer. So, really, hormones ought not to be the thing that stops men from taking the pill.

The one major problem that I forsee occuring is that some men will simply refuse to go to the trouble of taking the pill because they see it as the woman's responsibility. Kind of like housework and homemaking. There will obviously be less motivation for men to take it because, ultimately, they're not the ones stuck with the consequences. Or, at least, that's my guess. I may certainly be proven wrong, and I hope I am.

You know, Susan, I agree with you, but I also think that kind of whining is bullshit now. You didn't want to support a child? Did you use a condom? No? Why? She told you that she was taking care of the birth control? Well, too bad for you, then. End of story.

Condoms can fail, sure. And I don't buy the argument even if it was a case of condom failure (women have the right to abortion because they have the right to bodily integrity; there's no such thing as the right to wallet integrity), but if it's coming from someone who didn't bother to use a condom because he didn't think it would be his problem...no sympathy from me whatsoever.

I wonder what the general reaction to something like this would be.

I can imagine some guys thinking the way soullite posits, that it's less manly. I can see others being freaked out by the idea. Personally, I'm skeptical about its effectiveness, especially if not taken regularly; how is one to know when it's taken effect or worn off? When it does work, how likely is it for anything to "get through" even without ejaculation? (i.e., is this just the pharmaceutical equivalent of withdrawal?)

On the other hand, there are a few advantages: it's really hard to lie about this, because the evidence of its use is so obvious. (The proof, pardon the pun, is in the pudding.) We'll also get interesting debates about whether it's "bratwurst" or "funk-filled" that's the bigger problem with regard to fellatio.

You know, Susan, I agree with you, but I also think that kind of whining is bullshit now.

Yeah, me too. It's a fallacy to assume that there has to be a single specific point of choice, regardless of whether the argument is "She could abort, so I don't owe her money," or "she could abstain, so she shouldn't have to abort."

Of course there are good arguments for not paying child support that have nothing to do with choice, but the one you're rebutting irks me too much, probably because of the MRA/anti-choice connection.

EEEEE!

When will this be available, does anyone know? This sounds awesome.

Thank you for the find!

This sounds like a great invention to me. Men don't have as many safe sex/birth control options as women. We have condoms, diaphragm, pill, the little rod thingy that goes in your arm and others while men only really have the choice of condoms or getting a vasectomy (that i know of).

Its awesome that men will have another means available to protect themselves.

(And their partner of course, but ultimately we are responsible for our OWN protection, not anybody else.)

About the "trust" issue -- I'm a little weirded out by all these statements to the effect of "I wouldn't trust a man to take the pill." I mean, there would ideally be multiple means of contraception in use at once, and it ought to be really obvious to both parties whether or not contraception is being used. But I, personally, would never had sex with someone whom I believed capable of misleading me about whether or not they had used contraception. Maybe others would, and that's totally fine, but I wonder if those same people would feel equally comfortable with saying that they wouldn't trust women when they say they're on the pill either.

Oh, and on a somewhat TMI note, I'd like to chime in that I'm totally down with ejaculation. I do think that this (and male contraception of any kind) is a really good thing though, and that there are probably more guys who would be into it regardless of how "un-manly" it seems than one might think.

I wouldn't trust a one-night stand, but I wouldn't be in a committed relationship with someone whom I couldn't trust not to lie to me, so I guess I fall somewhere in the middle, the_becca. It sounds like a great method for a long-term couple, though.

I think every man who refuses to use the pill as birth control on the grounds that it's unmanly not to ejaculate ought to be sterilized. It'll improve the gene pool's level of intelligence, for sure.

Honestly, like the_becca, I'm down with ejaculation, and I would miss it. My boyfriend commented that he would feel really weird, but that it would have been great if it had been available that time we went out of town and I forgot to bring my pills.

It's not necessarily that it's unmanly not to ejaculate. It's just what men are used to doing, and if it's gone, it might just be disconcerting at first. There's a difference between refusal and discomfort with a hypothetical; I think that in practice, men would get used to it, and younger men wouldn't know a time when it wasn't available, so they wouldn't have any issues.

Also, it's not that I don't 'trust' my boyfriend to take the pill. I know he would have every intention of doing it, but the guy is really, really forgetful. That's not exactly a huge flaw, and it has nothing to do with how caring and thoughtful he is otherwise, does it?

The thing is, there's nothing endearing about me nagging at him about it constantly, and getting annoyed when he forgets to do something I already KNEW he would forget. He could either spend that time feeling horrible about himself, or he could be making me smoothies with my favourite fruits so I can wash down my pill. (He'll forget to take his pill, but he never forgets what makes me smile.)

If men have a headache or aren't in the mood, they can fake it now.

We'd trust men not to lie about having taken it?
Does it make the penis turn glow-in-the-dark blue or something?

Seems to me something like this has GOT to reduce the risk of transmitting HIV. -The Law Fairy

Not at all.

This thing is strictly about avoiding pregnancy. If you want to be safe from STDs of any kind, you'd better be using condoms anyway. Or be monogamous AND trust that your partner is as well.

So, what's the HIV risk of unprotected straight sex?

Wikipedia cites a study from the European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV that estimates about 1 in 1000 HIV transmissions are caused by hetero unprotected sex.

It seems that the likelihood of contracting HIV from condomless straight sex isn't very high in the first place. It's still damned risky, though, considering the lack of a cure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiv#_note-MMWR

RobW, that's not entirely accurate. An HIV- woman who has unprotected sex with an HIV+ man has a 1 in 1,000 probability of getting infected (when it's the other way around, it's 1 in 2,000). But the majority of HIV transmissions are caused by unprotected hetero sex, because it's much more common than unprotected gay sex and blood transfusions.

apparently you STILL EJACULATE.

Just FYI: I think a lot of people are missing that, and are focusing on the "men won't reduce their sexual experience!" angle. The article suggests ejaculation continues (just sterile ejaculation) and notes that sexual satisfaction was the same. I think worries about men 'not liking sex' on this pill may be side tracks.

"but I wonder if those same people would feel equally comfortable with saying that they wouldn't trust women when they say they're on the pill either.

Posted by: the_becca"

heh. no need to wonder. this gets brought up all the time, esp. in the child support arguments. E.g.: if your partner deceives you re birth control, what then? It will be interesting to see if people's attitudes (on both sides) change if the world alows for BOTH sexes to claim they are sterile without obvious proof.

It prevents ejaculation. One article called it "dry ejaculation." Men having more responsibility and choices is awesome.

I wonder if the men objecting to the lack of ejaculation have considered that they might get a heck of a lot more oral sex if the woman giving it doesn't have to deal with the usual end-product? I know it's not something that every woman minds, but certainly some do.