Posted by: fireweaver | January 2, 2008

baby-making drama

there’s an article over in last week’s UK daily mail, based on work done at our company (whee, we’re international!), announcing impending clinical trials for a male non-hormonal daily oral contraceptive.  the whole thing sounds really great: so far, it’s very effective, it’s safe, AND it avoids the major pitfalls of hormone dosing in men – typically, hormonal suppression of sperm production also dramatically suppresses the libido as well.

go read the comments, though, and start rolling your eyes.  on the chick-side of crazy, we have people saying they wouldn’t trust their guys to take a pill, i.e., if he said he was on the pill, he might be lying.  on the boy-side of crazy, we have the psycho ranting about how now “predatory women” won’t be able to mooch off of baby-daddies.  but, c’mon, really are these any different than any other method of birth control and the trust we have to place in our sex partners?  can’t a guy lie to you about everything from “oh, i’ll pull out” to “of course the condom didn’t break”?  if some guy is worried about “sperm bandits” (oh, yes, he did go there.  LOL), doesn’t he have a responsibility to his wallet to avoid doing any impregnating?

so far, in the whole big long list of contraceptive methodology, we have ONE that simultaneously prevents STD passage – condoms – and everything else is there solely for baby-blockin’.  this wouldn’t be changing that reality, just adding another line of defense against unexpected kids.  which i think is the point those commenters were missing: for your casual sex needs, ya’ll still gotta be wrapping that thing up.



  1. I think you’d enjoy reading

  2. I followed your link here from figleaf’s blog.

    I’m going to be discussing male contraception with my students next week, so I’d love to know more about the concept behind this new contraceptive. If it’s not mucking around with androgen levels, what’s its mechanism? I know it’s possible to hinder sperm production by tinkering with FSH, LH, or GnRH, but I assume that approach, too, would be considered a hormonal one.

    I should add that I’m not a biologist or physician, just a more-scientifically-literate-than-average historian of medicine (and teacher of women’s studies). I can make reasonable sense of most medical abstracts but endocrinology is not my forte.

    If you’re willing to point me to more info on this, I’d be grateful. My email is And in any event, thanks for pointing this out!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: