to think a male pill would be one of the best things that could happen to society?

I just dont think supporting a child should be such an opt out. I have a friend who struggles with her kids and her useless ex tells her he cant afford to send money and is then out drinking all weekend, how the fuck is that even allowed. He had a whole chunk of time working cash in hand but claimed not to work and again, how is that able to happen. It just infuriates me that I read so many stories of men getting to chose to pay nothing, do nothing and the women have no choice but to figure making up the money they are not getting because for them, they cant just opt out. My friend is now in debt trying to cover the loses and he is still out every weekend and sees his kids a couple times a year and even when he is in the area uses that as a party weekend to visit friends and make excuses why he has no money. It just needs to change, the system is a mess.

If these men KNEW they would have no opt out and they would have to pay a minimum amount for 18 years, they might actually try and prevent unwanted pregnancy a little more but as it stands, they just get to walk away so of course there is no incentive to actually worry about it.

@holidayhelpneeded1 I don't disagree, but no government is going to take CMS payments out of benefits in this way.
Im addition, if the resident parent was genuinely in a position in which they couldn't afford the basics because they were unable to work themselves or pay was too low, they would be in receipt of government support.
Both parents should be working to provide for their children, absolutely.

I agree it would be a good thing for this reason.

Also some women cannot take the pill or it messes with their hormones so this is a good alternative/addition.

The type of men who don’t care about producing kids and then not providing for them, are not going to be the ones taking the pill anyway.

Men can have sex and conceive a child with multiple women in just 1 day but have absolutely no consequences of doing so.
They are free to simply walk away.

They may have to pay cms but I know of a man who has 9 children with 9 different women. The cms he pays is next to nothing because he has so many other kids.
(in this situation I do blame the women too).

Condoms have been around for years and there are men who still refuse to use them because they don’t need to worry too much about the consequences.

Until there are actual consequences for men, then no amount of contraception is going to make them more responsible.

It would help men in long term monogamous relationships to stop a baby being conceived without him being completely on board. Women have that right now. Yet it doesn't feel quite right, perhaps because of trust.

We could never trust a man to take the pill, either to agree in the first place or simply to make the effort to take it properly if they did agree.

They don’t suffer the consequences so it isn’t a priority for them.

Most men can’t even be trusted to remember bin day.

You dont have to force them to work but the bill is non negotiable, in the same way you cant just stop paying rent or mortgage if you lose a job. The amount doesnt get to reduce to a ridiculous sum and would be a priority bill that came out of benefits. If they are left with nothing for themselves it might force them to work to live.

Child payments seem to be almost able to opt out of and that needs to change. If they quit work to avoid the bill, the bill goes up and cannot be wriggled out of. Because the resident parent doesnt get to say oh I cant afford food and clothes so they just go without, they have to figure it and find a way, in the same way, the other parent should HAVE to.

Well yeah… that’s why having a male pill as an option is a good idea

Only if an unwanted pregnancy might cause some level of inner conflict though.

So more like ‘do I want to risk getting pregnant when I don’t want a child but wouldn’t be comfortable with getting rid of it’ iyswim.

But men don’t carry the baby so why would it change anything? They get someone pregnant, they walk away.

Ideally both parties should be responsible for contraception but it’s more on the woman as she’s the one who has to deal with the consequences of getting pregnant.

To be fair I've seen women say men should either have a vasectomy or just never have sex if they don't want kids.

No. But we have to realise there is a risk we could. The question isnt "do I want have sex"? The question is "do I want to risk getting pregnant"?

So you just believe no woman should ever have sex unless they want to get pregnant? Your sex life must be miserable

Or a woman could think."I don't want to risk getting pregnant by this man, so I won't have sex with him"

Well how many women have their head in the sand and breed with useless men then useless fathers then rinse and repeat

And shock horror there are useless mums

If they can make a male contraceptive implant for dogs they can do it for humans,
I wouldn't trust any man if I was single but it would be a good idea for couples or men wanting to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy
My dogs implant wears off after 6 months which I feel is too short a time

@holidayhelpneeded1 And exactly how can you force anyone to work?

I think what would make men more responsible when it comes to unwanted pregnancy is to actually make them unable to walk away and have to actually pay 50% of costs for a child, regardless of income. So many dodge paying because CMS is a joke, you can get out of it by being unemployed, self employed and misdeclaring earnings or earning too little whereas the resident parent has to find the money regardless of how much they earn. If this system was changed and both parents were liable for actual 50% costs of raising a child, im sure lots of these men would suddenly become a lot more careful and their excuses for not using condoms would suddenly disappear. So its not contraception changes that are needed, its making men actually responsible if a child is born.

Supporting a child should not be optional and only if you are deemed to have enough yourself. Ive seen too many women suffer the consequences and genuinely struggle financially having to make up the shortfall for useless men who get to shrug their shoulders and say they cant afford it whilst going down the pub or spending frivolously.

@Dribblo But for things like social housing? Doesn't having children change priority on that for example?

I’ve got a kid and they cost a fortune. It’s not a road to riches.

There was a male injection in the works in 2016 I recall but it was scrapped due to too many side effects which were the same side effects women had to endure being on contraceptives.

I would welcome a male pill as another option, simultaneously it doesn’t change the fact that women would still bear the brunt anyway if it failed so it would have to be both parties using contraceptives vs just one.

I do wonder if a pregnancy occurs anyway with both on contraceptives , how would that be looked into and could it become a legal issue if a parter was lying or taking contraceptives wrong.

Downside? Surely you jest! I wouldn’t trust Any man with that responsibility!!

@Dribblo For money maybe?

I’d say shit parents in general are a problem for society. There are some people who clearly shouldn’t have had kids and it’s mystifying why they bothered in the first place.