New male contraceptive jab , 100% effective and lasts two years.

Yep that must be it.

Or some are looking to offend.

I cant predict what anyone will say but I can repeat what I have already heard them say. There is a difference.

Seems you are looking to be offended.

Xenophile

There's a few comments actually, and they are all predicting what men will say about this rather than what they've said about other things. It's antagonistic and divisive. I came here to say what a good development this is and felt like I'd been attacked before I'd even posted, as I'm sure you would if you clicked on a thread to see multiple negative messages of the type "cue the wimmin/feminazis saying..."

But it shouldnt be an issue for those on this board who hate all men and so are unlikely to have sex with someone they hate.

For posters who hate all men isnt it strange that there are many posts saying DH/DP.

So widely* so fast

I thought there were mutterings that long term use of the pill can be linked to PCOS so can affect fertility.

The trouble is the contraceptive pill in women was rolled out so quickly so fast I don't believe we even know now how severe the side effects can be.

There have been human trials of RISUG, in India (various, from 1997 to about 2005) but a number of these needed to be repeated to fit the international standards for the development of a new product.

It's promising.

The science pretty much stacks up, but as noted in posts above, reversibility can be an issue. I wonder if it's connected in any way to how some men, post-vasectomy reversal, simply do not produce normal sperm in normal quantities sperm again. It's possible that, once production or transit is interfered with, sperm production just turns off in some men.

If 5% of women who took the pill became permanently infertile (depending on how you interpret scae's stat) then I doubt it would be seen as the sort of choice it is now.

Presumably there's still a long way to go for this gel block idea, as they've only done non-human trials so far. I don't think they've done any follow up about regaining fertility after flushing out the gel yet either. It is an interesting idea if it pans out in the long run. My DP might be more likely to go for this over a vasectomy, depending on how long it lasts.

This is brilliant. We were saying only the other night how our ideal contraceptive method would be something that made DH temporarily infertile, for say 5 years. At the end of that time we'd really know if we've completed our family or not and he could consider vasectomy.

Neither of us want me on hormonal contraceptive, I suffer pretty bad side effects. And we hate using condoms. I wish this was available now!

All.men of course being exactly the same...

I would be impressed if the science stacks up. But it shouldnt be an issue for those on this board who hate all men and so are unlikely to have sex with someone they hate.

Slarti... if you're referring to Ovaries' comments, she is merely repeating things that men have said about contraception on this board and elsewhere. So yes, I'd agree they're sexist, but not that ovaries is being sexist. So, not criticising men for what they might say, but for what they already have said.

Yes, the acceptability of side effects are scaled differently for men and for women, because for women it's taken in consideration with the risks to her of pregnancy.

However, the level of side effects reported (including inability to resume normal sperm production) are not trivial, and are commoner than in the female users of hormonal contraception.

Personally I'd have no problem with this. Quite a few sexist comments already made though, even the first reply! I guess some people are just really keen to criticise men for what they think we'll do before we even do it.

The dose is what is required, for as long as required - so 75% of the time for a combined pill, and for a phasic pill it's the highest dose op for only a few days. For a male pill it would be needed 100% of the time, and at the highest (well, only effective) dose all the time. The level of hormone required has side effects significantly higher than those of female contraception (to get 96% effectiveness in reducing (not stopping) sperm production to a level consistent with infertility: for a trialled injectable, the side effect rate was around 50%, the trial had a high drop out rate, and there were questions about reversibility, as about 5% had not recovered normal sperm production after a year)

But, there is still work going on about the precise action of spermatogenesis, the roles of all the hormones and associated structures (sertoli cells) which may disrupt maturation, or produce a biological version of a 'block' preventing normal release. Some initiatives produce promising lines for further study, but I don't think any are close to an actual method.

Very promising.

I think it would be useful in a long term relationship mostly, where you could go with your partner and know he's had it. I wouldn't trust a new man I was dating to tell the truth!

There is no make contraception because when they started the latest trial for the male pill, they had to stop the trial as the side effects were too serious. Except that said side effects are actually the same than the ones of the pill millions of women take everyday. And are told to just cope with it as there is no other alternative.

This is great. My husband would definitely go for this. I was on the pill for years so he'd be more than happy to take his turn!

Excellent news! Does it stop them burping and farting too?

I think this is great, however as the one that gets pregnant I would have to have a lot of trust in my partner. I don't want another baby so I am going to make damn sure I can't get pregnant.

How do you know that the level of hormone dose to prevent ovulation is less than that would be required to stop or change sperm production? Both interventions are administered continually.

There's no male equivalent because, hostile as many women find the pill, the level of hormonal dose required to disrupt once a month ovulation is nothing compared to what is needed to halt continuous production of sperm.

A reversible blockage to the transit if sperm is much more promising than suppressing production.

The question about this that I'm not clear about is the need to establish that the man has ceased the transit if viable sperm. It can take weeks if not months to get the all-clear after vasectomy, because the ampullae are upstream of the blocked vas and any lurking there have to be flushed out before it's safe. Would this method need the same testing?

I'm not sure I would trust somebody to be telling me the truth. I'd need a certificate!

'It is interesting, too, how HCPs are fine with condoms being used to prevent STI, but if you say you are using them as birth control, you get endless lectures about how ineffective they are and you need LARC, no matter what the side effects to you.'

Yes! Even if you have been using them without trouble for decades.
Silly little women, don't know their own minds...