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

[Childrenofthestones]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4198256/New-male-contraceptive-100-success-rate.html
"New male contraceptive jab that works for TWO YEARS: One-off 'reversible vasectomy' injection had 100% success rate with no side effects"

Good news?

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

Ovaries was the first post about a new technique but rather than comment on that she chose to add a glib comment about what might have been said in the past.

I know it was a Daily Mail article and Daily Mail comments and ,despite so many DM links so many MNetters never read the DM, but none of the comments I saw made that point. The vast majority thought it was a good idea- not necessarily from honourable reasons in most cases - from the prospect of being free of being "trapped" by contraceptive failures.

Personally if I really wanted to avoid getting pregnant I'd stick to the pill or condoms where I can control/ see the evidence. Might be different in a very committed relationship but in anything else, no I would not rely on this.

Lass... please read my subsequent post which adequately explains why I chose to comment on her post. or at least link your comments to it in a more rational fashion.

Slarti... my apologies, let me be explicit, the comments Ovaries repeated are shit and wrong.

Tbh I have doubt.
I think that decent men will be happy to use it. They will be the ones who will support a woman who has got pg accidentally etc...
The ones who just don't care, never see their child or pays maintenance, I suspect will still not see that as their responsibility.

As a woman, unless in a stable LTR, i wouldnt trust a man to take that injection. The risk for me to get pg (as in associated pg risks, raising a child on my own and the likes) is too big to leave that responsibility to someone else.
Fo course, it doesn't stop men to still have the injection to protect themselves from these awful women who get pg on purpose. Just as they could easily use a condom.

I used Ovaries as an exemplar because you did

The abive post? What is that supposed to add?

Ovaries post was sexist and wrong although seems to have taken you several posts to get to that conclusion.

Slarti... my apologies, let me be explicit, the comments Ovaries repeated are shit and wrong.

Ovaries: 'One injection every two years is a vile invasion of their human rights.'

Spongebob: 'Cue an apprise of men with a fear of needles.'

That isn't repeating sexist remarks by men, it's making sexist remarks about them. You're performing back flips to avoid acknowledging that.

Slarti It took Ovaries a whole 3 minutes from the opening post to post-

And the chances of anyone taking it up are incredibly slim. Contraception is the girl's responsibility. One injection every two years is a vile invasion of their human rights

Etc etc meninism etc

This apparently purporting to be what men's responses will be based on something men might or might not have said in the past. Had she bothered to read the comments on the article that is not what the responses were.

Sounds great in theory. But (if I was still of an age to be worried about becoming pregnant) I don't think I would trust any man that he had had it.

I think in a long term committed relationship it could be a useful alternative option.

I don't think it matters whether you'd trust a man - though presumably if you drove your own DH to the clinic and waited for him, you might. It matters that men have LARC that they can, and should, apply to themselves if they don't want to be fathers. Women can keep taking their own precautions too if they choose.

Ooh I thought my ears were burning

I don't think it matters whether you'd trust a man - though presumably if you drove your own DH to the clinic and waited for him, you might. It matters that men have LARC that they can, and should, apply to themselves if they don't want to be fathers. Women can keep taking their own precautions too if they choose

That makes sense. I really can't imagine any single woman trusting this but whilst it always takes 2 to tango it removes any possibility of claims of entrapment. Of course outside of committed relationships condoms should be used anyway.

I don't think it matters whether you'd trust a man - though presumably if you drove your own DH to the clinic and waited for him, you might. It matters that men have LARC that they can, and should, apply to themselves if they don't want to be fathers. Women can keep taking their own precautions too if they choose

I think that's a really good point. Personally, I see my contraceptive choices as entirely my own responsibility- part of having control over my own body and future in the same way as having or not having an abortion. It makes sense for men individually and independently of their partners to have the same level of choice and control.

Here is an article on a previous study (I'm not sure if it is the same jab).

www.newscientist.com/article/2110729-male-contraceptive-injection-works-but-side-effects-halt-trial/

The side-effects that the men mentioned seem quite similar to those of the female pill, although any related to blood-clots were not mentioned. But many men found these unacceptable. Having had experiences of men whining about condoms because they 'don't feel as good' I can well imagine this.

Doobigetta-

"It makes sense for men individually and independently of their partners to have the same level of choice and control."
Spot on.

Equality in action, what's not to like. ;-)

Seriously-some people wouldn't trust 'any' man who said that he had had this?

Wow. I must be a real weirdo to be prepared to trust my husband if he told me he'd had this done...

The article doesn't demonstrate that it was closed down due to whiny men though Spartacus - it was closed down due to caution on the part of the researchers after one of the participants attempted suicide. Three quarters of the participants said they'd happily continue to use the contraceptive if they were allowed to which is pretty high I'd say.

Now I don't know whether they'd have stopped a test of a new contraception on women who showed the same level of side effects? Maybe not, because I think medics do allow the risks of the pregnancy you're avoiding to balance out a greater level of contraceptive risk in women - and there's a whole level of feminist analysis to unpick there which I'm not currently up to.

Personally, I see my contraceptive choices as entirely my own responsibility- part of having control over my own body and future in the same way as having or not having an abortion. It makes sense for men individually and independently of their partners to have the same level of choice and control

I agree.

The technique in the New Scientist article is not the one the OP is about.

It's the one with 5% of men still producing sperm at only levels associated with infertility at one-year follow up (don't know if they did further follow-ups)

Yes the New Scientist one is an actual hormonal injection to prevent sperm production. The one in the OP is more physical I think.

At the gut level, I just don't trust this.

Women naturally have fertile and non-fertile times--hormonal contraception workings by taking advantage of this cycle and tricking your body into thinking it's in a non-fertile phase all the time. And we only produce one, perhaps two eggs a month.

Men produce millions of sperm in every ejaculation and they produce them all the time, so I feel that the process of getting this to stop completely is likely to be more invasive and less effective/reliable.

I think this could be useful for guys who are in non-permanent relationships and are already using contraceptives worried about contraceptive failure. But I think that will be its main role.

If this is a physical blockage in the tubes, that's more intuitive than a hormonal solution, I think, mary

But still clinical trials to come.

No, I didn't think it was the same - hence my qualifier in my original post. But the point still carries - i.e. that what is acceptable for men vis a vis side-effects differs from what is acceptable for women in both the eyes of researchers (or, more to the point Big Pharma who expect to make money from this) and of men. In other words, I have some sympathy for Ovaries earlier post, having negotiated whingy men in my life who complain that condoms spoil it or make them itch etc. (poor dears).

The effects of 'the pill' (noting that there are different pills) on women's mental health have long been speculated. Here is a link to a study that provides some evidence that the pill causes depression in some women.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/03/pill-linked-depression-doctors-hormonal-contraceptives

I'd be concerned that this would give men even more of an entitlement to sex and women's bodies.

Also seems to be downplaying the risks of sti's, with the prevelance of pronography showing no condoms as the norm and a generation removed from the adverts of the 80s that showed AIDS as a death sentence, will they believe condoms are obsolete?

It could certainly be used as an argument to overcome reluctance-"it'll be fine- I've had the shot".

I'm reassessing my earlier agreement with this. It makes sense for men individually and independently of their partners to have the same level of choice and control and coming back to what I've always thought that I have always thought of contraception being my responsibility.

I agree re condoms.

I don't like using condoms. It's not just whiny men it's whiny women too. Condoms don't feel as nice as barrier-less sex IME.

I am a bit surprised how many people here wouldn't trust their DH to have this done / feel they need to take their own precautions. My pregnancies have been to produce children we both want, contraception is to prevent children neither of us want. I totally trust my DH and we would make a decision on contraception based purely on which methods has least side effects, which considering my reaction to hormones puts him in the frame.

This could be an excellent choice for couples who would otherwise make the decision with a heavy heart for the man to have a vasectomy. I don't really want DH to have one, it feels so final. But we need long acting contraception and he thinks it's the best solution.