So if the guy doesn't want the girl to get pregnant, or wants to avoid STIs - he should use the appropriate protection.
If the girl doesn't want to get pregnant, or wants to avoid STIs - she should use the appropriate protection.
(Both people want to avoid pregnancy/disease? Then both should use protection!)
That way you don't need to worry about what the other person is doing - you manage your own expectations.
If you're in a stable long-term relationship and have talked about it, then sure, you can rely on one person, but otherwise each person should, imho, manage their own contraceptives.
All the other types prevent pregnancy only. Condoms prevent disease as well.
Most of the men and women in his (initial) target audience are illiterate and do not understand / care for methods of contraception that require any kind of anticipatory action - like taking regular pills, putting drunken desire on hold to find a condom, or even paying for either of these. (On $2 a day, all existing contraceptives are luxuries).
That said, I think is a perfect fit for his target demographic. Looks like the characteristics of that demographic are a lot more universal than he thought :D
For historical reasons IUDs are uncommon in the US. This is unfortunate. They aren't perfect, but they are relatively cheap, extremely reliable, and remarkably safe. Depending on the type, they also have few or no side effects. Worth considering...
[1]: This one arguably isn't a health benefit, but in many ways it's huge. With a few exceptions, humans are sexual beings, and frequency of sexual encounters correlates highly to a range of positive health outcomes, happiness, avoidance of depression, and strong long-lasting relationships.
[2]: This one confuses people, because it also prevents cancer. Best evidence is that it has a fairly strong protective effect on ovarian cancer, but causes breast and cervical cancer. The net effect on total cancer rates is still unknown; it's certainly not a clear cut benefit though, and it may be a clear net negative. (As always, these sort of epidemiology numbers are a real headache to parse. Comparing a big effect on a rare event to a small effect on a common event is very tricky. Still, anything that boosts breast cancer rates is kind of scary.)
[3]: This one is clearcut. Hormone based birth control causes a range of heart issues, from heart attacks via clots, to cardiovascular diease. We're still trying to figure out how big this factor is, but it's already clear that if you have any risk factors (ie, you're overweight, or have a family history of heart disease) you should NOT be on combined oral contraceptives, and any hormone based birth control is very iffy.
No silver bullet.
In general, when the IUD is installed correctly, the body does not perceive it as a foreign object or try to reject it or move about and puncture holes or increase the levels of copper in the blood or [insert another myth that seems to make intuitive sense but has no scientific or observed basis].
(There is one myth that has near truth to it. The common misconception that you have to have been pregnant to get it. This is not true either - the uterus just has to be big enough to house the IUD comfortably and and it's virtually guaranteed that a post-pregnancy uterus is. However for most pre-pregnancy women this not a problem either, and a size check is the first step during the installation process).
The benefits on the other hand are real, and huge. Reduced risk of hormone-associated cancers, noticeably increased sex-drive, better hair, nails, and skin, not having to take a pill every day, less money, statistically better protection from pregnancy, the list goes on.
My partner and I use Implanon, which has no associated cancer or heart risk. See my post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3774010
It's not perfect, but the side-effects are small and it's the most effective form of birth control besides true abstinence (as opposed to "virginity pledges," et al). Works for three years, nothing to remember, no risk of uterine perforation like IUDs, and none of the nasty estrogen side-effects.
Most issues with hormones is that they do all sort of stuff on yourbody. not only one controlled thing
Side effects of Oestrogen-containing contraceptives that don't seem to be caused by Progestin-only contraceptives include:
Increased risk of cancer
Increased risk of heart disease
Bone density reduction
Blood clots / Stroke
Increased sensitivity to UV (and associated skin cancers)
Reduced breast-milk production. This isn't very detrimental to one's own health, but does effect the health of the child.
The only down-side of Progestin-only pills versus Oestrogen-containing pills is that it is extra important that it be taken at the same time every day for full efficacy. Obviously the implant doesn't suffer from this drawback.
also, i have a paranoia that no hormone/protein/enzyme does less then a few things in your body. if they list only one or two effects, it's because they have no clue what else they do.
prolactin was believed to only affect the milk production in mamals for a long time (and water-salt control in fishes). now there's some other dozen effects on the body including neuron fiber formation.
Cancer and heart problems are side-effects of estrogen or combination (estrogen + progestin) hormonal contraceptives. Progestin-only contraceptives (which include Implanon, Jadelle, and Mirena) have never been shown to cause cancer or heart problems.
As always, don't look for medical advice from HN.
(dfc was obviously referring to contraceptive treatments for debilitating menstrual pain and irregularity)
A woman's body is likely to find and destroy the defective cells before it's too late, but when you're taking hormones to overpower your body, you also have the risk of feeding the cancerous cells.
The impact on sex drive is fairly well known, I think. Google turns up a bunch of references[1][2]. The impact on weight is apparently cloudy; birth control pills almost universally list that as a side effect on the packaging, but studies have failed to turn up a reliable link. (Silly me; never trust drug company materials, even if they seem to be casting the drug in a negative light.)
I understand there's some evidence that birth control may cause depression, but I don't know that there's a definitive answer. (Google mostly just turns up anecdotes from people convinced that their depression is caused by their birth control; not really helpful.)
The argument over which way the cancer risk goes on balance is all over the net; there's a decent roundup on Wikipedia[3]. If you dig into it a bit, it's still pretty unclear, mostly because there haven't been a lot of studies.
The heart stuff is, compared to cancer, much more solid. Again, the internet is full of stuff about this. I don't know of any comprehensive roundups, but google will turn up a TON of stuff.
[1]: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11...
[2]: http://www.epigee.org/guide/pill_sex.html
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormonal_contraception#Effects_...
It must be noted that the anecdotal 'warnings' IE weight gain, depression, etc. may be a result of the well known drop in sex drive. Because, you know, sex has this mystical property that releases pleasure chemicals that reduce depression. Depression having the obvious side effect of weight gain. Also the impact on the hormone cycle anecdotally causes cravings.
The pill itself might not have side effects of weight gain, but I'd bet it's side effects do.
The pill is an incredible win for women's health. Unfortunately, not all women can use it effectively, safely, or comfortably.
The book references tons of studies.
"Sex is a beautiful thing shared between two people and a latex condom from a reliable brand"...
Aren't they all required by law to be reliable?
I just know that I'm going to trust an established brand that's sold by the box in the drug store over a no-name brand sold singly from a vending machine in the bathroom of a bowling alley.
Granted, this procedure is only helpful for the community if it actually is shown to reduce the risk of HIV transmission, and it's not a cure, but anything that helps reduce the risk is a good thing.
[1] I mean 18 to 21 year olds.
It's because he or she offers no references or even any explanation of where this bold (if not just flat out wrong) claim comes from. Your supporting evidence, commonly derided as anecdata, is not much better.
Female birth control puts the power of reproduction back in the hands of the woman, which is a comfort for most women. Relying on your partner to be the one safeguarding your body is a tough choice, but is a wonderful choice for, as you said, couples.
You could divorce (or be widowed) and remarry. You could tragically lose your existing children. You could simply change your mind - it does happen.
Should this happen to you, a shot into the vas to reverse things would be far, far easier on you and more likely to succeed than a vasovasostomy or a vasoepididymostomy.
I think this is more a secondary defense. For me personally it wouldn't replace condoms (1, I have never had issues with them, and 2, STD's can still be transmitted) unless in a committed relationship, but also to make sure that if something goes wrong with the female birth control, that there is a second stop-gap measure.
I as a 23 year old love the idea. If it is affordable and easy to get done I wouldn't have an issue going to get it done. And from the sound of it, it will not cause pressure to build up much like getting them cut would...
There are liars the world over. I don't think that is necessarily a trait that is just for men. I've know quite a few guys in high school that had unprotected sex because their girlfriend was on the pill end up with a baby because that is the way she thought she could keep him forever.
A friend's x-girlfriend got pregnant because she poked a hole in the condom without him knowing. If you are male and don't want to have kids, make sure you use your own condoms. Woman has many more options to avoid pregnancy, man has one shot with the condom (AFAIK vasectomy can be permanent).
I think this type of birth control has the potential of lowering paternity fraud since man will know the child is not his. It also reduces unwanted pregnancy when woman poke hole in condom or other condom issues.
This birth control for man is great news and I hope to see more male birth control options in the future.
Secondly, I see orgasm as a highly pressurised, highly tuned, intense thing. It feels like I'm straining every part of my balls to the limit when I'm doing this - if I had medical procedures down there, anything that could psychologically make me feel they were frail, that would utterly ruin it.
And I don't think it does anything to make you feel like your balls are "frail". So far the only side-effects I've read about are a possibility of swelling for 1 week after the operation. Then, you're back to your old non-frail-balls self!
Doesn't mean you can't market it to couples too, of course.
Most of the time, men trust women when they say they're on birth control. Women get pregnant--a big deal. It's less likely (but not unheard of) that a woman wants to get pregnant and then lies about birth control.
Men, on the other hand, would love to not use a condom. And men don't get pregnant. So saying "yeah baby, I've had my shots" would probably be a lot more common.
You'd need to market this to couples. Relationships with trust--not teenagers. Or, as an "and-1", extra step prevention. Not as a first line of defense. Then, the low cost would be more of an extra procedure that would get them thinking more about being safer. You wouldn't hang your business model on it but could actually do more business by offering it.
Lastly, being a man, the idea of someone putting forceps in my scrotum gives me the willies. Just sayin'.