Hopefully not too ranty
I find that the immense concern over the effect of male birth control shots to be a bit sexist.
There are many different kinds of birth control pills, shots, patches, and rings for women that do what this shot claims to do for a man. And they have some potentially devastating side-effects. Blood clots, links to some form of cancers, heart attacks, and strokes are just some of the concerns that have plagued birth control users. Not to mention effectiveness of product, and potential sterilization.
Furthermore, I started my post with "If this treatment is what it says it is(no adverse effects)," meaning that this product would be desirable if those conditions were met. Obviously a product meant to cause "reversible sterilization" could be dangerous. Anytime you are dealing with a person's reproductive system, there is a danger involved, not only sterilization, but hormone regulation and production.
As for guys not going to the doctor for something like this...I really think you are not giving guys enough credit. If a guy is ready to have sex with a woman, then he should be ready to accept responsibility for his actions, simple as that. It is both partner's responsibility to protect themselves, be it from disease or unwanted pregnancy. Couples make the decision for the woman to be in charge of birth control all the time. Now mind you, this is generally a practice of couples in long-term/committed relationships. And its a decision we have the right to make. I will not deny the sensibility of condoms. They are a wonderful creation, the only known contraceptive to prevent the spread of HIV, a contraceptive of many different styles, sizes, and yes, even flavors. Condoms are a spectacular thing, but people have been having sex without them for a long time, and will continue to do so. That's really what this comes down to, people will have sex. People who should not have children for a whole spectrum of different reasons, will be having sex without condoms no matter what anyone else says/thinks/does.
Contraceptives in the form of shots, pills, patches, and rings are made to protect the woman from unwanted pregnancy. Not the man. These are products we take into our bodies knowing the risks and accepting them. We are not ready for children, be it for age, financial instability, the fact that it would be physically risky to bear children or any reason we deem necessary. The other benefits are great, too. What I touched on, but didn't say explicitly in my first post was that this shot would protect the man. Women lie about being on birth control, its a known fact. Woman trap guys in relationships, or to take their money in child support or any other crazy reason. This would give a guy the ability to protect himself. Everyone is always shouting about equality, right? Here's a good example.
The article I posted was about how this option would disappear completely if the money was not raised to properly test and develop it. I think its absolutely sexist to deem this contraceptive unnecessary because of what might happen. What makes a man's reproductive system more valuable than a woman's? Its not like this is an involuntary treatment. Given our society's relatively recent sexual revolution(s), it would be naive to think that this has no part in our future. But, I say again, why shouldn't men have a way to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy?
There are many different kinds of birth control pills, shots, patches, and rings for women that do what this shot claims to do for a man. And they have some potentially devastating side-effects. Blood clots, links to some form of cancers, heart attacks, and strokes are just some of the concerns that have plagued birth control users. Not to mention effectiveness of product, and potential sterilization.
Furthermore, I started my post with "If this treatment is what it says it is(no adverse effects)," meaning that this product would be desirable if those conditions were met. Obviously a product meant to cause "reversible sterilization" could be dangerous. Anytime you are dealing with a person's reproductive system, there is a danger involved, not only sterilization, but hormone regulation and production.
As for guys not going to the doctor for something like this...I really think you are not giving guys enough credit. If a guy is ready to have sex with a woman, then he should be ready to accept responsibility for his actions, simple as that. It is both partner's responsibility to protect themselves, be it from disease or unwanted pregnancy. Couples make the decision for the woman to be in charge of birth control all the time. Now mind you, this is generally a practice of couples in long-term/committed relationships. And its a decision we have the right to make. I will not deny the sensibility of condoms. They are a wonderful creation, the only known contraceptive to prevent the spread of HIV, a contraceptive of many different styles, sizes, and yes, even flavors. Condoms are a spectacular thing, but people have been having sex without them for a long time, and will continue to do so. That's really what this comes down to, people will have sex. People who should not have children for a whole spectrum of different reasons, will be having sex without condoms no matter what anyone else says/thinks/does.
Contraceptives in the form of shots, pills, patches, and rings are made to protect the woman from unwanted pregnancy. Not the man. These are products we take into our bodies knowing the risks and accepting them. We are not ready for children, be it for age, financial instability, the fact that it would be physically risky to bear children or any reason we deem necessary. The other benefits are great, too. What I touched on, but didn't say explicitly in my first post was that this shot would protect the man. Women lie about being on birth control, its a known fact. Woman trap guys in relationships, or to take their money in child support or any other crazy reason. This would give a guy the ability to protect himself. Everyone is always shouting about equality, right? Here's a good example.
The article I posted was about how this option would disappear completely if the money was not raised to properly test and develop it. I think its absolutely sexist to deem this contraceptive unnecessary because of what might happen. What makes a man's reproductive system more valuable than a woman's? Its not like this is an involuntary treatment. Given our society's relatively recent sexual revolution(s), it would be naive to think that this has no part in our future. But, I say again, why shouldn't men have a way to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy?