Quickies

Skepchick Quickies, 9.27

Jen

Jen is a writer and web designer/developer in Columbus, Ohio. She spends too much time on Twitter at @antiheroine.

Related Articles

21 Comments

  1. I believe I heard about RISUG a few years ago, and was very encouraged by the idea… especially if it proves to be reversible. Non-reversible, it’s a cheaper, safer alternative to vasectomy, which is good enough to have. Reversible, and it’s fabulous, non-hormonal birth control… perfect for committed couples who don’t want to deal with the pill or condoms, but want to have babies “someday”. Not that I have anything to be concerned about right now…

    Downside risk that occurs to me, however: While it renders sperm infertile, does it also render them unusable for DNA testing?

  2. It would make me sooo tempted to sue for child support if I had been misled by a CPC. Don’t want abortions? Put your money where your mouth is and start funding free contraception and programs to help moms and kids. Even… *gasp!* state-sponsored daycare!

  3. The male birth control thing seems awesome in theory, but how many men are really going to take it? A lot of men already have issues doing things that are perceived as “woman stuff” — why would birth control be any different? I just get the feeling that there will be a LOT of men who will refuse to take it because they don’t think it’s their job.

    That, and I’m not sure I could use it as the only form of birth control in a relationship. Since I am the one that could get pregnant, I will take responsibility for my own birth control — I don’t know that I’d fully “trust” that a man would remember to take birth control daily (if it’s in pill form), because they can’t get pregnant. I put “trust” in quotes because it’s not like I think most men would not take it on purpose, but rather that since the stakes are lower for them (they can’t get pregnant), it won’t be as important to them as it is to me. Does that make sense?

    That said, male birth control would be awesome and a great way to add yet another layer of protection against pregnancy (but not the only layer, at least for me).

    1. Obviously I can’t speak for all men, but I know that I would sign up for this in a second if it were available, and proven to be reversible. I think there’s a bigger market out there than many people think. Heck, in the article itself a poll showed that 50% of American respondents said they’d be willing to try it (though looking back, I do notice that it didn’t specify whether the respondents were all-male or not).

      I totally understand worrying about men remembering to take a pill every day. That’s one of the great things about this specific contraceptive, assuming it works: one injection lasts for ten years or so. No remembering or trusting needed. Whether or not you would still trust the drug enough to use it as your only line of defense, though, would of course be a personal preference.

      1. Can you imagine the marketing, though? Oh, man. They’d have to “MAN IT UP”, for sure. This might actually bring on some hilarious commercials!

        I think maybe men in the larger, more progressive cities, and younger men in general, would be interested in male birth control, but I honestly don’t see the more conservative men or men from more rural areas being that interested.

        Yeah, I’m glad it’s (probably) going to be a shot, because I would never trust a man to remember to take a birth control pill every day — it’s hard enough for me to remember, and I can get pregnant if I forget!

        All personal choices, though, and completely dependent on the people involved.

  4. The name of the article was ‘There Is No Biological Reason to Eat Three Meals a Day — So Why Do We Do It?’ But the article went on to say how Americans are not eating three meals stating Americans’ days are not structured to eat three meals and how people snack more. I wonder why titling it this way at all? I suspect a made up controversy to get me to read it.

    1. I read that article constantly cringing and expecting some shaming, but it never actually got there. I was pleasantly surprised that it didn’t start suggesting that “traditional” schedules are better or that kids these days are just doing it all wrong, largely because of bad parenting. But I was disappointed that it didn’t present any information that I didn’t already know.

      1. I agree with the shaming. Seems like in an effort to sell news/motivate people shame has to be heaped on. I *think* the point of the article was to talk about how in general people’s diets and eating habits are changing and we don’t have (from the author’s investigation) ground to make a definitive choice on how best to feed ourselves. In my opinion, quoting the history professor from Yale with the claim, ‘There is no biological reason for eating three meals a day’ is off the mark. No biological evidence is offered to back this statement.

        1. I think the headline is strictly true because there seems to be no biological evidence that any particular eating schedule is best, so the same could be said for any other eating pattern. Do we have a null hypothesis here, as a first step in scientific research? Is it when people really eat today (which seems to be increasingly random) or the “traditional” 3 squares (is that really more than an artifact of the industrial revolution?) or hunter-gatherer style low-level grazing plus occasional “we just killed a mammoth!” binges, or neolithic farming with seasonal gluts and famines? Is breakfast really the most important meal of the day? Lots more questions than answers, and the headline seems deceptive.

          Time for lunch (3 PM)!

  5. “participants suffered depression, weight gain and increased aggression.”

    Poor men? I mean its not like women go through horrible side effects to prevent pregnancy (although the depression is worrying).

    Also the pill killed, let me repeat that, killed women during its testing and well afterwards. I know it was two different eras of medical research but it seems almost like not really making an effort at it.

    1. I was actually expecting people to be more “OMG THE SIDE-EFFECTS AREN’T WORTH IT!” when it came to male birth control, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised that that isn’t (always) the case!

      Also, women can experience depression, too, as a side-effect of birth control or just hormonal changes/PMS/being pregnant/having a child/etc.

    1. Yes, I realized that after my comment and also included it in an additional comment! So that’s awesome! I still wouldn’t fully trust it, but that’s because I am the one that can get pregnant and I like being able to have control over that, you know?

      That said, for women who can’t take birth control for whatever reason, this is awesome.

  6. That’s terrific news about the sea turtles. To address some of the comments on the article from the original link, the improvement probably can’t be solely attributed to overall population decline. The Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle population has been steadily increasing in recent years, after nearly becoming extinct.

    If anyone happens to visit South Padre Island, Sea Turtles, Inc. is a neat place to visit rehabilitating sea turtles. ^^ Very fond memories from childhood.

  7. I’d want to see proof on reversibility before I’d take it, because I DO want kids (although not now), so I wouldn’t take anything that would cause infertility, and this very well might.

    But would I take a single shot that would allow me to conclusively avoid knocking someone up? You fucking bet I would.

Leave a Reply

You May Also Enjoy

Close
Close