Birth control for men - two shots to the nuts

Because it's so much fun to get your scrotum stabbed that you'd prefer to have it done every year? Maybe as a birthday gift to yourself or something?

Forgive my lack of medical experience, but what kind of "tiny" injection takes fifteen minutes? (I'm not bothered by injections so much as the worry of... eheh, fragments breaking off the needle or something. What if you sneeze?)

Anyway assuming I either misunderstood or that's an engineering issue that will probably be improved before it hits the market, I would definitely go for this... if I had any need of it, which I don't. Convenient.

edited 6th Jun '11 3:09:15 AM by Jinren

I'd personally prefer tablets, but if you have to, I could certainly see myself going.

It sounds like a good idea to me, but given, as Signed alluded to, the psychological element of, y'know, puncturing your testicles, I don't think it would be reasonable to expect men to undergo something like this. It would need to be their choice, without any pressure put on them, I think.

edited 6th Jun '11 3:55:18 AM by BobbyG

Eh. If proper anesthetics are used, I see no problem with needle shots to the balls per se. However, there are indeed other problems as raised in this thread - why would something like that take 15min? Seems like a bit more than just two shots to the nuts then. And the messing with hormone levels thing. Of course, the pill does the latter, too, and I guess it's just an issue of continued research etc.

But taking that option when it's fresh out... well, I'd have my reservations.

edited 6th Jun '11 4:12:14 AM by Octo

It isn't for a minimum of ten years, that's just how long it will last. I think the issue is dealing with how easy it is to reverse, that's going to freak people out.

Making it so it will fails quicker and more completely may actually help with it being accepted by customer and vendor. Like the pill, it would be something more under your control- want to stop, just don't get next years injection-and then you can charge for a yearly service.

edited 6th Jun '11 4:22:26 AM by SomeSortOfTroper

I'm confused. How is reversibility a problem?

Well... One may choose to take the option for the ability to have sex every day for 10 years without worrying about a girl getting pregnant... But at some point, said man may want to have kids. If the treatment were to turn out to be irreversible(or if it takes years to return to "normal")... that'd be pretty bad, right?

I assumed it would be because of the anesthetic taking it's time to take effect... Every time the RISUG injection is mentioned, it's done so in the singular. The first injection probably is an anesthetic... and the 15 minute wait is to guarantee the anesthetic takes effect.

If it's not that, the only other idea I have is the second shot might not be as effective if it is given earlier than 15 minutes after the first... But I've never actually heard of anything that works like that before...

edited 6th Jun '11 4:57:01 AM by Swish

Why is everybody in this thread whining about two little injections? The current alternative is beeing cut with a scalpel. Sounds way more unpleasant.

The sensitivy and mystification of some men when it comes to their sexual organs is ridiculous.

Considering the standard procedures women are expected to undergo when it comes to contraception two little injections sound like nothing. Especially considering that this polymer injection has only local effect and is not affecting the whole body like a hormonal treatmant.

The article states that "If a man wishes to restore fertility, whether after months or years, the polymer is flushed out of the vas with another injection." That sounds pretty simple.

I think the process takes 15 minutes because you have to locate and hit the vas deferens.

Don't women just have to take pills?

But nevertheless, it happens and it's fairly common, in my experience.

I think men are more easily traumatized by the idea of having their junk stung because they usually have more experience about being hurt around here.

As for the treatment. I think it's pretty good, as it's rather easy, reversible, and lasts for ten years. Now, the major problem is the idea of being stung in their balls, which most men dislike.

Also according to the article, Phase III trials haven't even started yet... While I understand, and agree, that what is supposed to happen is pretty simple, it's usually Phase III testing that proves the results(for the majority of people).

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if, after phase III testing, it turned out that less than one percent of the subjects had side effects along the lines of sterility.

Edit: I'd be willing to take those odds... but just the chance could turn people away.

edited 6th Jun '11 5:18:45 AM by Swish

seriously though what's going to hurt you more? 15 minutes in the balls or 18 years in the back pocket?

Don't women just have to take pills?

Pills which change their hormonal balance, or a contraceptive coil, which application sounds at least equaly unpleasant to the injection, or sterilisation, which is more complicated than the same process done to a man.

For those who don't want to see the video, it involves pulling the vas out of the scrotum, then injecting it. There's also something I didn't understand, it looked like pushing the thin, bent pliers-like instrument into the vas and then opening the instrument.

But what is this "center opening"? Does that mean that while the sack is punctured, its insides are not?

Eh, as long as it works and it is reversible, the squick factor is irrelevant.

If it was verified, beyond reasonable doubt, that it works and has no nasty secondary effects, I would be in favor of having it done on all boys on puberty onset (perhaps with some opt-out possibility, to preserve personal rights).

It still is no solution for the STD problem, of course; but anything that reduces teenage pregnancies (and, most importantly from my own point of view, teenage abortions) and has no other unintended consequences is a good thing IMO.

edited 6th Jun '11 5:52:55 AM by Carciofus

^ Bad idea; messing with the hormones of people during their teenage years could stunt growth.

Would it mess with hormones? Unless I misunderstood something, this method just blocks the vas deferens — and, hence, the transportation of sperm during intercourse.

Hormone production is left untouched — and has been already said, this makes it superior to the female pill under this aspect.

edited 6th Jun '11 5:57:43 AM by Carciofus

I agree it is a bad idea to force teenaged boys to undergo a medical procedure like this by default. But as far as I understod this procedure no hormons are involved.

I was not talking about forcing it, just about encouraging it — and only in the case in which no bad consequences are found, of course.

If a relatively harmless procedure like this one can prevent people from affecting, in such a big and potentially negative way, their own life, the one of their mate and the one of the unintended offspring, why would it be a bad idea to push for its widespread adoption?

edited 6th Jun '11 6:01:28 AM by Carciofus

Good sex education in early years and access to contraception is the better way

Well, I was assuming that any medical mucking around with the balls is going to affect hormone production somewhat, but perhaps not.

I'd still oppose the idea on the basis that this really shouldn't be something people get pressured into. That kind of bodypart is private, and it should be their business whether or not they have it done, nobody else's (except their partner if they're in a sexual relationship, but even then, the choice should ultimately rest with the person having the operation).

People still can make stupid decisions. That's a consequence of them being, well, people.

This form of contraception does not prevent one from making that kind of decision; however, it forces him to first think it out, and then go to a doctor and get the contraception reversed.

This sounds like a very good thing to me.

As far as I know, hormones are spread through the bloodstream. If they touch only the vas deferens and not the blood circulation, I think that it would have no effect — but I am no doctor, so I might be wrong on this.

edited 6th Jun '11 6:07:19 AM by Carciofus

I agree with Carciofus, if this works the way it's claims it can save a lot of headaches and heartbreak. It could rival the pill in terms of social impact if it catches on. It would help foster a greater sense of responsibility with birth control and men at least.

I'm for it.

edited 6th Jun '11 6:13:44 AM by joeyjojo