susancalvin ([info]susancalvin) wrote,
@ 2006-03-31 14:05:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
A straw-poll for the boys
Apparently, there's a new non-hormonal male contraceptive method undergoing large-scale clinical trials in India right now. Basically, this method works by injecting some kind of gel into the vas deferens that disables sperm. It can last up to 10 years, and is reversible by a second injection that flushes the gel out. The major side effect (which, I'll grant, sounds a little squicky) is "several weeks of non-painful scrotal swelling".

So, I'm curious, guys. Would you go for this if it became available on the market in the US?

(Post a new comment)


[info]harryh
2006-03-31 08:09 pm UTC (link)
I prolly wouldn't be first in line, as it's prolly a good idea to wait a couple of years to make sure there aren't any long term side effects, but other than that, absolutely.

(Reply to this)

[info]adereth
2006-03-31 09:06 pm UTC (link)
If my girlfriend was on the pill, no. If, for some reason, she couldn't be on the pill or any other contraceptive, maybe, but only after the pull-out method fails once and she gets an abortion. Then I'll have learned my lesson.

If I did go for it, I'd probably get some of my sperm frozen beforehand, just in case.

(Reply to this)

[info]hirsch222
2006-03-31 09:18 pm UTC (link)
I'm kind of afraid of needles, and I get pretty spooked when a doctor/nurse is going to stick a needle in my arm. It also doesn't say how scary the swelling is - are we talking "a little puffy" or "you're going to walk funny"?

Still, given proper motivation, it doesn't sound like a bad idea, but I wouldn't trust the "reversible" part.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]susancalvin
2006-03-31 09:51 pm UTC (link)
Good question...

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]ofsusan
2006-03-31 10:02 pm UTC (link)
As they explain why they might not do this, I'd also be curious to see how much guys know about the side effects of the Pill. My brother thinks it's just like popping a Centrum...

(Reply to this)

[info]moskow23
2006-03-31 10:34 pm UTC (link)
I dunno, I like the ability to be able to make a baby whenever I want. What if there's some catastrophe and I can't get the second injection? How will I help repopulate the earth then?

(Reply to this)

[info]tame_eep
2006-04-01 12:02 am UTC (link)
Aside from the squick factor, this seems seems to have less potential to totally screw things up than hormonal solutions. Looks like this aims to be a reversible vasectomy, so seems likely one would still have the same (squicky) options left should one want to have a baby and the thing fails to reverse.

(Reply to this)

[info]skamille
2006-04-01 01:33 am UTC (link)
heheh scrotal swelling

(Reply to this)

[info]cdtwigg
2006-04-01 02:00 pm UTC (link)
absolutely. More info here.

(Reply to this)

[info]daemonv
2006-04-01 03:20 pm UTC (link)
Yes, I would. It would help if it had a long term track record, but I completely agree in principle with it. Seems to be, for a monogamous couple , much lower impact (side effects, costs) than the pill or other anti-contraceptives.

But likewise, if I've had the kids I want I'd also be fairly quick for a vascetomy. I'm funny like that.

(Reply to this)

[info]eatsomebagels
2006-04-01 07:09 pm UTC (link)
Do you think it would be a female nurse injecting that gel into my junk? That'd be hawt.

(Reply to this)
so the thing is
[info]queendeb
2006-04-02 11:13 pm UTC (link)
it's so much more long-term
than say
a condom
or the pill
or even other female contraceptives
(aside from operations
what do we have... a year at most
with iuds and the like?)

that's an awful lot of committment.

interesting.
very very interesting.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…