[Chad Daring]

Just saw this via Twitter:

http://www.freep.com/article/20120226/FE...d|mostview


I have a HUGE issue with this though, just like with female birth control I'd imagine there's a margin of error, but as men we have no guaranteed knowledge the kid is ours still.

If your on the pill and bang a girl raw, and then she goes and bangs 4 other dudes who aren't on the pill within that Maury window of days (like a 7-10 I think) and she gets knocked up, whats to keep her from coming to you and saying "the pill botched, its yours" when in reality you just happen to be the most well off of the dudes and she really has no clue.

I see this as having the potential to be a trap where guys feel safe and let their guard down, but hos gonna ho.

[Parlay44]

You can just use a hot tub regularly. It decreases male fertility.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/64481.php

As far as her claiming it's your kid ...If you have any doubt take her to court right after it's born and ask for a paternity test. It's your right to do so. Fucked up part is...if it's not yours and you claim paternity by signing the birth certificate, the court doesn't care. You're stuck paying. I've been in family court tons of time. I've seen it happen to guys.

[Clyde Rules]

what company makes this pill? I want to buy their stock right before it comes out.

[Chad Daring]

(03-09-2012 04:34 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

You can just use a hot tub regularly. It decreases male fertility.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/64481.php

As far as her claiming it's your kid ...If you have any doubt take her to court right after it's born and ask for a paternity test. It's your right to do so. Fucked up part is...if it's not yours and you claim paternity by signing the birth certificate, the court doesn't care. You're stuck paying. I've been in family court tons of time. I've seen it happen to guys.

Exactly! Most guys dont. Most guys are saps. They'll sign the certificate out right, assume they're unlucky. The skank laughs to the bank

[Timoteo]

"In 1982, only 52% of sexually experienced women reported ever having had sex with a partner who used a condom. By 2006, it had climbed to 93% of women."

This is an interesting stat, but the story also states...

"The '80s also was the era of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases; condoms became a routine part of safe sex."

HIV/AIDS was still considered a "gay" disease in the 80s, when it first hit the public consciousness. So heteros were using condoms to prevent pregnancy, not to prevent disease. Also, the initial stat is deceptive. It says that by 2006, 93% of women claimed to have been with a partner that used a condom. The follow-up question should have been WHAT PERCENTAGE of your partners use condoms? How many do you allow to rawdog you, and either blast in you or employ the pull-out method? With all the tales of rawdoggin' I read here, I wonder. If your partners are using condoms, is it because they want to, or are the women demanding it?

[germanico]

I think this is going to be a game-changer in the same terms as female contraception was in the 60s

With men able to control who they impregnate and when (I know you are going to say "condoms", but come on guys, be realistic) women are going to be forced to compete for the fittest males to couple, and fatties will be relegated to the line outside the sperm-bank.

Although, writing that, the image came to mind of the über-beta white-knighting her with "Ill make a woman out of you Peggy-sue!", so, maybe nothing will change.

[Clyde Rules]

(03-09-2012 05:40 PM)germanico Wrote:  

I think this is going to be a game-changer in the same terms as female contraception was in the 60s

With men able to control who they impregnate and when (I know you are going to say "condoms", but come on guys, be realistic) women are going to be forced to compete for the fittest males to couple, and fatties will be relegated to the line outside the sperm-bank.

Although, writing that, the image came to mind of the über-beta white-knighting her with "Ill make a woman out of you Peggy-sue!", so, maybe nothing will change.

I actually think this will lead to more men getting into monogamous relationships due to the low risk of pregnancy and STD's that would occur with having condom free sex with a single partner. Condoms could end up being exclusively used for casual sexual encounters.

[Kitsune]

(03-09-2012 04:39 PM)Clyde Rules Wrote:  

what company makes this pill? I want to buy their stock right before it comes out.

K-A-Ching.

I'm going to make some money.

Quote:

I think this is going to be a game-changer in the same terms as female contraception was in the 60s

With men able to control who they impregnate and when (I know you are going to say "condoms", but come on guys, be realistic) women are going to be forced to compete for the fittest males to couple, and fatties will be relegated to the line outside the sperm-bank.

Although, writing that, the image came to mind of the über-beta white-knighting her with "Ill make a woman out of you Peggy-sue!", so, maybe nothing will change.

It will be revolutionary.

Plus I'll be able to do that annoying 'I forgot to take my pill' routine that all goes do and hopefully give some of them a heart attack.

Then they'll see how it feels!

[Timoteo]

My hesitation with this kind of contraception is the interruption of sperm production, and the hopeful return of full fertility "in a few weeks." They need to do some trials. Test the sperm count of subjects prior to use of the drug, test during use of the drug to establish that production has ceased, then test after cessation of use and see how long it takes to regain full fertility (established by test results prior to use). I need to know for sure that my gun will reload! The other issue is yes, you may be free to raw dog without the threat of unwanted kids, but the STD threat is ever present.

[Basil Ransom]

Tash's work looks very promising. I was skittish about the male pill because it involved screwing with male hormones, but this approach looks to bypass that. The pill for women may have effected changes that make them less desirable, and I wouldn't want something like that happening to me.

Possible Consequences:

1. Bastardy decreases, as women can no longer lie about being on the pill.

OR...

2. Bastardy increases, as guys lie about being on the pill so they can raw-dog with impunity.

3. STDs increase, due to increased raw dogging.

4. Women stop taking the pill altogether.

5. Girls try harder to become marriage material, because it's harder to get preggo so easily. Women *want* to have children, and now with the man's consent required to have one, she can't unilaterally get pregnant, at least not as easily with a quality guy. Hell, this could be a real payday for the guys who genuinely want kids.

My question: Take the mostly lower-class men responsible for impregnating the bastard-mongers currently - are they going to conscientiously use this? Or are they just going to continue raw-dogging with abandon and fathering bastard children? Why are their female peers getting pregnant so often nowadays - is it because they lie about being on the pill, because guys just like raw-dogging, or because the guys actually want the kids?

Quote:

I actually think this will lead to more men getting into monogamous relationships due to the low risk of pregnancy and STD's that would occur with having condom free sex with a single partner.

Nah, it's the other way around. As it is, men get into relationships to get a steady supply of raw-dog sex. If you're banging college educated white girls, you largely don't have to worry about them secretly trying to impregnate themselves. I don't hear of many guys shying away from getting into relationships strictly because of the risk of pregnancy extortion.

Quote:

With men able to control who they impregnate and when (I know you are going to say "condoms", but come on guys, be realistic) women are going to be forced to compete for the fittest males to couple, and fatties will be relegated to the line outside the sperm-bank.

Agree. (Saw this after writing my post.) They were already competing for the fittest males, but they have an easier time of it now because they can just snare a man's sperm one night. But once men can effectively prevent that while still enjoying raw-dog sex, these women may find it very hard to get some quality sperm inside them.

[Samseau]

(03-09-2012 05:52 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

My hesitation with this kind of contraception is the interruption of sperm production, and the hopeful return of full fertility "in a few weeks." They need to do some trials. Test the sperm count of subjects prior to use of the drug, test during use of the drug to establish that production has ceased, then test after cessation of use and see how long it takes to regain full fertility (established by test results prior to use). I need to know for sure that my gun will reload! The other issue is yes, you may be free to raw dog without the threat of unwanted kids, but the STD threat is ever present.

Yep. Gonna be a few years before all of the kinks are worked out of this technology.


As for the STD issue:

[joehoya]

This pill is 10 years away. It is a travesty that even today, 50 years after the pill, men still have no other option besides surgery on their ball sack or putting a balloon on their cock.

[Samseau]

A male birth control pill would send birth rates plummeting even further than they are now. The male pill might not be good for society.

[Basil Ransom]

(03-09-2012 06:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

A male birth control pill would send birth rates plummeting even further than they are now.

I thought of that too, and it's probably true. But then...

(03-09-2012 06:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The male pill might not be good for society.

Thing is, the population, or future population most at risk, is bastards. And bastards as a group are not exactly the most productive members of society. Look at a group of antisocial, dysfunctional people, and you will find that an above average proportion of them are bastards. A lower bastard birth rate could easily be a good thing.

Would this bill diminish the number of children born in stable, two parent families? I don't think the answer is clearly yes, because most of the time I hear griping about having too many children, it's the woman complaining. And the woman already has control more or less over whether she's getting pregnant or not.

Thing is, it's very possible that a lot of the people currently impregnating unmarried women are not going to get on the male pill either, they'll just continue raw-dogging willy-nilly.

[Samseau]

I think the male pill would only prevent well-educated women and men from having bastard children, which is a negative for society.

Thugs and morons will continue to reproduce. I actually support tyrannical child-support laws because it punishes scummy parts of male society.

[Gmac]

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff...tomy/all/1

[Enfant_Terrible]

Quote:

But here’s the thing: RISUG is not the product of some global pharmaceutical company or state-of-the-art government-funded research lab.

Warms my free-market, libertarian-leaning heart...

Edit:

Quote:

Thanks to a novel collaboration between Guha and a San Francisco reproductive health activist, RISUG could soon be on the road to FDA approval in the US.

[durangotang]

As soon as I have the extra cash, I'm flying to India and bribing the doc for RISUG. I don't want to wait for FDA approval, and I don't want to take a pill that messes my hormones up. RISUG, RISUG, RISUG!!!

[Chad Daring]

(03-09-2012 06:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I think the male pill would only prevent well-educated women and men from having bastard children, which is a negative for society.

Thugs and morons will continue to reproduce. I actually support tyrannical child-support laws because it punishes scummy parts of male society.

I say we put birth control in the water, if you want kids you have to pay for the antidote

[durangotang]

(03-09-2012 07:43 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 06:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I think the male pill would only prevent well-educated women and men from having bastard children, which is a negative for society.

Thugs and morons will continue to reproduce. I actually support tyrannical child-support laws because it punishes scummy parts of male society.

I say we put birth control in the water, if you want kids you have to pay for the antidote

lol

[AntiTrace]

(03-09-2012 06:52 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I think the male pill would only prevent well-educated women and men from having bastard children, which is a negative for society.

Thugs and morons will continue to reproduce. I actually support tyrannical child-support laws because it punishes scummy parts of male society.

I like your style.

And no man should be caught up in the whole "its your baby" issue anyways. Its called a Paternity Test. $500 is a lot cheaper than 18 years of child support/raising a child/giving your life away "for the kid"

Any military cats out there? A lot of companies give discounts. I got $100 off on mine.

[germanico]

(03-09-2012 05:45 PM)Clyde Rules Wrote:  

I actually think this will lead to more men getting into monogamous relationships due to the low risk of pregnancy and STD's that would occur with having condom free sex with a single partner. Condoms could end up being exclusively used for casual sexual encounters.

So, you are saying the reason men dont go into monogamous relationships is the risk of pregnancy and STDs?

Quote:

Plus I'll be able to do that annoying 'I forgot to take my pill' routine that all goes do and hopefully give some of them a heart attack.

More importantly, it will take away from them the "dont worry, im on the pill" routine.

Quote:

2. Bastardy increases, as guys lie about being on the pill so they can raw-dog with impunity.

3. STDs increase, due to increased raw dogging.

Rawdoggers gonna raw. The change in this statics is not going to be significant.

Out of every 100 children born, how many do you think where actually "planned"?

The reason women get pregnant is, mostly (in my experience with women) because their lizard-brain tricks them into it. Female biology turns them into getting-pregnant machines. When they tell you "dont worry, ill take a morning after pill tomorrow" or "its ok, im practically infertile" or "you can shoot right in, I just had my period" they actually believe it.

This same lizard brain is what tricks men into swallowing that shit, or telling themselves "just the tip" or "ill just pull out right before I come"

Plus, the only reason men would lie about taking a birth control pill would be if they actually want to get a girl pregnant. (something that a beta would do to "lock in" a female, or as an strategy if the girl comes from a rich family) Or if they made it really expensive, something that might actually happen the pharmaceutical business being as it is.

Quote:

Look at a group of antisocial, dysfunctional people, and you will find that an above average proportion of them are bastards.

Actually, its because the population group most likely to produce bastards, are the antisocial, dysfunctional ones. A well educated, intelligent woman would find a socially and morally desirable man, and lock him in before getting pregnant. An uneducated, dumb woman from a poor or unstable upbringing would be "Mom, im pregnant again, we gonna have to find a bigger trailer!" before she even turns 18.

Quote:

I think the male pill would only prevent well-educated women and men from having bastard children, which is a negative for society.

Idiocracy anyone?

[SVK]

(03-09-2012 04:45 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 04:34 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

You can just use a hot tub regularly. It decreases male fertility.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/64481.php

As far as her claiming it's your kid ...If you have any doubt take her to court right after it's born and ask for a paternity test. It's your right to do so. Fucked up part is...if it's not yours and you claim paternity by signing the birth certificate, the court doesn't care. You're stuck paying. I've been in family court tons of time. I've seen it happen to guys.

Exactly! Most guys dont. Most guys are saps. They'll sign the certificate out right, assume they're unlucky. The skank laughs to the bank

That's to exactly how it works, this happened to me. I was pretty fucking dumb, but I was quite younger at the time. A girl I was briefly dating (and broke up) called me about a month later after I've seen her last that she is pregnant. We got back together, baby was born, I signed the birth certificate and we got married quickly since I was on an internship visa and would have to go back. We were together for 5 years raising the kid. At one point I found out there was somebody else in the picture, got DNA test which proved I'm not the father, got lawyer, divorced and got off the hook. Last time I heard she got the other candidate tested and is getting money from him. I never paid a dime of child support after we separated and divorced on favorable terms.
But I was scared as fuck when all went down since I heard about those cases, maybe it depends on state. But I was ready to move back to Europe if I had to pay, that's for sure....

[Samseau]

(03-09-2012 08:20 PM)SVK Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 04:45 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 04:34 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

You can just use a hot tub regularly. It decreases male fertility.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/64481.php

As far as her claiming it's your kid ...If you have any doubt take her to court right after it's born and ask for a paternity test. It's your right to do so. Fucked up part is...if it's not yours and you claim paternity by signing the birth certificate, the court doesn't care. You're stuck paying. I've been in family court tons of time. I've seen it happen to guys.

Exactly! Most guys dont. Most guys are saps. They'll sign the certificate out right, assume they're unlucky. The skank laughs to the bank

That's to exactly how it works, this happened to me. I was pretty fucking dumb, but I was quite younger at the time. A girl I was briefly dating (and broke up) called me about a month later after I've seen her last that she is pregnant. We got back together, baby was born, I signed the birth certificate and we got married quickly since I was on an internship visa and would have to go back. We were together for 5 years raising the kid. At one point I found out there was somebody else in the picture, got DNA test which proved I'm not the father, got lawyer, divorced and got off the hook. Last time I heard she got the other candidate tested and is getting money from him. I never paid a dime of child support after we separated and divorced on favorable terms.
But I was scared as fuck when all went down since I heard about those cases, maybe it depends on state. But I was ready to move back to Europe if I had to pay, that's for sure....

Wow, the law actually came out on your side. That's great to hear.


GMAC -


Fuck yes RISUG. Two to five years. I'll fly to India for that shit, no problem.

[Timoteo]

Didn't someone post a NY Times article recently about many first-time over 30 moms are unmarried? That these chicks want a baby without a partner, so they just get themselves pregnant with some dude? These women aren't hood rat/trailor-trash types either. So while it's true that a particular segment of the population probably won't change their raw-doggin' fornicatin' ways, there are still plenty of educated women that want to get knocked up too, and want it outside of a relationship. Maybe the kind of men they'd go to for the seed would be the kind of men that would consider this pill. And these women would be assed out. They'd have to turn to sperm banks, which is what they should be doing anyway. They want the safety net of an actual dad that they can hit up for child support.

As for the paternity issues some of you discussed above, it's true. My brother is a family court assistant, and he tells me some truly fucked up stories. Once your name is on that birth certificate, it's difficult to get it undone. It can be years and bureaucratic hell. And bitches know it. Most men won't even question paternity if they know they raw-dogged a chick. Sometimes it's only years later when you realize this kid you've been raising doesn't look anything like you.