No Debbie, not really

Yet a male contraceptive is simply more sensible, in biological terms, than a female one. In her book, Sweetening the Pill, and in numerous articles, Holly Grigg-Spall points out that men have no fertility cycle, while women are only fertile for six days every month. Women take a lot of responsibility for those six days, while the constant risk is not from their ova but from ever-ready sperm.

Contraception only really make sense from the female side. Yes, sure, we can talk about being all modern and sharing stuff in a relationship and everything. But the costs to a woman of not contraception are vastly greater than the costs to a man of not contraception. At the limits, the cost to a woman are one of the ten possibilities in a lifetime to havbe a hild. That’s larger than anything a man would carry from a torn condom or whatever.

Agreed, even though we’re all the people who insist that evolution really happened we’re not supposed to go around talking about modern behaviour as being driven by it in any manner. But it is still true. The costs of pregnancy fall overwhelmingly upon the woman. Yes, even as we’ve constructed legal rights that insist the man must chip in and so on. Given that’s where the costs are that’s the hoke point to be controlled.

That’s before we get to the issue of chastity outside that relationship with the bloke with the snip….

14 thoughts on “No Debbie, not really”

  1. Men may have no fertility cycle, but they have 5 billion more sperm per month to prevent than women have eggs. Female hormonal contraception is a walk in the park in comparison. A one millionth of one percent failure rate stopping an egg would result in one pregnancy every 83 million years, a one millionth of one percent failure rate stopping sperm would result in one pregnancy every 30 minutes.

  2. But, within a marriage this might make sense – neither party wants kids, bloke will have to pay for it if one occurs. More fun than condoms, maybe less of the side effects (don’t know).

    At the moment, though, reliability seems too low at 96%.

    I really don’t agree with this though

    “A male pill would promote the idea of shared responsibility. Which in matters of sex and reproduction still needs a lot of promoting.”

    No, it doesn’t. What needs promoting is women not shagging unsuitable men.

  3. The costs of pregnancy fall overwhelmingly upon the woman.

    Except when she gets baby rabies and decides to “oops” her poor boyfriend with a little bundle of joy, by deciding to stop taking birth control, despite him explicitly saying he has no interest in being a father.

    Then the father gets saddled with the costs of paying for a child that he didn’t want. An 18-year annuity for the mother.

    Whilst I agree that the biological opportunity cost on the mother is high, the financial cost can be firmly saddled with the father without his consent.

  4. At the moment, though, reliability seems too low at 96%.

    I’ve always suspected that the effectiveness rates were caused less by failure of contraception (although that does happen), but primarily by sabotage by the woman (having an “oops” baby) or a paternity fraud (passing off another mans child as her husbands)

    Outside of contraceptive testing paternity fraud is estimated to occur in about 1-in-20 conceptions (varies substantially by country), but where DNA tests are actually undertaken, this rises to nearly 1-in-5.

    Having a vasectomy along with periodic sperm testing is the only way a man can control contraception with certainty.

  5. John Galt,
    If you’re not willing to finance the baby, don’t sleep with the lady.

    For unmarried women the financial hit of having a baby is usually quite severe, despite child maintenance payments. As Tim says, they’re taking on a pretty big risk.

  6. When the Indians were sending teams round the country offering a transistor radio to any bloke who got snipped, I often pointed out that where you have ten fertile men and ten fertile women in a village, if you snip nine of the chaps you can still get ten children a year whereas if you spey nine of the women the place can only produce one a year.

  7. @Kevin B:

    Then again, a hysterectomy is a much more complicated and dangerous process than a vasectomy (speaking from experience of the latter)

    A vasectomy can be done in minutes under local anaesthetic, given a sufficiently experienced doctor.

    The Indians have also developed Reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance (RISUG) a new and easily reversible mechanism for male contraception. This involves injecting a polymer which blocks sperm from getting through, but can be easily reversed by dissolving the blockage using a similarly straightforward injection.

  8. But they’re not talking about hysterectomy – which is not a contraception method but an organ failure intervention. Female medical contraception is exactly the same as male surgical contraception, cutting the tubes that take the gamets to the fertilisation site, not removing organs.

  9. “But the costs to a woman of not contraception are vastly greater than the costs to a man of not contraception.”

    Used to be the case but it blatantly isn’t anymore, is it?

    Cost to a Western woman of ‘not contraception’ = possibility you get pregnant. At which point you have various opportunities to get unpregnant (morning after pill, abortion etc). Unless we’re talking a Fritzl situation NO woman is forced to become pregnant or, having become pregnant, is forced to remain pregnant. Any woman who becomes pregnant does so as a result of her own choices. Any woman who, having become pregnant, decides to have a child does so as a result of her own choices.

    Cost to a Western man of ‘not contraception’ = possibility a female gets pregnant without your consent (“oops I ‘forgot’ to take the pill, teehee!”), chooses to have a child without your consent, and then leeches off you with the full force of the legal system backing her up and threatening prison you don’t accept life as a slave paying money to said woman – despite having no guarantee in whether or not you have access to the child that’s resulted entirely due to the woman’s personal choices.

    The policy proposed fairly recently in (I think Sweden) that men should have the opportunity to say whether or not they consented to a pregnancy and, if not, are free of any responsibility for the child that ensues but also lose any rights of access to the child would be completely fair – which is why feminists reacted with absolute fury at the suggestion.

  10. @KevinB,

    I do wonder if that’s why ancient tribal societies practised polygamy (to ensure your trive survived a massacre of its men), whereas the Romans, who built technologically advanced armed forces, drastically cutting the death rates, invented monogamy. In order that there were still brides for the pensioned soldiers.

  11. @Elkanahaon, October 29, 2016 at 1:41 pm
    “The policy proposed fairly recently in (I think Sweden) that men should have the opportunity to say whether or not they consented to a pregnancy and, if not, are free of any responsibility for the child that ensues but also lose any rights of access to the child would be completely fair – which is why feminists reacted with absolute fury at the suggestion.”

    A fair and pragmatic solution.
    .

  12. No woman can trick a man into a pregnancy. If you don’t want a child, wear a condom. Advocate for male birth control. If you don’t trust her, don’t have sex with her. Wear a condom. Use spermacide as well. If you take precautions, you will not be “tricked” into a pregnancy. Its not that difficult.

  13. The bottom line is that if you ejaculate into a woman and you don’t take responsibility for your own birth control, you are just as responsible for the resulting child as the woman.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *