RSS feed
Male Birth Control
Posted by: Emilie Branch
in Feminizzle
on Jun 08, 2011 
Scientists in India have come up with a birth control for men that is 100% effective and lasts a minimum of ten years. You read that correctly, but I’ll repeat it: 100% effective for ten years. The birth control is administered via an injection, called RISUG—an acronym for “Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance.” The injection is given to the male through the scrotum, twice during the same session. The procedure totals about fifteen minutes, has no side effects, and is completely reversible.
It works relatively simply. A non-toxic, positively charged polymer is injected into the tube the sperm pass through on the way out of the body. The polymer stays in this tube (there’s no blockage) and zaps the negatively charged sperm with a positive charge, which makes pregnancy impossible.
The RISUG is not available in America, yet. If approved it would revolutionize the way birth control is carried out. Needless to say, this is not the type of things drug companies are interested in; because one dosage lasts upwards of ten years, there is no potential for a great capital gain. The syringe costs more to produce than the drug inside of it.
In spite of this, a company called Parsemus is working on making RISUG accessible to American men (they are also testing the formula on women). RISUG is in the last phase of testing in India, which means it will be option for anyone who wants it within the next few years.
The opinions expressed on the BUST blog are those of the authors themselves and do not necessarily reflect the position of BUST Magazine or its staff.
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entry
Comments (23)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Kj, June 08, 2011
lIs this seriously the picture you chose to represent "male birth control"?? What the fucking fuck
-
- +7
-
-
written by Nini, June 08, 2011
Now that there is now male birth control, men have no excuses for not doing their part to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
-
- +16
-
-
written by Kari22, June 08, 2011
This picture is in incredibly poor taste. I don't know where to begin. It's a Thomas Beatie who published a book about being a pregnant trans man. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH MALE BIRTH CONTROL. You are using the body of a trans man to make some weird joke. Correct me if I am wrong. Please educate yourself on trans politics.
-
- +5
-
-
written by anoynmous, June 10, 2011
"Needless to say, this is not the type of things drug companies are interested in; because one dosage lasts upwards of ten years, there is no potential for a great capital gain"
You clearly do not understand how pharmaceutics works and should probably refrain from commenting on it. It's not some giant profit conspiracy.
Also, there is absolute capital gain from this. Unlike the majority of medications which only target single digit percents of the population (if you're lucky), this could potentially be be sold to 50% of the population at some point in their life (hint: that's 200mil people). Also, the drug inside of it may not cost as much as the syringe, but setting the cost in such a way as to gain profit (aka, charge a little more than the cost of the syringe) = capital gain. I mean, duh.
The US pharmaceutical companies are interested in this but probably cannot do anything about it because of 1) long-term patents that are likely to be imposed upon whichever company is lucky to sell this drug first, and 2) because of the long-term clinical trails that the American government requires to put an FDA label on medications and allow them to be sold in the US. It would require at least 6 years of testing, and by then, someone outside of the US is likely to patent it first, thereby making those 6 years of testing irrelevant since you're not going to get a patent and be the first to sell it.
Basically, they're going to refrain from spending 800 million to do clinical trials on this...will let someone else do them, will wait the 15 or 20 years until the patent expires, and then sell it.
And now you know.
You clearly do not understand how pharmaceutics works and should probably refrain from commenting on it. It's not some giant profit conspiracy.
Also, there is absolute capital gain from this. Unlike the majority of medications which only target single digit percents of the population (if you're lucky), this could potentially be be sold to 50% of the population at some point in their life (hint: that's 200mil people). Also, the drug inside of it may not cost as much as the syringe, but setting the cost in such a way as to gain profit (aka, charge a little more than the cost of the syringe) = capital gain. I mean, duh.
The US pharmaceutical companies are interested in this but probably cannot do anything about it because of 1) long-term patents that are likely to be imposed upon whichever company is lucky to sell this drug first, and 2) because of the long-term clinical trails that the American government requires to put an FDA label on medications and allow them to be sold in the US. It would require at least 6 years of testing, and by then, someone outside of the US is likely to patent it first, thereby making those 6 years of testing irrelevant since you're not going to get a patent and be the first to sell it.
Basically, they're going to refrain from spending 800 million to do clinical trials on this...will let someone else do them, will wait the 15 or 20 years until the patent expires, and then sell it.
And now you know.
-
- -1
-
-
written by April Pressley, June 13, 2011
wow. this is a great scientific advance which could spread equalitarianism worldwide. It's a great chance for men to prove themselves. We all have a duty to halt the overpopulation of the planet and I for one am happy to share that load. And I have no opinion on your chosen picture, I can't believe that this image is what people are choosing to remark upon.
-
- +7
-
-
written by April Pressley, June 13, 2011
only worry is, when you say, testing in india, you mean on people? so this is an indian drug, yes?
-
- -9
-
-
written by LauraSell, June 16, 2011
If you want to know more about the many reasons we still don't have a "male pill" in the US, Europe, and Australia, read Nelly Oudshoorn's informative The Male Pill: A Biography of a Technology in the Making[http://www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?productid=10257]. One reason: deep-rooted sexism and an unwillingness to expose men to any testing risk.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Robinson, June 16, 2011
Availability issues aside, did you catch the procedure? The American men I know are not likely to submit to an injection into their scrotum, let alone two injections into their scrotum. Additionally, there is the cultural issue of virility being entangled with "manliness." Which is probably the biggest reason there have been no advances in male birth control.
-
- +5
-
-
written by odile mattiauda, June 16, 2011
If the drug does not become available fast enough in the US there is always canada and europe. Many american men in heterosexual relationships (committed or not?)want to have penile/vaginal intercourse for years before, between, and after pregnancies, or thoughout if pregnancy is not wanted at all. Their partner(s) and themselves might now be facing a real "choice." Anyone who had a foreskin removed (circumcision) can get 2 shots in the scrotum. Girls and women have been taking birth control by pills, injections, patch for years. It's about education...GENDER EDUCATION!
-
- +1
-
-
written by April, June 16, 2011
This will never come to the USA. We're all to busy blaming the women for the negative outcomes of sex.
-
- +3
-
-
written by letstalkaboutbras, June 16, 2011
This sounds way too good to be true...and I'm always weary when it comes to that type of news 
-
- +1
-
-
written by hallassracing, June 16, 2011
I'm not dumb enough to trust a man to be responsible for birth control.
-
- +2
-
-
written by what_now, June 16, 2011
When you post stories like this, please link to where you got the information and/or where one can read more about it. That's basic netiquette.
-
- +2
-
-
written by reina, June 16, 2011
I too am worried about the committment of men to take birth control. I hate to make sweeping generalizations because there's always the exception, but the consequences for men are just not the same.
And the comment about the research piece is completely right on. It takes for.ev.er.
And the comment about the research piece is completely right on. It takes for.ev.er.
-
- +0
-
-
written by thinking, June 16, 2011
Great, but will this just result in more men refusing to wear condoms? An unplanned pregnancy can be the least of your concerns when condoms aren't used.
-
- +3
-
-
written by margy, June 16, 2011
Men everywhere are laughing. WHY would they bother, when WE have ALWAYS taken on the burden of birth control, depite the very real health risks ??? Look up the history of what even just a few birth control methods have done (and continue to do) to women health-wise over the years. For example, the first "pill" (early 1960's) killed many women (heart attacks/stoke) because the doseage was dangerously high. The original IUD in the mid-70's (Dalkon Shield) also caused deaths, infections, even infertility and the IUD around today is associated with pelvic inflammatory disease, the chance of perforation of the uterus, abnormal bleeding and cramps, and if you get pregnant despite having this device in you, there is a danger of a serious, fast spreading infection, or an ectopic pregnancy which can be life threatening if not caught early.
Let's not mince words or be shy and PC here. Do you know the percentage of men who run away from the kids they've "fathered" and never marry or live with the mother or pay a dime towards the child's upbringing ? Look it up -it's fairly staggering. According to US government stats, only 25% of "fathers" who do not marry the mother or who divorce the mother voluntarily pay child support on time. Another percentage pay it only some of the time, and something like 25% do not pay a dime, ever.
Men have proven themselves to be woefully and shamefully irresponsible when it comes to preventing pregnancies, ie agreeing to take on ANY of the birth control burden on any sort of a regular basis, or, so often - too often, dealing with it if the baby comes to term. What they so often do instead is make up the bulk of the anti abortion voice and vote - always seeming to forget that the unwanted child would maybe NOT have been born had he taken on some or perhaps even (gasp) ALL of the birth control burden himself.
The idea that men will be flocking to have a needle twice injected into their privates for the sole reason of preventing pregnancy, when again, women are far too willing to carry that burden for them, is a complete effing joke.
Let's not mince words or be shy and PC here. Do you know the percentage of men who run away from the kids they've "fathered" and never marry or live with the mother or pay a dime towards the child's upbringing ? Look it up -it's fairly staggering. According to US government stats, only 25% of "fathers" who do not marry the mother or who divorce the mother voluntarily pay child support on time. Another percentage pay it only some of the time, and something like 25% do not pay a dime, ever.
Men have proven themselves to be woefully and shamefully irresponsible when it comes to preventing pregnancies, ie agreeing to take on ANY of the birth control burden on any sort of a regular basis, or, so often - too often, dealing with it if the baby comes to term. What they so often do instead is make up the bulk of the anti abortion voice and vote - always seeming to forget that the unwanted child would maybe NOT have been born had he taken on some or perhaps even (gasp) ALL of the birth control burden himself.
The idea that men will be flocking to have a needle twice injected into their privates for the sole reason of preventing pregnancy, when again, women are far too willing to carry that burden for them, is a complete effing joke.
-
- +3
-
-
written by bee mari, June 16, 2011
this will definately be the end of the world. i think it would be better if it stopped STDs, not sperm. the world can handle 20 million more babies, but not 20 million new cases of STD infections. just my opinion...
-
- -10
-
-
written by Liz, June 16, 2011
I love the sound of this, as I am always and forever will be afraid of pregnancy (and STDs, condoms 4eva!) but it seems like a pretty easy lie to make... "Yeah, I can't impregnate anyone for 10 years!" ...
-
- +3
-
-
written by cheese, June 21, 2011
Are we at this site to bash men? I resimbe that remark & a came to this site for answers. dose that not make me responsable. what i want to know is. If i fly to Italy can i get this done?
-
- +1
-
-
written by Vivian Hammond, June 27, 2011
As other people have pointed out in other pieces about male birth control, you don't believe "don't worry,I'm on the pill" from a first-time hookup. But if you and your guy have been together for a while and it's cheaper for him to get babyproofed than you, it's nice to have that option. If only the procedure left some visible sign, you could sell it to horny teenage boys who'd get it just to try and make everyone think they're getting laid ...
-
- +1
-
-
Write comment
