this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
333 points (95.6% liked)

Technology

59322 readers
5220 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
333
A gel injected into the scrotum could be the next male contraceptive (www.wired.com)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
106 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A gel injected into the scrotum could be the next male contraceptive::Biotech company Contraline has safely implanted a sperm-blocking hydrogel in 23 men. It’s designed to be a fully reversible vasectomy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 96 points 10 months ago (7 children)

This kind of thing pops up repeatedly. There's some big, splashy news about a male contraceptive, and then it flames out, or ends up being vaporware.

The problem is that you need to stop a few million sperm with every single ejaculation; reducing that number by 99% means that you're still risking pregnancy. Severing the ductus deferens (a vasectomy) means no sperm get through; trying to clip or block them means that some can potentially get through. Hormonal BC has the same issue; while it significantly reduces sperm count, it may not eliminate it entirely. (And there can be some really significant negative side effects from eliminating endogenous testosterone production, since hormonal levels need to be pretty far out of whack before there's a really big cut in sperm production.)

OTOH, women have to stop two eggs per month, or stop them from being implanted in the uterine wall. A 99% reduction in fertility for women means that it's very, very unlikely that they're going to be able to get pregnant.

(Yes, women suffer from hormonal BC as well, but some women need it just to be able to live normal lives. It's overall less of a problem than it ends up being for men. And women have the option of an IUD as well.)

Personally, I'm in favor of vasectomy; it's allowed me to avoid having any children for 20-odd years now.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ive also avoided making kids for the last decade or so but I was born with personality-based contraceptives so I dont know that it counts

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Andrew Tate apparently made money selling his, if you want to try it as a business

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You are comparing sperm count and egg count as if the amount it an issue. For eggs not to be released, you end up nuking estrogen production. Hormonal BC for women is a lesser evil when comparing it to unwanted pregnancies and health conditions like endo, but you are underestimating just how bad constantly taking the pill for women is.Vasectomy is the way.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago

Vesectomy is the way if you know for sure that you never want children - they aren’t reversible like birth control are and shouldn’t really be considered reversible at all because there’s a very real risk of them not being so

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

You are comparing sperm count and egg count as if the amount it an issue

That's because it is. If you have a 95% reduction in number of eggs, then your odds of pregnancy are very, very low. If you have a 95% drop in sperm count, then it's still pretty easy for a woman to get pregnant.

Yes, taking hormonal BC is pretty bad for a number of women. OTOH, it's a life saver for some women, like the ones that have 3.5 week periods. For women that experience adverse side effects from hormonal BC, I'd suggest IUDs. For the very, very small number of women that neither IUDs nor hormonal BC work for, I'd suggest using condoms, and avoiding states run by Republicans.

For men that aren't sure, I would always suggest vasectomy first, or just learn to be gay (since it a choice, dontcha know, /s). If you end up changing your mind, be a foster parent.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The problem I've read with Vasalgel is that they had trouble getting enough voulenteers to test it. Trials are dragging out. It does appear to work otherwise.

I was holding out on it for a while, but ended up getting a vasectomy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

I thought that it, and the vasclips, had both failed in the larger clinical trials at achieving birth control rates that were even on par with hormonal BC. This is what I'm remembering from like seven or either years ago though (and internet search is such garbage now that I don't know if I could find the sources I'm remembering).; there might be a different formulation now, or something.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

From what I understand the problem with Vasagel isn't it's efficacy but with the reversibility. You can remove it from the tubes easily but the sperm might not perform as before.