UESP Forums

I forgot about her migraines... Yeah, that stuff was bad news. We're more careful than before (and creative), but she's much much happier off it.

@Wolf:
If you read the rest of what I wrote then you would see that I said I would prefer it to having women risking the side effects of their contraceptives.
And the article said that it was 'easier to reverse' but that doesn't mean it's the best thing to make worldwide right now. Once they have finished 'extensive' testing and deemed it to be safe then yeah, I'm all for it! I'm just more cringing at the whole testicals being pumped with chemicals that are gel like(I said glue, but it was more for a laugh).

And as for Mrs.T's comments, I don't normally have a problem with them and actually agree with them normally. I just can't get on board the whole religion hating thing, and to be honest I will take them as I see fit because I believe you are missing what I am seeing.
Your a smart guy Wolf, but I won't just agree to something because you see it a certain way. Just like I'm not forcing anyone to agree with me. I'm sure you can understand where I'm coming from with this.

All I preach is about acceptance, that's it. I'm going to drop this now because all it will do is lead down a dark path, and that is not my wish... I just get ruffled sometimes by certain comments, it happens to us all.

Deandra wrote:

Dean wrote:

Mrs T wrote:Besides, aren't you guys bothered by the lack of contraceptives for males?

Most of the mens ones are a bit extreme, you can rather have the snip... or get pumped full of glue. Johnnies work, but they are a bit rubbish if you know what I mean...
I know that women can have side effects from their contraceptives, but normally this isn't the case(most of my countries teenage girls are not mutants or anything after all) so at the moment it's a lot safer for you gals to do it

To be fair, if they made a pill or something for males then it wouldn't be to bad and would gladly take it if the girl I was with at the time wanted me to. But the options right now, with such a big chance of never having kids again, are a bit drastic compared to what women have to risk.

I think maybe you should educate yourself about how pills work before you make ridiculous statements like this.

How is that at all ridiculous? I know of only a few girls that have had problems with the pill, and pretty much every single girl I've met has been on it. I'm not saying you don't get side-effects, I even wrote that you did.
Like I said, I would rather "They didn't have to take the pill" and instead had something that didn't mess with the body in ways which can cause serious problems. That whole glue/gel stuff is a great idea, cringy as hell, but great.. and as I wrote in response to Wolf I would use it(if the need be) once it has been tested VERY thoroughly. You're pretty much swapping one chemical that females have to use, for one chemical that men have to use.

Dean wrote:@Wolf:
If you read the rest of what I wrote then you would see that I said I would prefer it to having women risking the side effects of their contraceptives.
And the article said that it was 'easier to reverse' but that doesn't mean it's the best thing to make worldwide right now. Once they have finished 'extensive' testing and deemed it to be safe then yeah, I'm all for it! I'm just more cringing at the whole testicals being pumped with chemicals that are gel like(I said glue, but it was more for a laugh).

Oh no, I got you. I wasn't commenting on/responding to your post, merely sharing my (indirect) experience with the pill and its side effects.

I was responding to the other Wolf mate.

Dean wrote:I was responding to the other Wolf mate.

Oh. Well that's not awkward. Carry on then.

Ok, well I am confused. What makes a one-time injection of something that is reversible more drastic than taking pills every day that affect your whole body?

Well you can just stop taking the pill if it's starting to effect you, in 'most' cases the side effects are temporary(I spent years mandatory learning this stuff in sex ed back when I was in school). Take note that I do know how bad it can be! and thats why new ideas are a good thing.
The one time chemical however is not as widely tested as the pill, so some of the side effects could be devastating... or there could be no irreversible ones, we don't know for sure. It's very hard to compare the two really when you have a fully released product, and a semi-released one that is still being tested.

I'm not saying it's more drastic, I just don't want to be sticking anything in me that could potentially(and I'm not saying it will, the tests have been very positive from what I saw in that article) leave me sterile or worse. I just would give it more time. Scientifically, it's quite a breakthrough! But better to be safe then sorry is all I'm honestly saying.

I hope you see where I am coming from with this. Perhaps my original post was a bit vague, and could be misunderstood.

Dean wrote:If you read the rest of what I wrote then you would see that I said I would prefer it to having women risking the side effects of their contraceptives.

I rather ruled that part out because:

Deandra wrote:What makes a one-time injection of something that is reversible more drastic than taking pills every day that affect your whole body?

The chemical, also, has tested successfully in India for over 15 years. The only reason it's not approved in the US and likewise countries is because it hasn't been tested under FDA testing conditions.

You may not feel comfortable injecting things that could harm you into your body, but just remember that women have to put possibly harmful things into their respective bodies every day. Yes, the pill's effects are reversible, but so is the gel.

I'm not so much focusing on the fact that it's harmful; I understand that. What I'm railing against are any possible feelings that simply because it's traditionally the woman's role to take care of pregnancy prevention, males feel like this option is more invasive simply because it's focused on males.

I completely understand where you are coming from, and I know quite a lot of blokes would rather a woman took the pill instead of anyone touching their genitals with anything... vasectomies are one of those things that actually terrifies a lot of men, I guess I could be included in that really due to what can happen.
I'm a very open minded when it comes to society related things and don't really see the whole traditional role thing as 'what should be'... but this does not mean I condemn it and it's up to the person if they want to go down that route at the end of the day. I can't stand such ideals being forced upon people though, that grinds my gears.

I know it's been going on in India for that long, it states it in the article, but until such time as it becomes an approved alternative in England and other countries for a couple of years I would not personally touch it. I guess this is more out of fear that it hasn't been tested on enough people across the world yet, I mean we all react differently to chemicals just like some women get permanently messed up by the pill, and others are effected by it in no way at all(except of course by what it's suppose to be doing).

Just for pure conjecture, I don't have any doubt in my mind that it will pass the FDA tests, unless somehow money gets involved that's directed towards stopping it.

Dean wrote:What tragedies happened in the past can not be blamed on the descendants of those that caused them. Sure, religion messed a lot of things up when people used it for control of the masses, but these days religion in the West has little control over anything(except maybe in America due them having such a high percentage of religious folk).. it's more about faith then anything else.

The important point is that what they messed up in the past still lingers in the forms of attitudes and social norms. Oh, and in Sweden they unfortunately still have enough power to screw with transsexuals, luckily that thing worked out after massive protests.

Dean wrote:Sweden may be the most Atheist country in the world, but that doesn't give you the right to think you can just condemn religion at every turn with your snide remarks(there not even jokes, or I'd be fine with it).

Maybe I'm not as eloquent as should be at 4am, I admit I could've worded it better. I hope you don't take offense to the actual point I was trying to get across.

Dean wrote:Sexual things must be very different in Sweden, especially since a lot of folks here are promiscuous as anything... even the religious ones. Women probably have more rights then blokes do these days, which is the complete opposite of how 'old' religion influenced my country... so I would say things are looking much better, and people accept others beliefs(or lack-of) as a whole. Same goes for other countries like France and Germany.

Whether people can do something or if it's socially acceptable are two different things. If people can have sex however they like without being judged where you live it must be a very nice place indeed. But things are definitely moving in the right direction from what I've seen so maybe the stain left by old religions on society will be gone soon, then I won't have as much to complain about and we'd all be happier.

Who needs horomones or glue when you have latex?

I haven't read the article yet, but I agree with the idea. I hate condoms.

Lets not forget the safest form of contraceptives: Abstinence

Do what you want, have fun, but take resposibility for your actions.

Why is it someone elses responsibility... to provide you a way to be irresponsible?

Mars wrote:I haven't read the article yet, but I agree with the idea. I hate condoms.

You... hate condoms? That's like hating a brick wall. Doesn't really mean anything. There'll be people who use condoms, and people who... well, don't. What exactly did you mean by this?

I mean that I hate using them.

Mars wrote:I mean that I hate using them.

Well yeah, from what I've heard (I feel silly), it's not optimal, but it gets the job done, and when compared from the side effects of contraceptives, it's the lesser of both evils.

They're annoying and I'd much prefer optional sterility. Seriously, being able to turn your semen on and off sounds absolutely great.

From what I've heard here, it still doesn't sound like the kind of thing I'd want anyone to suffer from just for sex. And wouldn't that be kind of... weird? Especially for her...

Suffer? Suffer what? A needle? Please, needles aren't half-bad. And why would it be weird for her? It wouldn't be different than using the pill.

A needle that is like an on/off switch for your semen? Do tell. I really have no clue what this is, partly do to the fact that I am mid-pubescent.

What we've been talking about this entire time is the article Mrs. T posted. I haven't read it yet, but from what I've gathered it announces a male contraceptive which renders semen unable to produce offspring for a limited time. This substance is delivered through an injection.

So it kills any sperm in it, or it stops all semen flow altogether? Either way, sounds kinda cool, actually.

No, it renders the sperm too weak for conceiving.

Ah. Much better than the latter... Anyways, everyone can continue talking about less graphic topics.