How does this unscientific instagram vomit has 500 votes on lemmy? Are we turning into reddit?
Nah, this isn’t a great point at all… even at face value really.
Put slightly differently, if we’re assuming people sleep around as much as the text implies, if we focus on birth control solely for men, then one ‘failure’/non-controlled man would result in a ton of pregnancies. If the onus is on women, then one ‘failure’/non-controlled woman would result in one pregnancy.
I think if I busted a nut 9 times a day, I would just simply just vanish.
Counterpoint: a woman taking birthcontrol is empowered because she is taking charge of her own reproduction. She doesn’t have to rely on or trust the man to take his pill. After all, she would be the one bearing most of the burden in case of an unwanted pregnancy.
Additionally, purely biologically it is much easier to reliably stop conception on the female side than on the male side. A woman only produces one egg cell per month, whereas a man produces millions of sperm cells per day.
Counterpoint to your counterpoint- no form of birth control has a zero percent failure rate under perfect use conditions and not all women respond to all forms of birth control well meaning pregnancy capable people cannot take perfect control of their family planning choices without the extreme surgical intervention of a hysterectomy as even getting medically sterilized in other ways can potentially undo itself. Doubling up from both sides means a much lower chance of failure rate resulting in life changing or difficult consequences and distress on behalf of the partner who faces higher risk outcomes.
Doing your part in a relationship’s reproductive planning is good partner behavior. This shouldn’t be a game where just one person is on the hook and the other is just along for the ride. Male and Female birth control do not exist as a one or the other dichotomy. Stoking division of the sexes over which one is more nessisary is counter to the real point. These are tools couples can use together to be safer.
No one is saying both sides should not be responsible. The initial photo from OP is implying that BC was initially for women out of misogyny or some other malicious reason. It is MUCH easier to terminate 1-2 viable eggs through a cycle than millions of sperm without causing infertility.
Okay… so? We’re supposed to feed into this premise by making seem like how women’s birth control is more nessisary and softly validate the idea that men don’t care and can’t be bothered? There’s not an unfair stereotype out there that there’s a lot of men being very callous about not wanting to take any measure to protect their partner if it inconveniences them too much while female hormonal birth control is known to have a bunch of horrible side effects that their relationships just expect them to take on so both partners can have fun.
Under those conditions it does not to me feel unreasonable that women get embittered by having to behave like all the unfair sacrifice for making sex safe enough to participate in is falling on female shoulders at present. Feelings don’t care about facts and strictly debating the scientific difficulty of the task is missing the point where the feelings that create this sort of post are coming from.
The point of the post was to say that BC should be for men because “it just makes sense”. You are spewing a bunch of nonsense unrelated to what is being pushed by the meme and I said exactly 0 of those things. I’m already aware. People that never made it beyond high school level topics should really stop.
Doing your part in a relationship’s reproductive planning is good partner behavior. This shouldn’t be a game where just one person is on the hook and the other is just along for the ride. Male and Female birth control do not exist as a one or the other dichotomy.
Except what the meme is saying is not that both partners should work together on birth control. It suggests that it should be on the man instead.
Meme also suggests that no work is being done on a male contraception pill, when in reality this is being worked on and has been worked on for decades, but there are good biological reasons why this is anything but trivial and certainly much harder than a female contraception pill.
Look beyond the meme my friend. When you exclusively start talking about the science of the matter or taking it to mean that the responsibility should be exclusively shifted to men you are ignoring a generation ls deep frustration pregnancy capable people have been experiencing on this subject. You end up implying through negative space that this is a responsibility that should stay in the camp of women- and women have been more under attack for their reproductive choices.
Women’s frustration with the attitudes of men wanting to control their bodies is valid. What this person is doing is returning a little of that. What other women in these comments are seeing is men react like you are here and that sends an unconscious message that the underlying problem is not one that is going to be addressed because unless the problems they are routinely subjected to specifically targets men, men won’t care.
Just because someone gives you a certain energy doesn’t mean you should add to it or return it. Intended or not you start making yourself look like an enemy. Sometimes you have to see beyond the conversation being had and realize to what use your commentary is being put. You are falling into the hands of the poster by being made to look like the worst sort of man.
Condoms don’t exist?
Barrier protections are great - but have one of the highest perfect use condition failure rates against pregnancy. If you used them under perfect condition correctly every time there’s still a 2% chance of failure every time…
Typical use however like, people hurrying, using bad technique of application or removal, improper sizing, not inspecting them before use or using expired product or other sundry defects of the condoms themselves means condom’s real life failure rate condition is about 18%.
Not to knock the condom but it’s not foolproof. Even paired up with the pill which has a decent track record when under perfect use conditions but one of the highest rates of imperfect use because of missed or improperly timed doses you still are rolling the dice.
Let’s lay some ttrpgs here. Everytime you have sex under that pairing it’s like you are rolling two individual dice. Let’s take the typical use of condoms and the pill. Roll a six sided die to represent the condom and a 10 sided die for the pill. If both die show up with a 1 then you get a pregnancy. Not bad odds until you realize this is repeated every time you have sex.
Adding another die to the equation in the form of a hormonal birth control for the other partner alters the chances to be more airtight. Also sometimes you as the male partner might want assurance because you generally don’t know of your partner is taking their pills right.
That doesn’t change the problem with original post its just more antimale bullshit that this site is flooded with, “Men are the ones that need birth control not women!” “You a man and don’t want to end up baby trapped? Either refuse sex or sterilize yourself.” I’m completely fucking done with it, I grew up a second class citizen in my own family because I was born a man I’m not putting up with any of it anymore! Stop justifying dog whistles and hate
It’s easier to prevent ovulation of one egg than stop a billion sperm cells from reaching their destination. Stop politicising biology.
Yeah they try to make this sound like an intelligent argument or that they designed birth control for women out of misogyny. It’s much easier to get one or two eggs terminated in a cycle vs eliminating millions of sperm without causing infertility. I don’t think the people that spew this understand.
Uh, it’s been done. Multiple times.
First was this one back in 2016, but the caveat was that it had the same side effects as women’s birth control. Since the patient being prescribed isn’t the one who will experience negative health outcomes without the medications, the harm of those side effects was deemed by researchers (not the patients themselves) to be greater than the risk of impregnating someone else.
Other hornonal options have come out since then, though not on the consumer market, like this hormonal gel and this pill.
More recently its been done without hormones by blocking a vitamin A metabolite that signals the production of sperm.
You’re the one “politicising biology” by using it to dismiss this out of hand without even the most basic level of research or respect for the complexity of the topic.
It’s easier to castrate men than to expect women to take medication with a wide array of side potential effects, stop politicising healthcare x
The one who gets pregnant should probably take the birth control, as pregnancy would be more bothersome for them than for the other person.
Just FYI after the 5th one I’m just cumming air at that point, but if there are 2,430 women out there who want to give it a try anyway be my guest.
You also get a hydro homie whose sole job is to keep you hydrated and keep giving you zinc suppliments
Counter point, all men are rapists(according to the wisdom of the internet). Therefore, birth control is protection against the onslaught of unwanted semen that comes from all the endless rape.
Or, if you arent a perpetually online moron, birth control allows women to control their reproduction. Its a symbol of liberation and freedom for women, who can now enjoy sex at their want without worry of pregnancy.
In over words, shes making a shit point. This is like all the clueless cunts moaning about women in short skirts in Star Trek, not realising the the mini skirt was a symbol of sexual liberation for the time.
Have you looked up sexual assault or rape rates in your community or country? It is definitely a high enough number to scare a normal person. Probably many of those crimes are repeat offenders, but that doesn’t help the victims.
There’s another question that I don’t think you can answer. How often do women close to you talk about this subject? And if they never have, then maybe there’s a good reason for it. Because we can find the above data and we know that people around us have gone through some horrible stuff.
Yes I have. But Im betting that you havent. To be clear, I never said it wasnt a problem. Its just not the problem that internet makes it out to be. Often we see morons using stats from African countries, where rape gangs are frequent, to justify saying “all men” in the US are pricks who rape women.
As for women talking to me about things. As long as you dont come at me like I raped you, or pushing some sexist ideal that “all men” are rapists, a conversation is fine to be had. If want me just to sit there and nod my head while you push some twoxchromosomes like up my arse, the answer will be “nah, Im good.”.
In the US, 1.9 million women are raped every year. Im sure you’ll agree, thats far too many. There are over 170 million women and girls in the US right now. As for sexual assaults, thats 480,000 a year. Out of over 170 million. Yes, we both wish that the number were zero. But no, I dont agree that women should be scared. Accord to RAINN, there is a 0.6 to 0.7% chance that a woman will be raped in her lift time. The risk of being in a car crash at least once in your life, is 84%. Shall we start making some shit about cars now???
The problem with people like you, is you make enemies where you did have any to start with. We can all agree that no woman should ever be raped or forced to endure an assault of any kind. But instead, you want to make it about how awful “men” are, and how you cant even walk the streets at night without being assaulted. Which is also bullshit, as only 10% of rapes happen because of strangers attacking women on the street. No, women are just as safe as men walking the streets at night, safer in fact, as we get attacked FAR more frequently. No, a womans real issue with rape and sexually assault happens when she gets home. Fathers, uncles, brothers, husbands, boyfriends, are all in that 90% bracket. So walk the streets ladies, it would seem that you dont have to worry about anything until you get home…
See how annoying that is?
Um your math isn’t mathing here:
In the US, 1.9 million women are raped every year. As for sexual assaults, thats 480,000 a year.
I think all rape is also sexual assault and I suspect that sexual assault that doesn’t go as far as rape is more common than rape. Did you mean 1.9 thousand, or 19 thousand, or do sexual assaults that aren’t rape go massively unreported?
In the US, 1.9 million women are raped every year. There are over 170 million women and girls in the US right now.
(about 1% per year)
there is a 0.6 to 0.7% chance that a woman will be raped in her life time.
(about 1% per lifetime)
These two are also inconsistent, which leads me to suspect that you got the order of magnitude wrong on the US rapes somehow.
In search of a number, I tried https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States where I found
Relationship of victim to rapist before the incident:
Current or former intimate partner: 26%
Another relative: 7%
Friend or acquaintance: 38%
Stranger: 26%so maybe women should exercise caution going out (38% + 26% = 64%) more than staying in (26% + 7% = 34%).
1.9 million rapes (CDC) 480,000 sexual assaults (ie not rape) (RAINN)
Not sure what it is that you arent getting here. Im making the distinction between being felt up and having a penis shoved in to you. Rape is sexual assault, but sexual assault is not rape. Just ask any man who has been forced to have sex against his will, and it not be considered rape.
Youre right, I misspoke. The 10% number is only among college women. It closer to 20-25% of all women. Still, doesnt really change the point, doest it? The men that pose the greatest threat to women, are not strangers. I dont know how youre fucking brain works, but strangers = people you dont know. Seeing you explain how the fuck fathers, uncles, brothers, are in the same category as strangers will be a fun fucking read.
0.6 to 0.7% over a womans life time(averaging 70 years). If you have a problem with that number, I suggest you take up with RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network). Its their number. In fact, all the numbers that you dont like, come from RAINN or the CDC. So you can take it up with them, but those are the average numbers.
Not sure what it is that you arent getting here
1.9m/170m = 1% per year. That doesn’t add up to 0.7% per lifetime. I don’t know how you can think that more women get raped per year than get raped per lifetime. It didn’t add up, which is why I questioned it.
Thanks for quoting CDC as your source, which helped. I couldn’t find particularly recent data, but the 2016/2017 survey said:
One in 4 women (26.8% or 33.5 million) in the United States reported completed or attempted rape victimization at some point in her lifetime.
Two percent (2.3% or about 2.9 million) reported rape victimization in the 12 months before the survey.
Table 1 quotes 54.3% for lifetime contact sexual violence for women, and 47% unwanted sexual contact. You quoted significantly fewer (480 000) sexual assaults than rapes (1.9 million) which still doesn’t add up, no matter how much you swear at me.
No, a womans real issue with rape and sexually assault happens when she gets home. Fathers, uncles, brothers, husbands, boyfriends, are all in that 90% bracket. So walk the streets ladies, it would seem that you dont have to worry about anything until you get home…
They’re make up the 34% bracket, not the 90% bracket, according to the wikipedia article - see data below.
Still, doesnt really change the point, doest it? The men that pose the greatest threat to women, are not strangers. I dont know how youre fucking brain works, but strangers = people you dont know. Seeing you explain how the fuck fathers, uncles, brothers, are in the same category as strangers will be a fun fucking read.
Relationship of victim to rapist before the incident:
Current or former intimate partner: 26%
Another relative: 7%
Friend or acquaintance: 38%
Stranger: 26%so maybe women should exercise caution going out (38% + 26% = 64%) more than staying in (26% + 7% = 34%).
Actually, as you can see from my figures, I put the fathers, uncles, brothers in the same category as the intimate partners - the home category.
I was assuming that family and partners/former partners would be at home and the friends, acquaintances and strangers would be met when they went out. You can take issue with that certainly, but I didn’t put her dad in the stranger category.
Anyway, I think that we can agree that being alone with a man is perhaps where the risk lies for women, whether that’s at home or outside.
Occasionally you make very good points, but you’re unnecessarily abusive to people who make even minor corrections, and I get the impression that you don’t read your posts or your replies terribly carefully, preferring to shout than check.
Erm…
I think there are errors on both parts here…
1.9/170 is about 1.1176%. 4 decimal places is still an unacceptable level of rounding here, but it’sa damn sight better than 0/1 decimal place. Both of you were off on this.
It is definitely right to split rape and sexual assault, they’re very different crimes - combining them is double counting which is a poor faith tactic used to inflate numbers.
1.1176% per year DEFINITELY does not translate directly to that for a lifetime. To put it into context, if you have a 1% chance of being shot each day (assuming BINS) you have a [(0.99)^365]*100% (or 2.6%) of not being shot at all that year - note binomial is not appropriate for rape odds calculations but it’s a nice example of how low odds per year DO NOT translate to low odds per lifetime.
Self report is absolute garbage - it’s the worst form of stat gathering and often leads to socially advantageous answers being given. Using self-report stats as a keystone to an argument is dangerous at best.
The “known rapist” is a tricky one, as it depends how you define rape. Sex under the influence of alcohol you later regret - tricky to place in the at home (you knew them enough to go home with) vs stranger (did you really know them). While it’s nice to give clear cut numbers, this isn’t a clear cut scenario.
/Statsrant
Seems to me you both care about this topic - sounds to me like you should both go data hunting and explore the topic together. Two opposing perspectives makes a great paper, and you generally learn more!
My two cents - being alone with someone is always risky. Trying to assign which is riskier (men or women) is foolish, it creates the dynamic of “men vs women” rather than the desired “everyone vs rapists”.
Actually, as you can see from my figures, I put the fathers, uncles, brothers in the same category as the intimate partners - the home category.
I was assuming that family and partners/former partners would be at home and the friends, acquaintances and strangers would be met when they went out. You can take issue with that certainly, but I didn’t put her dad in the stranger category.
Ah, youre one of them…
Anyway, I think that we can agree that being alone with a man is perhaps where the risk lies for women, whether that’s at home or outside.
No, I dont think we can agree on that sexist statement. Being alone with a man is not automatically or inherently dangerous. The vast majority of men are safe, and sexual violence is committed by a small minority.
Around 2-10% of reported rapes, are found to be false. So, thats the number. But when talk about rape, we include non convictions when we talk about men and rape. I was once falsely accused of rape. I wasnt convicted because there was no evidence that I had done it. But I wasnt able to clear myself either, because how the fuck do you prove a negative??? My story, is one of those used to inflate the number of rapists out there. Because my story falls under “not convicted”. Do you see the problem? Sexism means that we account for those who were convicted as “rapists who got away”, but not “liars who didnt get caught”. So, with this in mind, is being alone with a woman is where men risk their freedom??? Of course not. That would be fucking stupid. Wouldnt it? Because basing my opinion of woman around what a minority of them do would be… whats that word again… Oh yes, sexism! And thats what you are pushing here. Sexism.
“onslaught”. im sorry for whatever country you live in where women are raped multiple times a day.
Reading is hard, huh?
no, you should watch the words you use because they can take things way out of context.
No, you should keep on reading, and not stop at the part you feel offended by. You fucking moron.
wow, quite violent for being told to use proper context. nice example your setting of yourself.
Removed by mod
get some air mate and relax.
Condoms?
I’m pretty sure the birth control pill is for women because that was easy to do. A pill for men has been tried several times and they still don’t exist yet.
Let’s say you save exactly one pill and it works on anyone. Also assume 100% pregnancy rate, so if you are paired with someone and neither have the pill, then it’s an automatic pregnancy. Our goal is to minimize number of pregnancies.
- “Max promiscuity”: Say we have a complete bipartite matching. if it’s given to a male, then no pregnancies have been prevented since every other male can impregnate every female. If it’s given to a female, then it reduces the number of pregnancies by 1 since none of the males can impregnate her.
- “Traditional”: Say we have a bijective matching (i.e. each male is paired with exactly one female, and vice versa). Then the pill can be given to anyone and it will always reduce the number of pregnancies by 1.
- “The Harem”: Say we have a matching where males have more than one pairing but females have at most one pairing each. In this case, giving the pill to the male with the largest number of pairings will reduce pregnancies by however many pairings they have.
- “Reverse Harem”: Same scenario as above but flip male and female. Giving the pill to any female will have the same effect of reducing pregnancies by 1. Giving it to a male will have no effect.
- “The Cliques”: The population is split into disjoint graphs, but each of these disjoint graphs are complete (bijective) bipartite graphs. In this case, if the pill is given to a male, then it will only have an effect if that male only has a single pairing, thereby reducing pregnancies by exactly 1. Otherwise, there will be no reduction in pregnancies. If given to a female, then it will always reduce pregnancies by exactly 1.
As far as I’m aware, the real world operates most like a mixture of “Traditional” and “Cliques”. At least, in places where birth control is an option. But in the real world, we have more than one pill.
If we have enough for either all males or all females, then the effect is the same regardless of who gets the pill. It will always lead to 100% pregnancy reduction.
Let’s say we have enough pills for all but one male, or all but one female.
- “Max promiscuity”: If the pill is given to the males, then we still have one male that can impregnate everyone, so there will be no reduction in pregnancies. If given to females, then you will end up with exactly one pregnancy.
- “Traditional”: As before, there’s no difference. Any decision will lead to reducing pregnancies to exactly 1.
- “The Harem”: giving to all the males except the one with the smallest number of pairings will reduce pregnancies to however many pairings that one male has (more than 1). If given to females, then it will reduce it to exactly 1.
- “Reverse Harem”: Giving it to the males will reduce pregnancies to exactly 1 since they’re only in 1 pairing. Giving it to females will also reduce it to exactly 1.
- “The Cliques”: if given to the males, then it will only make a difference if there exists a clique with exactly one male. It will reduce pregnancies by the largest number of females in a clique with a single male. If given to females, then it always reduces pregnancies to exactly 1.
So with the goal of minimizing pregnancies, it either makes no difference or is optimal to have the pill on women (unless you’re in a harem). This is highly reductive though. We have many other considerations when deciding who should get access to birth control.
Lol this is so dumb
I’m actually waiting for male birth control pills so bad
They would give men more agency on reproduction, aside from vasectomy, which is permanent, and condoms, which can rip or be intentionally poked.
Also, they can be used in couples where a woman is hesitant to take pills herself, either out of reproductive concerns (fear that pills would make them permanently sterile), or the overall influence of hormones on the body and the menstrual cycle.
Not really…
On the biological level it is trying to stop millions of sperm-cells to sneak in or prevent one egg-cell from being available. In the numbers game it is less risky and more reliable to make the one cell unavailable then to try to prevent the millions from being viable. Even if you shut 99.99% of them down, you still have more risk than having 99.99% chance of preventing the one cell being available.
I’m afraid that however we want the world to be equal for man and women, the biology itself is unfair and needs a lot more time and research if you want to equalize that.
Or use the tie-off snipsnip solution. It is a bit more permanent, but is pretty reliable in preventing.
Excuse me, but birth control is not just a pill, it’s the entire process that includes putting on a condom. And it’s expected of guys to use condoms.
Besides that, there are pills and procedures a guy can do as birth control.
