Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    
    Well, there are condoms, which were created for men.....but I
    understand your comments....there isn't any real totally safe device
    for men.
    
    Common sense tells me that it would be more difficult to create a birth
    control device (implant?) for men.  I would probably have to be
    something that curtailed the production of sperm....
    
    hummm.......the pill was stumbled on purely by accident (they were
    really trying to develop a fertility pill). 
    
    Someday, hopefully, right?
    
    
    kath_who_wants_to_make_it_permanent

    Probably easier to stop one egg than a zillion sperms

    
    
    > Probably easier to stop one egg than a zillion sperms
    
    I think that was the point I was trying to make. 8-)  (My head is so
    stuffed up right now I can't even think straight let alone right
    straight).
    
    k

    
    Maia,
    
    While I understand what you are saying, and AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that
    birth control for men (other than condoms) should be available (despite
    the fact that bc for men is more difficult to accomplish technically),
    I believe this really *IS* good news for women:
    
    First, it has been a VERY long time since there have been *ANY* new bc
    methods available in this country.  (20 years or so?  Anyone know
    exactly?)  Another choice?  YEAH, RIGHT ON!
    
    >I, for one, am sick and tired of taking risks and being told what
    >a great break through it is for *women*.  Right, take the pill,
    >risk breast cancer, a heart attack; use a Dalkon Shield, risk death;
    >and now these miracaculous implants...what risks do they involve?
    
    Maia, pregnancy (for most women) carries a FAR greater risk than ANY
    known method of birth control, including the pill and the Dalkon
    Shield.  For many of us who have abnormalities of the reproductive
    system (hereditary or otherwise), pregnancy can be deadly.  I will take
    a possible risk associated with a birth control method over the
    near-certain (for me) life threatening risk of pregnancy ANY DAY. 
    (sorry, celibacy is NOT a realistic option for many/most women!)
    
    >How about inventing something that will help both genders avoid
    >pregnancy, and not have all the risk, guilt, and responsibility
    >placed on the woman?
    
    I agree that this should be an available option; however I appreciate
    being *able* to take the responsibility for myself.  
    
    						/Rita
    

    uh, just a nit I guess...
    
    my concern isn't so much for a "real totally safe device for men."
    it seems that there really are no devices for men except the condom
    and even that in many cases has become the responsibility of the
    woman.  You know, don't leave home without it...I've heard of
    many women who chose to get pregnant rather than 'enforce' a condom
    on their partners; some women talk about being beaten because they
    dared to suggest it.
    
    I guess I'm saying that even though males are the models used for
    most research; when it comes to birth control, women are the ones
    who risk everything.  Let's find a safe device for both men and women;
    let's work harder at stopping a zillion sperm, surely if we can send
    a man to the moon....
    
    m.
    

    Minor side effects were listed in the article I read:
    
    "Longer periods, spotting between periods, nausea and cramps."
    
    These don't seem very minor to me.  Some alternative!
    
    

    Pardon the light note in a discussion of serious side effects of birth
    control, but I really enjoyed what follows (laughing out loud at 0630
    is VERY hard to do :-)...  
    
    Someone (I don't have the time now to copy it over literally and give
    the person credit) put in what is imho a great joke this morning in
    SoapBox, anent the need for a birth control pill for men...  It went
    something like this:
    
    "But there IS already a birth control pill for men..."
    
    "You put it in your shoe and it makes you limp!"
    
    (ba-dump-bump! :-)
    
    We now return you to the Real World...

    Maybe I'm more ignorant than I thought here...
    
    *Why* is it harder to stop sperm production in men?  It's a cascade of
    biological steps, triggered and run at several points by hormone
    levels, same as egg production and release is.  When I was home sick in
    Oct, I watched some of a Donahue show (blush), it was about the male
    contraceptive pill, it raises the level of testosterone enough to fool
    the man's body into thinking it has enough, so it stops producing more
    testosterone. (The level remains the same throughout, it is just
    supplied to the bloodstream by pill, not manufactured in the body.)  It
    seems that sperm production is triggered as a side effect of
    testosterone manufacture in the body.  You keep and don't change the
    male characteristics, but you don't make sperm.  Reversible in <= 6
    months.  Several couples who have been using it, in the panel, along
    with the doc who's developing it.
    
    Now, it may end up that there are side effects, just as there are to
    the contraceptive pill for women.  It's not being marketed yet.
    
    I think the targetting of women as vehicles for the implementation of
    contraception has more to do with women-as-bearers than it does with
    relative difficulty of process.  Women are selectively"protected" in
    lead-battery factories, too, even though men's health, and possibly
    reproductive health too!, is just as affected by lead as women's health is!

    
>    I think the targetting of women as vehicles for the implementation of
>    contraception has more to do with women-as-bearers than it does with
>    relative difficulty of process.  Women are selectively"protected" in
>    lead-battery factories, too, even though men's health, and possibly
>    reproductive health too!, is just as affected by lead as women's health is!

	I think it also has to do with fear.  Fear sells; look at the
	insurance industry.  I personally think that the fear of enduring
	an unwanted pregnancy oneself is greater than the fear of being
	responsible for another person's unwanted pregnancy, especially
	for those not involved in long-term committed relationships (which
	is a significant portion of the women for whom the pill is currently
	prescribed, since they generally don't like to prescribe it for 
	women over 35 or so).

	I suspect that fear works both ways: in women, it's a motivator.
	(i.e., *you* take the responsibility, and if *you* goof, its *your*
	health - not just your money - which takes the hit).  In men, it 
	may make it difficult to find research subjects, since a drug 
	affecting the reproductive system would probably leave many men 
	wondering how it might affect sexual function as well.

	    Sharon
	

    Does anybody know about "Vasectomy"?

re: .11

	Yeah, but's there's a big difference between "not now" and "not ever."

						--D

    This summer, I got to listen to and talk with Jack Cohen, whose
    field is human reproductive biology.
    
    He explained that any possible contraceptive *must* have a lower
    risk rate associated with it than the alternative: the woman becomes
    pregnant.  Since the fatality level for men due to pregnancy is
    low (but non-zero, since suicides and murders do count in this tally),
    any contraceptive for men must have at least as low a fatality level.
    This is really inhibiting.
    
    He also explained that the idea of zillions of sperm competing for
    one egg is a myth.  The reality is that ninety-mumble percent of
    all spermatozoa are killed by special antibodies in the woman's
    body.  The pathetically few that survive are those that are immune;
    you could run those few down the same uterus *again*, with a new
    batch of sperm, and they would still be among the survivors.
    
    The above formed the consideration and the technique for *his* new
    contraceptive method.  It was tested in Cambodia (?) where the
    risk level for pregnancy was 9 (This is not a simple fatalities-
    per-n-thousand measure; consider it dimensionless.) whereas the
    initial estimate for his technique was 3.  It actually tested out
    at 1.5 and so was considered very good.
    
    						Ann B.

>    He explained that any possible contraceptive *must* have a lower
>    risk rate associated with it than the alternative: the woman becomes
>    pregnant.  Since the fatality level for men due to pregnancy is
>    low (but non-zero, since suicides and murders do count in this tally),
>    any contraceptive for men must have at least as low a fatality level.

	This reasoning gets me angry.  Since women are the only ones at
	risk of pregnancy, therefore they must also be the only ones at
	risk for birth control?  It also implies that a higher fatality
	rate is acceptable for a female contraceptive than for a male
	contraceptive, meaning that if a male contraceptive were developed
	that was safer than most of the female contraceptives now
	marketed, it could potentially *still* not be sold.  

	Now suppose the case of a man whose partner would run a high risk
	of dying were she to become pregnant, say a 60% risk.  This man
	would *still* not be allowed to take the contraceptive in the
	above paragraph, even if it carried (say) a .0001% death risk,
	although it is clearly the better risk for the couple.

	To me, this rule says clearly "women are more expendable than
	men" (unless, of course, they start murdering them wholesale).
	Who makes these rules, anyway?  Who failed to tell them that
	it takes *two* people to cause a pregnancy?

	    Sharon

    
    .14 -
    
    men.
    
    D.

    that didn't take long!
    
    

    >that didn't take long!
    
    	That didn't take long either...
     

    Oh MikeZ, for some reason when I read this I flashed on Joe Friday,
    delivering this line deadpan to some poor disheveled woman at her
    kitchen door.  Did I laugh!
    
>	Unless you can identify those sperm, you must stop them all.
    
    

[Please see also the previous notes on contraception and the pill in here (?)
and V2. -- Charles]

Part of the problem with developing a reliable male "pill" is that 1) sperm
production is continuous, and once they are mature you are pretty much
restricted to mechanical or immunological rather than hormonal approaches. There
are no non-mechanical methods for men yet. 2) the new method needs to be
reversible. We already have a cheap, safe, effective non-reversible form of
birth control for men - vasectomy. Another such method might be interesting, but
not very. Therefore a new method needs to be reversible. All previous oral male
contraceptives have suffered from too high a rate of non-reversibility.
Gossypol in particular comes to mind (the highly touted "chinese male pill").
Increasing testosterone levels has "undesirable side effects" including changes
in libido, facial and body hair, and weight, and is not reliable enough nor
reversible enough (now). You also have to worry about potential damage to sperm
that might result in birth defects. I believe there is a "male pill" in
clinical trials, maybe limited clinical trials, but I haven't looked into it
much yet. Maybe I should call Stanford and volunteer.

Women have a "natural" hormonal fertility regulation system that the pill
mimics. Unfortunately men have no such corresponding system to copy. Me, as
soon as I have my quota of kids - out come the snips.


	-- Charles

    The other part of my discussion is in 458.18.
    
    		*		*		*
    
    Look at the safety issue from the other side:
    
    "Hi!  I'm your doctor and I'd like you to test this new <mumble>
    for your condition."
    
    "Is it safe?"
    
    "No.  You'd be much safer doing nothing."
    
    This is *not* what doctors consider ethical.  You simply cannot expose
    your test group to an unnecessary risk.  Volunteers who are part of
    a Situation is another matter entirely -- the odds are radically
    different -- and the two should not be confused.
    
    						Ann B.

    re .-1
    Ann:

    Is it your intent to be offering the idea that men have
    reason/justification not to participate in experimental tests because
    the tests would be more dangerous than the alternative.
    
    Is this a dialogue between a doctor and a male patient
    			or
    		between a doctor and a female patient
    

.6 The side effects I heard about were almsot opposite of yours.  On the tube,
    it was shorter periods with the possibility of total cessation.  Also did
    hear about extreme nausea/pain.  Warning to women over 150 lbs. was that
    the implants may only work for 3 years.  Not recommended for women who
    smoke - no explanation why.

   I can't help but tell you that when I saw those implants in women's arms,
   I nearly jumped out of my chair.

   AAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

   Folks, it looked like you'd have to be bothered by that all the time.  Sounds
   and looks really great - not that anyone would think anything wrong with a
   product which would completely stop your natural cycle and give you EXTREME
   (yes, it was emphasized) nausea and pain.  

   Another giant step for womankind.

   Barb

p.s. Yes, I know the scream goes in another note, but I simply couldn't 
     delete it here.

    Urgh!  That sample conversation is a good example of what I was
    talking about.  If doctors are going to consider sexually active
    heterosexual men in a vacuum, or more precisely sexually active 
    heterosexual men and women as being in _separate_ vacuums, that is
    precisely the sort of reasoning that is going to pass for "ethical".
    But it's *NOT* ethical, not in this case.

    Try *this* conversation on for size:
    
        "Hi!  I'm your lawyer and I'm returning your call about you and your
        SO having an unwanted pregnancy on your hands."
    
        "Will raising the kid (or: having an abortion) be expensive?"
    
        "Yes.  It'd be much less expensive for you to deny its yours."
    
    This is *not* what most of our society considers ethical, yet it uses
    the same logic as your conversation with the doctor.  My argument is
    that it's unreasonable to consider men and women as being in separate 
    test groups if what you're really seeking to contracept is the *couple*
    - i.e., reduce the risk of a sexual encounter between them resulting
    in a pregnancy.  You are testing what effect the new contraceptive,
    when used by that couple as the sole form of contraception, will have
    on that risk.  Ergo, your test group consists not only of those men
    using the contraceptive, but also of their female sexual partners.
    If contraception is to be a shared responsibility, then I feel it's
    reasonable to consider the risks as being shared, as well.

    And what's wrong with testing with volunteers, anyway?  Do you really
    believe that they choose *random* men to test a contraceptive (i.e.,
    even those trying to conceive a child)?  I hope not.  And I also hope
    that their partners are complicit in the research effort - it could
    really skew your data, for example, if they were all using other forms
    of birth control themselves.

	Sharon

    .24
    
    That was the point of my starting the note; here they are ...
    thrilled to introduce a nice new contraceptive method *for women*
    again.  And yes, of course, a few side effects.  Like the Dalkon
    Shield where women would faint while having the thing inserted;
    become sterile, get toxic.  Just another 'great benefit' for
    our good.
    
    I guess I'm very sarcastic and angry; but when I think of the
    'establishment' out there that keeps coming up with these things
    for women for our own good; ie. Valium, 'oh dearie, your husband
    is beating you? Here, take this Valium, it will make you feel
    better.'
    
    So what am I saying?  I guess that I don't trust any of them to
    keep our health and well being in mind; and I'm angry because for
    so long I 'bought it' along with everyone else.  As if they care
    beyond the wallet.
    
    Grrr.
    Maia
    

    Re .14
    
    Sharon,
    
    I think I know what you meant, but I must take exception to the
    statement that only women are at "risk" (quotations are mine) of pregnancy.
    Certainly, only women get pregnant. But the consequences of that pregnancy 
    affect both the man and the woman. Ignoring the low-lifes who would
    disappear after finding out about a, presumably unplanned, pregnancy,
    men, too, are forever changed by the miracle of conception.
    
    I can only speak for myself, but I was very concerned about the
    possibility of pregnancy. I use the past tense because I chose to have
    a vasectomy. As a permanent solution, it is much easier than tubal
    ligation. Now there is no fear, for either partner, of an unplanned
    addition to the U.S. population. I have had my family. Now that I am
    single again, I am doubly glad that *I* have control over possible
    reproduction. 
    
    Had there been a viable male contraceptive such as the pill, I would
    gladly have taken it and assumed the responsibility. There wasn't, so a
    vasectomy was, and is, the best solution for me.
    
    When (I'm an optimist in this regard) I find someone to share the rest
    of my life with, she will have to understand, and agree, that we will
    not be having any children of our own. I hope she will appreciate the
    fact that she does not need to worry about birth control.
    
    I'm not trying to say that she should not have any say whether or not
    *she* has children, but that say will come up front in the relationship.
    To continue long-term with me would be to accept that *we* would not
    have any.
    
    Previously, I have been read-only. But now, having put my $.02 in, I
    suppose I should sign in.
    
    Mike
      

    My dialog between doctor and potential volunteer did not suppose
    either gender OR thingumie under test.  It is equally unethical
    to make such an offering to a woman to test a kidney stone drug
    and to a man to test an anti-cancer drug, et cetera.  Would *you*
    ask someone to do something risky, just for a test?  Without telling
    them of the level of risk -- because you didn't know it?  Of course
    not!  Would you expect a doctor or biologist to be less ethical?
    
    One common group of volunteers used to test new drugs is -- prisoners.
    These are people who are really out of the loop!  Yes, they are
    "in a vacuum".  It is useful in terms of having your test group
    available for associated tests and follow-ups :-) and (in fertility/
    infertility drug testing) you don't have to worry about failures
    resulting in pregnancies.  (Do you really want to use the husbands
    of women who should never become pregnant as guinea pigs for a
    process that might NOT render them infertile?)
    
    This is why pregnant women are excluded from a lot of testing -- it's
    dangerous for them.  The risk exceeds the possibility for gain.
    The real problem of this exclusion is that *after* the testing,
    pregnant women are then given the drugs just AS IF they had been
    tested on pregnant women and found safe!
    
    						Ann B.

    i unnerstan. My frame of reference was pregnancy prevention rather than
    abstract 'thingumie'
    One interpretation I made had you 'supporting the notion' that it is
    appropriate to submit women to more danger in re pregnancy avoidance
    than men, because the alternative -a woman's pregnancy- was MORE
    DANGEROUS for women than for men.
    I didn't feel comfortable with that interpretation, so I checked.

    I welcome *any* new contraceptive. It adds one to a too short list
    of choices that couples have. I'd like to see more contraceptives,
    for  both sexes and I applaud any progress in that direction. It's
    been 20 years since the last new contraceptive was approved in the
    US.

    There is  always a long list of possible side effects for any drug
    (We  just  read  the list for Motrin this weekend, it was scary.),
    but  the  thing that matters is which ones affect you. The list of
    side  effects  for  Norplant looked like most other lists. Without
    seeing  the  frequencies  of these side effects (and I haven't yet
    seen  that  information) it's impossible to know how concerned one
    should be.  

    I'm more  concerned  about  the  longer term side effects than the
    short  term  ones. One can always remove the implants if the short
    term side effects are a problem.

--David

    .28
    
    that is, it's dangerous for the fetus.
    After birth, it's OK to experiment on the women.
    right?
    m.
    

Re "difficulties" about a "male pill" -

<rag on>

I imagine it was also a challenge for patriarchal societies, once they
realized what the male role in reproduction is, to figure out how to track
the male seed from one generation to the next, through the "male line." But
hey, they did it! And look how successful they were! (Make sure those women 
are virgins when they marry! Call 'em sluts if they have sex with anyone 
other than their Lawful Wedded Spice! Make 'em give up their names when 
they marry! Lock 'em up in chastity belts when you're out of town! Then 
you'll know who your kids are!)

So maybe they could also figure out how to block said seed when it isn't
wanted. 

Assuming, of course, they were motivated to do so.  :-)

D.

<rag off>

    Lawful Wedded *Spice*?!  I love it, but believe me, not all Lawful
    Weddeds have Spice!
    
    (*8

    "Spice" is the plural of spouse only when one person has more than
    one spouse.  If it is a 1:1 ratio, the correct plural is "spouses".
    
    					Ann B.

re: .28 (Ann B.)

    So, then, what was your point in bringing up the issue of research
    subjects?  Since you as a researcher are confronted with the *same
    problem* getting women to be research subjects as getting men, I don't
    see how this would explain the inabundance of male contraceptives
    available today.  Female contraceptives somehow get tested.  Why 
    *not* a male contraceptive?

    "Do you really want to use the husbands of women who should never 
    become pregnant as guinea pigs for a process that might NOT render 
    them infertile?"  No.  I wasn't recommending them as research subjects,
    but as a potential market for such a drug/device.  

    And while I'm at it :-) - why don't you have to worry about contraceptive
    failures resulting in pregnancies if you use prisoners as guinea pigs
    for contraceptive testing?  Sure, it's sometimes useful to do some 
    initial testing on the sexually inactive, but if you're testing, say,
    a drug that makes all the sperm unacceptable to an egg, this isn't
    going to be useful after a point.  And at the point where you go "real
    life", you won't get any hard data if you don't enlist the support of
    the men's partners as well as the men, at which point the ethics of the
    situation should depend on the *pooled* risks to the men *and* their
    partners together, right?

    I have to admit that I have ceased to understand your ethics argument.
    What, in reference to the development of male contraceptives, are you
    trying to say?

	Sharon

    Actually I recall several years ago, before the testoseron "pill",
    there was already a research going looking for a "male pill". It was
    successfull in that sense that they did manage to block the sperm, but
    it still had the nasty side effect that it was lethal :-}. 
    
    Personally I think in long-term relationships a vasectomy might be a
    good solution eventually, in terms of casual contacts these days a
    condom looks inevitable, were it only for no other reason than to
    prevent the spread of AIDS and other VD's. I suppose the new
    contraceptive could be a good alternative for women who use the "pill",
    yet it doesn't offer any protection except against pregnancy.
    
    Ad

    The male and female's contributions to the reproduction of the species
    are completely different. The only point of similarity is that each
    process contributes 50% of the genetic material needed. The male's
    system is extremely simple and the conversely the females is most
    complicated.

    The female reproductive system is designed to be interrupted, in that
    all pregnant females do not produce eggs during the pregnancy and
    usually this continues over the period that they are lactating. This is
    to stop a second impregnation during or just after a pregnancy.

    The "pill" has a relatively simple task of fooling the body, by
    releasing hormones at levels normally only seen during pregnancy, thus
    stopping the eggs being ripened.

    The male has no such interrupt mechanism. From just after puberty to
    extreme old age he is continously fertile. The only times that he will
    become temporarily infertile is when he is extremely ill. A simple
    slight alteration of the hormonal balance would not be enough to
    totally stop sperm production. Remember the figure must be 100% as
    99.99% is not nearly good enough.

    So a pill for men may never be developed, and if it was, would you risk
    believing any man who said he took it? 

    Jamie.

    I believe that antibuse, the drug given to alcoholics which makes
    them violently ill if they drink alcohol was originally developed
    as a male pill. Can anyone confirm this?
    
    Bonnie

RE : (Base note) 


I can agree with the sentiment,  I never liked the idea of my wife taking
birth control pills, for one  I'd also have to think twice (If I were in the
situation) of havin some hormone altering device implanted in my arm!)

Re:Vasectomy..

Even this, has it's bitter side.

 
After my wife gave birth to two beautful children, and one child
who was a still born, I figured it was my turn, and made a
permanent move.  Sometimes, I wish I hadn't (the thought of another
child occasionally crosses our minds, but unless a reversal operation
is done, and sucessful there's little chance of this.  I suppose
there's other ways, but...)

I guess if I had the option, I'd have probably not gone the vasectomy route.

??  If they can devise something that works in a womens arm, why can it
    also work for a man... I wonders...

/r

    Re: vasectomy as long-term alternative
    
	I know someone (like I really know this person) who had his
	vasectomy reversed and now has a 2 year old daughter.  He 
	was "fixed' back in 1971.  Now it is possible that it happened
	some other way (the fertilization) but I kind of doubt it.

	_peggy

    without reading all the replies.
    
    I had a vascectomy 13 years ago. No problem. Must be MUCH easier than
    all the other methods. Just be sure to follow directions.........
    
    ....Bob

Oops, I forgot one of the potential "male pill" possibilities. There are a
number of drugs that make it difficult or impossible for a man to sustain an
erection. This is not entirely effective as you can still ejaculate when not
erect, but works in the vast majority of the cases. On the other hand, I doubt
that most men would consider this an acceptable form of birth control...

(I think that's how "antabuse" "works".)

	-- Charles

    re .44, I doubt many women would either.
    
    Lorna
    

	This is mostly hearsay (and perhaps the conference research junkies
could find data to prove/disprove) but I seem to recall being told that men
are told to consider vasectomies non-reversible.  Indeed, they can be reversed
in {some/most/many???} cases, but that the chances of non-reversibilty are
significant enough that you shouldn't count one it being reversible.

	On the other hand...

	Kurt Vonnegut, in his story "Welcome To The Monkey House" (from a
book of short stories by the same title) puts forth the concept of "ethical
birth control."  Both men & women take pills that make them numb from the
waist down.  There's no interference with the reproductive process, so
therefor, it's "ethical."


				--Doug

    This is a reply to Sharon's .35, which I started to write last night,
    but my terminal spazzed and....  (This sounds as pathetic as "the
    dog ate my homework".)
    
    The most likely point of confusion is that I am distinguishing between
    testing and application.  The next most likely point of confusion is
    that the risk level of (for example) pregnancy is different for men
    and for women.
    
    In testing, the risk level of the *test subjects* is what must be
    considered.  Also, it must be [educatedly] guessed at.  For example,
    Jack Cohen's process had an estimated risk level of 3, so it was
    comfortably lower than the test subjects base risk level (of pregnancy)
    of 9, and thus the testing was considered ethical.  After testing,
    its risk level was determined to be 1.5.  I presume this means that
    any doctor would feel justified in suggesting its use for any woman
    (or couple???) with a pregnancy risk level of 2 or more.
    
    Let's say that the risk level of men in re pregnancy is .5.  This
    means that any process/drug to create infertility in men must have
    an initial, estimated risk level of less than .5 -- and I'd guess
    less than .25, for that nice, 100% margin of error that I would be
    fond of in that or any similar situation.
    
    So, I was only discussing the problems of setting up the initial
    (or feasibility) testing.  These are problems that have to be gotten
    past before one can even *begin* to enter the testing/implementation
    phase described in your second-to-last paragraph.  (Please notice
    that in my usual, craven fashion, I have given no opinions about
    any, ah, social pressures which may be operating in *addition* to
    what I've been describing.)

    							Ann B.

    I am at a loss.
    
    Considering that I cheered out loud at my television set when it gave
    me the news about NorPlant, I'm just not in touch with why women would
    be angry or upset to have another contraceptive option.
    
    As a woman, I want there to be a gazillion options for me to choose
    from should I decide that I do not wish to become pregnant.  I'm wildly
    in favour of conception control for both men and women.
    
    After all, if I do not wish to become pregnant that's my choice, my life,
    and my responsibility.  No one else's.  In fact, I find the notion that
    someone other than myself might take responsibility for my choice
    exceedingly repugnant!
    
    If a man does not wish to make me pregnant that's his responsibility,
    his choice --- not mine!  He can trust in me if he so chooses, but
    that's an abdication of his control over future outcomes.  Given the 
    few options open to men, I'd be pi**ed big-time if I was one.
    
    I'd greet news of a new conception prevention option for men with
    happines; but, quite honestly it's effect upon my life would be
    minimal.  The happiness I would be feeling would be more along the
    lines of 'couldn't have happened at a better time' or camaraderie [for
    lack of a better word].
    
    Conception control really is [IMHO] _everyone's_ responsibility. Anyone
    who tried to make it just mine might come in for a shock ...
    
      Annie
    

    well, i'd like to nominate your response for something but in the
    current atmosphere it -the nomination- would probably be viewed
    with hostility
    
    so, thankyou
    
    				herb

    
    	Sounds like "it ain't easy being Herb" today...
    

    
    Whose respose did you want to nominate, herb?  Annie's in .48?
    I thought it was great note, and expresses my current views exactly.
    
    As for whoever said in some past response that they thouht men were
    told to consider vasectomies to be irreversible, I'm sure they are told 
    that.  I was told the same thing when I had my tubes tied.  (And yes, I 
    had them tied, not cut & cauterized, because I thought it might be easier 
    to undo, if I ever changed my mind.  I'm not sure the doctor had an
    opinion about the potential reversibility of different methods, as he 
    wanted me to consider the operation Really and Truly Final.)
    
    CQ

    yes
    Gentle Annie's (also a melancholy song by Tommy Machem -or was it Liam
    		   Clancy?)

    Some info on Norplant, fwiw....
    --------------------------------------------------
Subj:	norplant
Subj:For anyone interested in contraception:
Subj:Interesting notes from the New York Times today:
 
    Norplant is a set of small soft tubes that are implanted under a
    woman's skin (the upper arm).
    During the procedure an incision one-tenth of an inch long is made in
    the skin of the arm, and six soft, match-sized tubes are slipped under 
    the skin in a fan pattern.
    The tubes are made of Silastic, a rubber-like material that has  long
    been in use in surgical implants.
 
    Delivers the hormones progestin (later in the article it says
    levonorgestrel)
 
    Failure rate one-tenth to one-twentieth that of birth control pills,
    which (they say) fail 6 percent of the time (due often to forgotten
    pills, or undigested pills, or interference with digestion by various
    other medications most probably).
 
    About 355,000 women have already used Norplant, about 55,000 of them in
    clinical tests in 44 countries. It is now on the market in 14 
    countries.
 
    The chief side effect is a lengthened menstrual period or irregular
    bleeding between menstrual periods. About 2 to 7 percent of women who
    use Norplant discontinue it in the first year because of this bleeding.
 
    High one-time cost of implant (15 minute dr.'s office thing with local
    anesthesia) could be up to $500.
    (They compare this to the 5 year supply cost of the pill, which is $900
    or so.)
 
    Implants are effective up to five years. In approving the
    contraception, the FDA included instructions to the company to teach
    doctors that removal of Norplant must be done on demand, with no
    questions asked, to any woman who wants it removed.
 
    Fertility is restored by the next menstrual cycle after the implants 
    are removed.
 
    Available in February.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    .48> I find the notion that someone other than myself might take
    .48> responsibility for my choice exceedingly repugnant!
    
    Exactly!  As I've been reading this string, I noticed a point of view
    that seems to say men *should* take more responsibility.  IMHO, each
    individual man or woman should take responsibility for themselves.
    
    I also noticed a point of view that seems to say focusing birth control
    methods on the female is somehow *unequal*.  Sexual reproduction is the
    whole reason for having two different sexes.  Even if you believe in
    strict equality of the sexes, sexual reproduction is the one area where
    men and women are *not* equal, by definition.  Men don't get pregnant;
    women do; and that's not equal.  Expecting methods of preventing
    pregnancy to be focused equally on each sex seems unrealistic to me.
    
    Mary
    

   RE: . 55
    
    Well said, Mary.  If *I* don't want to become pregnant,
    I feel it's MY responsibility to prevent it.  In terms
    of being involved in a relationship, I feel the issue
    should be discussed and agreed upon by the partners, but
    for me, I still prefer to take that responsibility, 
    because I know that I'm not going to forget to do what-
    ever is necessary to prevent such an occurance.
    
    In part, I do understand why some women are expressing
    anger about this new device, but it still confuses me.
    Unless I've misread or completely misunderstood some of
    what the feminist movement was based on, I was under the
    impression that the invention of the Pill was a major
    catalyst in that it allowed women to actively take a part
    in preventing pregnancy, therefore, promoting more female
    strenth in the workforce, etc.  If this is true, why are
    people still angry that more reproductive research is not
    being done for men?  Personally, as a woman, I'd prefer to
    see more for women, as it will always be MY choice whether 
    or not to bear children.
    
    Christine

    Christine,
    
    I'll try to explain my frustration with no male birth control...
    
    1.  How often have you heard men complaining that they have no choice
    should the woman they are involved with become pregnant?  A male
    birthcontrol device increases the odds against an unplanned pregnancy
    for both partners.
    
    2.  Why should I *always* be the the half of a partnership with full
    reponsibility to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.  Unless I am using a
    barrier method (which I do), I am exposing my body to the outrage of
    added hormones, or the risks of a perforated uterus, infections,
    cramps, etc.  If my method fails I am faced with the difficult choice
    of terminating the pregnancy or carrying it to term, with the risk if
    the other member of the genetic material, possibly deciding he wants
    nothing to do with this, and/or contributing nothing to the support or
    nurturing of said offspring.  Once again, if we are both using a
    "convenient", reasonably safe method, I have a reduced chance of
    unwanted pregnancy.
    
    Does this help?
    
    Meg

    I think it would be interesting to understand (and I don't pretend
    to) the dynamics that results in one set of women interpreting the
    sexist nature of birth control as a 
    blessing while other women interpret the same reality as a
    curse
    or a 
    gift versus a 
    burden
    or an 
    advantage versus a
    disadvantage

    My beef with .0 is that it sounds like someone looking for an excuse 
    to bash the 'patriarchy' again. And reaching pretty hard.
    
    Let's try a parallel - 
    
    Smith & Wesson announced today a new line of improved 9mm semi-
    automatic pistols, with enhanced features to make use less
    complicated and more reliable. This makes me furious. Here's the
    d*mn Establishment coming up with yet another way to excuse the
    police and courts from protecting us, passing the responsibility
    for defense on us downtrodden individuals. 
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Pretty ludicrous, ain't it ? Yet, IMO, it is in the same tone as
    .0, and with the same issue at bottom - who is responsible ?
    I long ago came to the conclusion that no-one is responsible
    *for* me *but* me - whether the issue is violence, food, or
    pregnancy. If I'm not comitted to having a child with a partner
    I protect *me* from paternity suits, etc. Having her _tell_ me
    she's 'safe' isn't good enough. 
    

    Meg, 
    
    It does help some.  For me personally, tho, I welcome any
    thing that's marketable for me to look at and decide that
    I want to use.  It's kind of like what Dana says, I want
    to be responsible for me.  Perhaps I wouldn't opt for one
    of the traditionally "female" forms of contraception if 
    there were something better out there for men.  Since 
    there isn't (IMO, the three methods I'm aware of aren't
    acceptable to me), I'll just be happy to examine new 
    alternatives offered to women as they come to light.
    
    Thanks for explaining, tho.  I do understand your frustrations,
    but I just don't happen to share the same ones at this point in
    time.
    
    Christine

    .59 -
    
    why should anyone need an *excuse* to bash " 'patriarchy' " ?
    
    D.

    Well.
    
    I was not suggesting that women should not take personal responsibility
    for getting pregnant or not; I was not suggesting, believe me!, that
    men should take personal responsibility for the woman.
    
    I am suggesting that research 'be equalized' so that there would be
    more birth control options for men; implant something in their arms.
    
    My exasperation is with the accepted notion by almost-all, that women
    should take the physical risks associated with some kind of 
    chemical; that we should let this chemical into our bodies without
    even blinking, and then, on top of it all, be *grateful*.
    
    It's the health risk I'm talking about; not the 'who should be
    responsible for pregnancy' issue.
    
    M.
    

    To those that are peeved, annoyed, or enraged at the lack of options
    available to men -- you have my support!!
    
    A man can complain all he wants that he's at the mercy, or has no
    choice if a woman gets pregnant.  I don't buy it.  The options he has
    are pretty pi**y, but there _are_ options.
    
    A woman who has full responsibility for both parties' contraception
    options only has it because she has accepted it.   
    
    Even if there were a hundred options open to men [and I hope to heaven
    that there are someday soon] I can't imagine asking a man if he were
    protected if _I_ didn't want to be pregnant.  If _I_ don't, then _I_
    will take steps.
    
    Oh sure. There _are_ men who feel that contraception is 'woman's work.'
    I think they are very foolish indeed.
    
      Annie
    
    [ "Gentle Annie", herb? ... thank you, but you _do_ realise that there
    are probably incontinent people on the floors all over the network
    right about now ...]

    re .62
    
    Ah. I see your point.
    
    But I still don't quite agree.  I am grateful to have another option
    available to me.  I could wish that it were safer, but there are always
    risks associated with tampering with one's bodily chemistry.  As has
    already been stated, pregnancy is a risk too.
    
    If I know the health risks inherent in the choices available to me --
    pregnancy, IUD, abstinence, estrogen, Norplant, et al. -- I am able to
    make an informed choice.
    
    I agree that the research has been _very_ one-sided and I really _hate_
    that.  Both for the unfairness to men and for what it says about the
    forced responsibilities of women.
    
      Annie
    
    

    Re: .58  A blessing or a curse
    
    Hi Herb,
    
    I don't understand it either.  People just look at things differently.
    I was struck by the same thought when I read in 578.18 that women'a
    "reproductive ability has kept us enslaved since time began".
    
    I think of the ability to have a baby as something real special and have
    known men who were actually jealous because it was something they
    could never experience.  Obviously all women don't feel the same about
    these issues.
    
    Mary

    
    	Is there some problem with women criticizing the government
    	and/or the American medical establishment?
    
    	The free speech laws are supposed to apply to women as well as
    	men in our country - would you like to see these laws revised
    	on the basis that women should be prevented from saying things
    	about a predominantly male government/etc.?
    

    Re:  .67  free speech
    
    Did I miss something here?  I saw some people saying they didn't like
    what was said in this string.  But I didn't see anything claiming women
    didn't have the right to say it.
    
    Mary

    	RE: .68  Mary

    	If women have the right to say these things (and no one is asking
    	women to refrain from exercising our rights to free speech) - then
    	what are we supposed to "resolve" in 578.* (where similar mention
    	is being made of some notes in this string)?
    
    	Is there some way we can "resolve" the feelings of others?
    
    	Or do you suppose that women should be made to feel that we have
    	more of a responsibility than men to worry about how other people
    	feel?

    
    	Imagine if someone commented to a group of men, "Oh, you're just
    	looking for another excuse to criticize the government."
    
    	Do you think anyone needs an excuse to criticize the government
    	or any other societal establishment in countries where citizens
    	are supposed to have free speech?
    

    
    	It's the message your notes "CONVEY," Mike!
    

    RE; .72 Suzanne
    
                      Give it a break Suzanne!  You are running all over
    this notes file claiming that women don't have freedom of speach when
    the very act of reacting the way you do proves you wrong!  You are, and
    have been able to say anything you want and from my perspective.....you
    have!
    
    
    Dave

    Re: .69 Suzanne
    
    I have to admit I've been "next unseening" over the recent replys to
    578; I was just saying that I haven't seen anyone explicity saying
    women don't have the right to free speech.
    
    For me at least, =wn= is not a place to resolve differences, but to
    value them.  I personally don't think anyone is asking for resolution
    in 578, merely a forum to state the opinion that some notes can be
    percieved as saying "all men are bad".  I could be wrong on that, but
    that's how I see 578.
    
    It's very true that we can't "resolve" someone elses feelings nor can
    we take responsibility for them.  As I stated in .55 each man and woman
    must take responsibility for themselves.  I don't believe Mike is
    trying to *make* anyone worry about his feelings, but even if he is, it
    would be a futile effort.  I honestly think Mike just wants to express
    his feelings, but I could be wrong on that too.
    
    Mary

    	RE: .73  Dave

    	The fact that you come along behind me to complain about my
    	bringing up women's freedom of speech is proof that we are FAR,
    	FAR from the point where women's freedom of speech can be
    	taken for granted.

    	While Mike starts a topic to accuse women of messages they
    	convey, he tells me my "imagination has run wild" when I tell
    	him what HIS notes convey.  I guess he's supposed to have
    	rights I don't have to do this.

    	If any/most of this eludes you, Dave, don't worry about it.
    	It's not easy to see some of the more deeply ingrained ways
    	that women are denied equal rights in our culture.

    	RE: .74  Mary
    
    	> ...I was just saying that I haven't seen anyone explicity saying
    	> women don't have the right to free speech.
    
    	None of the notes "listed" in 578.* explicitly stated that "men=bad"
    	either, yet Mike seems to feel he can state that these notes "convey"
    	this message.
    
    	If he has this right, then surely you would agree that I have the
    	right to state that his (and some other) notes "convey" the message	
    	that "women should be denied free speech."
    
    	> I don't believe Mike is trying to *make* anyone worry about his 
    	> feelings, but even if he is, it would be a futile effort.  I 
    	> honestly think Mike just wants to express his feelings, but I could 
    	> be wrong on that too.
    
    	Ok, then how about the right to express my feelings that his notes
    	convey the message that women should be denied free speech?  Surely
    	I should have the same rights he has to describe what I feel some
    	notes "convey"?  Right?

    re:.76 surely I should have the same rights
    
    You are correct, you should.
    

    
    i think suzanne is merely pointing out the obvious; i heartily
    agree with her.
    

    	RE: .81  Dave
    
    	Excuse me - but I'm talking about a general issue of free
    	speech (and whether or not I should have the right to express
    	my feelings about the messages another noter "conveys," after
    	he felt free to do the same.)
    
    	Why is my desire to do this insulting??  I'm asking for the same 
    	right as another noter.  Are you trying to tell me that if I try 
    	to exercise the same right as a male noter, then this should give 
    	you license to make insulting comments about my character?
    
    	Your message conveys to me that you don't think women should have
    	the right to as much free speech as men.  If you believed women
    	*should* have free speech, you wouldn't go to such lengths to
    	cut me down for expressing my feelings the way a male noter has
    	been allowed to express his.

    Can someone *please* tell me what implants have to do with free speach,
    men putting down women or women putting down men?
    If people carry on like this, Digital will soon be relieved of non-work
    related noting, since seeing the same arguments repeated over and over
    in umpteen conference sure takes out the fun.
    
    Charles

    Dawson --
    
    I think Conlon's consistency, tenacity and perspicacity are what you're
    objecting to.  You'd much rather she sat down and shat up but she
    doesn't, and that bugs you.  You call her words "harangue" and "tirade"
    and "onerous (sic)" but then deny recommending that she shut up.  
    
    "Consistency will get you much more than verbosity."  Sounds to me like
    "you can get more with honey than with thorns" or other such slogans
    that attempt to shape the verbal behavior of others, and thence their
    attitudes.
    
    Why impose your style (and wattage) on her?  IMHO it's not Conlon who
    "wants to fight," but it IS Conlon who never backs away.  Accept it. 
    Deal with her arguments on their own terms and don't attack her right
    to make them.  If you can't handle the opposing energy level, accept
    that too.
    
    Kalikow

    
    RE: .85  Kath
    
    > Actually, I think it's more along the lines of what YOU interpret, 
    > Suzanne.  Unless Mike comes flat out and SAYS it, you can't really
    > accuse him of "conveying" it, rather you can say that you INTERPRET it
    > that way.
    
    Bingo!  
    
    Now go tell this to Mike Z. in topic 578!
    

    
    
    Suzanne> -< If you dare. >-
    
    
    Had to get that little dig in, didn't you Suzanne?
    
    
    How come you can't just SAY something with out adding the little back
    biting condescending comments?
    
    
    kathy

    
    	If you look again, I changed it immediately after posting
    	the note.
    

re. Note 577.67               
    CSC32::CONLON "Woman of Note"                         9 lines  16-DEC-1990 19:12
    
>    	Is there some problem with women criticizing the government
>    	and/or the American medical establishment?
    
    My criticism of the basenote was not simply that it criticised them
    but that it _reached_ pretty hard for an excuse to do so.     
    
    Sort of like those people who maintained that a politician's wife's
    substance abuse made _him_ incompetent to hold high office. The
    argument was ludicrous in both cases, IMO.
    

    Dana

    
    	RE: .89  Dana
    
    	The basenote complaint was perfectly legitimate (as an opinion.)
    	
    	My point was that you seemed to interpret it as a complaint against
    	the "patriarchy," and I wonder why this is a problem (in a country
    	where free speech is supposed to be allowed for women as well as
    	men.)
    

    Re: .82 (Suzanne)
    
                       After rereadiing my .78 & .81, I find myself in the 
    position of having to appoligize for those two notes.  I have the utmost 
    respect for you and your varied talents.  .78 and .81 have been deleted
    by me because I believe that these two notes were indeed insulting and 
    against 1.25, both the spirit and and the letter. 
    
    Dave Dawson

    PLEASE take all the processing discussion on the foundations,
    relations, and content of the notesfile itself and how it works to THE
    PROCESSING TOPIC.
    
    -Jody
    

    comod second
    
    seconding Jody
    
    Bonnie

    re .0:
    
    as of last night the British and French governments are funding a total
    of 17 research projects working on male contraceptives. Five European
    drug companies have registered "private research" in the field.
    
    Perhaps .0 only applies to the United States?
    
    /. Ian .\

    re .95
    
    Research projects aren't guaranteed to succeed, therefore the number of
    birth control options available to men may not increase between now and
    when those projects have been completed.
    
    Somehow the woman's function appears to more simply and reliably
    modifiable.
    
    Rich

Indeed Rich, research is not guaranteed to work, but .0 says "When oh when will 
they start work on a birth control method for men?" and the answer, as I pointed 
out, is that "they" *have* started working on one.

/. Ian .\