Non-hormonal birth control pill for men slated for take-off in Indonesia.

The word "herbal" really is a buzzword these days. So many people take it to mean that whatever it's pushing is good and wholesome and nourishing, when there's nothing at all saying that.

 

It's the modern new-age myth that anything that is 'natural' is good, and anything 'artificial' is bad. A chemical is no different if its natural or artificial -- a chemical doesn't recognize its own history as if its an intelligent creature, so it behaves the same regardless of its origin. Water is water, sugar is sugar, and so on. In SOME cases, there may be other substances coming into play in complex natural or artificial substances, due to impurities, additives, various processes etc. (such as in white vs. brown rice, decaffeination, and so on). But that does not change the fact that atoms and molecules do not 'know' their own history. There's plenty of organic poisons and toxins that will kill you just as easily as artificial ones.

Eat a cup full of apple seeds, and you'll be just as dead, if those apples were 'organic' or not.

 

Lol, what part of the country are you living in that is becoming more puritanical? See I would argue we are going into the dark ages because such a drug would require years and millions in bribes to get through the FDA to market. We live in a pay to play country of bureaucratic red tape and crony capitalism these days. We'll never see the drug because an indonesian drug company is never going to get the drug to an American market hostile to innovation and competition.

But I'll support anything that reduces the staggering illegitimacy rate. I wish we were becoming more puritanical. A good work ethic and stable family structure would go a long way towards solving our woes.

 

This is dangerously political with the phrase 'culture of dependency', so instead of going ape-crap about this, I'm going to simply ask that we stay away from this kind of reasoning, simply because refuting your catch phrase will require talking about the role of government and we don't want to incite the "Wrath of Daynab (tm)"

 

I'll modify my post to merely mention the staggering illegitimacy rate in our country. But I fail to see how using the term 'culture of dependency' is more political than the post I quoted.

Pointing out the 'culture of dependency' seems equivalent to pointing out puritanical culture.

 

I didn't want to go there, because you are opening up a can of worms that apparently you don't see coming. It's actually something that may be impossible to explain without getting political. So forgive me for what I must now do...

The phrase "culture of dependency" is a catchphrase used for political motives only. On the surface, it seems benign, until you realize that it stigmatizes people who are precisely the people for whom government is supposed to exist. Anyone can fall on hard times. Anyone. It's amazing to me how people benefit from the existence of government (welfare for the rich is a real thing, only it's sometimes called tax breaks and overseas accounts and capital gains), yet anyone who actually needs even temporary help just to survive is a parasite on the system.

It's a politically loaded phrase, pure and simple.

 

Dronabinol. (The link takes you to a different page, and does not seem to actually find the word itself for me... Just scroll down or search the page to find it.)

The FDA thinks that because it is artificial, it is *NOT* identical in this case to an otherwise illegal plant compound.

 

Super interesting tangent: Many organic molecules are chiral, i.e. you can have them in a 'left handed' form and a 'right handed' form. Most molecules in the human body are 'left handed' - and right handed molecules will not do good things for you. It was this effect that was initially thought to be the issue with thalidomide (and partially it was, the right handed molecule was worse than the left handed one).

 

Now I'm only responding to this because I can tie all this back to puritanism and wrap it up in a nice bow. But our puritan forefathers made a distinction between the deserving and underserving poor, a concept we seem to have forgotten. Perhaps we should step back and become just a bit more puritanical.

Now back on topic.

In all seriousness a male pill will only result in more unplanned pregnancies.

Girl: "You had better have a condom"
Guy: "Uh... Don't worry baby, I'm on the pill." *wink

A male pill may have unintended consequences.

 

Any guy who does that and is not actually taking the pill deserves to be neutered. No, not a vasectomy. I said what I meant.

And frankly any girl who believes him without proof deserves what she gets. Sounds mean of me? You're right. It certainly is. But that is how I feel. I can imagine if I could get a prescription for this, I could also have the prescribing Doctor write a note confirming that

"Full name here, with drivers license/state ID #1234567890 is taking a male contraceptive pill. It should be in effect for the months of October 2012 and no less than several years afterwards."

But this should be accompanied by a notice of freedom of STDs too unless you want a gift that keeps on giving. What type of moron sleeps with anyone just based upon their word? I would not sleep with any woman who would sleep with me based solely on my word about my status and inability to get them in a bad situation...

 

And women don't lie about this? Ever? Parental entrapment is common enough that it's on TvTropes (under "baby trap"); "oopsing" a man into marriage has been around for as early as the 1800s, at the very least.

http://www.glennsacks.com/do_women_really.htm

"For example, the National Scruples and Lies Survey 2004 polled 5,000 women in the United Kingdom for That’s Life! magazine. According to that survey, 42% of women claim they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...-steal-husbands-sperm-ultimate-deception.html

If it's unfair for women to have to expect to put up with a man's word, why is it fair for a man to have to put up with a woman's word? Principle of universality here.

So yes, reproductive rights for men are a great concern for me, and it's part of the reason why I'm so keenly interested in male contraceptive options and the idea of financial abortion.

Exactly. The most common argument against effective male contraception is that men will hoodwink women into believing they're on the male pill and forego their own, or that a male pill will somehow rob them of their birth control options. It's fear-mongering by the various entities that don't want it out for their own reasons, and any girl who does what Omnianigrum pointed out deserves it, as would a man, whom, despite having access to a male pill, did not take it, trusted his partner stupidly, and got chained to 18 years of child support, which is more often than not mommy support. Is the guy scum? Yes, and of the lowest order. But it doesn't rob anyone, male or female, of the responsibility they have for their own body and to check out their partner if they say they're really using contraception, are clean of STDs, etc, etc, etc. Responsibility and agency are the key here, not victimhood.

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

Lol, I was thinking the exact same thing. He kind of proved my point with that statement, as being needful, by definition is being non-deserving. (Because after all, if we are in financial difficulty, it's gotta be because we're lazy -- based on my experience, the thought process doesn't go much beyond that).

The honest truth is that it's not about deserving, anyway. It costs us more money to let people descend to the point where they have nothing left to lose, then it does to help people stay afloat, and possibly make the mistake of helping someone who might happen to just be lazy.

One of my co-workers, and good friend of mine, spent some time homeless, on the street, because her mom (who was probably mentally ill, from her description) threw her out of the house because she didn't like her boyfriend. She did whatever she had to to stay alive on the street. Someone happened to give her a helping hand, and got her help from the government. She went back to school and college, and became a computer programmer.

The myth is that if you are not succesful, it's your own fault, but the truth is that we don't all start out on an equal footing, nor are we all given the same opportunities along the way. Opportunities might exist, but if you don't know about them or how to take advantage of them, then you may as well be living in the dark ages.

 

I live on Social Security Disability. Mostly because of a seizure disorder. I have plenty of other problems, but the thing is that no-one in their right mind would willingly hire a person who may collapse and have a seizure while they are supposed to be working. I do not blame potential employers for that though. I would not hire myself if I were them.

So Haldurson is entirely right about success not always being possible.

If you know someone who wants to hire all the people missing limbs and unable to do equal work for a million reasons, then we can say that everyone has opportunities to succeed. Failing that, success is not possible for everyone. Equality is not possible either.