In India right now, RISUG— the reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance– is undergoing Phase III clinical trials.
If it ends up working out, RISUG would make a truly amazing contraceptive. It’s a “set it and forget it”contraceptive, like Depo or an IUD: the procedure takes fifteen minutes, is effective after three days, and lasts about ten years. The chemicals cost less than the syringe used to administer them. It’s way more easily reversible than a vasectomy: one more injection of baking soda and water, and in two to three months you have your healthy sperm again.
How does it work? (Description of medical stuff in this paragraph– the squeamish might want to skip it.) The doctor applies some local anesthetic, makes a small pinhole in the base of the scrotum, pulls out the vas deferens, injects the polymer gel (called Vasalgel in the US) and puts a Band-Aid over the hole. Repeat it with the other one and you’ve got ten years of contraception. The chemicals form a polymer that thickens over the next three days: with polymer lining each side of the vas deferens, the sperm flow between them and, because of the flow of negative/positive polarization, are torn apart by the polyelectrolytic effect.
Unfortunately, a series of delays, none of which reflect the usefulness of the contraceptive, have left it stymied in development for a whole. Even being in Phase III means it could be years, if the contraceptive ends up being effective, before it’s publicly available.
Nevertheless, an effective contraceptive for those with penises would be revolutionary. A whole slew of issues would suddenly be… not. Right now, cis men are left with abstinence, condoms, and vasectomies as the only contraceptive options 100% under their control. While condoms are good (they prevent against STIs! Use one every time!), many couples are fluid-bonded or want a backup contraceptive, but do want to still be able to have children at some point in the future. With an effective contraceptive for cis men, they’ll be able to put their reproductive health under their own control.
Or consider child support! It’s unfair to keep people with uteruses from having control over those selfsame uteruses, so ultimately whether to take hormonal contraception or have an abortion lies with them. It’s unfair to children to not receive the financial support they need. And it’s unfair to people with penises to have to support kids they didn’t want, although since it is the least unfair option it is the option we kind of have to go with. But if RISUG ends up becoming an actual drug we can just tell the people with penises that they should use RISUG if they don’t want kids.
In addition, it offers a lot more freedom for cis women. Many people with vaginas can’t take hormonal contraception: it affects their libidos or moods, it interacts with a medication they use, they’re a smoker, etc. For these people, RISUG could offer them more freedom and less risk of a condom failure.
@Schadrach: Dang, well… My mistake! Shields up!
@dancinbojangles: Though the exact method of action isn’t entirely understood yet, “Professor SK Guha theorizes that the polymer surface has a negative and positive electric charge mosaic. The differential charge from the gel ruptures the sperm’s cell membrane as it passes through the vas, stopping the sperm before they can start their journey to the egg.”
Which would make referring to it as a “sperm destroying force field” not entirely far off, assuming he’s right as to it’s action.
About the only thing they are sure of is that it doesn’t function like a typical chemical spermicide, though.
@daelyte:
Yes, of course there can be complications:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-vasectomy_pain_syndrome
I was not intending to suggest otherwise. And, of course, due to the surgical nature of it, handling complications is more complex/expensive compared to something that could just be removed or usage stopped. But it is still not a terribly risky procedure.
In any case, it’s a moot point since it is not reliably reversible, and therefore not a real option for people who may want (additional) children at some point in the future.
@Xakudo:
“Its main issue is that it is not reliably reversible, and therefore not viable for anyone who thinks they may want to have kids in the future.”
That and the risk of needing to be rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery to deal with excruciating testicular pain.
@SonofRyan:
Look up ultrasound contraceptive. That’s another cool one on the radar.
@SonofRyan: Haha, hate to burst your bubble, but I think it’s just a spermicide suspended in a gel.
Am I the only one her who is just blown away by the coolness of the fact that this is essentially a sperm-destroying force-field. There are too many nerds here for me to be the first one to just be appreciating this for how awesomely sci-fi that is.
@Lamech: I would seriously question this, at least in places like America. In America having a penis leads to mutilation at a rather high rate. (It would also depend on how you count said problems) I don’t count that. Circumcision is a horrible and critically important issue, but it’s not the same kind of problem. IMO it is more properly considered a human rights violation rather than, e.g., a men’s health issue. @Colette: NO, it cannot be separated Okay then. I disagree with you. So I guess we’ll just have to leave it at that. I’m actually genuinely concerned. People… Read more »
@Colette Wedding:
Why do you always assume ill intent?
Dancingbojangles, “Wait, what? That’s not reeeeally the case. I guess to a certain extent there’s a little more control, but this makes it sound like men can’t have an orgasm unless they want to, and are OK with what’s going on.” Not what I mean. Orgasms, erections, vaginal lubrication, etc. are simply physiological responses, not clap-on-clap-off lights. Daelyte complained that a sperm-provider has no control once the uterus-haver bears the gestation and delivery burden and thus ha sno choice in the FUN! decision to abort. I pointed out the uterus-haver has no control over what the sperm-provider chooses to do… Read more »
P.S. That isn’t to say men have the higher rate, simply that we shouldn’t assume they have a lower out of hand.
@Xakudo: “But regardless, yes, reproductive systems causing nastiness independent of reproducing or not = suck. And women are more likely to suffer such things than men. I think we can all agree with that?”
I would seriously question this, at least in places like America. In America having a penis leads to mutilation at a rather high rate. (It would also depend on how you count said problems)
@Colette: I guess I should appreciate this “freedom” and “control” since sperm-providers’ reproductive system can impact their bodies and life in negative ways outside of the actual reproductive process that just a condom can’t take care of too. Okay, yes, women’s reproductive systems are much more likely to cause them issues in ways that “just a condom can’t take care of”. And I suppose in a sense, that can be viewed as a reproductive rights issue. I personally consider that more of a general women’s-health issue (along with ovarian cancer, yeast infections, and other issues related to women’s reproductive organs).… Read more »
“noting the sperm-provider can refuse to provide sperm even during PIV intercourse regardless of what the uterus-haver wants too. ”
Wait, what? That’s not reeeeally the case. I guess to a certain extent there’s a little more control, but this makes it sound like men can’t have an orgasm unless they want to, and are OK with what’s going on. That’s not the case, as has been discussed on this very blog pretty regularly.
@Colette: “… sperm-providers’ reproductive system can impact their bodies and life in negative ways outside of the actual reproductive process that just a condom can’t take care of too.” I’m sorry is this sarcasm? It seems like sarcasm, except… you can’t possibly be saying “sperm-providers’ reproductive system can NOT impact their bodies and life in negative ways outside of the actual reproductive process that just a condom can’t take care of too” “noting the sperm-provider can refuse to provide sperm even during PIV intercourse regardless of what the uterus-haver wants too. ” Unless the uterus-haver has access to sharpened pieces… Read more »
L, I see it as mostly a burden as well although better than the alternative of stinging breast pain for 99% of the month and almost constant bleeding. I guess taking it exactly when I should all the time, explaining to SOs that my anxiety meds make it close to useless when it comes to contraceptive, dealing with DHS (especially when they screw up and it starts all over again), having to drive to another county (mine doesn’t provide it), and the reapplication process is worth it. I guess I should appreciate this “freedom” and “control” since sperm-providers’ reproductive system… Read more »
The argument going on here seems weird to me. Reproductive coercion is a purely social issue, rather than one of contraceptive technology. Just as a woman being so coerced would have a hard time relying on the morning-after pill, a man being so coerced might not be able to rely on RISUG as a complete solution. It seems like this whole thing has devolved into yet another tit-for-tat argument about which gender has it worse, and that’s both stupid and irrelevant. Men might have a new, permanent and easily reversible option for birth control soon, which is not a thing… Read more »
Xakudo,
I know what you’re saying. I can’t repeat myself anymore so I don’t know what to tell you either.
Tobias,
That isn’t what I meant. I was responding to another poster’s complaint that sperm-providers have little say once the process becomes the sole burden of the uterus-haver and noting the sperm-provider can refuse to provide sperm even during PIV intercourse regardless of what the uterus-haver wants too. Any method has its risks and invasiveness but at the end of the day only the uterus-haver can become pregnant.
@Xakudo: I’m just pretty bitter about the entire reality of contraception and all issues stemming from having “functioning” reproductive systems, regardless of the person. My opinion is that the current options for everyone are pretty shitty, and the consequences for fucking up or being taken advantage of are shitty. So yes, I see it as a burden. My personal ideal would be that my circumstance made me sterile– but sterility is far from the optimum choice for most folk.
Perhaps I misinterpreted this: “The sperm provider does, however, have effective means of contraception available (including a condom which is basically the best, most accessible, and cheapest). They’re not perfect or convenient but nor are those available to the uterus-haver which faces risks and burdens the sperm-provider never, ever, ever will.” But it reads to me as though condoms are one of the things available to sperm providers that are not available to uterus-havers. Regardless, if that’s not what you meant, then I’m sorry for the mistake. Also, regarding price: Most interior condoms are non-latex and are comparable in price… Read more »
@Colette: But isolating certain truths to make an argument work still isn’t being honest. I was never making the argument you seem to think I was making. The closest quote from my posts I can find is this: […]it’s still a nicer position to be in with respect to independence and control over one’s life and body. But even there I carefully qualified in which respect women currently have a better position. You seem to be taking issue with me claiming that women are entirely in a better position than men as far as reproduction goes, but I have never… Read more »
Tobias,
“Then why state that condom options aren’t available if you have a vagina?”
??? I didn’t.
Then why state that condom options aren’t available if you have a vagina?
I’m not jumping into the rest of the argument since it concerns sex that has nothing to do with me (trans-dermal testosterone is my preferred form of birth control), but I don’t like to sit idly by and see misconceptions passed off as fact. Even if you know that interior condoms exist I’m willing to bet that at least a few readers do not.
@L: I’m not bothered that you’re happy about it. I’m happy about that too. It was just very striking to me that that was the first place you went: to the “burden/responsibility” aspect instead of the “freedom/control” aspect. It gave me the impression that you view lack of male contraceptives in terms of the twisted framings I outlined in my previous post, which I take great issue with. But if you do not view it that way, and recognize that male contraceptives are primarily a men’s issue, and primarily benefit men rather than women (just as the reverse is true… Read more »
Xakudo, But isolating certain truths to make an argument work still isn’t being honest. I don’t know what L meant in his/her heart of hearts either but the thread was completely erasing the reality of what egg-proving and uterus-having does to one’s body. Sperm-providers should have more options. Sperm-providers should have less invasive options. Sperm providers should have affordable options. But before what uterus-havers may have available to them are dragged into it, remember what uterus-havers must deal with. :0) Tobias, I do know vagina condoms exist (albeit they’re more expensive and less effective). Be that as it may, my… Read more »
@Xakudo: You’re bothered by my being happy that the responsibility is a bit more egalitarian? The surprise was genuine, really. And more directed at the idea that nearly 100% of the guys here are chomping at the bit to have this done, despite that the description of the procedure is, you’ve got to admit, kind of cringe-worthy. (Coming from a gal that had black, bleeding gunk cut out of her abdominal cavity with “argon lasers”.)