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.
Can we use proper terminology? Vasectomy is pretty much permanent. Low chance of reverting it and its also likely won’t be available for free.
I’ve done it, no regrets and if someone is “done” with having kids? No brainer.
I’ve seen how my wife is affected by even the less intrusive options. They ALL suck. That’s what we should talk about. Female contraception has downsides. Even the copper coil has side effects. Anything with hormones? Forget it, the side effects from those could be permanent.
I went full circle. Honestly, condoms truly are the best protection available. We were young, we didn’t like them, no one does. But beats having to deal with the alternatives.
Can’t females develop antibodies that destroy the sperm?
Evolutionary skill issue
Preventing conception would be a genetic trait that evolution selects against.
A woman with your theoretical anti-conception genetic mutation would not reproduce, so this mutation dies out immediately.
But an antibody they can dispatch on a whim, rather than automatically
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.
How does this unscientific instagram vomit has 500 votes on lemmy? Are we turning into reddit?
This is literally the shitpost community
Always have been. Down to hivemind downvoting in several places here.
Lemmy was advertised as reddit alternative, so it’s exactly what we asked for. I came here during that wave too. So yeah, I’m part of the problem.
Because it sounds good to people that never made it beyond high school level biology or bothers to search things
Lol this is so dumb
I think if I busted a nut 9 times a day, I would just simply just vanish.
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.
It doesn’t stand up on its own terms on other levels as well.
Even the most cynical misandrist interpretation of how research is funded would still lean towards men being given the agency on whether sex lead to pregnancy.
I’ve never wanted children and got a vasectomy in my early 30s. I think a lot of men don’t do this because they have this cartoonish belief that it makes them less of a man to shoot blanks or the erroneous belief that they’re family lineage is so god damned important that they’re obligated to continue it.
Or they just don’t know if they’ll want to raise children later…
Sure you could say they should adopt, but they may see some value in the experience of supporting their partner as they go through childbirth in forming a bond to the child.
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.
correction: easy to do *if you don’t care about side-effects or undermine the population taking said pill when they tall about the huge impact on their life the reason the pill for men "has been tried several times and still doesn’t exist isn’t because it’s that much harder, but because it’s harder to do with minimal side-effects the impact the pill had on generations of women is massive and completely underestimated today still
They just don’t care about the side effects for their “property”.
Yeah, and me taking a man pill doesn’t stop the lady getting pregnant if some other guys didn’t bother to take it. It does make sense for the woman to protect herself from douchebags
Lemmy is left but also male, according to the salty responses lol
How many ‘man bad’ posts do we need?
That’s not true … there are also trans women here.
That can’t be true - Lemmy is 90% anime lesbian comics.
I always end up so dissapointed by comments on lemmy, but you know
men should wear condoms, it’s not that complicated, and they help prevent spreading STI
p.s. get an sti test
Alright men here’s what we do:
1: Once you had your kid(s), if you want to have them someday, get snipped. It’s no big deal and you’ll both be A LOT more relaxed.
2: Don’t be a fucking rapist.
Why tf are we talking about the pills thing.
Guys should really be the primary ones to enforce it on other guys like this. It’s sad that girls end up dealing with the brunt of it.
Condoms?
Those also protect both people from possible other hidden cooties.
The one who gets pregnant should probably take the birth control, as pregnancy would be more bothersome for them than for the other person.
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.
You can take issue with that certainly, but I didn’t put her dad in the stranger category.
Ah, youre one of them…
What? One of whom?
“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.
What is this weird ass template with the creepy people in the background?
