this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
122 points (94.9% liked)
Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related
2154 readers
505 users here now
Health: physical and mental, individual and public.
Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.
See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.
Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.
Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.
Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.
Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
From my understanding, its more along the lines of “risk averse regulators see the side effects as unacceptable”… not “crybaby men are crybabies” like your post infers. (Seriously, your post has some really toxic vibes)
Birth control has a lot of very horrible side effects.. in addition to the common hormonal changes, they also come with things such as an increased risk of stroke.
For women, child birth is extremely intense on the body with lots of increased risk. Lets look at the stroke side effect as an example.. birth control causes increased risk of stroke, but pregnancy causes an even higher risk of stroke. Its easy for regulators to justify the stroke risk of birth control because it actively prevents the higher stroke risk of pregnancy.
For men, child birth comes with no risk whatsoever because they cant physically get pregnant. lets look at that same stroke side effect for example.. birth control provides increased risk of stroke, but comes with no medical benefit. that increased risk is extremely difficult to medically justify.
Essentially, childbirth/pregnancy is extremely high risk for women, which makes it easier to justify the side effects for a medication that prevents it. The risks of childbirth/pregnancy dont exist for men though, so its much harder to justify the same side effects.
Yes, it feels unfair and fucked up, but thats because reproduction is inherently unfair and fucked up…
there may be something to be said about whether or not the regulators factor in the externalities of the pregnant partner when looking at approving such medication.. i have absolutely no clue though.
Oh please, do mansplain to me about the risks of pregnancy some more, I hadn't had a fucking clue! 🙄🙄🙄
You assholes just can't fucking help yourselves, can you??? 😂
It's not as if there are other ways to stop pregnancy if the risk is such a concern, if only men didn't regularly refuse them too, perhaps women wouldn't have to suffer the hormonal hell men have_ the privilege_ to refuse, that is imposed on us often from puberty on top of that risk. But clearly it isn't really that much of a concern after all.. Not for men.
Also, because I'm not wasting any more energy on you:
Oh please, your toxic incel-like worldview effectively proved my point. pregnancy is inherently unfair and fucked up.. the unfair nature of it makes the burden of risk inherently unfair & fucked up.
No amount of male birth control is going to make you content, so i ask, what the fuck are you advocating for?
Yeah. I think you explained it well. The bodies themselves are different, so it makes sense why the interventions are different.
We could use male condoms, but the problem is couples don't like that because they want as much of the sexual process to continue naturally.
If you want the process to go uninterfered as much as possible, it makes sense to put the cork at the end of the race (right before fertilization).
If you're ok with interfering at the beginning, by all means use a male condom (put the cork at the start of the race).