From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Birth control
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:32:29 GMT

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>In article <1992Sep14.174232.9069@javelin.sim.es.com> 
biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>>nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
>>>[...] there isn't the same
>>>demand for a male method of hormonally (for example) controlling
>>>reproduction as there is for women.  Surprise, surprise.

>>Presumably the goal of birth control is the prevention of fertilization
>>of a specific female.

>Why do you presume this?  It seems to me that the goal of birth control
>is the prevention of the production of a child by a particular *couple*.

Isn't it the prevention of the production of a child by potentially
numerous couples, while still permitting the production of a child
by a particular couple?

>As an example, I currently have two male lovers.  
>With one of them, we
>think we would like to raise a child (not right now, but in the next few
>years).  With the other, I have not yet developed a relationship where
>children would make sense, and we may never want them.  So, it is not
>necessarily that I do not wish children at all, but that I do not wish
>them with specific partners.

Precisely my point: since there are numerous males that might impregnate
a female, and since such impregnation might be desired from some, but not
others, it is more efficient to provide an effective means of birth control
for the female than to do the same for every male she might mate with.
(efficient in the sense that to achieve the stated goal, only a single
person will need to control her fertility, rather than several potential
or actual mates)

It is, after all, the female who has the ultimate choice as to whether
she will get pregnant or not.

>Since it currently takes a man and a woman to produce a child, birth
>control for either member of each such pair would work.

>> It is obviously more efficient to find an effective
>>means of preventing ovulation/fertilization/implantation for her than to
>>suppress the production of sperm for every male she might mate with.

>However, if the woman only has one partner, but the man has several, it
>would be more "efficient" (in terms of preventing children) to prevent
>*him* fertilizing any of them.

Of course, which is why there need to be effective birth control methods
available for both sexes.

>Basically, it would seem to be best if both men and women had several
>possible methods of birth control available to them, so that each
>individual could select the most appropriate one according to their
>circumstances.

No argument. However, this thread started with some vague assertions that
male contraceptive methods are not being pursued as aggressively as female
ones. That may be so, for several reasons: truly effective means of suppressing
sperm production run the risk of producing impotence in some men. Mechanical
methods other than the condom usually require surgical intervention and
have some risk of permanent sterility. (presumably no-one on this net is
muddleheaded enough to advocate tight-fitting jockey shorts as an effective
means of male birth control) Much of the motivation behind finding
effective birth control methods is the desire to limit population growth,
especially in third-world countries. If the motivation is simply to prevent
impregnation of a female by any male, then control of the female reproductive
cycle is most efficient, especially if the method is effective over a long
period.

Regards,
       H. Biesel

Newsgroups: alt.feminism