A vaccination against Fatherhood

[Weird Harold]

In a thread on the general board, I wistfully suggested that the world would be a better place if every boy had a reversible vasectomy at puberty.

There is a good deal of research going on into male contreception -- a "Male Pill" or implant, easily and reliably reversible vasectomies, better, more comfortable, more reliable and easier to use condoms, etc.

From an author's standpoint, what kind of changes would you predict if a semi-permanent, reliable, long-term male contraceptive was easy available to all men at puberty and was widely used.

In many ways, Erotica already assumes something of this sort by simply ignoring safe sex and birth control for the most part, but I'm not really asking about the erotic potential of millions of sterile youung studs on the loose. I'm more concerned about wht changes the inevitable reduction in unwanted pregnancies would have on school populations, welfare roles, the abortion question and anything else you can think of.

From a personal standpoint, would you take advantage of such technology for your son if it existed? Would it change what you told your daughters and or arranged for them in the way of birth control?

Personally, I think I would take advantage of such technology, but I wouldn't depend on anyone else to be as rational and sensible. I'd still tell my daughters, "anyone who depends on someone else to 'take care of birth control' is eventually known as a 'Parent.'"

From a Philosphical standpoint, Should more emphasis be placed on men's birth control? Would making fatherhood the result of a conscious choice be a desireable goal and would it make any real difference if it was? Or, would "Machismo' result in just as many "deadbeat dads" as we have now?

How far should the idea be carried and how? Should it be just available, easily available, actively encouraged, or <shudder> be made mandatory by law?

I think that a "vaccination program" is probably a workable solution -- easily availble and actively encouraged as vaccinations against childhood diseases are now, but with a very limited mandate to participate i.e. not a required vaccination to enter public schools, but possibly a requirement for military personnel.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Do you really think a woman's going to believe a guy who tells her he's sterile and safe?

---dr.M.

 

[Liar]

A novel idea. However, wouldn't such a generally accepted and wide spread contraceptice also reduce the use of another contraceptive, the one that has the added bonus of stopping veneral diseases? Justa wild and very uneducated guess, but could this be 'bye-bye rubber hat'?

#L

 

[gauchecritic]

The words that immediately spring to my mind with this question are "foot in door."

If such a concept (pun intended) were brought to fruition (can't avoid them now) sooner or later they would become mandatory, shortly after that you would have to pass a test in order to have it reversed. Then you wouldn't be able to have it reversed if you weren't blond and blue-eyed.

Gauche

Edited to add: Mab's response brought an image of attempting to seduce someone and being subjected to dental terror with the 'prospect' asking again and again "Is it safe?"

 

[Weird Harold]

Do you really think a woman's going to believe a guy who tells her he's sterile and safe?

---dr.M.

Why not? We believe them when they say, "I'm safe" or "I'm on the Pill." (Not that many of us really care as long as the answer allows us to get our willy wet.)

Perhaps an additive that turns the skin blue would convince them, or maybe a radiological tag they can detect with a geiger counter?

Liar asked, "Justa wild and very uneducated guess, but could this be 'bye-bye rubber hat'?"

Since it wouldn't do anything for the risk of STDs, I doubt that it would replace condom use -- most condoms aren't used primarily as contreception anyway because of the Pill's availbility for women.


GC said, "If such a concept (pun intended) were brought to fruition (can't avoid them now) sooner or later they would become mandatory, shortly after that you would have to pass a test in order to have it reversed. Then you wouldn't be able to have it reversed if you weren't blond and blue-eyed."

True, there is a potential for abuse, but there is also a potential for a great deal of good. I take it you'd paint a distopian picture if you built a story in a society this concept shaped?

In the other thread, I facetiously sugested that the true root of most of society's problems is the number of fertile young men on the loose -- on reflection, I think I could support that argument as being a good bit truer than I originally thought.

 

[SlickTony]

shortly after that you would have to pass a test in order to have it reversed. Then you wouldn't be able to have it reversed if you weren't blond and blue-eyed."

I don't think those criteria would fly--I mean, the Master Race? Hitler and his gang discredited that one pretty thoroughly. What I'm thinking, the test would be a psychological one meant to measure your fitness as a parent. Then God help you if there was a glitch in the sortware or some data entry person put in the wrong number or...

 

[shereads]

Where would underpaid workers come from? Would we import them?

Oh, wait. We already do.

 

[angela146]

Do you really think a woman's going to believe a guy who tells her he's sterile and safe? ---dr.M.

It's a moot point. The technology required to perform reversible vasectomies is roughly equivalent to the technology required to perform reversible tubal ligations. Yes, you have to go farther inside but with endoscopic surgery, I don't think that will be much of a problem (by the time reversible snipping is available).

The girls would, hopefully, have the same access. A woman wouldn't have to believe the guy.

However, STDs are still a problem.

 

[Weird Harold]

(by the time reversible snipping is available).

The girls would, hopefully, have the same access. A woman wouldn't have to believe the guy.

However, STDs are still a problem.

Reversible Vasectomies are already "available," they're just not widely available yet, and they're not 100% perfect either. (either in making the man sterile or being reversible.) They are up to about 98% effective.

Hopefully no society would depend solely on one gender or the other being responsible for "taking care of birth control issues" and reasearch into ever more effective and safe birth control for women would continue as well.

Personally, I don't think there is enough emphasis on the impact male birth control would have. Currently, we're just protecting women one at a time against unwanted pregnancy -- we need mass protection.

Giving one woman birth control protects only that one woman from many men.

Giving Birth Control to one man protects every woman against him.

Of course, STDs are NOT addressed and will remain a problem whatever is done about Birth Control. But does that mean that we should ignore the benefits to society from endemic use of male birth control?

Shereads, If the procdure is cheap and easy enough, it could dry up even the supply of imported underpaid workers and maybe supply and demand will make underpaid workers a thing of the past all over the world? -- I doubt it, but it's nice to dream.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

One idea would be to bundle temporary surgical sterility as part of a penis-enlargement package. Then you'd have guys breaking down the doors to get in.

WH may be right about young fertile males being a big threat to social stability. I remember seeing a movie about the Masai (I think) in Africa. In Masai culture, pre-pubescent males are simply led from the village and sent to live in groups called "Moran", outside of normal society where they act the village's protective army. They're not allowed back into the village until they're ready to marry. I think it's safe to say that males from about 14-18 (the gang-joining years) are the most into violence and adventure, so it seemed like a very sensible idea to me. Maybe we should draft kids when they get to the age of 14?

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Maybe we should draft kids when they get to the age of 14?

---dr.M.

It's working on the West Bank. Granted, the Palestinians have some issues, but you never see their kids loitering.

 

[snooper]

... I'm more concerned about wht changes the inevitable reduction in unwanted pregnancies would have on school populations, welfare roles, the abortion question and anything else you can think of...

OK, let's think about that.

There would be less unwanted pregnancies.

Since 25% of UK pregnancies are reckoned to be "unplanned" there would be (say) about 20% less kids born. The other 5% are where the couple genuinely do not mind if she gets pregnant or not.

20% less kids this year means 20% less workers in 30 years time when there are not 20% less population past the self-supporting age.

It's a recipe for complete social breakdown as the economy of all countries of the world depends on having enough productive people to keep the unproductive ones.

However all is not lost. Society would be able to shed a large number of unproductive jobs, and hence release those people doing them for more useful activities. A few examples are:
- all those people who live in comparative luxury by persuading workers to give them money in return for an unquantifiable better life before or after they are dead (ie all priesthoods, clairvoyants, counsellors, etc.)
- all those people doing genuinely non-jobs; eg all the civil servants engaged in useless tax gathering. In Europe there is a tax called VAT which taxes (almost) everything every time it changes hands, and this tax is claimed back in well over 75% of the cases. My computer is a case in point, the man who digs iron ore sells it to the man who smelts it, who sells the pig iron to the rolling mill who sells it to the chassis manufacturer, who sells it to the computer company who sells it to the retailer who sells it to me who uses it to write books which are zero rated. Net gain from six instances of the tax being charged and reclaimed with a net tax paid to the government of nil, while six sets of civil servants have administered all this.
That's enough rant, you get the point.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: A vaccination against Fatherhood

It's a recipe for complete social breakdown as the economy of all countries of the world depends on having enough productive people to keep the unproductive ones.

Someone will be mass-producing clones once there's a market for them, so the population won't be dramatically reduced. Of course, nobody will want his or her own clones to do menial work, so the worker drones will have to be cloned using dna purchased or taken from the poor.

The only thing certain is that Halliburton Industries will be involved.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Re: A vaccination against Fatherhood

20% less kids this year means 20% less workers in 30 years time when there are not 20% less population past the self-supporting age.

It's a recipe for complete social breakdown as the economy of all countries of the world depends on having enough productive people to keep the unproductive ones.
[/i]

It's nice to have a pessimist who understands the "Law of Unintended Consequences" join in.

I think it's interesting that, so far, only negative consequences have been mentioned. Is the future really so bleak that attempts to solve problems will only make things worse?

 

[gauchecritic]

I think you'll find Harold, that modern pessimism is the direct result of tinkering with the maxim "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" which has become "If it ain't broke, break it."

These days, I have to agree, making things better makes things worse. And I think the reason for this is that there is no holistic approach to anything these days.

Eradicating germs in hospitals creates ineradicable germs.

Indiscriminate use of anti-biotics leads to a lessening of self repair.

Building river defences up stream leads to new floodplains downstream.

Make food taste 'better' by adding sugar to everything and sugar-free tastes awful.

The answer to such items as these would become more expensive than people would like to pay so it's "Me first."

One other thing; technological advancement in the Western World without proper checks and controls has given us "bread and circuses". The only time that the plebs need bread and circuses is when they are degenerate.

That's just an observation but for me if I could have my kids live in the 50s and 60s whilst I enjoyed the benefits of the technological today I would jump at the chance.

Tinkers (the tingulary man in these parts) roaming the streets sharpening knives and mending pots and pans because their quality was such that they were worth sharpening and mending. Having to pay 'on tick' for a good pair of shoes because they would last longer than a season. Shopping every day at the corner shop for fresh produce. Playing "kick the can" or "knocky-hide-and-seek" until after dark, without fear. Ah youth, where is thy bloom?

My point? um... just rambling.

Gauche

 

[Weird Harold]

These days, I have to agree, making things better makes things worse. And I think the reason for this is that there is no holistic approach to anything these days.

So you're opposed to any kind of "social engineering" I take it?

How would you characterize the changes to society wrought by the Pill?

Other than not banning it and the occasional lawsuit to force insurance companies to pay for it, there has been very little explicit "social engineering" to the availability of the Pill. The changes have all been wrought by the simple fact of it's existance and acceptance for the most part.

 

[sweetnpetite]

It's a moot point. The technology required to perform reversible vasectomies is roughly equivalent to the technology required to perform reversible tubal ligations. Yes, you have to go farther inside but with endoscopic surgery, I don't think that will be much of a problem (by the time reversible snipping is available).

The girls would, hopefully, have the same access. A woman wouldn't have to believe the guy.

However, STDs are still a problem.

But woudn't doing this too early interfere with development during puberty and adolecsence?

As to the idea that it would become manditory and eventurally be abused- I don't understand how that is anymore likely to happen than female contraception becoming manditory. (Something like the shot could be administered strictly, and you'd have to be able to prove that you've had it [maybe a 666 tatoo on your hand? ] in order to do anything. and then you'd have to take a test in order to go off it. In case of contraceptive failer, an inquiry would be launched to be sure that you had been properly taking your 'vaccine'

As I said, I dont' think theres a high probability of either happening, and in fact, I think it's kind of silly to suggest that it would. (no offense)

 

[sweetnpetite]

I don't agree with the whole 'break down of social structure' thing. We already have more people than jobs, houses, and food.

ALso, the less people we have, the less we will need to produce anyway. I think you can have to *many* people, but you can't really have to few. If there is less people that can comfortably live somewere, they should be able to produce enough - given the availability of natural resourses. I don't think birth control for men would have any bad result anymore than birthcontrol for women does. Maybe we'd have less people to exploit, but we'd also have less people wanting to exploit others.

The world is no wear near were we have to worry about having too *few* people.

 

[Weird Harold]

But woudn't doing this too early interfere with development during puberty and adolecsence?

I think that it would depend on what method was used. A chemical solution -- a "male pilll" or "annual shot" or the like --would likely have to wait until puberty was at least well established; pretty much as chemical alternatives for women are limited until after first menarche.

But something like this procedure...

Fromone of 5,100 Google hits on "reversible vasectomy" -- http://www.tiscali.co.uk/lifestyle/.../part1_9-2.html

The newest technique is a non-surgical, easily reversible vasectomy. Under local anaesthetic, the vas deferens are gripped through the scrotal skin by a special clamp. The vas is then injected with a freshly prepared elastomer liquid which hardens over 10_20 minutes. This forms a pliable but non-adherent plug about the size of a grain of rice which blocks the central bore of the vas deferens.

In China, over 12,000 men have had this procedure; a success rate of 98 per cent has been quoted. For easy reversal, a small slit is made over the scrotum under local anaesthetic and the elastomer plug is squeezed out.

... Could probably be used safely almost as soon as the vas deferens is fully formed without affecting puberty or adolescence. It might even be able to be used early enough that the boy wouldn't even need to be told about it until he needs it reversed -- sort of like infant circumcision is done.

Whatever method becomes the "top seller" it would almost have to be limited by a safety margin in development to insure it was both safe and effective.

 

[snooper]

Re: Re: Re: A vaccination against Fatherhood

Someone will be mass-producing clones once there's a market for them, so the population won't be dramatically reduced.

The common idea that "mass producing clones" will produce fully formed mature adults is, of course, nonsense. Cloning merely produces a baby which is the genetic twin of the cell donor. It still needs to be raised and educated like any other baby. Since brand new babies can be "easily and cheaply produced by previously unskilled persons" the ability to clone does not change the fact that baby farming is uneconomic, and will continue to be so until we start to adopt the "modest proposal".