Were I to win the lottery, I would back these guys big time... Not in the US, naturally... It'd cost a Billion roughly to get it past the FDA, and the ROI on this drug is too small to ever be profitable... But if you could get it on the map in India, that would pave the way for other countries, and then perhaps someday in the US.

It'd be nice to have another option beside just being snipped.

This does sound good, and a lot cheaper than the similar-outcome treatment I heard of decades ago of installing tiny brass valves that could be turned off/on by surgery.

As to quoted Wikipedia, it was presumably accurate circa 2006 - but 2012? In the Thirties, morphine was very limited - but then it was synthesized and by the end of WWII availabilty was common...

I hope this is proven safe and effective! It would be great if it worked and got to market relatively soon.

The Bill and Melinda gates foundation has decided to back this form of contraception. So that's good news. The bad news is this thing has run into delay after delay. Male birth control seems to be one of those things that's always a couple of years away; but, never quite makes it to the present day.

That being said if they finally do find a way to make something like this safe and bring it to market it would be a game changer. Especially for young men.

While I would very much welcome better male contraceptives for men, I do NOT want to see them made available to teens. The last thing we need is more horny teens refusing to use condoms. And let's face it; boys are more likely to lie about being on invisible methods of birth control - or being sterile - than girls are.

And while I'm on the subject, here's what I posted at Jessica Mack's blog at Ms. Magazine:

Once RISUG and other methods ARE available in the U.S., I suspect that it will take at least a year of heavy publicity – with help from male celebrities, who are undeniably surrounded by golddigging groupies – before it turns into something that unmarried men start using in large numbers. After all, men in short term relationships are under a lot of pressure to use condoms until they marry; no one wants to see that change, and how many men are going to use two male methods at once?

Besides, percentage-wise at least, few men’s rights activists (MRAs) seem to be interested – and those that are (at the website A Voice for Men) are mostly loonies who think that the lack of male BC is a feminist conspiracy. (They never seem to notice that if that were the case, they’d be able to NAME at least one famous living feminist who’s opposed it – and that feminists would have also demanded restrictions on single men’s right to get vasectomies, which they certainly don’t! ANOTHER thing they don’t notice is all the MRAs who refuse to help fund-raise for male BC or even talk about it – and how indignant said MRAs get at the idea that any man should be expected to use it if he doesn’t want to.) They think that women aren’t talking about it much because women supposedly are afraid that ALL men will start using it and depriving women of motherhood. I think they’re projecting – those men are imposing their own code of silence on the chance that it will be a Catch-22; either male BC won’t turn a profit, or if it does, judges everywhere will become even less sympathetic to deadbeat dads who never wanted children. (I, for one, look forward to that.) At any rate, those who push for “Choice for Men” know their cause is doomed once RISUG, etc., arrives.

Of course, there will be plenty of women in long term relationships who will BEG their men to use it as backups to their own BC (especially those women with medical problems) but we’re not talking about those cases.

(That is, I was talking about single men who haven't been asked to use anything - will they bother to protect themselves, or not?)

And, I would add, if you're a man, you don't have to be famous or even rich to encounter a woman who's desperate to get pregnant because she doesn't have a life - or any ethics when it comes to what the man wants. Trouble is, of course, she won't tell you that before you two start sleeping together. So why, I ask, do some men still wax indignant at the idea that men should use condoms if they don't want kids?

I posted the following at Bratfree.

If you like, check out the following video by hothead psychologist Bernard Chapin.

His Youtube name is apparently pinegrove33.

"DNA Testing Oppression"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhdX0C2FsGU
(6:34 minutes long)

At least, thankfully, he's not suggesting that the real fathers should get off scot-free, as many others believe.

What was most interesting to me is that he's apparently Changed His Mind on something - astonishing!

To explain, I need to go back several years, when I got the following e-mail from him on the subject of male birth control:

".....it's just not a subject that I'm interested in I'm afraid. Female birth control seems to be working just fine from what I can see with long term partners, and with short-term partners condoms work plenty well. Provided a girl isn't too slutty, condoms offer up a man plenty of feeling from what I've experienced. If drug companies want to offer a pill and guys use it I also see no problem. It sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me."

And this is a man who once wrote some long pieces about his good friend Robert, who had an accidental(?) son with his long-term girlfriend - only to get caught in The Custody Battle From Hell. (To find it, if you like, just search on Chapin's name plus "Robert" and "custody.") As I pointed out to Chapin after getting that email, it's likely this wouldn't have happened had Robert had access to some foolproof implant - and GOTTEN it. At the least, Robert would have had far more time to consider carefully whether he'd WANT to have a child with that particular woman. I got no response.

So anyway, here's what caught my eye at Youtube:

ManSpeakOut said:
Plus they (feminists) claim that if there was a pill invented no men would take it, that too is a flat out lie. Men would be taking them like skittles to protect themselves from such easy exploitation. I, myself would not even dare to even think to miss a pill.

pinegrove33 said:
You know i never really backed the male pill or got into it but now that i've heard arguments like yours over the last year it's really changed my mind. Thanks!

("Last year" meaning 2010, from what I inferred. Now, the only question is, why hasn't he done any videos on the subject of male BC?!)

And, sad to say, so long as feminists insist on looking the other way when articles like the following get written, people like Chapin will be very necessary. (Chapin had a link to it in the description of his video - I wish the U.K. article were satire, but there's no reason to believe that.)

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6391918/part_2/whos-the-daddy.thtml

By Melanie McDonagh.

Last two paragraphs:

"........A.C. Grayling, the philosopher, has written with feeling on this question this week, in an article for the Evening Standard. Noting that 4 per cent of men are, all unknowing, raising children who are not genetically theirs, according to a report in the Journal of Epidemiology and Human Health, he ponders the impact a DNA paternity test can have: ‘The result can be shattering, leading to divorce, marital violence, mental health difficulties for all parties including the children.’ Well, yes. Scientific certainty has produced clarity all right, and relieved any number of men of their moral obligations, but at God knows what cost in misery, recrimination and guilt.

"Our generation sets a good deal of store by certain knowledge. And DNA tests have obvious advantages when it comes to identifying less happy elements of our heredity: congenital disease, for instance. But in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice. I’m not sure that many people are much happier for it."

(I mean, the writer seems not to grasp that men who were lied to never HAD moral obligations in the first place! On top of that, she has the gall to call DNA testing "anti-feminist" - a term that only makes sense if one thinks that "feminism" means "a belief in female supremacy." I have never heard anyone refer to DNA testing that way.)