Male Birth Control Pill - Could be coming soon

[tarheelmjfan]

I think the ones who get away with it for a long time probably have an ex that doesn't have the inclination, the time, the patience, or the money to continually pursue them.

I would agree on the first 3 things. However, I've seen women pursue child support without spending a lot of money. Most parents with primary custody don't have money to spend. The best way to get quick results is to not let your file fall to the bottom of the pile.

 

[GreatLakes]

Oh, come on. Are we really going to pretend that a lot of the pressure on women, especially women in a committed relationship, to use hormonal birth control isn't because men 1) don't like how condoms feel and/or 2) are too skittish to have a vasectomy? The vast majority of my female friends have vented about one or the other over the years, myself included. Many men - I'd even go so far as to say most, though certainly not all - want birth control that comes with 100% NO effect on them other than carefree sex, and it is disheartening to read things like this about a study into a male birth control pill that was shut down over side effects:



Acne and mood swings are side effects of virtually every hormonal birth control given to women, but in men, they're too much to bear? I don't think it is anyone's "turn" to suffer, but it would be nice if there was at least some level of equal footing and willingness to work out a solution other than the woman being on contraception for decades despite the health risks. Because it is very likely that a woman being on the pill for 10 years and a man being on the pill for 10 years would pose less long-term risks than the woman being on the pill for 20.

In the case of your first point, then you say "no condom no sex". If a woman, or man once it becomes available, doesn't want to take birth control than the response to "he/she doesn't like condoms" isn't "then I guess I have to go on some form of birth control". The response is "let me know when you change your mind and then we can have sex".

I don't view a vasectomy as a one to one substitution to temporary birth control. It isn't a substitute to something you can simply not wear or stop taking. It requires a medical procedure to maybe reverse.

 

[Colleen27]

In the case of your first point, then you say "no condom no sex". If a woman, or man once it becomes available, doesn't want to take birth control than the response to "he/she doesn't like condoms" isn't "then I guess I have to go on some form of birth control". The response is "let me know when you change your mind and then we can have sex".

I don't view a vasectomy as a one to one substitution to temporary birth control. It isn't a substitute to something you can simply not wear or stop taking. It requires a medical procedure to maybe reverse.

I agree a vasectomy isn't a substitution for temporary birth control, but at my age/stage of life a lot of the women I know who complain about birth control are done having kids. We're mostly at that point where we have all the kids we want, but those married to men who refuse a vasectomy are looking ahead to another 10-20 years of birth control or invasive surgery (which obviously poses logistical difficulties re: taking care of the kids and such) to ensure that "done" decision holds. But in the context of a long-term relationship or marriage, it really isn't as simple as declaring "No sex until you do something about this". Ultimatums usually aren't good for relationships.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

But in the context of a long-term relationship or marriage, it really isn't as simple as declaring "No sex until you do something about this". Ultimatums usually aren't good for relationships.

+1

 

[cabanafrau]

When you look at th3 way fathers are treated the man has higher stakes. Someone at work I knew his wife left him for an affair taking their son but if he ever dated she stopped him seeing his son, another father sent presents for his kids recorded delivery so she signed for them only for her to t3xt saying she threw them away and told the kids he didn’t send anything.

Recorded delivery presumably was done for a purpose. Couldn't figure out how to use that as evidence before the Court of alienation?

I have a coworker who hasn't been permitted to see his kid in over 5 years. But, his child support comes right out of every check. Sad.

Does he do anything about it legally?

New bank account and new job. Will take the court a long while to get it.

If the parent with primary custody of the kids has any means of uncovering the new job, report it to Friend of the Court. Could be hauled in and the judge can force revelation of new information -- and will more than likely demand a good faith payment on the spot.

Exactly! I know a few men who didn't have a chance in court. I've never seen a situation where a woman didn't have a major advantage. I've seen women who shouldn't be trusted with a Chia pet, but got primary custody of the children, because she was the mother. Men don't have the same advantage. I know men who have been forced to have their ex along for every visit, if they wanted to see their kids at all. These aren't irresponsible men. They just happened to be the wrong sex, where child custody is concerned. Naturally, they had to pay child support whether the mother decided they would be allowed to see the kids or not. I'm a woman & I think it's disgraceful.

On a side note, I knew if DH & I ever divorced, I'd be able to collect child support & he would have to fight for every second he was allowed to spend with our son. That is so wrong.

I see plenty of parents of both genders get taken advantage of for a variety of reasons. You are right, it would be so wrong to deny your son the right to see his father because you couldn't handle it.

I agree the squeaky wheel is the first to get the grease, but that's the case in most situations. It's too bad everyone doesn't automatically do the right thing, so the government doesn't have to hunt them down. That can take a long time & puts severe, financial hardship on the parent with custody. At least, you can get results now, if you keep on them. That wasn't always the case prior to 1998.

As I mentioned above, I know two men who were jailed. One man was jailed in North Carolina. The other was jailed in Florida. It happens. The only incident I know of where the man got away without paying long term was when the mom decided to take the boy back to dad for him to keep full time. She kept the girl. She no longer pursue child support for her.

I'm not saying there aren't still some parents who get away with being deadbeat parents for years. I'm sure there are. I just don't happen to know anyone who has gotten away with it long term. However, I do know a lot of men who didn't get away with it. All of my personal knowledge comes from people living in NC & FL. Perhaps, some states are better about enforcing it than others. I have no idea. I do agree that you will most likely have to push them to receive quick results in any state.

You talk about how much better it would be if everybody would do the right thing, yet you freely admit you would attempt to keep your child from his father for your own reasons in a divorce.

 

[cabanafrau]

Hilarious. I’ll counter that with these stories.
Man A working cash in hand so he doesn’t have to pay CS
Man B moving interstate so he doesn’t have to deal with the responsibility of raising his children.
Man C starting his own business so he doesn’t have to pay CS as he *makes a loss *each year.
Man D going on Centrelink (welfare) so he pays the minimum CS (around $30 p/month regardless of how many children),

Point is there are horror stories from both sides but research indicates that women* are much worse off than men in a divorce = higher stakes.

*raising children


http://www.carrco.com.au/richer-divorce-poorer-financial-cost-divorce/

https://aifs.gov.au/media-releases/long-lasting-financial-impacts-divorce-women

Now, I’m not suggesting that men get out of divorce scot free - they don’t, Ive read research that suggests they are more affected by psychological impacts. However women are more likely to suffer financial hardship, and are at greater risk of homelessness than men due to child rearing responsibilities after a divorce because their capacity for employment is severely impacted.

One of the toughest of all to combat is the variation on option C. Favorite tactics include shifting the business into their parents' name, a sibling's name or claim the business really belongs to the business partner.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

Recorded delivery presumably was done for a purpose. Couldn't figure out how to use that as evidence before the Court of alienation?



Does he do anything about it legally?



If the parent with primary custody of the kids has any means of uncovering the new job, report it to Friend of the Court. Could be hauled in and the judge can force revelation of new information -- and will more than likely demand a good faith payment on the spot.



I see plenty of parents of both genders get taken advantage of for a variety of reasons. You are right, it would be so wrong to deny your son the right to see his father because you couldn't handle it.



You talk about how much better it would be if everybody would do the right thing, yet you freely admit you would attempt to keep your child from his father for your own reasons in a divorce.

Since my son is 26 years old & my DH & I have never even discussed separating, much less getting divorced, I don't think he is too worried about it.

 

[cabanafrau]

Since my son is 26 years old & my DH & I have never even discussed separating, much less getting divorced, I don't think he is too worried about it.

That was hardly my point, but of course you knew that. Seeing what I do on the job on a regular basis I struggle to make light of the situation because I see the human cost of that attitude and I would move mountains if that's what it took for my kids never to go through it.

 

[Christine]

I agree a vasectomy isn't a substitution for temporary birth control, but at my age/stage of life a lot of the women I know who complain about birth control are done having kids. We're mostly at that point where we have all the kids we want, but those married to men who refuse a vasectomy are looking ahead to another 10-20 years of birth control or invasive surgery (which obviously poses logistical difficulties re: taking care of the kids and such) to ensure that "done" decision holds. But in the context of a long-term relationship or marriage, it really isn't as simple as declaring "No sex until you do something about this". Ultimatums usually aren't good for relationships.

I agree with the bolded for the most part. But what does it say about a relationship where the woman has borne X number of kids. Having a tubal ligation requires laproscopic abdominal surgery. Continuing hormonal methods into your 40s and 50s is with significant risk. To have one party refuse all that? That's just not right.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

That was hardly my point, but of course you knew that. Seeing what I do on the job on a regular basis I struggle to make light of the situation because I see the human cost of that attitude and I would move mountains if that's what it took for my kids never to go through it.

Yes, I knew that, but I was attempting to avoid engaging you in an unending discussion/argument over something I said 26 years ago. Especially, since I didn't even say what your reply implied. I should have known better. I will respond to your replies to appease you, but I have no intention of arguing every word with you.

I see plenty of parents of both genders get taken advantage of for a variety of reasons. You are right, it would be so wrong to deny your son the right to see his father because you couldn't handle it.

DH & I had seen so many dads be treated unequally that we had no doubt it was true. If I had wanted to take DS from him, I felt confident he would have had a major fight ahead of him, if he wanted to see him & he knew it. I didn't say it was right. I actually said it was wrong.

You talk about how much better it would be if everybody would do the right thing, yet you freely admit you would attempt to keep your child from his father for your own reasons in a divorce.

My reply about fighting DH for custody was in response to the idea that women are worse off, because they have to raise the kids. I stated that not everyone felt that way. I would have rather had my child all the time, than have to share custody with DH. If he wanted to walk away & not pay child support, I would have been much happier with that situation than taking support & having to be without my child for a substantial portion of his life. I would have fought for every minute more that I could have spent with him. That's just the way it was. Since DH & I never considered separating or divorce, this was all hypothetical anyway.

FWIW, I realize that not everyone has the family support I would have had, so they don't have the option to deny child support. People do what they have to do. They have to keep fighting to get the support owed to them.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Recorded delivery presumably was done for a purpose. Couldn't figure out how to use that as evidence before the Court of alienation?



Does he do anything about it legally?



If the parent with primary custody of the kids has any means of uncovering the new job, report it to Friend of the Court. Could be hauled in and the judge can force revelation of new information -- and will more than likely demand a good faith payment on the spot.



I see plenty of parents of both genders get taken advantage of for a variety of reasons. You are right, it would be so wrong to deny your son the right to see his father because you couldn't handle it.



You talk about how much better it would be if everybody would do the right thing, yet you freely admit you would attempt to keep your child from his father for your own reasons in a divorce.

He hasn’t fought it - she has $$ for good lawyers & he doesn’t.

 

[cabanafrau]

Yes, I knew that, but I was attempting to avoid engaging you in an unending discussion/argument over something I said 26 years ago. Especially, since I didn't even say what your reply implied. I should have known better. I will respond to your replies to appease you, but I have no intention of arguing every word with you.



DH & I had seen so many dads be treated unequally that we had no doubt it was true. If I had wanted to take DS from him, I felt confident he would have had a major fight ahead of him, if he wanted to see him & he knew it. I didn't say it was right. I actually said it was wrong.




My reply about fighting DH for custody was in response to the idea that women are worse off, because they have to raise the kids. I stated that not everyone felt that way. I would have rather had my child all the time, than have to share custody with DH. If he wanted to walk away & not pay child support, I would have been much happier with that situation than taking support & having to be without my child for a substantial portion of his life. I would have fought for every minute more that I could have spent with him. That's just the way it was. Since DH & I never considered separating or divorce, this was all hypothetical anyway.

FWIW, I realize that not everyone has the family support I would have had, so they don't have the option to deny child support. People do what they have to do. They have to keep fighting to get the support owed to them.

Actually I referred to the loss it would have been for your son not to spend time with his father, not the child support. I understand not wanting to lose time with your child as a mom. I'd no doubt feel the same way. I hope I'd have sense enough to do the mom thing and push my feelings to the side and choose to smile, wave and wish them a nice time with dad and try to have everything organized when they come home so I could spend quality time with them. I see how the messiness of divorce and the battles and the abandonment does a real number on kids.

 

[cabanafrau]

He hasn’t fought it - she has $$ for good lawyers & he doesn’t.

He can motion the Court and plead on his own behalf. By and large the momentum in the law today is to try and achieve good balance in custody. I'm skeptical he pays all that child support and cannot get any visitation whatsoever for five years.

 

[DisneyOma]

Total nonsense. No, men don't need ragingly high levels, but it's an important chemical balance for us. I agree that a stigma is there and it's capitalized on, but it's not all fiction by any stretch. Nothing to do with "brainwashing" and everything to do with science.

I agree that it's not necessarily a womans' "job" to handle the birth control aspect. There are options for men, just not a pill.

Men (and women) need some testosterone for maintaining bone density, red blood cell production. A low enough level to cause infertility does not have to be too low to be healthy. I think men are just squeamish about losing any of the "Manly" steroid.

Are you a man being treated for low T?
I don't think you really know what you are talking about here.

Yeah, my degree in Biology, minor in Chemistry, and talking to my daughter the PhD candidate in BioInformatics (with a bachelor's in Bioengineering from MIT) and the other daughter with the Biochemistry degree means I know nothing about the topic

 

[cabanafrau]

Men (and women) need some testosterone for maintaining bone density, red blood cell production. A low enough level to cause infertility does not have to be too low to be healthy. I think men are just squeamish about losing any of the "Manly" steroid.



Yeah, my degree in Biology, minor in Chemistry, and talking to my daughter the PhD candidate in BioInformatics (with a bachelor's in Bioengineering from MIT) and the other daughter with the Biochemistry degree means I know nothing about the topic

That laundry list of credentials that notably don't include med school doesn't lead me to intuit that you, or your daughters, would be extremely knowledgeable about the effects of Low T in men.

 

[tarheelmjfan]

Actually I referred to the loss it would have been for your son not to spend time with his father, not the child support. I understand not wanting to lose time with your child as a mom. I'd no doubt feel the same way. I hope I'd have sense enough to do the mom thing and push my feelings to the side and choose to smile, wave and wish them a nice time with dad and try to have everything organized when they come home so I could spend quality time with them. I see how the messiness of divorce and the battles and the abandonment does a real number on kids.

I agree the kids suffer, when one parent finds a way to manipulate the court into denying the other custody. I've seen it happen. As I stated originally, I think it's very wrong. The courts shouldn't make it possible for a non-abusive, non-drug addicted, non-criminal to lose custody, due to the other parent being able to afford a better lawyer or them knowing the right people. Situations like that with people we knew are the reason DH & I ever had this type of discussion in the first place. DH knew I would fight for every minute & I knew he wouldn't roll over & give up. My point was I think having to give up my DS for a substantial portion of his life would make me much worse off than trying to raise him primarily by myself.

 

[Colleen27]

I agree with the bolded for the most part. But what does it say about a relationship where the woman has borne X number of kids. Having a tubal ligation requires laproscopic abdominal surgery. Continuing hormonal methods into your 40s and 50s is with significant risk. To have one party refuse all that? That's just not right.

Which is what I was saying needs to change, and that change would be helped along by birth control alternatives for men. Because as long as men see it as "I'd have to have surgery, you only have to take a pill", the current dynamic will continue.

 

[CarolAnn856]

That laundry list of credentials that notably don't include med school doesn't lead me to intuit that you, or your daughters, would be extremely knowledgeable about the effects of Low T in men.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say in a thread recently that you are not a lawyer? Yet you offer opinions on legal matters frequently. Again, my apologies if that was someone else, and I'll delete this part of comment if I'm incorrect and you are a lawyer.

As for credentials, it's completely absurd to think that someone needs to attend medical school to understand how the human body works. Do you really think that all of the medical scientists out there (including thise with Ph.Ds) don't understand these matters because they didn't go to med school??

 

[cabanafrau]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say in a thread recently that you are not a lawyer? Yet you offer opinions on legal matters frequently. Again, my apologies if that was someone else, and I'll delete this part of comment if I'm incorrect and you are a lawyer.

As for credentials, it's completely absurd to think that someone needs to attend medical school to understand how the human body works. Do you really think that all of the medical scientists out there (including thise with Ph.Ds) don't understand these matters because they didn't go to med school??

I am not a lawyer and I am upfront about that. Understanding various legal concepts is far different from the type of knowledge and experience necessary to be a physician.

As for an understanding of the human body, to a point. There's a reason biology and chemistry are in pre-med curriculum, yet do not qualify someone to act as a doctor. Good medical doctors will freely tell you when various particulars are out of their scope of knowledge. I know from my father's health issues that Low T is a complex issue, which both causes and is impacted by several areas of health. Treating it and even the repercussions of the treatment can be a very intricate process. So no, I wouldn't be inclined to accept the input of a biology major, a chemistry minor, a bioinformatics PhD candidate -- a bachelor's in bioengineering from MIT notwithstanding, or a biochemistry major as particular authorities on the subject because they do not have the experience of actually treating patients suffering from it, let alone extensive experience of the same.

 

[CarolAnn856]

I am not a lawyer and I am upfront about that. Understanding various legal concepts is far different from the type of knowledge and experience necessary to be a physician.

As for an understanding of the human body, to a point. There's a reason biology and chemistry are in pre-med curriculum, yet do not qualify someone to act as a doctor. Good medical doctors will freely tell you when various particulars are out of their scope of knowledge. I know from my father's health issues that Low T is a complex issue, which both causes and is impacted by several areas of health. Treating it and even the repercussions of the treatment can be a very intricate process. So no, I wouldn't be inclined to accept the input of a biology major, a chemistry minor, a bioinformatics PhD candidate -- a bachelor's in bioengineering from MIT notwithstanding, or a biochemistry major as particular authorities on the subject because they do not have the experience of actually treating patients suffering from it, let alone extensive experience of the same.

Actually, you have not been upfront in many posts about not being a lawyer, to the point that I was rather surprised when you admitted it. As for medical advice, everyone is free to accept or decline whatever they want. I'm just not a fan of hypocrisy.