The Ultimate Agent Of Social Change

The ultimate agent of social change will be safe, effective, private male birth control.

Men are already the gatekeepers to relationship commitment. It’s a pity that more men don’t know this. What’s worse is that many men do know this but won’t use it their advantage when dealing with potential intimate relationships with women. Basically, men only have this one advantage.

With more and better male birth control options – especially if they’re private – men can also be the gatekeepers to reproduction. Vasectomy doesn’t count. While safe, effective, and private, it’s essentially permanent. Reversing a vasectomy is a crap-shoot option and an expensive one at that. Condoms are safe, but not so effective and certainly not private. Yes, I acknowledge RISUG. That’s one to watch.

Safe, effective, and private is the Holy Grail of male birth control. If women want to have kids, it can be the men who make that final decision. There might be no more “oops, I forgot to take my pill” pregnancies. There might be no more question about paternity should a pregnancy result.”You’re pregnant? Time for a DNA test, you unfaithful trollope”.

Every time there is discussion outside the Manosphere of this subject, there is an annoying chorus from women of “I won’t trust a man to take his birth control pill.” This is a smokescreen for “Holy shit, I might lose reproductive control.” More male birth control options is a fundamental threat to women’s reproductive choice.

I’m almost convinced that big pharma is being pressured to seriously delay or simply stop researching male birth control options. I’m no conspiracy nutjob, I just think that male birth control is too threatening to the powers that be.

This is no panacea for men or even society. There is the possibility for huge unintended consequences:

Increase in voluntary single-motherhood through sperm bank withdrawals and “ad hoc” sperm donations directly to the woman. Baby rabies is an incredibly strong motivator for some really stupid decisions. The social pathologies of single motherhood are well-known and well documented through social research.

Huge drop in the birth rate of the educated classes. There is a strong correlation between higher education in a population and lowered birth rates. This is happening in Europe where a demographic time bomb is about to go off when population shrinkage reaches an economic tipping point. Immigration has kept this issue at bay in Europe and North America.

Further escalation of gender-based conflict. Consider dark Game practiced by cads – “Sure, I’ll commit to you, baby” becomes “Sure, I’ll give you a baby”. Women in the throes of baby rabies will really get played and the resulting bitterness in an entire female demographic will make today’s gender conflict look a thumb-wrestling match.

Increase in STD rates. Condoms do prevent pregnancy. But with a man on birth control, that’s one less reason to wrap that ICBM before launching the missile into the Republic of Chlamydia.

Regardless of the unintended consequences, I really do want men to have far more birth control options. I really want to see men have reproductive control over their lives.

About these ads
  1. #1 by My Name Is Jim on September 26, 2011 - 7:19 AM

    The other chorus is “Yeah, it’s about time men started sharing the responsibility for birth control”. Most women totally don’t get that this is about men, not women. Yet. They won’t until blue-pill relationship advice columns start featuring stories of women who can’t get pregnant when they want by whom they want.

    Add bullet point 464 to the list of requirements, will use only the options I approve.

    • #2 by theprivateman on September 26, 2011 - 11:50 AM

      I don’t think women will understand the impact of private male birth control until they realize that men have reproductive control.

      That’s a civilization changing shift.

  2. #3 by deti on September 26, 2011 - 8:43 AM

    This is deti (the commenter formerly known as detinennui32):

    Hmmm. For hardcore players, there’s no current substitute for the condom, in light of the petri dish pussies that have to be out there. That, and having your physician on speed dial for that morning after antibiotic prescription.

    Does the man have an obligation to tell his SNL or his FWB he’s on the male pill? Every woman I ever did seemed to volunteer the info or respond honestly when asked.

  3. #4 by Martini on September 26, 2011 - 11:23 AM

    “I’m almost convinced that big pharma is being pressured to seriously delay or simply stop researching male birth control options.”

    Big Pharma isn’t going to delay anything if there’s a big market ($$$) for their creations; it’s just been the default for the woman in a marriage or LTR to be primarily responsible for birth control because that market became established decades ago (60’s – the pill).

    As the laws have been changed to more aggressively collect child support (unfairly in some cases) combined with the declining rate of marriage, and more under / unemployed men, I believe BP has duly noticed and will ramp up their efforts in getting this product on the market.

    “Does the man have an obligation to tell his SNL or his FWB he’s on the male pill?”

    Not at all, not even your more serious relationships. It’s a private thing – your body, your choice and I’m not trying to be cute here. Keep ‘em both on birth control; double backup is the way to go.

    • #5 by deti on September 26, 2011 - 12:40 PM

      Good point, Martini. If we really want to go “your body, your choice” to the extreme, i’ve seen this argued too:

      After a hookup, woman becomes pregnant. Man wants the baby, woman does not. Woman gets abortion and man has nothing to say about it. .

      Turnabout is fair play, I think.

      Same scenario, but this time woman wants the baby, man does not. Woman has and keeps the baby and man has nothing to say about it. But states could adopt legislation providing that the man is free to “opt out” of fatherhood. He signs forms voluntarily surrendering his parental rights to the child. He is relieved of his obligation to support the child but has no right to see or have any contact with the child. It frees up the child for adoption by a man who becomes child’s father in every respect other than biologically.

      No, it’s not fair to the child who might need bio-dad’s medical information someday. But woman made that decision without input from man. It’s simplistic and fraught with legal and bioethical conundrums. But it might bring some fairness to the current landscape.

      • #6 by Martini on September 26, 2011 - 1:21 PM

        No state will ever create such legislation; just another tab for them to pick up and the coffers are empty for all but a few states. I half agree with your pipe dream, but it’s just a pipe dream.

        Some interesting questions though; would more women give up babies for adoption if they could no longer get support from the fathers? Italy, Germany and a few others are quite desperate to increase their birthrate; would America now become a source of adoptable infants? Finally, we have a product to export!

        America — it’s time to plant the flag upside down.

        I have a dream; a million-man march in the streets of DeeCee, screaming for the male pill! I’ll join the female auxiliary unit.

      • #7 by Guest on September 27, 2011 - 6:26 PM

        “Woman has and keeps the baby and man has nothing to say about it. But states could adopt legislation providing that the man is free to “opt out” of fatherhood. He signs forms voluntarily surrendering his parental rights to the child. He is relieved of his obligation to support the child but has no right to see or have any contact with the child. It frees up the child for adoption by a man who becomes child’s father in every respect other than biologically.”

        Sounds good in theory, but a man should not count on such a law. There have already been cases (UK if I’m not mistaken) when the law protecting the anonymity of sperm donors has been retroactively overruled in favor of the child so conceived to know the father (and possibly collect past due support).

  4. #8 by My Name Is Jim on September 26, 2011 - 12:51 PM

    BTW I wouldn’t predict the end of oops babies.  The female pill didn’t stop teen pregnancy or out of wedlock births, there are more now than before the pill.  If a guy is careful, yes a private male option would make him a lot safer, but lots of guys won’t be.

    As for whether he should notify her, yes in almost all cases he should and most guys will.  But just the existence of it, and guys choosing to use it above board, changes things.  Does it really put the decision of having a child into the man’s hand?

    For alphas probably yes.  He has the upper hand, and can replace her easier.  Giving the alpha a private reversible option emoves one of the last true obstacles to no-consequences pump and dumping … Fear of being legally taken to the cleaners when he refuses to marry his babymomma.

    For betas, it changes little.  They let the women make the baby decision, he feels lucky to have his entitled 5 and just wants her to be happy.  He won’t play the baby card much better than the commitment one.

  5. #9 by just visiting on September 26, 2011 - 12:57 PM

    Social change for sure. I’m cynical about it bringing positive legal change. The lawyers would just produce themselves another niche. I can picture it now. Wife’s biological clock is ticking, and hubby won’t stop the birth control, hence not only getting divorced but getting sued for fraud.

  6. #10 by Lost on September 26, 2011 - 1:25 PM

    Huge societal shift would be inevitable for sure. Though i don’t think it will undo anything, it will just add more shit to an already over flowing pile of shit.

    When’s the last time law makers reversed a law because now a new law conflicts with it, never
    its all just one big tangled web of laws on top of laws
    there’s still a law in Canada that states every man has the right to a horse….. now where’s my god damned horse!

  7. #11 by Gorbachev on September 26, 2011 - 7:49 PM

    No, Privateman is right.

    This is a huge weapon in the gender wars. Now, a man doesn’t need to discuss it; no baby can ever result until he says “yes”. Right now, all options are with women: they jealousy guard the lock-safe combination key that governs when babies can exist. They jealously scream “My body!” when it’s time to have or not have a baby. That it can cripple a man for 18 years or longer they just throw down to “It’s only justice.”

    But if that were true, then equality would be giving men control over their own reproductive choices.

    While some feminists call it misogyny because so little research is done into a male pill, actually it feeds the female need for control. Reproduction is a peculiarly female obsession; despite feminist claims, it’s women who are most interested in it even after 50 years of feminism and it’s women whose biological clocks go off. Few men get baby rabies like women.

    As far as lawsuits for fraud if a guy doesn’t want kids – this presumes that a woman has the *right* to have a child by any man she’s with. If a woman married to a guy can get an abortion without even consulting him, then a man can deny reproduction, without consultation, to his wife. That’s only justice.

    This would be a game-changer. You need to secure a marriage-partner (who will support you and a child), and THEN you need to keep him around – and absent children, laws are being slowly rewritten to make divorce (finally) more equitable for men. That’s only going to continue.

    Upshot:

    The whiny columns about how it’s impossible to get any “good men” willing to play to the female script and timetable are going to get so loud they’ll drown out everything else.

    We all know that hordes of men will lie about taking their pill – sure, we can get pregnant, why not – and not do it. We all know it. We’re men. A very large segment of the female population actively strategizes about how to corner a man into a pregnancy: I’ve been in this situation twice, each time escaped because I flatly said we weren’t ready to commit. When the harsh reality that single motherhood loomed as a real threat hit home, in both circumstances a trip to the clinic was arranged. The bitterness at my unwillingness to make the relationship permanent immediately (on her wishes) also ended them.

    Women will say, ” You jerk. What an asshole.” etc.

    This is the point: Total control is supposed to fall to the woman.

    Give men this power. Give them the power to control if they can impregnate a woman. Then it’s 50-50.

    You will never, ever hear as much whining and complaining from women as when the reproductive tables are turned and it’s no longer just a female decision.

    Imagine how women will have to dance and perform for *men* instead of men doing it for women: Prove to me you’re trustworthy. Prove to me this relationship is rock-solid. Prove to me it can last. And prove it to me – through my observations of your behavior.

    Suddenly, the local slut who rides everything and then “reforms” for the Right Man seems a lot more … whorish and risky.

    Sure, bang her. Sure, hang out with her. But you’ve stolen her one guaranteed way to get something out of the man: Getting knocked up. Now, there’s no way for you to secretly corral him into a commitment.

    A VAST portion of babies are born through women corraling men into a pregnancy. VAST.

    Feminists will laugh, but they know it, too. I personally know about a dozen women who actively planned their babies without their partner’s input: And arranged to get “accidentally pregnant”. That’s just me. Three of my cousins did this; my sister did this. They were married but he wanted to wait for another 2-3 years. She had Baby Rabies. She later told us and even bragged about it how “It was time, and I decided.”

    All kinds of women do this shit all the time. Now imagine a world where

    SHE COULD DO NOTHING

    Without the full, active, involved consent of the man in her life. How she could get everything including the house – but no baby. How she could be vetoed at every step.

    Women talk a good talk – “That’s awful, it should be a mutual decision” – but women have always reserved the right to either make it mutual or to vote it for themselves. This removes the second option.

    As much as you may get some feminists agreeing with this – “We should have total freedom over our own bodies” – you can be absolutely sure that almost all non-Ivory Tower women, including NYT columnists and everyone in the mediaocracy —

    Will hate this. It will in fact be a major draining of female power.

    Watch.

    And wait for the screams.

    If only we had… the male pill.

    • #12 by theprivateman on September 26, 2011 - 8:38 PM

      “It was time, and I decided.”

      Imagine a man saying this in the context of reproductive decisions.

  8. #13 by wingman on September 26, 2011 - 9:10 PM

    The scary thing I’ve come across is just how frequently women will ‘just go for it’ when no birth control is around. Fact is, if you’re a playah you could have unprotected sex anytime. Everybody says this. Why? a lot of women think it’s their destiny to get pregnant, so hey, guess it just kinda happened. I say just get the damn rascal tied up and don’t talk about it.

    When you turn 40, your buddies should get you a vasectomy for your birthday.

  9. #14 by Anacaona on September 27, 2011 - 12:19 AM

    Very good post I can’t wait to see this myself.
    Feminism is based in the “security” that women will have it all, the moment their heart desires it. Is never that easy but is the illusion once that illusion is broken, and they know that the only security they have is to buy sperm in a clinic.
    But the thing is there are holes to cover yet, since child alimony was designed to protect the kid a judge can determine that the husband of the woman is always the father of an upcoming child regardless of genetics so that is another thing to add to the equation.

    I would guess abortions would become shamed by feminists thought, right now the “illusion” is that there is too many unwanted pregnancies so “why bring a kid to this world to suffer” a 14 year old that get pregnant by accident by his HS..squeeze. Might get a lecture about how unlikely is she to find a man that does the same when she gets older and she will whether kept it or give it in adoption to a desperate older woman. So that would be something interesting underage and accidental pregnancies might be considered a good thing for society if child bearing becomes something men only give to worth it women.
    Just my two cents

  10. #15 by johnnymilfquest on September 27, 2011 - 5:34 AM

    My solution? Bang older women who aren’t fertile anyway.

    • #16 by NMH on September 27, 2011 - 6:24 AM

      That’s what I do. But it isnt that cringe-worthy for me since Im almost 50.

      Just remember the magic number is 43. On average, a woman’s fertility drops dramatically so she is practically infertile after the 43rd birthday. Not ALWAYS true but most of the time.

      It can help a young man to have a fetish for MILF’s like you do I presume.

    • #17 by wingman on September 28, 2011 - 6:43 PM

      You have a good point there Johnny. When I was 23, my gf’s were in their high 30’s. Women in their 40’s to high 40’s definitely lose some competitive edge against 20-somethings, but more than make up for it in experience and good attitude. When women are no longer thinking about babies and roping men in, they can actually kick back a have a good time. In stock market terms, women in their 40’s are undervalued assets.

  11. #18 by Dannyfrom504 on September 27, 2011 - 7:33 AM

    Wow. How did subject come up Brother? Lol.

    In the context of our conversation, there was one “oopsie” and she freaked b/c she didn’t want a baby yet. I went to the pharmacy (on the ship), gave her plan B, and had one of the girls that work for me assign her “sick in quarters” for 24 hours. She started her period the next day.

    DONE and DONE.

    The last gf, I was SUPER careful, always used condoms, she had an agenda, and I knew she was trying to rope me in.

    She’s got a kid now, and I DOUBT her bf ( if she’s still with him) is the real father.

    Gimme the pill, I’m down.

  12. #19 by Looking Glass on September 27, 2011 - 10:32 PM

    The dynamics would significantly change, that’s for sure. Actually, it might improve the sex life of the SMV 4-6 guys by a lot. They’d suddenly be the only ones available to get pregnant by. Yeah, they’d be taken to the cleaners, but at least they’ll get a whole lot more attention earlier on in life.

    And while we can game out a lot of the changes (hehe), not all of them are a given. The mental dissonance in a lot of the Harpy Set is going to cause some strange gyrations. I don’t think they’re wholly predictable.

    Though, it might, ironically, lead to the most massive drop in human fertility rates ever. It’s got the wacky side possibility of making the world have a whole lot less children. And, for as much as we talk about it causing issues in the Western World, think what happens when (depending on the form), knock off copies are mass produced in India & Africa? The shift isn’t only going to be in NA & Europe.

    Oh, and Japan might make it to .5 children per female.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,386 other followers

%d bloggers like this: