All:

In message 115, malecontraceptives.org "pass[ed] along a request from
Elaine Lissner, MCIP director" inviting group members to write to
several media outlets and suggest that these media outlets "do a
piece that digs in a little deeper" into RISUG than did the Grist
magazine article because "It seems like there might be more to the
story".

I found it curious and frankly rather unflattering that Dr. Lissner
chose to address this group through an intermediary. I would have
thought that she would have attached enough importance to members of
this group and to their ideas that she would have been a member
herself, especially considering her rousing endorsement at
http://gumption.org/mcip of malecontraceptives.org. And if she IS a
member, then she can post her own messages, as the rest of us do.

Despite the rather unflattering manner of Dr. Lissner's presentation,
I have answered her call, and I ask that the rest of the group
members please do likewise, if you have not already done so, because
results are what matter most.

However, if I were a publisher or editor, I would most likely not be
moved by the vague argument that "It seems like there might be more
to the story". This makes us look like we are asking for a fishing
expedition. Consequently, the rest of this post addresses concrete
issues that I think would make such a story important. For members
who find letter writing difficult, I have composed a model letter
that you can either paraphrase or copy outright and then add your own
name, if what I have written reflects your own views.

I have numerous times read Dr. Lissner quoted as saying, "Men don't
like their private parts messed with." Similarly we have, "Men don't
like doctors to have anything to do with their testicles," summarized
Don Waller, a contraceptives expert and professor of pharmacology and
toxicology at the University of Illinois at Chicago (Grist Magazine
article). Oddly, I have NEVER read Dr. Lissner quoted as saying that
SHE LIKES having HER private parts messed with. Don Waller says
nothing of that sort, either. So maybe Dr. Lissner, and other women,
do not LIKE people messing with THEIR private parts either, and maybe
the observation relative to MEN is not really that relevant, although
the intended inference is fairly obvious.

I suggest a more relevant list of things that men do not like.

1. Men do not like awkward to use, accident prone condoms. We often
hear that condoms fail frequently mostly because men do not use them
properly. Some clever PR person must have conceived this self-
fulfilling nonsense, with the obvious intent of blaming the male
user. If condoms are frequently mis-used, then they are obviously
not easily used, and the problem is in the condom, not the user.

2. Men do not like mutilating themselves with vasectomy, although
they do it in large numbers, anyway (see item 3, below). I myself
was considering a vasectomy until I discovered that it could cause
chronic pain and would most likely cause other, low grade health
problems that could not be easily connected directly with the
vasectomy.

3. Men do not like putting their lives in the hands of a woman every
time that they have sex. Women currently enjoy the freedom not to
have, or to have a child at the time of their own choosing. Male
contraception would strip women of half of this freedom, and with it,
a significant level of self-autonomy and control. Such a dramatic
loss of female freedom, self-autonomy and control makes male
contraception anathema to feminists.

Nonetheless, we have become so accustomed to pandering to feminists
that we tend to discuss and try to justify male contraception as if
it were a feminist issue. Grist Magazine asks,

"But even if men used RISUG, would women trust them? It's doubtful
that the whispered promise of having been RISUGed would fly during a
one-night stand."

I ask, with all of the birth control remedies that women have, is
male trustworthiness relevant DURING A ONE-NIGHT STAND? Obviously, a
prudent woman will be using birth control under ANY circumstances--
just as a prudent man will be using condoms in such a situation under
ANY circumstances. A more relevant question, I suggest, is whether a
man should EVER trust a WOMAN'S whispered promises of protection? If
the woman is dishonest, and a pregnancy results, then the man has NO
remedy. I know a number of men who have had vasectomies, all
married, and in all cases, they had them after a so-called "accident"
which FOLLOWED the completion of their planned families.

The cause of male contraception will advance only when males stop
thinking of themselves as DRONES who should assume more of the so-
called contraceptive "burden" from women, and start thinking of
themselves as MEN who demand the same reproductive right to choose
that women have demanded and enjoyed exclusively for decades. There
is no reason that MEN should be satisfied with the gum ball machine
when women have the rest of the whole contraceptive supermarket.

The cause of RISUG will advance only when the hazards of vasectomy
are thoroughly and widely exposed, and RISUG is seen as a NECESSARY
alternative to vasectomy, and not merely a more CONVENIENT one.
RISUG will not advance before then. We also need to establish
RATIONAL and CONSISTENT safety levels, like those used in other
branches of medicine, and not ABSURD and selective and distorted
safety levels, like the special safety level that some have proposed
for the benign practice of Voegeli's hot bath.

MODEL LETTER: When copying for a given destination, delete the two
other addresses which do not apply.

Monica Bauerlein
Mother Jones Magazine

Dear Monica Bauerlein:


The New Yorker Magazine
Attention: Owen Kethery

Gentlemen:


The New York Times Magazine

Gentlemen:

I have recently heard that Dr. Elaine Lissner, Director of the Male
Contraception Information Project, is urging you do to a piece on
RISUG. I would like to add my voice to hers.

There are numerous misconceptions about contraception in general, and
male contraception, in particular. Such an article, especially in a
wide circulation publication like yours, could do much to correct
these misconceptions.

Contraception, including MALE contraception, is typically discussed
in feminist terms. We frequently hear that, "Men do not assume their
fair share of the contraception burden." This simple sentence rests
on three erroneous premises:

1. That contraception is a burden. To see that it is not a burden,
consider what would happen if it were unavailable. Contraception is
not a burden, it is am important liberation. This aspect applies to
either gender. It obviously applies to women, since with
contraception they need not fear pregnancy as a result of sex.
Likewise, it applies to men, since with contraception, they need not
fear an unwanted lifelong child support or marital obligation.

2. That adequate male contraception methods exist. Currently,
conventional medicine offers condoms and vasectomy. Condoms are
notoriously accident prone. We are told that condom accidents happen
only when men fail to use them properly, but this is self-fulfilling
nonsense. If condoms are frequently mis-used, then they are
obviously not easily used, and the problem is in the condom, not the
user. Surgical vasectomy, on the other hand, releases sperms beyond
their normal isolated environment, and in so doing, invites an auto-
immune response which can cause low grade health problems which are
not obviously connected to the vasectomy. The web site,
http://www.dontfixit.org is an extensively documented source where
you can begin researching health risks of vasectomy. RISUG,
therefore, is not merely a new contraceptive offering greater
CONVENIENCE than existing methods, RISUG is an ESSENTIAL means to
replace a dangerous contraceptive, vasectomy.

3. That men are averse to use of contraception. This is clear
nonsense: within the U.S., between 500,000 and 750,000 men have
vasectomies, so I have read in numerous places. The aversion that
men have is to the two specific methods, because most men have at
least some fuzzy idea that these methods are not very good. Where a
man has a REAL AVERSION is to putting his entire life in the hands of
a female every time he has sex. A safe, reliable method like RISUG
would change all that.

I have numerous times read Dr. Lissner quoted as saying, "Men don't
like their private parts messed with." Similarly we have, "Men don't
like doctors to have anything to do with their testicles," summarized
Don Waller, a contraceptives expert and professor of pharmacology and
toxicology at the University of Illinois at Chicago,

http://www.gristmagazine.com/maindish/schulman081303.asp

Oddly, I have NEVER read Dr. Lissner quoted as saying that SHE LIKES
having HER private parts messed with. Don Waller says nothing of
that sort, either. So maybe Dr. Lissner, and other women, do not
LIKE people messing with THEIR private parts either, and maybe the
observation relative to MEN is not really that relevant, although the
intended inference is fairly obvious.

We have become to accustomed to pandering to feminists, so much so
that we tend to discuss and try to justify male contraception as if
it were a feminist issue. Grist Magazine asks,

"But even if men used RISUG, would women trust them? It's doubtful
that the whispered promise of having been RISUGed would fly during a
one-night stand."

I ask, with all of the birth control remedies that women have, is
male trustworthiness relevant DURING A ONE-NIGHT STAND? Obviously, a
prudent woman will be using birth control under ANY circumstances--
just as a prudent man will be using condoms in such a situation under
ANY circumstances. A more relevant question, I suggest, is whether a
man should EVER trust a WOMAN'S whispered promises of protection? If
the woman is dishonest, and a pregnancy results, then the man has NO
remedy.

It is time that people recognize that contraception is not merely a
women's issue, but is also a MEN's issue. The unfair playing field
on which men operate must receive wider attention. Men's Health
magazine took a rare look at this aspect in an article last
May, "Shouldn't You Be on the Pill?"

http://www.malecontraceptives.org/articles/gifford_mens_health.html

RISUG could level the playing field. Your article could contribute
to the pressure needed to make this happen.

I thank you very kindly.

Sincerely,

--- In malecontraceptives@yahoogroups.com, "malecontraceptives"
<info@m...> wrote:
>
> For those of you who have read the Grist Magazine article and found
> it interesting, I'm passing along a request from Elaine Lissner,
MCIP
> director:
>
> "Do you read Mother Jones, the New Yorker, GQ, or the New York
Times
> Magazine? MCIP is in contact with a writer who has written for
these
> publications and is going to try to talk them into doing a story on
> RISUG. You can help:
>
> 1) Grab the e-mail address for letters to the editor (listed below).
>
> 2) Drop them a quick e-mail. Mention the following:
>
> - that you're a reader
> - that you saw an interesting article in a small online magazine
> (www.gristmagazine.com/maindish/schulman081303.asp). It seems like
> there might be more to the story, and you'd love it if they'd do a
> piece that digs in a little deeper.
> - that there was also a piece that briefly mentioned it in Men's
> Health
(www.malecontraceptives.org/articles/gifford_mens_health.html)
>
> Here are the e-mail addresses:
> Features editor at Mother Jones: Monica Bauerlein,
> Bauerlein@M...
> For the New Yorker, send a message to themail@n..., and
> title it "Attn: Owen Kethery"
> For the New York Times Magazine, magazine@n...
> For GQ, look for an e-mail address on the letters page or the page
> after the table of contents
>
> If they've already gotten a request or two for a story, the
writer's
> pitch will be much easier. You'll be making a big difference with a
> five-minute effort!"
>
> Thanks,
> the MaleContraceptives.org team