I'd like to respond to a few things that disturb me in this most
recent post. Maybe this will start some discussion:

First, the quotes:

"The reality is that women are not hapless victims of fertility, but
rather are very aware of the consequences...and rewards."

"Until women are not rewarded from inadequate both male and female
contraception, progress in this area will be significatly hampered."

"If that sounds paranoid or cynical, put yourself in their shoes."

"You'd be out of your mind to want approval to obtain something you
wanted, even if you did have to pay for it, which in this case you
wouldn't."

"Don't confuse technological hurdles with real hurdle of incentive
against progress that half our population has."

I'm not going to say that there aren't some women out there in the
world who might use a child as an economic tool, either to get welfare
(though I think you somewhat overestimate the value of this) or to get
money from the father of their child. But come on! Listen to what
you're saying, man! If it sounds paranoid and cynical, it probably is.
You're claiming that literally half of the U.S. population--all women
in the entire country--are baby-hungry, gold-digging, conniving
swindlers, just waiting for the first opportunity to sucker a hapless
male into 18 years of financial support. This is uncalled-for
language, and an unproductive direction for the male contraception
discussion to take.

I'm sorry if you don't like paying child-support. I'm sorry if you
miss the good ol' days, before paternal testing, when a cad could go
about, from one bed to the next, without worrying about the
consequences. But I'm more sorry if you see a child as nothing more
than the burden of an address to which you send a check every month.

You claim that you want the full responsibility of controlling your
own fertility. Fine. I'm with you there. I think it is a terrible
injustice that so little research money has gone into male
contraception. I agree that women should be offended by the
implications of a contraception mentality that leaves the
responsibility up to them. It is insulting for the law determine that
women are incapable of making their own decisions. Furthermore, I
think that women should be offended by the fact that the contraception
options available to them are still not 100% effective, and have more
side-effects than I can shake a stick at. Do you realize how bad a 3
percent per year failure rate is? At the end of ten years of use,
you're up to about a 1 in 3 chance of having a child.

You speak of responsibility, but, by your comments, you seem to be
agreeing with that same mysognist mentality that currently directs the
medical establishment. True responsibility is clearly the farthest
thing from your mind. You want only the responsibility that does not
demand lifestyle changes on your part. If you want to avoid the danger
of paying child support to some woman, then maybe you should forgo the
one-night stand. Get to know her a little, first. Hell, maybe even
build a relationship of trust, for once, so that you don't think that
ALL WOMEN ARE OUT TO GET YOUR BABIES!!! I don't mean to moralize here,
but if you're having sex with women you don't trust, then maybe that's
your first mistake. Keep in mind that these non-condom BC methods
aren't going to protect you from diseases. They're really only going
to be viable options for men in stable, monogamous relationships, in
which both the man and the woman have decided to wait to have children.





---
I find it interesting that though women are in control of their fertility,
and in control of post-contraception choices, men are expected by U.S. law
(and possibly other countries) to pay for the results.

To me that legal situation reads "women are irresponsible, so if you have
natural sex with one you are responsible for the consequences no different
than if you feed antifreeze to a dog." As if a women doesn't know any
better. If I were a woman I would be offended by the implication.

The reality is that women are not hapless victims of fertility, but rather
are very aware of the consequences...and rewards.

Under that situation, the female half of the population benefits from lack
of male contraception, and additionally benefits from continued use of
unreliable female contraception (used as a scapegoat when desiring
pregnancy), by retaining the choice of a free lunch[child] at their
leisure.

Until women are not rewarded from inadequate both male and female
contraception, progress in this area will be significatly hampered.

Imagine anything that would succend with half a population secretly
against it? Not likely.

If that sounds paranoid or cynical, put yourself in their shoes. If you
could decide when to have a child (or anything else you desire with the
instinctive intensity a woman desires children, lets say food or sex for
example), and it were guarenteed by law to be paid for in full with child
support or welfare, etc, wouldn't you be against anything that would
undermine that, even if you wouldn't openly admit to it? You'd be out of
your mind to want approval to obtain something you wanted, even if you did
have to pay for it, which in this case you wouldn't.

Don't confuse technological hurdles with real hurdle of insentive against
progress that half our population has. Remove that insentive and we may
begin to see progress, otherwise it's a loosing battle.