Joe,

Per my last post, the odds of hazard from the hot bath method are
numerically small. Exaggerating these odds to discourage hot bath
use increases odds of serious hazards from unwanted conception. Also
per my last post, these hazards include devastating the lives of
either parent, an unwanted child, or other people. Is this the side
of caution?

Frequently, both CONception and CONTRAception involve hazards of non-
zero odds. From this symmetry, it is immediately apparent that no
universal side of caution exists, since evaluation and balance of the
hazards, within the context of their odds, is a matter of personal
preference: Some people, like you, prefer to take no chances with
permanent sterility, but some others prefer to take no chances with
conception, and for these people permanent sterility is
advantageous. And then there are many people whose preferences lie
between the two extremes.

Therefore, if you exaggerate the risk of any contraceptive, then you
only benefit people who share your preferences. Consequently, people
who will not do their homework get no especial benefit. Moreover,
the exaggeration is unfair to people who will do their homework.

You can use a disclaimer to resolve the concern that someone who will
not do his homework might cause himself serious harm: Warn people
that you make no recommendation, and that anyone is on his own, and
that therefore he must do their homework and assume full
responsibility for his own decisions. Dr. Lissner uses such a
disclaimer,

http://gumption.org/mcip/hint.html

and other people do, too.

There are at most small odds of hazard from the hot bath method. You
can use the disclaimer. No better male contraceptive method is yet
available. Reliance on a partner for contraception carries its own
serious risks; females typically, and rightly, reject reliance on a
partner as a fundamentally unacceptable concept. Especially given
these preceding four considerations, I regret that I cannot see
justification to exaggerate the risks of hot bath use.

Nevertheless, I do understand that you are going to continue
insisting that the hot bath carries high risk. I understand that you
cannot be persuaded to do otherwise. There are, however, other
members in our group besides you, and some of them may have different
attitudes. These people read these posts, too.

In considering my "repeatedly attempting to persuade (you) to change
(your material)", please bear in mind that my arguments have always
been responses to comments that you had previously made.

I thank you for providing your reference, "Hazards of Testicular
Heating". This was very helpful in evaluating the situation.

I thank you for acknowledging my point of view.

I thank you for offering assistance with an Internet outlet. I do
not know whether I would have enough information for such an
opportunity, but I will certainly keep your offer in mind, and I
thank you again.

Jim


--- In malecontraceptives@y..., Joe Wielgosz <jwielgos@y...> wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> I acknowledge your point of view, and the many arguments you
advance in
> favor of heat-based contraception.
>
> We discourage self-experimentation because we are concerned that
> someone who has not done their homework might cause themselves
serious
> harm while attempting heat-based contraception, and then feel that
our
> website failed to adequately warn them of the potential risks
involved.
>
> I will freely admit that we do not have a comprehensive body of
> information on the risks associated with hot water baths. The quoted
> section on Hazards of Testicular Heating referred to internal
scrotal
> temperature, as opposed to external water temperature, and described
> effects in rats, not humans. The point was simply to show that
there is
> evidence that a risk exists, not to quantify that risk precisely.
>
> I encourage you to put any further information you uncover about
> heat-based contraception online. If you would like you can submit a
> page to us and we will consider putting it in our heat methods
section.
> Alternately, if you send us a URL to your own site, we will be glad
to
> link to it.
>
> Especially without clear information on the level of risk, we feel
that
> it is important for us to err on the side of caution. I hope you at
> least understand why we are taking this position, even if it is not
one
> you agree with. I also hope you realize that we are not likely to
> change this policy - so posting your own material would be a more
> constructive use of time than repeatedly attempting to persuade us
to
> change ours.
>
> Regards,
>
> - Joe
>
> --- jp40177 <jp40177@y...> wrote:
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > Your comments of Voegeli are confusing. You began your message
by
> > suggesting that even Voegeli herself was skeptical of her method,
but
> >
> > you ended by acknowledging her complete confidence.
> >
> > I think that you were mistaken in suggesting that even Voegeli
> > herself offered room for permanent sterility from hot baths. You
> > quote Voegeli,
> >
> > "Dr Voegeli herself admits that it was 'impossible to record
> > reliable statistics' ("Data on the Thermic Method for...") and
says
> > that 'for solid statistical backing, I would like to see my method
> > subjected to test in a number of laboratories' ("On
Overpopulation").
> >
> > These quotes are out of context. WHEN was it impossible to
record
> > reliable statistics? Was it in ALL circumstances, or just in
SOME
> > circumstances, and in WHAT circumstances? What "solid
statistical
> > backing" did Voegeli seek? Your comments make only innuendo, no
> > clear answers.
> >
> > Voegeli did explain that collecting certain reliable field
statistics
> >
> > WAS difficult. But she cast no doubt on her LAB work. Moreover,
the
> >
> > field work was still important, because from the field work AND
the
> > lab work comes one VERY RELIABLE statistic: Voegeli CLAIMED to
have
> > researched her method for 30 years, in the lab and in the field,
with
> >
> > a large number of people, and during all of that time, and among
all
> > of those people, NOT ONE PERMANENT STERILIZATION SURFACED!
> >
> > From this one VERY RELIABLE statistic comes one VERY RELIABLE
> > conclusion: Either Voegeli CONCEALED cases of permanent
sterility,
> > OR permanent sterility was VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT.
> >
> > The possibility that Voegeli concealed permanent sterility,
either
> > accidentally or deliberately, is the weak link in her research.
> > For "solid statistical backing", Voegeli's research, like any
such
> > research, REQUIRES independent testing to resolve the competence
and
> > credibility issue. So of course Voegeli called for independent
> > testing.
> >
> > Voegeli's call for independent testing does not mean that she
doubted
> >
> > herself. To the contrary, Voegeli declared specifically,
> > unequivocally and emphatically that permanent sterility from her
> > method was impossible.
> >
> > Your passage, Hazards of Testicular Heating, looks meticulous and
> > detailed. Indeed, it is easy to lose one's self in the detail
and
> > overlook the absence of reference to hot bath, or to hot bath
induced
> >
> > sterility, or indeed to ANY description of HOW the "intra
testicular
> > temperature" was controlled or measured. In any case, the
passage
> > cites no hot bath induced sterility, so that Voegeli is still
batting
> >
> > 1.000.
> >
> > Do not misconstrue my criticism of your passage. The research IS
> > interesting, and I thank you for the citation. But the passage
> > simply does not address the hot bath method, even if it SEEMS to
do
> > so.
> >
> > On the other hand, Dr. Lissner claimed that the Japanese
government
> > had conducted several successful Voegeli hot bath experiments.
> >
> > Let us put the hot bath method in perspective. Hot water is not
an
> > exotic material found mainly in research labs. It is not a
> > prescription item. Hot water is common; it flows straight from
the
> > home faucet.
> >
> > Home hot faucet water is often regulated to an adjustable setting
> > from 120F to 160F. In MY home, this regulator adjustment has
seized
> > and is stuck at 120F. I commonly draw the hottest bath that I
can,
> > whose initial temperature I recently found is 115F. I have been
> > doing this years, long before I ever heard of Voegeli.
Doubtless,
> > plenty of men are bathing in water hotter than I use. Medical
> > science literature should have an abundance of permanent
sterility
> > examples from simple use of home hot water. But evidently, you
have
> > found no such examples.
> >
> > And then there is the sauna, ubiquitous in Finland. These
devices
> > operate at 150F and UP! Over 200F is possible, and the HIGHER
end of
> >
> > the scale is generally preferred in Finland. How does the
population
> >
> > of Finland manage to reproduce itself? Finland should have given
you
> >
> > a wealth of heat induced permanent sterility examples.
Evidently, it
> >
> > did not.
> >
> > Commonplace heat sources made heat induced temporary sterility
known
> > even to Hippocrates, 2400 years ago. If there were a THIN LINE
> > between TEMPORARY and PERMANENT sterility, then likewise,
permanent
> > sterility would be common and well known. But it is not; you do
not
> > have even ONE example.
> >
> > Clearly, if you do not feel comfortable encouraging the hot bath
> > method, then you should not do so.
> >
> > But you should not expressly discourage hot baths, either. You
> > should not demand an unusually high, and therefore unreasonable,
> > safety standard. You should not give prejudicial weight to
studies
> > which seem to suggest a vague possibility of hazard. You should
not
> > misrepresent the hot bath with out-of-context quotations.
Perhaps
> > most importantly, you should not discount the hazards of the
> > alternatives; ALL hazards must be BALANCED--FOR EACH MAN AND BY
EACH
> > MAN.
> >
> > Currently, there are 4 AVAILABLE possibilities: The Voegeli hot
> > bath, the condom, the vasectomy, and reliance on the female
partner.
> >
> > Surely, you do not suggest that either condoms or vasectomy is
safer
> > AND more reliable than Voegeli's hot bath. And as for relying on
the
> >
> > female partner, following is a passage of Christopher Peterson
and
> > Margaret P. Battin, Department of Philosophy, University of Utah,
> > GENDER ROLES AND MALE CONTRACEPTION,
> > http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/undergrad/vol6/peterson.html
> >
> > "It cannot be doubted that men gamble every day that the
> > contraception currently available to them will be sufficient to
> > protect their choices about when, how, and with whom to
reproduce,
> > and every day men end up wrong. It might be teenage fathers who
are
> > then forced to choose between abandoning either their partner and
> > child or their plans for the future. Or it might be late middle
age
> > married fathers who are obliged to return to parenthood perhaps
much
> > later in life than they wish to. A lack of contraceptive options
for
> > men shapes and distorts the reproductive destiny of men every
time
> > they engage in sexual intimacy with a partner where a potential
for
> > conception exists."
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > --- In malecontraceptives@y..., Joe Wielgosz <jwielgos@y...>
wrote:
> > > Hi JP,
> > >
> > > Firstly, Dr Voegeli herself admits...
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > malecontraceptives-unsubscribe@y...
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
> http://www.hotjobs.com