My impressions of reversible vasectomies is that it's not terribly expensive, and hardly invasive -- a tiny incision in the scrotum and a week or two of healing. Seems that it'd be easier on the body than, say.. piercings.
For B -- yeah, true for monogamous or fluid-bound partners. However, I seriously doubt that they'll be in the majority of males interested in contraceptives.
I agree that most men probably won't be interested in it, but I like the idea. It's so easy to leave birthcontrol to women, since it's been like that for so long. But it would be nice to tell a guy that he needs to get on the pill so we can give up condoms. Even if it would only be revenge for everytime I've gotten back on the pill because of a relationship. And if they aren't willing? I think they should pay for half of my prescription. Yeah! This is a great thing, babe. ;)
Not a bad idea. I'm in a safe condom free sexual agreement and this would add a nice safety blanket on top of the one that's already there in pill form. Most guys wouldn't use it for such, though. Any way to get out of that rubber sheath.. *snicker*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bluebeard![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 05:31 pm (UTC)a) Expensive, invasive.
b) Not necessary if you're with a trusted partner and your only worry is pregnancy, not disease.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 05:51 pm (UTC)For B -- yeah, true for monogamous or fluid-bound partners. However, I seriously doubt that they'll be in the majority of males interested in contraceptives.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-21 08:17 pm (UTC)I'm only half kidding.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-11-22 02:13 am (UTC)