this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2026
337 points (80.3% liked)
Comic Strips
21108 readers
3386 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And let's not talk about contraceptive pills for men, that have been heavily fought against because one of the listed side effects are impotency.
Instead, let's push hormones on a sex that relies on them heavily to function properly, and hope that nothing will break.
As always, to get approval for a drug, the potential side effects have to outweigh the benefits of the drug. From a purely logical and medical standpoint, there is no medical drawback for a man when the hormonal contraceptive fails and neither is there a medical benefit. If there are serious side effects, they have to outweigh the medical benefit and drawbacks, of which there are none, so that's pretty hard.
For women on the other hand, medically speaking pregnancy is a huge condition, sometimes dangerous, so there is a benefit and drawback if it doesn't work and the drugs are approved despite having side effects.
I think that if a company was serious about bringing a male contraceptive to market, the medical benefits of preventing unwanted pregnancies would be taken into account by the EMA/FDA, even if the user of the drug isn't the primary beneficiary.
The problem is that despite lots of research no viable drug has been found yet.
I think you flipped what you meant to say
Oh please. Female contraceptives have been available for 80 years. The first ones were extracted and slightly modified from yams.
We're now in a time where pharmaceutical development is in a space age compared to what it was 80 years ago. We've mapped the entire human genome, we can bioengineer bacteria to spit out custom molecules and proteins, we have freely available XRC 3d models of hundreds of thousands of proteins and their docking sites, we have (free) computational chemistry software that can do quantum molecular dynamics and supercomputers (but you only really need a fucking laptop), and the toolbox of organic chemistry is vastly larger than what it was in the 1950s.
The reason why no-one has come up with a safe and effective male contraceptive that can be anywhere near compared to existing female contraceptives is because it turns out to be fucking difficult.
Scientists have only just started to use actual women to test treatment on, instead of dismissing them as more complicated males.
Like a month ago they just debuted the first woman sized crash test dummy. Turns out, there were some issues they'd been ignoring.
So, until recently, do you honestly believe that they just didn't test female contraceptives? Or do you think they tested them on males instead? Or maybe that argument is a little bit nonsense in this case because while women as a whole are underrepresented in medical testing, the idea that they never, ever, tested on women (especially in the case of drugs exclusively made for women) is a little bit of a ridiculous concept.
Don't try to pretend that treatments specifically for women are not tested on females.
I'm not pretending anything. Women were rarely including in clinical trials up through the early 90s.
You're assuming I'm wrong because it's absurd. Yes, it was absurd.