The Best Birth Control men can't have

I've written before about Vasalgel and how I don't think most Western governments will let it get through.  Those that do will see a big drop in the birth rate.

Here's another article that has some interesting comments at the bottom of it.

In typical feminist style, a poster named Karen Martelli proceeds to tell other posters that they are stupid and that Vasalgel hasn't been approved because:

Ignoring the possibility that married men with children may prefer this product to a vasectomy, she abuses other posters for not following her line of thinking.

I find it funny how she completely misses the point that it's another option for men.  Her alternative - the IUD - is for women.

Much like so many feminist narratives, she's sticking up for the 'men don't need more options because, between men and women, there are already so many options' narrative, either completely ignoring the fact that it still leaves women in full control of the process.

I believe that Vasalgel will be a big winner for married men who've already had enough children and for teenagers and men in their early 20s who don't want any surprises.  Can you see a male aged between 18 and 25 saying to his girlfriend "you know, I'd like you to get an IUD"?  I certainly can't.

I know several men who have talked about long-term contraceptives with their partners after they are done having children and the ONLY CHOICE presented to them was vasectomy.  Their wives did not want a hysterectomy, would not consider IUDs or any other product.

Contrary to women like Karen Martelli, there are many women who outright refuse to get things like IUDs and for men like me the choices are condoms, which are an ongoing cost, or a vasectomy for which there can be some nasty side effects.  FYI - the need to use condoms in my marriage is unnecessary from an STD point of view, so to suggest that "condoms are better because they also protect against STDs, duhh!" is meaningless.

Having looked at vasectomies and having heard some horror stories, I'm not keen to jump in with both feet.  What I am keen to see is another option for men like me and for women like Karen Martelli who absolutely nothing to gain or lose from the introduction of a product like Vasalgel to just get out of the discussion.

I suspect that the reason so many women object to something like Vasalgel is that a vasectomy is not always reversible.  So, should a woman divorce a man in his 50s, then his chances of remarriage and having children with his new wife would be significantly reduced, thus ensuring her ex-husband only focuses on HER children, not any children from a subsequent relationship.

The great thing about Vasalgel for a married man is that he can get it done and, by the time it starts wearing off, his partner will most likely be past having children and the need for contraceptives will also be removed.

I don't know of any males who suggested that IUDs would be a bad idea or question why they would be needed.  Why do women like Karen Martelli feel she deserves a say?  I don't go on breast cancer forums and put down breast cancer research by saying "there are already treatments available that are X% effective, why do you need more research done at a cost of billions".

I believe the key thing to take away from here is that, in the eyes of people like Karen, Vasalgel isn't just giving men more options, it's taking away some of the power women currently have.  Can you tell she doesn't like it?

Will the deviousness never end?

It turns out one side-effect of the Scottish referendum is that there were people who had avoided paying a Poll tax brought in in 1989 and removed in 1994 by not registering to vote.

In order to be eligible to vote in the recent Referendum, one had to be registered.

This resulted in the government being able to identify as much as 300 million pounds in back-taxes being able to be traced.

Way to go to annoy the Scots further!

It's a bit like tricking people with excessive speeding fines into turning up by telling them they'd won a car, only to find they've been had.

The Conversation silences conversations it doesn't like about Domestic Violence

Well, I know it's not really newsworthy, but those left-wing media website purporting to be about 'conversations' publishes an article titled 'Why don't we speak up when we see signs of domestic violence' and, when the comments have people, including men, open up about their experiences of being abused and, surprise, surprise, most of the posts by men talking about their past experiences of being abused have been removed by the moderator.

Maybe it was because the posts questioned the fact that the article ignored pretty much all male victims of domestic violence.

Perhaps it was because the posts pointed out how the article implied that only women were victims of domestic violence.

A more likely cause for those post removals or, CENSORSHIP, is because they provide evidence that the site moderators don't want to acknowledge: that women aren't the only people who are victims.

I'd almost go so far as to point out that the moderator left the following comment up (which I'll paste because it may get taken down):

"Have you cringed when a friend was degraded by her partner in public? Or felt uncomfortable because your friend’s partner continually rings to check her whereabouts? Is your friend’s partner intimidating and rude to you?" Sure. In my case, both the friend, and her partner, are women.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, the Conversation, in an article about speaking up about domestic violence, silences posts when men post their personal experiences, but keeps up posts by women talking about their abuse, even when it's abuse in a lesbian relationship.  It's a bit like writing an article about the experiences of immigrants in Australia, but deleting posts by Asians because "we don't want them posting their stories, we only want stories from Middle Eastern or European immigrants".

One could almost conclude that this website is not only anti-male, but also anti-lesbian.  Are they allowed to go against the PC grain like that?  I mean, surely they're only allowed to be anti-male!