Not really...

On the biological level it is trying to stop millions of sperm-cells to sneak in or prevent one egg-cell from being available. In the numbers game it is less risky and more reliable to make the one cell unavailable then to try to prevent the millions from being viable. Even if you shut 99.99% of them down, you still have more risk than having 99.99% chance of preventing the one cell being available.

I'm afraid that however we want the world to be equal for man and women, the biology itself is unfair and needs a lot more time and research if you want to equalize that.

Or use the tie-off snipsnip solution. It is a bit more permanent, but is pretty reliable in preventing.

Can't females develop antibodies that destroy the sperm?

Evolutionary skill issue

I'm actually waiting for male birth control pills so bad

They would give men more agency on reproduction, aside from vasectomy, which is permanent, and condoms, which can rip or be intentionally poked.

Also, they can be used in couples where a woman is hesitant to take pills herself, either out of reproductive concerns (fear that pills would make them permanently sterile), or the overall influence of hormones on the body and the menstrual cycle.

How does this unscientific instagram vomit has 500 votes on lemmy? Are we turning into reddit?

I think if I busted a nut 9 times a day, I would just simply just vanish.

Lol this is so dumb

Nah, this isn't a great point at all.... even at face value really.

Put slightly differently, if we're assuming people sleep around as much as the text implies, if we focus on birth control solely for men, then one 'failure'/non-controlled man would result in a ton of pregnancies. If the onus is on women, then one 'failure'/non-controlled woman would result in one pregnancy.

I’m pretty sure the birth control pill is for women because that was easy to do. A pill for men has been tried several times and they still don’t exist yet.

Condoms?

Let's say you save exactly one pill and it works on anyone. Also assume 100% pregnancy rate, so if you are paired with someone and neither have the pill, then it's an automatic pregnancy. Our goal is to minimize number of pregnancies.

• "Max promiscuity": Say we have a complete bipartite matching. if it's given to a male, then no pregnancies have been prevented since every other male can impregnate every female. If it's given to a female, then it reduces the number of pregnancies by 1 since none of the males can impregnate her.
• "Traditional": Say we have a bijective matching (i.e. each male is paired with exactly one female, and vice versa). Then the pill can be given to anyone and it will always reduce the number of pregnancies by 1.
• "The Harem": Say we have a matching where males have more than one pairing but females have at most one pairing each. In this case, giving the pill to the male with the largest number of pairings will reduce pregnancies by however many pairings they have.
• "Reverse Harem": Same scenario as above but flip male and female. Giving the pill to any female will have the same effect of reducing pregnancies by 1. Giving it to a male will have no effect.
• "The Cliques": The population is split into disjoint graphs, but each of these disjoint graphs are complete (bijective) bipartite graphs. In this case, if the pill is given to a male, then it will only have an effect if that male only has a single pairing, thereby reducing pregnancies by exactly 1. Otherwise, there will be no reduction in pregnancies. If given to a female, then it will always reduce pregnancies by exactly 1.

As far as I'm aware, the real world operates most like a mixture of "Traditional" and "Cliques". At least, in places where birth control is an option. But in the real world, we have more than one pill.

If we have enough for either all males or all females, then the effect is the same regardless of who gets the pill. It will always lead to 100% pregnancy reduction.

Let's say we have enough pills for all but one male, or all but one female.

• "Max promiscuity": If the pill is given to the males, then we still have one male that can impregnate everyone, so there will be no reduction in pregnancies. If given to females, then you will end up with exactly one pregnancy.
• "Traditional": As before, there's no difference. Any decision will lead to reducing pregnancies to exactly 1.
• "The Harem": giving to all the males except the one with the smallest number of pairings will reduce pregnancies to however many pairings that one male has (more than 1). If given to females, then it will reduce it to exactly 1.
• "Reverse Harem": Giving it to the males will reduce pregnancies to exactly 1 since they're only in 1 pairing. Giving it to females will also reduce it to exactly 1.
• "The Cliques": if given to the males, then it will only make a difference if there exists a clique with exactly one male. It will reduce pregnancies by the largest number of females in a clique with a single male. If given to females, then it always reduces pregnancies to exactly 1.

So with the goal of minimizing pregnancies, it either makes no difference or is optimal to have the pill on women (unless you're in a harem). This is highly reductive though. We have many other considerations when deciding who should get access to birth control.

The one who gets pregnant should probably take the birth control, as pregnancy would be more bothersome for them than for the other person.

The funny thing is, we have the options. It is a matter of choosing to use them. More options always better, solutions already exist.

What is this weird ass template with the creepy people in the background?

It's easier to prevent ovulation of one egg than stop a billion sperm cells from reaching their destination. Stop politicising biology.

Counter point, all men are rapists(according to the wisdom of the internet). Therefore, birth control is protection against the onslaught of unwanted semen that comes from all the endless rape.

Or, if you arent a perpetually online moron, birth control allows women to control their reproduction. Its a symbol of liberation and freedom for women, who can now enjoy sex at their want without worry of pregnancy.

In over words, shes making a shit point. This is like all the clueless cunts moaning about women in short skirts in Star Trek, not realising the the mini skirt was a symbol of sexual liberation for the time.

Counterpoint: a woman taking birthcontrol is empowered because she is taking charge of her own reproduction. She doesn't have to rely on or trust the man to take his pill. After all, she would be the one bearing most of the burden in case of an unwanted pregnancy.

Additionally, purely biologically it is much easier to reliably stop conception on the female side than on the male side. A woman only produces one egg cell per month, whereas a man produces millions of sperm cells per day.