Birth control for women and men: What's the deferens?

To say that there is a discrepancy in the availability of birth control between men and women would be an understatement.

Many women struggle to find a method that works for them with minimal side effects, and some eschew the whole process in lieu of said side-effects and lofty medical expenses.

There is the pill, the patch, NuvaRing, Implanon, condoms, diaphragms, female condoms, non-hormonal methods and emergency contraception. These are all catered extensively toward women.

For men, aside from condoms, the only completely effective option seems to be sterilization/vasectomy, and even a vasectomy is not immediately effective or 100-percent reliable.

Therefore, in heterosexual relationships, the contraceptive responsibility has been primarily placed on the woman. Why is there such an apparent divide between the availability of female and male birth control methods?

I think the situation is partially because the standards for fatherhood are so low and often variable.

Therefore, contraceptive responsibility is placed on the woman because she is inescapably more invested in a possible childbirth.

In 2009, Yaz, a top-selling birth control pill produced by Bayer HealthCare, came under scrutiny for misleading advertisements that minimized the dangerous, negative side effects of the drug.

Women taking the pill experienced increased risk of blood clots, heart attack and stroke, and the marketing slip-up resulted in health problems, recalls and lawsuits. Intrauterine devices, or IUDs, are another popular emerging form of birth control.

The IUD is a small copper device that is inserted into the uterus, a one-time procedure that can last up to 12 years.

They require little maintenance, and most women experience little to no negative side effects. Sounds ideal, right?

Unfortunately, in rare cases, the device can cause an infection or push through the wall of the uterus, resulting in further infection and a possible need for surgery. IUDs also increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy, which can be life threatening.

So what if there was a possible form of male contraception that was minimally invasive, completely reversible, 100-percent effective, had no side-effects and lasted up to 10 years?

Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance, or RIUSG, is a gel injection that has been developing in India for the past 30 years.

To simplify the procedure, a nontoxic polymer is injected into the vas deferens and destroys the sperm as they pass through the tube.

After many years of testing and clinical trials, the potentially revolutionary procedure is slowly but surely becoming available and generating buzz in the United States.

None of the men who have been injected through the clinical trials have experienced any failures or side effects, so you would think this would be an incredibly exciting medical development.

Still, when I prompted the responses of my male peers, the reactions were vastly negative and skeptical, squeamish, even.

It’s remarkable to me that women are forced to be the bearers of contraceptive responsibility, but when the male is confronted with a possible role reversal, it’s all, “Hands off the goods.”

I challenge the men of this country to pay attention to this as it develops. Reconsider your role in reproductive discourse, and understand the responsibility you have for your own bodies.

Women, practice this: It’s not me, it’s you.

­— alliston@indiana.edu