PetaByteGoneRogue

This person thinks it's a great idea to use babies as lab rats with the demented and degenerate goal of providing more men with infants to suck on their nipples, under the false premise that they are 'lactating' and that it is therefore a good thing. Good for who they do not say. I won't bother refuting all the creepy justifications people use for the practice. I've done that enough, and everybody who isn't a creepy fucker should instinctively understand why it is wrong to encourage infants to suck on men's nipples. It is not a healthy individual who does not recoil at the thought. I want to discuss the published literature on drug-induced lactation in males. What do we know about the fluid produced by men after ingesting chemicals not intended to produce food and sustenance for infants, but as a side effect? What are people like this person enthusiastically supporting as sustenance for newborns and infants? The studies and reports into this fluid almost entirely consist of single-case reports involving men who had received long-term eostrogen and anti-androgen treatment (producing breast tissue development) plus a galactagogue such as domperidone and mechanical stimulation. No controlled clinical trials exist. I repeat - No controlled clinical trials exist. The best-known report is that of Reisman and Goldstein (2018) in Transgender Health. That report describes a 30-year-old man who had been on feminising hormones for six years and, with added domperidone, oestradiol, progesterone, and pumping, produced roughly 8 ounces of fluid per day near the time of delivery and was reported to exclusively feed an infant for six weeks. The infant’s paediatrician was said to have described growth and development as appropriate during that short period. Later case reports in males on similar hormone regimens have appeared; some include limited milk composition data showing presence of proteins, lactose, and other components, though volumes remain modest and exclusive feeding is rare. Criticisms of the Reisman and Goldstein 2018 report: - * Unverified drug source and samples: The male obtained domperidone himself (reportedly from Canada or online), and no clinicians involved independently verify the substance’s authenticity, purity, or dose. There is also no record of laboratory-controlled sample collection or chain-of-custody for any fluid produced. Critics have noted the absence of steps confirming that any samples were produced by the male rather than substituted by a lactating mother (he lived with the infant’s biological mother).⁠ * Insufficient volume and unverified intake: The reported output (~8 oz/day near birth) is well below a typical newborn's requirements (often 14–17+ oz/day initially, rising further by six weeks). The paper provides no objective measurements of actual infant intake, weigh-feed-weigh data, or independent volume confirmation. Claims of exclusive feeding rely on the man's self-reporting and a brief second-hand paediatrician statement rather than detailed clinical monitoring. ⁠ * No composition or safety analysis in the original report: The 2018 paper contains no laboratory analysis of the fluid’s macronutrients, micronutrients, immunologic factors, or residual drug levels. Domperidone is not FDA-approved for lactation induction; the agency has warned against its use because of unknown risks to infants via milk and the cardiac risks to the adult. Spironolactone (used for androgen suppression) and high-dose hormones also transfer into milk and there is very limited data on the effects of that on infant.⁠ * Methodological and ethical limitations of a single case report: The paper had no control, no standardised protocol verification, limited hormone-level optimization data, and no long-term infant outcome tracking beyond the first weeks. There was also an absence of clear ethics-committee oversight documentation for an experimental off-label regimen involving an unapproved drug and an infant. Infant sex, detailed growth charts, and bloodwork were also not provided.⁠ There have been subsequent reports that address composition in a few cases, but they continue to rely on small numbers, self-reported or minimally verified data, and short follow-up. Historical experimental work (e.g., Huggins & Dao 1954) induced small amounts of secretion in males treated with eostrogen for prostate cancer by giving prolactin, but this was not for infant feeding and volumes were minimal. Pathological galactorrhea in untreated males (from tumors, drugs, or metabolic conditions) is documented, and one 1981 analysis of fluid from a man with hyperprolactinemia found lactose and proteins in ranges overlapping colostrum, but again without intentional infant consumption or controlled induction. Overall, the evidence that males can produce a nutritionally adequate, safely verified secretion sufficient for sustained exclusive infant feeding remains extremely limited to poorly controlled case reports with significant methodological gaps. It all smacks of perverted men looking for justification to encourage infants to suck on their nipples with no regard for the safety and sustenance of the infant, the effect on a nursing mother trying to feed her infant while her partner mucks up her routine with his creepy attempts, or the ongoing (and justified) stigma and suspicion attached to any man who wants to use a baby like that. In the next 2 replies I have listed just a few of the studies into mother's milk and formula. The differences are stark, and very telling.