Jump to content

Coitus interruptus: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by 91.140.87.114 to last version by Several Pending (GLOO)
Undid revision 476905654 by Glacialfox (talk)
Line 21: Line 21:
}}
}}


'''Coitus interruptus''', also known as the '''rejected [[sexual intercourse]]''', '''withdrawal''' or '''pull-out method''', is a method of birth-control in which a man, during intercourse withdraws his penis from a woman's vagina prior to [[ejaculation]]. The man then directs his ejaculate ([[semen]]) away from his partner's [[vagina]] in an effort to avoid [[insemination]].
'''Coitus interruptus''', also known as the '''rejected [[sexual intercourse]]''', '''withdrawal''' or '''pull-out method''', is a method of birth-control in which a man, during intercourse withdraws his penis from a woman's vagina prior to [[ejaculation]]. The man then using [[masturbation]] directs his ejaculate ([[semen]]) away from his partner's [[vagina]] in an effort to avoid [[insemination]].


This method of [[contraception]], widely used for at least two millennia, is still in use today. This method was used by an estimated thirty-eight million couples worldwide in 1991.<!--
This method of [[contraception]], widely used for at least two millennia, is still in use today. This method was used by an estimated thirty-eight million couples worldwide in 1991.<!--

Revision as of 22:04, 14 February 2012

Coitus interruptus
Background
TypeBehavioral
First useAncient
Failure rates (first year)
Perfect use4%
Typical use15-28%
Usage
ReversibilityYes
User remindersDependent upon self-control. Urinating between acts of sexual intercourse helps clear sperm from urethra.
Clinic reviewNone
Advantages and disadvantages
STI protectionNo

Coitus interruptus, also known as the rejected sexual intercourse, withdrawal or pull-out method, is a method of birth-control in which a man, during intercourse withdraws his penis from a woman's vagina prior to ejaculation. The man then using masturbation directs his ejaculate (semen) away from his partner's vagina in an effort to avoid insemination.

This method of contraception, widely used for at least two millennia, is still in use today. This method was used by an estimated thirty-eight million couples worldwide in 1991.[1] Coitus interruptus does not protect against STDs or STIs.[2]

History

Perhaps the oldest documentation of the use of the withdrawal method to avoid pregnancy is the story of Onan in the Torah. This text is believed to have been written down over 2,500 years ago.[3] Societies in the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome preferred small families and are known to have practiced a variety of birth control methods.[4]: 12, 16–17  There are references that have led historians to believe withdrawal was sometimes used as birth control.[5] However, these societies viewed birth control as a woman's responsibility, and the only well-documented contraception methods were female-controlled devices (both possibly effective, such as pessaries, and ineffective, such as amulets).[4]: 17, 23 

After the decline of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, contraceptive practices fell out of use in Europe; the use of contraceptive pessaries, for example, is not documented again until the 15th century. If withdrawal were used during the Roman Empire, knowledge of the practice may have been lost during its decline.[4]: 33, 42 

From the 18th century until the development of modern methods, withdrawal was one of the most popular methods of birth-control in Europe, North America, and elsewhere.[5]

Effect

Like many methods of birth control, reliable effect is achieved only by correct and consistent use. Observed failure rates of withdrawal vary depending on the population being studied: studies have found actual failure rates of 15–28% per year.[6] In comparison, the pill has an actual use failure rate of 2–8%,[7] while the intrauterine device (IUD) has an actual use failure rate of 0.8%.[8] The condom has an actual use failure rate of 10–18%.[6] However some authors suggest that actual effectiveness of withdrawal could be similar to effectiveness of condoms, and this area needs further research.[9] (see Comparison of birth control methods)

For couples that use coitus interruptus correctly at every act of intercourse, the failure rate is 4% per year. In comparison the pill has a perfect-use failure rate of 0.3%, and the I.U.D. has a perfect-use failure rate of 0.6%. The condom has a perfect-use failure rate of 2%.[8]

It has been suggested that the pre-ejaculate ("Cowper's fluid") emitted by the penis prior to ejaculation normally contains spermatozoa (sperm cells), which would compromise the effectiveness of the method.[10][11] However, several small studies[12][13][14][15] have failed to find any viable sperm in the fluid. While no large conclusive studies have been done, it is now believed the primary cause of method (correct-use) failure is the pre-ejaculate fluid picking up sperm from a previous ejaculation.[16] For this reason, it is recommended that the male partner urinate between ejaculations, to clear the urethra of sperm, and wash any ejaculate from objects that might come near the woman's vulva (e.g. hands and penis).[17]

Advantages

The advantage of coitus interruptus is that it can be used by people who have objections to or do not have access to other forms of contraception. Some men prefer it so they can avoid possible adverse effects of hormonal contraceptives on their partners or so that they can have a full experience and really be able to "feel" their partner.[18] Some women also prefer this method over hormonal contraception to avoid adverse effects such as depression, mood swings, vaginal dryness, decreased libido, weight gain, and headaches, among others. It has no direct monetary cost, requires no artificial devices, has no physical side effects, can be practiced without a prescription or medical consultation, and provides no barriers to stimulation.

Disadvantages

Compared to the other common reversible methods of contraception such as IUDs, hormonal contraceptives and male condoms, coitus interruptus is less effective at preventing pregnancy.[8] As a result, it is also less cost-effective than many more effective methods: although the method itself has no direct cost, users have a greater chance of incurring the risks and expenses of either pregnancy and child-birth or abortion. Only models that assume all couples practice perfect use of the method find cost savings associated with the choice of withdrawal as a birth control method.[19]

The method is largely ineffective in the prevention of STDs, like HIV, since pre-ejaculate may carry viral particles or bacteria which may infect the partner if this fluid comes in contact with mucous membranes. However, a reduction in the volume of bodily fluids exchanged during intercourse may reduce the likelihood of disease transmission compared to using no method due to the smaller number of pathogens present.[14]

The method may be difficult for some couples to use. The interruption of intercourse may leave some couples sexually frustrated or dissatisfied.[20]

Masters and Johnson considered withdrawal as a means to developing sexual problems, e.g. premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction.[21]

Prevalence

Worldwide, 3% of women of childbearing age rely on withdrawal as their primary method of contraception. Regional popularity of the method varies widely, from a low of 1% on the African continent to 16% in Western Asia. (Data from surveys during the late 1990s).[22]

In the United States, studies have indicated 56% of women of reproductive age have had a partner use withdrawal. By 2002, only 2.5% were using withdrawal as their primary method of contraception.[23]

A leading exponent of withdrawal in the mid-nineteenth century was a religious based "utopian commune" called the Oneida community in New York. To minimize the incidence of pregnancy, teenage males were not permitted to engage in sexual intercourse except with postmenopausal women until such time as they mastered the withdrawal technique.[citation needed]

See also

References

  1. ^ Rogow D, Horowitz S (1995). "Withdrawal: a review of the literature and an agenda for research". Studies in family planning. 26 (3): 140–53. doi:10.2307/2137833. JSTOR 2137833. PMID 7570764., which cites:
    Population Action International (1991). "A Guide to Methods of Birth Control." Briefing Paper No. 25, Washington, D. C.
  2. ^ Creatsas G (1993). "Sexuality: sexual activity and contraception during adolescence". Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 5 (6): 774–83. PMID 8286689.
  3. ^ Adams, Cecil (2002-01-07). "Who wrote the Bible? (Part 1)". The Straight Dope. Creative Loafing Media, Inc. Retrieved 2009-07-24.
  4. ^ a b c Collier, Aine (2007). The Humble Little Condom: A History. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-59102-556-6.
  5. ^ a b Bullough, Vern L. (2001). Encyclopedia of birth control. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 74–75. ISBN 1-57607-181-2. Retrieved 2009-07-24.
  6. ^ a b Kippley, John (1996). The Art of Natural Family Planning (4th addition ed.). Cincinnati, OH: The Couple to Couple League. p. 146. ISBN 0-926412-13-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), which cites:
    Guttmacher Institute (1992). "Choice of Contraceptives". The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics. 34 (885): 111–114. PMID 1448019.
    Hatcher, RA (1994). Contraceptive Technology (Sixteenth Revised ed.). New York: Irvington Publishers. ISBN 0-8290-3171-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ Audet MC, Moreau M, Koltun WD, Waldbaum AS, Shangold G, Fisher AC, Creasy GW (2001). "Evaluation of contraceptive efficacy and cycle control of a transdermal contraceptive patch vs an oral contraceptive: a randomized controlled trial" (Slides of comparative efficacy]). JAMA. 285 (18): 2347–54. doi:10.1001/jama.285.18.2347. PMID 11343482.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    Guttmacher Institute. "Contraceptive Use". Facts in Brief. Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved 2005-05-10. - see table First-Year Contraceptive Failure Rates
  8. ^ a b c Hatcher, RA (2000). Contraceptive Technology (18th ed.). New York: Ardent Media. ISBN 0-9664902-6-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ Jones RK, Fennell J, Higgins JA, Blanchard K (2009). "Better than nothing or savvy risk-reduction practice? The importance of withdrawal" (PDF). Contraception. 79 (6): 407–10. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2008.12.008. PMID 19442773. Retrieved 2009-07-23. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. ^ Harms, Roger W. (2007-09-20). "Can pre-ejaculation fluid cause pregnancy?". Women's health: Expert answers. MayoClinic.com. Retrieved 2009-07-15.
  11. ^ Cornforth, Tracee (2003-12-02). "How effective is withdrawal as a birth control method?". About.com: Women's Health. Retrieved 2009-07-15.
  12. ^ Zukerman, Z.; Weiss, DB; Orvieto, R (2003). "Short Communication: Does Preejaculatory Penile Secretion Originating from Cowper's Gland Contain Sperm?". Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 20 (4): 157–159. doi:10.1023/A:1022933320700. PMID 12762415. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  13. ^ Free M, Alexander N (1976). "Male contraception without prescription. A reevaluation of the condom and coitus interruptus". Public Health Rep. 91 (5): 437–45. PMC 1440560. PMID 824668.
  14. ^ a b "Researchers find no sperm in pre-ejaculate fluid". Contraceptive Technology Update. 14 (10): 154–156. 1993. PMID 12286905. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  15. ^ Clark, S. (Sep 1981). "An examination of the sperm content of human pre-ejaculatory fluid". [Unpublished].{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
  16. ^ "Withdrawal Method". Planned Parenthood. 2004. Retrieved 2008-03-28. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  17. ^ Delvin, David (2005-01-17). "Coitus interruptus (Withdrawal method)". NetDoctor.co.uk. Retrieved 2006-07-13.
  18. ^ Ortayli, N; Bulut, A; Ozugurlu, M; Cokar, M (2005). "Why Withdrawal? Why not withdrawal? Men's perspectives". Reproductive Health Matters. 25 (13): 164–73. doi:10.1016/S0968-8080(05)25175-3. PMID 16035610.
  19. ^ James Trusell; Leveque, JA; Koenig, JD; London, R; Borden, S; Henneberry, J; Laguardia, KD; Stewart, F; Wilson, TG (April 1995). "The economic value of contraception: a comparison of 15 methods" (PDF). American Journal of Public Health. 85 (4): 494–503. doi:10.2105/AJPH.85.4.494. PMC 1615115. PMID 7702112.
  20. ^ "Coitus Interruptus (Withdrawal)". Abstinence & Natural Birth Control Methods. Sexually Transmitted Disease Resource. 2006. Retrieved 2006-09-05.
  21. ^ Masters, W.H., & Johnson, V.E. (1970). Human sexual inadequacy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. ^ "Family Planning Worldwide: 2002 Data Sheet" (PDF). Population Reference Bureau. 2002. Retrieved 2006-09-14. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  23. ^ Chandra, A; Martinez, GM; Mosher, WD; Abma, JC; Jones, J (2005). "Fertility, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health of U.S. Women: Data From the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth" (PDF). Vital Health Stat. 23 (25). National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved 2007-05-20. See Tables 53 and 56.

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coitus_interruptus&oldid=476905890"