|Failure rates (first year)|
|User reminders||Dependent upon self-control. Urinating between acts of sexual intercourse helps clear sperm from urethra.|
|Advantages and disadvantages|
Coitus interruptus, also known as withdrawal, pulling out, or the pull-out method, is a method of birth control in which a man, during sexual intercourse, withdraws his penis from a woman's vagina prior to ejaculation and then directs his ejaculate (semen) away from the 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 38 million couples worldwide in 1991. Coitus interruptus does not protect against sexually transmitted infections (STIs/STDs).
Perhaps the oldest description of the use of the withdrawal method to avoid pregnancy is the story of Onan in the Torah and the Bible. This text is believed to have been written down over 2,500 years ago. Societies in the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome preferred small families and are known to have practiced a variety of birth control methods.: 12, 16–17 There are references that have led historians to believe withdrawal was sometimes used as birth control. 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).: 17, 23
After the decline of the Roman Empire in the 5th century AD, 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 was used during the Roman Empire, knowledge of the practice may have been lost during its decline.: 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.
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: American studies have found actual failure rates of 15–28% per year. One U.S. study, based on self-reported data from the 2006-2010 cycle of the National Survey of Family Growth, found significant differences in failure rate based on parity status. Women with 0 previous births had a 12-month failure rate of only 8.4%, which then increased to 20.4% for those with 1 prior birth and again to 27.7% for those with 2 or more.
An analysis of Demographic and Health Surveys in 43 developing countries between 1990 and 2013 found a median 12-month failure rate across subregions of 13.4%, with a range of 7.8-17.1%. Individual countries within the subregions were even more varied. A large scale study of women in England and Scotland during 1968–1974 to determine the efficacy of various contraceptive methods found a failure rate of 6.7 per 100 woman-years of use. This was a “typical use” failure rate, including user failure to use the method correctly. In comparison, the combined oral contraceptive pill has an actual use failure rate of 2–8%, while intrauterine devices (IUDs) have an actual use failure rate of 0.1–0.8%. Condoms have an actual use failure rate of 10–18%. However, some authors suggest that actual effectiveness of withdrawal could be similar to the effectiveness of condoms; this area needs further research. (See Comparison of birth control methods.)
For couples that use coitus interruptus consistently and correctly at every act of intercourse, the failure rate is 4% per year. This rate is derived from an educated guess based on a modest chance of sperm in the pre-ejaculate. In comparison, the pill has a perfect-use failure rate of 0.3%, IUDs a rate of 0.1-0.6%, and internal condoms a rate of 2%.
It has been suggested that the pre-ejaculate ("Cowper's fluid") emitted by the penis prior to ejaculation may contain spermatozoa (sperm cells), which would compromise the effectiveness of the method. However, several small studies have failed to find any viable sperm in the fluid. While no large conclusive studies have been done, it is believed by some that the cause of method (correct-use) failure is the pre-ejaculate fluid picking up sperm from a previous ejaculation. 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).
However, recent research suggests that this might not be accurate. A contrary, yet non-generalizable study that found mixed evidence, including individual cases of a high sperm concentration, was published in March 2011. A noted limitation to these previous studies' findings is that pre-ejaculate samples were analyzed after the critical two-minute point. That is, looking for motile sperm in small amounts of pre-ejaculate via microscope after two minutes – when the sample has most likely dried – makes examination and evaluation "extremely difficult". Thus, in March 2011 a team of researchers assembled 27 male volunteers and analyzed their pre-ejaculate samples within two minutes after producing them. The researchers found that 11 of the 27 men (41%) produced pre-ejaculatory samples that contained sperm, and 10 of these samples (37%) contained a "fair amount" of motile sperm (i.e. as few as 1 million to as many as 35 million). This study therefore recommends, in order to minimize unintended pregnancy and disease transmission, the use of condoms from the first moment of genital contact. As a point of reference, a study showed that, of couples who conceived within a year of trying, only 2.5% included a male partner with a total sperm count (per ejaculate) of 23 million sperm or less. However, across a wide range of observed values, total sperm count (as with other identified semen and sperm characteristics) has weak power to predict which couples are at risk of pregnancy. Regardless, this study introduced the concept that some men may consistently have sperm in their pre-ejaculate, due to a "leakage," while others may not.
Similarly, another robust study performed in 2016 found motile sperm in the pre-ejaculate of 16.7% (7/42) healthy men. What more, this study attempted to exclude contamination of sperm from ejaculate by drying the pre-ejaculate specimens to reveal a fern-like pattern, characteristics of true pre-ejaculate. All pre-ejaculate specimens were examined within an hour of production and then dried; all pre-ejaculate specimens were found to be true pre-ejaculate.
It is widely believed that urinating after an ejaculation will flush the urethra of remaining sperm. However, some of the subjects in the March 2011 study who produced sperm in their pre-ejaculate did urinate (sometimes more than once) before producing their sample. Therefore, some males can release the pre-ejaculate fluid containing sperm without a previous ejaculation.
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 persons prefer it so they can avoid possible adverse effects of hormonal contraceptives or so that they can have a full experience and be able to "feel" their partner. Other reasons for the popularity of this method are 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.
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. 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 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.
The method is largely ineffective in the prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs/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.
Based on data from surveys conducted during the late 1990s, 3% of women of childbearing age worldwide rely on withdrawal as their primary method of contraception. Regional popularity of the method varies widely, from a low of 1% in Africa to 16% in Western Asia.
In the United States, according to the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) in 2014, 8.1% of reproductive-aged women reported using withdrawal as a primary contraceptive method. This was a significant increase from 2012 when 4.8% of women reported the use of withdrawal as their most effective method. However, when withdrawal is used in addition to or in rotation with another contraceptive method, the percentage of women using withdrawal jumps from 5% for sole use and 11% for any withdrawal use in 2002, and for adolescents from 7.1% of sole withdrawal use to 14.6% of any withdrawal use in 2006–2008. When asked if withdrawal was used at least once in the past month by women, use of withdrawal increased from 13% as sole use to 33% ever use in the past month. These increases are even more pronounced for adolescents 15 to 19 years old and young women 20 to 24 years old Similarly, the NSFG reports that 9.8% of unmarried men who have had sexual intercourse in the last three months in 2002 used withdrawal, which then increased to 14.5% in 2006–2010, and then to 18.8% in 2011–2015. The use of withdrawal varied by the unmarried man's age and cohabiting status, but not by ethnicity or race. The use of withdrawal decreased significantly with increasing age groups, ranging from 26.2% among men aged 15–19 to 12% among men aged 35–44. The use of withdrawal was significantly higher for never-married men (23.0%) compared with formerly married (16.3%) and cohabiting (13.0%) men. Currently, there is no information on married men's withdrawal use, which may increase the prevalence of this contraceptive method among men.
- 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.
- "Coitus interruptus". www.medscape.com. Archived from the original on 29 July 2019. Retrieved 24 July 2019.(subscription required)
- Creatsas GK (December 1993). "Sexuality: sexual activity and contraception during adolescence". Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 5 (6): 774–83. doi:10.1097/00001703-199312000-00011. PMID 8286689. S2CID 46433691.
- Adams C (2002-01-07). "Who wrote the Bible? (Part 1)". The Straight Dope. Creative Loafing Media, Inc. Archived from the original on 2009-03-02. Retrieved 2009-07-24.
- Collier A (2007). The Humble Little Condom: A History. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-59102-556-6.
- Bullough VL (2001). Encyclopedia of birth control. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 74–75. ISBN 978-1-57607-181-6. Retrieved 2009-07-24.
- Kippley J, Kippley S (1996). The Art of Natural Family Planning (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: The Couple to Couple League. p. 146. ISBN 978-0-926412-13-2., which cites:
- "Choice of contraceptives". The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics. 34 (885): 111–4. December 1992. PMID 1448019.
- Hatcher RA, Trussel J, Stewart F, et al. (1994). Contraceptive Technology (Sixteenth Revised ed.). New York: Irvington Publishers. ISBN 978-0-8290-3171-3. Archived from the original on 2020-08-02. Retrieved 2019-09-08.
- Sundaram, Aparna; Vaughan, Barbara; Kost, Kathryn; Bankole, Akinrinola; Finer, Lawrence; Singh, Susheela; Trussell, James (March 2017). "Contraceptive Failure in the United States: Estimates from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth". Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 49 (1): 7–16. doi:10.1363/psrh.12017. PMC 5363251. PMID 28245088.
- Polis, Chelsea; Bradley, Sarah E. K.; Bankole, Akinrinola; Onda, Tsuyoshi; Croft, Trevor N.; Singh, Susheela (24 March 2016). "Contraceptive Failure Rates in the Developing World: An Analysis of Demographic and Health Survey Data in 43 Countries". Cite journal requires
- Vessey, Martin; Lawless, Melanie; Yeates, David (April 1982). "Efficacy of Different Contraceptive Methods". The Lancet. 319 (8276): 841–842. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(82)91885-2. PMID 6122067. S2CID 24203338.
- Audet MC, Moreau M, Koltun WD, Waldbaum AS, Shangold G, Fisher AC, Creasy GW (May 2001). "Evaluation of contraceptive efficacy and cycle control of a transdermal contraceptive patch vs an oral contraceptive: a randomized controlled trial". JAMA. 285 (18): 2347–54. doi:10.1001/jama.285.18.2347. PMID 11343482.
"Contraceptive Use". Facts in Brief. The Alan Guttmacher Institute. Archived from the original on 2001-12-18. Retrieved 2005-05-10. - see table First-Year Contraceptive Failure Rates
- Hatcher RA, Trussel J, Stewart F, et al. (2000). Contraceptive Technology (18th ed.). New York: Ardent Media. ISBN 978-0-9664902-6-8. Archived from the original on 2008-05-31. Retrieved 2006-07-13.
- Jones, Rachel K.; Fennell, Julie; Higgins, Jenny A.; Blanchard, Kelly (June 2009). "Better than nothing or savvy risk-reduction practice? The importance of withdrawal". Contraception. 79 (6): 407–410. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2008.12.008. PMID 19442773.
- Hatcher RA, Nelson AL, Trussell J, Cwiak C, Cason P, Policar MS, Aiken AR, Marrazzo J, Kowal D (September 2018). Contraceptive technology (21st ed.). New York, NY. ISBN 978-1-7320556-0-5. OCLC 1048947218.
- Trussell TJ, Faden R, Hatcher RA (August 1976). "Efficacy information in contraceptive counseling: those little white lies". American Journal of Public Health. 66 (8): 761–7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.66.8.761. PMC 1653419. PMID 961944.
- Harms RW (2007-09-20). "Can pre-ejaculation fluid cause pregnancy?". Women's health: Expert answers. MayoClinic.com. Archived from the original on 2009-05-11. Retrieved 2009-07-15.
- Cornforth T (2003-12-02). "How effective is withdrawal as a birth control method?". About.com: Women's Health. Archived from the original on 2009-02-21. Retrieved 2009-07-15.
- Zukerman Z, Weiss DB, Orvieto R (April 2003). "Does preejaculatory penile secretion originating from Cowper's gland contain sperm?". Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics. 20 (4): 157–9. doi:10.1023/A:1022933320700. PMC 3455634. PMID 12762415.
- Free MJ, Alexander NJ (1976). "Male contraception without prescription. A reevaluation of the condom and coitus interruptus". Public Health Reports. 91 (5): 437–45. PMC 1440560. PMID 824668.
- "Researchers find no sperm in pre-ejaculate fluid". Contraceptive Technology Update. 14 (10): 154–6. October 1993. PMID 12286905.
- Clark S (September 1981). "An examination of the sperm content of human pre-ejaculatory fluid". Popline. Knowledge for Health Project. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015.
- "Withdrawal Method". Planned Parenthood. March 2004. Archived from the original on 2008-04-20. Retrieved 2008-03-28.
- Delvin D (2005-01-17). "Coitus interruptus (Withdrawal method)". NetDoctor.co.uk. Archived from the original on 2006-09-24. Retrieved 2006-07-13.
- Killick SR, Leary C, Trussell J, Guthrie KA (March 2011). "Sperm content of pre-ejaculatory fluid". Human Fertility. 14 (1): 48–52. doi:10.3109/14647273.2010.520798. PMC 3564677. PMID 21155689.
- Cooper TG, Noonan E, von Eckardstein S, Auger J, Baker HW, Behre HM, et al. (2010). "World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics". Human Reproduction Update. 16 (3): 231–45. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmp048. PMID 19934213.
- Slama R, Eustache F, Ducot B, Jensen TK, Jørgensen N, Horte A, et al. (February 2002). "Time to pregnancy and semen parameters: a cross-sectional study among fertile couples from four European cities". Human Reproduction. 17 (2): 503–15. doi:10.1093/humrep/17.2.503. PMID 11821304.
- Kovavisarach E, Lorthanawanich S, Muangsamran P (February 2016). "Presence of Sperm in Pre-Ejaculatory Fluid of Healthy Males". Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet Thangphaet. 99 Suppl 2: S38–41. PMID 27266214.
- Ortayli N, Bulut A, Ozugurlu M, Cokar M (May 2005). "Why withdrawal? Why not withdrawal? Men's perspectives". Reproductive Health Matters. 13 (25): 164–73. doi:10.1016/S0968-8080(05)25175-3. PMID 16035610.
- Trussell J, Leveque JA, Koenig JD, London R, Borden S, Henneberry J, et al. (April 1995). "The economic value of contraception: a comparison of 15 methods". American Journal of Public Health. 85 (4): 494–503. doi:10.2105/AJPH.85.4.494. PMC 1615115. PMID 7702112.
- "Family Planning Worldwide: 2002 Data Sheet" (PDF). Population Reference Bureau. 2002. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2006-09-26. Retrieved 2006-09-14. Cite journal requires
- Kavanaugh ML, Jerman J (January 2018). "Contraceptive method use in the United States: trends and characteristics between 2008, 2012 and 2014". Contraception. 97 (1): 14–21. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2017.10.003. PMC 5959010. PMID 29038071.
- Higgins JA, Wang Y (April 2015). "Which young adults are most likely to use withdrawal? The importance of pregnancy attitudes and sexual pleasure". Contraception. 91 (4): 320–7. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2014.12.005. PMC 4373981. PMID 25530102.
- Daniels K, Abma JC (August 2017). "Unmarried Men's Contraceptive Use at Recent Sexual Intercourse: United States, 2011-2015" (PDF). NCHS Data Brief. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (284): 1–8. PMID 29155680. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-12-03. Retrieved 2020-07-20.