Jump to content

Coitus interruptus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lyrl (talk | contribs) at 21:26, 10 July 2008 (Date first use "Ancient" to be consistent with infobox treatment of other old methods (fertility awareness, condom)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
BenefitsNo side effects

Coitus interruptus, also known as withdrawal or the pull-out method, is a method of contraception in which a couple has sexual intercourse, but semen is ejaculated outside of and away from the vagina. Coitus interruptus may also more generally refer to any extraction of the penis prior to ejaculation during intercourse. This method has been widely used for at least 2,000 years and was used by an estimated 38 million couples worldwide in 1991.[1]

Effectiveness

Like many methods of birth control, reliable effectiveness 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.[2] In comparison the pill has an actual use failure rate of 2-8%,[3] while the IUD has an actual use failure rate of 0.8%.[4] The condom has an actual use failure rate of 10-18%.[2] (see Comparison of birth control methods)

For couples that use withdrawal 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 IUD has a perfect-use failure rate of 0.6%. The condom has a perfect-use failure rate of 2%.[4]

The primary cause of failure of the withdrawal method is the lack of self-control of those using it. Poor timing of the withdrawal can result in semen on the vulva, which can easily migrate into the female reproductive tract. Some medical professionals view withdrawal as an ineffective method of birth control.[5] In contrast, a recent study in Iran found that provinces with higher rates of withdrawal use do not have higher fertility rates, and that the contribution of withdrawal use to unintended pregnancies is not markedly different from that of other commonly used methods such as the pill or condom.[6]

It has been suggested that the pre-ejaculate ("Cowper's fluid"), fluid emitted by the penis prior to ejaculation, contains spermatozoa (sperm cells), which can easily pass into the upper female genital tract in the presence of cervical mucus.[7] However, several small studies[8][9] 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.[10] For this reason, it is recommended that users of withdrawal have 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).[11]

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.[12]) Some women also prefer this method over hormonal contraception to avoid adverse effects such as depression, mood swings, vaginal dryness, decreased libido, and headaches, among others. It has no monetary cost, requires no artificial devices, has no physical side effects, and can be practiced without a prescription or medical consultation.

Disadvantages

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 due to the smaller number of pathogens present.[9]

The method may be difficult for some couples to use. The interruption of intercourse may leave some couples sexually frustrated or unsatisfied.[13]

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).[14]

In the United States, 56% of women of reproductive age have had a partner use withdrawal. In 2002, 2.5% were using withdrawal as their primary method of contraception.[15]

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. PMID 7570764., which cites:
    Population Action International (1991). "A Guide to Methods of Birth Control." Briefing Paper No. 25, Washington, D. C.
  2. ^ a b Kippley, John (1996). The Art of Natural Family Planning (4th addition ed.). Cincinnati, OH: The Couple to Couple League. pp. p.146. ISBN 0-926412-13-2. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), which cites:
    Guttmacher Institute (1992). "Choice of Contraceptives". The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics. 34: 111–114. doi:10.1016%2Fj.%3Ca. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Unknown parameter |doilabel= ignored (help)
    Hatcher, RA (1994). Contraceptive Technology (Sixteenth Revised Edition ed.). New York: Irvington Publishers. ISBN 0-8290-3171-5. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ 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
  4. ^ a b Hatcher, RA (2000). Contraceptive Technology (18th Edition ed.). New York: Ardent Media. ISBN 0-9664902-6-6. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Creatsas G (1993). "Sexuality: sexual activity and contraception during adolescence". Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 5 (6): 774–83. PMID 8286689.
  6. ^ Amir H. Mehryar, A. Aghajanian, B. Delavar, H. Eini-Zinab, & Shahla Kazemipour (2005). "Continuing use of a traditional method (withdrawal) in a high contraceptive prevalence country, Iran: Correlates and consequences". Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, Iran. Retrieved 2006-09-14. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ "Withdrawal (coitus interruptus)". Reproductive Health Online: The Reading Room. JHPIEGO. Retrieved 2007-07-29.
  8. ^ Zukerman, Z. (April 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 |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
    Free M, Alexander N (1976). "Male contraception without prescription. A reevaluation of the condom and coitus interruptus" (PDF). Public Health Rep. 91 (5): 437–45. PMID 824668. Retrieved 2007-03-06.
  9. ^ a b "Researchers find no sperm in pre-ejaculate fluid". Contraceptive Technology Update. 14 (10): 154–156. October 1993. doi:10.1016/j.<a. PMID 12286905. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |doilabel= ignored (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
  10. ^ "Withdrawal Method". Planned Parenthood. March 2004. Retrieved 2008-03-28.
  11. ^ Delvin, David (2005-01-17). "Coitus interruptus (Withdrawal method)". NetDoctor.co.uk. Retrieved 2006-07-13.
  12. ^ Ortayli, N; et al. (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. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  13. ^ "Coitus Interruptus (Withdrawal)". Abstinence & Natural Birth Control Methods. Sexually Transmitted Disease Resource. 2006. Retrieved 2006-09-05.
  14. ^ "Family Planning Worldwide: 2002 Data Sheet" (PDF). Population Reference Bureau. 2002. Retrieved 2006-09-14. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  15. ^ Chandra, A (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. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) See Tables 53 and 56.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coitus_interruptus&oldid=224889479"