Talk:Menstrual cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Not appropriate[edit]

This whole article is disgusting. Do you realize a little boy could read this? 99.4.104.22 (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Maritha

WP:NOTCENSORED, there are plenty of pages on Wikipedia that some would find offensive - this is probably one of the minor ones - suggest you miss out reading List of sex positions.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I find your attitude disgusting. Heaven forbid we have a factual article on a female hygiene product. Maybe your little boy shouldn't be allowed unsupervised on the internet. Etimodnar (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

i find it fully appropriate as i am a 18 year old wanting to know what it is and facts about it...whether or not your son sees it is your problem. maybe you should block wikipedia if you are so against it or like they said maybe supervise your son —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.47.59 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

In general, it's important that we all know about human anatomy. If your son ever has daughters, the sooner he learns about these things, the better. He won't feel awkward about the matter. I believe sustainability is key in this particular article, though. Mccojr02 03:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I HOPE boys and men of all ages read this page, a major health issue that effects 50% of the population... its important that men and boys are educated on all aspects, for many reasons Cilstr (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Full menstrual cup?[edit]

Hi, could we get a pic of a Full menstrual cup on this page? Definitely would be of encyclopedic value. Thanks. Big Wig Pig (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Full... As in an image of a cup? Or as in, filled with fluids? I think it's fair to nix the second. Certifiablenerd (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Certifiablenerd

Full cup can be done. You may need to get permission to use this image first, though. mccojr02 (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Testimonials should not be present. It is not in the nature of an encyclopaedia. If you really must explore the pros and cons, make sure that both sides are represented and create a "Discussions about the value of the menstrual cup" type section. This is not an ad for the things. Margaridas (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Disadvantages[edit]

The article is considered bias to me as it does NOT mention the disadvantages. I tried the cup for two months. After only the fourth day, the cup smelled awful. Yes, I cleaned it, but it still reeked no matter HOW well I cleaned it. The second disadvantage I found was messiness. Fingers get messy; there's blood everywhere; you have to dig into your vulva and then your vagina just to put it in and to pull it out; the rubber snaps back into a circle before you want it to while putting in/pulling out, causing blood to splash out. In other words: a gross bloody MESS! You would have to carry around a LOT of wipes just to clean your hands after use because you do NOT want to put on/touch your clothes with blood on it. The last disadvantage (if the rest wasn't enough) is needing to change it in public or at a friends. You literally have to pull your jeans completely off just so you can spread you legs wide enough to see what you're doing. Sorry but it's virtually impossible NOT to keep an eye on what you're doing, AND you also need that wide space for your arms to reach into your vagina. How wonderful. Your clothes are half off you or lying on the dirty floor. Nice. -Ms ariz (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It has a steep learning curve, those issues become no longer a problem with practice. you can say the same things are wrong with tampons. I had similar problems first starting out, however, after the 2nd month the issues you state were no longer an issue. I'm sorry you had a bad experience but it was more user error than anything else. not necessarily a "disadvantage" -Stregamama (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to be late to the discussion (by over a year), but I agree that the advantages/disadvantages section is certainly biased. Without references cited I would say that all the claims made should be removed. While I don't believe Ms ariz's opinion is specifically valid, there is validity in the fact that, while there are a bunch of uncited "pro" claims, there are very few "con" claims (cited or otherwise). This just reeks of untrustable information and doesn't belong in an wikipedia. 71.195.176.149 (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the list of advantages/disadvantages should stay, but not written or read as gospel. For example, using qualifiers such as "the first few tries can be difficult" vs "the first few tries are difficult". Anyone interested in using a menstrual cup would want to know some of the advantages or disadvantages to using the item, so I believe that it does belong on wikipedia. Mccojr02 03:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The article was clearly written in a pro-biased viewpoint. MsAziz experience IS valid, IMHO. Claiming that after a few months issue dissappears is the worst sort of confirmation biased trash that we need to prevent here. Do you even know what confirmation bias is?? I have done some minor tweaking of the advantages and disadvantages sections. There was some really unacceptable stuff. Insertion (especially for young girls close to menarche) can obviously be painful. If one of you women actually believes that to not be a disadvantage, perhaps and S&M forum would be more appropriate for you? I have left alone the odor and mess issues and have not added the claims (which I find believeable - but without reference) that new users experience difficulty and compromising positioning when inserting and removing.

I did some research and am adding more disadvantages. From Mayo clinic and WebMD

One point I want to make, question I have. I challenge the claim that the cups are more environmentally friendly. The term is not defined and has been used OFTEN by both sides of many environmental debates. I suggest its removal unless it can be documented. Biodegradeable cellulosic and polymeric pad or tampons can be MORE eco-friendly" than silicone rubber (requiring high energy input and lots of industrial chemicals) even if they silicone ones last for years. THe question of sustainability and "freindliness" can not be arrived at intuitively. You need to factor all the costs of each option: pad, package, application tool, tampon, waste disposal, cleaners (and water usage), manufacture, resources...71.31.148.44 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Remove availability section[edit]

I do not think the list of availability of menstrual cup should be put here, as it is not encyclopedic. While names of pioneering companies that produced it may be mentioned in its history, it is not necessary to list all manufacturers, and which region they are available. See sanitary napkin, that article doesn't list which companies are producing which type of pad for which part of the world. Some may argue that this page is the only place they can rely for various information about menstrual cup, but unfortunately it cannot stay as it is. I suggest an external page be made somewhere, and this page may link or refer to it. -Syockit (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This may sound biased, but Wikipedia is the go-to source for information. When I do a web search for anything, wikipedia is most often within the top five hits for any given subject. If a woman wants to know about menstrual cups, she may also want to know which are available and where. I feel that the availability list should stay, as long as no favor is shown for one over the others. Mccojr02 03:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
There are almost no good reasons to link to commercial sites and, indeed, commercial links should almost always be promptly removed unless they are the official site of the topic at hand (for example, the site for the Diva Cup would be totally appropriate on an article about the Diva Cup, but not on a general article about menstrual cups). It really doesn't matter whether or not we show favoritism or not as Wikipedia is not a vessel for product promotion. If people want to buy the product, there are a vast array of ways for them to do so. Please review WP:ELNO. If you disagree, I suggest you take it to WP:ELN and get discussion from a much larger group of editors. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 03:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality and other room for improvement[edit]

Forgive me if I'm making mistakes, I'm brand new to editing Wikipedia. I think this page needs improvement -- I tidied up a few spots where it seemed to be an advertisement for menstrual cups, specifically "Instead Softcups." The Advantages and Disadvantages need work -- perhaps they could be re-phrased as "Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages"? I'm not sure what to do about the Stem Cell Research section -- I'd suggest that needs re-writing and more medical references to back the claims. No time for that tonight... The Hygina company does appear to exist though & they do offer this service (!!). Monalisa j (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Stem cell research section[edit]

I deleted this brief section because it had unverifiable claims with no references & otherwise just promoted a few companies. Perhaps it is a point of interest as an application of menstrual cups -- the collection of menstrual blood for various purposes -- but this would require the development of such a section (or perhaps another article/ section under Menstruation?) including other uses/ applications. My music teacher's wife collected her menstrual blood and used it as food for her plants -- I'm sure she wasn't the only one! An example of a recent article that discusses the issues around menstrual blood banking is: Fannin, M. (2011). Personal stem cell banking and the problem with property. Social & Cultural Geography, 12(4), 339-356. doi:10.1080/14649365.2011.574795 Monalisa j (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that it had been tagged as unverifiable/ citation needed several months ago, so seems fair to remove when following Wikipedia:Verifiability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monalisa j (talkcontribs) 02:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just adding information as I found it.
mccojr02 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am moving a misplaced comment regarding stem cells that was inserted at the top of the page here, in the appropriate section:

+++Is no one going to challenge the 'stem cell ' issue? ++++ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.253.20 (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what it means. I don't know what the relevance of stem cells is here, and am not trying to imply anything regarding the importance of stem cells. I'm just reformatting in accordance with template standards. --FeralOink (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Are menstrual cups used outside of North America?[edit]

I wonder what they are called e.g. in Europe, but I couldn't find any info. To be exact, I have never heard of menstrual cups ever before. --89.13.167.91 (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are used in Europe (e.g. Germany). We also use the Diva Cup, Moon Cup, Ruby Cup.... It is easy to order one over the internet. They are slowly slowly becoming better known. EvM-Susana (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
YES! :) Lunette's story started in 2005 when Heli Kurjanen, Lunette founder and owner, launched a menstrual cup with improved design features and manufactured it in Finland from medical grade silicon Cilstr (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Any Colour You Like[edit]

Is the color section truly necessary? Also, I'm not very familiar with the spelling preferences of Wikipedia. Is colour correct or is color preferred? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.120.32 (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

i cant stand color, it is most certainly incorrect in australia, new zealand, Uk and other ES countries. Cilstr (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Color is American English. This article uses American English. The Wikipedia convention is to keep the English language convention that the article is currently in. Sorry about that, but that's how it is. EMsmile (talk) 04:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Toxic Shock Syndrome[edit]

Hi, I edited the article saying that TSS has been associated with cup use. A source has been cited. (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edit has and should be removed because you have cited only a primary research article. As the statement refers to a health issue, you need to conform with the guidelines for citing reputable medical sources. One article about one particular case is hardly worth citing. The original sentence should be restored. In any case TSS is virtually absent with menstrual cup use. Also Why did you delete the other reference that was there before? That one was reputable. See WP:MEDRS. In any case, good that you brought it up on the talk page rather than entering an edit war. So thanks. EvM-Susana (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hang on, I took another look. The reference cited there is also not the best one, so we should look for others. As with anything in nature, I think it is well possible that the occasional woman could have TSS from menstrual cup use but the point would be what is statistically significant. From what I have read TSS is basically not an issue with menstrual cup use but can be an issue with tampon use. Perhaps some doctors have the information at their finger tips and can find the right citation to use here. Perhaps Doc_James? EvM-Susana (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Your revision states that "The authors of a study using randomized controlled trials comparing menstrual cup to tampon use in Canada stated that 'There have not been any published case reports of toxic shock syndrome (TSS) associated with menstrual cup use.'" However. this study was published before the case report on TSS occurring in a menstrual cup user was published, making this information outdated and inaccurate. Though this single case of TSS occurring in a menstrual cup user is not statistically significant, the statement that TSS does not occur with menstrual cup use is false. Additionally, your revision states "If such cases do exist, they must be very rare," which gives the implication that 1.) TSS does not occur with menstrual cup use, and 2.) such cases are very rare, which are both unsupported and biased claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.195.201 (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree we should not use case reports as references per WP:MEDRS. This journal is not pubmed indexed [1] which is another concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Have changed the wording to "Toxic shock syndrome (TSS) associated with menstrual cup use appears to be very uncommon.[1]" and removed the heading as to not give the topic undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a good solution. I took another closer look at the paper describing the one case. On the last page they state: "To our knowledge, the present report is the first to detail the association between a menstrual cup and menstrual TSS." Presumably, they did a lenghty literature review while writing this paper. So I guess it is fair so say that TSS from menstrual cup use is extremely rare. EvM-Susana (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it says "There have not been any published case reports of toxic shock syndrome associated with menstrual cup use." So not sure why a citation needed tag was added? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I put the "citation needed" tag there to highlight the fact that this reference is not ideal as a reference for this statement as the subject of this study was in fact different. The issue on TSS is only mentioned in passing and no explanation is given which literature was reviewed to derive this statement. The study only had about 100 Canadian women, so the sentence was not referring to them only. Anyway, I am pretty sure there should be a better reference out there where someone has either done a really extensive literature review or conducted some extensive trials or has come up with a good hypothesis to explain why the silicon cups are very very unlikely to lead to TSS unlike the cotton tampons. I am going to e-mail a menstrual cup researcher in the UK about it, perhaps she can help us. EvM-Susana (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I have made some improvements and given additional citations to the part on toxic shock syndrome with the help of Penny Phillips-Howard who is an expert on menstrual cups from the UK. Hope people agree with my changes and this can be built up over time as more research comes out. EvM-Susana (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference FLOW was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Remove information about beneficial health aspects as they are poorly sourced?[edit]

Whilst I have read this in more than one place, I am inclined to remove the following section from the article as the sources cited do not conform to the "reliable sources" (WP:MEDRS needed for statements about health:

There are reasons to believe that using menstrual cups is healthier for the vaginal environment than using tampons. Tampons absorb all vaginal moisture, including secretions that are needed to maintain the proper pH and beneficial bacteria populations.[20] Menstrual cups collect menstrual flow and allow the vagina to regulate its own moisture levels. The bleaching process many tampons undergo can produce trace amounts of dioxin, a suspected carcinogen—although whether this causes health problems has not been firmly established.[21] There are unbleached options available for women who have concerns about the bleaching process.[22]

A better description about how tampons and cup affect the vaginal flora is anyway provided in the article in the section about toxic shock syndrome.

Opinions of others? (User:Doc_James) EvMsmile (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed as poorly sourced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer to use women or females instead of person[edit]

Someone changed all reference to women or females to person with the justification of "Changed terms to be more inclusive towards transmen." Is this really necessary/justified? How about we rather make one references to trans men (do they menstruate? Wouldn't they take hormones to stop the menstruation?) and then after that refer to the persons as women or females, since the vast majority of menstruating people are simply women or females (whatever is preferred). Note the article about menstruation uses females more often than women (as it includes teenage girls, I guess), but does not use "person" at all. EvMsmile (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I just saw that a similar issue was discussed already on the talk page of menstruation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Menstruation#Gender_neutral_language Based on that, I will revert the changes back to females (instead of persons) in the next few days. EvMsmile (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
as there was no objection, I have reverted "person" back to woman or female. If someone wants to add in one sentence that the cup could also be used by transmen (if they menstruate), then you're welcome (consider also adding that on the page of menstruation where it is probably more relevant. EvMsmile (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that person would be a more inclusive and factual term to include, if we're going for factual information then using "women" doesn't accurately reflect the spectrum of users who would consider purchasing a menstrual cup Maggiecdunleavy (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

if you follow the link that I provided above (repeated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Menstruation#Gender_neutral_language) you see that this has been discussed in great depth elsewhere as it comes up in other articles as well. Based on that discussion, I would say let's leave it like this. EvMsmile (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Menstrual cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about recently added content in section on environmental sustainability[edit]

I have a question about this content which was recently added by User:Bio-CLC: Menstrual cups may be emptied in a small hole in the soil or in compost piles, since menstrual fluid is a valuable fertilizer for plants and any dangerous microbes or substances will quickly be destroyed by soil microbes.[30] This recycling celebrates women's connection to the earth and reduces the amount and concentration of wastewater that needs to be treated. - I would actually suggest to delete this as the amount of menstrual blood per month is so little that it is hardly going to make any different to a composting operation (about one cup per month). The reference provided is also not suitable (goes to some Word document, unclear what the source of this document is, i.e. publisher and year etc.), also it is not specific for this composting aspect but just a general reference about composting. Furthermore, the second sentence about celebrating a woman's connection to the earth seems to me to be an opinionated statement, which sounds good but has no evidence (or citation). What do you all think about this? EMsmile (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that we not be so picky. The key point here is to indicate that women have the option to empty their menstrual cups in the soil or in compost piles. Most women in the world live where there are not properly operated sewer systems that are connected to properly operated wastewater treatment plants. We would never recommend that women empty their menstrual cups directly into local rivers, but that is what happens with sewers dumping straight into rivers, as happens in most cases. It seems that sexually transmitted diseases would be eliminated quickly after leaving the body, but it would be preferable for this to happen in a hole in the ground (or a compost pile), where no one has contact. The source that I cite is from the recycling program of the State of California. If you can find a better source to support the idea that pathogens get distroyed during composting, please add it. Thanks, EMsmile. (Bio-CLC (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC))
Well, I just don't know how practical this is. When you empty the menstrual cup, you are usually in a toilet or a bathroom or somewhere in your house or at work, maybe somewhere out in the open (I would hope not), but one is probably rarely next to a compost pile! So how could one empty it onto a compost pile? One is also unlikely to dig a hole for that miniscule amount of blood that is in one menstrual cup. I see your point but I just don't think it is very practical, therefore I am really not sure if it's worth mentioning here. But let's see what others say about this. (And I don't think we need a general reference about composting at this place, for the same reason.) EMsmile (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Menstrual cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Menstrual cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the new content on disposable menstrual cups is suitable here[edit]

I see that User:Sj has copied content to here from a former Wikipedia article called "menstrual disc". I don't agree with the way this content has been added. The content is not properly sourced - the only source is one supplier's website and the content actually reads mostly like an ad without any independent references. Menstrual cups are by definition a cup, not a disc (the previous page on menstrual discs showed the difference between the two). Therefore, I think we should state clearly that the vast majority of menstrual cup brands are for reusable cups (the whole article is written about those). We could have a small section on "other types of menstrual cups" or "related products" which is where we could put the stuff about menstrual discs. The way it is written right now it is very confusing. By the way, I have never heard of menstrual discs and I don't think they have taken off at all (I read a lot about menstrual hygiene products). Ping User:Doc_James as he was also active on the menstrual disc article, I see. EMsmile (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi EMsmile, how is the content like an ad? There is no official definition of a 'menstrual disc'. The only disposable menstrual cups I have seen are SoftCups, which are flatter than traditional cups (disc-like). It is only the latest branded versions of those disposable cups that call themselves 'discs'. But for a decade or more their predecessors were called "disposable menstrual cups" so it seems reasonable to have the material on this page.
A separate section titled "other types of menstrual cups" or "related products" is fine: as long as the differences are covered and described properly. Warmly, – SJ + 18:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The content is like "advertising" as it does not include an independent reference, only the one website link; and seems to list only advantages of the menstrual discs. I think it's a good solution to move the content about the "disposable menstrual cups" to a separate section and to state the article is primarily about reusable menstrual cups which is what most of the brands propagate. Many of the advantages of menstrual cups would fall by the way side if they were disposable! Most of the brands that are out there and active are reusable cups. So I will change the article around accordingly a bit later today (if I have time). EMsmile (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
IMO the content pertaining to both can exist here. Just all the unreffed / poorly reffed stuff needs trimming at least if it is making medical claims.
Looks like that has been done. Any other concerns? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I've made the changes to make sure this article is primarily about reusable menstrual cups (= the standard). Then the disposable menstrual cups are mentioned in a separate section on "Other related products". This is also how it used to be after someone decided to delete the article on "menstrual discs" and to merge it into here (which I see as problematic). - It still irks me that the section on menstrual discs makes a lot of statements with only one source which is repeatedly used: the FAQ section of the manufacturer of that particular product. Not good, but I don't have time to investigate that further. EMsmile (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging USer:EMsmile and User:Doc James - per your conversation here I've added a section-specific ref-improve template to the portion of the article that relies on the company FAQ and a wiki-how article on disposable menstrual cups. It's important to motion to readers that this is the section that is weak, relying on the manufacturer's FAQ and a wiki-how article is not ideal ... but readers may not realize this based on the blanket template at the top of the article page. Considering deleting that template and keeping only the section specific template, as the work you both have done in improving the article is great, thanks. Shameran81 (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, User:Shameran81. I find that section a thorn in my side because I really wonder how important disposable cups are. In my opinion we need to make it really clear that menstrual cups are by definition reusable and if someone propagates a disposable menstrual cup then it would be good to have some secondary sources that tell us something about those cups. Are they actually successful? How much do they cost? Do people want them to be disposable? It takes away a big advantage of the menstrual cups. I wonder if we should remove the image that is in that section as it may give too much prominence to a product that is probably rather unimportant. EMsmile (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Drawbacks section removed?[edit]

Hi Doc James: I see you have removed the section on "drawbacks" and moved the content to other sections. What was your reasoning for this? I think I like the new structure but am just wondering if there is a general reservation against using something like "disadvantages" or drawbacks? EMsmile (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The drawback section overlapped with safety.
Also we ended up with two sections on cost
Medical issues belong in safety or uses.
Was sort of modeling the outline after that used for other health care products. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

History?[edit]

when were they invented? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.34.72.33 (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Whilst an invention date might not be listed, an initial patent year is shown in the History section. If you find some good sourcing for an invention date by all means include it.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 20:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Costs[edit]

That section on cost could do with some information on the cheaper menstrual cups available from China. At the moment only one price is given (US$ 30) but there are cheaper models out there. I don't have a proper reference at hand though. You can see some information here in this disussion forum: http://www.forum.susana.org/231-menstrual-cups/21404-menstrual-cups-for-amazonian-women-and-cheap-menstrual-cups-manufactured-in-china EMsmile (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

cheaper cups come with their own set of pros and cons, all subjective, eg, mostly ripping off other cups patents, badly finished with rough edges, NOt medical grade- so possibly dangerous, limited info and support, and also may make the "better" healthier ones less financially viable.... Cilstr (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Cilstr: It would be good to add this kind of information into the article but we need reliable sources to substantiate such statements. Do you have any? Just suppliers' websites are not sufficient, in my opinion. By the way, if you look at the link that I provided above it seems that those cheaper cups from China do use the right grade silicon and are not badly finished. They are apparently just as good to wear (but I don't know if they are ripping off other companies's patents). EMsmile (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
i will do some research, see what i can find.... as far as patents go.... the one for the keeper/keeper moon cup should be expired, since it was first patented in 1937... but its not the most common shape you see of the "china cheapies"... the most obvious rip off is the Anytime cup, direct copy of the Sckoon cup, except the stem is a little longer and the cup firmer.... Cilstr (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)