Talk:Coitus interruptus

message: This article talks about the failure rate of "the pill" as if there was only one oral contraceptive. Please provide data on which "pill" is being referred to.
is it necessary to list all those slang terms at the beginning of the article?--Alhutch 02:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This

message: Could the editor indicating research suggesting the absence of live sperm in Cowper's fluid please elaborate?  I've read articles to the contrary.
: one way to know for sure - test someone's under the microscope
I don't think that testing one man's pre-ejaculate under a microscope to check for the presence of viable sperm could conclusively indicate that the same result could then be expected from every fertile man's pre-ejaculate or even that the same result could be expected from the same man's pre-ejaculate in future.  Several men's pre-ejaculate would need to be tested on several different occasions, under several different circumstances in order to identify whether there is a predictable pattern of the presence or absence of viable sperm in pre-ejaculate.--A vivid dreamer 07:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research? 

message: The article makes two different claims of what "the primary cause of failure" of the withdrawal method is:  
1.  "The primary cause of failure of this method of contraception is the lack of self-control of those using it: interrupting just at climax can be psychologically difficult, as it goes against the natural instinct to ejaculate deeply within the vagina."  (There is no reference provided for this statement).
and,
2.  "it is now believed the primary cause of method failure is the pre-ejaculate fluid picking up sperm from a previous ejaculation.Can I get pregnant from pre-ejaculate? Ask Planned Parenthood, November 21, 2005."
So that both these ideas can be preserved in the article, perhaps the wording could be something along the lines of, "Some of the causes of failure of the withdrawal method include pre-ejaculate fluid picking up sperm from a previous ejaculation and lack of self-control", unless we actually know that specifically one of these things is the primary cause of failure. --A vivid dreamer 08:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary cause of typical failure is not actually pulling out.  The primary cause of method or correct use failure is believed to be picking up sperm from a previous ejaculation.Lyrl 03:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in article and reference needed 

message: Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article.  I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles 

message: Why are we bothering to mention the reference without explaining the entire story of Onan (you know, all that stuff about god punishing him for spilling his seed, etc.)?  As it is, the mention is confusing.  Kasreyn 05:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody's gotten around to adding it? Be bold and expand the story yourself. Lyrl 14:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the thing...  I don't really feel we should even be referencing the story of Onan.  I would prefer it be removed.  Kasreyn 09:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really off topic, but what is it doing in the history section?  The Bible isn't historically accurate.  No one knows for sure if Onan really lived or if that event really occurred.  We could put it in a section on "religious perspectives on coitus interruptus", which could be filed under the "popular opinion" section, but I'm not sure how notable it is.  Do many people even really believe in the story any more, ie., avoid the method specifically because of the story?  Is it still a living religious tradition, or is it mostly-forgotten baggage?  I don't know.  Kasreyn 23:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: The infobox currently says withdrawal is acceptable under some religious doctrines.  I'm not aware of any religion that promotes withdrawal as birth control; the Catholic Church considers it a form of masturbation and a sin.  Is there some religion that accepts withdrawal but limits other forms of birth control?
If not, what should go in the infobox instead? Lyrl 22:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox benefits 

message: The text currently cites 27% as a typical failure rate (with source).  The infobox has 19% as a typical failure rate (no source listed in the infobox, but the editor listed it in the edit history).  Shouldn't the article consistently use one number or the other?
I've seen another study that found a 14% failure rate.  These are all from studies of different populations, which can be expected to give different failure rates.  I do not have access to details of any of the studies, however, and so have no basis to judge which one is the most applicable to the general population.
Any thoughts on which number would be better to use?  Or should we do something like "studies have found actual failure rates from 19-27%"? Lyrl 22:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your last idea.  Until and unless we determine that one or more of the studies/sources are untrustworthy, let's represent the entire range of cited figures.  Kasreyn 04:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typical effectiveness - which number to use? 

message: i rephrased that sentence/took those words out because (even if it's a quote) it's a value judgement. we do not see in any other birth control article that any form of bc is a "poor choice."  (although, for any and all of them we could cite someone who says a method is a poor choice or a good choice...)
Cindery 16:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "poor choice"

message: This article is a farce. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Pagrimm (talk • contribs)  08:51 18 September 2006   (UTC)
:A little more specific? Luna Santin 08:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  false 

message: Note discussion at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" re replacing occurrences of "failure rate" with "pregnancy rate".  I would also like to see the same change on this page.  Please make any comments there.  --Coppertwig 04:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" 

message: That and the lone paragraph here. "The method may be difficult for some men to use. The interruption of intercourse may leave the affected parties dissatisfied, as some males have stated that the act is analogous to walking out of a theater just before the end of a climactic movie."
I definitely feel we need to say it also depends on the self control of the woman. If a woman is on top, it's up to her to interrupt the intercourse and pull out, and even during other forms of sex a woman might wrap arms and legs around a partner sufficiently strong to prevent coitus interruptus. Therefore, I feel this should be included. Jaimeastorga2000 10:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point.  However, it seems likely that male self-control is significantly more of a factor, and I'm hesitant to make changes that would draw importance away from that aspect.  While on the male end there is the risk of accidental failures, the situations where the female causes failure (not interrupting when instructed to, physically preventing interruption) seem more like intentional sabotage.  As a positive thinking person, I believe that accidents are much more common that sabotage.  I Googled a little bit to see if anyone has written anything relevant to this topic, and did find a 1976 paper that found no sperm in pre-e (I had previously thought that was first discovered in 1993!), but no luck on the male/female aspect of failure responsibility. Lyrl    Talk     C   02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I too, have been unable to find a source for this through googling, I just wanted to refute the idea that a female causing failure is any more sabotaging than a man (I too, believe accidents are much more common than sabotage and people often do things with good intentions). If a man doesn't withdraw, he must either have felt so much pleasure he was unable to pull out, or he orgasmed too fast without even noticing. If a woman, riding a man, doesn't stand up as soon as instructed to, she might too be feeling too much pleasure to comply immediately and unintentionally cause ejaculation in her vagina. Also, if practicing sex in a position in which she has arms or legs hugged around the man, then too, she might feel so good with his body pressed against hers and with him inside her that she might be unable to stop hugging and cause an unwanted ejaculation. In the case of either gender's cooperation, to stop ejaculation requires a physical act (pulling out, standing up, letting go) and they might, without enough self-control, be unable to do that. I do not see how it is more malicious for one to do so than the other. Jaimeastorga2000 13:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points.  We could just change "men" to "couples".  I'm not entirely happy with it, as it seems to divide the responsibility equally - while I think the man's role in using this method is significantly larger than the woman's.  But I can't currently think of anything else, and that would work. Lyrl    Talk     C   15:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sowwie, I kinda forgot about this what with school and all. ^_^; That being said, we could change "men" to "couples" and add between parenthesis "(specially of men)," though then it's me who is not entirely happy... what do you think? Jaimeastorga2000 13:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The parenthetical may make the sentences too awkward.  How about just removing the phrase "of man" in the infobox (shortening that phrase), and changing it to "couples" in the text? Lyrl    Talk     C   21:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Will you do the honors, or shall I? Jaimeastorga2000 20:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead :) Lyrl    Talk     C   23:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All done. ^.^ Jaimeastorga2000 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dependent upon self-control of man." 

message: Where exactly does the man ejaculate after penis removal? Shouldn't this be mentioned? 85.75.26.1 18:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can vary widely.  I do not believe the choice of towel, breasts, fellatio, etc. would add encyclopedicly to this article. Lyrl    Talk     C   23:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers for the swift answer. However, again I believe the article ends in a "you know what happens next..." kind of way. Some people might not know what happens next. Moreover, there are a lot of things in Wikipedia which would never be part of an encyclopedia, like TV shows, website info, etc. In my opinion Wikipedia is an Omnipedia, but this page is not appropriate for such discussions. Again, thanks for the answer 85.75.26.1 12:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Messy?" 

message: Can anyone correct the spelling mistake on the right-side box of the article. It should read "benefits" not "benifits". Thanks. Lixy 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benifit??? 

message: This edit was recently made to the opening paragraph, with the edit summary, "attempting for a more natural flow in the sentence".  The edit added four words and two commas to the first sentence in the article.  I feel that the addition of commas, especially, makes the sentence more difficult to read and understand.  On "natural flow" grounds, I believe the previous version was superior.
This edit also changed "extraction of the penis" to "disengagement of the genitals" in the article's second sentence.  This sentence refers to ejaculation by the owner of the penis, and I feel referring to the penis in the sentence (rather than the generic "genitals") makes this more clear.
Others' thoughts? LyrlTalk     C   00:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory paragraph 

message: This article currently has an "efficacy" section, where statistics are given on failure rates, reasons for failure are discussed, and it is also mentioned that some view the method as ineffective.
A recent edit added the bit about some viewing the method as ineffective to the introductory paragraph.  Without any statistics or reasons for failure as context, I believe this presents a biased view of withdrawal as a method.  I would like to either add a balancing comment (perhaps, "while the failure rate of withdrawal is comparable to some barrier methods such as the diaphragm, some medical professionals view it as an ineffective method of birth control"), or remove that bit from the introduction altogether.
What do others think? LyrlTalk     C   11:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling the method ineffective in intro? 

message: As someone has already noted above, the Catholic Church has consistently opposed the practice of coitus interruptus, and this was the case long before condoms became popular. In a sense, the Church thinks that condoms are just a sophisticated modern form of coitus interruptus. The religious issues surrounding this practice continue to be socially relevant, and so they arguably deserve to be included in the article. ADM (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any current notable issues involving the Catholic Church and withdrawal that would merit a separate section on the topic (a la the section on the RCC and the AIDS crisis in the condom article).  The impact of the RCC's position on the prevalence of withdrawal should certainly be included in the "History" section of this article.  Unfortunately, no one has yet written a history section.  Do you know of any reference material that could be drawn upon to create a history section? LyrlTalk     C   20:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic Church teaching

message: I edited this sentence because it didn't make sense:
"Perhaps the oldest documentation of that withdrawal was used to avoid pregnancy is the story of Onan in the Hebrew Bible."
The change I made was reverted. 
The reason I changed this sentence was the words "of that" don't make sense the way they are used.  
I suggest the sentence be changed either to:
"Perhaps the oldest documentation of withdrawal use to avoid pregnancy is the story of Onan in the Hebrew Bible."
OR
"Perhaps the oldest documentation of the use of withdrawal to avoid pregnancy is the story of Onan in the Hebrew Bible."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.206.215 (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence didn't make sense 

message: what is the cordova gladwin incident, i've never heard of such a thing
04:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: hey

message: The Pill has also been claimed responsible for an increase in acne in pill users;
"Women who do take the birth control pill and who notice that their acne is getting worse should discuss the situation with their doctor. Different types of oral contraception have differing levels of hormones and one side effect of some contraception is an increase in acne. Switching to another brand may bring acne back under control."
ref: http://pregnancyguide.theazonway.com/birth-control-pills-pregnancy-and-acne-a-complete-how-to-guide/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.136.121.85 (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The pill also decreases acne in some users.  What does that have to do with improving this article about withdrawal?  Zodon (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Other effects of "The Pill"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coitus interruptus. 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:
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20011218080156/http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html to http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coitus interruptus. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430203244/http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/withdrawal.htm to http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/withdrawal.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From a quick search, there seems to be no research done in this area. It is, however a logical question, as humans must have known of the consequences of conception for 200,000 years, as pure survival knowledge. It would be a highly interesting addition to this article if it could be found, I think.
Henrik Erlandsson 19:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coitus Interruptus in 'Animals'?