World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Coitus interruptus

Article Id: WHEBN0000005373
Reproduction Date:

Title: Coitus interruptus  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Birth control in the United States, History of birth control, Womb veil, Emergency contraception, Birth control
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Coitus interruptus

Coitus interruptus
Birth control type Behavioral
First use Ancient
Failure rates (first year)
Perfect use 4%[1]
Typical use 22%[1]
Reversibility Yes
User reminders Dependent upon self-control. Urinating between acts of sexual intercourse helps clear sperm from urethra.
Clinic review None
Advantages and disadvantages
STD protection No

Coitus interruptus, also known as the rejected sexual intercourse, withdrawal or pull-out method, is a method of 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.[2] Coitus interruptus does not protect against sexually transmitted infections (STIs/STDs).[3]


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.[4] Societies in the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome preferred small families and are known to have practiced a variety of birth control methods.[5]:12,16–17 There are references that have led historians to believe withdrawal was sometimes used as birth control.[6] 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).[5]: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.[5]: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.[6]


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.[7] In comparison, the pill has an actual use failure rate of 2–8%,[8] while the intrauterine device (IUD) has an actual use failure rate of 0.8%.[9] The condom has an actual use failure rate of 10–18%.[7] However, some authors suggest that actual effectiveness of withdrawal could be similar to effectiveness of condoms, and this area needs further research.[10] (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%.[9]

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.[11][12] However, several small studies[13][14][15][16] 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.[17][18] 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).[18]

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.[19] 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."[19] 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).[19] This study therefore recommends, in order to minimise unintended pregnancy and disease transmission, the use of condom 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.[20] 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.[21]

It is widely believed that urinating after an ejaculation will flush the urethra of remaining sperm.[22] Therefore, 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.[19]


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.[23] Some women also prefer this method over hormonal contraception to avoid adverse effects such as depression, mood swings, vaginal dryness, decreased libido, weight gain, nausea, 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.


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.[9] 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.[24]

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.[15]

The method may be difficult for some couples to use. The interruption of intercourse may leave some couples sexually frustrated or dissatisfied.[25]

Masters and Johnson considered withdrawal as a means to developing sexual problems, e.g. premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction,[26] but there is no known evidence to support this.


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).[27]

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.[28]

A leading exponent of withdrawal in the mid-19th 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.

See also


  1. ^ a b Table 26–1 =
  2. ^ , which cites:
    Population Action International (1991). "A Guide to Methods of Birth Control." Briefing Paper No. 25, Washington, D. C.
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^ a b c
  6. ^ a b
  7. ^ a b , which cites:

  8. ^
    - see table First-Year Contraceptive Failure Rates
  9. ^ a b c
  10. ^
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^ a b
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^ a b
  19. ^ a b c d
  20. ^
  21. ^
  22. ^
  23. ^
  24. ^
  25. ^
  26. ^
  27. ^
  28. ^ See Tables 53 and 56.

Further reading

External links

  • Contraception and abortion in Islam
  • Withdrawal
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.