Criticism of Coitus interruptus
From Wikinfo
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.[1] As a result, it is also less cost-effective than many more effective methods: although the method itself has little direct cost, users have a greater chance of incurring the risks and expenses of pregnancy and child-birth. Only models that assume all couples practise perfect use of the method find cost savings associated with the choice of withdrawal as a birth control method.[2]
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 compared to using no method due to the smaller number of pathogens present.[3]
The method may be difficult for some couples to use. The interruption of intercourse may leave some couples sexually frustrated or dissatisfied.[4]
References
- ^
- ^ James Trusell, et al. (April 1995). "Economic value of contraception". American Journal of Public Health 85 (4): 494–503. DOI:10.2105/AJPH.85.4.494.
- ^
- ^ "Coitus Interruptus (Withdrawal)". Abstinence & Natural Birth Control Methods. Sexually Transmitted Disease Resource. 2006. http://www.sexual-health-resource.org/natural_birth_control.htm#withdrawal. Retrieved on 2006-09-05.
| This page uses content from Wikipedia. The original article was at coitus interruptus. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. The text of this Wikinfo article is available under the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. |
