Coitus Interruptus Erroneous: Would You Believe That Pulling Out Actually Works?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Andy Wright, AlterNet.

Coitus interruptus, withdrawal, pulling out, raw dog. Of all the names ascribed to the intimate act that is a man removing his ####### from his partner's ####### before orgasm, the terminology that best encapsulates the public's perception of it is "Pull and Pray." As in, pull out and pray you don't have a baby. As a form of birth control, the method is largely regarded as ill-thought out -- the last resort of hasty teenagers with access to the family car and several cans of beer. In short, it doesn't work. Except that it probably does.

A recent study conducted by Rachel Jones, senior research associate at the Guttmacher Institute, asserts that research shows the withdrawal method is almost as effective as condoms when used correctly. When used correctly 100 percent of the time, condoms have a two percent failure rate. When used correctly, withdrawal has a four percent failure rate. And Jones is not the first one to the party. In her paper "Better than nothing or savvy risk-reduction practice? The importance of withdrawal," she references another study by an enterprising pair named Deborah Rogow and Sonya Horowitz who came to the same conclusion, which is that pulling out is a hell of a lot better than nothing and that more research should be done on the matter. That was back in 1995. Fourteen years later, Jones is still one of the scant voices requesting more research.

Withdrawal is one of the oldest, most widely used forms of birth control outside abstinence. It's mentioned in the Bible. Some scholars argue that the Prophet Muhammad gave pulling out the thumbs up. So when did coitus withdrawal get the big red "rejected" stamp?

The Catholic Church was one of the first institutions to frown on pulling out. Sperm deserved a shot at the egg, and impeding its journey indicated couples were interested in copulating for reasons other than having a baby. But the tide really began turning against pulling out because, unlike the church, opponents believed users would have a child. The 1900s ushered in new forms of birth control, like diaphragms, and along with it, birth control activists. Margaret Sanger, the champion of birth control in the U.S. and Marie Stopes, her counterpart across the pond, were not fans. In addition to deeming the method unreliable even when used correctly, both felt that men couldn't be trusted to pull out in time. Men were sexual animals who either didn't care enough to pull out, or couldn't.

Sanger and Stopes also subscribed to a belief that was common during the day that pulling out would essentially drive both participants bonkers and lead to any number of health problems. In a report she prepared for the courts in 1917, Sanger includes the writings of Enoch Heinrich Kisch, an Austrian gynecologist who penned one of the, ahem, seminal texts on the dangers of withdrawal, The Sexual Life of Women, in 1910.

Kisch believed that some of the "evil effects" of coitus interruptus lead to "intense hyperaemia of the uterus" and "chronic netritis." Stopes complained that women were deprived of "the beneficial absorption from the seminal and prostatic fluids." (At least one researcher suggested that it was obvious that certain elements of sperm were absorbed through the vaginal walls because its odor could be detected on the breath of women who had recently had intercourse.)

Coitus interruptus was blamed for heart problems, back problems, "congested" urethras, and neuroses. In short, the failure of a man to deposit the proof of his orgasm inside a woman's ####### was a tragedy. And it wasn't just bad news for the guy. The woman's satisfaction was intrinsically tied to the man's. Withdrawing the ####### prior to ejaculation circumvented the female orgasm and left her frustrated. While a valid concern for women's need to control their own fertility made birth control the domain of doctors and the medical establishment, it was also coupled with bad science. Natural methods fell to the wayside.

Broaching the subject of pulling out with nearly anyone inevitably leads to a conversation about pre-ejaculate.

This is quite possibly why the topic shouldn't be raised over a lunch of fried chicken with gravy, but it was. "But what about the precum, it's full of sperm," protested a full-time journalist with a couple of degrees, when discussing the efficacy of withdrawal. Upon being informed that research suggests there is little to no sperm in pre-ejaculate, a chicken wing was summarily dropped in a puddle of gravy and a look of shock replaced that of knowing.

Plug pre-ejaculate, or any of its nicknames, into a search engine with the word pregnancy, and page after page of search results informs the reader that even if the man succeeds in depositing the denouement of his sexual excitement outside the female anatomy, pre-ejaculate brimming with sperm will undo all good works.

Pre-ejaculate, also known as Cowper's fluid, is manufactured in the Cowper's gland (not the testes where semen originates), which is named for its discoverer, seventeenth century anatomist William Cowper. It was impossible for Cowper to know what a large amount of misinformation would be attached to his tiny gland. (He was no stranger to controversy, however. He was accused of plagiarizing chunks of his book Anatomy of the Humane Bodies from a Mr. Govard Bidloo. This controversy spurred the publishing of indignant pamphlets by both men.)

There are actually two Cowper's glands, which are held together and sit in something that sounds more like an It-bag than a part of the body, called the deep perineal pouch. Basically, it's in the butt. The job of these glands is to produce a viscous fluid during sexual arousal. The fluid lubricates the urethra, preparing the way for the semen that will follow. Small amounts of sperm found in precum are most likely picked up by the fluid when a man has recently had an orgasm and not urinated.

It's unclear exactly where the belief in sperm-filled pre-ejaculate originates, but it doesn't seem outlandish after looking at the work of early researchers of reproduction. Sperm reigned supreme. Many of them believed that making humans was a one-stop-shopping affair, with all the vital ingredients packed into the semen. Women were just the incubator. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, a celebrated Dutch microscope maker and the first person to describe the spermatozoa of humans in November of 1677, went so far as to claim he had even seen nerves, arteries and veins in the stuff. (He later retracted this statement, but similar accounts popped up in other researchers' work.) It's not a great leap to assume that early scientists would ascribe import to anything that leaked from the male reproductive organ. A simple, helpful lubricant couldn't possibly flow from the font of life.

Fast forward to the present day, and all the misinformation and nay-saying about pulling out hasn't changed very much. Human sexuality textbooks used in colleges and written within the last five years still promote the idea that withdrawal doesn't work. "It is entirely possible for a woman to become pregnant," chirps the 2004 edition of Exploring Human Sexualty, "even if her male partner is certain that he "pulled out in time." That is why "withdrawal" as a form of birth control is really not birth control at all!" And really, who cares? What about AIDS? What about men who don't pull out on time? What of the bedspread, for that matter? When other forms of birth control are available, why resort to withdrawal? Maybe it's best for all concerned that everyone continues to think that pulling out doesn't prevent pregnancy.

But misinformation, even when it's spread around for everyone's own good, rarely ends up doing any, especially when it's tangled up with tired stereotypes.

more...

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/140794

[mawilson 2,133]

The Catholic Church was one of the first institutions to frown on pulling out. Sperm deserved a shot at the egg, and impeding its journey indicated couples were interested in copulating for reasons other than having a baby.

Shocking!

[almaty 19]

The Catholic Church was one of the first institutions to frown on pulling out. Sperm deserved a shot at the egg, and impeding its journey indicated couples were interested in copulating for reasons other than having a baby.

Shocking!

hmm..so i guess the church is against the pearl necklace too??????????????

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

bj - 100% effective.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Catholic Church was one of the first institutions to frown on pulling out. Sperm deserved a shot at the egg, and impeding its journey indicated couples were interested in copulating for reasons other than having a baby.

Shocking!

It took them 300 years to acknowledge Galileo was correct....they're a little slow.

[scandal 951]

both felt that men couldn't be trusted to pull out in time. Men were sexual animals who either didn't care enough to pull out, or couldn't.

Steve, that's it in a nutshell. Never mind whether pre-cum holds sperm or not.

The fact of the matter is, that as any man can tell you, it's awfully hard to be sure that you won't cum before pulling out. At least not on a reliable ongoing basis. Men will cum inside, because it's what's natural and what feels right.

Besides - would you trust pulling out as a serious form of birth control?

Downside: possible pregnancy, responsibility for parenthood, or possibly an agonizing choice for an abortion.

Upside: save a buck for the cost of a condom or a pill.

I know you posted the article in jest (at least i hope so!) but anyone who would take this seriously as good family planning advice is seriously deluding themselves.

[mawilson 2,133]

The Catholic Church was one of the first institutions to frown on pulling out. Sperm deserved a shot at the egg, and impeding its journey indicated couples were interested in copulating for reasons other than having a baby.

Shocking!

It took them 300 years to acknowledge Galileo was correct....they're a little slow.

"Sex is a vile, dirty, disgusting act that you save for the one you truly love."

[almaty 19]

i see no mention of mangina..that some of the fathers' perfer..or is that boygina..???

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Catholic Church was one of the first institutions to frown on pulling out. Sperm deserved a shot at the egg, and impeding its journey indicated couples were interested in copulating for reasons other than having a baby.

Shocking!

It took them 300 years to acknowledge Galileo was correct....they're a little slow.

"Sex is a vile, dirty, disgusting act that you save for the one you truly love."

Paul Begala, a Catholic, said that on Bill Maher the other night...did you see that?

[mawilson 2,133]

The Catholic Church was one of the first institutions to frown on pulling out. Sperm deserved a shot at the egg, and impeding its journey indicated couples were interested in copulating for reasons other than having a baby.

Shocking!

It took them 300 years to acknowledge Galileo was correct....they're a little slow.

"Sex is a vile, dirty, disgusting act that you save for the one you truly love."

Paul Begala, a Catholic, said that on Bill Maher the other night...did you see that?

Yep - that's where I heard it.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

bj - 100% effective.

it was obvious that certain elements of sperm were absorbed through the vaginal walls because its odor could be detected on the breath of women who had recently had intercourse.)

I think that is where the smell came from

[alienlovechild 75]

Stopes complained that women were deprived of "the beneficial absorption from the seminal and prostatic fluids."

That's actually true as there is a chemical in semen has some mental health benefits for the woman. Now that I'm married I can't use the excuse that I'm spreading the joy around for females.

[Peikko 1,575]

There are other reasons for using condoms beside birth control.

Spinsters often live full and long lives. I guess the mental health benefits of semen are no all that important in the scheme of things

[one...two...tree 2,762]

it was obvious that certain elements of sperm were absorbed through the vaginal walls because its odor could be detected on the breath of women who had recently had intercourse.)

I think that is where the smell came from

[alienlovechild 75]

Spinsters often live full and long lives. I guess the mental health benefits of semen are no all that important in the scheme of things

It could be the rigors of childbirth and kids wear a female down more than a little population paste can offset.