Hubbry Logo
Coitus interruptusCoitus interruptusMain
Open search
Coitus interruptus
Community hub
Coitus interruptus
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Coitus interruptus
Coitus interruptus
Coitus interruptus
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Pull-out Method
Background
TypeBehavioral
First useAncient
Failure rates (first year)
Perfect use4%[1]
Typical use20%[1]
Usage
ReversibilityYes
User reminders?
Clinic reviewNone
Advantages and disadvantages
STI protectionYes/no

Coitus interruptus, also known as withdrawal, pulling out or the pull-out method, is an act of birth control during sexual intercourse, whereby the penis is withdrawn from a vagina prior to ejaculation so that the ejaculate (semen) may be directed away in an effort to avoid insemination.[2][3]

This method was used by an estimated 38 million couples worldwide in 1991.[2] Coitus interruptus does not protect against sexually transmitted infections (STIs).[4]

History

[edit]

Perhaps the oldest description of the use of the withdrawal method to avoid pregnancy is the story of Onan in the Torah and the Bible.[5] This text is believed to have been written over 2,500 years ago.[6] Societies in the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome preferred small families and are known to have practiced a variety of birth control methods.[7]: 12, 16–17  There are references that have led historians to believe withdrawal was sometimes used as birth control.[8] 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).[7]: 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 art may have been lost during its decline.[7]: 33, 42 

From the 18th century until the development of modern methods, withdrawal was one of the most popular methods of birth-control practised globally.[8]

Effects

[edit]

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: American studies have found actual failure rates of 15–28% per year.[9] One US study, based on self-reported data from the 2006–2010 cycle of the National Survey of Family Growth, found significant differences in failure rate based on parity status. Women with 0 previous births had a 12-month failure rate of only 8.4%, which then increased to 20.4% for those with 1 prior birth and again to 27.7% for those with 2 or more.[10]

An analysis of Demographic and Health Surveys in 43 developing countries between 1990 and 2013 found a median 12-month failure rate across subregions of 13.4%, with a range of 7.8–17.1%. Individual countries within the subregions were even more varied.[11] A large scale study of women in England and Scotland during 1968–1974 to determine the efficacy of various contraceptive methods found a failure rate of 6.7 per 100 woman-years of use. This was a “typical use” failure rate, including user failure to use the method correctly.[12] In comparison, the combined oral contraceptive pill has an actual use failure rate of 2–8%,[13] while intrauterine devices (IUDs) have an actual use failure rate of 0.1–0.8%.[14] Condoms have an actual use failure rate of 10–18%.[9] However, some authors suggest that actual effectiveness of withdrawal could be similar to the effectiveness of condoms; this area needs further research.[15] (See Comparison of birth control methods.)

For couples that use coitus interruptus consistently and correctly at every act of intercourse, the failure rate is 4% per year. This rate is derived from an educated guess based on a modest chance of sperm in the pre-ejaculate.[16][17] In comparison, the pill has a perfect-use failure rate of 0.3%, IUDs a rate of 0.1–0.6%, and internal condoms a rate of 2%.[16]

It has been suggested that the pre-ejaculate ("Cowper's fluid") emitted by the penis prior to ejaculation may contain spermatozoa (sperm cells), which would compromise the effectiveness of the method.[18][19] However, several small studies[20][21][22][23] 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.[24][25] 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 (such as hands and penis).[25]

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.[26] 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".[26] 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 (in other words, as few as 1 million to as many as 35 million).[26] This study therefore recommends, in order to minimize unintended pregnancy and disease transmission, the use of condoms 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.[27] 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.[28] Regardless, this study introduced the concept that some men may consistently have sperm in their pre-ejaculate, due to a "leakage," while others may not.[26]

Similarly, another robust study performed in 2016 found motile sperm in the pre-ejaculate of 16.7% (7/42) healthy men. What more, this study attempted to exclude contamination of sperm from ejaculate by drying the pre-ejaculate specimens to reveal a fern-like pattern, characteristics of true pre-ejaculate. All pre-ejaculate specimens were examined within an hour of production and then dried; all pre-ejaculate specimens were found to be true pre-ejaculate.[29] It is widely believed that urinating after an ejaculation will flush the urethra of remaining sperm.[24] However, 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.[26] Therefore, some males can release the pre-ejaculate fluid containing sperm without a previous ejaculation.

Advantages

[edit]

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 people prefer it so they can avoid possible adverse effects of hormonal contraceptives or so that they can have a full experience and be able to "feel" their partner.[30] Reasons for the popularity of the Method are, that 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.[3]

Disadvantages

[edit]

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.[14] 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.[31]

The method is largely ineffective in the prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), 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.[22]

Prevalence

[edit]

Based on data from surveys conducted during the late 1990s, 3% of women of childbearing age worldwide rely on withdrawal as their primary method of contraception. Regional popularity of the method varies widely, from a low of 1% in Africa to 16% in Western Asia.[32]

In the United States, according to the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) in 2014, 8.1% of reproductive-aged women reported using withdrawal as a primary contraceptive method. This was a significant increase from 2012 when 4.8% of women reported the use of withdrawal as their most effective method.[33] However, when withdrawal is used in addition to or in rotation with another contraceptive method, the percentage of women using withdrawal jumps from 5% for sole use and 11% for any withdrawal use in 2002,[15] and for adolescents from 7.1% of sole withdrawal use to 14.6% of any withdrawal use in 2006–2008.[16][34]

When asked if withdrawal was used at least once in the past month by women, use of withdrawal increased from 13% as sole use to 33% ever use in the past month.[15] These increases are even more pronounced for adolescents 15 to 19 years old and young women 20 to 24 years old[16] Similarly, the NSFG reports that 9.8% of unmarried men who have had sexual intercourse in the last three months in 2002 used withdrawal, which then increased to 14.5% in 2006–2010, and then to 18.8% in 2011–2015.[35] The use of withdrawal varied by the unmarried man's age and cohabiting status, but not by ethnicity or race. The use of withdrawal decreased significantly with increasing age groups, ranging from 26.2% among men aged 15–19 to 12% among men aged 35–44. The use of withdrawal was significantly higher for never-married men (23.0%) compared with formerly married (16.3%) and cohabiting (13.0%) men.[35]

For 1998, about 18% of married men in Turkey reported using withdrawal as a contraceptive method.[36]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Coitus interruptus

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Coitus interruptus, also known as the withdrawal or pull-out method, is a traditional contraceptive technique in which the male partner withdraws the from the and away from the external genitalia prior to , aiming to prevent from entering the reproductive tract and causing . Documented since ancient times, including references in biblical and classical sources, this method has persisted as one of the earliest and simplest forms of , requiring no devices or substances but depending entirely on the male's ability to recognize and control the moment of . It provides no barrier against sexually transmitted infections, as bodily fluids exchanged during intercourse can transmit pathogens, and pre-ejaculatory secretions often contain motile , contributing to unintended conceptions even with attempted correct use. Peer-reviewed analyses of usage patterns show typical-use failure rates of 18-22% within the first year, meaning approximately one in five couples relying on it will experience , far exceeding rates for modern reversible methods like hormonal contraceptives or intrauterine devices; perfect-use efficacy reaches about 4% failure, but real-world adherence falters due to physiological and psychological challenges in precise timing. Despite these empirical shortcomings, which underscore its unreliability as a standalone strategy compared to evidence-based alternatives, coitus interruptus continues to be employed globally, especially in settings with barriers to accessing reliable contraception, and sometimes in combination with other low-intervention approaches.

Overview

Definition and Mechanism

Coitus interruptus, also known as the withdrawal or pull-out method, is a behavioral contraceptive technique in which the male partner withdraws the penis from the partner's vagina (and external genitalia) immediately prior to ejaculation during penile-vaginal intercourse. This practice aims to avert pregnancy by preventing the release of semen containing spermatozoa into the female reproductive tract, thereby reducing the opportunity for sperm to traverse the cervix, uterus, and fallopian tubes to encounter and fertilize an ovum. The method requires precise timing and voluntary control by the male to interrupt thrusting and withdraw sufficiently to ejaculate externally, typically onto the partner's body or a separate surface. Biologically, the mechanism hinges on interrupting the ejaculatory process, which consists of emission (mixing of with seminal fluids from the , , and bulbourethral glands) followed by expulsion via rhythmic contractions of pelvic muscles. Successful implementation depends on the male recognizing impending ejaculation—triggered by signals and building seminal pressure—and executing withdrawal before emission completes, as propulsion occurs rapidly once initiated. However, pre-ejaculatory fluid secreted by the bulbourethral (Cowper's) glands during to lubricate the and neutralize acidity can contain viable, motile in up to 41% of men, derived from residual in the from prior ejaculations unless cleared by . This fluid is released involuntarily prior to withdrawal, potentially depositing near or within the vaginal orifice, which underscores a key physiological limitation in the method's barrier-like intent.

Biological Considerations

Coitus interruptus operates by withdrawing the penis from the vagina before ejaculation, preventing the deposition of semen, which contains approximately 15 to 259 million spermatozoa per milliliter in fertile males, into the female reproductive tract. This method depends on the male's physiological control over the ejaculation reflex, triggered by sympathetic nervous system activation and culminating in peristaltic contractions of the vas deferens, seminal vesicles, prostate, and urethral muscles to expel semen. Failure to withdraw in time can result in partial semen entry, with even minimal volumes sufficient for fertilization given sperm's motility and capacity to traverse the cervix within minutes. Pre-ejaculatory fluid, produced by the bulbourethral (Cowper's) s to lubricate the and neutralize its acidity, poses a key biological , as it may carry viable from residual urethral contents of prior ejaculations. Peer-reviewed studies yield mixed findings: a 2011 analysis detected motile spermatozoa in pre-ejaculatory samples from 41% of 27 healthy volunteers, albeit at low concentrations (up to 23 million per sample). In contrast, a study of direct Cowper's secretions found no , attributing potential contamination to urethral residue rather than glandular origin. A 2016 examination of 42 healthy males reported motile in 16.7% of pre-ejaculate samples, emphasizing the role of incomplete urethral clearance. Urination following ejaculation reduces this residual by flushing the , though not eliminating the entirely. This risk is particularly heightened during multiple rounds of intercourse in the same session without intervening urination, as pre-ejaculate is more likely to contain sperm from residual semen in the urethra following a prior ejaculation. Sperm viability further complicates biological efficacy; once introduced to the vagina—even externally via vulvar contact or through transfer from semen deposited on nearby skin (e.g., buttocks) during reinsertion—motile can ascend the reproductive tract, surviving up to 5 days in cervical under optimal conditions, particularly near when enhances permeability. This persistence allows fertilization if intercourse precedes by several days, independent of withdrawal timing. The method provides no anatomical barrier to pathogens, leaving users susceptible to sexually transmitted infections through mucosal exposure during intercourse. A 2024 study of perfect-use withdrawal practitioners found motile absent or negligible in most pre-ejaculate samples (concentrations below 1 million/mL when present), suggesting lower risk with rigorous technique but underscoring physiological variability across individuals.

Historical Development

Ancient and Pre-Modern References

The earliest recorded reference to coitus interruptus appears in the Hebrew Bible's (c. 6th–5th century BCE), where is described as withdrawing the and spilling semen on the ground during intercourse with his brother's widow Tamar to avoid impregnating her, as required by levirate custom; subsequently put him to death, though biblical scholars emphasize the transgression as Onan's refusal of familial duty rather than the act of withdrawal itself. In , the Greek physician (c. 98–138 CE) provided one of the first detailed medical discussions of contraceptive techniques in his treatise , explicitly describing coitus interruptus as a method involving penile withdrawal before , while cautioning against reliance on partial withdrawal due to misconceptions about seminal emission and conception. Soranus advocated it alongside barriers like soaked in substances but ranked it low in efficacy compared to other interventions, reflecting Greco-Roman preferences for smaller families amid high . During the medieval period, coitus interruptus—known as al-'azl in —was the predominant contraceptive method referenced in Islamic texts, including hadiths attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE), where companions inquired about its permissibility during campaigns, receiving approval conditional on spousal consent for free women but allowance without for concubines. Jurists across Sunni and Shi'a schools debated its ethics but generally tolerated it as a temporary measure, distinguishing it from permanent sterilization, while Christian medieval sources often condemned it via association with Onan's sin, though evidence suggests clandestine use in drew from ancient Greco-Roman and Islamic transmissions.

Modern Historical Usage

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, coitus interruptus became a primary contraceptive method in Europe amid the onset of the demographic transition, enabling couples to limit family size without mechanical barriers or pharmaceuticals. Historians attribute much of the initial marital fertility decline—such as in France, where birth rates fell notably by the 1820s—to widespread adoption of withdrawal, as ordinary households lacked alternatives and rejected abortion or infanticide on moral grounds. By mid-century, it facilitated fertility reductions across Western Europe, with completed family sizes dropping from over six children to around four in countries like England and Prussia, reflecting deliberate spacing and stopping behaviors reliant on male-controlled interruption. Throughout the , coitus interruptus remained the most prevalent contraceptive practice in and , supplanting less reliable folk methods like douching or herbal pessaries due to its simplicity and lack of cost. In Victorian-era Britain and the , it was commonly employed within to align with emerging ideals of smaller families amid and economic pressures, though public discourse rarely acknowledged it explicitly owing to prevailing taboos on contraception. Scholarly analyses of parish records and retrospective surveys confirm its dominance, with estimates indicating it accounted for the bulk of fertility control in households avoiding barrier methods, which were costlier and associated with vice. Into the , usage persisted globally, particularly in regions with limited access to condoms or diaphragms before the hormonal era, serving as a fallback during economic hardships like the interwar period in . Demographic studies highlight its role in sustaining low fertility in Southern and post-1920s, even as medical professionals critiqued it as primitive for its reliance on timing and . By the mid-century, however, its prevalence waned in the West with the legalization and distribution of modern alternatives via initiatives, though it endured in developing contexts and among couples wary of devices.

Efficacy Assessment

Perfect vs. Typical Use Failure Rates

The perfect use for coitus interruptus, representing correct and consistent withdrawal of the from the prior to during every act of intercourse, is estimated at 4 unintended pregnancies per 100 women within the first year of use. This figure derives from models incorporating prospective cohort and assumptions of flawless execution, including precise timing and absence of pre-ejaculatory fluid containing viable . Empirical studies, such as those synthesizing U.S. National Survey of Family Growth , support this low rate under ideal conditions, though real-world validation remains limited due to challenges in verifying perfect adherence. Typical use failure rates, which reflect common errors like delayed withdrawal, incomplete semen avoidance, or lapses in every-act consistency, are substantially higher at 18% to 22 unintended pregnancies per 100 women in the first year. These estimates account for behavioral variability observed in population-based surveys and , where factors such as intoxication, arousal-induced timing failures, or unawareness of risks contribute to discrepancies between perfect and typical . analyses align with the 22% typical rate, drawing from global contraceptive use patterns that highlight withdrawal's sensitivity to human error over mechanical methods. In developing regions, some cohort studies even higher typical failures (up to 17% in subregional aggregates), underscoring contextual influences like limited on . The gap between perfect and typical rates—approximately fivefold—exceeds that of many barrier or hormonal methods, emphasizing coitus interruptus's reliance on partner cooperation and self-control rather than inherent reliability. Peer-reviewed syntheses, including those from contraceptive efficacy experts, derive these rates via life-table analyses of incidences, adjusting for age, frequency of intercourse, and , yet note potential underreporting biases in self-reported data. No large-scale randomized trials exist solely for withdrawal due to ethical and methodological constraints, leaving estimates grounded in observational evidence prone to by concurrent method use or undercounting.

Empirical Evidence and Contributing Factors

Empirical estimates of coitus interruptus efficacy derive primarily from retrospective analyses of national surveys, such as the U.S. National Survey of Family Growth, rather than randomized controlled trials, which are infeasible due to ethical and methodological challenges in isolating method-specific outcomes. These data indicate a first-year perfect-use of 4%, meaning that among couples using the method flawlessly— with consistent and precise withdrawal before any emission— approximately 4 out of 100 women will experience within 12 months. Typical-use failure rates, for inconsistent application, rise to 20-22%, with one in five women becoming pregnant in the first year based on self-reported behaviors in population-level studies. In developing regions, prospective cohort data from Demographic and Health Surveys report 12-month failure probabilities ranging from 7.8% to 17.1% across subregions, reflecting variations in user adherence and demographic factors. Physiological factors contribute significantly to method failures beyond . Pre-ejaculatory fluid, released during prior to , contains motile in approximately 16.7% of healthy males, as determined by microscopic examination of samples from 27 men who abstained from for 2-7 days; this introduces viable spermatozoa into the even without full withdrawal. Earlier analyses confirm presence in up to 41% of samples, with in a , challenging assumptions that such fluid is invariably sperm-free and attributing some pregnancies to residual or newly produced gametes rather than solely prior ejaculations. Behavioral and situational elements amplify typical-use risks, including imprecise recognition of impending , which demands high and experience; lapses occur more frequently under influences like alcohol, stress, or , leading to incomplete withdrawal. Timing risks are particularly elevated during the fertile window, including ovulation, when pregnancy probability peaks; health organizations such as the Cleveland Clinic advise against using coitus interruptus during this period due to heightened failure risks, recommending more reliable alternatives like condoms (2-18% failure rate), oral contraceptives (less than 1% failure with perfect use), or intrauterine devices (IUDs). Taiwanese medical professionals similarly warn of the method's unreliability, citing approximately 4% failure for perfect use and 18-22% for typical use due in part to sperm in pre-ejaculate, and recommend more effective options like condoms. Inconsistent application—such as delayed withdrawal or failure to collect externally—further elevates failure probabilities, with survey data showing that user characteristics like age, education, and method familiarity correlate with adherence levels, though inherent method demands limit overall reliability compared to barrier or hormonal options. The absence of pregnancy after several years of coitus interruptus use does not necessarily indicate a fertility problem, as the method's typical-use effectiveness of 78-82% per year makes prolonged non-conception common due to factors such as good execution, low frequency of intercourse, or timing away from ovulation. However, if attempting to conceive without contraception for one year without success (or six months if the woman is aged 35 or older), evaluation for potential issues like sperm quality, ovulation problems, or other factors is recommended.

Benefits and Limitations

Practical Advantages

Coitus interruptus requires no financial expenditure, as it involves no purchase of devices, medications, or supplies. It demands no prescription, medical consultation, or professional fitting, rendering it immediately accessible without reliance on healthcare infrastructure or planning. The method entails no exposure to hormones, chemicals, or inserted objects, thereby eliminating side effects such as those associated with hormonal contraceptives (e.g., mood alterations, ) or barrier devices (e.g., allergic reactions to ). It permits spontaneous sexual activity without preparatory steps beyond at the point of , allowing for greater immediacy compared to methods requiring advance application or timing. As a non-invasive technique, coitus interruptus functions effectively as a supplementary measure alongside other contraceptives, providing layered protection in scenarios where primary methods are absent or compromised. Qualitative reports from users highlight its convenience over condoms, citing reduced interruption during intercourse and enhanced perceived intimacy due to the absence of barriers.

Key Disadvantages and Risks

Coitus interruptus carries a high of due to its typical-use of approximately 22% over one year, meaning about one in five women relying on this method as their primary contraception will become pregnant within that period. The method is preferable to using no contraception at all but is significantly less effective than condoms (approximately 87% typical effectiveness), birth control pills, intrauterine devices, or implants (over 99% effective). Although superior to no contraception, it is not recommended as the primary method due to its relatively high failure rate in practice. Health organizations such as Planned Parenthood and Cleveland Clinic advise against its use during ovulation, when pregnancy risk peaks in the fertile window, and recommend more reliable methods such as condoms, oral contraceptives, or intrauterine devices; if pregnancy prevention is a priority, users should consult a healthcare provider for more effective options or keep emergency contraception available. Combining withdrawal with another method, such as condoms, significantly reduces pregnancy risk and adds protection against sexually transmitted infections. Perfect-use failure rates are lower at around 4%, but these assume flawless timing and self-control in every instance, which empirical data shows is rare in practice. Contributing factors include the presence of viable in pre-ejaculatory , with studies detecting motile in up to 12.9% of pre-ejaculate samples from withdrawal users, though clinically significant concentrations sufficient for are found in fewer cases. Recent analysis of perfect-use scenarios indicates low to non-existent content in pre-ejaculate among practiced users, yet this does not eliminate overall , as even minimal exposure can lead to conception. The method provides no protection against sexually transmitted infections, as it lacks any barrier to during intercourse. Unlike condoms, which reduce STI risk through physical separation, withdrawal exposes partners to fluids containing potential infectious agents throughout penetration. This limitation is particularly concerning in populations with higher STI prevalence, where reliance on withdrawal correlates with elevated transmission rates. Practical challenges exacerbate these risks, including the need for precise timing and ejaculatory control, which can fail under or distraction, leading to incomplete withdrawal or semen deposition near the . Risks increase during multiple rounds in the same session, as residual sperm from prior ejaculations may remain in the urethra and contaminate pre-ejaculatory fluid, particularly without urination between acts; additionally, semen deposited on nearby skin such as the buttocks can transfer motile sperm to the vulva or vagina during reinsertion, as sperm can migrate through fluids or direct contact. Users often report increased stress and diminished sexual satisfaction from the constant vigilance required, potentially reducing intensity or frequency. The asymmetrical burden falls primarily on the partner to withdraw reliably, which may foster ambivalence toward prevention or lower relationship equity in contraceptive . These factors contribute to inconsistent use and higher real-world failure compared to more reliable methods.

Cultural and Religious Dimensions

Religious Perspectives

In , coitus interruptus has been historically condemned by early and subsequent teachings as a violation of , which holds that must remain open to procreation, with biblical references to Onan's act in Genesis 38:9-10 interpreted as prohibiting the deliberate frustration of the marital act's procreative potential. The explicitly teaches that withdrawal constitutes a grave sin, equivalent to other forms of contraception, as it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of sex, a position reaffirmed in documents like (1968), which permits only methods. Protestant denominations, unified in opposition until the 1930 when the Anglican Church first permitted contraception in limited cases, now largely accept it among liberal branches, though some conservative groups echo traditional views against non-procreative acts. In , coitus interruptus, known as 'azl, is generally permissible based on hadiths from and , where companions of the Prophet Muhammad practiced it during expeditions, and the Prophet neither forbade it nor encouraged it strongly, stating that "no soul that which is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be harmed by it" if has decreed its creation. Classical scholars, drawing from these narrations, view 'azl as allowable within or with concubines, though some consider it (disliked) as it may resemble by limiting offspring, without Quranic prohibition. Judaism, per halakhic rulings, prohibits coitus interruptus as hotza'at zera levatalah (wasting of seed), a grave offense derived from interpretations of Genesis 38 and Talmudic texts like Niddah 13a, which deem ejaculation outside the invalid and sinful, even when contraception is otherwise permitted for or economic reasons. Orthodox authorities allow alternative methods like under rabbinic guidance but exclude withdrawal, prioritizing procreation as a while balancing (life preservation). In Hinduism and Buddhism, no doctrinal texts explicitly address coitus interruptus, but broader permissiveness toward contraception prevails; Hindu scriptures emphasize dharma-aligned family planning without mandating procreation beyond societal duties, allowing methods like withdrawal for health or economic factors. Buddhist teachings, focusing on intention and non-harm rather than procreation, view contraception as ethically neutral if not motivated by aversion to life, with early practices tolerating withdrawal akin to other natural methods.

Cultural and Societal Views

In societies, coitus interruptus is frequently stigmatized as an archaic and unreliable contraceptive practice, often dismissed by healthcare providers and organizations despite its widespread use among young adults. Surveys indicate that a majority of employ withdrawal at some point, yet medical professionals rarely endorse it as a primary method, viewing it as inferior to barrier or hormonal options due to perceived risks of and lack of against sexually transmitted infections. This dismissal stems partly from historical medical and religious pressures that have marginalized the method, portraying users as irresponsible or uninformed. In contrast, certain non-Western cultures exhibit more favorable perceptions, particularly where male autonomy in reproductive decisions prevails. In , where withdrawal remains one of the most common methods, women report preferring it for its perceived reliability, health benefits, and convenience, often aligning with husbands' preferences over modern alternatives. Similarly, in Slovenian contexts, its appeal lies in a cultural emphasis on "natural" contraception, reflecting broader trends toward naturalism amid dissatisfaction with pharmaceutical side effects. These views highlight how patriarchal norms and limited access to other methods sustain its adoption, even as prioritize technological interventions. Societal attitudes also vary with gender dynamics and access barriers; in regions like parts of and , cultural beliefs associating hormonal contraceptives with health risks or promiscuity reinforce reliance on withdrawal as a low-intervention option. However, emerging stigmas in urbanizing areas frame it as outdated, potentially exacerbating unintended pregnancies where education favors "modern" methods without addressing practical user experiences. Overall, these divergent views underscore tensions between empirical user satisfaction and institutionalized preferences for regulated contraception.

Prevalence and Demographic Patterns

Global and Regional Usage

Globally, withdrawal (coitus interruptus) accounts for approximately 53 million users among women of reproductive age (15-49 years) as of 2020, representing a small but persistent share of contraceptive methods. Among married or in-union women, its prevalence stood at about 5% in 2019, with 42 million users out of 779 million total contraceptive users worldwide. Usage has remained relatively stable over decades, with the number of users rising modestly from 37 million in 1994 to 47 million in 2019, largely due to rather than shifts in adoption rates. Regional prevalence varies significantly, with higher rates in areas influenced by cultural, religious, or access-related factors favoring traditional methods. In Northern Africa and Western Asia, withdrawal prevalence reached 5.0% among women of reproductive age in 2019. and reported 4.1%, reflecting a decline in traditional methods from 13% to 9% of contraceptive use between 1995 and 2020. Central and Southern Asia showed 3.3%, while lower rates prevailed in Eastern and South-Eastern Asia (1.4%), (1.5%), (1.1%), and (1.1%).
RegionPrevalence (% of women 15-49, 2019)Notes
Northern Africa & Western Asia5.0Highest among developing regions
Europe & Northern America4.1Declining trend in traditional methods
Central & Southern Asia3.3Influenced by cultural preferences in countries like Turkey and Iran
Eastern & South-Eastern Asia1.4Lower reliance on traditional methods
Latin America & Caribbean1.5Stable but minor share
Sub-Saharan Africa1.1Limited overall contraceptive access
Oceania1.1Similar to Sub-Saharan Africa
Country-level data highlights elevated usage in select nations, such as at 24.5% prevalence in 2019, and persistently high rates in (around 20-25% in recent surveys) and (over 20% among contraceptive users). These patterns often correlate with limited access to modern methods, male involvement in , or religious tolerances for non-barrier techniques, though data from Demographic and Health Surveys indicate withdrawal's role diminishes where modern options expand.

Factors Influencing Adoption

Accessibility and convenience play significant roles in the adoption of coitus interruptus, as it requires no devices, prescriptions, or costs, making it immediately available without reliance on healthcare systems. In regions with limited access to modern contraceptives, such as parts of Turkey or , socioeconomic barriers and poor availability of alternatives further promote its use. Couples often select it due to dissatisfaction with hormonal methods' side effects or condoms' reduction in pleasure, viewing withdrawal as a low-effort backup or primary option. Partner dynamics and gender roles heavily influence reliance on the method, with male preference frequently driving decisions in heterosexual relationships, particularly where women report lower relationship power or ambivalence toward pregnancy prevention. Studies indicate that men may favor withdrawal for perceived control and spontaneity, while cultural norms in conservative societies reinforce its acceptability over methods seen as emasculating or disruptive. Knowledge gaps and attitudes toward contraception also factor in, as incomplete understanding of effectiveness—often overestimated by users—combined with low perceived risk, sustains adoption among young adults unaware of superior options. In a U.S. study of aged 18-24, withdrawal use correlated with positive views on sexual pleasure unhindered by barriers and neutral-to-positive orientations toward potential . Demographic patterns show higher among unmarried young people in urban settings and in countries like and , where traditional practices persist despite education efforts. Cultural and religious contexts further shape adoption, with the method endorsed in some Islamic traditions as permissible family planning, contrasting with prohibitions on barrier or hormonal methods. Societal stigma against abortion or unintended births in resource-limited areas encourages its use as a "natural" alternative, though peer-reviewed analyses highlight how these factors entrench higher failure rates without addressing underlying causal risks like pre-ejaculate exposure.

Comparative Analysis

Versus Other Contraceptive Methods

Coitus interruptus demonstrates comparatively lower in preventing relative to most contemporary contraceptive options. Under typical use conditions, where inconsistent or incorrect application occurs, the method yields a 22% , with 22 out of 100 women experiencing an within the first year of use. This exceeds the 18% for male condoms and the 9% for combined oral contraceptives, and far surpasses the rates for (LARCs) such as copper intrauterine devices (0.8%) or hormonal implants (0.05%). Even under perfect use—requiring precise and consistent withdrawal before —the remains at 4%, higher than the 2% for male condoms, 0.3% for oral contraceptives, and near-zero for LARCs like hormonal IUDs (0.2%), corresponding to an effectiveness of approximately 96% for coitus interruptus compared to ~98% for male condoms, ~99% for birth control pills, and >99% for IUDs. These estimates derive from population-based surveys adjusting for underreporting of abortions and reflect real-world adherence challenges, including the presence of viable in pre-ejaculatory fluid, which undermines even meticulous execution.
MethodTypical-Use Failure Rate (%)Perfect-Use Failure Rate (%)
Coitus Interruptus224
Male Condom182
Combined Oral Contraceptives90.3
0.80.6
Hormonal IUD0.20.2
0.050.05
Injection60.2
Data represent percentage of women experiencing unintended pregnancy in the first year; adapted from U.S. population surveys. In terms of sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention, coitus interruptus offers no barrier to pathogen transmission, unlike latex male condoms, which reduce HIV acquisition risk by approximately 80% when used consistently and correctly. Hormonal methods, intrauterine devices, and sterilization similarly provide no STI protection, rendering coitus interruptus equivalent to these in vulnerability but inferior to dual-method use combining it with barriers. Coitus interruptus carries no associated health risks or side effects, avoiding the venous thromboembolism hazards of estrogen-containing oral contraceptives (3-9 cases per 10,000 woman-years) or insertion-related complications of IUDs (up to 1% expulsion rate). It requires no devices, prescriptions, or ongoing costs—contrasting with annual expenses for pills ($200-300) or IUD insertions ($500-1,300 without insurance)—and enables spontaneity without daily regimens or provider visits. However, its dependence on male ejaculatory control introduces and interpersonal dynamics absent in user-independent methods like implants or sterilization, which achieve near-permanent efficacy without repeated effort. Overall, while advantageous for accessibility in resource-limited settings, coitus interruptus underperforms combined hormonal or LARC methods in reliability and lacks the comprehensive safeguards of barrier alternatives.

Integration with Broader Family Planning

Coitus interruptus serves as a supplementary strategy within broader family planning frameworks, often employed alongside more reliable contraceptives to enhance overall efficacy and provide a low-barrier backup option. Although less effective than methods such as condoms, birth control pills, IUDs, or implants, withdrawal is preferable to using no contraception at all. In a study of U.S. women aged 18-39, 33% reported any use of withdrawal in the preceding 30 days, with 13% combining it with hormonal methods or long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) such as intrauterine devices or implants, and 11% pairing it with condoms; among those using highly effective methods, 77% incorporated withdrawal simultaneously rather than as a replacement. This dual-method approach leverages withdrawal's lack of side effects and accessibility to bolster protection, potentially increasing user vigilance against unintended pregnancy without introducing hormonal or device-related risks. When integrated with barrier methods like condoms, coitus interruptus yields substantially improved prevention, as the mechanical barrier addresses pre-ejaculatory fluid risks that withdrawal alone cannot fully mitigate, while also providing protection against sexually transmitted infections. Combining withdrawal with condoms is estimated to provide "excellent" protection, far surpassing either method's standalone typical-use of approximately 78-82%. Similarly, pairing it with LARCs approaches near-perfect (up to 99%), while use with oral contraceptives (typically 91% effective) or spermicides further reduces failure rates by diversifying risk mitigation. These combinations are particularly prevalent among younger users and those in non-cohabitating relationships, reflecting its role in adaptive, context-specific planning. In fertility awareness-based methods (FAM), which track to avoid intercourse during fertile windows, withdrawal functions as an additional safeguard, though guidelines emphasize it as a secondary rather than primary tool due to its inherent limitations. FAM protocols may recommend withdrawal or barriers during uncertain fertile phases, with past users of withdrawal showing higher likelihood of correct FAM adherence; however, some authorities caution against relying on it as an alternative to or condoms within FAM, citing persistent exposure risks. This integration promotes male involvement in , a factor associated with sustained method use, and serves as a transitional step toward more effective options in resource-limited settings. Despite these benefits, such strategies do not confer STI protection unless condoms are included, necessitating comprehensive counseling on layered risks.

References

  1. https://www.cdc.gov/contraception/hcp/usmec/coitus-interruptus-withdrawal.html
  2. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5904a11.htm
  3. https://www.glowm.com/section-view/heading/History%2520of%2520Contraception/item/375
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4254803/
  5. https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-020-00957-z
  6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23921858/
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4025983/
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010782421001104
  9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279148/
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3307935/
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3564677/
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3455634/
  13. https://www.thaiscience.info/journals/Article/JMAT/10986029.pdf
  14. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325356
  15. https://proactiveforher.com/blogs/sexual-health/what-is-the-pull-out-method/
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073820304588
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/coitus-interruptus
  18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2024.00250-6/fulltext
  19. https://www.gotquestions.org/birth-control.html
  20. https://hekint.org/2017/01/27/historical-contraception-birth-control-before-the-pill/
  21. https://www.britannica.com/science/coitus-interruptus
  22. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/sociological-studies-in-roman-history/contraception-in-the-roman-empire/A85A465309CE2090FA67B74AE9AC2AF6
  23. https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/uwomj/article/download/20593/15915/53597
  24. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12402939/
  25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41854903
  26. https://www.rcrc.org/muslim/
  27. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecoj.12431
  28. https://worksinprogress.co/issue/frances-baby-bust/
  29. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/59153/1/637349466.pdf
  30. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1997&context=egcenter-discussion-paper-series
  31. https://www.civilwarmed.org/birth-control/
  32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2175319
  33. https://academic.oup.com/book/42020/chapter/355668956
  34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2938413
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3638203/
  36. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-025-01148-w
  37. https://contraceptivetechnology.org/ask-about-withdrawal-really/
  38. https://www.guttmacher.org/report/contraceptive-failure-rates-in-developing-world
  39. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2787541
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7191771/
  41. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-you-prevent-pregnancy-with-the-pullout-method/
  42. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/24174-pull-out-method
  43. https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/birth-control-failure-rates-pearl-index-explained-3554953/
  44. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27266214/
  45. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/withdrawal-method/about/pac-20395283
  46. https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E6%84%9B%E6%84%9B-%E9%AB%94%E5%A4%96%E5%B0%84%E7%B2%BE-%E6%87%B7%E5%AD%95%E6%A9%9F%E7%8E%87%E6%9B%9D-%E9%86%AB5%E5%AD%97%E7%A4%BA%E8%AD%A6%E4%BA%86-010100889.html
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010782411000497
  48. https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/evaluating-infertility
  49. https://shcs.ucdavis.edu/health-topic/withdrawal
  50. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2010/06/withdrawal-attitudes-and-experiences-qualitative-perspective-among-young-urban
  51. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/withdrawal-pull-out-method
  52. https://www.physiciansweekly.com/post/pre-ejaculate-sperm-detection-and-pregnancy-risk-in-withdrawal-users
  53. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39122085/
  54. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/withdrawal-pull-out-method/how-effective-is-withdrawal-method-pulling-out
  55. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-effectiveness-united-states
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4218729/
  57. https://www.catholic.com/tract/contraception-and-sterilization
  58. https://www.clmagazine.org/post/pro-life-basics-i-have-been-searching-online-to-see-if-i-could-find-an-answer-to-this-myself-but-with-no-luck-when-my-husband-and-i-have-relations-he-will-withdraw-before-climaxing-i-am-now-questi/
  59. https://purelypresbyterian.com/2015/08/13/contraception-pt-4-onanism/
  60. https://www.catholic.com/tract/birth-control?ref=trinityapologetics.com
  61. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2542
  62. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/11885
  63. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7731352/
  64. https://www.yoatzot.org/faq/withdrawal-method/
  65. https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/14-05-17/
  66. https://www.jogc.com/article/S1701-2163%2816%2932736-0/pdf
  67. https://www.britannica.com/science/birth-control/Ethics-and-the-influence-of-religious-systems
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4373981/
  69. https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2009/does-withdrawal-deserve-another-look
  70. https://shs.cairn.info/journal-population-2023-1-page-29?lang=en
  71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0266613805000525
  72. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/918b/d262d926dbba49cd6a6d0bfc448845621a28.pdf
  73. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03062847408723561
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3146412/
  75. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/documents/2023/Feb/undesa_pd_2022_world-family-planning.pdf
  76. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/documents/2020/Jan/un_2019_contraceptiveusebymethod_databooklet.pdf
  77. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-37398-1
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8313849/
  79. https://jmrh.mums.ac.ir/article_12415.html
  80. https://gatesopenresearch.org/articles/5-92/pdf
  81. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18032163/
  82. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25530102/
  83. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6304a5.htm
  84. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235069/
  85. https://www.glowm.com/section-view/heading/Fertility-Awareness-Methods-of-Family-Planning-for-Achieving-or-Avoiding-Pregnancy/item/383
  86. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/ipsrh/2006/06/fertility-awareness-based-methods-family-planning-predictors-correct-use
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.