Editing Coitus interruptus

{{Short description|Withdrawal method of birth-control}}
{{Redirect|'Azl||AZL (disambiguation)}}
{{Italic title}}
{{Infobox birth control
|name             = ''The Pull-out Method''
|image            = 
|width            = 
|caption          = 
|bc_type          = Behavioral
|date_first_use   = Ancient
|rate_type        = Failure
|perfect_failure% = 4
|perfect_failure_ref =<ref name="contraceptivetechnology.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Contraceptive-Failure-Rates.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220504005547/http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Contraceptive-Failure-Rates.pdf |archive-date=2022-05-04 |url-status=live|title=Table 26-1 Percentage of women experiencing an unintended pregnancy during the first year of typical use and the first year of perfect use of contraception and the percentage continuing use at the end of the first year. United States.|website=Contraceptivetechnology.org|access-date=18 March 2022}}</ref>
|typical_failure% = 20
|typical_failure_ref =<ref name="contraceptivetechnology.org"/>
|duration_effect  = 
|reversibility    = Yes
|user_reminders   =
|clinic_interval  = None
|STD_protection_YesNo = Yes/no
|periods          = 
|benefits         = 
|weight_gain_loss = 
|risks            = 
|medical_notes    = 
}}

'''''Coitus interruptus''''', also known as '''withdrawal''', '''pulling out''' or the '''pull-out method''', is an act of [[birth control]] during [[sexual intercourse]], whereby the [[Human penis|penis]] is withdrawn from a [[vagina]] prior to [[ejaculation]] so that the ejaculate ([[semen]]) may be directed away in an effort to avoid [[insemination]].<ref name=Rogow1995>{{cite journal | vauthors = Rogow D, Horowitz S | title = Withdrawal: a review of the literature and an agenda for research | journal = Studies in Family Planning | volume = 26 | issue = 3 | pages = 140–53 | year = 1995 | pmid = 7570764 | doi = 10.2307/2137833 | jstor = 2137833 }}, which cites:<br />
:[[Population Action International]] (1991). "A Guide to Methods of Birth Control." Briefing Paper No. 25, Washington, D. C.</ref><ref name="MedscapeCoitusInterruptus"/>

This method was used by an estimated 38 million couples worldwide in 1991.<ref name=Rogow1995/> ''Coitus interruptus'' does not protect against [[Sexually transmitted disease|sexually transmitted infections]] (STIs).<ref name="ineff">{{cite journal | vauthors = Creatsas GK | s2cid = 46433691 | title = Sexuality: sexual activity and contraception during adolescence | journal = Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology | volume = 5 | issue = 6 | pages = 774–83 | date = December 1993 | pmid = 8286689 | doi = 10.1097/00001703-199312000-00011 }}</ref>

==History==
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]].<ref>{{Bibleverse|Genesis|38:8-10}}</ref>  This text is believed to have been written over 2,500 years ago.<ref>{{cite web |last=Adams |first=Cecil |name-list-style=vanc |author-link=Cecil Adams |title=Who wrote the Bible? (Part 1) |work=The Straight Dope |publisher=Creative Loafing Media, Inc. |date=2002-01-07 |url= http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1985/who-wrote-the-bible-part-1 |access-date=2009-07-24 |archive-date=2009-03-02 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090302103830/http://straightdope.com/columns/read/1985/who-wrote-the-bible-part-1 |url-status=live }}</ref>  Societies in the ancient civilizations of [[Ancient Greece|Greece]] and [[Roman Empire|Rome]] preferred small families and are known to have practiced a variety of birth control methods.<ref name="collier"/>{{rp|12,16–17}}  There are references that have led historians to believe withdrawal was sometimes used as birth control.<ref name="eobc">{{cite book | last = Bullough | first = Vern L. | name-list-style = vanc |title=Encyclopedia of birth control |publisher=ABC-CLIO |location=Santa Barbara, Calif |year=2001 |pages=74&ndash;75 |isbn=978-1-57607-181-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XuX-MGTZnJoC&pg=PA74 |access-date=2009-07-24}}</ref>  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 [[pessary|pessaries]], and ineffective, such as [[amulet]]s).<ref name="collier">{{cite book | first=Aine | last=Collier | name-list-style = vanc | year=2007 | title=The Humble Little Condom: A History | publisher=Prometheus Books | location=Amherst, NY | isbn=978-1-59102-556-6}}</ref>{{rp|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.<ref name="collier"/>{{rp|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.<ref name="eobc"/>

== Effects ==
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.<ref name="kippley">{{cite book | first1=John | last1=Kippley |first2=Sheila |last2=Kippley | name-list-style = vanc | year=1996 | title=The Art of Natural Family Planning | edition=4th | publisher=The Couple to Couple League | location=Cincinnati | isbn=978-0-926412-13-2 | page=146 }}, which cites:
*{{cite journal | title = Choice of contraceptives | journal = The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics | volume = 34 | issue = 885 | pages = 111–4 | date = December 1992 | pmid = 1448019 }}
*{{cite book | vauthors=Hatcher RA, Trussel J, Stewart F | display-authors=etal | year=1994 | title=Contraceptive Technology | edition=Sixteenth Revised | publisher=Irvington Publishers | location=New York | isbn=978-0-8290-3171-3 | url-access=registration | url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780829031713 | access-date=2019-09-08 | archive-date=2020-08-02 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200802203449/https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780829031713 | url-status=live }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sundaram |first1=A |last2=Vaughan |first2=B |last3=Kost |first3=K |last4=Bankole |first4=A |last5=Finer |first5=L |last6=Singh |first6=S |last7=Trussell |first7=J |display-authors= 3 |title=Contraceptive Failure in the United States: Estimates from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth |journal=Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health |date=March 2017 |volume=49 |issue=1 |pages=7–16 |doi=10.1363/psrh.12017 |pmid=28245088 |pmc=5363251 }}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web |url= https://www.guttmacher.org/report/contraceptive-failure-rates-in-developing-world#|title = Contraceptive Failure Rates in the Developing World: An Analysis of Demographic and Health Survey Data in 43 Countries|date = 24 March 2016|last1 = Polis|first1 = C|last2 = Bradley|first2 = SEK |last3 = Bankole|first3 = A |last4 = Onda|first4 = T |last5 = Croft|first5 = TN |last6 = Singh|first6 = S |display-authors= 3}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Vessey |first1=M |last2=Lawless |first2=M |last3=Yeates |first3=D |title=Efficacy of Different Contraceptive Methods |journal=The Lancet |date=April 1982 |volume= 319 |issue=8276 |pages=841–842 |doi=10.1016/s0140-6736(82)91885-2 |pmid=6122067 |s2cid=24203338 }}</ref> In comparison, the [[combined oral contraceptive pill]] has an actual use failure rate of 2–8%,<ref name="pill">{{cite journal | vauthors = Audet MC, Moreau M, Koltun WD, Waldbaum AS, Shangold G, Fisher AC, Creasy GW | display-authors= 3| title = Evaluation of contraceptive efficacy and cycle control of a transdermal contraceptive patch vs an oral contraceptive: a randomized controlled trial | journal = [[JAMA]] | volume = 285 | issue = 18 | pages = 2347–54 | date = May 2001 | pmid = 11343482 | doi = 10.1001/jama.285.18.2347 | doi-access = free }}<br />
{{cite web | url =http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html | title =Contraceptive Use | work =Facts in Brief | publisher =[[Guttmacher Institute|The Alan Guttmacher Institute]] | access-date =2005-05-10 | url-status =dead | archive-url =http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20011218080156/http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html | archive-date =2001-12-18 }} - see table ''First-Year Contraceptive Failure Rates''</ref> while [[intrauterine device]]s (IUDs) have an actual use failure rate of 0.1–0.8%.<ref name="cont tech 18">{{cite book| url= http://www.contraceptivetechnology.com/table.html|title=Contraceptive Technology|vauthors=Hatcher RA, Trussel J, Stewart F|publisher=Ardent Media| year=2000 |isbn=978-0-9664902-6-8|edition=18th|location=New York|display-authors=etal|access-date=2006-07-13|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080531095926/http://www.contraceptivetechnology.com/table.html|archive-date=2008-05-31|url-status=dead}}</ref> [[Condom]]s have an actual use failure rate of 10–18%.<ref name="kippley" /> However, some authors suggest that actual effectiveness of withdrawal could be similar to the effectiveness of condoms; this area needs further research.<ref name = "Jones_2009">{{cite journal |last1=Jones |first1=RK |last2=Fennell |first2=J |last3=Higgins |first3=JA |last4=Blanchard |first4=K |title=Better than nothing or savvy risk-reduction practice? The importance of withdrawal |journal=Contraception |date=June 2009 |volume=79 |issue=6 |pages=407–410 |doi=10.1016/j.contraception.2008.12.008 |pmid=19442773 }}</ref> (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.<ref name="Hatcher_2018" /><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Trussell TJ, Faden R, Hatcher RA | title = Efficacy information in contraceptive counseling: those little white lies | journal = American Journal of Public Health | volume = 66 | issue = 8 | pages = 761–7 | date = August 1976 | pmid = 961944 | pmc = 1653419 | doi = 10.2105/AJPH.66.8.761 }}</ref> 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%.<ref name="Hatcher_2018" />

It has been suggested that the [[pre-ejaculate]] ("Cowper's fluid") emitted by the penis prior to ejaculation may contain [[Spermatozoon|spermatozoa]] (sperm cells), which would compromise the effectiveness of the method.<ref>{{cite web |first=Roger W. |last=Harms |name-list-style=vanc |title=Can pre-ejaculation fluid cause pregnancy? |work=Women's health: Expert answers |publisher=MayoClinic.com |url=http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth-control/an00197 |date=2007-09-20 |access-date=2009-07-15 |archive-date=2009-05-11 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090511011612/http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth-control/an00197 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Tracee |last=Cornforth |name-list-style=vanc |title=How effective is withdrawal as a birth control method? |work=About.com: Women's Health |url=http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/birthcontro1/a/withdrawalbircn.htm |date=2003-12-02 |access-date=2009-07-15 |archive-date=2009-02-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090221074655/http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/birthcontro1/a/withdrawalbircn.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> However, several small studies<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Zukerman Z, Weiss DB, Orvieto R | title = Does preejaculatory penile secretion originating from Cowper's gland contain sperm? | journal = Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | volume = 20 | issue = 4 | pages = 157–9 | date = April 2003 | pmid = 12762415 | pmc = 3455634 | doi = 10.1023/A:1022933320700 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Free MJ, Alexander NJ | title = Male contraception without prescription. A reevaluation of the condom and coitus interruptus | journal = Public Health Reports | volume = 91 | issue = 5 | pages = 437–45 | year = 1976 | pmid = 824668 | pmc = 1440560 }}</ref><ref name="HIV study">{{cite journal | title = Researchers find no sperm in pre-ejaculate fluid | journal = Contraceptive Technology Update | volume = 14 | issue = 10 | pages = 154–6 | date = October 1993 | pmid = 12286905 }}</ref><ref name="clark">{{cite journal | vauthors = Clark S | date = September 1981|title=An examination of the sperm content of human pre-ejaculatory fluid | url=http://www.popline.org/node/425048 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150924081054/http://www.popline.org/node/425048 | archive-date = 24 September 2015 | journal = Popline | volume = 5| pages = 9–10| publisher = Knowledge for Health Project }}</ref> 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.<ref name=PP>{{cite web |title=Withdrawal Method |website=[[Planned Parenthood]] |date=March 2004 |url=http://www.plannedparenthood.com/health-topics/birth-control/withdrawal-pull-out-method-4218.htm |access-date=2008-03-28 |archive-date=2008-04-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080420165238/http://plannedparenthood.com/health-topics/birth-control/withdrawal-pull-out-method-4218.htm |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Delvin">{{cite web |last=Delvin |first=David |name-list-style=vanc |title=Coitus interruptus (Withdrawal method) |work=NetDoctor.co.uk |date=2005-01-17 |url=http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/coitusinterruptus.htm |access-date=2006-07-13 |archive-date=2006-09-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060924170257/http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/coitusinterruptus.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> 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).<ref name="Delvin"/>

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.<ref name="Killick">{{cite journal | vauthors = Killick SR, Leary C, Trussell J, Guthrie KA | title = Sperm content of pre-ejaculatory fluid | journal = Human Fertility | volume = 14 | issue = 1 | pages = 48–52 | date = March 2011 | pmid = 21155689 | pmc = 3564677 | doi = 10.3109/14647273.2010.520798 }}</ref> 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".<ref name="Killick"/>  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).<ref name="Killick"/> 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.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Cooper TG, Noonan E, von Eckardstein S, Auger J, Baker HW, Behre HM, Haugen TB, Kruger T, Wang C, Mbizvo MT, Vogelsong KM | display-authors = 3 | title = World Health Organization reference values for human semen characteristics | journal = Human Reproduction Update | volume = 16 | issue = 3 | pages = 231–45 | year = 2010 | pmid = 19934213 | doi = 10.1093/humupd/dmp048 | doi-access = free }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Slama R, Eustache F, Ducot B, Jensen TK, Jørgensen N, Horte A, Irvine S, Suominen J, Andersen AG, Auger J, Vierula M, Toppari J, Andersen AN, Keiding N, Skakkebaek NE, Spira A, Jouannet P | display-authors = 6 | title = Time to pregnancy and semen parameters: a cross-sectional study among fertile couples from four European cities | journal = Human Reproduction | volume = 17 | issue = 2 | pages = 503–15 | date = February 2002 | pmid = 11821304 | doi = 10.1093/humrep/17.2.503 | doi-access = free }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Killick" />

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.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Kovavisarach E, Lorthanawanich S, Muangsamran P | title = Presence of Sperm in Pre-Ejaculatory Fluid of Healthy Males | journal = Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet Thangphaet | volume = 99 | pages = S38–41 | date = February 2016 | issue = Suppl 2 | pmid = 27266214 }}</ref> It is widely believed that urinating after an ejaculation will flush the urethra of remaining sperm.<ref name=PP/> 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.<ref name="Killick"/> Therefore, some males can release the pre-ejaculate fluid containing sperm without a previous ejaculation.

== Advantages ==
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.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Ortayli N, Bulut A, Ozugurlu M, Cokar M | title = Why withdrawal? Why not withdrawal? Men's perspectives | journal = Reproductive Health Matters | volume = 13 | issue = 25 | pages = 164–73 | date = May 2005 | pmid = 16035610 | doi = 10.1016/S0968-8080(05)25175-3 | doi-access = free }}</ref> Other reasons for the popularity of this method are its anecdotal increase in male sexual deftness, 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.<ref name="MedscapeCoitusInterruptus">{{Cite web | vauthors = Casey FE | date = 20 March 2024 | veditors = Talavera F, Barnes AD |url=https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/258507-overview#a3|title=Coitus interruptus|website=Medscape.com|access-date=24 July 2019|archive-date=29 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190729011847/https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/258507-overview#a3|url-status=live}}</ref>

== Disadvantages ==
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.<ref name="cont tech 18" />  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.<ref name=Trusell95>{{cite journal | vauthors = Trussell J, Leveque JA, Koenig JD, London R, Borden S, Henneberry J, LaGuardia KD, Stewart F, Wilson TG, Wysocki S | display-authors = 6 | title = The economic value of contraception: a comparison of 15 methods | journal = American Journal of Public Health | volume = 85 | issue = 4 | pages = 494–503 | date = April 1995 | pmid = 7702112 | pmc = 1615115 | doi = 10.2105/AJPH.85.4.494 }}</ref>

The method is largely ineffective in the prevention of [[Sexually transmitted disease|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.<ref name="HIV study" />

== Prevalence ==
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.<ref>{{cite web|year=2002|title=Family Planning Worldwide: 2002 Data Sheet|url=http://www.prb.org/pdf/FamPlanWorldwide_Eng.pdf|publisher=Population Reference Bureau|access-date=2006-09-14|archive-date=2006-09-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060926131701/http://www.prb.org/pdf/FamPlanWorldwide_Eng.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Kavanaugh ML, Jerman J | title = Contraceptive method use in the United States: trends and characteristics between 2008, 2012 and 2014 | journal = Contraception | volume = 97 | issue = 1 | pages = 14–21 | date = January 2018 | pmid = 29038071 | pmc = 5959010 | doi = 10.1016/j.contraception.2017.10.003 }}</ref> 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,<ref name = "Jones_2009" /> and for adolescents from 7.1% of sole withdrawal use to 14.6% of any withdrawal use in 2006–2008.<ref name = "Hatcher_2018">{{Cite book | vauthors = Hatcher RA, Nelson AL, Trussell J, Cwiak C, Cason P, Policar MS, Aiken AR, Marrazzo J, Kowal D | title=Contraceptive technology |isbn=978-1-7320556-0-5|edition=21st | date = September 2018 |location=New York, NY|oclc=1048947218}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Higgins JA, Wang Y | title = Which young adults are most likely to use withdrawal? The importance of pregnancy attitudes and sexual pleasure | journal = Contraception | volume = 91 | issue = 4 | pages = 320–7 | date = April 2015 | pmid = 25530102 | pmc = 4373981 | doi = 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.12.005 }}</ref>

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.<ref name = "Jones_2009" /> These increases are even more pronounced for adolescents 15 to 19 years old and young women 20 to 24 years old<ref name = "Hatcher_2018" /> 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.<ref name="Daniels_2017">{{cite journal | vauthors = Daniels K, Abma JC | title = Unmarried Men's Contraceptive Use at Recent Sexual Intercourse: United States, 2011-2015 | journal = NCHS Data Brief | issue = 284 | pages = 1–8 | date = August 2017 | pmid = 29155680 | url = https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db284.pdf | publisher = National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) | access-date = 2020-07-20 | archive-date = 2019-12-03 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191203092503/https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db284.pdf | url-status = live }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Daniels_2017" />

For 1998, about 18% of married men in Turkey reported using withdrawal as a contraceptive method.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Distribution-of-married-mens-currently-uses-condom-withdrawal-and-other-contraceptive_tbl1_7449952|title=Distribution of married men's use of condom, withdrawal, and other contraceptive means|website= ResearchGate|access-date=August 13, 2022}}</ref>

== See also ==
* ''[[Coitus reservatus]]'' 
* ''[[Coitus saxonicus]]'' 
* [[Masturbation]]

== References ==
{{Reflist|30em}}

== External links ==
* [http://www.religiousconsultation.org/islam_contraception_abortion_in_SacredChoices.htm Contraception and abortion in Islam]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110430203244/http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/withdrawal.htm Withdrawal]

{{Spoken Wikipedia|date=2023-08-04|En-Coitus interruptus-article.ogg}}

{{Birth control methods}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Coitus Interruptus}}
[[Category:Methods of birth control]]
[[Category:Contraception for males]]
[[Category:Latin words and phrases]]