Talk:Menstrual cup
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article says menstrual cups are not associated with toxic shock syndrome. I would like to see an external link to studies on this to prove that it is an NPOV statement. What does the FDA have to say about them? It just sounds too good to be true and I am concerned that the article is not neutral enough. Either show both sides, or give more documentation. --zandperl 02:53, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I have heard that while no cases have been reported, there is the same risk of getting TSS as using tampons. I don't know why, and this seems to go against most of the things all over the web about menstrual cups. Their main point seems to be that this eliminates the risk of TSS. However, I ordered one, and while it makes no mention of this on the website..the instructions that came with it said not to use if the wearer has ever had TSS in the past. I wonder why that is? That put me off. I'll try contact the company and report back.
The reason a person is not supposed to use these if they have had TSS is that once you have had that kind of bacterial imballance in the vagina it is not advisable to use any internal femanine protection for menstration. This is mostly because once you've had it your are more susceptible and the companies do not want to get sued if they say "does not lead to tss" and then you contract it.
Re: peer review. I mostly just skimmed, but overall the article looks good, and quite thorough! I agree with Zandperl that some NPOV work may be needed, since much of the article reads sort of like a product brochure. Back up any potentially controversial statements with references. The only other minor point is the use of second-person narratives like "you" within the article. I think third-person narrative is better, but that's mostly a personal preference (and any how-to-oriented stuff is obviously better to have in second person - though I still think it's good to avoid the word "you" where possible). Nice illustrations! -- Wapcaplet 20:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure when I was writing the "you" bits if it was really the right style. I'll do a search and destroy on them tomorrow. :) You can tell I read a few product brochures when writing this, can't you! I'll spend some time in the next day or two to note my sources or find new ones. I think the article is reasonably NPOV though (assuming that all my "facts" are indeed correct, which I think they are). I know they're approved by the FDA, and presumably by the relevant British/Canadian authorities, so I will see if I can find anything official. Thanks for taking the time to proof-read - it got quite long! fabiform | talk 21:02, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
- I've seen them for sale in Canada, so they're presumably approved here. HEL 15:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is currently being discussed on the menstrual cup community on LiveJournal (menstrual_cups: Wikipedia), particularly regarding the illustrations of the inserted products.
Re safety concerns regarding toxic shock syndrome, the Menstrual Product Safety page at The Museum of Menstruation and Women's Health refers to an article that appeared in the journal Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1994. --Oddharmonic 18:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
~ I have a questions and a few things to show you, does anyone have any proper information on the risk of "blood borne pathogens" when using a menstrual cup? I read it on mum.org but the letter writer hasn't provided evidence for her alarming claims.
" I have some real problems with your advocating menstrual cups. I have no taboos about menstruation or my body in general - that's not my objection. Those cups are VERY unsafe. Blood-borne pathogens love the things; they multiply like crazy! I'm not sure why they are so much more dangerous than tampons, but they are. Study after study I've seen quoted confirms that. I think this is another example of feminism run riot; people want to "be free with their bodies" and forget to do some basic scientific investigation first. By the way, this problem with the menstrual cups is the same thing that prompted the FDA to withdraw the cervical cups (used for contraception) from the market; the incidence of Toxic Shock Syndrome skyrocketed in women who used those things. Take care!"
The website asked the letter writer to send references to the studies she mentioned or the studies themselves but none have been posted. (http://www.mum.org/olnews61.htm)
One theory there: http://www.menses.co.uk/board/messages/52/126.html?SundayJune920020558pm
Also I've read using a cup can cause Urinary Tract Infections. As a quick example it even mentions this on the keeper's website FAQs: "Q: What about possible infections? Occasionally, some women find that The Keeper will aggravate a urinary tract infection (UTI). If you have any tendencies toward dehydration or UTI's, you might want to try drinking extra water during the time you will be using The Keeper, to help prevent this."
Contents |
[edit] Pruning?
This seems like a good and interesting article, but perhaps a bit too long and detailed? It reads more like a manual than an encyclopaedia article, and there seems to be quite a lot of duplication, for example on how to wash the cup. Flapdragon 01:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree -- there's something a little off about the wording for my NPOV tastes. The information compiled is excellent, and the links look good too, but it does come off as a "manual," and oftentimes a "tampon vs. cup" debate. Any suggestions on how to improve the content?--Marysunshine 02:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyediting
This is a great article, with lots of good detail. But too often, it drifts out of encyclopaedia-land and into how-to-manual land. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Using phrases like "some women" does not constitute escape from the second person; a truly neutral voice should be used. Some of the lists are also not written with consistant voice. I've done some basic cleanup today, but more more work is needed. Vectro 19:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Contradiction/Redundancy
Section 2, "Insertion and Virginity" seems to overlap quite a bit with Section 5, "Insertion, Removal, and Cleaning." The duplicated material should be in one or the other section, but not both.
Worse, the duplicated material sometimes contradicts. Section 2 says that washing before reinsertion is not necessary, whereas section 5 says that it is recommended. Section 3 says that the cups will not develop an odor, but section 5 says that they may. There are probably other implicit or explicit contradictions that need to be cleared up.
Vectro 19:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure how much of the material needs to stay in the article, frankly. I do believe the cups come with manuals, and perhaps we could even link to one for further details. Section 5 could be taken out altogether, adding information if necessary to other sections, and section 4 doesn't really fit either (although its content is arguably more pertinent, and could be rearranged/reedited to take out its current bias toward cups). I'm hesitant to make such bold edits without gathering some sort of consensus, however -- any objections? --Marysunshine 03:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
About the washing: it is recommended but can be skipped if needed (e.g. in public restrooms). Also, the probability of developing an odor depends on the brand, the ones made of silicone are unlikely to, but the ones made of latex are more porous. When I have some time I'll hunt for the implicit contradictions. maffalda 13 June 2006
- I moved the section on "insertion and verginity" and changed the word virginity to something more specific. It makes more sense that way, and the redundancy will be easier to see and fix. I'm making a personal not to come back and edit this section (and others) when I have time.
The article also strongly recommends washing with soap and water, when quite a lot of women find that using even the mildest of soaps, whether for washing a menstrual cup or for washing the vulva, will cause vulval and/or vaginal irritation. In some cases, recurrent yeast infections occur until the woman stops using soap. There are plenty of other ways of cleaning a cup (though if you boil it, don't leave it on the stove for too long, a few people have burnt theirs to ashes). A cleaning method that is left out is using sterilising solution or tablets in water, which is highly efficient (it's good for removing odour and discoloration, for instance) and recommended by some manufacturers. However, I agree that this article could do with some pruning overall, including on the cleaning process.
More importantly, the diagrams aren't correctly proportioned. They show reusable menstral cups to be around a third of the length of the vagina, when in reality they take up most of the vagina, and many women can just about get the cup in at all as long as they trim the stem. Most of the diagrams of this nature that are in existence have the same problem, sadly. The one on the Lunette site is even worse, for instance, showing the vagina as being six times the length of the cup. If I were proportioned along those lines, my uterus would be about level with my nipples!
Elettaria 23:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Inaccuracies
On the DivaCup website, they explicitly state that the DivaCup is no more likely to damage a virgin's hymen than any other internal menstrual device (namely, tampons). But in the "Hymen Concerns" section of the article, it states that a woman with a hymen will need to break it to insert a menstrual cup.
Actually, virgins are known to be able to use menstrual cups without breaking the hymen. It is not necessary to break it, but it may occur in the process of learning to insert. With proper precautions, it is not necessary.
[edit] Insteads vs. reusable cups
I'm not so sure about how it's a "small percentage of women" who can't use Insteads. I co-moderate a menstrual cup forum with over 1500 members, and we constantly get complaints about Insteads, mostly that they leak. People seem to try Insteads for a few cycles as they're cheaper, then switch to reusable cups, perhaps keeping the Insteads for penetrative sex. Most women seem to be fine with menstrual cups once they get past the teething problems, on the other hand. Teething problems for reusable cups are the norm and while they can be pretty unpleasant at first, they are usually resolved within the first one to three cycles (look in the Polls section in the Livejournal Menstrual Cups community in the links, where we did some surveys on this). Incidentally, another poll in that section shows that the cervix is very frequently near the reusable cup, if not actually sitting inside it, contrary to what this article claims.
Elettaria 23:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] images
I just added a photograph of the DivaCup. I'm not sure if it is in the correct position in the tekst.
It would be nice if there were photographs of the other cups as well.
[edit] Not new
Menstrual cups are not new. There was Dainty Maid and Tassette early, then Tassaway,(my personal favorite) a disposable one in 1970-72 that disappeared because of stock market accusations against the company but NEVER was associated with toxic shock, no reports of that type of problem with any of the cups. I think people are afraid of what they see as a new thing when it isn't new at all. That and since is it reusable it would harm the existing pads and tampon industry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.229.211.216 (talk • contribs) .
