Talk:Menstrual cup/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

This

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)

Good point, I will try to round up some sources.  :) fabiform | talk 07:58, 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.

---That doesn't make sense. The whole thing is that tampons provide a nice cushy warm wet hangout for bacteria. Bleedingcherub (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

---

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."

Misinformation is rampant in this talk page. "the keeper" is made of latex rubber a KNOWN ALLERGEN, all other menstrual cups are made from medical grade silicone. it's a totally different material so you can't make a blanket statement that all menstrual cups cause uti's because that's just not so.

Also, Toxic Shock syndrome has been known to be caused by the ABSORPTION of tampons, and menstrual cups don't ABSORB at all.

The only point I want to add to the discussion as to whether or not the menstrual cups cause infections, I think the important part to remember is with proper cleaning, everything will be fine. Putting anything inside your vagina that isn't clean would cause infection. The benefit of the cup over tampons and pads is that the user personally can clean the cup with natural products instead of the bleach that is used with tampons and pads. (http://www.divacup.com/ - in the FAQ section: Is the Diva Cup Sanitary? and What about Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS)?) --canadianehme

Does anyone know of actual studies done on the safety of menstrual cups? More I only know of one study in progress conducted by the University of British Columbia. They are testing the Divacup. Women write a diary about their experiences with the cup and if they cause any urinary infections and such, so it's only using anecdotal data... Source> http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00397202;jsessionid=0B46F06A14EE23B24379D2874631D3F3?order=19 --154.20.59.161 03:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)pragmatic.fool

Is this "talk page" still an ongoing issue? Most of the points made here seem to have been removed from the article? I'm wondering if this article is neutral enough yet? The only comment I wanted to add is that it seems very Americo-centric with all the talk about the "FDA" and other US-specific references. For a good encyclopedic style it should be geographically neutral, as well as everything else.

Why does this even matter? It's like saying that taking vitamins won't give you AIDS. --160.39.177.228 (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Madmedea 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC) I'm with you on this one - to become encylopaedia style it needs trimming down substantially.

No don't prune it! I had never heard of these before and the article was just perfect. I wouldn't want it any shorter; I learned just what I needed to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.70.33 (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added a cleanup template to help address this issue. It suggests that the instructional/advisory content may be suitable for Wikibooks; if so, a link to that article can be added to this article. B7T (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

I tried to clean up the Advantages/Disadvantages section. I think I did a pretty good job, so I went ahead and removed the copyedit tag-thingy on that part. (I'm a bit new to this whole wiki business, so if I broke some taboo, I'm sorry!) Feel free to fix it up more. Mirmadon 15:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

This is anatomy! All women are different inside one is short and another is longer inside! And the vagina does not run from down to upp as many of us think!!! when sitting down the vagina goes parallell with the surface you sit on! Almost horisontally! So how the pictures are drawn is not that important the just have to show that the correct placement is low in the vagina and this is best shown by enlongating the vaginalcanal that exactly

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)

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.

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) .

Mooncup - A Little Bit of Her Story Menstrual cups were developed in the 1930s and went on commercial sale at around the same time as the first tampon. In that early post-Victorian era it was not considered ‘proper’ for women to touch their vaginal area. The manufacturers of the tampon overcame this obstacle by providing those disposable applicators that can still be found floating in our toilet bowls today! Menstrual cups require a ‘hands on’ approach and were only purchased by the most liberal minded woman in those days.

Commercially, the tampon is a more viable product, as customers need to repurchase month after month In contrast menstrual cup manufacturers do not expect to make repeat sales to satisfied customers, only to their friends and relations! Sadly such intimate matters were not discussed in polite company back in the 1930s. Sales of tampons soared and massive advertising campaigns were launched. Disposable feminine hygiene products soon became established necessities in modern western society.

Menstrual cups and washable sanitary towels really began to gain popularity during the 1980s as women began searching for eco-friendly (and cheaper) alternatives to disposable products. Until the Mooncup became available menstrual cups were made from latex, which is derived from the sap of the gum tree.

Latex rubber is a known allergen. Reactions can vary from very mild irritation, itchiness and swelling to pins and needles and loss of sensation. Latex is also unsuitable for vegans as casein, a milk protein, is used in the curing process. The Mooncup is the world’s first menstrual cup to be manufactured from medical grade silicone, a safer, softer and more attractive material. Silicone is derived from silica, found in sandstone and quartz, one of the most abundant resources on our planet. The Mooncup is registered with the Vegan Society.

The motivation behind the Mooncup is the well being of our world. We are careful to ensure that our waste is reused where possible and recycled where reuse is inappropriate. All leaflets and packaging are produced from materials that are sourced with regard to their having the least impact upon our environment. The Mooncup storage pouch is manufactured from 100% organic cotton. Our bankers were selected on the basis of their ethical investment policies. In December 2004 the Ethical Company Organisation (publishers of the Good Shopping Guide) certified Mooncup Ltd an Ethical Company. This recognises a commitment to a people and animal friendly approach, efforts with regard to environmental issues, responsible marketing and general caring nature.

The Mooncup was voted Best New Product by a team of independent retailers at the Natural Trade Show in March 2003.

The Vegetarian Society approved the Mooncup in May 2004 and the Vegan Society members voted it the Best Environmentally Friendly Product in November 2004.

Opinion on the hazards

I think that if the cup is a bit moist when inserted and fingernails are kept short enough, there is a negligable risk for any ulcerations or bruises. Also it is very important that hands (especially under your nails) are clean so that you're not carrying any extra bacteria to your vagina. And what comes for the urinary tract infections, I myself try to pee atleast a bit after inserting the cup to cleanse the area. Drinking enough fluids is also essential in warding off those infections. I'd like to see more information on the cup concerning the TSS and those "blood-borne pathogens". Although I think it's only question of personal hygiene and possibly belonging to a risk group to have such from the cup. --84.231.107.79 19:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Urine is not sterile

Line 65 says Urine may be used to rinse .... as urine is a sterile liquid. This is not true. Although urine in the urinary bladder may be sterile (?) it is contaminated by many bacteria during its passage through the urethra. TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 18:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Have not been known to lengthen a woman's period.
Do not interfere with the vagina's natural sloughing off of dead cells.
Citations for these would be good. A quick google came up with no other relevant hits other than this article. The first sounds particularly like the urban legend of companies putting fiberglass in tampons to generate higher sales.
Can be inserted at any time of the month. This allows a woman to practice inserting the cup or to insert the cup when she is expecting her period, instead of having to wait for it to begin.
This isn't really an exclusive feature of the cup. Insertion of a tampon (or anything else, for that matter) doesn't require menstruation, so this is somewhat illogical. 124.185.240.166 12:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Actually, if you insert a tampon when you are not menstruating it will be painful to remove it and I believe it can damage you (ya know internally), I don't know if it is the same with the cups or not, but although the only source I have for this is experience and my mother I can tell you it is not a good idea to insert a tampon when you are not menstruating or have irregular blood flow and are out of your lites --U 67.176.141.168 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

rubber/latex

"Some women are allergic to rubber as a result of the latex content."

It's *made* of rubber so women allergic to latex can use it? Is that what's going on here?

Bleedingcherub (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Either the sentence is poorly worded and is meant to warn against use by those with a latex allergy, or it means that exposure to latex cups can lead to a latex allergy. B7T 20:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

External links

External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience. Please read the external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medicine-related articles) before adding more external links.

The following kinds of links are inappropriate:

• Online discussion groups or chat forums
• Personal webpages and blogs
• Multiple links to the same website
• Websites that are recruiting for clinical trials
• Websites that are selling things (e.g., books or memberships)

I realize that some links are helpful to certain users, but they still do not comply with Wikipedia policy, and therefore must not be included in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can have this link? http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article4833447.ece

--78.86.146.148 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

History

I've added to the history, as it wasn't entirely correct. But I am not sure how to do cite references - using the MUM site's patent reproductions and reference as proof of dates etc. (I'm onlt fairly new to wiki editing)

I also tightened up the first section where it had said that there were cups available for sale in (and listed where each cup is made), which is misleading because there are French stockists, Australian stockists etc. So I've removed those and just left it to online and retail stores around the world, and put those country links to the brand name they belong to. Rather than the confusing statement about the fact that Mooncup is not the same a Moon Cup, I've put the country they are manufactured in after the name, which takes any confusion away without having to directly mention the fact they have the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purple obsidian (talk • contribs) 03:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Advertising

Come on, this is propaganda. Delete article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.219.196.212 (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sanitary Issues

I was doing some research for a market research project on various feminine hygiene devices and methods and ran across this page (yes, I thought I ought to mention that, since I figure any affiliation of any writer to any organization with interests is something the public should know). Seemed to me like this article was written by someone getting paid for it, as it makes my marketing radar go off.

My thoughts: Just because the manufacturer claims 12 hours is alright doesn't mean it's healthy... Just means that it's highly unlikely to kill you. Keeping an airtight seal for a while on any bodily discharges inside the body generally doesn't facilitate cleanliness. Decay, rather... I've encountered this product in my personal (read: intimate) experience before, but the girl explained it as a device for brief use during physical intimacy or other activities where pads or tampons are not a viable option, yet bleeding all over the place is also highly undesirable. That - I understand, and see how it is a perfectly acceptable product if a woman needs to go swimming for an hour, has a squeamish sexual partner, or is uncomfortable about him seeing her period.

However - wearing the thing for 12 hours?! That just seems dangerous. Sealing in anything that your body wants out is generally not the best of ideas... And unlike tampons or pads, it doesn't absorb anything, but simply keeps it in and exposed to the user's intimate area. Add longer times between changes and an airtight warm confined space - and it starts sounding like the recipe for decay.

That's my two cents. Feel free to keep in mind that I'm here studying up for a market research project and that I'm male and no expert on this (the prudent reader would do well to suspect bias or ignorance). 128.195.186.36 (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Adieu

• Yeah, just got to this article. Definitely reads like a product brochure/ piece of new-age Feminazi propaganda. Lots of the statements made are entirely unverifiable and opinionated. Tagged this stuff, and hope the great wise ones of TehWiki take heed of our cries.

67.159.67.164 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left my menstrual cup in for up to forty eight hours and nothing at all unusual or bad has happened. And you don't need a menstrual cup to go swimming or to be sexually intimate (minus coitus) without contacting blood. You can do those with tampons. It's just my personal experience and opinion, but tampons and pads are awful.CerealBabyMilk (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

128.195.186.36- The disposables are different from the reusables- the disposables will block menstruation while permitting intercourse, but only briefly, while collecting the fluid in a shallow polyurethane bag at the top of the vagina. The reusables sort of collect it in a silicone or rubber cup that hangs below the vulva and you wouldn't be able to experience coitus with it in, because the cup takes up all the room. As for sanitation, my experience has been that wearing a tampon vs. reusable cup is a bit like the difference between having a cotton ball tucked in one cheek versus wearing a mouth guard- it *feels* more sanitary, not less... you can leave in a tampon for up to 8 hours, so up to 12 for the cup sounds about right, to me. WikiRSB (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Menstrual blood is not unsanitary until it leaves your body. Bacteria get at it while it's on pads and such, but when it's collected... it's the same as it it when it's still in your uterus. No harm done. Not like a tampon which is a habour for whatever micro-organisms in a dark moist area. The best way I can describe this is if you kept a wet sponge in a dark place and a full covered cup in the same place. The sponge will start to smell because of bacteria, but the cup will be fine. Keep in mind that menstrual fluids are not waste! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.209.215 (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Religious problems

One of the disadvantages stated is: "Both types of cups may break the hymen, making them unsuitable for those belonging to religious groups where high value is placed on having an intact hymen upon marriage. " Such religious groups surely (I say as a member of one) require virginity upon marriage, not an intact hymen, which is by no means the same thing. Centuries ago (it is rumoured) proof of virginity was expected, in the form of a stain from hymenal blood, but this ritual is not practiced today. Perhaps the disadvantage should be re-phrased to imply that people may perceive the problem as such, although in reality using a menstrual cup does not result in a loss of virginity? 129.67.127.65 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is still practiced in many places where the cup is available. One such place is in France where there was a fairly recent uproar about a judge who annulled a marriage (in 2006, I believe) based upon the claim of the husband that the wife was not a virgin. This sort of concern is still viable for an international website. - Apithonor

Sources

The article looks a an unsubstantiated mess, and needs more sources to back it up. The problem is scrounging out the research... I know it's there, it just needs to be sourced. 124.170.164.174 (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)