Pre-ejaculate: Difference between revisions

Line 105: Line 105:
  |volume=99 Suppl 2
  |volume=99 Suppl 2
  |pages=S38–41
  |pages=S38–41
|url=https://www.thaiscience.info/Journals/Article/JMAT/10986029.pdf
  |pubmedID=27266214
  |pubmedID=27266214
  |issn=0125-2208
  |issn=0125-2208
}}</ref> Popular belief&nbsp;dating to a 1966 Masters and Johnson study<ref>{{REFbook
|format=PDF
}}</ref> Popular belief&nbsp; —  dating to a 1966 Masters and Johnson study<ref>{{REFbook
  |last=Masters
  |last=Masters
  |init=WH
  |init=WH
Line 115: Line 117:
  |location=Boston, MA
  |location=Boston, MA
  |page=211
  |page=211
}}</ref>&nbsp;stated that pre-ejaculate may contain sperm that can cause pregnancy, which is a common basis of argument against the use of ''coitus interruptus'' (withdrawal) as a contraceptive method.<ref name=zukerman/><ref name="HIV">{{REFjournal
}}</ref>&nbsp; —  stated that pre-ejaculate may contain sperm that can cause pregnancy, which is a common basis of argument against the use of ''coitus interruptus'' (withdrawal) as a contraceptive method.<ref name=zukerman/><ref name="HIV">{{REFjournal
  |title=Researchers find no sperm in pre-ejaculate fluid
  |title=Researchers find no sperm in pre-ejaculate fluid
  |journal=Contraceptive Technology Update
  |journal=Contraceptive Technology Update