Talk:Menstrual cup

+++Is no one going to challenge the 'stem cell ' issue? ++++ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.253.20 (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not appropriate

This whole article is disgusting. Do you realize a little boy could read this? 99.4.104.22 (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Maritha

WP:NOTCENSORED, there are plenty of pages on Wikipedia that some would find offensive - this is probably one of the minor ones - suggest you miss out reading List of sex positions.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I find your attitude disgusting. Heaven forbid we have a factual article on a female hygiene product. Maybe your little boy shouldn't be allowed unsupervised on the internet. Etimodnar (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

i find it fully appropriate as i am a 18 year old wanting to know what it is and facts about it...whether or not your son sees it is your problem. maybe you should block wikipedia if you are so against it or like they said maybe supervise your son —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.47.59 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

In general, it's important that we all know about human anatomy. If your son ever has daughters, the sooner he learns about these things, the better. He won't feel awkward about the matter. I believe sustainability is key in this particular article, though. Mccojr02 03:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Full menstrual cup?

Hi, could we get a pic of a Full menstrual cup on this page? Definitely would be of encyclopedic value. Thanks. Big Wig Pig (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Full... As in an image of a cup? Or as in, filled with fluids? I think it's fair to nix the second. Certifiablenerd (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Certifiablenerd

Full cup can be done. You may need to get permission to use this image first, though. mccojr02 (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Testimonials should not be present. It is not in the nature of an encyclopaedia. If you really must explore the pros and cons, make sure that both sides are represented and create a "Discussions about the value of the menstrual cup" type section. This is not an ad for the things. Margaridas (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Disadvantages

The article is considered bias to me as it does NOT mention the disadvantages. I tried the cup for two months. After only the fourth day, the cup smelled awful. Yes, I cleaned it, but it still reeked no matter HOW well I cleaned it. The second disadvantage I found was messiness. Fingers get messy; there's blood everywhere; you have to dig into your vulva and then your vagina just to put it in and to pull it out; the rubber snaps back into a circle before you want it to while putting in/pulling out, causing blood to splash out. In other words: a gross bloody MESS! You would have to carry around a LOT of wipes just to clean your hands after use because you do NOT want to put on/touch your clothes with blood on it. The last disadvantage (if the rest wasn't enough) is needing to change it in public or at a friends. You literally have to pull your jeans completely off just so you can spread you legs wide enough to see what you're doing. Sorry but it's virtually impossible NOT to keep an eye on what you're doing, AND you also need that wide space for your arms to reach into your vagina. How wonderful. Your clothes are half off you or lying on the dirty floor. Nice. -Ms ariz (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It has a steep learning curve, those issues become no longer a problem with practice. you can say the same things are wrong with tampons. I had similar problems first starting out, however, after the 2nd month the issues you state were no longer an issue. I'm sorry you had a bad experience but it was more user error than anything else. not necessarily a "disadvantage" -Stregamama (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to the discussion (by over a year), but I agree that the advantages/disadvantages section is certainly biased. Without references cited I would say that all the claims made should be removed. While I don't believe Ms ariz's opinion is specifically valid, there is validity in the fact that, while there are a bunch of uncited "pro" claims, there are very few "con" claims (cited or otherwise). This just reeks of untrustable information and doesn't belong in an wikipedia. 71.195.176.149 (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the list of advantages/disadvantages should stay, but not written or read as gospel. For example, using qualifiers such as "the first few tries can be difficult" vs "the first few tries are difficult". Anyone interested in using a menstrual cup would want to know some of the advantages or disadvantages to using the item, so I believe that it does belong on wikipedia. Mccojr02 03:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The article was clearly written in a pro-biased viewpoint. MsAziz experience IS valid, IMHO. Claiming that after a few months issue dissappears is the worst sort of confirmation biased trash that we need to prevent here. Do you even know what confirmation bias is?? I have done some minor tweaking of the advantages and disadvantages sections. There was some really unacceptable stuff. Insertion (especially for young girls close to menarche) can obviously be painful. If one of you women actually believes that to not be a disadvantage, perhaps and S&M forum would be more appropriate for you? I have left alone the odor and mess issues and have not added the claims (which I find believeable - but without reference) that new users experience difficulty and compromising positioning when inserting and removing.

I did some research and am adding more disadvantages. From Mayo clinic and WebMD

One point I want to make, question I have. I challenge the claim that the cups are more environmentally friendly. The term is not defined and has been used OFTEN by both sides of many environmental debates. I suggest its removal unless it can be documented. Biodegradeable cellulosic and polymeric pad or tampons can be MORE eco-friendly" than silicone rubber (requiring high energy input and lots of industrial chemicals) even if they silicone ones last for years. THe question of sustainability and "freindliness" can not be arrived at intuitively. You need to factor all the costs of each option: pad, package, application tool, tampon, waste disposal, cleaners (and water usage), manufacture, resources...71.31.148.44 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Remove availability section

I do not think the list of availability of menstrual cup should be put here, as it is not encyclopedic. While names of pioneering companies that produced it may be mentioned in its history, it is not necessary to list all manufacturers, and which region they are available. See sanitary napkin, that article doesn't list which companies are producing which type of pad for which part of the world. Some may argue that this page is the only place they can rely for various information about menstrual cup, but unfortunately it cannot stay as it is. I suggest an external page be made somewhere, and this page may link or refer to it. -Syockit (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This may sound biased, but Wikipedia is the go-to source for information. When I do a web search for anything, wikipedia is most often within the top five hits for any given subject. If a woman wants to know about menstrual cups, she may also want to know which are available and where. I feel that the availability list should stay, as long as no favor is shown for one over the others. Mccojr02 03:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There are almost no good reasons to link to commercial sites and, indeed, commercial links should almost always be promptly removed unless they are the official site of the topic at hand (for example, the site for the Diva Cup would be totally appropriate on an article about the Diva Cup, but not on a general article about menstrual cups). It really doesn't matter whether or not we show favoritism or not as Wikipedia is not a vessel for product promotion. If people want to buy the product, there are a vast array of ways for them to do so. Please review WP:ELNO. If you disagree, I suggest you take it to WP:ELN and get discussion from a much larger group of editors. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 03:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality and other room for improvement

Forgive me if I'm making mistakes, I'm brand new to editing Wikipedia. I think this page needs improvement -- I tidied up a few spots where it seemed to be an advertisement for menstrual cups, specifically "Instead Softcups." The Advantages and Disadvantages need work -- perhaps they could be re-phrased as "Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages"? I'm not sure what to do about the Stem Cell Research section -- I'd suggest that needs re-writing and more medical references to back the claims. No time for that tonight... The Hygina company does appear to exist though & they do offer this service (!!). Monalisa j (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Stem cell research section

I deleted this brief section because it had unverifiable claims with no references & otherwise just promoted a few companies. Perhaps it is a point of interest as an application of menstrual cups -- the collection of menstrual blood for various purposes -- but this would require the development of such a section (or perhaps another article/ section under Menstruation?) including other uses/ applications. My music teacher's wife collected her menstrual blood and used it as food for her plants -- I'm sure she wasn't the only one! An example of a recent article that discusses the issues around menstrual blood banking is: Fannin, M. (2011). Personal stem cell banking and the problem with property. Social & Cultural Geography, 12(4), 339-356. doi:10.1080/14649365.2011.574795 Monalisa j (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that it had been tagged as unverifiable/ citation needed several months ago, so seems fair to remove when following Wikipedia:Verifiability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monalisa j (talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just adding information as I found it.
mccojr02 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)