Talk:Bulbourethral gland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bulbourethral gland article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 From 1918 edition of Gray's anatomy 2 Purpose? 3 Contradiction 4 Contraceptive success rates

[edit] From 1918 edition of Gray's anatomy

This article is taken from the public domain text of the 1918 edition of Gray's anatomy, and so may not reflect modern anatomical knowledge -- please update as necessary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.253.40.233 (talk) 23:18, February 15, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose?

So what is its purpose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.88.193 (talk) 16:24, June 16, 2005 (UTC)

To provide information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.92.222 (talk) 13:21, November 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

The article states

Their existence is said to be constant: they gradually diminish in size as age advances.

Diminishing constants? The new variable? Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.76.75 (talk) 14:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is contradictory. And maybe completely unnecessary. The existence of arms and legs could be said to be constant as well. Suggest deleting the first part altogether, and simply state that they can diminish in size over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffro77 (talk • contribs) 05:06, November 24, 2005

Personal experience would indicate that they become more productive as age (65+) advances. Would this also mean that in fact they are not diminishing in size? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.103.165 (talk) 07:45, November 19, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contraceptive success rates

It has been shown that Coitus interruptus, or the withdrawal method of birth control, has a 4% success rate, compared to Male condom's 98%, female condom's 95% and diaphrams 94% (all with perfect use).

This is uncited and makes no sense -- if coitus interruptus has a 4% success rate as a birth control method, that would mean that sex using it has a 96% pregnancy rate (which is much higher than totally unprotected sex). I'm removing this line. 66.66.80.251 18:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)