Time for another NFP pet peeve. I know, it seems like I'm ragging on NFP a lot, which may seem rather strange considering I'm a BOM instructor; however, my beef isn't with NFP, but with the way it is sometimes presented. Now that I'm starting to give presentations on it, I don't want to fall into some of these pitfalls.
I get rather irritated when using NFP is presented in such a rosy light that the sacrifices are just glossed over. By all means, mention any potential benefits, but don't make it sound like it'll make your married life be all lollipops and rainbows. Yes, it can lead to increased communication, considering the couple must discuss the chart regularly, but it won't magically solve any communication problems (believe me), and if the couple are relying on NFP to ensure they're communicating, then they have bigger problems.
I do think it does the couples a real disservice to mention any potential benefits to the exclusion of mentioning that it also requires sacrifice. Sacrifice isn't a bad thing, in fact it can help lead us to holiness, but that doesn't mean it's easy, and this needs to be explained. Of course, it also needs to be said that marriage in and of itself is a sacrifice, whether one uses NFP or not (and I'm not convinced that using NFP should be the norm, though I will also say that I do not think charting is necessarily synonymous with NFP, and I love the knowledge that charting gives me). Back on topic. One reason I think this does the couples a disservice is that they may wonder what's wrong with them if they aren't experiencing this sunshiny existence when using NFP. I know I felt like that, and yet I didn't speak of it, because I figured I was just the odd person out. Maybe I am, I don't know, but when I gave the presentation for Engaged Encounter, I decided to be upfront about the sacrifice it entails. I also felt like the couples appreciated my candour with that.
Actually, that brings up another point. If we paint NFP as being nothing but sunshine, then will the couples actually believe us and turn to NFP if they have a just reason to postpone pregnancy (or want to conceive)? I don't know the answer, but I do know that I'm sceptical of things when no sacrifice is mentioned, because I think that just about anything that is worth it requires sacrifice.
To sum up my thoughts: teach about NFP, but give an accurate, realistic picture instead of an idealised version that doesn't exist in reality (at least in my limited experience).
Hear, hear!
ReplyDeleteWe were given the idealised version. Then we began NFP for the first time postpartum. Let me just say in our experience NFP entailed abstaining all bar one or two days a cycle (if we were lucky!) and resulted in a surprise pregnancy after just 7 months of charting. So yeah, we followed a well-known method faithfully, hardly ever had intercourse and still got pregnant.
Then I look into the stats and find that NFP's efficacy rate takes a deep dive for postpartum women. In real terms, a new mother has about a 25% chance of conceiving while using NFP to avoid pregnancy in the early return of her fertility. Funny, I don't remember being told *that.*
It doesn't help that popular Catholic authors like Gregory Popcak tout the main methods of NFP (Creighton, Billings, Marquette and Sympto-thermal) as being "proven" over 99% effective. I did some research into that. Firstly, the STM hasn't been properly studied, so their claims cannot be verified. Secondly, I have deep reservations about how Creighton classifies events in pregnancy evaluations to be method or user failure related. Thirdly, third party evaluations usually show the methods to be a bit under 99% effective, but this figure doesn't really matter so much because it's "perfect use" and frankly, we don't live in a perfect world. Give people the typical use (or real use, if you like) figures too. They're favourably comparable to the figures for the most popular contraceptive approaches, so there's no fear of driving people away in actually being realistic.
Gregory Popcak and Christopher West also assert that NFP only requires about 7 days abstinence a cycle. (Well, Popcak does say 7-10 days.) Most couples who really do wish to avoid pregnancy and observe average length cycles will need to abstain for 10-12 days on average, in most methods. Where did this seven come from? *shrug*
Oh, and nobody ever mentions the long periods of abstinence often required postpartum. Let me put it this way, my youngest child was born almost 3 months ago and we have had a total of *one* day where abstinence has not been required. I'm on various discussion boards and note the many posts of frustration and anguish, particularly from the newly postpartum and/or breastfeeding women doing NFP.
I believe NFP is worthwhile. I believe it contains the best methods available for couples who wish to avoid or achieve pregnancy. It has all the benefits its proponents claim for it. However, let's all be upfront about the limitations in addition to the benefits.
Thanks for being honest! It's appreciated. Better for people to know the truth and choose NFP, than be sucked in by unfairly rosy description and turn off NFP. Bad press.
Very well said, Susan! I agree. Actually, I guess you could say the same for ANYONE promoting birth control of any kind - give the facts : the good, bad, and the ugly. People need to be informed!
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, Danielle, this goes for anything. I was just talking about this because it's in my head, since I recently spoke about it. :-)
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, Viatrix, I totally agree. I remember reading about the average numbers of days of abstinence, and thinking, "hmm, they certainly aren't looking at my chart", but I didn't say anything. I got incredibly frustrated after having Kieran, because there would be random interruptions to the BIP, which of course means a minimum of 4 days abstinence, and it was super frustrating. Now I pretty much go with ecological breastfeeding, while charting but not necessarily following the rules.