Talk:Natural family planning

Comment

any particular reason that the link to Woomb (Billings Method) was removed from the natural family planning page?Wanfactor 16:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Lady Comp (and similar products)

Is this considered inappropriate advertising? I thought the link may be relevant since the product in question is created for the purpose of Natural Family Planning for couples. There are a few other products that are more inexpensive. Would a link to a site reviewing the product (rather than selling it) be better?

• http://omsoul.com/srchNFP.php?srchnfp=Ladycomp
• http://gadgets.engadget.com/2004/08/02/lady-comp/ (outdated price info)
• http://www.ladycomp.com/
• http://www.totallycatholic.com/nfp.htm

• http://www.bioself.com/ (bioself)

• http://www.johnleemd.com/store/more_ovu-tech.html (Ovu-Tech)

About.com also mentions "Persona, Clear Plan" as well as "PFT 1-2-3 Kit, Maybe Baby, Fertility Tracker"... which use different approaches.

My main concern with the LadyComp and other ovulation detectors is their low effectiveness rates when used to avoid pregnancy. They do very poorly when confronted with multiple estrogen peaks, the software for detecting the temperature shift makes occasional errors (it only takes once to get pregnant!), and the clinical experience rules they use pre-o is more liberal than most FA or NFP teachers prefer.

Secondly, if you have the time and motivation to take your temperature and get a saliva reading every day, and do a vaginal reading to confirm post-o status (which doesn't always work) - what's the big deal about taking your temperature and observing cervical mucus when you urinate? It's quite a bit cheaper, a properly trained woman/couple making their own charts is much more effective, and I don't see any reason manual charting is more difficult than using a computerized ovulation detector. Lyrl 00:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Divorce

I added a source for lower divorce statistics. The definition of the article seems problematic since there is no way to objectively tell whether a person is using NFP. It is hard to see how any studies could be performed with such a subjective definition. All studies that I have seen use the objective definition that NFP is a method. It would seem that a better way to distinguish between Fertility Awareness and Natural Family Planning is that FAM permits/encourages the use of a barrier method during the fertile days, while NFP explicitly rejects artificial birth control. Wanfactor 16:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Wanfactor's source for lower divorce statistics clearly shows a strong CORRELATION between the practicing the Ovulation Method of NFP and not getting divorced. The same strong correlation is shown by the CCL source for CCL sympto-thermo and not getting divorced. A correlation, however, is NOT the same as cause-effect. There is good reason to believe that the type of couple who chooses NFP is unlikely to be divorced for reasons unrelated to NFP (strong religious belief against divorce, for example).

No studies have been done that suggest a cause-effect relationship between use of NFP and low divorce rates. I believe the "no convicing socialogical data for this claim has been found" statement should stand.

On the definition, the current description clearly states that "artifical birth control methods and orgasmic acts outside of full marital intercouse are forbidden." That statement might be more appropriate in the introduction; I would not object to it being moved.

Also, observational methods of NFP are FA. So couples practicing one of the observational NFP methods are practicing FA. Depending on their behavior, however, (barrier methods, or orgasmic acts outside of intercourse) not all FA couples are practicing NFP. Breastfeeding infertility (a non-observational method) is also considered NFP as long as the rules against barriers and non-intercourse orgasms are followed. Breastfeeding infertility is not observational, however, and so is not FA.

Also remember that fertility awareness (FA - any practice that results in a woman being aware of her fertility) is different than The Fertility Awareness Method (FAM - a set of sympto-thermo rules taught by Toni Weshler). Lyrl 01:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Convincing is a subjective word. I would rather leave it up to reader as to whether they find the information convincing. I think it would be more precise to say a cause and effect relationship has not been explored.

From what I can see of the literature, fertility awareness can be described as a use (subjective) of an NFP method (objective). From the stance of the organization teaching the method it is correct to call Serena a method of natural family planning. A person could use this method or information for whatever purpose they please. On the other hand, Toni Weshler specifically calls her method FAM perhaps because she does not require that women using her method toabstain.

In fact what I am arguing is that is very difficult to determine a woman's motivation for using NFP, and that this is not a good way of defining NFP. For example, a Catholic woman may use sympto-thermal, but she does is because she is allergic to the Pill. Is she using it for religious reasons, which an outside observer might assume since she is Catholic, or is she using it for health reasons? Or how about a protestant woman uses it because she believes that abortion is wrong, even though her church does not promote NFP? While there is a place to discuss the motivations that a person may have for using a method, I think it simply confuses the issue to take a commonly used term like natural family planning and restrict its definition to a subjective review of a person's motivations.

A person's behaviour is more measurable, and as you say, breastfeeding infertility is not FA, and using a condom is not NFP. I think this is a better basis for defining NFP. A person's religiosity does not need to measured in order to describe their actions. (Though it may be necessary to understand these actions.) Wanfactor 03:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

On NFP and divorce: I agree that saying a cause and effect relationship has not been explored would be more accurate.

On the definition: Hm. What I've seen of the literature, fertility awareness can be described as a method, and NFP can be described as a use. We must be reading different literature. I'm not sure how to resolve that.

I'm not interpreting the article to define NFP as a motivation. Rather, it can be defined in two ways. The first way is as any form of family planning that disallows two behavoirs - 1)Using artificial birth control, and 2)Engaging in orgasmic activity other than intercourse. Because the Roman Catholic Church allows any form of family planning that does not involve those two behavoirs, it is equivalent to say that NFP is any form of family planning approved by the RCC.Lyrl 21:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps NFP could be defined as a set of abstinence based methods of avoiding or achieving pregnancy. Then the definition could incorporate conditions 1 and 2 about using no artificial birth control and prohibiting ejaculation outside of the vagina. The bit about this being religiously motivated could be removed and replaced with a qualified statement that some people use these methods to satisfy religous requirements. Wanfactor 23:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The redefinition sounds fine. Just a thought on "some" people using NFP for religious reasons: the largest NFP organizations that I am aware of (Billings, Creighton, CCL) are affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church. It would seem relevant to include the reasoning the RCC uses for allowing NFP but disallowing other methods of family planning.

An organization may have an affiliation with a particular religious group, but not every person who uses or teaches the method has to. WOOMB in particular makes no religious requirements on the women who use its method or the teachers who teach it. WOOMB believes that its method should be taught to all interested women no matter their religious affiliation or marital status. In fact, I am not convinced that WOOMB considers itself affiliated with the Catholic Church.

A publication by WOOMB at http://www.woomb.org/omrrca/bulletin/vol32/index.html has many articles that appear to be Catholic related. Affiliated is probably not the correct word, but there does appear to be some relationship between WOOMB and Catholisism.Lyrl 01:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please review the changes I made. The definition does not flow smoothly into the description and further changes/ reorganization will be needed.Wanfactor 01:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to change and reoganize as you see fit.Lyrl 01:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Added a NPOV tag - no arguments against this practice or statistics not in favor of it

141.161.124.93 01:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really understanding any reason for the NPOV tag. Are there arguments _for_ NFP in the article? The Catholic rationale is presented - but most people don't consider that a convincing argument.

As far as the statistics go, no effectiveness statistics (other than the vague statement "_some_ forms have effectiveness as high as 99%") are even presented - detailed effectiveness information is located in the Fertility Awareness and Billings articles (which do have references for that 99% figure). For the marriage benefits, it's clearly stated that the studies that have been done did not even address the issue of cause and effect, and that only proponents of NFP even cite those studies.Lyrl 22:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm with the NPOV-taggers on this one. A birth control method article with no discussion of in-use failure rates or reasons not to use the method? Quotes only the highest (99%) success rates? At a minimum, it needs to include more balanced information on failure rates, and a "Disadvantages" section to go with the "Benefits" section. CarbonCopy 22:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is currently focused on the motivation to use this set of methods, rather than the methods themselves. The different methods are gone into in-depth in the fertility awareness article (which currently also covers the statistical and breastfeeding methods, since those entries are currently pretty short). In-use failure rates for each method are discussed there. I'm not sure that needs to be duplicated in this article.

While the 99% statement is, as far as I am aware, undisputed fact, I can see an argument that it is misleading because not _all_ of the methods have that high effectiveness rate. If any user has an idea for removing the 99% figure while still indicating that all other NFP methods have significantly lower failure rates than the Rhythm Method, I would raise no objections.

The NPOV taggers object to the lack of reasons not to use the method and the lack of unfavorable statistics. The disadvantages section sites abstinence which, to my knowledge, is the only objection which has ever been raised against using NFP. As for unfavorable statistics, the only ones I know of apply only to the rhythm method and not to the more modern forms such as Billings, Sympto-Thermal, or Creighton. Given Wikipedia's emphasis on verifiable sources, it would seem that a lack of unfavorable statistics should not, in of itself, constitute an NPOV tag. I was under the impression that the NPOV tag was for pages which deleted criticisms from verifiable sources rather than pages which simply lack criticisms from verifiable sources. Wanfactor 05:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Chastity

Natural Family Planning does prohibit orgasmic acts outside of full marital intercourse. Couple who do not follow this restriction are not practicing NFP; they generally refert to their pregnancy avoidance by the specific method name instead, e.g. 'Billings' or 'Standard Days Method' or 'Fertility awareness'.

I do feel the deleted sentence in the 'Disadvantages' section was relevant to this article and would like to re-insert it. Lyrl 00:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute the moral conclusions, but having attended a few classes, known a few instructors, and being a theology student, I don't ever recall seeing the orgasmic acts being prohibited outside intercouse as a part of NFP. (I certainly do not mean to intend that it is morally correct, but that it is entirely different matter.) Sure it's wrong, I'm not disputing that, I just don't think it's part of NFP as I've ever seen it presented or put in paper.

Is there any point bothering to contribute and make points on the talk pages when sysops just come in and unilaterally decide without discussion? -- Jbamb 03:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the viewpoint on this differs between NFP schools? The Couple to Couple League, for example, explicitly teaches that engaging in masturbation, for example, during the fertile times is equivalent to using a barrier method instead of abstinence, and that neither action is considered NFP (this is from "The Art of Natural Family Planning" and their magazine "Family Foundations"). Toni Weshler mentions in her book that couples who practice NFP always abstain from sexual activity during the fertile period; couples who choose to use barrier methods are practicing fertility awareness, not NFP.

However, my previous conversation with Wanfactor, and now the comment by Jbamb, seem to indicate that other schools, such as Billings, do not view it this way. Perhaps there could be a mention that some schools of NFP prohibit these actions? Lyrl 01:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jbamb 01:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Billings considers all genital contact to be equivalent to an act of intercourse for the purpose of charting. Arousal and intercourse create vaginal fluids which can mask the presence of fertile mucus and make it difficult to interpret the charting. However, Billings teachers would describe the use of other methods of birth control (ie. masturbation) as 'incompatible' with the use of Billings, rather than strictly prohibited. Wanfactor 02:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Disadvantages

Do any methods other than temperature work better with regular sleep? If not, I think it would be better to be specific about which method this objection applies to. (The same for the other disadvantages which are method specific)Wanfactor 18:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of (so only temp-only and sympto-thermo would be affected). And even with temperature, some women do find their basal temps are affected by disturbed sleep. But, many women find they still get accurate readings even with disturbed sleep - it's not an across-the-board kind of rule.

Also, is it necessary to touch the cervical mucus (for mucus-only and sympto-thermo)? Observing it on toilet tissue (and using another piece of tissue to pull on the CM and observe any stringiness or stretchiness) seems like it would go a long way.Lyrl 19:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sympto-thermal encourages users to take it between the fingers and 'stretch' it as one of the measures of fertility. Billings insists that users do not touch the discharge, and I do not know about other methods. Creighton does not seem to post any of its methodological information on its site. I have not heard of any objection to just looking at mucus, although I have heard of people being grossed out about touching it, or stretching it.

The bit about regular sleep could be modified to say that lack of adequate sleep sometimes disrupts an accurate reading basal body temperature. As far as I know, lack of sleep does not cause inaccuracies in observing cervical mucus. Wanfactor 17:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Marital Act link

Do you really think it should link to sexual intercourse? The Marital Act has a specific meaning which is a particular subset of the article on sexual intercourse. An unintentional association between 'alternate' forms of 'sexual expression' may occur, which appears to be in contradiction to the discussion of abstinence and chastity in the context of natural family planning. Wanfactor 16:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems like it should link to something, for users who haven't come across the term before. Perhaps someone would create an article on 'marital act'? Or link it to the procreation article, but add some content there to that effect? Or, perhaps the intercourse link could instead be put on the word 'intercourse' later in that paragraph.Lyrl 14:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be wise to approach Catholic teaching from the Theology of the Body perspective that it is sexual differentiation that is meant to draw man and woman together. The Natural Law approach is both not specifically Catholic (other than because few other religions use that approach) and not technically theology. Creating a 'marital act' article might end up being redundant with sexual intercourse since 'marital act' does not have a unique definition. Wanfactor 02:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

12-Jan-05 revert

I feel like it's repetitive to say some methods of NFP can have a 1% failure rate, and then say its failure rate compares favorably with artificial methods. Either one statement or the other should be sufficient, but both just make the introduction too long.

The use of the word 'unnatural', which has a negative connotation, is POV.

The Standard Days Method - the one that uses CycleBeads - is already mentioned in the opening paragraph. Adding a sentence about CycleBeads as if they are a seperate method is misleading. Lyrl 01:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"Spontaneous"?

"It also does not interfere with the spontaneity of intercourse as barrier methods sometimes do"

Which interferes more with spontaneity: waiting four seconds to put on a condom, or waiting a week to have sex? I think both interfere differently, and which is desireable from the spontaneity perspective is pretty subjective; it seems a matter of personal preference. Thoughts on how to clarify this? yEvb0 18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"It also does not interfere with the spontaneity of intercourse in the same way as barrier methods can"? Lyrl 22:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No possible side effects?

"NFP has no possible side effects, unlike chemical and hormonal contraceptives..."

I have heard that it can result in children accidentally being conceived from old sperm leading to a higher rate of birth defects. 86.129.163.177 10:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the several studies on this issue have conflicting results as to whether old sperm produce a higher rate of birth defects. Secondly, couples trying to conceive by having random intercourse are likely to accidentally conceive from old sperm. Couples trying to conceive by using NFP know when they ovulate, so they can time intercourse appropriately to ensure the availability of fresh sperm. The possible increased risk to accidental pregnancies would seem to be balanced by the possible decreased risk to intended pregnancies. In any case, I don't think the issue has enough evidence either way to be addressed in this article.Lyrl 21:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if we accept all that (which I don't really), "more deformed children" is a "possible side effect" so the statement "...no possible side effects..." is false and should be removed. 86.138.126.203 13:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether the issue of birth defects should be addressed at all is a separate matter and depends on whether the evidence of deformity is credible. If there is credible evidence, this should be included because NFP exists almost purely for religious-moral reasons and if is creates something as immoral as avoidably deformed babies, that is a relevant issue. 86.138.126.203 13:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The rhythm method and embryo death

Source: Luc Bovens (2006). "The rhythm method and embryonic death" (PDF). Journal of Medical Ethics. 32: 355–356. {{cite journal}}: External link in |journal= (help)

This article has sparked some discussion in the news and on the web, for example:

• "Rhythm Method May Kill Off More Embryos than Other Methods of Contraception". Newswise. 2006-05-23.
• "Rhythm method criticised as a killer of embryos". New Scientist. 2006-05-25.
• Lindsay Beyerstein (2006-05-25). "The fertile fringe: Rhythm method criticised as a killer of embryos".

Does anyone feel like covering this in the Wikipedia article? --Piet Delport 12:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

A related topic is already in the "Disadvantages" section: It has been suggested that pregnancies resulting from method failures of NFP, particularly the more reliable methods such as fertility awareness, are at increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects due to aged gametes at the time of conception. That paragraph could be expanded to include this article.

However, I do not believe this is a good article, for several reasons:

The author assumes that most Rhythm failures are caused by unusually long sperm or egg life. Actually, most Rhythm failures are caused by incorrect calculation of ovulation - whether due to unusually early or late ovulation, or to a woman with an unusually short or long luteal phase. So this assumption is incorrect, and is inflating his estimates of embryos "killed" by Rhythm.

The author's lack of biological knowledge also comes across in things like his belief that embryos implant immediately after conception (they actually implant 6-12 days after ovulation), and in his unreferenced statement that 50% of embryos never implant. Although IVF cycles have implantation rates around 40%, studies of couples with normal fertility using CF-only methods of fertility awareness have shown pregnancy rates of 67-80% in the first cycle of trying[1], suggesting implantation rates in couples of normal fertility are much higher than 50%. So this incorrect assumption is also inflating his estimates.

His choice of method (Calender Rhythm) is also inflating his estimates. When used correctly (i.e. not having sex on days the method identifies as fertile), it has a 10% per-year failure rate. Most observational FA methods have a less-than-1% per-year failure rate (although the Dry Day Rule has a 3-6% per-year failure rate), and LAM has a 2% per-six-months failure rate. Even the Standard Days Method, a relative of Rhythm, has a 5% per-year failure rate, half that of the method his chose for his study.

The theory that embryos created from aged gametes are more likely to be defective is also called into question by research that shows no difference in miscarriage rates between optimally timed intercourse and non-optimally timed intercourse (I recently added this reference).

The concept of a family planning method causing embryo deaths is important to many people, and I do think it should be covered in this Wiki article. But for all the reasons listed, I wouldn't credit the article by Prof. Bovens with too much authority. Lyrl 14:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it sounds to me like the greater issues surrounding contraception-caused embryo death might be good candidate for being covered more fully in a separate main article (Birth control or Pro-life, maybe?), since they're not limited to just NFP. --Piet Delport 16:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My opposition to including Boven's argument is more basic than that. Bovens is making a strawman agrument, which is not a neutral point of view. "Now suppose that we were to learn that the success of the rhythmmethod is actually due, not to the fact that conception does not happen—spermand ova aremuch more long lived than we previously thought—but rather because the viability of conceived ova outside the HF period is minimal due to the limited resilience of the embryo and the limited receptivity of the uterine wall." His entire argument is based upon this supposition. It is not based upon any scientific study or credible research, but rather his desire to attack those who oppose IUD's. To me, this lacks intellectual honesty and he looses all credibility. Balloonman 00:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have some limited coverage in the abortifacient article. Lyrl 00:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

possible merge proposal

There is a very common usage of the word "Natural family planning" that is synonymous with Fertility awareness and possibly natural birth control (just search google). It seems very POV to say that NFP is always religiously motivated, when that does not cover all uses of the word. I would propose merging those 2 other articles here. I want to see what other people think, and I want to know what sort of sources people have to back up the usage of these 3 terms. I posted a couple links at Talk:Rhythm Method.--Andrew c 22:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Natural birth control includes "abstinence, methods of fertility awareness, the Lactational Amenorrhea Method, coitus interruptus (withdrawal), and possibly heat-based contraception... anal sex and oral sex, inasmuch as they are sexual activity with no or a low risk of conception, may also be described as a natural birth control method. Promoters of possible herbal contraceptives such as wild yam, Queen Anne's Lace (wild carrot), or neem may refer to the herbs as natural birth control." This is MUCH broader than either FA or NFP. I will post on the FA vs. NFP argument at Talk:Rhythm Method since that seems to be the active place for that discussion. Lyrl 23:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rhythm method obsolete?

From the CDC's National Survey of Family Growth (see the references section) 0.2% of American women aged 15-44 use fertility awareness. 0.7% use Rhythm - that's over three times as many!

In addition to Rhythm still being (compared to FA, at least) very popular, the Standard Days Method is highly promoted in developing countries because it is so easy to teach.

While FA teachers certainly consider Rhythm obsolete, they are somewhat biased, being FA teachers and all. Saying that Rhythm is "generally considered obsolete" is simply not accurate. Lyrl 00:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a less POV way of putting this would be to say that modern FA is advocated by western doctors because it is more accurate/reliable than the rhythm method, right?--Andrew c 01:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

FA isn't usually understood or promoted by doctors much at all. FA instructors are not usually doctors, but rather women's or public health experts. I think perhaps we could say in the NFP article that Rhythm is just less accurate, since it's still taught, apparently, but in the FA article say that it's not (as I believe it already does). MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Religiously motivated

The FA article describes NFP as religiously-motivated. I thought it was, but I know more about FA than NFP, so we could use some discussion on the matter. NFP prohibits barrier methods during fertile times and orgasmic acts outside of marital intercourse. What is the motivation for that, if not religious? I can see people who are not particularly religous using NFP, but not strictly following those guidelines. In that case, they'd be practicing FA, not necessarilty NFP, am I right? MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles

Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article. I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced tags

Three sections ("Rationale", "Benefits", "Disadvantages") have been tagged in their entirety as unreferenced, even though each section already has references to at least some of its statements. I believe I can find references for all of this material (or make minor modifications if other editors believe they are necessary), but before I go spending my time tagging every sentence: could someone clarify exactly what material they are contesting? Lyrl 00:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who tagged those sections, and I'm not contesting anything. We just need to make sure wikipedia is verifiable. The first section "Rational" says "Catholic doctrine holds"... what Catholic doctrine? I perhaps there is one citation that can cover that whole section, but whenever we claim a POV holds a belief, we should cite those claims (also, does Humanae Vitae need a fuller citation, or is the wikilink good enough?) Same thing for the next two section. There may be just one or two citations that cover all those claims, but I think this would be a better article with those backing it up, if you know what I mean. I'll see if I can't help find some citations as well.--Andrew c 01:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears we are interpreting the Wikipedia policy differently. When I read the Wikipedia:Cite sources article, I see statements such as "any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor" "...To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise" "...particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source" "...you can tag the article with the templates {unreferenced} or {Primarysources}. It is often more useful to indicate specific statements that need references, by tagging those statements with {Citation needed}" (bolding mine). To me, this means that citations are most important on material this is likely to be disputed. Information that is part of common knowledge, or readily verifiable, does not need extensive referencing.

If you feel particular statements are obscure and it would help readers to be pointed someplace to look for more knowledge, I would be happy to research references. But I'm still somewhat confused by the entire sections being tagged as unreferenced. Lyrl 02:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the section tags, and started adding some references to individual statements. Andrew, I encourage you to put citation tags on any particular content you think is likely to be disputed. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment left in main article by MamaGeek:

• Um, are you saying that condom use can never interfere with sexual spontaneity? What are you asking for a citation for?

Response: I'm not sure if this claim is OR. While it may make perfect sense to you and I, it isn't verifiable (or anything but OR) if another reliable, published source didn't make the connection first. Wikipedia is not a primary source, and we cannot be the first source to report on information. --Andrew c 17:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Cervical mucus" vs. "cervical fluid"

I propose that we change "cervical mucus" to "cervical fluid." I understand that most in the medical community still refer to it as "mucus," but this article is not written from a medical perspective. It is written in terms of the methods and the way they are taught. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most FA and NFP instructors nowadays refer to it as "cervical fluid?" Doctors don't teach NFP. They rarely even teach FA. Therefore, I think we should use the terminology associated with the methods, not with gynecological anatomy/health in general. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Cervical mucus is so-called for the good reason that it is mucus. It is also the term most commonly used by doctors, and is the most common term in general use (with 380,000 hits vs. 47,000 Google hits for "cervical mucus" and "cervical fluid" respectively). Calling it otherwise won't make it any nicer: we might as well change all the references to "vagina" or "penis" to "hoo-hoo", if we are worried about offending the easily offended. -- The Anome 12:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the number of Google hits is really relevant to the points I made above. If it is only refered to as "fluid" by NFP and FA method instructors, then of course most hits will go to the medical term. My argument is that we should use the terms associated with the method. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we continue to use the medically correct terms, but mention that the term "cervical fluid" is often used by proponents. We should avoid usages that appear to be based on the assumption that women are child-like and need talking down to. -- The Anome 13:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you consider "fluid" talking down. I don't consider it talking down at all, just more comfortable. Does that make me child-like? Please try not to assume that a person's preference implies patronization. It makes for contentious discussion on the talk pages. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 17:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to chime in here? With only two voices, a disagreement will never resolve into consensus. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 17:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with The Anome, and the solution of mentioning both (and the motivations for not using the medical term due to negative connotations with "mucus"). However, it would probably be nice to have a source that says "fluid" is used as a euphemism, instead of using OR to make the connection (even if it is obvious to us). I think using "cervical fluid" only in the article can be confusing (or insulting) to people who are familiar with the technical term, even if a lay audience wouldn't notice the difference (or haven't heard of either term in the first place). Besides, using fluid only would be representative of a specific POV, while including both is being neutral to all POVs. Also, mucus is the term used in the cervix article Cervical_mucus#Cervical_mucus.--Andrew c 17:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what is OR? MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 18:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize: WP:OR.--Andrew c 18:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 19:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In Weschler's book, pg. 8, there is a section on "The Language of Palatability." She states:

...I have found that people are infinitely more attentive to and interested in FAM when cervical mucus is referred to by the more neutral term cervical fluid. Perhaps the increased acceptance of that terminology is less puzzling when you consider that the woman's cervical fluid is analogous to the man's seminal fluid. One would never refer to seminal fluid as mucus, and yet the purpose of the fluid in both the man and woman is comparable: to nourish a medium in which the sperm can travel.

That's my source. I wouldn't call it a euphemism, since fluid is medically just as accurate in describing it. It is certainly a strategic language use, though, so you could argue for POV for that reason. Regardless, I think Andrew's idea of mentioning that it is sometimes referred to as fluid, and the reasons why, is acceptable.MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 19:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a great citation, thanks for typing it up! --Andrew c 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the same problem again -- when you say "seminal fluid", what do you mean? Cowper's fluid or semen? Cowper's fluid certainly isn't mucus (remember, you get mucus from mucosa; Cowper's fluid is a specialised exocrine secretion from the bulbourethral glands). Semen is "a mixture of secretions from several male accessory glands, including the prostate, seminal vesicles, epididymis, and Cowper's gland" [2], which also aren't mucus, although some of them are mucus-like. "Cervical fluid" is equally vague; lots of fluids can come out of the cervix -- cervical mucus, menses and amniotic fluid, to name but three. The reason why doctors use exact terms is to avoid confusion. However, when you use exact terms, non-experts can still look them up if they don't understand them -- particularly in Wikipedia, where they are only a hyperlink away. An encyclopedia should strive to be accurate, not euphemistic. -- The Anome 22:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Creighton Model teachers [3], Billings teachers [4], and Couple to Couple League teachers [5] all use mucus. These are the largest NFP organizations, and any one of them is much larger than the secular FA groups I am aware of [6] [7]. Lyrl 23:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like we've definitely reached a consensus here to leave it as "mucus." Thank you all for a civil and productive discussion! MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 10:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Typical use failure

The introduction said The common usage failure rate is generally 25% per year,[2] regardless of method used.

This is what is in The Art of Natural Family Planning on that subject:

...references lump together all methods of 'period abstinence' as if they were the same. This is because the data were derived from the National Surveys of Family Growth. Therefore, the average of 20 surprise pregnancies per 100 couples per year is not based on published prospective studies, but only based on questionnaire-generated data. The number of users of different NFP methods was too small to allow analysis of separate types of NFP. This is where confusion can occur in any publication regarding effectiveness rates.

They then have a table with actual failure rates from a number of studies:

• Liberia 1990 - 4.3% (life table)
• Zambia 1990 - 8.9% (life table)

Gray RH, Kambric RT, Lanctot CA; et al. (April 1993). "Evaluation of natural family planning programmes in Liberia and Zambia". Journal of biosocial science. 25 (2): 249–258. PMID 8478373. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: year (link)

• Multinational 1981 (U.S., France, Canada, Columbia, Mauritius) - 7.2% (1% perfect use) (life table)

Rice FJ, Lanctot CA, Garcia-Devesa C (1981). "Effectiveness of the sympto-thermo method of natural family planning: an international study". International Journal of Fertility. 26 (3): 222–230. PMID 6118343.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• U.S. 1981 - [From Kippley: 11.2% (0% perfect use) (life table)] [From PubMed abstract: 13.7-16.6% STM, 34.9-39.7% OM (Pearl Index)]

Wade ME, McCarthy P, Braunstein GD; et al. (October 1981). "A randomized prospective study of the use-effectivness of two methods of natural family planning". American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 141 (4): 368–376. PMID 7025639. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: year (link)

• U.S. 1981 - 14.4% (life table)

Kambic R, Kambic M, Brixius AM; et al. (November 1981). "A thirty-month clinical experience in natural family planning". American journal of public health. 71 (11): 1255–1257. PMID 7294271. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: year (link)

• Australia 1978 - 16% (life table)

Hatcher, RA (1994). Contraceptive Technology (Sixteenth Revised Edition ed.). New York: Irvington Publishers. ISBN 0829031715. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Columbia 1980 - 19.8% STM, 24.2% OM (life table) [26.0% STM, 33.8% OM (Pearl Index)]

Medina JE, Cifuentes A, Abernathy JR; et al. (December 1980). "Comparative evaluation of two methods of natural family planning in Colombia". American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 138 (8): 1142–1147. PMID 7446621. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: year (link)

• Germany 1991 - 2.3% with abstinence, 2.1% with barriers during fertile phase (Pearl Index)

Frank-Herrmann P, Freundl G, Baur S; et al. (December 1991). "Effectiveness and acceptability of the sympto-thermal method of natural family planning in Germany". American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 165 (6 Pt 2): 2052–2054. PMID 1755469. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: year (link)

• U.K. 1991 - 2.7% (Pearl Index)

Clubb EM, Pyper CM, Knight J (1991). "A pilot study on teaching natural family planning (NFP) in general practice". Proceedings of the Conference at Georgetown University, Washington, DC. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Europe 1992 - 2.4% STM; 10.6% muco-thermo (Pearl Index)

"European Natural Family Planning Study Groups. Prospective European multi-center study of natural family planning (1989-1992): interim results". Advances in Contraception. 9 (4): 269–283. December 1993. PMID 8147240.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

• Italy 1986 - 3.6% (Pearl Index)

Barbato M, Bertolotti G (1988). "Natural methods for fertility control: A prospective study - first part". International Journal of Fertility. 33 Suppl: 48–51. PMID 2902027.

• U.K. 1976 - 23.9% (Pearl Index)

Marshall J (August 1976). "Cervical-mucus and basal body-temperature method of regulating births: field trial". Lancet. 2 (7980): 282–283. PMID 59854.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

Those studies were all of sympto-thermo or Billings. I believe the 25% number is from Contraceptive Technology, which gets its numbers from the National Surveys of Family Growth as described in my quote. As only 1% of Americans use any form of NFP or FA, those methods all got lumped togeter because of insufficient data to break it down. That does not mean all methods equally have that high failure rate, as most studies above show significantly lower failure rates for the observational methods. Lyrl 22:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and typed up the references so I have them available here. I also found the following while poking around on PubMed:

• Germany 1997 - 2.2% (life table) (perfect use - 0.63% with abstinence, 0.45% with barrier during fertile phase)

Frank-Herrmann P, Freundl G, Gnoth C; et al. (June–September 1997). "Natural family planning with and without barrier method use in the fertile phase: efficacy in relation to sexual behavior: a German prospective long-term study". Advances in Contraception. 13 (2–3): 179–189. PMID 9288336. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: date format (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: year (link)

Lyrl 20:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Failure rate

13.7% was recently cited as a failure rate. This number comes from a 1981 study of two specific method of NFP. This study looked at 1247 couples, but only ~415 couples were still using the method assigned after a year. This particular study showed a "Pearl rate" of 13.7% for the symptothermal method and 39.7% for the ovulation method. So should we say the common usage failure rate is 14-40% based on this one study? Or should we use the AGI reference that bases its numbers on national statistical reporting data? Here are their sources if we want to cite them directly or fact check:

• Hatcher RA et al., eds., Contraceptive Technology, 18th rev. ed., New York: Ardent Media, 2004, Table 9-2.
• Fu H et al., Contraceptive failure rates: new estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 31(2):56-63.

This is the same information that the FDA uses here. Both are more recent than the 1981 study, and both sound like they cover more than 415 couples. I'd still be willing to consider more evidence in favor of lower numbers, but most sources I have come across generally consider NFP to have a typical use failure rate between 20-30%, and a perfect use failure rate of 1-9%. I think part of the issue is that NFP is not a method of BC, but a group of methods, so getting numbers down can be hard. Maybe we should leave the info box off this article, and have it on the more specific method articles?--Andrew c 02:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I listed out twelve seperate studies of the sympto-thermo and/or ovulation methods, five done 1990 or later. I can find the on-line links to any you are interested in.

The FDA numbers are from the National Surveys of Family Growth, a survey that included 7,643 women. Because only 1% of Americans (i.e. 76 women in the survey) use any form of FA or NFP, that survey did not obtain enough data to break down failure rates by method. 0.2% of American women aged 15-44 use one of the observational methods of NFP. 0.7% use the Rhythm Method - three times as many. So the FDA failure rate is heavily skewed toward the failure rate of the Rhythm Method. I do not believe this source (a study of 76 women) should be heavily weighted when deciding on the 'correct' failure rate for all methods. Lyrl

I totally did not see that topic right above this one. Jeez, sorry. I feel really dumb now.--Andrew c 02:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Religously Motivated NFP?

This article seems to be a mishmash of two very different topics. One is the methods of Natural Family Planning, and the other is the philososphy/motivations of the people using Natural Family Planning. Natural Family Planning could be quite simply defined as any of several methods of family planning that do not involve sterilization or contraceptive devices or drugs; coitus is avoided during the fertile time of a woman's menstrual cycle (http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/natural_family_planning) without reference to the motivation that the person may have for using such a method. On the other hand is the Catholic philosophy which is likely the motivation for many people using NFP. Catholic sexual teaching is a whole topic in and of itself, and there are various approaches to be taken to it, including Natural Law, Church Tradition, and the personalist approach of John Paul II. Since the page about Fertility Awareness Methods appears to be covering most of the methods of Natural Family Planning from a methodological aspect, perhaps Natural Family Planning could exist as a subtopic in that section (and redirect to it), and a different page about Catholic Sexual Ethics could be started with information about Catholic teaching. In the current state of the article, the definition of the phrase Natural Family Planning does not match either with other sources or even with the Catholic understanding of the idea, since through Natural Law, Natural Family Planning belongs to the natural world and not to Catholic theology. (In other words, the conclusions about contraception that the Catholic Church reaches do not come from its religious knowledge, but rather from an analysis of human nature that is possible for anyone, including non-Catholics.) Wanfactor 17:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not possible to study cause and effect relationships?

One of my edits (adding commentary that a cause and effect relationship between NFP use and divorce had not been studied) was recently reverted on the basis that studies are "not capable of demonstrating a cause-effect relationship".

But - I thought exploring cause-effect relationships was the entire point of randomized clinical trials? It would be entirely possible to randomize a group of people to receive NFP instruction vs. instruction in other family planning methods. While a portion of each group would choose methods other than what they were instructed in, there would be some bias to choose the methods they had the most knowledge of. Measures of relationship satisfaction in such a randomized study would reveal more information about the effect of NFP on relationships than correlation studies that have been done so far.

Even measuring relationship satisfaction instead of looking at divorce rates would provide more information. There are certainly groups of people who will stay in relationships despite being unhappy. For example, older people more commonly tolerate unhappy marriage, vs. younger people getting divorced when they are unhappy - though average relationship satisfaction is the same across age groups.

The current studies do not explore the NFP-divorce relationship nearly as much as it can be explored. And I think some statement about that lack is important to that section. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 00:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not possible to demonstrate cause and effect relationships in studies of human beings ... too many factors

If a study were possible to demonstrate a cause-effect relationship, which studies are by nature incapable of demonstrating, the divorce-rate ratio among NFP users would be as close to a cause-effect relationship as is possible. Nevertheless, it is not possible for a study to demonstrate a cause-effect relationship. Remember, to appropriately demonstrate a cause-effect relationship in a scientific study, one must eliminate ALL extraneous factors perfectly. Any study of human beings is incapable of such a controlled environment - it is not possible for a hypothetical study to rule out socioeconomic status, religiosity, cultural conditioning, ethnicity, and so on. Therefore, your comment about studies not demonstrating a cause-effect relationship is a fallacious straw man, because this study is not possible ... ever. No study of human beings could ever meet the qualifications to elevate it to cause-effect status. That's why scientific studies are replicated over and over and over again. However, what the NFP-divorce study DOES demonstrate is a statistically significant correlation between NFP practice and marriage survival. In light of this, any editorialization that "no studies exploring a cause and effect relationship between the use of NFP and lowered divorce rates have been carried out" (which is not possible for a clinical study, due to a multiplicity of uncontrollable external factors) is an unfortunate misleading of the reader from an otherwise statistically significant positive correlation between NFP use and marriage longevity.El Clarque

I have not claimed that a study could positively demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between NFP and divorce. But more studies could certainly explore the issues further, as I outlined above. For example, are users of NFP more willing to suffer unhappy marriages than non-users, thus accounting for the lowered divorce rate? Or are they less willing to tolerate unhappy marriages, but their marriages are so much happier the divorce rate is lower anyway? These issues have simply not been explored. I do not mean to imply that there is any evidence against NFP creating better marriages - but I think it very important to note the lack of research in this area. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 14:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Causality is notoriously difficult to prove through observational studies, so that sentence could be omitted. On the other hand it may be fair to note that these citations are not published or peer reviewed studies. That being said most so-called 'research findings' are not peer-reviewed, published, or for that matter even impartial. (eg. drug companies doing trials on their own drugs.) Wanfactor 03:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate"

I plan to edit the article to say "pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" throughout. "Pregancy rate" is more courteous to people whose lives happened to begin while their parents were trying to prevent pregnancy; it's more neutral, less negative. I'm giving an opportunity for discussion here first before making the change. --Coppertwig 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please make any comments on this at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate". --Coppertwig 03:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I have a number of objections to the recent edit of the intro:

• It stats that natural family planning is a method (singular) that is equivalent to FA with behavoir restrictions. My perspective is that the term natural family planning encompasses (currently) three types of methods. LAM is a set of behavior practices to reduce fertility, not a way to be aware of fertility. And FA teachers don't want to touch Rhythm with a ten foot pole; while arguably they are both ways to be aware of probably fertility, I think there are equally good reasons to distinguish the observational methods from the statistical methods.
• While natural family planning is most commonly defined by users as methods approved by the Catholic Church, non-Catholic also use the methods, with behavior restrictions, for their own religious reasons (see the book "Open Embrace"). I believe the new hatnote and intro fail to include this group of users.
• Creighton and Billings (organizations that promote mucus-only methods) are the largest NFP organizations in the world. I don't think the statement "NFP generally refers to the Sympto Thermal Method" is accurate. People who don't realize NFP involves behavoir restrictions, or that there is more than one kind of NFP, use the term interchangably with FA. Thus the hatnote linking to the FA article. But I believe the article would be better if is chose a definition and stuck with it, rather than switching back and forth between the definition used by most users of NFP (multiple methods, with behavoir restrictions) and the definition used by many secular American sources that do not actually practice NFP or FA (interchangable with FA).
• The Rhythm Method has the same effectiveness as the contraceptive sponge and cervical cap. While these are not held up as models of effectiveness, people generally don't refer to them as "ineffective" - correctly used, they do prevent a large number of pregnancies.
• I find "cervical mucus" a much more succint and equally useful description as "mucus qualities found at the cervix, or mucus qualities found at the vulva". I also completely fail to see the relevance of a long paragraph on one specific method (Billings) in the introduction to an article that is not about specific methods.
• I believe many people find the failure rates of natural family planning methods to be of great interest - the recent edit completely deleted all mentions of failure rates.

I'm sure the previous version was guilty as accused of being unobjective and poorly structured. But I don't think this new edit made things any better. Any suggestions? Lyrl ^Talk _C 03:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it; there were too many errors, several opinions, and irrelevant information. Joie de Vivre 15:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Users and abstinence section

Is it considered that only Catholics use NFP? The reference to Protestant use was deleted. I am unfamiliar with the Orthodox standpoint, but the information available at Christian views on contraception leads me to believe some Orthodox Christians might use NFP also. The use of NFP in developing countries was also deleted - from here (p. vi) A higher percentage of women in India use traditional methods such as the “safe period”, than any other single birth spacing method As a predominantly Hindu country, this use in India would be another example of non-Catholic use of NFP. I know the users section needed work with referencing and such, but reducing it to "few Catholics use NFP" seems to remove useful information.

On the abstinence section, the additional material seems largely focused on the theological arguments - shouldn't that go under the "rationale" section? An "opposition" or "counterargment" or similar subsection? Theological arguments just appear out of place in a "disadvantages" section.

Also, one of the disadvantages in the Torodes quote is a duplicate of what was already listed: abstinence during the time of the wife’s peak sexual desire (ovulation) vs. The fertility awareness and statistical forms of NFP require periodic abstinence, known as continence, most commonly 8-10 days of each menstrual cycle. It is common for the woman's sexual desire to be highest on those fertile days, and low in other parts of the cycle. [27] That the couple must abstain from sex during the woman's periods of peak sexual desire may be deeply frustrating for both partners, and lead to feelings of isolation. The Torodes quotes are also not very encyclopedic. ...during breastfeeding cycles it often involves month-long periods of abstinence... as well as during menopause and stressful life seasons) could be more formally worded as Abstinence may be required for long periods of time during breastfeeding, menopause, and for women who for other reasons experience very long cycles. Lyrl ^Talk _C 15:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think theological arguments are out of place. The very definition of "Natural family planning" is "the BC methods that the Catholic Church approves". One of the requirements for using NFP is that couples be married -- we can assume this means "married within the Catholic faith". All the requirements of NFP are directly dictated by the Catholic religion. What makes NFP specifically NFP are the requirements set forth by the Catholic faith.

I don't agree that there is any such thing as non-Catholic NFP. Even if there is, the study in India cited here states that "packets of condoms" were provided to couples by the researchers, for use during the fertile days. NFP prohibits the use of barrier methods.

The study refers to the Standard Days Methods as "a fertility-awareness based method of family planning". The term "family planning" is used 84 times, whereas the term "natural family planning" is used four times. I think this is an instance of how the term NFP is sometimes blurred to refer to any use of FA or statistical methods. I think it's fine to include the study somewhere in the article but I don't think a "Users" section is necessary.

Frankly, since the restrictions of NFP are directly informed by the Catholic religious faith, I think it's entirely appropriate to include reflections from a Catholic who was very well informed about it, wrote a book about it, and then came to further conclusions about the methods. I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to strip away all mention of Catholicism when we're talking about NFP. If we were to get rid of all of that from the Advantages/Disadvantages section, it would read almost identical to an advantage/disadvantage section detailing FA methods. Theological discussion is appropriate in regards to NFP.

Also, I think that Torode is an appropriate authority on the use of NFP and that her observations improve the article. Joie de Vivre 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If theological arguments against requiring NFP are appropriate for the disadvantages section, then shouldn't theological arguments in favor of NFP-only be in the advantages section? What is the purpose of the "rationale" section at all? In my opinion, it would be nice to have the for and against arguments in one section - that would allow a section hatnote to Christian views on contraception#Roman Catholic Church and Christian views on contraception#Natural Family Planning only or "artificial" methods too? where readers can find a more thorough discussion of the subject.

If I understand Joie de Vivre's position correctly, a non-Catholic or unmarried couple following all of the Catholic restrictions on NFP is not actually practicing NFP - because they do not have a marriage approved in the Catholic Church. I have not come across this definition of NFP in my reading, and would be curious to see sources that do reference it in that way. By this definition, the Torodes cannot be used as sources on NFP, because they never practiced it - they are not and never were Catholic.

The general Indian population referred to as using the "safe period" method over and above any other method of contraception is not mentioned as using barriers. That the researchers provided couples participating in the study with condoms is not relevant to the practices of the general population.

If long quotes from the Torodes (if they are accepted as having practiced NFP, despite being outside the Catholic faith) are deemed appropriate for this article, should I then add long quotes from the Kippleys to exemplify the opposing POV? Lyrl ^Talk _C 20:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add brief theological arguments to the "Advantages" section, that does make sense since the majority of practitioners are devout Christians (whether Catholics or the newer movement of evangelical Protestants.) I recall that the last time I gave a nod to one such suggestion of yours, you flooded the page with related content. I want to ask you to be more prudent and selective in your additions this time -- including any quotes from the Kippleys. Joie de Vivre 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Should the rationale section be deleted, and its current contents put in the advantages section? Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. By what the word means, a "rationale" is used to justify or promote something, so it's apparent that it would list potential benefits. Also the "benefits" and "drawbacks" section are similarly listed point-by-point (I tried to do the same with the "drawbacks" section but I couldn't get it to flow so I left it bulleted, but they both started out bulleted) and I think that comparison would be lost by moving the bulky Rationale section to "Benefits". Joie de Vivre 23:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, then. If I understand Joie de Vivre's position, theological arguments in favor of NFP are not appropriate for the advantages section. But theological arguments against NFP are appropriate for the disadvantages section. This appears contradictory to me. I would appreciate further explanation. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, obviously you completely misunderstood. I think that the specific bulleted list provided under "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" is good as it is. (It's not bulleted in one section anymore because I thought it flowed a little better without the bullets, but I couldn't get it to flow the same way in the other section. If you wish to add a brief bullet about how NFP is accepted and promoted by the Catholic church, that's fine. But frankly I think it would look stupid to move the entirety of of the Rationale section into the Advantages section. Obviously the rationale is considered promotional or beneficial by the proponents. and I think that the bulk of material detailing the religious viewpoints informing the rationale is so great that it warrants its own top-level section. Joie de Vivre 15:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The subsection of "Disadvantages" titled "Abstinence requirement" contains not only things I consider disadvantages (now relegated to the "other" section), but theological arguments. I object to theological arguments in a disadvantages section. If there are to be theological arguments in the disadvantages section, I believe they should be in the advantages section as well. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to address your concerns by making the two top-level headers as Rationale and Objections, with "Potential advantages" and "Potential disadvantages" listed respectively. Hopefully this is more in line with the reasoning behind use and non-use of the method. Does this address your concerns? Joie de Vivre 17:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That did help. However, I have edited the page to demonstrate specifically what I had in mind. I'm not very good at explaining my ideas, so I thought I'd just show them. Feel free to revert while we work toward a compromise position. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you did a fantastic job with this. Great work. Joie de Vivre 15:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the emphasis on abstinence?

Recent edits have significantly expanded the emphasis on negative aspects of abstinence (here and here). One edit summary claimed the additions were because this was a "common objection".

Yet that's not been my impression. While one couple (the Torodes) found months long periods of abstinence (due to ambiguous fertility while breastfeeding) to be horrible, other couples seem to get through them just fine - the Kippleys, for example, describe in their book a year of ambiguous fertility while Sheila breastfed one of their children (p.365-369) - and many couples don't ever face that obstacle. (A woman's cycles may return very quickly after birth even while breastfeeding, or she may experience unambiguous infertility while in amenorrhea, or she may rely on LAM alone regardless of fertility signs until her cycles resume.) Note also that long periods of sexual abstinence following the birth of a child are common among the general population, due to the sleep deprivation experienced by parents of infants, recovery from complications of delivery, and lack of lubrication caused by low estrogen levels experienced during breastfeeding (meaning intercourse is likely to be painful for the woman).

I'm not sure the Torode's experience is representative, and so am opposed to emphasize it so heavily in this article. Lyrl ^Talk _C 03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that so few people actually use NFP is indicative of that. Joie de Vivre 22:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they find observing cervical mucus to be gross (or have a physical condition that makes CM observations non-useful), or hate waking up at the same time every day to take their temperature, or received poor training/support and are frustrated at being unable to interpret their charts, or have simply never heard of the method. While most people certainly find abstinence at least bothersome, my impression from participating in the Ovusoft community is that some couples choose abstinence even without any religious beliefs, and others choose barriers not because abstinence is such a huge obstacle, but simply because they don't find it necessary. For comparison, most people will take an elevator if it's available, even for going just a few floors. But most people will not find it a physical attack on them if a two or three story building has no elevator. Does that make sense?

I hope I'm open to changing my mind when presented with new evidence, but right now we only have two explicit dissident views on NFP - one finds abstinence to be a big obstacle (the Torodes), the other doesn't find abstinence worthy of comment, rather attacking the idea that any method of contraception is theologically distinct (Piper). (The Winnipeg Statement says that NFP is "difficult" but doesn't say whether they find abstinence the main component of that difficulty, and I'm not familiar with Curran's writing.) If more authors were presented who found abstinence their biggest (or one of their main) objections to NFP, I would be more open to lengthening that section. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category - should this article be grouped with fertility awareness related articles?

This article has been categorized with methods of determining fertility for purposes of periodic abstinence since July 2006. It was recently removed from the birth control sub-category Category:Periodic abstinence (diff). The editor who removed this category nominated the periodic abstinence category for deletion. A statement made at the deletion discussion was that including this article in a sub-cat of Category:Methods of birth control such as Category:Periodic abstinence was opposed because the editor was "concerned that Catholic theological concepts are being categorized as discrete methods of birth control".

I believe that this article should be categorized with articles describing methods of fertility awareness, primarily because the term is so commonly used interchangeably with fertility awareness, with no religious connotations ([8] [9] [10] [11] [12]). NFP is also by far the more common term, with 545,000 Google hits vs. 154,000 for fertility awareness. Categories are supposed to be navigationally useful, and someone familiar with the non-religious usage of NFP (and not familiar with the term "fertility awareness") would not be looking for it in a religious category. What do others think? Lyrl ^Talk _C 20:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am not a category purist. They work to roughly group similar concepts together. While technically, NFP may not be a method in itself, it should still be grouped together in the behavioral methods category. Also, because NFP has been used interchangeably with the rhythm method and FA at times (with no religious connotation), in those instances the term is being used to describe a specific method of BC. The term is more common, and Lyrl makes some good arguments above. So yeah, I'd support categorizing this in with the other similar articles. -Andrew c 02:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a rough consensus at Categories for discussion to create a new Category:Fertility awareness. Per the above discussion, I would like to include this article in the new category. Lyrl ^Talk _C 01:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Prominence of specific methods

There are numerous methods that can be used as NFP: Billings, Creighton, Two-Day, Marquette, Weschler's FAM, the Couple to Couple League's sympto-thermo, Rhythm, Standard Days Method, etc. This article article currently lists Billings and Creighton in the introductory section, and also lists them out specifically in the observational section. Statistical methods are completely excluded from the introduction, and other popular observational methods like FAM and CCL's system have never been in the "observational" section. I don't think there's any reason for such prominent placement of Creighton and Billings to the exclusion of other systems. I would as a first choice like to reduce links to these methods to the "see also" section of this article. My second choice position would be to add other popular methods like Rhythm (used by 0.7% of Americans, or approximately 2 million people, according to the National Survey of Family Growth), FAM, and CCL's system. What do others think? Lyrl ^Talk _C 20:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic concept of NFP is the result of a pontifical directive stating that birth control should not be used by adherents of the Catholic faith. The Creighton Model and the Billings ovulation method were developed by devout Catholics, in accordance with their faith. It's ludicrous to suggest that we should ignore the Catholic roots of these methods and refrain from mentioning their basis and relevance to the Catholic concept of NFP in the article on the topic. Joie de Vivre 22:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The basal body temperature method was developed by a devout Catholic (Rev. Wilhelm Hillebrand), in accordance with his faith. As was the sympto-thermal method developed by the founders of the Couple to Couple League (the largest NFP organization in North America). I don't understand ignoring the Catholic roots of all methods except Creighton and Billings.

While the Knaus-Ogino form of Rhythm is no longer promoted, I do not think it has been superseded: the National Survey of Family Growth shows over three times as many Americans using Rhythm (0.7%) as using an observational method (0.2%). Also, the intro is still silent on the Standard Days Method, which was developed in 1999 and is being actively promoted around the world. Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to write about these things you certainly may. I am not as familiar with the things you mentioned so I will leave it to you to make those corrections. Joie de Vivre 00:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Category move

This article has been moved to Category:Fertility tracking as part of a planned deletion of Category:Periodic abstinence, Category:Fertility awareness, and Category:Natural family planning. Please bring up any concerns at Category talk:Periodic abstinence. If there are no objections within four days, these three categories will be tagged for speedy deletion. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE: The old discussion at Category talk:Periodic abstinence is now located at Category talk:Fertility tracking/Periodic abstinence. Joie de Vivre 11:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wording for rate of NFP usage?

There was recently a sentence that said:

...in 2002, only 1.5% of sexually active Americans avoiding pregnancy were using periodic abstinence.

This figure was from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, which found 0.2% of all reproductive age women using the fertility awareness type of periodic abstinence and 0.7% of that same group using the calendar method of periodic abstinence (so 0.9% using periodic abstinence). Not all women of reproductive age are using birth control, though - only about 60% are. So, out of American women of reproductive age using birth control, 1.5% are using periodic abstinence.

Other sources present this information the same way (out of women of reproductive age using birth control). From this article, "In the United States, approximately 4% of women of reproductive age use natural family planning (NFP) to avoid pregnancy." (this was from a survey of women in Missouri). On page 242 of this article: "...the natural methods of family planning are used by only about 2-3% of women between the ages of 15 and 44." It cites this study for those figures.

I believe percentage "out of women using birth control" is a much more useful number than "out of all women of reproductive age". I believe my position is supported by the other sources that present information on NFP usage in this way. I would like to use the number from the NSFG because that seems to be more reliable than the other sources I've presented here. But it was recently claimed that we could not do this because it was original research. What do others think? Lyrl^Talk _C 20:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get that 60% figure for "using birth control"? The NSFG percentages, 0.2% using the fertility awareness type of periodic abstinence, 0.7% using calendar method of periodic abstinence are for all American women ages 15-44, whether they are sexually active or not, not "using birth control". I'm not keen on WP:SYN, which seems to be what you are suggesting. I can't view those PubMed abstracts, you have to pay to see them. Photouploaded 22:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

From the NSFG, same table (table 56), the percentages under "using contraception" add up to about 60%, and the percentages under "not using contraception" add up to about 40%. Or, go to table 57 and it adds up the percentages for you (61.9% using/39.8% not using contraception). I would not support using data like this from multiple sources - taking different pieces of data from studies that used different methodology and coming to some conclusion is likely to misrepresent the data. But in this case, the numbers for % using birth control and % each method are from the same source, same survey, same reviewers - I don't believe this use has the same issues as the Source A + Source B = Conclusion C described in the Wikipedia policy.

I also think table 60 is worth looking at - the authors of the NSGF paper obviously thought % using a method out of women using any method (instead of total women of reproductive age) was a useful number. But the periodic abstinence methods got lumped under "other" in this table.

I can't view the full article for the PubMed abstract I linked to (I only linked to one abstract, the other two articles I linked to appeared in their entirety for free, no registration, for me), but the abstracts I thought were free to everyone - I certainly haven't paid any money to see them. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at WP:SYN, no exception is made for drawing two stats from the same source. The policy is clear: "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." The 1.5% figure is listed nowhere, it cannot be used. Photouploaded 03:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the policy's application to this case is clear (see Wikipedia talk:No original research#Math - where is the line between paraphrasing and synthesizing/interpreting?), but there are certainly other options to the current wording I would like to explore.

Current wording:...only 0.2% of American women ages 15-44 were using natural family planning (fertility-detecting type), and only 0.7% were using calendar rhythm.

Option 1 - use a different source:...it is believed only 2-4% of American reproductive-age women using birth control choose natural family planning (source to the two articles I listed above)

Option 2 - include more information from the NSFG:...periodic abstinence is used by only a small percentage of reproductive age American women, with 0.2% using fertility awareness and 0.7% using calendar rhythm for birth control (40% of this population is not using any method of birth control).

Option 3 - use all three sources: ...it is believed only 2-4% of American women of reproductive age use natural family planning to avoid pregnancy,(sources I found above) although the National Survey of Family Growth found that only 0.9% of all American women 15-44 are using periodic abstinence for birth control.

I believe the current wording is not as useful for readers of this article as it should be. What do others think of the options I presented above? I'd like to see other suggestions, too, if there are problems with or ideas for improvement on those I listed out. Lyrl^Talk _C 16:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No one on the talk page of WP:OR responded to my specific question, but there seems to be a pretty broad consensus there that simple reformatting does not violate that policy. That, plus no responses to my alternate suggestions, is making me lean toward adding the 1.5% statistic back into the article. Thoughts? Lyrl^Talk _C 22:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

... permits sex ...

The article says "The Catholic church permits sex during pregnancy, and after the woman goes through menopause." I don't think the word "permits" is really the correct one to convey the Church's position. The church "permits" sex between a married couple pretty much all the time - sex being seen as a natural healthy part of a marriage relationship. What is the informational purpose of this sentance in the first place? j-beda 00:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That wording was introduced here by an editor with whom I had a number of conflicts. I did not like that change, but chose to avoid a fight with that editor at that time. I'd be perfectly fine if you changed or modified that wording now. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Potential disadvantages and irregularity

I'm surprised this article doesn't cover a very large issue that a close friend had when she (not trying to sound biased here, but) rather blindly walked into NFP when she had terribly irregular menstrual cycles and was pregnant within 2 months. She took painful care with her 6-month observational period, but the regularity needed for this method wasn't in her chemistry, and she was pushed to continue by specialists who seemed blind to her irregularity. This article also lacks discussion of irregularity- is this just something NFP planners are largely blind to or am I running into coincidence? At the very least, the article should mention that the menstrual cycle isn't 100% predictable. And unless my life experience has been woefully off the beaten track, it seems most women have had at least some occurrences of "odd" cycles- whether due to stress, nutrition, or just the general wonders of the ever-changing human body. Even one "odd" cycle could turn perfectly-planned NFP awry. Also: I am a male, and no I wasn't the father in the example- this is strictly from observation. 209.153.128.248 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

NFP is different from the rhythm method - are you sure you have your terminology straight? - Chardish 04:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unpublished, anecdotal evidence cannot be used as reliable sources in wikipedia. Do you have any better sources than your friend that we could site that states these things? If this is an issue, as you state, then it shouldn't be difficult to find such a source. Then, I don't see any issue with presenting such a criticism as long as we keep it neutral.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The article does address irregular cycles:

• Couples seeking the lowest risk of pregnancy (less than 1% per year) may be required to abstain for more than half of each menstrual cycle.
• For women in certain situations - breastfeeding, perimenopause, or with hormonal diseases such as PCOS - abstinence may be required for months at a time.

Use of more-conservative rules with less-regular cycles (where the length of one cycle to another varies by 14 days or more) generally requires long periods of abstinence - weeks at a time, or even months at a time. Use of less-conservative rules such as the Dry Day Rule requires less abstinence, but carries a higher chance of pregnancy. Other than that, it's really difficult to offer analysis of the friend's experience with so few details - if 209.153.128.248 is interested in learning what might have happened (and how it can be avoided), I'd recommend posting more details (such as what rules the friend was using - temp? cervical mucus? cervical position?) on a fertility awareness-based board such as Ovusoft. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Theology section

Chardish recently removed a paragraph from the theology section. The previous paragraph ended with, "couples are encouraged to have as many children as their circumstances make practical," and the removed paragraph explained that a few theologians think that encouragement should only apply up to a certain number (four was suggested, but not held to be universally accurate).

Chardish and I went back and forth on the removal, and in the most recent removal Chardish argued, "this article is about a birth control method, not Catholic sexuality in general". I don't believe this is accurate, on two counts. First, fertility awareness and Lactational Amenorrhea Method are articles about birth control methods. This article is about the Catholic Church's approach to birth control, which allows only fertility awareness and LAM and only in certain situations. Second, why remove that specific paragraph in the theology section but leave the entire rest of the theology section? I would appreciate a fuller explanation of why that paragraph was especially offending. Lyrl^Talk _C 20:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't offending, it was just offtopic. Granted, family planning (choosing a number of children) and birth control (having intercourse without conception) are similar topics, but those paragraphs were merely on the issue of how many children it's acceptable for Catholics to have. Since this article (and NFP in general) is about the relationship between sexual acts and conception for Catholics, it seems like a broader issue (such as choosing a number of children) falls outside the scope of this article. - Chardish 21:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

To me, the topic, "when is it morally permissible to use NFP to avoid pregnancy?" has a direct relationship to this article. The third paragraph in the "Theology" section lists situations where NFP use is permitted by Catholic theology, and also notes that theology generally holds couples should have "as many children as practical". The removed section was not about choosing a number of children. It covered debate over the morality of avoiding pregnancy in a certain situation: no health, financial, etc. cause to not have more children, but the couple just doesn't want anymore than their current several.

Does that make sense? I don't currently understand why a list of situations that make NFP use permitted is left in (entire third paragraph), while a discussion over a specific situation (removed paragraph) is taken out. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that that specific section that you referred to goes into too much detail about that aspect of Catholic theology and would be best located in another article. It'd be like adding a paragraph on economic situations that cause people to want to avoid pregnancy. It's not irrelevant, it's just outside the scope of this article. - Chardish (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Would a shorter mention of that viewpoint be OK, then? How about adding on to the last paragraph: A few Catholic theologians argue that couples with several children may morally choose to avoid pregnancy even if their circumstances would allow for more children. Or, making something like that the next-to-last sentence, so the majority position remains the last sentence? Lyrl^Talk _C 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that; particularly if it were the second to last sentence. However, I've been checking my sources, and I haven't found anything in Catholic teaching that says that the emotional needs of the couple aren't important in choosing a family size. In other words, I don't see anything that says that you're required to have children to the point of unduly burdening yourself, even if you can support more. - Chardish (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Advantages: In accordance with Roman Catholic teachings

OP -- This should not be here. This article is not about the roman catholic church. Why should it be considered an ADVANTAGE that NFP is in accordance with an irrational organization that has no good reason for only "allowing" this method of BC? It should be listed as a DISADVANTAGE that this complies with the catholic church's dogma. I have removed this from the advantages for this reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.197.203 (talk • contribs)

First of all, this article is about the family planning method approved by the Roman Catholic Church (see the top of the article.) It's already sourced that NFP is approved by the Catholic Church. Removing this because you believe the Church is "irrational" is a point-of-view claim. Wikipedia strives for neutrality, and that means we can't remove parts of articles just because we disagree with them personally. Chardish (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - condoms and spontaneity of sex

In this edit, I removed the following:

Relatedly, intercourse may be spontaneous, as compared to the use of condoms. However, intercourse is not spontaneous during the days when a couple chooses to abstain.

This was immediately reverted by Chardish.

I challenge the idea that the opinions of the editors at www.thebody.com should be taken as fact. In regards to how condoms impact the spontaneity of sex, their editors posit that there is "Reluctance to use condoms because some people believe that condoms reduce pleasure or disrupt spontaneous sex." Who are these "people"? Where did the editors get this information? And who says that this is the most correct way to view the situation? Frankly, when you consider that some people might want to have intercourse with someone they just met, a condom would increase the spontaneity with which they might engage in such a pursuit. Applying a condom before sex is much more spontaneous than, say, going for a mutual STD test before sex, or forming a monogamous relationship before sex. Photouploaded (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have found multiple sources [13] [14] [15] that say that many believe condom use interferes with the spontaneity of sex. I reverted your edit because you appeared to be POV pushing; in your edit summary you stated that you believed the article was "irresponsible" and "perpetuating a myth" - it seemed like you were selectively trying to remove information that you disagreed with. Nonetheless, I feel like that sentence should be included, but I bet there's a better way to phrase that it that makes it clear that the belief that condoms interfere with spontaneity is an opinion and not a fact. This is perceived as an advantage by many NFP users, so it should be included in the article. Suggestions? - Chardish (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you need more justification that this is a common view, google it. - Chardish (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to reinstate material about condoms and spontaneity, they must cite sources. Please do not reinstate uncited material. Photouploaded (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it extremely inappropriate to use reversions as a substitute for discussion. I brought my argument to the table; you didn't respond to it for three days, so I developed an alternate phrasing on my own that incorporated your objections and added it to the article. Apparently that wasn't acceptable to you, but how was I supposed to know if you ignore the talk page? Behavior like this is counterproductive to improving the encyclopedia; stop playing the role of Citation Police and try to work with us to build consensus. - Chardish (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the uncited statement as unverified. Please cite your sources for the statement you want to include. Otherwise we are just discussing WP:OR, which is a waste of time. Photouploaded (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You challenged thebody.com as an unreliable source without providing a reason apart from the fact that they didn't cite their sources, which as far as I know is not a disqualification of reliability. Tags such as {{fact}} and {{verify}} are useful when you want to give good-faith editors a chance to find sources. If you want to continue your hopeless campaign against unsourced statements, , but judging by your contribs it seems like you're acting in the name of POV pushing and not merely immediatism in general. Oh, and one more revert and you break 3RR. - Chardish (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I restored the old source and added yet another source. I think that's enough to claim that this is hardly original research, especially since it's being presented as opinion and not fact. If this does not satisfy you, I do not know what will. - Chardish (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Chardish's new version reads:

NFP has none of the side effects associated with hormonal methods and spermicides, nor the need for specific action in preparation for each act of intercourse required by barrier methods. Many theologians, including Pope John Paul II, as well as many NFP users, feel this allows for more spontaneous intercourse during the infertile period.

I find the second sentence problematic. The Wojtyla reference, does that demonstrate that "many theologians" believe this, or does it only refer to the Pope? Also, the grammar is ambiguous. In the second sentence; what does the word "this" mean?

"Many theologians, including Pope John Paul II, as well as many NFP users, feel that [the lack of side effects associated with hormonal methods and spermicides, and the fact that specific action in preparation for each act of intercourse is not necessary] allows for more spontaneous intercourse during the infertile period.

Does the Wojtyla reference really support all of this?

What about the comparison made by using the phrase "more spontaneous"? What comparison are we making; to the relative spontaneity of intercourse with a condom? That isn't written in the article; but if we're going to make a comparison with the word "more", we should clarify what is being compared.

Why is the "thebody" ref here? What statement does it support? The section that Chardish referred to before is here:

Obstacles to effective and widespread condom use include:

• Reluctance to use condoms because some people believe that condoms reduce pleasure or disrupt spontaneous sex.

OK... so we have a website saying that "some people" believe these things... but they don't list any of their own sources. Who are these "people"? Why are we comparing these phantom "people"'s opinions of condoms to the opinions of the Pope? What about the opinions of the people who use the billions of condoms that are used each year? Shouldn't those be compared in as well, if we are making empirical statements? Chardish just removed the citecheck template but I am replacing it now that my explanation is here. Photouploaded (talk)

Second-guessing a reliable source is equivalent to OR. If a reliable source says X, questioning X as "dubious" inside the article is original research unless you can either a) find a reason that source isn't reliable, or b) find another reliable source that outright contradicts that. The sources indicate that many people believe that condoms reduce the spontaneity of sex. Are you arguing that no one claims that? If so, why? Also, you might be interested to know that thebody.com is being cited as a source in dozens of other articles. To answer your questions: the Pope states that condoms reduce spontaneity - he states this as fact, not as opinion. Thebody.com states that some believe that it reduces spontaneity. The Christopher West book, also referenced, states that condoms interfere with spontaneity (he also states this as fact.) I also mentioned some sources above that support this claim that we can cite if need be, but I don't see the point in overloading an article with citations. Can you suggest alternate wording if this wording meets with your dissatisfaction? - Chardish (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood says "Some men and women... become frustrated and lose some of their sexual excitement when they stop to put on a condom." [16]

The book In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality [17] says "Commonly heard complaints about the barrier methods of contraception are... that they interfere with the spontaneity of the sexual relationship, since a woman must be sure that she has prepared herself for intercourse or must do so in the midst of foreplay."

Both condoms specifically and barrier methods in general are perceived by many people to reduce the spontaneity of intercourse. This doesn't mean people won't use them - as I stated before, I've used hundreds of the devices myself despite agreeing with the less-spontaneity assessment: they have other advantages that are more important to me than spontaneity. Because people make trade-offs when deciding on their method of contraception, that billions of condoms are used each year means nothing as far as popular perception of how condoms affect spontaneity.

Clarification that "this" in the second sentence refers to barrier methods might improve the sentence. "Many theologians" could be changed to "prominent theologians" (JPII and West are both prominent theologians). I can't see the argument that it needs to be removed because of lack of sources, however. Lyrl^Talk _C 17:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

While some men and women find condoms to reduce spontaneity, many do not! I am certain that anyone who engages in casual sex would find that condoms increase the spontaneity with which they can have sex; since they don't have to wait for STD test results to come back, or form a monogamous relationship. They can simply roll on a condom and have spontaneous sex. Plenty of people don't find the application of a condom to be an interruption in the act's spontaneity. Many people simply work it into the act itself. I have read (and heard) of many people who find the condom application to be an arousing act, as it signifies that intercourse is imminent. These people do not find the application of a condom to impede the "spontaneity" of the act.

The very idea of comparing intercourse without a condom and intercourse with a condom, and concluding that intercourse with a condom is "less spontaneous", overall, hands-down, as a bedrock truth, is ridiculous. Where are we getting the information to make this comparison, that it inherently IS less spontaneous? This is a subjective opinion, and as such it must be attributed to the person or persons with that opinion. Photouploaded (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No one was claiming that that intercourse with a condom is less spontaneous for everyone. The article before your most recent reversion claimed that many NFP users saw increased spontaneity as a benefit of NFP. That's "many NFP users," not all NFP users, and not everyone who has sex. There are people who do not feel like condoms reduce spontaneity. That does not change the fact that there are many who perceive this as an advantage to NFP.

Since you are contesting the idea that many people find that condoms reduce the spontaneity of sex, I challenge you to find a source that contradicts that claim. In other words, you need to find a reliable source that says that there are not many who feel that condoms reduce the spontaneity of sex. If the sources I cite are truly unreliable than you should have no problem finding reliable sources that contradict them. If you cannot do this you have no ground to stand on in this debate. - Chardish (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)