Personally, I think a year of abstinence would be easier for virginal newlyweds because it will just be a postponement rather than an interruption in what may have already become a practice for those further along in marriage.
I think that idea comes from this:
Appreciate it, sir - how you doing? (I’ll go to pm)
Gotcha. But it’s also true that when the pill fails, most of the time it is due to “operator failure” as well.So, If you knew and understood the point of my post, then I don’t understand why you posted.
Here’s the thing that I see.
Sure, people expect the pill to work, just like they expect condoms or NFP to work.
But, when the pill fails, they talk about it’s faiure rate…
When NFP fails, they talk about the operature’s failure to use it correctly.
My point is that they should be careful and tell the people the whole truth and not elevate it to something that it is not…
When you give people half the info, you set them up for serious surprises.
And yes, yo did mention that your colleague is a physician in the first post
You may think that I owe him an apology, but I don’t think that I do, and as he hasn’t said anything, I have no reason to think that he does (If PM thinks I owe him an apology, I would do so GLADLY)
One year, when both parties are physically capable (not separated by distance, or health reasons) is NOT what I would call ‘temporary’.
PM… I realize that you were, um… ‘surprised’ by a pregnancy after you followed NFP.
but in general I don’t think inconveniences justify NFP because once you start where do you draw the line?
Oh, please can we stop with the _____ owes ____ an apology talk?
Of course one year is temporary. And, IMO temporary is a timing issue and other things like distance or health do not make something temporary or not.
If you look around these boards you will find a huge number of folks that imply that NFP is as close to 100% as you can get without being 100%.
Very true and very wrong of those folks.
Agree that that is often the case.
For some, not all IMO.
Maybe you don’t think that, but I know lots of folks that would call a year short, especially when tied to an idea like we need a year to finish school.
Very true and the very reason to abstain for a year if there is a need not to get pregnant for a year.
Isn’t that the standard for NFP and not the standard for abstinence? I have never heard that standard applied to the sort of abstinence being discussed here.
I think many could easily say don’t add the stress of sex to the first year of marriage. There is no one size fits all answer here.
It may be the better answer to wait, but there may also be many reasons to go forward. Why would it be so terrible to decide to do so? Indeed, I have heard many stories of those that involuntarily abstained for the first year because they had pregnancy fears of otherwise just couldn’t make things work.
I think the posters imply it and the readers infer it. (I am such a geek.)
I will say that I do agree with the majority in that my advice would generally be to wait the year to get married. However, I do not agree that the first year of marriage would be the hardest year to practice abstinence if the couple was virginal coming into the marriage.
I’d believe the serious reason applies to avoidance of having children in marriage regardless of the method used. It doesn’t really make since to say you must have serious reason to practice NFP but you can use full blown abstinence for any reason at all. Remember that just denying a spouse the “martial dept” requires a good reason by its self.
I suppose you could
Not sure I ever talk to anyone that thought there sex life was stressful tho 
You are welcome!
back at ya.