NFP: sexual disorder?

[stadre]

The fact is, they can make it. In other words, if the couple were trying to avoid pregnancy – but they made a mistake in their charting, and the woman happened to be fertile at the time of intercourse – following the SFI would, in itself, significantly reduce their chances of pregnancy. This information can be found right there in the Creighton handbook (5th ed., p. 58). Under the general rules, it says that the SFI should be followed “within one hour” of intercourse. Later on the same page, though, it mentions that “during the time of fertility, the couple should wait 30 minutes before employing the instruction. This assures that the sperm have an adequate opportunity to migrate through the cervical canal to the fallopian tubes where conception can occur.” It seems as if – at the very least – they should be telling all couples to wait 30 minutes. Otherwise, the woman will be deliberately engaging in unnecessary behavior that has a contraceptive side effect.

(I say “unnecessary,” because the basic reason for following this procedure is to avoid an extra day or two of abstinence. Other forms of the Ovulation Method – e.g., Billings or FOAF – don’t teach the SFI; they teach the “alternate days” rule instead. Even with Creighton, couples have the option of just waiting an extra day or two, instead of doing the SFI.)

It is interesting that I have never before been accused of being immodest during an Introductory Session or otherwise! (The most I’ve been accused of is being pro-life—the horror!) There seems to be plenty of misinformation in this thread and so I decided to consult with my fellow FC Practitioner, astegallrnc:

Without cervical mucus (CM), sperm will die very quickly upon being placed into the vagina (within minutes). Without the CM, the vagina is a VERY hostile place. If there is CM present, the sperm swim into that mucus and enter through the cervix, moving toward the fallopian tube to meet the egg.

Seminal fluid, on the other hand, DOES NOT enter through the cervix. It is simply the mode of transferring the sperm from the man to the woman. Using the SFI removes the fluid. Once the sperm come into contact with the CM, there is nothing you can do to stop them. It is important to know that “the SFI should not be viewed as contraceptive" and that "once seminal fluid has been deposited in the vagina, there is no physical means of removing the seminal fluid that would prevent pregnancy” (Hilgers, Daly, Hilgers, & Prebil 2002).

continued by astegallrnc . . .

 

[astegallrnc]

continued…

We are very disturbed that you would actually present misinformation from the Creighton “handbook.” Your quote is correct but you are the one inferred that “following the SFI would, in itself, significantly reduce their chances of pregnancy. “ In fact, review what you wrote. SFI within one hour; during fertility, wait 30 minutes. One does not have to, need to, or (we might add) should jump right out of bed to do SFI! You have up to an hour. In many cases, women need to wait 20-30 minutes in order to properly eliminate the SF. This is regardless of the intention in achieving or avoiding pregnancy.

In an effort to show that it is unnecessary to remove the SFI, you actually helped prove why we do it! You say that by simply waiting alternate days, it removes the need for SFI. This is problematic because, when the woman sees peak-type mucus the next day, she will actually have to wait until the end of peak + 4. You see, she really has no way to know if she is seeing SF or CM. She has to count it fertile. In addition, such observations may delay tests and medications in the woman charting for reproductive health. With that said, “the couple has the choice to use this instruction if they do desire” (Hilgers, Daly, Hilgers, & Prebil 2002).

 

[PRmerger]

Seminal fluid, on the other hand, DOES NOT enter through the cervix. It is simply the mode of transferring the sperm from the man to the woman. Using the SFI removes the fluid.

I’m not sure I understand. SFI removes seminal fluid, but not sperm???

 

[1ke]

Then we end up with such bizarre developments as homeschoolers doing “brother/sister charting,”

Proof please. I know of no homeschoolers who do this.

or Catholic schools where the boys chart the girls’ cycles.

Proof please. I know of no Catholic school that teaches NFP to the girls, let alone to the boys.

Or graphic “Introduction to NFP” talks that visually demonstrate the wonders of G-, L-, and S- mucus to all and sundry. I don’t believe that this constitutes “progress.”

The people attending the talks are (a) adults and (b) there to learn exactly what is being presented. It’s not like someone walked in off the street thinking they were going to learn flower arrangement or basket weaving. They are there to learn about NFP.

I think you have some real issues if you think it’s inappropriate to discuss the human body in clinical terms in a class designed to teach adults about their fertility.

According to the Church’s traditional teaching, it is certainly possible to convey necessary facts about human biology without violating modesty. … what’s wrong with expecting them to be “creative” in communicating about NFP during public discussions, to preserve modesty?

I think you have some really weird notions of modesty.

 

[PRmerger]

If that’s your opinion, then you can refrain from SFI.

Sigh. The point of this thread is not whether I practice SFI, or enjoy it, or think it’s better than sliced bread…

I was asking why it’s allowed. It seems to me to be little more than regurgitation of contents which are necessary to fulfill the marital act.

However, thanks to all the thoughtful responses I now have some food for thought.

 

[1ke]

why it’s allowed. It seems to me to be little more than regurgitation of contents which are necessary to fulfill the marital act.

Because it does nothing that renders the act sterile. Because it does nothing that gravity does not already do.

 

[stadre]

I’m not sure I understand. SFI removes seminal fluid, but not sperm???

See the preceding sentence. The sperm quickly move into the CM, if present. By the time you do SFI, the sperm are already in the mucus. You are removing the SF, not the cervical mucus.

 

[PRmerger]

See the preceding sentence. The sperm quickly move into the CM, if present. By the time you do SFI, the sperm are already in the mucus. You are removing the SF, not the cervical mucus.

I respectfully ask you to provide any research that backs this up. I’m thinking it would be very easy to examine the seminal fluid microscopically after it has been expelled to determine that there are indeed no sperm, (if cervical mucus is present.)

Forgive me if I sound incredulous that sperm are not present in seminal fluid that’s expelled.

 

[astegallrnc]

I respectfully ask you to provide any research that backs this up. I’m thinking it would be very easy to examine the seminal fluid microscopically after it has been expelled to determine that there are indeed no sperm, (if cervical mucus is present.)

The sperm capable of fertilization move rapidly into the cervix/uterus/ fallopian tubes (within 90 seconds sperm are in the CM and after 5 minutes some have located the fallopian tubes). Within the first 20-30 minutes following ejaculation, are there live sperm found in the seminal fluid? Maybe. However, SFI does not render the marital act sterile. A couple who utilize SFI are open to life (from a physiological perspective).

 

[maryceleste]

This is in response to stadre & astegallrc’s posts:

If a couple is trying to avoid pregnancy, they’re not going to be knowingly having relations during a time of fertility. Therefore, they’re not going to be following the 30-minute rule, as it’s described in the handbook. In my previous post, I was referring to cases where such people believed they were infertile, but were mistaken in their charting (which, let’s face it, does happen sometimes… just search on this forum for examples). In these situations, if the SFI does have a contraceptive effect, it *could *prevent the conception of a child.

Regarding that issue: please explain to me how the following statements could both be true.

“[O]nce seminal fluid has been deposited in the vagina, there is no physical means of removing the seminal fluid that would prevent pregnancy.” (Hilgers, et al.)

“[D]uring times of fertility, the couple should wait 30 minutes before employing the instruction. This assures that the sperm have an adequate opportunity to migrate through the cervical canal to the fallopian tubes where conception can occur.” (Creighton manual)

It seems to me that they flatly contradict one another. Which one is telling the truth? (And no fudging by saying that the “30 minute rule” is for some other purpose. The manual says clearly, as cited above, that the rule exists to give the little swimmers a “fighting chance.” )

 

[maryceleste]

Proof please. I know of no homeschoolers who do this.

The homeschool thing – brothers charting for their sisters and/or mothers – was suggested in one of Gregory Popcak’s books. He mentioned that he knew some families who did this, and that they found it beneficial. A couple of years back, someone wrote an article criticizing him for writing this (among other things), and it caused a big flap in the Catholic blog world and on forums like Free Republic. Even many people who were usually among his fans thought that this was pretty bizarre.

Classroom NFP instruction is part of the TeenSTAR program, which is used in some Catholic schools. In *some *areas, the teachers have had the boys do charting for the girls. I don’t know how common this was – or if it was part of the official recommendations, or just some folks being overzealous. In any case, it did happen. A group called Mothers Watch wrote an expose of this, and it was also covered in the Wanderer and elsewhere. I can’t find any links that still work (it was a while back), but, if you want to discuss it further, feel free to start a new thread, and I’ll try to find some references.

1ke:

The people attending the talks are (a) adults and (b) there to learn exactly what is being presented. It’s not like someone walked in off the street thinking they were going to learn flower arrangement or basket weaving. They are there to learn about NFP.

The Creighton “Introduction to NFP” talk in our area is advertised to the general public, and subtitled “Information about a new system of family planning you might choose,” or something similarly vague. In my experience, most people who are poorly-informed about NFP assume that it’s about the “rhythm method,” or perhaps “taking your temperature and plotting it on a graph” They wouldn’t show up at such a talk expecting to be presented with a barrage of graphic slides and vivid descriptions of bodily fluids. And I don’t think such things are necessary, until the couple is actually learning the method – i.e., at the “private consultation” stage.

You know, I wonder if anyone’s thought to interview couples coming out of these sorts of talks, to get their reactions? I know they have comment sheets, but most people in our class didn’t bother to fill them out.

I think you have some really weird notions of modesty.

Feel free to show me – from official Vatican teaching, or any pre-1960’s book on marital life, sex education, or moral theology – where my notions are incorrect.

 

[astegallrnc]

In these situations, if the SFI does have a contraceptive effect, it *could *prevent the conception of a child.

Based on my humble understanding of reproductive physiology, I disagree.

It seems to me that they flatly contradict one another. Which one is telling the truth? (And no fudging by saying that the “30 minute rule” is for some other purpose. The manual says clearly, as cited above, that the rule exists to give the little swimmers a “fighting chance.” )

Both are true. There are a number of reasons why the instruction to an infertile couple would be to wait, which those reasons seem obvious to me, but that is not the purpose of this discussion. SFI is not contraceptive.

I won’t “fudge” but I don’t believe the intent of the authors was cleary stated.

If you have suggestions for the IS, please feel free to PM or email them to me. I will pass them along.

Autumn

 

[maryceleste]

Both are true. There are a number of reasons why the instruction to an infertile couple would be to wait, which those reasons seem obvious to me, but that is not the purpose of this discussion. SFI is not contraceptive.

Again, the manual clearly says that following the SFI within 30 minutes of intercourse could prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. Even if there are other reasons to wait, this is the one that’s given in the manual.

I won’t “fudge” but I don’t believe the intent of the authors was cleary stated.

By them, or by me? And, if the former, what do you believe they were *trying *to say?

If you have suggestions for the IS, please feel free to PM or email them to me. I will pass them along.

I think my suggestions are pretty straightforward. Feel free to share them, if you like. But I suspect they’re already familiar with these objections, having heard them from others in the NFP community.

For instance, I just noticed that earlier this year, the Drs. Billings issued a statement referring to the SFI as “totally rejected by BOM, as unnatural, intrusive, and divisive.”

Some Clarifications Concerning NaProTECHNOLOGY and the Billings Ovulation Method

So, it seems like this is a real controversy… not just some far-out idea that a few of us came up with because we had nothing better to do. :whacky:

 

[astegallrnc]

For instance, I just noticed that earlier this year, the Drs. Billings issued a statement referring to the SFI as “totally rejected by BOM, as unnatural, intrusive, and divisive.”

Some Clarifications Concerning NaProTECHNOLOGY and the Billings Ovulation Method

I must admit… very, very interesting!

Thanks!

Autumn

 

[stadre]

maryceleste, How many of your Creighton follow up sessions did you attend? I am seriously asking this because you are arguing like you have only read the book and never had the teaching. One thing that you should be aware of is that FertilityCare is not a self taught method. You should not try to figure it out on your own. If you are still working with your practitioner, he/she should be able help you a lot more than we can on a board. Still:

If a couple is trying to avoid pregnancy, they’re not going to be knowingly having relations during a time of fertility. Therefore, they’re not going to be following the 30-minute rule, as it’s described in the handbook. In my previous post, I was referring to cases where such people believed they were infertile, but were mistaken in their charting (which, let’s face it, does happen sometimes… just search on this forum for examples). **In these situations, if the SFI does have a contraceptive effect, it *could ***prevent the conception of a child.

Except that the sperm transfer to the cervical mucus before there is even a chance to do SFI. So, it cannot be contraceptive. Certainly they might lose some sperm in doing so, but I would say that they already did so without it being intentional. The SF does start coming out of the body immediately! (And if she simply urinates, she removes even more!) All the SFI does is systematically remove the fluid. What does this do? It prevents confusion. (There will not be a discharge to consider fertilile–possibly peak-type.) It also prevents infections. It does both of these by remove an additional discharge. Like it or not, the SF will leave the body. Whether the sperm stay in is dependent on the presence of CM.

Regarding that issue: please explain to me how the following statements could both be true.

“[O]nce seminal fluid has been deposited in the vagina, there is no physical means of removing the seminal fluid that would prevent pregnancy.” (Hilgers, et al.)

“[D]uring times of fertility, the couple should wait 30 minutes before employing the instruction. This assures that the sperm have an adequate opportunity to migrate through the cervical canal to the fallopian tubes where conception can occur.” (Creighton manual)

It seems to me that they flatly contradict one another. Which one is telling the truth? (And no fudging by saying that the “30 minute rule” is for some other purpose. The manual says clearly, as cited above, that the rule exists to give the little swimmers a “fighting chance.” )

The important phrase in all this is, “It seems to me . . .” The two quotes you gave do not contradict each other. The “30 minute rule” does not disprove that once sperm are in past the cervix, they cannot be removed.

Instead, it seems that your problem with SFI is for the off chance that a couple “misread” their fertility. Then you are suggesting that it would be contraceptive. I think that the burden of proof is on you here. I suppose if a couple uses it to prevent a pregnancy (which is not the Creighton teaching), it could possibly be considered contraceptive. But if the couple is trying to be sure of their fertility and prevent UTI’s, does this go against Church teaching? I think that you will need to show the Church documents that teach against it.

Couples who want to avoid a pregnancy want to know for certain when they are fertile/infertile. Couples who want to achieve a pregnancy want to know for certain when they are fertile/infertile. This is a huge issue with those of us facing infertility. (It is difficult enough to work with doctors who don’t believe that NFP is reliable. I can’t imagine trying to show them that it is with white babies all over the chart because I didn’t properly eliminate SF!)

 

[stadre]

The Creighton “Introduction to NFP” talk in our area is advertised to the general public, and subtitled “Information about a new system of family planning you might choose,” or something similarly vague. In my experience, most people who are poorly-informed about NFP assume that it’s about the “rhythm method,” or perhaps “taking your temperature and plotting it on a graph” They wouldn’t show up at such a talk expecting to be presented with a barrage of graphic slides and vivid descriptions of bodily fluids. And I don’t think such things are necessary, until the couple is actually learning the method – i.e., at the “private consultation” stage.

You know, I wonder if anyone’s thought to interview couples coming out of these sorts of talks, to get their reactions? I know they have comment sheets, but most people in our class didn’t bother to fill them out.

Not being there, I cannot argue with you that most of your class did not fill out the comment sheet. I trust that you watched each person from the end of the session until each left to be positive that they did not do so. Since you were so offended by simple anatomy and physiology, I do hope you let your practitioner know. I would guess that your practitioner could word her advertisement differently if it was a common problem in your area. I do know (as per the forms of which I have received all but one in 4 years of teaching) that most people find the sessions to be extremely enlightening. (Again, the only problem I have had is that I had “a pro-life agenda,” which the person would have liked to know about up front!)

 

[stadre]

I think my suggestions are pretty straightforward. Feel free to share them, if you like. But I suspect they’re already familiar with these objections, having heard them from others in the NFP community.

I am not sure what your suggestions for improving the Introductory Sessions are.

For instance, I just noticed that earlier this year, the Drs. Billings issued a statement referring to the SFI as “totally rejected by BOM, as unnatural, intrusive, and divisive.”

Some Clarifications Concerning NaProTECHNOLOGY and the Billings Ovulation Method

So, it seems like this is a real controversy… not just some far-out idea that a few of us came up with because we had nothing better to do. :whacky:

This is a very interesting link. After reading through it, I can certainly appreciate the feelings of those involved with BOM, especially where they feel they were misrepresented. This will most definitely help me in my teaching. Thank you!

I also have to say that the authors of this article also show a misunderstanding of the Creighton model. If BOM works for you, use it. If FC works for you, use that. There are obviously many mixed understandings when trying to combine the two.

It is great that those who use and teach BOM do not see a need for the SFI. Those of us who use and teach FC see a great need. We would also disagree that it is unnatural. Many women do do something in this regard after intercourse. (I already mentioned the infertility aspect and I can’t say enough how much I appreciate not having had a single UTI since employing SFI. Previously, they were a common and extremely painful and dangerous occurance.)

 

[1ke]

The homeschool thing – brothers charting for their sisters and/or mothers – was suggested in one of Gregory Popcak’s books.

Classroom NFP instruction is part of the TeenSTAR program, which is used in some Catholic schools.

Interesting. I have many friends who homeschool and have never heard of such a thing. This is not taught in the Catholic schools in my current or former diocese. I have not ever heard of it being taught anywhere.

Feel free to show me – from official Vatican teaching, or any pre-1960’s book on marital life, sex education, or moral theology – where my notions are incorrect.

I cannot prove a negative. There is no Vatican document that says it is immodest to show pictures of a biological and anatomical nature at a talk on natural family planning.

 

[1ke]

For instance, I just noticed that earlier this year, the Drs. Billings issued a statement referring to the SFI as “totally rejected by BOM, as unnatural, intrusive, and divisive.”

So, it seems like this is a real controversy… not just some far-out idea that a few of us came up with because we had nothing better to do. :whacky:

The controversy is not a moral one.

This article only has issues with SFI because Creighton says to do it. The whole article is the Drs. Billings sniping at Dr. Hilgers for introducing a mucus method based on, but different from, BOM.

Hardly a bombshell article, and has no merit as to the OPs concern-- a moral one, not a “method effectiveness” one.

 

[maryceleste]

This article only has issues with SFI because Creighton says to do it. The whole article is the Drs. Billings sniping at Dr. Hilgers for introducing a mucus method based on, but different from, BOM.

Hmm… let me get this straight…

• If the average Catholic finds the SFI objectionable, it’s because they’re prudish or misinformed.

If NFP authorities find the SFI objectionable, it’s because of rivalry and personal animosities.

If in doubt, see above.
*
:ehh:

Well, to each his own. To paraphrase your earlier statement:

“If that’s your opinion, you can refrain from refraining to use SFI.”