Poor marketing of NFP

[choose_to_love]

@charlotte: did you see the reason the women were excluded, also on page 3? Any woman who had potential subfertility or infertility were excluded. To my mind that is the exact opposite of what you have proposed - - the researcher is removing those women likely to not conceive anyway, which would skew the results in favor of NFP. This is the exact opposite of cherry-picking.

For instance, if you wanted to cherry-pick and pump up NFP’s “stats”, would you exclude the 12 women with no partner - - I’d wager there were no unintended pregnancies with those 12.

Note also that the “experienced users” were excluded, i.e., those women already familiar and likely to use it well. I suggest that does not support your conclusion either.

In addition, the largest excluded group was those women trying to get pregnant. That seems fair enough.

In any event, that left 900 women and over 17 thousand cycles to analyze. It was not reduced to 201 couples.

I am not a statistician, but as far as I know, the journal in which that study was published is peer-reviewed. I submit that one cannot discount the results in such a study, and further not for the reasons you have proposed.

I submit that the entire basis for your post #24 in this thread is incorrect.

 

[Charlotte1776]

Mother Teresa brought NFP to the city of Calcutta and when scientists studied its effectiveness they found those using it to have a 0.4% pregnancy rate.

I hate to be one of those people who always asks to see a link, but do you have it? I’ve been looking but I can only find references to it, some that say the results were high because of selection bias and others that say the opposite, and still others saying there was a simple report but not a real study. Though I did find two studies done by the WHO and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center that tried to recreate the Calcutta findings and came up with effectiveness rates of 79% and 72%, respectively. And the average amount of time the women had to abstain was half their cycle, not one week.

did you see the reason the women were excluded, also on page 3?

Yes, I did, and while I can understand the value of trying to determine NFP’s effectiveness among women without any conditions that would make NFP more or less effective, that leaves a small minority of women to study. The majority of women have abnormal cycles - even CCL admits that. The “normal” cycle needed for NFP is a myth- cycles and fertility signs vary widely among women for a large number of reasons and this can make NFP less effective.
And it’s well known that having recently had a baby and breasfeeding make NFP significantly less effective, as does being perimenopausal despite the fact that some of the people in those categories can be less fertile. Other conditions they excluded, such as being under the age of 19, would not have as much an impact on fertility if they had one at all.

I suppose that I did read it wrong in that the 699 women they excluded were left out of the group of 1599 and not the group of 900 (so 44%), but that still leaves a rather small group of subjects. Not necessarily too small to matter, but much smaller and more selective than the several thousand in other studies.

That is like telling the makers of the pill to stop saying it is 99% effective because obviously from the amount of people walking into the abortion clinic its much lower with “typical use”.

It’s not any less misleading for them to claim 99% effectiveness rate when typical use is lower. But it doesn’t change the fact that whichever number you compare - perfect or typical - on the whole, NFP methods are less effective than ABC methods.

 

[Calliso]

I’m sure there are, since you can find studies that come up with numbers that are all over the place. I guess it’s important to look at the methodology and see if the results could apply to your individual situation. For instance, a study about NFP’s effectivenss for postpartum breastfeeding women would be more relevant to me right now than one that excluded them. And ones that exclude women with certain health conditions, long cycles, or who’ve never used the pill would never be relevant for me but might for other women.

Good point it would depend on your circumstances as to which study would be most helpful. And yeah I am sure the study you mentioned before is helpful to some women…though probably not the majority! Since as you pointed out most women donlt have perfect cycles and all that.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

And, when people see that the families who likely use it tend to have bigger families, I can understand why it makes them nervous.

The big problem with this viewpoint, though, is that I’m guessing that the people most likely to be using NFP are not just Catholics, but at least moderately practicing Catholics. That indicates they are more open to larger families than people not using it, so seeing a large family as a sign of its ineffectiveness wouldn’t seem to be a fair conclusion to me.

 

[maryjk]

The big problem with this viewpoint, though, is that I’m guessing that the people most likely to be using NFP are not just Catholics, but at least moderately practicing Catholics. That indicates they are more open to larger families than people not using it, so seeing a large family as a sign of its ineffectiveness wouldn’t seem to be a fair conclusion to me.

But it does seem that way. Of the families that I know for sure use NFP, all of them have large families. For someone like me, it was quite a leap of faith to use it. I need to avoid pregnancy, having a child isn’t an option for me.

When I spoke to the local NFP couple, they told me that they had NEVER used it to avoid. With 8 children (+3 miscarriages) I would guess not. How helpful do you think they are when I have a question? They really don’t know any more about avoiding pregnancy than the book shows.

 

[twoangels]

Hi Cheese,

I think it’s easy to write an article like this to criticize the very few people who have taken the necessary sacrifices to even try to promote NFP to a very lax Catholic population. The author, if she wants to see such a marketing campaign, can start one herself with way less self-sacrifice than the Kippleys demonstrated in starting the Couple to Couple League.

The article’s also self-contradicting. First she wants to see baby or maternal-woman images eliminated from NFP marketing, then complains about “contraceptive mentality” in NFP circles? Which is it to be?

Complaints about the classes are unrealistic. Couples need this medical information, they need it presented honestly and with grown-up words, and they need to discuss all these issues well before marriage! This can’t be learned in an hour from some pamphlet in the honeymoon hotel room after all! Women especially should be charting a number of cycles before the wedding. And to get the couple accustomed to talking about these things before they are relying on them is a good real-world approach.

The underlying problem is with the majority of Catholics. Most of them, women and men alike, approve contraceptives. Period. This even applies to most of the older set who did not, perhaps, use them personally but who will participate in the sin by promoting them to sons and daughters. If images of babies, or women who are not acting like unattached singles, are a turn-off to them, they have a problem with the heart that can’t be corrected with a patronizing billboard.

The key to increasing NFP use is to have a broad-based renewal in the parish that will lead to an interest in all areas of the spiritual life, and in avoiding sin according to whatever method is most practical. In that environment, NFP will not need clever marketing, only simple publicity and common-sense support.

God Bless,
Joan

:clapping:

 

[Z1Z2]

something may be wrong with the marketing of NPF - not NFP itself.

I totally agree with this sentiment. The NFP presentation at our Engaged Encounter was done by a couple with 8 kids. Frankly, that made me nervous and my then fiance, now husband, tuned out at that point. NFP does not work, as far as he was/is concerned.

 

[SusanneT]

I really believe NFP needs to be 'marketed" properly in an adult and above all realistic way.

It is the only form of family planning available to those who chose to follow the Church’s teaching in full - but the more ‘reliable’ you want it to be the more ‘careful’ you have to be and the fewer the days of intimacy you can have. It’s as simple as that and for most couples that means accepting far less intimacy and over a very long time. Which many struggle with and which causes other marital issues which should be discussed.

It’s just crazy to pretend that NFP couples can be as ‘free’ as contracepting couples - but that’s not the point !

 

[StarFireKK]

Like others have said, I agree the biggest problem with marketing NFP is the reliance on effectiveness percentages.

I don’t think you can compare NFP to contraceptives when it comes to effectiveness. The contraceptives require very little in the way of human involvement. Take a pill, put on a condom and there are several things out there that are even more difficult to mess up. Most of the contraceptives effectiveness comes from chemicals and barriers.

Whereas NFP 99% of the system relies on human habits, judgments and knowledge. That’s a TON of room for error. Which means…why do I care if it is 99% effective if used perfectly? Almost nothing on this planet is done perfectly. So then you are talking 75% for typical use but even then? Is that typical use for women with regular systems? Is that typical use for women with 15 years experience? What in the world do you mean by typical?

So when people growl at me that NFP is just as effective or more effective than contraceptives I have to admit I roll my eyes at them. To me the two are apples and oranges and you can’t compare them without more discussion on what you mean by effectiveness.

So to me let’s just drop the whole effectiveness debate and talk about how it gets both men and women involved in their fertility, how it can open communication between partners and how it helps you trust god not to give you more than you can handle, etc. I would also talk about how charting is used by couples trying to get preg so it can also be used to try to avoid.

But if you keep trying to tell educated adults that NFP and contraceptives are the same effectiveness when they know good and well that NFP comes with a much larger margin of human error…you are just going to lose credibility.

 

[SusanneT]

Isn’t it futile to argue that perfect NFP is just as effective as contraception when the whole point of NFP is that it relies on human will etc which is either fallible or open to Gods will - depending on how you view it.

Also the simple fact is that with contraception you can in theory at least have sex when you want whereas with NFP you can only have intercourse when it’s ‘safe’ which for many of us is only a few days a month and for practising Catholics that means abstinance (from sexual intimacy in general) for most of the time.

Please please let’s just be honest !

 

[JoyfulLife]

The problem with “marketing” NFP is that it isn’t like contreception. It’s meant in a marriage open to life, to space babies. When people find out it isn’t just another contreception, I don’t think they will be much interested. They have to change their heart and mentality for a new marriage.

There is the risk of mis-using NFP as contreception, and that’s a hard one to avoid. I would think it’s a challenge to tell when you really need to space or not. I look at the big families of old and they just learned to sacrifice and live with less, plus put a few kids per bedroom. It’s hard to tell these days what’s extra and what’s a must.

 

[Joan1969]

:clapping:

Thanx!

Joan

 

[emmar]

Isn’t it futile to argue that perfect NFP is just as effective as contraception when the whole point of NFP is that it relies on human will etc which is either fallible or open to Gods will - depending on how you view it.

Also the simple fact is that with contraception you can in theory at least have sex when you want whereas with NFP you can only have intercourse when it’s ‘safe’ which for many of us is only a few days a month and for practising Catholics that means abstinance (from sexual intimacy in general) for most of the time.

Please please let’s just be honest !

:clapping:

 

[maryjk]

Isn’t it futile to argue that perfect NFP is just as effective as contraception when the whole point of NFP is that it relies on human will etc which is either fallible or open to Gods will - depending on how you view it.

Also the simple fact is that with contraception you can in theory at least have sex when you want whereas with NFP you can only have intercourse when it’s ‘safe’ which **for many of us is only a few days a month and for practising Catholics that means abstinance (from sexual intimacy in general) for most of the time. **

Please please let’s just be honest !

But we also have to be honest and tell people that for many it is only a few days a month that they need to abstain. Generally for me it is less than a week. Once in a while, maybe twice a year, we abstain for more than that.

Being honest is telling about your experience.

 

[Calliso]

But we also have to be honest and tell people that for many it is only a few days a month that they need to abstain. Generally for me it is less than a week. Once in a while, maybe twice a year, we abstain for more than that.

Being honest is telling about your experience.

True the problem comes when they only tell about the good experiences and leave out the not so good!

 

[emmar]

True the problem comes when they only tell about the good experiences and leave out the not so good!

Very true, none of the 3 NFP instructors or speakers we listened to talked about any of the negative experiences.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

I knew about the pill and condoms since I was nine years old. I learned about NFP 6 months before I got married when I was 26. Is it any wonder the pill is more common?

Not to mention most of the discussion with NFP talks about how to avoid which makes it sound like Catholic Birth Control. My husband and I agreed it sounded like the Church was trying to pull a fast one knowing that the majority of signs can be misread and the couples will get pregnant anyways. We finally had the guts to say something to the priest after the Engagement Encounter Weekend (and how many couples would’ve just kept their mouths shut). He explained the theology to us and the problems of the “contraceptive” mindset.

You can’t really blame Catholics for not using NFP when they don’t know about it.

I agree with you. And the priest.

The anti-family mentality of our culture is the real problem.

I agree with these thoughts… I think it is more about helping people learn the Truth than about trying to tout NFP as anything more than what it is, a tool to help couples that need to abstain for just/serious/grave reasons, making use of God’s beautiful design. I think educating against the contraceptive/anti-family mentality would help more people switch. No gimmicks, no strategic advertising, just the Truth, since I believe that most Catholics that do not use ABC is because they know the Truth, not because they think NFP or not avoiding at all is a walk in the park compared to ABC.

 

[amandamary]

I am getting married in two weeks. My pre-cana instructor was a NFP instructor and I have to say, she marketed it well. I think she met everyone’s needs during that presentation…the ones who wanted to follow God’s plan, the ones who wanted to save money (HAHAHA!), the ones who were concerned about their health, and…the ones who wanted to be in the bedroom a lot!

I think couples hear a lot of false advertising about having an unplanned pregnancy. Most importantly, though, I think the sacrifice that is required with NFP is what really turns people off. In an “I want it now” world, it’s a hard sell. I pray that God’s plan for marriage becomes clearer to more couples.

 

[kristleful]

I agree with these thoughts… I think it is more about helping people learn the Truth than about trying to tout NFP as anything more than what it is, a tool to help couples that need to abstain for just/serious/grave reasons, making use of God’s beautiful design. I think educating against the contraceptive/anti-family mentality would help more people switch. No gimmicks, no strategic advertising, just the Truth, since I believe that most Catholics that do not use ABC is because they know the Truth, not because they think NFP or not avoiding at all is a walk in the park compared to ABC.

I totally agree with this! The whole idea of “marketing” NFP is very strange to me. The Church isn’t trying to sell a new and more efficient way of avoiding children… It wants people to change the contraceptive, all-about-me-and-my-choices mentality that is so prevalent nowadays. We need more guidance and teaching about the beauty of new life and selflessness and trusting God. When you get this, then NFP is a natural, no-brainer follow-up to this mentality if you absolutely must avoid children. Its benefits and challenges will be accepted, just as we know marriage is both wonderful and difficult, but we do it rather than live together in sin. If you must use NFP, do it because it’s right—not because it’s easy. That’s what people should be told, IMO.

 

[amandamary]

SusanneT–I’m infertile a good portion of the month (Phase 3) and I think lots of people are. I even have health issues that affect my fertility but, working with doctors who know NFP, we’ve worked through it to understand my cycles better. Perhaps you could try that?