TCOYF

agapecarrie

I NEVER said one was far superior, I never said one was superior. You keep asserting that I did, which I did not.

Saying "in order to do napro correctly you need an instructor"...is not negative. Its a simple fact. Stop reading what is not there.

TCOYF does not have statistical backing. its a simple fact. STM does.

I have a whole long essay of the differences of methods and philosophies, but I don't consider it useful for this, as I don't want to be discouraging. Here, I simply state facts about the different methods.

Again, stop reading what isn't there. Do not project on me what I'm not saying.

Riss91

I guess I don't understand what (besides using barrier methods during ferile periods) is the difference FAM(TCOYF) and STM. If that is their only difference, then I can't see the reasoning behind criticizing one and not the other.

All I am asking is that you try to be more positive, and encouraging and NOT just blunt and factual. It will make these conversations much nicer and reduce the amount of clarifcation needed.

I know your "thing" is not to show emotion, but I do think it gives off an impression that you are putting down certain things and putting others on a pedestal. Which causes unnecessary negativity. Again, it's NOT your intention to do this, but I don't see why more effort can't be put into speaking more pleasantly when conveying information.

agapecarrie

I wasn't criticizing TCOYF. I said it doesn't have statistical backing.

People said the terms  between CCLI and TCOYF are different....hence they are different methods. STM has statistics for it, TCOYF does not.

ElisabethJoanne

Different terms don't make different methods, otherwise a single method could not be practiced by people speaking different languages. Different terms may point to different methods, but just because, for example, one says "clear" and one says "transparent" does not mean they're different methods. They'd be different methods if they had different terms because they had to describe different things for different reasons.

I'm undecided as to whether different attitudes reflected in different terms means a different method. I could see where using a shorthand of "eggwhite" v. "fertile" mucuos could signify different philosophies towards the same science.

caitriona87

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_tcoyf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:3daef2a8-40eb-464f-9cef-62ce1e3e3417Post:f453c2b6-8fa7-48ce-b890-6fec598a6a74">Re: TCOYF</a>:
[QUOTE]I guess I don't understand what (besides using barrier methods during ferile periods) is the difference FAM(TCOYF) and STM. If that is their only difference, then I can't see the reasoning behind criticizing one and not the other.
Posted by Riss91[/QUOTE]

I use CCL/STM and I have never read TCOYF, but I believe there are different rules for determining when temp rise has occurred. In CCL, you find three temps higher than the previous six, in a rising pattern, with the third at or above the line 4/10ths of a degree higher than the highest of the six. If it doesn't hit that line you need to wait for one more high. I believe the TCOYF formula is simpler and involves only one line, not the two, but therefore is not as strict about the level of temp rise required for ovulation to be considered confirmed. Someone who has read TCOYF correct me if this is not true. Not sure if this was a distinction agape was thinking of or not, but just what I've heard through the NFP grapevine.

I think we probably are all bummed when we hear people blame NFP for their user errors and this all stems from trying to prevent that. 

ElisabethJoanne

Another wrinkle: I've read the book, but haven't studied nfp in any other way. If you just take the words "sympto-thermal," they mean "signs and temperatures." The book is definitely all about signs and temperatures. So if you tell me the "sympto-thermal method" is something different from the book, you're using the words in a specialized way that can legitimately confuse someone not familiar with the terminology.

bel138

Even within STM, there are subtypes. There is the "Old" CCL rules, the "New" CCL rules, Serena, Northwest Family Services, Marquette. I don't know the rules in all of them, but I would definitely call them all different methods since they have different rules, are taught differently and have different terms. One OP is right that just because the terms are different doesn't mean a woman's body ovulates at a different time. But it DOES mean that two women using two of these methods cannot converse on the same terms and cannot use each other's rules. That is enough for me to consider them different methods.  By the same logic, just because Creighton and Billings are both CM only doesn't mean they are the same method. I think that is what agape is trying to stress.

And I also get what she is trying to say about the statistics to back up CCL STM but not TCOYF. Since TCOYF allows the use of barrier methods during the fertile time, there is a higher chance of failure than abstinence (obviously). So the studies on CCL STM (which I think she is referring to) cannot be applied to TCOYF.

doctabroccoli

Thanks to some of you who helped explain the differences between some "similar" methods.

I do think, however, it is important not to discredit TCOYF.  If the number of girls on E who chart because of that book is any indication, it has gotten a large number of non-Catholics or not regularly practicing Catholics charting as opposed to other methods of BC.

mica178

I'd like to point out that TCOYF says that condoms can be used (FAM), but it recommends abstinence rather than condom use.

Calypso1977

i follow TCOYF and have had no issues.  we do not use condoms but abstain during the fertile period.  in fact, we often have sex during the first 5 days (works great since my period is one, maybe 2 days tops, so we have 3 days right there to take advantage of!).  either those days are indeed safe, or ive just been lucky, or im infertile.