Kinsey Confidential

Question:\nWhy aren't any alternative methods talked about to prevent pregnancy on your Web site or in the student newspaper? Are not Natural Family Planning (NFP) methods and the pill both 97 percent effective? Is the pill suggested more frequently because it's easy and one doesn't have to communicate about pregnancy? I am searching right now if it is good or bad to take the pill or use natural methods such as NFP. I'd appreciate your feedback. \nAnswer:\nThese are great questions -- thank you for asking them! We actually do include information about abstinence and NFP methods on the KISISS Web site (www.indiana.edu/~kisiss -- check out the topics section). Reviewing our columns and Web site, it's true that the pill is more often mentioned, but we don't "suggest" people choose any specific method of contraception -- whether it's the pill, abstinence, NFP or another method -- for two main reasons. \nFirst, KISISS is an informational service provided by The Kinsey Institute, a research-based institution, and our mission is to provide information, not medical advice. Second, we feel that choosing a contraceptive method is a complex decision that a woman should make in consultation with her healthcare provider and her partner, if she currently has one. \nIn our newspaper columns, the pill comes up far more often than abstinence, NFP methods or other methods, like the diaphragm, cervical cap, vasectomy, tubal ligation, IUD, etc. That's because students ask us tons of questions about the pill -- it's long been a common method of birth control -- and we print real questions by real students in our column. In contrast, we rarely ever receive questions from students asking about abstinence or NFP, although we certainly welcome these, and we're just as committed to providing information on these topics as others. We enjoy the opportunity to provide accurate, evidence-based information to ALL students regardless of their background, level of sexual experience or beliefs about sexuality, so thank you for adding to the diversity of these questions.\nIn terms of effectiveness, NFP methods are estimated to be about 97 percent effective with perfect use compared with the pill's estimated effectiveness of about 99.7 percent with perfect use. Both of these estimates change, however, with "typical use" -- meaning how well they're used in reality. With typical use, NFP methods' effectiveness drops down to about 80 percent and the pill's effectiveness drops to about 92-94 percent. There are several methods that fall in the NFP category, including the temperature method, cervical mucus method, calendar method and the cycle beads. \nYou're absolutely correct that NFP methods often "take more work;" they can be complex -- that's probably one reason their typical effectiveness rates are lower. If you're interested in this method, though, IU Health and Wellness offers health educators who can sit down with you and teach you how to use them correctly; call 855-7338 for an appointment. \nYou also brought up a great point about communication. Many women and their partners do not talk about sexuality, and we encourage anyone considering becoming sexually active to learn about factors that affect their sexual health, emotionally and physically, and to talk about their sexual choices with their partner and other trusted individuals -- parents, other family members, healthcare providers, professors, friends. Communication is important with all methods of contraception, including the pill, abstinence and NFP. \nIn addition to the KISISS Web site, you can find very detailed information about NFP methods and other contraceptive choices at Planned Parenthood's Web site. You might also enjoy reading "Devices and Desires: A History of Contraceptives in America" by Andrea Tone. \nKinsey Confidential is a service of The Kinsey Institute Sexuality Information Service for Students at IU. Visit the Web site at www.indiana.edu/~kisiss