Why oh why does it have to go from big pharma and taking a pill daily to supremely flaky?
Still, I applaud these Red Tent Sisters. For one, they got branding down (as the woman who sent me this link pointed out. Why call it the “Sympto-thermal method” or boring old “natural family planning” when you can go with “ecosex”? I feel like I’m in a mossy woodland already).
Secondly, the Red Tent Sisters are effectively promoting natural family planning but no one will ever point a finger and tell them they are moralizing. To my Catholic friends: All that’s needed is a wee rebranding and the better part of the GTA will be following NFP pronto.
Anyhoo: This truly is a more female-friendly form of birth control than The Pill, no matter what you call it. The hard part is when you hit on the abortion question with some of those who promote “Ecosex.” I do not know what position the Red Tent Sisters take, but forcibly removing the fetus through invasive surgery hardly qualifies as female-friendly, but some of them justify this. It’s a radical double standard.
by 
I wonder why this strikes Miss Mrozek as “supremely flaky”? Maybe because they’re chariging almost a hundred bucks a session for something that you can find at your local Catholic church (hopefully) for free?
Seriously though, in response to the “double standard” idea: it seems to me that, if your primary goal is control over your reproductive system (ie. sex without the consequence of becoming pregnant), then of course you will hold on to abortion as a “last resort” method of exerting the self-domination over your body that you’re looking for. That this is indeed the attitude that the Red Tent Sisters have (and, sadly, many Catholics too) is made apparent by the fact that the first benefit they list is this method’s “effectiveness” stats.
What if we thought of sex as being primarily 1) an act of unification of the two people involved and 2) an act of creation of new life? Then, not only would “the pill” seem silly (because it prevents both of these meanings of the act), but also abortion would strike us for what it is (the destruction of a life for our own whims).
In other words, the only way to have a fully comprehensive and consistent sexual anthropology is to fight not only abortion but also the contraceptive mentality (which can still be present even among those who use the “eco-sex” or NFP method).
Granted, I’m feeling negative this morning, but though it would be nice for people to think of sex as you’ve described, billy d, I’d settle for people not thinking of sex as a sport (“Get your protective gear on and get out there and have a good time!!”)
Indeed, we have a long way to go, don’t we?
I love that you used the word “branding.” I’ve been saying this for years–Church teaching never needs to be re-branded, but the way we present NFP and the reasons to use it *could be* done better. Everything from logos to slogans to design to web sites and social networking.
Thanks so much for posting this link. SO fascinating. Their prices are pretty high. Perhaps they’re trying to prove us wrong that there’s not money to make in NFP??? I don’t know. I certainly don’t embrace their type of feminism, but am happy to see that NFP/ FAM is making it into non-religious circles.
I forgot to add….did you see the TIME article on ecosex from October? It ended up turning out badly (I was interviewed for it), but it’s worth taking a look at the commentary and conversation:
http://www.nfpworksblog.com/2009/10/20/nfp-and-me-makes-the-big-time/