In my all-girls catholic high school in the late eighties, we had a class called "marriage." Most would immediately jump to the conclusion that this was a horrible and repressive process of patriarchal indoctrination. Not really (like many all-girls schools, mine was extremely feminist--much more feminist than my earthy-crunchy lefty college, actually). Our teacher--a cheerful middle-aged woman who seemed to really like sex--carefully laid out the church position on a whole host of birth control methods (while cleverly presenting their effectiveness rates, std protection, and a lot of other info at the same time). She told us why she could not endorse thes methods officially at our school. She discussed church doctrine on the subject--never jamming it down our throats, strictly conveying it as information. Most of us were already on the pill at this point.

She also spent a lot of time teaching us this charting method--as both a means of birth control and a fertility device. At the time of ovulation, she told us that she and her husband chose to find "other ways of loving" (a phrase that still sends me and my high school friends into a fit of giggles). I can still vividly remember her stretching her thumb and forefinger apart to illustrate when the mucus was at its most stretchy phase. She discussed all of the different types of "discharges" from the female body and how to tell what was part of the natural process of ovulation and what could signal and infection or fungus.

I certainly never used the charting method as birth control--too much work and detail. And it doesn't provide the protection from STDs that young people particularly need (but then neither did the pill, which we all stupidly relied on). But damned if she wasn't right about the mucus and ovulation (my son, and a one-time lapse in birth control use is living proof). I'm very glad that this information was given to me. It demystified the inner workings of my body. You can never give anyone too much information about their health and anatomy.

I haven't finished my coffee yet, but I think the last phrase of the sentence:

"It also helps women tell the days on which they're most likely to become pregnant, but doesn't stress the opposite (i.e., the days on which they're most likely to conceive)." should be changed to ...LEAST likely to conceive....

It also helps women tell the days on which they're most likely to become pregnant, but doesn't stress the opposite (i.e., the days on which they're most likely to conceive).

I think there is a typo in here - "most likely to become pregnant" and "most likely to conceive" seem to mean the same thing, not the opposite.

I have seen another book that deals with this subject (unfortunately I don't have the name) but not nearly as responsibly. It was one chapter in what could be called an alternative publication. It railed on pharmaceutical companies and said that women don't need all that crap, birth control can be natural. It talked casually about charts, temperatures and learning your body well enough to taste for fertility. Literally. I was kind of horrified of the carefree attitude of the authors and could just seen young girls who want to be all-natural or alternative thinking that this was cool and going for it without realizing how much work was really necessary.

So while the book in this article seems responsible, I think it's worth noting that this information could be presented in a way that won't promote responsible behavior.

Let's suppose for a moment that some teens will read this section of the book, decide to use Natural Family Planning, do so incorrectly and become pregnant.

As the saying goes, "a little learning is a dangerous thing."

I think a decent corollary would be someone who decides to become a vegan without considering the challenges involved and fails to take the appropriate steps to make sure she receives proper nutrients.

I think the learning provided in this book and this section in particular is worth the risk. What teenage girls and adult women don't know about their bodies and their cycles--even with sex-ed in school--is appalling.

Frankly, I think I'll go out and buy the book myself.

I think giving girls a little more control over their bodies -- which the info in this book certainly will -- is a good thing. Knowing what's going on gives her a healthy respect for her body, not fear and disgust like I think many, many women experienced as girls. That, in turn, might even help delay irresponsible sexual behavior and even an excuse to say no.

In Wechsler's original book, the one she wrote for grownups, she writes in the first chapter about going to the gyn in college for some infection or another and learning only then that what she thought was an infection was normal vaginal discharge. I read the book at 29 incredulous to finally know the real details of the female cycle. I learned about the book from a friend who was "spreading the word" becuase she too couldn't believe she didn't know this stuff. THis friend used to tell all her friends, guys and girls, all the details and inner workings of the female sex organs, the mucous, the cervix, all that stuff. Everyone listened, fascinated, glad to finally know. We were PhD students at the time. And this was only 10 years ago or so. I still tell women about the book, especially women who are planning to get pregnant. Only a few actually look at the thing. I'm always amazed when the others say things like "it's not up to me when I get pregnant" and can't figure out how to time it all, etc.

Anyway, the original book is great. I will also be getting the teen one. I think it SHOULD have included days likely not to get pregnant and the days likely TO get pregnant and with lots of scenarios about how not following through could lead to pregnancy. What's the alternative? Unprotected sex any day of the month? Oh, that's happening right now! Anyway, any truly interested teen can find out that info online.