The kind of self-control to save oneself for marriage is similar to the kind of self-control needed to practice NFP. Our culture is so decadent that self-control is considered "repressive" or harmful. I heard a lot of this in college.

I like your enthusiasm Elizabeth. Great video!

This video gave me a new perspective on sex and my sexual energy.

You’re exactly right that people don’t trust God, and want to take matters into their own hands. I believe contraception to some degree shows how much a person loves and trusts God and their spouse. Using it shows you don’t love the other person enough to embrace them in their full capacity as a human, because you fear a loss of time or money down the road. Of course there are some exceptions here, but those are not the norm.

Is Blaise a baby or a cat? I legitimately cannot tell from the sling.

People have sexual problems because their hearts are fundamally broken. It has nothing to do with "controlling urges" and has everything to do with despair and loneliness. As someone who faces temptation everyday it is just a symptom of feeling lonely and sad. Whenever I am most happy is when those urges are non-existent.

This video is confusing. Family « planning » cannot be natural. If you use temperature or calculations to avoid union with your partner certain parts of the month, it is not natural. It is less grave than chemical or physical contraception, but it is the same distortion of natural human behaviour, the intent is the same. Also, women usually have more libido during ovulation! If two partners want to unite without any grave danger, and abstain from union, they are using contraception. But if a couple agrees to abstain from intercourse for Lent, but has intercourse after, especially during the fertility period where women have naturally higher libido, this is perfectly healthy and good!

I do think that the Catholic view on human sexuality makes some good points, but I think that they err - they literally make an error - on the side of caution. A few Protestant points to make here: 1. Contraception is not a new phenomenon. Barrier methods were known in the 1st century. The "pull out method" was practiced in the 1st century. Yet neither Jesus nor the New Testament writers discuss them at all. The silence of scripture here is notable. Yes there is the Old Testament story of Onan but his sin wasn't the pull out method, it was failing to make his late brother's wife pregnant, a violation of Mosaic law. He would have sinned in the same manner if he had abstained as well. 2. Dr. West seems to indicate in his various videos a belief that separating the unitive and procreative aspects of sex within marriage is permissible when God separates them, just not when we artificially do. As I understand it that is the rationale behind NFP: "taking advantage" of the infertile periods which God has, ostensibly, ordained. What then prohibits oral sex? Does that not take advantage of a natural option that God gives us to experience the unitive act without procreation? There is nothing artificial about oral sex. It is as natural as NFP. Or what about when a husband performs oral on his wife? If Dr. West believes that God intentionally designed the body (rather than it being only the result of evolution) then why did God give women an organ (the clitoris) whose sole purpose is sexual pleasure? This organ plays no direct role in conceiving or pregnancy (other than making sex more desirable for the woman). Is he aware that it is possible for a woman to have an orgasm from breast stimulation alone? It seems that in these matters God has separated the unitive (and yes, pleasurable) aspects of sex from procreation. If Dr. West is sincere in his claim that "when God separates the unitive and procreative dimensions of sex it is permissible" then why this inconsistency. 3. The truth didn't change in the 1930s when Protestants started overtly accepting contraception, but our scientific understanding of conception, pregnancy, etc. did. We now have a much better understanding of how egg and sperm work. We have the scientific understanding to know that preventing an egg and sperm from joining is not the same as destroying a new human genome. Ejaculating into a condom is no different from abstaining from sex during the fertile period in terms of biology. This can prevent us from sinning by using abortifactent methods. 4. Not every woman has a clockwork/predictable cycle, thus making NFP an unreliable method of enjoying the unitive dimension of sex if procreation isn't an option (such as realizing that you don't have the resources to care for an additional child). 5. It is possible, when a husband and wife know each other's bodies extremely well, for men to have multiple orgasms. Not multiple ejaculations, but a man can learn how to have an orgasm without an ejaculation. This doesn't involve any artificial means as well. If anything it's mostly mental. I've done it. Dr. West seems to think that the only way a man should orgasm is to ejaculate into his wife, but what of male orgasm that doesn't produce ejaculation? Hypothetically a couple that has reached this level of sexual proficiency could have sex during the fertile period and just not take it to ejaculation. How is this different from using a condom? (To be fair, this is a mostly hypothetical example, as in practice the ejaculation-less orgasms typically lead to an orgasm with ejaculation later on in the "marital embrace" but I think it still shows that God gives us many legitimate means to separate the unitive/pleasurable and procreative dimensions of sex). If anything I see it as God's reward for taking the time and discipline to master one of his greatest gifts - human sexuality. Much like mastering the art of cooking allows us to enjoy the pleasurable aspects of food more greatly, sex is an art and mastering it leads to greater intimacy and, yes, pleasure within a marriage. But another main reason I am convinced that the Protestant position is correct is the lived experience I have. My wife and I have two wonderful children who we adore, but recognize that we are not equipped to handle more than that, so I had a vasectomy. I see it now as I saw it then, as a way to sacrifically love my wife, undergoing the procedure (which is rather simple and not very painful, you're a bit sore for a day or two) myself rather than subject her to a more invasive surgery, or hormonal methods (which I don't like due to their side effects). Rather than our sexual relationship "devolving" into me seeking pleasure from her as an object, or her doing the same for me, if anything our physical intimacy has deepened. I enjoy sex more when I know she is enjoying it. She has told me (and demonstrates) that she feels the same way. Our marital embrace is an absolutely spiritual union, and I firmly believe that the strength of that intimacy does reflect the way that Jesus loves the church. I've listened to Catholic speakers claim that contraception leads to the opposite outcome and damages marriages, but it simply isn't true, I have lived experience to the contrary. Finally, a common Catholic argument views contraception as the cause of rampant sexual immorality in our society today. There is a philosophical point to be made: just because something permits evil, or even makes doing evil easier, this does not make the thing evil itself. For example, drunk driving is a crime and a sin. Should we ban cars? Should we ban alcohol? Or should we recognize that the responsible use of cars is fine, the responsible use of alcohol is fine, it comes down to how they are used. Finally I will say, I have considered here and there if I should join the Catholic church. I have ultimately decided not to and while this is not the only reason why, it is a major one. I can't join a Church that holds that my wife and I are living in sin because of a deeply personal choice that we made, which benefits our marriage, that we prayerfully considered, asked for guidance from the Holy Spirit, examined the scriptures, and found no basis in scripture for it being a sin. It's not that we decided to tolerate a little sin, it's that we believe in our heart-of-hearts, after much reflection and consideration, that the Catholic church is in error here.

Excuse me....I don't remember asking GOD for. a sex drive