[quote="whm, post:19, topic:201513"]
I am sorry that I am kind of ranting here with this post. But I am trying to work a few out for which I have strong and conflicting feelings about.
Another contributing factor (to porn problems) is the watering down of the Church's teaching on marital values and the lack of teaching on the sins against marriage. The contraceptive mentality ( including abusive use of NFP) has made sex more about pleasure and bonding (which used to be secondary not primary) rather than about the simple truth that is for creating new life (hint that is why it is pleasurable). Real authentic sex is now optional, no consequence sex is now the norm.
50 years ago catechisms and examinations of conscience listed refusing a spouse relations without good reason (very strict list or reasons ie danger of death or current infidelity) was a mortal sin. You would have a hard time finding this in any modern materials. Why? perhaps because it incompatible with things such as NFP. I am not saying that men have nor should be excused from porn problems because of their spouse refusing relations, but that we live in a society where both spouses have never been taught the about what is right and wrong in marriage. Neither party seems to know that after marriage their body is no longer their own. A man (or women) who uses porn thinks they have a right for their bodies to provide themselves pleasure. In marriage your spouse has a right to your body. Your body does not have a right to pleasure in an of itself (whether thru porn or acting out lust for one's own spouse).
One thing that seems to surprise me is the amount of outrage about porn (very justified) compared to the lack of any kind of outrage regarding the us of the pill(need more outrage). They are both very similar in my eyes.
Again sorry for ranting a little.
How many men never looked at porn until they got married and found that they weren't going to have sexual relations as often as they would like? I don't believe that a man who has never made women mere objects of his desires just magically starts doing that after marriage. Just as rape is not primarily about sex, and therefore is not cured by finding the rapist a wife, pornography is not going to be cured when every husband is guaranteed to have relations with his wife whenever he feels like it.
How many couples use NFP to avoid future pregnancies over the objections of the husband? Some, undoubtedly, but really...how many?
Periodic continence is not a violation of mutual self-giving. Rather, it is inevitable that some married persons are not going to engage in sex with their spouses as often as they would like to. Sometimes, they will need to be continent when both might desire otherwise, because conditions outside their control make it impossible to find the ability and privacy necessary for the act.
The burden of self-denial does not rest entirely on the spouse that desires sexual relations less often, then. Rather, the selflessness of sexual giving is shared equally between the one who desires sex less often and the one who would like it more often. Sometimes, spouses have to deny themselves when neither one wants to. The decision of how often to have sex has to be arrived at by mutual willingness to sacrifice one's own preferences.
So you are right: porn comes about when people think sex is about personal gratification. Yes, people can abuse NFP to make sex purely about personal gratification, but I think it fair to say that was the personal problem going in, a spiritual fault that NFP doesn't automatically cure, not a problem that NFP itself causes.
**CCC 2370 **Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:158
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159