Stopping Pornography from Destroying Lives

TheSacredPage.com ^ | Wednesday, October 20, 2010 | TheSacredPage from National Catholic Register

[Salvation]

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Stopping Pornography from Destroying Lives

 

There's a great piece in the National Catholic Register on the fight against pornography. The story focuses on Matthew Fradd. Fradd himself was addicted to porn before being freed from his addiction by the grace of God. He is now helping others. . .

OTTAWA, Ontario — After successfully battling an addiction to pornography, Matthew Fradd has dedicated himself to helping others.

“Porn is not just naughty — it’s evil,” said Fradd, a 27-year-old Australian living in Ottawa, Ontario. “It emasculates men, degrades women and destroys marriages.”

Fradd has begun his second year operating his anti-pornography website, ThePornEffect.com . He launched it on Aug. 14, 2009, on the feast of St. Maximilian Kolbe, patron of addicts, using $12,000 in seed money donated to him by a priest-friend.

Fradd’s is a lonely voice going against the culture on the issue, especially considering that nearly 25 million websites (12% of all websites) and 25% of all daily search-engine requests are pornography-related.

In addition, a surprising number of women are regular viewers of pornography. A third of those Americans regularly visiting porn websites are women.

A variety of polls have revealed that those active in Christian churches have difficulties with porn. Promise Keepers, one of the largest Christian men’s conferences in the United States, asked men at their 2008 conferences in anonymous polls if they had viewed porn in the last week; 53% of the nearly 10,000 who responded admitted that they had.

Pornography is hard on marriages, too. In a 2002 survey of 350 members of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, an association of divorce attorneys, for example, 56% said “obsessive interest in pornographic sites” was a factor leading to marital breakups.

Fradd’s site features information about how pornography affects men, women and marriages, inspirational stories of individuals who have become porn-free, information on how to beat porn addictions, videos, and opportunities to offer support to those who want to be free of porn. Fradd launched the site, he explained, because while there are millions of websites that feature pornography, “there’s not a lot out there for men and women who are struggling to be free from porn.”

‘Hooked’ at 8

Fradd, who is from southern Australia, got “hooked” on pornography at the age of 8 when he found some in his grandfather’s shed. By age 12, he was stealing porn from neighborhood stores, and in his teen years, he had acquired a vast collection.

“No one had to tell me it was a bad thing,” he said. “I knew it was shameful. I was hoping I’d grow out of it.”

Here's the rest.

 

Posted by Michael Barber at 8:13 AM

[little jeremiah]

Sorry, I knew I wasn’t clear.

I am in total 100% agreement with you. You said it better than I can, really.

[little jeremiah]

If a man or a woman does not want to have sex, they should not marry, unless he or she can find a spouse similarly inclined.

But the purpose of marriage is much, much more than sexual gratification; it is lifetime companionship and friendship, caring about the other “in sickness and in health”, the raising of children, and thus families are the very foundation of human civilization.

Sometimes due to age or health conditions a spouse cannot have sex. Are you saying that in that case, the spouse who cannot have sex should be rejected? Or the other one has every right to “use” pornography or find sexual gratification elsewhere?

What about during pregnancy? Especially during the last trimester sex is often painful or not recommended; and in the first trimester is not good if the mother has a history of miscarriage.

So according to you a husband who can’t get “laid” every week is prefectly within his rights as a husband to get his rocks off elsewhere?

If that is your idea of marriage, such a man would be better off hiring a prostitute once a week.

[redgolum]

Good for him!

My old pastor in Lincoln would bring it up from time to time, but he caught a lot of flack for it. Seems it was the private vice of many, and the men justified like many on FR due (my wife got fat!).

But he liked confrontation, so it worked out OK!

[Salvation]

Out of the Darkness

A movie about Shelly -- and a picture of her!

[little jeremiah]

OK, here's my point: I consider each party in a marriage to have an obligation to keep each other sexually happy

No. "Sexally happy" could mean "I want to use these implements/perform anal sodomy/have you bark like a dog/wear these rubber clothes/get whipped/etc in order to be sexually happy". No one has an obligation to make someone else "seuxally happy". The marital act is one thing, some grand (strange) ideal of "sexual happiness" could mean something else entirely.

[redgolum]

"My wife is a land whale"... ok Lesbian Spank Inferno?

I see you have been talking to Laz again. :)

[PapaBear3625]

In my post #94, I said explicitly

If a wife can't be bothered to keep her man happy, that means she doesn't love him any more and the marriage is dead. Note that I say "can't be bothered" rather than "don't feel up to it because of illness"

In my post #99:

OK, here's my point: I consider each party in a marriage to have an obligation to keep each other sexually happy. Do you agree or disagree?

In a marriage, do you think either party has any obligation to provide anything to their spouse? If so, why? If not, why not?

[little jeremiah]

Yes, a spouse has an obligation to provide marital relations. But each should be sensitive to the other’s emotional and physical condition. Sometimes a spouse may engage in sex when s/he doesn’t really feel like it to be a good spouse, or a spouse who really wants sex may restrain him or herself knowing the other is not in the mood or in a condition to provide the “sexual happiness”. Husbands can be getting sick, overworked, or thinking about serious problems and not be in the mood too.

Humans are not animals, and marriage is much more than sex.

[PapaBear3625]

"Sexally happy" could mean "I want to use these implements/perform anal sodomy/have you bark like a dog/wear these rubber clothes/get whipped/etc in order to be sexually happy". No one has an obligation to make someone else "seuxally happy".

Straw man argument. My original posting on this thread on the subject made clear that I was talking about frequency of sex being some reasonable value, with no mention of satisfying fetishes. I was talking about the wife who has lost interest in having sex with her husband, not because of illness or disability.

On another tack, a husband is traditionally obligated to be the primary source of financial support for his family. This does not mean that he is obligated to work 80 hour weeks to keep his wife in the mansion of her dreams. But if he decided he was just no longer interested in providing any support, and decided to spend his days catching up on his reading, you would counsel his wife to be OK with that?

[PapaBear3625]

Yes, a spouse has an obligation to provide marital relations. But each should be sensitive to the other’s emotional and physical condition. Sometimes a spouse may engage in sex when s/he doesn’t really feel like it to be a good spouse, or a spouse who really wants sex may restrain him or herself knowing the other is not in the mood or in a condition to provide the “sexual happiness”.

Thank you. We may be edging closer to being on the same page.

A spouse who is willing to engage in sex when she doesn't feel like it, or better yet work at resolving WHY she doesn't feel like it, is displaying love to her spouse. Similarly, a spouse who gets up every morning to work at a stressful, difficult job because he wants to be a good provider for his family is likewise displaying love.

To me, love is displayed by the willingness to make an effort to advance the happiness and well-being of those you love. The absence of any visible willingness to make an effort to keep the other happy is likewise a display of the absence of love.

[little jeremiah]

Yes, sounds as though we are getting closer to overlap.

[Legatus]

OK, here's my point: I consider each party in a marriage to have an obligation to keep each other sexually happy. Do you agree or disagree?

Well I don't want to get all Catholicky, but I believe that marriage is a sacrament, a sign and figure of the union of Christ and the Church. The love a husband has for his wife should be modeled on the love Christ has for His Church and the love a wife has for her husband should be modeled on the love the Church has for her Divine Lord. So nothing should be held back by either spouse.

So Christ does not say to His Church "wow you're fat" and then go off looking for someone more accommodating. But what does one do when a spouse fails? I suppose the hard answer is to take up the cross and offer your life for your wife. Easy in theory, very tough in practice and beyond the ability of the purely human.

[PapaBear3625]

So Christ does not say to His Church "wow you're fat" and then go off looking for someone more accommodating.

This was not my argument. It was bornred in #25 who had the issue of wives getting fat. That's not my issue. My wife is a bit overweight, and so am I, and we manage a satisfying sex life regardless. Weight is not the issue I brought up. Chronic refusal is the issue I brought up.

Case in point: a friend of mine had a wife who decided she was no longer interested in sex with him, and not interested in working it out. She refused sex with him for a year, and then he decided that he wanted out. My argument is that her refusal (not inability due to illness, but REFUSAL) was a violation of the marriage.

Would you consider such a period of refusal as above (a year) to be something a husband should be required to tolerate?

[bornred]

Greetings, and welcome to FR.

I have news for you. It’s not just men who are visually oriented. I am a VERY visually oriented woman

Most women care about status, social dominance, and to some extent money. Weight is not necessarily a disqualifier. Think Tony Soprano (or the fat guy who plays him).

Of course there are exceptions to every rule.

And then you wonder where all the hot girls are!

They are mostly slurping empty calories at Starbucks, hell-bent on destroying the best asset that God gave them. Honestly, it's heartbreaking to watch.

[bornred]

If God had wanted crime, He would have created liquor stores for Adam to rob.

For whatever reasons (evolutionary biology, or intentional acts of the Creator), human nature is what it is.

[GonzoII]

Great post!

[trisham]

Thank you for continuing to stand up against that kind of language, don-o.

[Legatus]

Would you consider such a period of refusal as above (a year) to be something a husband should be required to tolerate?

I think he is going to have to "tolerate" it, he doesn't have to be thrilled about it but this really is one of those "two wrongs don't make a right" situations. A Catholic can see this kind of rejection as an "opportunity" (gee, thanks a lot) to share in the sufferings of Christ. "Offer it up" and turn defeat into victory... sounds easy, it's not. It's not fair, it's not right. A man in that situation is in a position where only heroic virtue will suffice.

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

"This saying is hard, who can hear it?" applies here too I think.

[kalee]

I would say it is covered under “for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health until us do part”. Nothing in there about weight gain, sexual disinterest, or irreconcilable differences.
So yes he is called to endure as he works to find out why she is no longer interested and to find out what is wrong in their marriage. I doubt sex is their only issue.

[PapaBear3625]

I think he is going to have to "tolerate" it, he doesn't have to be thrilled about it but this really is one of those "two wrongs don't make a right" situations. A Catholic can see this kind of rejection as an "opportunity" (gee, thanks a lot) to share in the sufferings of Christ. "Offer it up" and turn defeat into victory... sounds easy, it's not. It's not fair, it's not right. A man in that situation is in a position where only heroic virtue will suffice.

OK, how about my earlier comment where I said:

On another tack, a husband is traditionally obligated to be the primary source of financial support for his family. This does not mean that he is obligated to work 80 hour weeks to keep his wife in the mansion of her dreams. But if he decided he was just no longer interested in providing any support, and decided to spend his days catching up on his reading, you would counsel his wife to be OK with that?

Would you similarly tell a wife to treat the situation as an "opportunity to share in the sufferings of Christ"?

You see, what I observe missing from your reply is any indication that the wife's behavior has any element of wrongness associated with it that would deserve rebuke. The husband is expected to stoically tolerate the situation as an opportunity to "share in the sufferings of Christ". Where you have a wife who is upset over her husband viewing porn, would your advice to her be to take it as an "opportunity to share in the sufferings of Christ"?

What annoys me is the perceived double-standard.