Fanny - perhaps if women would stop striving toward sensual deism, they might experience men not acting like animals around them.  And, this might relieve them of many of the misconceptions they have about men.  

I have noticed the trend on CI of men being very concerned about their "rights" and also with blaming women for most of the problems in their marriages, home, family, and even the world.  

I have not noticed a similar trend with the women blaming the men.

Fanny - heribert jone is no authority.  He taught that spousal sodomy was no sin at all.  He is simply an agent of those "individuals" masquerading as married couples.

Father Heribert Jone OFMCap (born January 30, 1885 in Schelklingen , Wurttemberg , † December 25, 1967 in Stühlingen , Baden ) was a Catholic priest , church lawyer and moral theologian .

The son of a merchant and city treasurer joined in 1904 in the Capuchin Order and completed his studies in philosophy and theology. In 1910 he was ordained a priest in Cologne . A year later, he began his studies in Canon Law at the Pontifical GregorianUniversity in Rome, but interrupted this, to act from 1913 to 1919 on the Carolines as a missionary. After his return he continued his studies and received his doctorate in 1922 to the doctor of canon law (Dr. iur. Can.). From 1924 to 1949 he then worked as a lecturer at the Order of the Capuchin Monastery in Münster , where he was also synodal judge from 1925 at the marriage court.

His importance for Catholic teaching acquired Jone through his two major works, the Commentary to the Codex Iuris Canonici (CIC) of 1917 and the "Catholic Moral Theology " (1930, 18 editions to 1961 or 1964; Translations into French, Dutch, Italian, English , Portuguese, Arabic). His book on moral theology was standard work for the education and training of clerics and so widespread and well-known that it appears even in Graham Green's novel Monsignor Quixote as a court of conscience "the Jone".

But I think that it's probably a waste of time for non-professional lay people like us to dwell on this.

Since many approved reputable theologians seem to hold this position, that it's not grave sin per se so long as the marital act reaches its completion in a natural way, a Catholic who does so while following the position of these theologians would certainly not be committing a grave sin (cf. St. Alphonsus' "probabilism" vis-à-vis moral theology).  That's not to say that such Catholics would not sin at least venially (and perhaps even with relatively-serious venial sin) due to excessive indulgence in pleasure.  That's not to say that such a thing would please God or would be compatible with seeking perfection.  But it's only to say that it wouldn't constitute grave sin.

I was speaking tongue in cheek in the last paragraph.  It is clear that went over your head.
I should have said:
Furthermore, according to most the  men here, they expect wives to have loads of children, homeschool them, perform duties of a housewife, tend the finances, perhaps have a job outside the home, stay in shape and be attractive to her husband at all times.  While men have one job, do what they please around the house, get fat, "punish" their wife, and have their way with their wife as they please.

You have to put this in context.  Pius XII stated that it is allowable "for a time" (to tie into St Paul's quote) IF the circuмstances are extreme.  AND...with permission of the couple's priest.  Very strict rules and circuмstances.  My understanding was that the couple was not allowed to decide for themselves (contrary to NFP nowadays), but the priest gave permission, so that the decision was made "prudentially" as you put it.

NFP, in contrast to Pius XII's rhythm, is taught as a "lifestyle" which makes it extremely sinful.  All of your points are good ones and apply to NFP and its errors.

for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life