Jim Martinson Bans Porn So Women Don’t Have To

Theodicy is on hold thanks to a magnificient find by Hmm. It’s so awkward to defend porn use. On the one hand, it’s sexual immorality in the eyes of God. On the other hand, the people wanting to ban porn are the people who have already, and shamelessly, banned marriage, the only permitted alternative. It’s fascinating to watch feminists and Tradcons unite on this topic while I find myself defending pornographers because they’re the only people left who respect basic male needs.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/12/05/challenge-not-accepted/#comment-294189

These College Guys Are Trying to Ban Porn on Campus

https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-college-guys-are-trying-to-ban-porn-on-campus

By Emily Shugerman, 6 December 2018

Combining the energy of the #MeToo movement with a moral fervor, students at universities across the country told The Daily Beast they are working to get pornography off their campuses.

The effort started at Notre Dame University in October, when 80 male students penned an open letter requesting a porn filter on the campus WiFi. Since then, lead letter-writer Jim Martinson said, he’s received emails from more than 40 students at other universities who want to install a filter on their own campuses.

Jim Martinson

Per his LinkedIn, Jimmy is an Eagle Scout whose project was transitional housing for homeless veterans, high school swim team captain, National Honor Society, Studeny Body Vice President, economics student at Notre Dame… and an intern for the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

A proto-Deep Stater. I know the type, high perfomers who line up one accomplishment after another without realizing what a bubble is forming around them. You can’t be taught to think for yourself; you have to get kicked out of the System you grew up in. I could have ended up a high-achieving midwit myself, although I was never so far gone as to wear business suits as an undergrad. Thank God, in hindsight, that after graduating I got double-slammed by women scorning me while potential employers were too busy hiring H1Bbies to interview me. I got to learn about reality. Jimmy is unlikely to be so lucky; why would Mister “G-Man since college internship in the Ivy Leagues” ever oppose Globalism? They’re such nice people and their agenda is so personally rewarding!

Face shape is similar to typical SJWs, although his mouth suggests more optimism than normally found in that group. Wide eyebrows are “visionary”, implying interest in ideas over details. The pic is too small for proper physiognomy but I don’t get the sense he’s naturally a people person. Majoring in economics means he’s not that interested in logic systems.

Georgetown senior Amelia Irvine, a conservative firebrand, told The Daily Beast that Martinson’s letter inspired her to push for something similar at her Catholic university. She plans to recruit support over the winter break and start an open letter or petition in the spring.

Amelia Irvine '15 Accepts Scholarship from Georgetown - Valley Christian High School

Before going to Georgetown

Georgetown accused of giving pro-family group’s donations to LGBT organization | News | LifeSite

After. Amelia doesn’t look to be settling down as a housewife anytime soon. Conserving womens’ liberation!

Students at secular schools like Harvard, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania also said they were excited by the idea, but were still figuring out how it could work on their campuses. At Princeton and Penn, students said they were already tabling and handing out fliers about the dangers of pornography on campus.

“I’m excited and I think we can really get this done,” Martinson said. “And I’m also confident that if we do get it done at Notre Dame, that other universities will follow suit.”

It’s a red flag when your agenda is popular with Christ’s enemies. Also a red flag when forcing people to obey excites you.

Martinson’s open letter in the Notre Dame Observer claimed that pornography teaches men to objectify women, normalizes sexual assault, and exploits the men and women involved. The men of Notre Dame were calling for a filter, he wrote, “in order to stand up for the dignity of all people, especially women.”

The letter was quickly followed by a response from more than 60 “women of Notre Dame,” who argued that pornography’s prevalence on campus was “preventing men and women from encountering the full personhood of one another in friendships and relationships.”

Men do not want friendships with hawt chicks unless they come with benefits. These fools think banning porn will convert horny hetero men into eunuchs, not realizing that women agree because they want unsexy men to disappear. Not because they feel threatened about being desired.

The proposal’s popularity made headlines in the conservative National Review and the frat-boy favorite Barstool Sports. The student senate discussed it at a recent meeting, according to the Observer, and Martinson said he broached the idea with administrators at the “top of the university.”

 

25+ Best Memes About Brown Noser | Brown Noser Memes

I didn’t make the meme but the pic is eerily accurate.

Whether porn is actually a problem on campus, however, is debatable. Martinson said he began advocating for the filter after hearing from male classmates who were struggling with pornography addiction.

If only there was an alternative sexual behavior to porn use!

But a 2013 study found that the average college student engaged in “arousal-oriented online sexual activity” less than once or twice per month. A 2014 study of students across four countries found that 76 percent had viewed online “sexual entertainment” in their lifetimes, but showed “relatively infrequent experience” with the subject matter in the previous three months.

Those study results could not be less credible.

There’s also little evidence that porn consumption leads to negative treatment of women. A 2007 study from the Queensland University of Technology in Australia found that the amount of pornography viewed did not predict negative attitudes toward women. And as some experts have pointed out, the rate of sexual assault has decreased in recent decades, even as porn use has soared.

Japan has the most extreme porn usage with very low actual sexual misconduct. Maybe it’s less “addiction” than “letting off steam”?

So, porn is “rare” and doesn’t lead to violence but Jimmy wants it banned anyway. One day, he’ll make an excellent Secretary of Health and Human Services.

It’s no surprise then, that the push for porn filters comes from a religious segment of campus. The Notre Dame letter, for example, was part of a yearly anti-porn campaign by a campus group called the Students for Child Oriented Policy (SCOP). The group advertises itself as nonpartisan and nonsectarian, but has hosted several anti-abortion talks on campus and once circulated a petition asking Notre Dame to take a “clear stand” against same-sex marriage. Irvine, meanwhile, is president of a pro-heterosexual-marriage campus group that has been accused of promoting intolerance against LGBTQ students.

Let’s segue to the linked article about Irvine’s hetero group.

Georgetown students vote not to take action against pro-heterosexual-marriage campus group

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/11/03/georgetown-students-decide-not-to-take-action-against-pro-heterosexual-marriage-campus-group/

By Mary Hui, 3 November 2017

A panel of Georgetown students decided not to take action against a pro-heterosexual-marriage campus group that had been the subject of a complaint accusing it of fostering hatred and intolerance.

After deliberating behind closed doors until after midnight Friday, the Student Activities Commission voted 8-to-4 that no sanctions should be imposed on Love Saxa, which advocates for marriage as “a monogamous and permanent union between a man and a woman,” the group states in its constitution.

Student leadership. Proof that the administrators either fear their students or lack the courage to be unpopular.

In their complaint filed last month, Jasmin Ouseph, a junior from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and Chad Gasman, a sophomore from Los Angeles, argued that Love Saxa’s definition of marriage — which aligns with that espoused by the Catholic Church — excludes and dehumanizes people in the LGBT community. They charge that Love Saxa violates university standards governing sanctioned student groups and demand that it be defunded and removed as an officially sanctioned student group.

It’s not dehumanizing to have a different definition of marriage. The Sodomites could not be more wrong on their topic yet I fully accept them as human. So does God, although that will not work in their favor on Judgment Day.

In a statement, the student-run activities commission said that while it”acknowledges and respects the concerns put forth by the complainants, the Commission did not find Love Saxa’s purpose or actions to be in violation of the Student Organization Standards.” The commission added that “it strives to create an environment among student organizations where ideas can flow freely in a civil and respectful manner,” and where there is a diversity and difference in opinion.

Georgetown is Catholic/Jesuit. Why does it tolerate the existence of LGBT students who disrespect Catholic principles of moral conduct?

Rachel Pugh, a university spokeswoman, reflected a similar sentiment.

“We strongly support a climate that continues to provide students with new and deeper contexts for engaging with our Catholic tradition and identity,” Pugh said in a statement. “Love Saxa is one of many groups operating on campus with positions that affirm the teachings of the Catholic Church. We also support a climate that is welcoming to all students and supporting of our LGBTQ communities.”

That is blatantly hypocritical.

In the view of Ouseph and Gasman, the commission’s vote in favor of Love Saxa was an insult and demonstrated total disregard for their complaints against the very nature of the Love Saxa’s stated mission and activities. They said that they will now take the issue up to the university administration on appeal.

“And at the end of the day, it was eight straight people deciding that being pro-heterosexual-marriage-only doesn’t also mean that you’re anti-same-sex marriage, which I find a little ridiculous,” Ouseph said. “Saying that I’m pro-white-supremacy would also indicate that I’m against racial justice. It works literally the same way no matter how you spin it.”

The lesbian is right. You cannot be pro-marriage and pro-LGBT.

Back to the original article,

Martinson said the religious aspect was important to him personally, but that he preferred to focus on the issues of addiction and objectification of women. “It’s really important to frame things from a secular perspective because you just appeal to more people,” he said.

Jimmy is such a white knight that he probably didn’t recognize this statement as open disloyalty to Christ. I hope he gets utterly ruined by a false rape accusation, for his own good, because but for the grace of God I could’ve been him: dangerously insulated and thinking I was doing the work of God by reenacting Original Sin.

One wishes that the price of wisdom wasn’t suffering.

Every student who spoke with The Daily Beast mentioned the levels of violence against women displayed in modern pornography. (A third of all porn scenes showed perceived physical or psychological harm to another person, one recent study found.) While the students never claimed that porn directly caused sexual assault, several said they felt it contributed to the current cultural moment.

I hear one the latest trends in porn is marital porn, watching actors roleplaying husband & wife enjoying themselves amidst a middle-class life. Most men simply don’t get off on harming the women who put out for them. It’s one thing to oppose porn for religious reasons, I do that myself, but these supposedly religious people are inventing lies in order to justify opposing porn.

Isn’t that interesting? Why don’t they simply say, “that’s not what God wants”? These are nominally, originally, Christian institutions. In fact, the article has this quote:

“It’s really important to frame things from a secular perspective because you just appeal to more people.” — Will Long, Harvard student

Making arguments that will convince the listener rather than oneself is a valid tactic but there is no atheistic case for porn being bad. There is a case for violent porn that hurts innocents to be bad and so these kids… destined by Ivy League membership for the halls of power… are making up lies about porn in order to serve Christ and more importantly (to them), prevent unsexy men from learning online that dicks go in chicks.

Jack Whelan, an anti-porn advocate at Princeton, pointed to a recent video asking men to distinguish between porn scenes and stories of sexual assault.

“It’s not hard to draw a connection between men viewing that type of pornography and men acting in similar ways towards women,” Whelan said. “I think that it’s much easier to objectify women and to not see them as people when you’re simply viewing them as objects of sexual pleasure.”

Normal male hormones are going to make women objects of sexual pleasure anyway. What do they teach these kids in biology class? Not “testosterone”, else they would know that “girls are sexy” is not a social construct.

The words could have been taken from the mouths of second-wave feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon, who mounted protests against the burgeoning porn industry of the 1980s. In fact, [Will] Long [quoted above] said he thought he could partner on this fight with the women’s center or “other left-leaning women’s groups”—groups he said he usually would not count as allies. (The Harvard women’s center did not respond to a request for comment.)

There is merit in the concept of guilt by association. African pagans and Christians partnering to defend their communities from Muslim persecution is one thing, voluntarily partnering with feminists to prevent undesirable male students from any sexual activity except sodomizing each other is quite another.

Today’s feminists, however, seemed largely unexcited by the porn filter proposal. In a response to the men’s letter, Notre Dame student Jackie O’Brien wrote her own letter to the editor calling the idea “patronizing” and “degrading” to sex workers.

The Great Feminist Debate continues! Are prostitutes emancipated women free to monetize their bodies if they wish or victims of oppressive male objectification? Still unanswered after forty years.

Anne Jarrett—a Notre Dame gender studies major and self-described “obvious feminist”—urged the letter-writers to call their legislators or work for a campaign around sexual assault, rather than wasting their time banning porn.

“Rather than judging these consensual acts, let’s celebrate that people are practicing consent and communicating openly with their partner (on screen or off),” she wrote.

She’s right for the wrong reasons. The way to get rid of porn is to green-light normal relations between the sexes… which would drop college enrollment by 70%, now that young, fertile, desirable women are 70% of the student body. Until that happens, I’m not wasting my time telling men to not do porn. No alternative to offer means no point.

The women weren’t alone. The original porn filter proposal sparked six letters to the editor against the idea, as well as one satirical column calling for a filter on food porn and a rebuttal entitled “Give Me Pornhub or Give Me Death.”

God made two of me! *GQ rushes to find it*

https://ndsmcobserver.com/2018/11/give-me-pornhub-or-give-me-death/

Ah, nuts. Another cuck! He opens with this quote by a woman:

“[I]t is the state — not free speech — that has been the oppressor of women. It was the state, not pornography, that burned women as witches. It was 18th and 19th century law, not pornography, that defined women as chattel … 20th century laws that refused to recognized rape within marriage … It is the state, not pornography, that has raised barriers against women. It is censorship, not freedom, that will keep the walls intact.” — Wendy McElroy

You women were made by God to be oppressed by men. Save your ridicule for the men who freed you to rebel against the natural order, encouraging you to become false men instead of beloved wives.

It ends with:

If you want to combat the alleged ill-effects of exposure to pornography identified in your letters, engage in counter-speech. Persuade your fellow students to join your holy abstention from pornographic consumption. Convince our community that you are right, and that we should willingly and voluntarily disengage the pornographic industry. But do not demand that you should make that decision for all of us, and certainly do not do it in my name. As a fellow man of Notre Dame, I must respectfully dissent.

It’s reasonable dialetic but he entirely misses the point of the porn ban. It has nothing to do with porn corrupting youth and everything to do with hypergamous hamsters wishing 98% of men would off their little buddies.

I made that mistake, too, thinking people were listening to my arguments because they thought I might have had a point.

Female nature is very hidden and hard for men to recognize, let alone classify as evil. No wonder God saw fit to use that as the Original Sin, to drive home the lesson of how each sex prefers to self-destruct in rebellion against Truth. The Ivy Leagues being feeder schools for the high school locker room clique called “senior-level government”, there is little hope that the men will come to their senses without being knocked off the insulated conveyor belt from high school student body president to U.S. Civil Right Commissioner.

 

3 thoughts on “Jim Martinson Bans Porn So Women Don’t Have To

  1. ‘Before going to Georgetown

    After. Amelia doesn’t look to be settling down as a housewife anytime soon. Conserving womens’ liberation!’

    That proves it…the university is the tool of the devil.*

    *I knew this already but it saddens me to see a beautiful woman with wife/mother potential transform into a NPC feminist

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Why don’t they simply say, “that’s not what God wants”?

    Heck they could crack open the Catholic Catechism (assuming they even know that exists) and get all they need as to the reasoning behind being against porn.

    ‘2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.’

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s