Anti-Porn Crusade Finds Unlikely Ally in College Men

One US college’s campaign to block access to adult content is making headway at other schools as a once-moribund part of the culture war takes on a new life, its adherents convinced that porn is like prostitution, only worse.

A Notre Dame University student became a lightning-rod for college anti-porn activism after penning a letter with 80 other male students demanding a porn filter be installed on campus WiFi. Jim Martinson, a senior at the college, led the call for Notre Dame to filter internet access “in order to stand up for the dignity of all people, especially women.”

Pornography is prostitution through the lens of a camera, but more abusive. It exploits the men and women involved, advances a twisted narrative about human sexuality and harms those who consume it.

Martinson was deluged by emails from students at other universities hoping to replicate his campaign. As president of socially-conservative campus group Students for Child-Oriented Policy, he has been involved in several unsuccessful anti-porn crusades. This year, however, the student body seemed genuinely receptive to his proposal.

Amelia Irvine, a senior at Georgetown University who once dumped a boyfriend because of his porn habits, told the Daily Beast she planned to gather support during the winter break in preparation for launching her own campaign in the spring, while students at Princeton and Penn State reported they are already spreading the word about the dangers of porn with tabling and flyering campaigns. Harvard student Will Long said he hoped to partner with “left-leaning women’s groups” to push Martinson’s anti-porn message, blaming internet smut for the rise of “hookup culture” and dating apps.

One might expect such “women’s groups” to call a letter written by 80 men purporting to speak on their behalf an act of male chauvinism, given feminism’s current “sex-positive” slant and the move to legalize and empower sex workers, but more than 60 female students backed Martinson’s campaign with their own pro-filter missive, claiming on-campus porn was “preventing men and women from encountering the full personhood of one another.” Over 10 percent of Notre Dame students ultimately signed a petition calling for the filter.

Not all women were on board with the new moral minority, however. Notre Dame student Jackie O’Brien dismissed the idea as “patronizing” and “degrading” to sex workers, and gender studies major Anne Jarrett concurred. “Rather than judging these consensual acts, let’s celebrate that people are practicing consent and communicating openly with their partner,” she said.

Good grief! That's so pathetically shallow.

Like Starbucks’ decision to install a porn filter on its in-store WiFi – which notably came in response to sustained efforts by an online “child protection” group rather than the customer’s themselves – a porn ban from Notre Dame wouldn’t change much. The school’s technology policy already bars students from accessing “pornographic, sexually explicit, or offensive” material on campus networks.

Student diversity council president Alyssa Ngo told the Notre Dame Observer the ban would block access to the 25 most popular porn websites, “whatever they are measured to be” – a measure which would only push porn-seeking students into the darker corners of the web where they are more likely to find disturbing and degrading content. Since nothing stops them watching porn off-campus, such a policy could exacerbate the very problem it purports to address.

Sin is progressive! Pornography often leads to worse pornography - increasing violence, perversion, and younger and younger girls. Some porn watchers are going to progress to child porn regardless. Some will not because it is just too difficult and, ultimately, dangerous.

A “hard” ban in the form of a filter would also infringe on “protected speech,” according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which opposes the move. Martinson is confident the filter will be in place by the end of the year.

Curious - how can porn be called 'protected speech' when there is usually no dialog whatsoever? Is it legal to broadcast directions to make a 3-D gun, or a dirty bomb, or to instruct how to create a massacre?  That which is extremely destructive has to be prevented from being published. In my opinion, pornography is extremely destructive, not only in creating the 'hook-up generation' but in creating the 'culture of rape' that seems to be getting worse each year.

Whether this filter comes to be, whether it works or not, it is good to see some young people with the wisdom, character and courage to stand against pornography. There is little hope for a society where adolescent children have easy access to pornography.

Two Texas Priests Sued for Historic Child Sex Abuse

 Father Virgilio Elizondo hands out communion at St Rose LIma,
Sunday, August 25, 2002

SAN ANTONIO, Texas — A civil lawsuit that alleges sexual abuse on the part of two priests in the Archdiocese of San Antonio was filed May 22 in Bexar County Court.

Father Jesus Armando Dominguez and Father Virgilio Elizondo are named as defendants in the 19-page suit and are alleged to have sexually abused the plaintiff in the early 1980s.

Elizondo, who became known as the "father of U.S. Latino religious thought," has been a member of the Notre Dame faculty since 2002. That's a little scary!

He was also presented with Notre Dame’s highest honor, the Laetare Medal, in 1997.

Also named in the suit are the Archdiocese of San Antonio and three archbishops, who, according to the allegations, conspired to cover-up the abuses rather than report them to authorities.

A spokesman for the archdiocese on Wednesday declined to comment because he said he had not yet seen the lawsuit.

Olympic speed skater Derek Parra, left, talks with Father Virgilio Elizondo, center,
from San Antonio, Texas, and singer Ricky Martin, right, 

The plaintiff, identified as John Doe, alleges he was sexually abused by Dominguez from 1980 until 1983 when he was living in an orphanage and Dominguez was attending seminary school at Assumption Seminary. The abuses are alleged to have occurred in Dominguez’ dormitory.

Elizondo allegedly abused the plaintiff in 1983, the lawsuit said.

Messages left with Elizondo and the attorney who filed the suit were not immediately returned.

A spokesperson for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) says Elizondo's accolades and good deeds aren't an exemption from the accusations.

"Professional accomplishments don't somehow insulate somebody from these terrible compulsions that child molesters feel to sexually abuse boys and girls," David Clohessy, Executive Director of SNAP said. "The very personality traits that lead us to say, 'Oh it couldn't be father so and so or reverend so and so. They're just so wonderful. They're so loving. They're so giving.' Those very same personality traits that make us believe these men are innocent are the traits they use to win the trust of children and parents and then sexually violate them."

The following text is part of the plaintiff's civil suit. 

It may be uncomfortable to read:

1. At all times material herein, [Defendant Father Jesus Armando] Dominguez was attending seminary to obtain his priesthood at the Assumption Seminary of the Archdiocese of San Antonio.

2. Plaintiff was living in a local orphanage that was commonly known as the "bridge", just steps away from the Assumption Seminary.

3. Beginning on or around 1980, when Plaintiff was a minor, Dominguez, then known as "Brother Jesse," began to serve as a father-figure to the Plaintiff, helping him with homework, clothing and food, and treating Plaintiff to the occasional movie. Plaintiff , being on his own, welcomed Dominguez's guidance, giving Dominguez his full trust and respect.

4. Dominguez began to regularly ask Plaintiff to these outings and later accompany him to dormitory, there at the Assumption Seminary. Brother Dominguez gained the trust of Plaintiff by acting as a "father-figure" and taking the Plaintiff to movies and meals. Plaintiff respected and trusted Brother Jesse, due to his respect, trust, and relationship with the Roman Catholic Church.

5. For about two years, Brother Dominguez would end our outings by taking me back to his dormitory quarters, where he would often fondle and masturbate my penis. On occasions, while Plaintiff was in Dominguez's dormitory quarters, Plaintiff would often “come to” to find that Dominguez was fondling and masturbating Plaintiff's penis. This activity occurred on several subsequent occasions until finally Dominguez was more direct with his advances.

6. On one occasion, Brother Dominguez took Plaintiff and a friend to California to visit Disneyland. Little did Plaintiff know, he would be taken on this vacation only to be subject to further abuse. Though they often asked to return to San Antonio, Dominguez kept the boys there for about a month until he finally took them back to the orphanage in San Antonio, Texas.

7. Dominguez's abuse of Plaintiff escalated and became more aggressive and grew to include oral sex. Dominguez continued his assault for approximately two years, with the heinous acts occurring approximately two to three times per week.

8. When Plaintiff questioned Dominguez’s actions, Dominguez would prey on Plaintiff’s fear of Dominguez’s claimed heart condition, often faking an impending heart attack.

9. One evening when Plaintiff’s inquiries proved too much, Dominguez threatened to kill Plaintiff and then kill himself.

10. After this threat, Plaintiff retreated in fear. It was not until about two years later, when Dominguez went to California, where he was officially ordained as priest, that Plaintiff decided to bravely discuss the confusing moments he shared with Dominguez.

11. First, he attempted to discuss the incidents with Archbishop Patrick Flores, then serving as Archbishop of the Archdiocese of San Antonio. However, Archbishop Flores never addressed Plaintiff's fears and concerns. Plaintiff's concerns were dismissed. Plaintiff was never further questioned about the events and no actions were taken. Plaintiff became withdrawn.

12. Later in 1983, Plaintiff was riding back home to the orphanage, after an outing with Father Virgilio Elizondo, then serving at San Fernando Cathedral in San Antonio, Texas. During the ride home, Plaintiff decided to seek clarity from Father Elizondo regarding his past interactions with the now, Father Dominguez. Unfortunately, instead of listening to him and acting on his concerns, Father Elizondo began to fondle the Plaintiff’s genitals, taking advantage of the same sexual liberties Plaintiff complained of with Father Dominguez. As Father Elizondo reached over, kissed him, and began to fondle him, the Plaintiff immediately became angry, frustrated, scared, and confused because Plaintiff thought that he would help. Instead, he gave the Plaintiff more reasons to feel unsafe within the care and guard of the Roman Catholic Church. Once again, the sexual abuse of the Plaintiff continued.

13. After believing that he was safe from these actions since Father Dominguez had relocated, Plaintiff began to feel uncomfortable and frustrated that these acts were occurring once more. He then fought off Father Elizondo and then ran from his vehicle. Believing that he would only continue to be abused, be dismissed, made ashamed, and be touched again and again, should he ever attempt to seek the assistance of the Church again, the Plaintiff did not reach out to the Roman Catholic Church again for several years.

14. As Plaintiff got older, he was plagued with anger and severe depression, for which he sought therapeutic treatment and had to regularly take medication. On a few occasions, still haunted by the oddities in his past, Plaintiff has attempted suicide. His struggles with debilitating depression and thoughts of suicide still plague him today.

15. Plaintiff attempted to reach out to Victim Assistance and Safe Environment of the Archdiocese of San Antonio and spoke to a gentleman named Steve Martinez. Plaintiff was told a criminal suit would be filed and that someone would be in contact with him. However, just as when Plaintiff was younger, no one has offered any help or has informed him about anything being done.

16. From the time of the abuse and exploitation and through the present time, Plaintiff continuously digressed, emotionally and behaviorally, suffered emotional trauma, anguish, loss of respect for authority, loss of earnings and earning capacity, and commenced upon a self-destructive course of conduct. Plaintiff does not believe that he is of "sound mind".

17. Plaintiff has had trouble maintaining his mental status to keep a job. Plaintiff has been unable to maintain a stable personal relationship. Plaintiff has often been unable to parent his children due to the need to be under the care of a mental health facility. Plaintiff has lost jobs and forfeited close relationships with his loved ones due to his mental status. Each year, these feelings have gotten progressively worse. Plaintiff suffers suffer from multiple forms of substance abuse and addictions. Plaintiff has never truly lived independently. Plaintiff has been unable to fully unable to manage my own financial and familial affairs.

18. Representatives of authority within the Archdiocese of San Antonio and the San Bernardino Diocese were made aware of these acts, yet did nothing to expose these incidents of molestation. Instead, the Representatives continued to facilitate an ongoing cover-up of these acts, until around 2004 when a formal suit was filed against Father Dominguez.

19. Since then, Plaintiff has attempted to attend a Roman Catholic Church but has only been met with increasing depression, often leaving in the middle of the service in tears.