On behalf of Exeposé Comment, Fiona Potigny reviews Debating Society‘s heavily anticipated and highly attended Friday night debate discussing the virtues of pornography as a public service.
Tonight, feminist would meet feminist. American would meet Brit. Ex-porn star turned Christian would meet erotic writer. The tension was palpable in the air, and the crowd of eager debaters, packed like sardines into the Amory Moot, held their breath as they eagerly awaited DebSoc’s first Friday debate of the year. The motion: “This house believes that pornography provides a good public service.”
Photo Credit: Emily Cobb via Emily Cobb Photography
Jane Fae, feminist and Guardian journalist, was first to take the stand defending the motion. She opened by stating that the problem lies not with the pornography industry itself, but with the current education system, which currently provides no analysis of sexuality, but merely teaches a set of reproductive facts.
Despite supporting the motion, Fae was adamant that we should not glamorise porn, as to do so would be to naively deny the misogyny and false views about sex. Whilst Fae’s points were strong in themselves, she did come across as a slightly hesitant speaker, owing in part to her quiet delivery. It must also be noted that she did not define the motion, as is the norm at the beginning of a debate. It was probably as a result of this that the audience remained unclear as to whether the debate was over whether porn is a morally “good public service”, or a “good public service”, which unfortunately allowed for all parties to dither away from the exact motion throughout the debate.
Tiffany Leeper, founder of Girls Against Porn and Human Trafficking, was up next. An exceptionally emotive speaker, Leeper launched into a personal attack on porn, using an anecdotal ‘boy meets girl’ scenario to explain how her relationship was torn apart by her childhood sweetheart’s addiction.
On the whole, she delivered a confident speech and her account seemed to be genuinely heartfelt. She ended on the point that, without doubt, men will have intimacy issues if they continue in their porn-reliant ways, which provoked audible disagreement from the male faction of the audience whilst raising a few laughs in the female (whether this was agreement or disagreement is more uncertain).
Erotic writer Zak Jane Keir was quick to provide a counter to this. Keir gave a cynical account of the government claiming that the new emphasis on blocking pornography was a scapegoat. She attacked the American religious right for inflicting compulsory social monogamy, something which would later cause a heated side-argument with her adversary, Dr Shelley Lubben, a born-again Christian.
As far as debating tactics go, Keir seemed to have a taste for the controversial, with phrases like, “children could see worse than a bit’a f*** and suck” for example, and refusing to accept any religion that depends upon an “imaginary friend”. She raised a few good points, notably that a counter-message should be sent to the porn industry through the support of progressive LGBTQ and feminist-friendly porn. Ultimately though, the only argument that seemed directly relevant to the motion was that “with porn you get a w*nk, a sandwich, and a good night’s sleep”. Nevertheless, as one heckler pointed out, “you don’t need porn to have a w*nk!” An equally fair point.
The most anticipated speaker then took her stand: Dr Shelley Lubben, former porn star turned campaigner against porn. Having experienced and eventually been reformed from the Californian porn industry, Dr Lubben was keen to exhibit her insider knowledge of the darker side of the industry, using stories of HIV/AIDS-based STD pandemics, forced drug and alcohol consumption, and even instances of rape to further detail her point that the porn industry works illegally and immorally.
As was to be expected, Dr Lubben was an impassioned speaker, telling the audience that “we’re better than porn”. Despite her intense conviction which seemed to be bringing her to tears by the end of her speech, Dr Lubben lost some of the audience’s support when declaring her strong Christian faith and suggesting that her career exit was “God’s plan”. This seemed to divide the room rather than unite it. That said, she undoubtedly remained the highlight of the evening with such an insightful speech.
The question voted best by the judge came from Sasha Gibbins, who asked what the panel thought was preventing the porn industry from collapsing, which saw a remarkably concordant answer from each side: that apathy and popularity were the cause. The final vote showed a sway towards the proposition, who took the motion with a clear majority. Ultimately, the night was a success; one sure to go down in DebSoc history for not only having the first all-female panel since DebSoc’s formation 1893, but also for drawing a crowd so impressively large that many had to be turned away at the door.
Seeing as the next public debate is set to be “This house believes that Margaret Thatcher was a force for global good” featuring none other than everyone’s favourite public figure Kate Hopkins of recent baby name infamy, it is clear that DebSoc have no intention of slowing down on the polemic debates.
Fiona Potigny
In case you don’t know who Katie Hopkins is, you can get an idea of what she’s like from the video below. Did you attend last Friday’s debate? Is this an accurate version of events? Does Exeter University have a healthy enough attitude towards pornogrpahy and sexuality? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.
exeposedev 