Porn Debate at Cambridge Uni

[madwomanintheattic]

anyone going? 19 feb i think, but could be wrong. could be really important - hopefully - Gail Dines is taking part, amongst others... i really hope the whole pole dancing thing is touched on too.

I wish I could but I live too far away. Will you let us know the outcome, it would be very interesting.

No surprise that Gail Dines will be there, but the newspapers are most interested in the former porn star Shelly Lubben, performer/schoolteacher 'Johnny Anglais' and porn director/LibDem parliamentary candidate Anna Arrowsmith. There are a couple of academic no-names to make up the numbers.

The proposition is ''This house believes that pornography does a good public service.''

Oh, please let us know how it goes - I don't think I can get there but would be really interested to know about it. Didn't David Mitchell write a really good article a while back, in response to Cambridge Uni starting a pole dancing club?

Can't go as live too far away but at 'public service'.

Public Service? In all seriousness how is cum-facilitation a 'public service'? I can't think of any other 'pro's', maybe I'm a bit thick compared to Cambridge students, or maybe it'll be a short debate.

Presumably is the service porn does to the public need to masturbate.

I actually didn't realise it was a need, I thought it was a desire and I didn't realise you needed porn to do it, I thought most people are able to find their genitals without external stimulation, but hey, what do I know.

What other "need" could it possibly be meeting?

HerB.

The many many pro-porn arguments on here and elsewhere seems to be 'I like porn. It gets me off. I LIKE it'

i think it's just a deliberately sensationalist title to provoke, er, debate.
to be clear - i'm not going myself - (it's an 8 hour flight and i'm both cash and time poor lol), i was hoping someone on here would be, as i wish i was. suspect the media coverage will be quite biased.

i wish david mitchell was on the panel . it needs a man on the opposing side for meeja purposes.

Ooh, now that's got me all nostalgic: I used to take part in these a lot in the 90s. Though the specific title for that one would have had me banging my head on the desk I must say, they used to be a bit more to-the-point in my day.

the Excellent artilce by David Mitchell

Oh I've loved that man ever since that article was published! He just gets it.

I'd probably support the motion if it were less absolute. Perhaps something along the lines of "This house believes that some pornography does a good public service" or "This house believes that pornography can do a good public service."

i just googled gail dines and read the guardian piece about her new book. at point she is talking about porn needing more and more extreme material to make money and she cited a recent shot of a woman being penetrated anally whilst kneeling in a coffin. very interesting in light of the kanye west video - threa on mn somewhere and the shock over its depiction of dead/drugged women being made sexy.

i wish i could see this debate.

thanks op for the thread because you've given me some great reading leads :-)

It's Thurs 17th at 7:30pm

Link to Cambridge Union site with details of speakers:

www.cus.org/termcard/event/1293/

They are also doing one on 'This house believes the veil empowers women':

www.cus.org/termcard/event/1297/

Amazing isn't it how many things are out there helping to empower women?

I thought this was quite interesting.

Ha ha, your comment made me smile, David51. You're right. Cambridge Uni has an 'empowering' pole dancing society, and is now debating porn and the veil, with a starting point that they are positive.

If I see the word 'empowering' now, I automatically get alarm bells in my head about whatever subject we are talking about.

If anything, the fact that the proposition, or 'starting point' as you put it, is positive makes it harder for those arguing for it.

Its one thing to argue that consenting adults should be free to partake in either activity, but quite another to suggest that there is any societal good.

It's interseting that they have chosen to frame it this way around as it seems to me that nobody is asking for special treatment for either porn or the veil - shouldn't those that would prohibit or control either activity be expected to make the case that they are damaging to society?

it anyone else cringing at the clunky English of the motion?

students today, tsk.

SGB, What on earth is interesting about that?

It's just a crappy blog with some creepy fuckers slagging off Shelly Lubben in an offensive manner.

Well it's interesting because it's a blog written by another porn performer, who disagrees with Shelly Lubben (who I had never heard of before this thread: found the blog by googling). I don't think the writer's criticism and disagreement of Lubben is particularly offensive, either.