The funny thing about being a fundamentalist Christian wingnut activist is that you never have to say “I’m sorry”, or that normal rules just don’t apply to you.
Just as former NFL star turned fundie Reggie White gaave props to “the Asians” for their ability to “turn a television into a watch”; I find it fascinating how they are able to turn what the rest of us see as flameouts into successes.
Case in point: Shelley just posted to her blog her impressions of the epic porn debate that took place last week over at Cambridge University in London, where she along with antiporn “feminist” Gail Dines (and she’s a storry on her own, but not now) and antiporn “researcher” Richard Woolfson, tangled with pro-porn sex blooger and former MP candidate Anna Arrowsmith (aka Anna Spam), British male porn star Johnny Anglais, and American sex blogger Jessi Fischer (of Sexademic).The format was that both sides would pitch their points to a esteemed panel of Cambridge students, who would then vote for whom did the best job of presenting their case. In this case, the pro-porn side won, 231-197, with 187 abstensions.
From much of the impressions gathered, it seemed that Shelley was pretty much in over her head there, pretty much blowing the debate with her stridency and not-quite-so-lucid arguments and basic talking points. Here’s Jess Fischer’s retrospective:
Then came Lubben. All of the other speakers delivered well-structured speeches with coherence. Lubben sounded drunk even though I hadn’t seen her take a single drink during dinner. As she rambled about representing the majority of porn performers, her cache of evidence which was never presented, and assertions that all vocally pro-porn performers were “trained seals” telling us what they were required to say. An uncomfortable silence washed through the hall and even Dines was pinching the bridge of her nose in obvious mental discomfort.
And then there is this comment that was posted to Johnny Anglais’s blog, then reposted by Michael Whiteacre as a comment to Julie Meadows’ blog:
A fellow named Leon Georgiou attended the Cambridge debate, and commented on Johnny Anglais’ Facebook page.
In his opinion, Lubben was inebriated , or “pissed” in the British usage of the word:
“Shelley was clearly pissed at the debate. Within the first few seconds of her starting to speak, I could see it ending in disaster (I thought she’d swear, fall over, or end up bursting uncontrollably into tears); it was only when she finished and swayed back to her seat that it was clear she was pissed. All my friends who attended the debate commented on her, one of whom is American and felt very embarrassed by her compatriot!
“I got the impression that Lubben’s style of address was as if we were the typical American, gossip-consuming, Hollywood-obsessed audience. That’s why – in addition to her inebriation – her comments were just that – comments, not arguments. And vacuous ones, at that. Style over substance. And we all know where that led us…”
It’s not my point to say what happened there, or whether Lubben was indeed inebreated or just high off the attention, but the consensus was that her efforts basically torpedoed the best efforts of the other antiporn panelists, which were far more expeirenced in such venues. Even Gail Dines, the reigning dominatrix of antiporn “feminism”, was taken back enough….though she did, according to Jessi Fischer, seek some sembulance of defense of Shelley against what she called a “personal attack” by Anna Span earlier in the debate.
But…there is the real world, and then there is the alterworld that Shelley’s disciples live in. Apparently, that world found nothing wrong with her performance.
It was the latter world that Lubben apparently addressed with this post at her blog today.
This historic university with a long Christian heritage held a debate on Thursday in regards to the proposition that ‘pornography does a good public service.’
To travel to the Cambridge Union Society building where the event was held, one had to walk by the adjacent ‘Jesus Lane’ and the ‘Round Church’ which was built in the year 1130. There are so many markers of Christ around the community and University (Jesus Lane, All Saints Passage, Trinity College, St. John’s College, Jesus College, Emmanuel College, Corpus Cristi College, Christ’s College, etc) that a debate on the merit of pornography would seem unnecessary. Nevertheless, the problem of pornography is a real one and the debate proceeded before a packed house of attentive young students who will one day be the leaders of society. After all, this generation of students has not known a time when porn was not mainstream. They have been raised on porn and can accurately be called the first porn generation.
Uh-huh. Because Cambridge used to be a good, solid, Christian school that knew where God stood…before those evil liberal secularist communist freelovers came in and wrecked the place!!! And, as you will notice here, Shelley doesn’t give the final score of the debate…for obvious reasons.
First up was porn producer Anna Span who first off didn’t defend pornography or her work but chose to attack Shelley. She then proceeded to read from a lengthy prepared statement. She rarely looked up and ended her speech by trying to malign Shelley once again.
Yeah…the same “porn producer” who also happens to be a prominent pro-porn feminist, a proud supporter of “women’s porn”, and a recent (if ultimately unsuccessful) candidate for Parliament last year. But, hey, she was just there to smear Ministress Lubben…right??
Anti-porn feminist Gail Dines followed Anna Span and spoke of the degradation in porn by naming some of things that women are subjected to in porn. The audience was amused by the colorful and stark language. She then went on to mention how children in their early teens were modern day porn consumers.
Now….considering that Ministeress Lubben and Dines have previously shared the dais together (remember the Pornography Harms luncheon in Washington, DC last year??), you’d think that Shelley would show Dines just a bit more love and support? Not to mention, that Dines is more than expert in the art of the crude and direct approach just like Shelley is. (As per the usual, Dines had the usual “cumdumpster”/”gaping”/’skullfucking” references on display, along with her pet meme about porn being the center of capitalism and the reason women with hairy bushes are feminist revolutionaries for eschewing sex.
Pro-porn feminist Jessi Fischer was next and she started by saying that Dines’ statistic revealing the young age of porn consumers was proven to be untrue. Yet, Ms. Fischer revealed later that she herself had been exposed to porn at a young age. She went on to speak in favor of pornography by preaching the religion of sex and pleasure as the ‘be-all and end-all’ or ‘lord’ if you will. In a nutshell, she argued that anything that people derive sexual pleasure from is basically a good thing. The audience was amused. Was she not aware that the very same day the UK population was in shock over a Supreme Court decision to allow sex offenders to appeal their inclusion on a lifetime sex offenders’ registry? By her illogical and dangerous belief, pedophiles and rapists should be seen as doing a good public service because they are merely seeking sexual pleasure.
Of course, the fact that Jessi had been “exposed to porn” yet managed not to waver one bit in her fundamental feminist views that women should be treated as equals and respected in their choices managed to skip by Ministress Lubben’s brain. Blame it on the alcohol, I guess.
And for the last time today, Ministeress, “sex-positivity” does NOT mean that ANY display of sexual pleasure is good in and of itself; it simply means that consenting adults should be enabled to seek sexual pleasure on their own behalf. There is a difference.
The floor was opened to students at this point and one student promptly stood up to say that in her previous work experiences, she had encountered children as young as nine years old who were struggling with pornography addiction. Another student boldly proclaimed that all she had heard so far was statistics that were being bounced back and force like some sort of tennis match. She pleaded for the remaining speakers to make their case not from statistics but from passionate, personal arguments.
So, when the anti-porn psychologist Dr. Richard Woolfson took the platform, he said that all the statistics could be taken off the table and the facts would still remain. Namely, that those hearing his voice tonight would still know that their ‘10 year old little brother’ goes home to his room at night, closes his door and watches porn. The students laughed and were amused. We didn’t think what he said was funny at all.
Ah, yes…because statistics only mean something when they can be push polled to your favor..right??
And the threat of 10-year olds finding porn is so 1970′s….I mean, how would a pre-pubescent child even UNDERSTAND what the hell was going on?? Unless, fundies like Shelley explaining it for them explicitly in public???
Porn star ‘Johnny Anglais’ was next and he stated that he was not happy being defined simply as a porn star. He had a real name and he was talented and was able to do many things in life. Yet, pornography is made up of fake names, fake personas, fake acts and human degradation in deed and attitude. Those behind the scenes in porn believe they are doing the performers a favor by giving them a job since most of them (in their minds) would have no hope of advancing themselves by any other means. It’s interesting to note that Johnny also admitted that he too had been exposed to pornography at an early age. It seems as the debate went on, the pro-porn speakers were making our case although they didn’t realize it.
Porn is toxic. It’s addictive. It negatively affects everyone it comes into contact with. No one is made for porn. No one is the ‘right type of person’ for porn. Porn is degradation and no one with a proper view of their own worth would partake of it or champion it.
Of course, those whom have already read the transcript of what Anglais actually said will note that that interpretation is just a bit off the mark.Like…two continents off.
But…never mind all that, because HIS TRUTH is about to take over the place.
Finally, former porn actress Shelley Lubben was the last speaker of the evening and the only female on the panel who has experienced the hardcore acts that porn stars perform in front of the camera. She did not read from a prepared statement but passionately spoke out against the lie of pornography. She looked around the room and made eye contact with the students and boldly declared, ‘Pornography doesn’t do a good public service because it is lying to you. I have the evidence. It’s lying to you. It’s modern day slavery. ‘ At one point, she held up a current porn industry legal document that it makes its performers sign that includes a waiver of the signer’s “Moral Rights”. No one in the audience was amused or laughing at this point.
‘There is nothing funny or glamorous about this industry,’ said Lubben.
Porn kills and Shelley went on to proclaim that she stood there in the power of Jesus Christ! Only by the grace of God is she alive to share the truth with them today.
Or, perhaps…the grace of 90-proof Henny.
Of course, Shelley has her own interpretation of the ensuing vote:
After Shelley spoke, the debate format was such that no more questions or comments were allowed. The debate was over and students left the room exiting through a door marked ‘aye’, ‘nay’, or ‘abstained’. The students voted 231 to 187 in favor of the motion with 197 abstentions.
The effect of porn on a whole generation of young people is not a myth as this Cambridge University student body poll result shows.
Were the 197 abstentions or refusals to vote by students because they may have not felt adequately informed about the issue or uneasy about casting a vote? Were they shocked by such bold declarations of porn’s abuse against humanity? What if porn is modern day slavery? What if it is the buying and selling of human flesh? What if women do not enjoy making porn? What if it’s not what it seems? What if it’s all a lie? What if it destroys lives instead of helping?
These are the issues that will not go away. The time has come for action. Human lives are at stake! No more abstaining from the issue. We must address the worldwide flood of pornography before it overwhelms us all.
Or…what if those who abstained simply didn’t want to make a decision one way or another, or believed in the general antiporn view, but bristled at the excessiveness of Lubben’s zealotry?? What may work in the halls of Congress might not work so well in a hallowed debate chamber of old England, you know.
Then again, in the Lubben mindset, you are either with her….or you are with THE DEVIL. Her concluding graph:
Cambridge University made their choice for porn over Jesus Christ. There was a time when that would have been unthinkable or shocking, but those of us who have been personally effected by the pornification of society know its lies are seductive and we are no longer shocked. Instead, we are anguished and we are grieving. Another shining city on a hill has been swept over by the tidal wave of pornography.
Apparently, Shelley’s never seen the editorials of the Guardian, or the work of Julie Bindel and Gail Dines in working the British MP’s in passing legislation to ban “violent porn”, hasn’t she?? I guess that that would be too feminist for her fundamentalist roots.
Of course, Shelley’s puff piece is nothing more than propaganda for her sheeple and publicity for her crusade, and more than likely she probably didn’t give a Hoover Dam about what her opponents think of her efforts. Like most fundie ministers, she’s out to simply convert and promote, and to ultimately defeat THE ENEMY that lurks everywhere against her holy war against porn.
Nevertheless, her myopic response to what all other sane people would call an epic FAIL speaks wonders about her willingness to suspend disbelief and her aggressiveness in her efforts to destroy porn by any means neccessary. The same intense doggedness that may make her a laughingstock to some is also what makes her that much more dangerous..especially in a time where right-wingers are flexing their political muscles to roll back countless other individual rights taken for granted for far too long.
In the end, Shelley Lubben’s myopia may be humorous, even ridiculous…but the results are no laughing matter at all.
: