Canada- It was a seemingly ordinary Tues­day night in the Woodward build­ing, but the word “porn” was on everyone’s lips. Porn star Ron Jeremy was in town to debate Mi­chael Leahy, a former sex addict.

Hosted by UBC club Campus for Christ, “The Great Porn Debate” featured Jeremy and Leahy debating on issues such as whether or not pornography is addictive, exploitive or objectify­ing, and if watching porn can be damaging to relationships.

Last year Campus for Christ hosted a similar event called “The God Debate,” in which an atheist and a theist argued over the existence of God. That event was very popular, attract­ing around 1200 spectators. Wanting to continue in this vein, Campus for Christ decided to focus on another hot topic on campus.

“Pornography and sexuality is something very close to people’s hearts and what they’re thinking about…” said John Hau, an orga­nizer of the event. The purpose of the event was for students to look at the topic of pornography objectively and think about it critically.

“We’re really encouraging a place for people to hear both sides of the issue and come to their [own] conclusions,” said Beth Fisher, another one of the organizers.

An hour before the event started there was already a long line inside of Woodward. Before the actual debate started, we in­formally spoke to several mem­bers of the crowd, attempting to gauge the audience’s general thoughts on the event and the subject of pornography. Virtu­ally all of the people we spoke to expressed a desire to learn more about the subject and hear a different perspective. Ron Jeremy was definitely the major attraction, as many of the audience members declared that they were there to see him. The majority of the people we spoke to were pro-pornography with certain reservations, while some were ambivalent and a minor­ity stated that they were outright against it.

After a brief introduction by the emcee, Leahy and Jeremy emerged to great applause. Both speakers introduced themselves and gave their opening state­ments. Michael Leahy told the audience how his obsession with porn began at an early age and described the negative effects it had on his life. He said that the industry has a right to exist, but that the question is not whether porn should or should not exist; instead one should question the effect pornography has on rela­tionships and one’s personal at­titudes. Leahy claimed that porn made him view women as the “sum of their parts,” and added that watching porn can make a person objectify other people.

Jeremy began his opening statement by immediately re­futing Leahy’s claims. “I’ll just take his points and slam-dunk them one at a time.” Jeremy argued that porn can be looked at recreationally and that one “can’t blame an industry for an addiction.” Jeremy said that Leahy had a problem but can’t blame the porn industry for it, and made the analogy of a per­son blaming the alcohol industry for alcoholism. In response to Leahy’s claim that porn objecti­fies women, Jeremy referred to other types of media (television, magazines, billboards) that do the same thing.

After the opening statements the floor was opened up to questions from the audience. Questions could either be asked verbally or texted in to accom­modate people in the overflow rooms. There was a wide variety of questions, including one prop­osition toward the emcee from a smitten female in the audience.

During the debate both speak­ers had points they repeated often. One of Leahy’s principal arguments against pornogra­phy was that it does not give a healthy or realistic view of rela­tionships and can affect the inti­macy one has with their partner. Ron Jeremy’s central point was that of moderation and personal choice, claiming that anything can be bad if it is done in excess. “Too much aspirin will kill you,” he quipped.

When asked if porn is a vi­able option to act out fantasies that are usually not possible in a relationship, Jeremy agreed. He stated that couples could indeed try out a fantasy (such as a new position), and that porn could also help one to vicariously en­gage in fantasies that are unre­alistic in practice. Leahy agreed that sexual fantasies are normal, but said that Jeremy is making the assumption that both part­ners in a relationship are having this dialogue. Leahy asserted that porn can cause unrealistic expectations and create sexual dissatisfaction, adding that this was why his marriage failed.
Leahy also claimed that the nature of pornography is incred­ibly addictive, explaining that sexual stimuli releases very high levels of dopamine—the neu­rotransmitter associated with pleasure. In response, Jeremy argued that it could be addictive, but can also be healthy when viewed properly.

Much of the discussion had focused on how pornography affects the viewer, but toward the end of the debate someone finally asked how porn affects the actors in the industry. Jer­emy replied that women in the industry tend to get jaded, but did not admit to anything worse than that. When pressed about the existence of serious negative effects, he admitted that the in­dustry has had its casualties but said that most of those people had problems prior to getting involved in pornography. Jeremy continued to explain that various organizations exist to filter out people who have been abused, are addicted to drugs or have sexually transmitted diseases. Other topics that were touched upon included sex trafficking, the influence pornography has had on culture and politics, and sex education.

The relatively informal struc­ture of the debate may have been a factor in its lacking of serious intellectual discourse. Both speakers occasionally used logi­cal fallacies, ignored large holes in their respective arguments and did not always argue about the same issues.

For example, Jeremy’s argu­ments were undermined by the fact that most of them did not really apply to internet pornog­raphy, which has become the mainstream. Jeremy was mainly defending regulated studio-produced pornography, and defended it on the basis that it should not be released to anyone under 18. Leahy, however, often referred to internet pornogra­phy and how it is unregulated and easily accessible to adults and minors. On the other side, the strength of some of Leahy’s claims were weakened by the fact that too many of his arguments stemmed from personal experi­ences and emotional appeals.

Talking to some of the crowd after the event, we found that the audience’s opinion was somewhat mixed. People appre­ciated the opportunity for open communication about a subject that is normally difficult to dis­cuss. Many said they felt that they had gained new insights, though no one we spoke to had really changed their opinion on the subject. However, there ap­peared to be a consensus that the debate was not very intel­lectual (especially compared to last year’s God Debate) and may have focused too much on trying to have popular appeal.

On the plus side, we got Ron Jeremy’s autograph.