Debatable - 18

This week’s motion is “We should outlaw public displays of affection”. Emily Hay argues the affirmative, while Maddie Harris argues the negative.

Affirmative
The issue of public displays of affection, aka PDAs, is no longer about getting a room, it’s about getting some self respect. PDAs repulse society and show a deep despise for your own integrity. The idea that you think others like to see this disgusting display, or the fact that you don’t care, shows what a deeply narcissistic and bad person you are. Not to mention the negative impact it has on society.
PDAs are not committed by hot couples, but by those that are so feral that they have to show off as publicly and as annoyingly as possible that, “YES! Someone is interested in me!” (shock horror). Newsflash; no one is jealous when viewing a PDA. People only stare because they are baffled by how this equally feral pair found one another, and how neither of them have the commonsense or courtesy to commit these acts in privacy. Canoodling in public doesn’t mean you’re loved, it just shows the world what an insecure individual you are.
Not all PDAs are a simple matter of looking away. In some situations you are cruelly stuck in a confined public space with a couple intent on having a teen pregnancy. If I wanted to watch a porno, I’d borrow my flatmate’s hard drive and watch the pros do it, not these amateurs at the back of the bus. However, in the majority of cases, yes, one could simply look away but the fact is people should not be forced to avert their eyes in public places or cross the road to avoid some love sick lunatics. It does not mean you’re frigid if you don’t appreciate these public profanities; it only shows that, like most Otago students, you are one classy cat. You are someone who has standards and doesn’t like to be blinded by insecure people trying to hide their loneliness and insecurities with unnecessary public affection.
People who hate PDAs do not hate love and do not hate affection. PDAs don’t make people think, ‘oh how nice love does exist.’ It makes people want to vomit. PDAs are basically just a half assed attempt at foreplay, without the climactic ending. Either do it right, privately in your bedrooms, in your flatmate’s bedroom, on your kitchen table or in your tiny scarfie toilet, or don’t do it at all.
People clean up dog poo because no one enjoys being surrounded by shit. So why not clean up PDAs because, let’s face it, if I had to choose between a sidewalk with poo on it and a sidewalk with a cuddling couple, I’d take the shit any day.
- Emily Hay

Negative
The affirming team has painted the misinformed picture of our streets being full of lousy attempts at anticlimactic foreplay, abysmal failure at recreating pornos on buses, and unattractive needy couples inappropriately eating each others faces off.??I have three responses to this. Firstly to the anticlimactic remark, the climax comes later. Secondly to the hanky panky going on in the back seat and the argument to outlaw PDAs is not frigid, it evidently is, and gross overstatement. Patience is a virtue and applies when witnessing these situations so take this as a piece of advice next time you’re on a raunchy bus ride. And thirdly, to the insinuation that our society is full of unattractive make outs, we ask the affirmative to show a bit of that self respect that’s been a main feature of that self righteous babble and stop insulting the sex appeal of our society!
 
On side negative, it is our belief that societal balance would completely collapse as a result of outlawing said PDAs. Thinking about it this way, we are effectively outlawing our young generation of alcohol-infused romances founded on ‘the pash’, denying over-exuberant arts students basic self expression and, more severely, abolishing the possibility of old couples holding hands that remind us of that strange concept of marriage without divorce. A wise man once said “feminism killed romance” and obviously he was right. The affirming side of the argument has completely missed the real implications that outlawing PDAs would have on a society like ours. Let’s face it Dunedin, we get a bit frisky. With the majority of the population between 18 and 24, and a tendency to get drunk often and face impaired judgement in close proximities in the depths of Monkey Bar with the opposite sex (or same, if that’s your field of expertise!), it can only be expected. Sure, a confrontation of one’s own lack of affectionate public displays can evidently leave the less romantically-endowed amongst us feeling slightly inadequate and bitter and condemn such activities in a ridiculous feminist rant. It’s a repulsive fantasy of the affirming team that anything from a cheeky pash to a raunchy mid-footpath straddle can be deemed as unfit for society. It’s not dog shit, it’s ground work. And ground work gets results! Suppression of a sneeze can lead to rupture of a blood vessel and suppression of PDAs can lead to a sexually deprived society. Otago; your future, your choice.
- Maddie Harris

 
Posted 4:28am Monday 1st August 2011 by Emily Hay and Maddie Harris.