A ‘Body map’ created by scientists at Oxford University and Finland’s Aalto University in Finland has found men to be more comfortable with physical contact than women.

The ‘body map index’, produced by a survey of more than 1,300 people, reveals where men and women are most comfortable being touched and by whom. In the largest study of this kind ever attempted, the participants were asked to colour in the outlines of the human body, marking where they were comfortable and uncomfortable being touched.

The results, published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the USA, pointed to the fact that, in general, women were far less comfortable being touched by strangers, with the majority telling researchers the only part of their body they were comfortable with male strangers touching were their hands.

In contrast, the study revealed men were more at ease with a female stranger touching various parts of their body, including their genitals, than with a relative. Amongst other findings, women were more comfortable being touched by friends of either gender, whilst men were far more uncomfortable being touched by friends of the same gender.

Oxford researcher Professor Robin Dunbar told Cherwell, “We were interested in where people touch each other because we have been running some PET neuroimaging studies looking at the way touch triggers the endorphin system.

“We were mainly interested in how touch patterns relate to the quality of the relationship you have with someone. Splitting the genders is a fairly conventional thing to do, but perhaps especially so now that we have shown that the two sexes live in very different social worlds (use very diff erent mechanisms for servicing their relationships.)”

On sex differences in the study, Aalto University researcher Juulia Suvilehto commented, “Interestingly, in two touchers with the same relationship (e.g. male and female friend; male and female cousin) the female was always allowed to touch in more areas. Also the female subjects on average reported allowing touch in larger areas than males.

“This finding is in-line with a lot of earlier research, but we do not know why exactly it is so. In addition, we looked at cultural differences, which were much smaller than one would expect from everyday experience.”

Christ Church’s JCR has voted at its most recent meeting to hold a referendum on introducing Meat-Free Mondays. The initiative was supposed to be determined at the JCR’s General Meeting last Sunday. The policy was previously instigated and dropped after copious criticism from the JCR, shortly after its inception.

The proposals under consideration would mean no meat, fish, or other seafood would be available at either the formal or informal dinners on Mondays. However, the meat-free measure would not apply to breakfast or lunch.

Diet cards are available for vegetarians, but JCR President Luke Cave told Cherwell that this is an “all-or-nothing affair – either you are vegetarian and never eat meat, or are not and eat meat every night.”

The motion was originally intended to introduce Meat-Free Mondays with immediate effect. James Heredge, who proposed the original motion, told Cherwell, “I proposed the motion because I feel that it is an effective way to significantly cut meat consumption. In the motion I’ve tried to stray away from the moral question about eating meat and focussed exclusively on the environmental impact of meat production.”

However, an amendment to put the motion to a referendum was proposed by Stuti Sarin, a second- year lawyer and Freshers’ Rep at Christ Church JCR. Sarin told Cherwell, “There were different and conflicting opinions on the concept.” As such, she did not believe it was “fair for the 50 or so people in the room to decide on such an important issue on behalf of the whole JCR.”

Some Christ Church students are concerned vegetarian dishes may not contain enough protein for athletes. “As someone who usually resorts to cooking ramen, I want meals in college to be high in protein and high in calories”, said one visiting student and athlete from the United States. Christ Church students are also concerned that the vegetarian dishes will be unable to accommodate gluten-free and dairy-free diets.

Cave expects that “strong opinions and reasoning for both sides of the argument” will arise during the lead-up to the referendum. On the proposition side, Heredge told Cherwell, “I’m hoping to potentially have some form of campaign…there are a lot of people in college who would readily join such a campaign.”

Many Oxford colleges have already joined the Meat-Free Mondays movement. Wadham and Lincoln are among the colleges already participating in Meat-Free Mondays and Regent’s Park endorses an alternative Meat-Free Wednesdays, after its JCR passed a referendum last autumn. Brasenose, Balliol, and Oriel have all also committed to adopting more meat-free options.

The referendum is expected to take place next week.

Analysis: Are Meat-Free Mondays the way forward for College JCRs? – Harry Gosling

The benefit of reduced meat consumption to both individuals and the environment has been well established by numerous empirical studies in recent years. Surely, then, it is right to encourage individuals to cut down on their consumption of meat?

There are many examples of the government acting to incentivise individuals to change their behaviour and to deter them from engaging in harmful acts. From banning smoking in public spaces to taxing the consumption of alcohol, they regularly interfere with our everyday lives and in doing so undermine elements of our personal liberty. The question is, does this matter?

The Meat-Free Mondays campaign exists for all the right reasons. It’s a way of spreading awareness of the personal health benefi ts of vegetarianism and ensuring that people are well-informed about the impact that meat consumption has on the environment. The global livestock industry produces more greenhouse gas emissions than cars, planes, trains and ships combined, yet almost twice as many people believe transport to bemore responsible for greenhouse gas emissions than the meat industry.

The campaign itself appears something to be positive about. Individuals are more than welcome to engage with and support the campaign. But what about imposing Meat-Free Mondays on whole colleges? Are there legitimate objections to college halls not serving meat every Monday? The libertarian brigade can be relied upon to be heard bleating about the importance of Isaiah Berlin’s negative concept of liberty and how it is essential that individuals are able to act without constraint. Students, they argue, have a right to eat what they want, when they want to.

Let us ask, however, what rights Meat-Free Mondays are actually infringing. Students at Wadham, which has adopted Meat-Free Mondays, are still at liberty to eat meat on a Monday by going elsewhere for their food. The libertarian case against the actions of Christ Church JCR is even weaker. There the proposition is for meat-free meals on Monday evenings only.

This is one of those cases where ‘doing right’ is more important than ‘having the right’. Climate change is a serious problem, and one that could have catastrophic consequences for populations across the world. On important issues such as these, governments, local authorities and yes, even college JCRs, have a responsibility to intervene, even when that intervention undermines personal freedom and liberty.

Nevertheless, college JCRs could do things differently. Banning the whole student body from eating meat in Hall on one particular day a week will only provoke hostility from many students and in the Christ Church case, for example, the measure appears unlikely to pass. Colleges should try to incentivise students to eat less meat in other, less antagonistic ways. Subsiding vegetarian food in Hall on certain days could be a start, since nothing motivates students to change their behaviour quite like the possibility of saving a few pennies.

We should be positive about the Meat-Free Mondays but cautious about its wholesale adoption by college Halls. Climate change is a problem, but there are much better methods of changing students’ behaviour.

Mansfield College has retroactively raised the prices of Formal Hall, sparking student outrage.

The price increase, of 30 pence on Formals, which take place on Wednesdays and Fridays, including special Friday ‘Formal Formals’ which occur three times per term, has been applied to those already attended this term, an increase which many students hold to be illegal, as the price is higher than was advertised at the time of sale.

The cost of normal twice-weekly Formals, which is now £12.75, is added to the battels of the following term. The increases had been discussed in Trinity 2015, but were never communicated to students.

In an email from the Principal of Mansfield, Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, students were told that “I am sorry you did not receive prior notice – it was a complete oversight caused by the departure of Neil, our Catering Manager, for personal reasons at quite short notice. The increase which was consciously kept as small as possible was agreed prior to the appointment of Peter and Lee in to the key catering roles and they did not realise students had not been informed.”

This followed a lengthy and impassioned thread on a post made in the ‘Mansfield College – Hall & Dining’ Facebook group Tuesday evening, which is run by Hall staff. A student had tagged the College in the post, stating, “I think the prices of our formals have increased after we booked/attended them. I’m not entirely sure this is legal. Why have the prices changed on our battels after we already booked and attended the formal? Can you explain why this is OK?”

Calls were then also made for the College Bursar, Allan Dodd, to resign, leading to additional comments in Kennedy’s email, that “On another note, I was very disappointed at the tone and language of the Facebook discussion on this subject. Personal comments about those who serve the needs of the college is unwarranted and unworthy of my students who are normally so considerate. Please don’t let that happen again.”

Speaking to Cherwell, JCR President Luke Charters-Reid stated that he fears such student comments have harmed the JCR’s bargaining position, but agreed that some comments had not been acceptable. Students are also concerned that comments made on the Facebook page are being used as a deflection technique.

The JCR President stated, “There is strong student reaction to this. I have urged students to stay calm and would like to see a speedy resolution to this,” while adding, “I don’t believe students have always been treated with respect by College in the handling of this matter.”

The JCR Treasurer, Claire Gibson, endorsed the JCR President’s statements to Cherwell and stated that she has been working actively with him towards finding a solution with the College that is agreeable to students.

An emergency JCR meeting took place Thursday evening to discuss the action the JCR wishes to take on this together. It was determined that there should be a “productive dialogue” with the College to resolve the matter in a “calm and timely manner”. Charters-Reid had added to Cherwell in advance of the meeting, “I don’t think it is appropriate to make a decision [on our way forward] before the meeting. I’m hoping for unified action.”

The JCR and MCR Presidents met with the Principal and other senior members of the College on Wednesday to attempt to find a resolution. The JCR and MCR Presidents proposed that the College agree to delay the increase until Hilary term, with one student asking them on the Facebook thread “[not to] settle for anything less than that.”

However, this was rejected by the College, and it was agreed that the matter would be discussed at further meetings. Kennedy laid out the College’s stance in her email to students that same day, writing “I think you should accept this low increase and the apologies of all concerned.”

To many students, however, it is not about the 30 pence increase, but the issue of legality and the principle of the matter, as Charters-Reid reiterated to Cherwell. The initial poster on Facebook, who wishes to remain anonymous, labelled it “stealing”, with another stating “any sum of money that is charged to us without our knowledge or consent is an unreasonable amount.”

A student has also confirmed to Cherwell that a query has been raised with the Chartered Trading Standards Institute as to the legality of the College’s actions.

Some Mansfield alumni who are still members of the page shared in their successors’ anger, raising previous incidences they deemed unfair, without one alumnus concluding “it seems Mansy is no longer the college where students are treated like equals.”

Additionally, online meal cost confirmations for previous Hall bookings now have a sentence underneath, stating that “This meal has been signed off by the catering department and no further changes will be applied to this booking.”

Mansfield College Bursar, Allan Dodd, has been contacted for comment.

Months after originally planned, renovations at the Ruskin School of Art’s new Bullingdon Road site have finished thanks to students helping out in a “wall building marathon”.

Over half of the university’s Fine Art students had been left for weeks without access to studio space. In order to speed up the creation of such work space, students were asked by the Ruskin administration to assist with the renovations themselves.

In an email from a member of staff , students were told, “You have been asking and asking for proper studio spaces and now the day is finally upon us…We really could use as many pairs of hands as we can get over the next two days to really get the studios properly up and running”.

The renovations took place over the summer and were originally scheduled to finish in September. The studio space was finally finished last Friday.

One Fine Art student, who wishes to remain anonymous, has told Cherwell, “It seems very unfair to the students, especially international students who are paying over a hundred pounds a day, that the Ruskin didn’t have studio space ready for students until Friday of Third Week.”

However, Angeli Bhose, a third-year undergraduate studying at the Ruskin, stated, “The new building was a hugely ambitious project – about two years passed between us first hearing about it and us moving in to the finished building.

“There have been some teething problems, as you could expect with any brand new purposebuilt building, but everyone has been working really hard to get everything up and running. As we all get settled in, we are excited to begin hatching some shows and events to invite the wider community in to see what we’re making using the new facilities and space!”

Another anonymous Ruskin student added, “There have been issues moving in (as you’d expect really – imagine shifting half the Bod libraries at once!) but the students, the staff and the University are all working on the same team to get it sorted, and to help us make up for the time we’ve lost.

“The new studio is world-class and the entire faculty have worked incredibly hard to get it made, so while it is disruptive to have these issues, we’re all working co-operatively – on the same side – to get the best solution.”

As well as providing new studio space, the 1,600 square-metre site can also accommodate the addition of a future master’s course.

The Ruskin School of Art declined to respond to Cherwell’s request for comment

Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) and Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) have this week taken up their positions as student political societies ahead of the coming referendum on the UK’s continued membership of the European Union.

In a public statement released on Monday, OUCA President Jan Nedvídek and Political Officer George Walker announced, “In light of the forthcoming referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, [OUCA] has thought it right to clarify what role we intend to play in the debate.

“Considering the variety of views which our members have on the question of EU membership, OUCA has decided not to support either the ‘In’ or the ‘Out’ campaigns. This stance is in accordance with the Conservative Party’s own position of allowing members to make up their own minds about the issue.”

OUCA’s stance means the society will not be campaigning for either side unless a future GM motion in favour of changing the society’s position were to be proposed and passed.

Meanwhile, OULC passed a motion on Monday night, with only five votes against, to “endorse UK membership of the European Union” and “to actively campaign in favour of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union in the coming referendum campaign.”

Noni Csogor, Co-Chair-Elect of OULC, who contributed to the motion debate, told Cherwell, “The EU has worked tirelessly and often unseen for the promotion of workers’ rights and international cooperation. It’s not perfect, but we need to have a voice in the EU to be able to push for its democratisation, which is why I’m really pleased that OULC voted by such a large margin to support the ‘Yes’ campaign. The labour movement is an international movement.”

Nedvídek added in a separate statement to Cherwell, “‘The issue of Britain’s place in the European Union is a divisive one in all parties except UKIP. I think it’s so important that we try to accommodate this diversity in the Conservative Party by not taking an official stance on the issue.”

“‘The Party, and OUCA, have always been broad churches, incorporating all types of different views. Rather than pointing at people who disagree with us and telling them to go elsewhere, I’m delighted that OUCA has made it clear that everyone is welcome.”

David Parton, who is at St Hilda’s and who proposed the motion to OULC, told Cherwell, “This [position] is in line with UK Labour Party policy…Labour’s values of internationalism, solidarity and cooperation shine through in our policy stance, and we find it indicative of how increasingly feral the eurosceptic Tory right is becoming that OUCA was unable to commit to anything.”

These developments follow NUS President Megan Dunn having taken up a position on the board of the national ‘In’ campaign ‘Britain Stronger in Europe’ last month.

OUSU also endorses Britain’s continued membership of the EU. In its Seventh Week meeting of Trinity 2015, a motion was passed, stating, “This council believes that Britain should remain a member state of the European Union.”

While no date has yet been set, the EU referendum must take place before the end of 2017, although it is speculated that it could be as soon as Autumn 2016.