Yes

In a tongue-in-cheek guide for the newly-moneyed and ambitious arriviste, The Economist suggested approaching a London-based university to endow a centre or professorial chair in one’s name, as a potentially good way step up the ladder of respectability. “Oxford and Cambridge, being richer, are also choosier about whom they take their money from,” it explained sniffily. But in this age of austerity, such blithe certainties have vanished. 

Oxford is yet to face as much criticism for its financial arrangements as the LSE was by the revelations that it was receiving donations from the Gaddafi regime. But that does not mean we should not be troubled. The University benefits from its charitable status, and college development offices eagerly use the language of charity in their campaigns. But it’s worth remembering that, especially in the case of big donations, association with Oxford comes with a level of prestige beyond many other charities.

The University and colleges should take into account that many donations are offered in the hope of establishing the donor as a pillar of society, and that this opportunity will often attract the unsavoury. The current controversy is over a £5 million donation to St Peter’s from two senior officers of the Perenco, which is an oil and gas company. Of course, in the perpetual moral twilight of global capitalism, it’s hard for any source of revenue to emerge spotless from full scrutiny, but some industries are just too close to flagrant exploitation for us to be comfortable with. Oil companies like Perenco fall squarely within this category. Perenco is accused of causing environmental destruction and trampling indigenous rights in South America. Despite these accusations, oil company bosses still have the opportunity to lead prosperous lives in the capitals of the West, and the ability to seek the satisfaction of being prominent citizens. What we need to question is the role of our supposedly high-minded and progressive institutions, such as Oxford, in this.

Oxford has long benefited from money of ethically dubious origin. Merton’s first endowment came in the form of capital from manors worked by serfs, and the de Balliols would today be classified as warlords. Arguably, this money has been put to good use, but nevertheless we remain the beneficiaries of systematic exploitation – just as LSE students became beneficiaries of the impoverishment and oppression of Libya. Perhaps Saif Gaddafi would not have been allowed to donate to Oxford, but not taking money from brutal dictators is the bare minimum of a principled stand.

The University should recognise that its ethical responsibilities go beyond being able to sleep soundly, because a connection with Oxford confers considerable legitimacy on anyone.

Students should absolutely take part in that discourse, as many in the St Peter’s JCR have done, because if we seriously believe this university can make the world a better place, we need to start by deciding who exactly we want in our corner.

Conor Dinan

No

Donations to colleges from ethically dubious companies, directly or indirectly, are always going to be contentious. As in the case of the recent donation to St Peter’s by two senior employees of the oil company Perenco. However, any moral intuition that might lead us to believe that the simple acceptance of a donation of £5 million from two employees of Perenco is wrong is misguided.

There is a significant difference, between taking money from an organisation itself, such as Perenco, and appeasing an organisation by becoming less vocal about its wrongdoings, or granting it special privileges to promote itself within an institution. This is where the real moral quandary lies. But this risk can be managed by making sure college practice does not become distorted as a consequence of receiving money – not by flatly refusing the money in the first place.

Of course, some will say that there is something inherently wrong with taking money, and that this in itself legitimises the donating organisation’s activities. But if the college remains just as critical about the donating organisation’s activities as before, and there is no subsequent change to any of its dealings with that company, such as promoting its graduate schemes within college, it is difficult to see where the problem lies.

There are also practical issues with making colleges selective about whom they receive donations from. For a start, how could a college objectively lay out the parameters for who it takes donations from, such that it didn’t take sides in contentious political issues? For example, does it refuse donations from Israeli companies? If so, this aligns it with Palestine, which would potentially leave Israeli students feeling ostracised. Making moral judgements like this has the potential to make colleges less inclusive places for students. Furthermore, where should the line be drawn between an ethical company and unethical one? Almost every multinational corporation has been involved in some sort of ethically questionable practise, and so drawing a line on practises, such as tax evasion or the selling of fast food, leaves the risk of not being able to accept donations from anybody.

Lastly, it could be argued that to refuse donations puts colleges in danger of being far too idealistic in the face of financial reality. The money from the Perenco employees’ donation, for example, will go towards the renovation of the quads and facilities of the college. To argue against accepting such a donation on the grounds that it means the college tacitly accepts the company’s practice is subjecting it to a moral standard that comes at the expense of real solutions to urgent problems.

Of course being morally high-minded is not a bad thing, but there are more salient and pressing issues which colleges would be better getting involved with, that do not interfere with student well-being. Refusing donations may on the surface appear a good idea, but on closer examination proves problematic.

Samuel Rutishauser-Mills

With Oxford Fashion Week around the corner, all eyes will be on the catwalk. Mine will be watching to see whether the range of models represents the makeup of the fashion industry or Oxford in general. I recently came across an article by the Harvard Gazette detailing the findings of a medical school psychiatrist and her studies into Fijian culture. As television only became widespread in Fiji from 1995, a three-year study was conducted to see how it would impact on cultural norms.

In 1995, there was a distinct absence of the kind of eating disorders which have plagued Western girls for years. However, by 1998, after the arrival of late night TV, suggestive adverts and music videos, 11.3% of girls reported that they had been sick at least once after eating in an attempt to lose weight. As part of a later study in 2007, over 45% of the girls questioned admitted to having made themselves sick to lose weight.

The media’s depiction of beauty is disconcerting to say the least. We’ve all heard somebody complain about models being “too thin”. What we may not have heard about is the number of models who have died as a result of their eating disorders. Problems are beginning at a younger age. In the UK, girls as young as nine have been receiving treatment for eating disorders.

The average woman in the UK is a size 16 but models at size 12 and above are often considered “plus size”. British women are effectively being told by the fashion industry that “big” is two sizes smaller than average. What’s more, models are much taller than the general population, making their appearance slimmer still.

Size dysmorphia isn’t the only thing wrong with Western modelling. It’s also a predominantly white industry. Models have been turned away because casting agents “already had one black girl for the job”. Naomi Campbell is one of many models to hit out about the racism in fashion, explaining how last year’s New York Fashion Week featured 82.7% white models; hardly representative of the ethnic diversity of the city in which it took place.

Vanity Fair was recently accused of ‘whitewashing’, having featured the Twelve Years a Slave actress Lupita Nyong’o in photographs appearing several shades lighter than she does on the front cover. Some blame lighting; others describe it as symptomatic of a beauty culture refusing to move with the times. Ethnicity and skin tone aside, any model or actor is unlikely to see a real reflection of herself in the pages of magazine. Women are photoshopped to have a longer neck, longer legs, higher cheekbones, bigger bust, fewer wrinkles and pores. Men have their abdominals chiselled and their boxers stuffed. Frankly, we need more realism in how our beauty ideals are reflected. When the world’s most beautiful still need to be tweaked and perfected to be ‘photo-friendly’, something is wrong. The fashion industry should provide us with clothes for a variety of bodies – not just enough for one skinny, pale, “perfect” body. Fashion needs a makeover.

Chris Hedges is among the last of a dying breed: the war correspondent that has spent his life with society’s outcasts and the faceless victims of conflcit. I ask how he came into journalism and what he thinks are the crucial attributes for a journalist. “I originally came to journalism through the priesthood actually. I was studying at Harvard Divinity school, originally intending to become a minister when I met a fantastic guy named Robert Cox. Robert had been editor of the Buenos Aires Herald during the dirty war in the late 70’s. He was a very brave man. The government at the time’s way of disposing of its enemies was ‘disappearing them’; they’d simply vanish into the night, usually never to be seen again. Bob used to print the names of those who had been disappeared the previous day above the fold in his newspaper.

“Eventually, he himself was disappeared, although his life was saved by the intervention of the British and American governments. He really opened my eyes to the possibility of journalism, and what journalism can do.”

He emphasises a balanced approach. “One of the most important things you can do as a journalist is have a strict sense of objectivity and wish to stick to the truth. Orwell is the absolute epitome of this aspect of our profession, particularly in books such as Homage to Catalonia. I’ll illustrate with an example from my own career. When I covered the war in Kosovo, I spent the vast majority of my time covering the atrocities of the Serbian security forces, who, if they hadn’t been stopped by a NATO intervention, would have committed murder, massacre and rape on a huge scale. But when they withdrew, their role was replaced by that of Albanian thugs who instead starting beating and murdering elderly Serb couples who had nothing whatsoever to do with Milosevic and his crimes.

“But this is also a very dangerous type of journalism to be involved in. You might have seen that at the start of the film The Hurt Locker, they used a quote from me about war being a drug. You find so many journalists who find that nothing in life is as exciting as covering wars; I felt this way myself. So many of them pay for this addiction with their lives.” We turn to his opinions of the most powerful and prestigious of journalistic institutions of our time, The New York Times, which he left in 2003 over their refusal to countenance his opposition to the Iraq War.

“The New York Times is in a very strange position vis-à-vis its relationship to power. On the one hand, it is an elitist paper, and so much of its publishing power comes from its intimate access to politicians and those in positions of power. So it can’t go around openly opposing the agenda of those who give it the access it craves. “It attracts careerists who are intoxicated by power and influence; I was not a particularly good careerist. But this does not make it a propaganda outlet. So you’ll see it try and square the circle in strange ways. With the Wikileaks cables for instance, it couldn’t not take such a huge story without looking ridiculous, but it had to keep it at arm’s length. They were at the forefront for instance, of smearing the character of Julian Assange and his organisation.”

I push him about his support of Wikileaks and Julian Assange, who Hedges considers a friend. I ask him, why, since the Manning leaks, Wikileaks has gone so quiet. “I was with Julian yesterday, I spent about two and a half hours with him. To be honest, his confinement is getting harder, and everything he does is watched. You have to understand that one of the reasons Wikileaks cannot act like it used to is that it suffered such as huge material and propaganda attack. Its funding was severed, its character publicly smeared, also by the organisations that benefited from it, and Assange is now under near total surveillance. It’s kind of an open secret – I think it’s even in the Guardian’s book that Snowden originally wanted to go to Julian with the NSA documents, but the surveillance that Julian is under could have jeopardised the whole operation of publishing them.”

To end the interview, I ask him what the key to doing a successful interview might be. “I’ve done a lot of interesting interviews, but the ones with people in power often happen to be the most boring. I’ve spoken with Gaddafi and Mubarak, but you’d often get more out of talking to activists on the ground. “You want people to speak about what they know. And it takes a long time to do a good interview. Often, in the first half hour of the interview, you’ve got almost nothing. For me, it’s always about being completely honest, completely trustworthy. I think people sense it. That and being informed. My current book is an exploration of the effects of unrestrained rapacious capitalism on the poorest in America.

“Part of the reason it took me and my colleague Joel so long to do this book is because we didn’t walk into the coal fields, the produce fields of Florida until we did tremendous amounts of research. We knew what it is we were asking, we knew the history, we knew the culture. I was always surprised as a foreign correspondent how many people really didn’t know, like in the Balkans, the history of the Balkans.

“That’s really key, or the history of the Middle East. Having that historical context, that cultural context, and finally the linguistic ability as a correspondent, is key.”

The word ‘kink’ in its original sense means a twist or bend, although by the 1800s it was also used figuratively to mean “odd notion, mental twist”. In the context of sexual and fetishistic activity, kink falls the realm of the sexually deviant. There’s a great deal of subjectivity involved here but, as a general rule, having sex against the wall doesn’t automatically make you kinky. Kink is often considered synonymous with BDSM – Bondage and Discipline; Dominance and Submission (D/s); and Sadism and Masochism (SM). BDSM covers a broad spectrum of activities and types of play, but at its core is healthy and consensual exploration of power dynamics. ‘Vanilla’ is generally considered anything outside of the realm of BDSM.

The underlying principles of healthy BDSM are those of informed consent, SSC (safe, sane and consensual) and its more modish cousin RACK (Risk Aware Consensual Kink). ‘Safe words’ such as orange and red are used to tell people to stop or ease off during play, and hard limits (things you absolutely don’t want to do) are established. It’s common to have a negotiation checklist for someone you play with, to work out what you’re both comfortable with doing at that moment in time.

Representations of BDSM in the media vary from the glorification of abusive relationships, as seen in 50 Shades of Grey (there’s a hilarious yet disturbing chapter-by-chapter deconstruction at www.pervocracy.blogspot.cz), to the outdated portrayal of kinky people as mentally scarred, despite a 2008 study concluding that its kinky participants were no more likely to have been abused or coerced into sexual activity than their vanilla counterparts. The media’s love of sensationalism and fundamental misunderstanding of BDSM is completely alien from the reality.

Although BDSM can be a very private thing, many kinky people form communities based on their shared interest, including in Oxford. Munches, initially named because their participants would meet up for food and conversation in American diners, are usually relaxed local pub meet-ups with a mixture of vanilla and kinky chat and occasionally a few board games. People also host rope bondage tutorial workshops, play parties, and more large-scale events. One of the biggest misconceptions about BDSM is that it always involves sex – sure, it can be sexually stimulating, but that doesn’t mean you can’t play platonically – or that its participants can’t just sit down and have a normal conversation over a cup of tea. Communities are often very welcoming and supportive, seeking to protect their members and guide them in safe kink practice.

Kink is a spectrum. It ranges from those who like being tied up and spanked in the bedroom to heavier forms of play and even D/s relationships. Often people’s preferences evolve and change over time. Healthy BDSM practice emphasizes the importance of enthusiastic consent, not implied or reluctant consent. It values negotiation and personal space. These are all basic, principles that that the vanilla world can and should learn from. It’s not unusual to come across prejudice and stigma for being kinky, but what consenting adults choose to do should not be the subject of ridicule. No, participation in kink can open up a whole new realm, an opportunity for the discovery of, as sexologist and psychologist Peggy Kleinplatz said, “the transformative potential of intense erotic intimacy”.

Sex is everywhere: film plots, newspaper reports and our lives all revolve around it. Relationships are central to what it means to be human, and romantic relationships are some of the most important. I think our culture is ambivalent towards sex: on one hand it is deified; for some having lots of sex is just about the highest state possible; and the feeling is we need it to have intimacy and contentment. But sex is also degraded, with a view that it is just about satisfying my sexual appetite, or having a bit of fun. The other person doesn’t really matter; it’s just about whether I got laid.

Could it be that both perspectives on sex are unhealthy? Even the best sex never fully satisfies; isn’t that why we always want a new sexual experience? Russell Brand, a man who has had a lot of sex, puts it well: ‘In this secular age where man no longer believed in or devoted himself to God, salvation could only be sought through love, that love was a new religion – romantic love, devotion to the female – and women were goddesses who could be saved through worshipping. Thus I was forever on my knees before women, hungrily devouring truth, seeking out redemption wherever it may lie – usually squandered between someone’s thighs.’ Brand indicates something I’m sure is true: we all look for salvation, for redemption, and many of us look for it in relationships and sex. But when we do? It doesn’t provide what it seems to promise. So either we begin to be disillusioned with sex or look for it in other forms – porn is the most popular searched item on the internet. Some become defined by sex. 

Christianity strikes a refreshing balance. The Bible is very positive about sex – God’s first command was to be fruitful and increase in number. And yet it regards it as truly precious; people often mock the Christian belief that sex outside marriage is wrong, but in a sense it’s the ultimate romantic position; sex is so special it’s for one person. And it’s in the security of publicly promised, committed faithfulness. This is hard for us to grasp without experiencing it – and when our culture is so far away from this. But the bigger issue, for Brand and all of us, is not ‘what is the place of sex?’ but ‘what can truly redeem me?’ I have discovered that the answer to the ‘what’ is a ‘whom.’

For people who follow Jesus sex and romantic relationships are important, but not everything. They don’t have to carry the burden of our identity and how we feel about ourselves – am I in a relationship? How much sex am I getting? Am I expressing myself fully? That central question of identity for the Christian is found in relationship with Jesus. We’re loved as God’s children no matter our sexuality, sexual performance, and sexual history. That frees us from society’s claim that sex defines us. We are free from any hurt, guilt or loneliness from the past. It means we can be satisfied whatever our sexuality and sexual status.

The average Oxford student has had sex with 4.67 people since arriving at university, C+ can reveal. In an online survey of 505 students across all colleges, students were quizzed on their relationships, one night stands, masturbatory habits and sexual health. C+ found that the world of essay crises and all nighters is not enough to deter Oxonians.

Of all Oxford’s colleges, Exeter was crowned the horniest. They topped a league of eleven colleges, chosen because each had a number of respondents greater than 25, with Exeter students claiming to have had, on average, 6 sexual partners since starting Oxford. A student at Exeter told Cherwell, “It’s good to see Exeter excelling at something for a change, this is far more important than the Norrington Table.”

Trailing at the bottom of the table are Balliol, with an average of only 2.71 sexual partners per person, followed by St Hilda’s and LMH, with 2.93 and 3.7 respectively.

There was a marked variation in answers between men and women; females were on the whole more sexually satisfi ed, with 33.6% saying they were ‘very satisfi ed’ with their sex life in Oxford, with only 28% of males saying the same.

Only 7.8% of students said they were ‘very dissatisfi ed’ with their sex lives. Analysis also shows that men Oxford students masturbate more often than women, with 26% of males saying they masturbate once a day, compared to only 12% of females. In comparison, 31% of females said they masturbated ‘rarely’ or ‘never’, as opposed to 12% of males.

Despite the workload, some Oxford students still manage to be sexually adventurous. One in five claimed to have had sex in public places including Radcliff e Square, the Bridge of Sighs, and New College mound, Baby Love, punts, and college laundry rooms.

Outdoor spaces such as University Parks and Christ Church meadow were particularly popular. However, libraries were by far the most public location for sex in public. Over half of those who admitted to having had sex in a public place selected college libraries as their rendezvous of choice.

Park End was by far the most popular location for people who wish to find a sexual partner in a nightclub. 32% of students considered it to be the best location for those looking for one night stands, rivalled by Baby Love at 20%. The Cellar trailed with a measly 2% of students citing it as a top pick-up locale.

Most students concluded that sex is easily available for thos who look for it. “Oxford is a very sexually open place. Casual sex is readily available to those who are looking for it”, as one respondent said. 61% of students said they had had at least one one-night stand.

Yet sex in Oxford is not for everyone; one student told Cherwell, “I’m not really attracted to the typical Oxford type of person.” Another wrote, “not having sex is perfectly acceptable, and probably the best option in this environment”, while a third commented, “Oxford is terrible for adventurous sex”.

Despite this assertion, another student highlighted the prevalence of Oxonian kink: “I am pretty openly kinky and regularly go to kink events around Oxford. My lack of relationships, one night stands and so on is partially due to my sexual preferences.” Another wrote, “I feel I am far more sexually liberated in terms of social barriers i.e. homosexuality.”

Worryingly, ‘college incest’ is reasonably prevalent, with 16% of those who responded to the survey admitting to having had a relationship with a member of their college family. 47% said they’d been involved with someone of a different year, while 35% said they’d shacked up with someone from a different college.

65% of those who responded to the C+ survey said they were currently in a relationship, or had been in one at some point during their time at Oxford. However, some students in relationships with people who do not attend Oxford raised practical concerns as to how long-distance relationships affect sexual satisfaction.

One wrote, “[I] would be completely satisfied but my boyfriend doesn’t live in Oxford… Sad times”, while another said, “Can be pretty tough sometimes, my girlfriend’s at a different uni so I don’t get sex nearly as often as I want sex.” These weren’t the only practical concerns raised. One comment read, “It’s too cold to have fun sex in student houses”, while another read, “single beds are the bane of my life.” A third comment discussed the affects an Oxford lifestyle can have on energy levels: “Oxford makes me tired and gives me spots neither of which is ideal for hot regular sex…”

The last point was a common theme among respondents. Several of those who responded wrote that the frenetic Oxford term time left less time than they may have liked for sex. One student said, “Most (all) of my ‘sexual experiences’ whilst at Oxford have taken place in the breaks. There isn’t really time during term.” Another read more simply, “IM 2 TIRED 4 SEX”.

Overall, Oxford students compete well with other universities in their sex lives. In the 2013 Student Bean University Sex League, based on a survey of 6,653 undergraduates, Oxford came in at 33rd, ahead of Cambridge (41st), Durham (57th) and even so-called ‘S-Exeter’ University (79th).