Why pornography just doesn’t do it for me anymore

Does porn imitate sex or does sex imitate porn? In much the same way swimsuits have become smaller and skirts more revealing, socially acceptable pornography has evolved from showing breasts and nudity to showing explicit anal and vaginal sex. Over the last forty years, pornography has changed from something largely taboo and underground to a multibillion dollar industry. In many ways, pornography has contributed to broader social change, helping to fuel an underlying social sexual revolution.

The taboo status of pornography is one of the reasons it can be sexually appealing. Even as society becomes more accepting of pornography generally, it is rare, even between partners to discuss individual taste. Accordingly pornography remains popular as an individual sport. At an aggregate level, through a combination of social change, celebrity porn, lax censorship and the internet, pornography has become more accessible. New niches, at first shocking, quickly become commonplace. This acceptance has pushed previous fringe fetishes into the mainstream which, in turn, has opened our eyes to different ways of having sex. In this way it is clear that, to some extent, sex imitates pornography. If pornography promotes sexual change then its important to understand why porn does this and where it is taking us.

It is now possible to find any fetish imaginable with a few clicks. That we watch the sexual fantasies that appeal specifically to us is a clear indication that porn is now more accessible than ever. However, with limited imagination, demand for different types of porn has developed into a demand for different combinations of fetishes. Accordingly for many, it is no longer a turn-on to watch two consenting adults having sex, unless one is an amputee midget, the other is hairy and obese and both of them are women. There has also been an increasing prevalence of violence against women in pornography. If you look for internet porn, you simply can’t avoid seeing forced oral sex and double penetrated arse porn. This culture of violence and male-centric sex, has culminated in teen role models like Ashlee Simpson declaring that they "like it rough".

Perhaps even more disturbing are the sites illustrating the hypnosis and rape of women (I suspect that these are mostly simulated but are worrying nevertheless). Besides a short period in the 70s when even child porn was acceptable, the increase in this disrespectful and aggressive misogynist sex started with dodgy european arse porn and ‘money shots’ in the 90s and has since devolved into the violent and forceful pseudo-consensual rape of women (usually but not always) by men.

Possibly more worrying than the combination of sex, violence and questionable consent in pornography is the increasing prevalence of teenage and ‘young’ participants. Until recently on the internet, there was a clear demarcation between consenting adult pornography and child pornography with almost every website showing disclaimers of "all models are 18+". You knew the kiddie porn was there somewhere, but unless you looked for it, sick porn stayed out of your way. More recently and at an increasing rate, there is a blurring of the line of adulthood, with ‘teen porn’ being mixed seamlessly with ‘mature women’, ‘piss porn’, ‘spitting’, ‘frat party porn’, ‘pregnant porn’ or an almost infinite number of random and weird fetishes. Internet porn has moved from a morally questionable situation where the ‘barely 18’ woman showing off her tackle was acceptable for dirty old men to look at and the child that is a week younger was not acceptable, to a morally questionable (but increasingly more socially acceptable) situation where ‘the younger the better’ mentality has become the norm. This transition is illustrated by the hypocrisy in our media and television tearing chunks out of teachers having sex with 16 year old schoolgirls and then making sex-symbols of 16 year-old actresses on Home and Away. A situation when it is acceptable for (G) rating television like Neighbours to show an adult actress portray a 16 year-old in a bra but films like Ken Park are censored, not because they show actual underage sex but because the adult actors portray teenagers having sex.

Due to the advent of the internet and the prevalence of digital cameras and video cameras, the supply side of pornography has become less professional and more accessible, with everyone from random slappers to Paris Hilton (I tried to create a distinction, I really did) having a stab. In addition to ‘stars’ having sex on film there are now serious films like Anatomie de l'enfer (Anatomy of Hell) and Baise Moi (Fuck me) where porn stars like Rocco Siffredi and Raffaëla Anderson have turned tried their hands at acting. By blurring the lines of pornography and film, celebrity and amateur porn has bridged a psychological gap between accessible porn and accessible sex, between professional pornography where other people have sex in weird ways and the way we have (and expect to have) sex.

Seemingly each generation learns about sex earlier than the last and by parents’ wanting to save their child from sex (or themselves from the sex talk), they invariably miss the boat and kids end up learning about the birds and the bees by watching pornography. As a by-product, the way that sex is portrayed in pornography is then replicated in the attitudes and actions of teenagers and the adults they become. When their pornographic perceptions of sex become the default for their sexual expectations and the fumbling realisation of those fantasies don’t come to fruition, they try different things and seek new perfect(ly dirty) partners.

The increasing trends towards violence and pedophilia in pornography signals an upcoming social problem where otherwise unacceptable sexual behaviour incrementally becomes normalised and society has fewer issues with violence against women and sex with children. I have no issues with consensual adults having sex and filming it but the pornography of today just doesn’t do it for me anymore.

There's no such thing as a 'Free' Tert

This is not a postmodernist rant about this edition not existing and before you write in and complain that you "thought it was free" when you picked a copy and try to assuage you poverty-stricken, steal-what-you-need guilt, there are no telemarketers about to call and hit you up for money, there are no Mafiosos walking around Unibar knee-capping readers who can’t produce a receipt and there are even fewer people who want back what is rightfully yours - the free student magazine - your magazine - ‘The Free Tert’.
Having started in 1962, the Tertangala is well and truly older than most of its readers but still remains hip and jiving through the contributions of the students of UoW and its savvy front covers. Each year approximately 15% of its operating costs go back into the undergraduate student community by way of a five cent per word payment. Roughly a half goes on staffing costs and a third in actually printing the magazine. In the interest of WUSA remaining accountable for the money they spend on your behalf and to keep you conscious of how much your ‘free’ magazine costs you, we have included the budgeted figures for 2005.
Figures


So while it may not be exactly free, at $1 per edition, you’d be hard pressed to say the Tertangala isn’t good value. If you don’t agree with what’s in the Tert or want to earn back your dollar, join the media collective (wusa.uow.edu.au/subscribe) and get involved.

10 QUESTIONS asked of Diana Nestorovska, Student Representative on the University Council

On the 8th of April, the Tertangala sent an email to Diana Nestorovska, in the hope that she could tell students a little more about her role as the Student Representative on the University Council. At the time of print, Ms Nestorovska had not responded to our questions, so we thought we’d ask them again. We ask that Ms Nestorovska answer the following questions. If received, her answers will be printed in full in the next edition of the Tertangala.

1. How and when were you elected to the University Council? When does your term finish?

2. How have you consulted with students during your term on University Council? Have students approached you to raise particular issues affecting them? How have you reported back to students?

3. Do you feel that you have effectively represented the students by whom you were elected, during your term on University Council?

4. What have been your major achievements as a student representative?

5. Do you think that it is fair that 95% of people on campus are represented by 5% of committee members? Do you think that students are under-represented?

6. How did you vote on the issue of the 25% increase of HECS at the last Council meeting? Why did you voted this way? Did you speak to the motion? What issues did you raise? Do you think that a 25% increase in HECS is in the interest of students?

7. As a student representative, how do you balance representing the interests of students with the interests of the University? What does the ‘University’s interest’ mean if it does not mean the interest of the majority who are students? If the ‘University interest’ and the ‘students interest’ are incompatible, which should a student representative prioritise?

8. The Vice Chancellor’s arguments supporting the HECS increase was that due to the diminishing real value of the University’s operating grant and that it was not possible for the University to continue to provide high quality education and services without increasing HECS. What educational and welfare improvements can students expect as a result of paying 25% more to go to University?

9. Do you think that the provision of Equity Scholarships will allay student concerns about paying 25% more for their education?

10. Why should potential students choose to enrol at Wollongong, when they could go to another university and save 25%? Do you think that the education and welfare services at Wollongong are 25% better than these other Universities?

A 25% HECS increase is the last straw - Students need better student representation on University committees

The University of Wollongong is governed by University Council through a complex system of committees and sub-bodies. These committees make decisions that affect students, staff and the wider community. Stakeholder groups are then represented on these committees by electing representative to ensure their group doesn’t get screwed. Students, however, do not have this luxury, for a number of reasons.

At their February meeting, the University Council resolved

… that Council, having regard to the Australian Government's policy on university funding, with regret, feels bound to approve a 25% increase in the level of HECS fees payable for all courses other than Education and Nursing commencing in 2006 and applying to all new students and students re-enrolling in 2006 after commencing in 2005…

Like most politics, it’s a numbers game

For students to get screwed like this, it is clear that their interests are not being represented. The question is why? While students make up around 95% of the 25,157 people on campus, their proportion of representation is markedly different. With only three out of eighteen (17%) councilors voting against the HECS increase, student interests are simply not being represented by enough Council votes. With 17% student representation on an important thing like HECS, you should be thinking that students are being underrepresented but on closer inspection, it is actually far worse. In 2004, Diana Nestorovska was a student representative on the Academic Senate. There was an ammendment moved to increase the number of undergraduate representative positions on Senate from four to six but Ms Nestorovska voted against the amendment. So almost a year later, when it came to the HECS increase, it came as no surprise to many that your student representative, Diana Nestorovska, not only voted for the HECS increase, she spoke in favour of the motion. Whose interest do you think she is representing? If you agree or disagree with Ms Nestorovska’s decision, send her an email and tell her what you think - dianan@uow.edu.au

According to the University’s website there are around 428 voting positions on the University Council, the Academic Senate and the subsidiary committees, only 25 of them are filled by students. This constitutes around 6% of voting rights on campus.

Paradoxically, there are 23,733 students and 1424 staff members, which means that students constitute 94.33% of people on campus. How can it be that 94% of people are getting less than 6% of representation? This statistic is particularly frightening when the Univesity makes claims of being ‘student-centred’? Imagine being in a room with 19 other people who don’t share your interests. Now wonder why student views don’t determine University policy. Imagine how little representation students would get if the University wasn't 'student-centred'.

Elections equals democracy right?

In addition to having so little representation that it barely constitutes 'token student consultation', the second reason your interests aren’t being represented is who you elect and how you elect them to the few positions available. There are elections each year for faculty committees in all nine faculties and for Academic Senate, every two years for University Council, UniCentre elections each July, each Club and Societies has elections throughout the year and of course the WUSA and WUPA elections in September and April respectively. At most, 10% of students vote in each election. This is a problem that can be attributed to student apathy, confusing and non-standardised elections and poor advertising. Another problem is that all the major decisions that affect students are made by The University Council, Academic Senate and their subcommittees.

All told, these seven student positions are only filled in two elections – six in the Academic Senate elections once each year and one in the University Council elections once every two years (2005, 2007 etc).

Also, if you have issues with your representation, there are no grievance mechanisms and no bi-elections and no incentive like being re-elected. A student representative could, for example, vote to increase HECS by 25%, and there is nothing you can do about it. Even if you could have her fired for not acting in your interest, it would just reduce your representation to zero out of seventeen. The other main problem is that only a handful of people run in the elections and half of them are only doing it to put on their resume. These slackers and dimwits are clogging up what little democracy students have and undermining the students who actually want to represent student interests.

Student democracy has been systematically reduced to a hollow choice between people who toe the University line to varying degrees. We have a situation like in America where voters are saying 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets!'. The University actively encourages the students who are elected to represent non-student interests. The induction guide that all committee members receive contains the following ‘Accountability and Representation’ section:

Your role on the Committee may be to represent a particular group (such as a Faculty or Students). This is particularly true if you were elected to the Committee. As a representative it is important that your decisions and input into the meeting reflect the interests of the University as a whole as well as the group. As a Committee member you are always required to act in the best interests of the University.

Just to repeat that last bit. "As a Committee member you are always required to act in the best interests of the University." This means that you can represent the group that elected you until it contradicts what ‘the University’ has dictated. ‘The University interest’ in this sense is not the majority because that would mean that everyone - staff, students and the University Executive would all have to represent student interests or be ‘student-centred’. The ‘University interest’ is set by the agenda of a handful of university executives. (For a list of the ‘who’s who at the zoo’ please go to http://www.uow.edu.au/about/who/). While it isn't much and isn't effective, students do get some representation in the University but ultimately, democracy at the University can only come through the willful disobedience of the University’s committees guidelines. It isn’t enough that students are completely underrepresented but the few students who are on committees are encouraged to represent interests that are not of those people who elected them. It goes on.

As another of the University’s accountability mechanisms, the people who are elected to the committees are encouraged to keep their constituents informed on committee business. The committees guide contains the following passage:

You should report Committee business to your group. For example, you should tell or email the members about upcoming business and the decisions once they have been made. By encouraging this discussion and communication, you will find that your representative role becomes both easier and more efficient.

I studied for nine years, in three faculties, in six schools and I’m not sure about any of you, but I never received an email about University committee business or decisions made on my behalf. I was pretty pissed off about this until I became a student representative on the Academic Senate at the same time that I was the President of WUSA and I still didn’t have the authority to send a message out on SOLS. As an alternative, I published reports in the Tert but I’m pretty sure not all reps are as vigilant. I’m not sure if University Council members have access to SOLS but I'd be pretty interested to hear what Diana Nestorovska has to say about increasing HECS.

The students of UoW have been swindled out of their democratic rights by the University’s committee system, by shithouse candidates and by the systemic hijacking of representative agendas. The University provides no assistance for representatives to communicate with students, alienating a constituent base up to twenty times larger than the second-largest group. The University claims to be ‘student-centred’ but if students can’t get more of a say in decisions that affect them, then the University’s claims are rhetorical. Students need to determine their own affairs and the first step is making sure their existing representatives are representing their interests effectively. If you are interested in making your representatives accountable they can all be contacted via email. At the time of print WUPA elections hadn’t been declared but WUPA representatives can be found on the their website, http://www.uow.edu.au/wupa . We’ve also excluded faculty representatives because its so poorly advertised we couldn't find who any of them were. As for all the rest…

‘Student-centred learning’ at the University of Wollongong is a Farce

In the most recent edition of the University’s propaganda publication, ‘Campus news’ (March 2005 - http://media.uow.edu.au/campus-news) the University announces that it has the highest rate of graduates employed in the two months after graduation and the lowest first year drop-out rate of the other Australia’s universities. The Vice-Chancellor, Professor Gerard Sutton has attributed the University’s success to its "student-centred" approach. In response to this claim, I would like to bring your attention to the following.

In 1997, the Liberal party increased HECS at an unprecedented rate. This gave our University more money to spend on students and would have allowed it to become student-centred. Over the eight years since then, the number of students in tutorials has risen from about 17 to about 22. Students were unfairly slugged by the GST in 2001 and the 8% textbook subsidy that was supposed to offset the 10% GST on textbooks has since been removed. The financial support that students have received during this period has fallen, in real terms, both in their study entitlements such as youth allowance and Austudy and in their pay rates for casual and part-time employment. The student-welfare support mechanism such as WUSA, WUPA and the University’s counseling service has been undermined by the government through VSU attacks in 1998 and 2005 and through the systemic underfunding by our University. In their February meeting, the University Council voted almost unanimously (only three people voted against it) to increase HECS by 25% starting in 2006. If the University is centred on students, then why do they get less education and support but have to pay more for it?

In the very publication that the University makes the outlandish claim of being student-centred, there are sixteen articles:

1. About a faculty Dean,

2. About an Associate Professor,

3. About the $15 a head Suzuki lecture that would have seen more staff attend than students,

4. About the late Dr Ray Cleary - former head of the Shoalhaven campus,

5. About the former Vice-Principal (Administration) and his relationship with Thailand,

6. About the UoW Dubai campus,

7. About the new CEO of the Dubai campus,

8. About State Minister Frank Sator and water recycling,

9. About a business deal between UoW and the University of Queensland to commercialise research,

10. About the Medical School and how in the future we will be able to "train super students",

11. About a herbarium,

12. About awards (a former UoW student, the UoW’s sub-company’s record as an employer, a Professor and Associate Professor, and a lecturer),

13. About a mental health project,

14. About an Ambassador who has recently enrolled in a Masters at Wollongong (a student yes, but hardly the type of student who needs the University to centre on his needs),

15. About the dubious ‘student-centred’ claim and finally

16. About students (its about the new WUPA publication Rhizome and is on the top of the last page or at http://www.uow.edu.au/wupa, if anyone is interested).

Why does it appear that over 17,000 UoW students did only one relevant thing in three months? Why are students getting completely outgunned by the staff? Come on people lift your act.

The VC’s claim that the excellent drop-out rate is because of something the University does is farcical. People stay at Uni in Wollongong because if they don’t they are unemployed and still live in Wollongong. I wouldn’t have thought it was rocket science to link the two. I suspect that the VC has ignored this and has taken the opportunity to try to boost the University’s reputation. The one thing that links all 16 articles is the University’s reputation.

The Liberal party has attacked students for over nine years now and we attend a University that does not defend its students from these attacks, let alone centre on them. I think it is about time students demand that the University come good on its propaganda. I put it to the VC – Either change the name of ‘Campus News’ to ‘Reputation-centred learning’ so that it reflects the nature of the publication or come good on your promises. If you’re appalled by the University’s rhetoric and want to do something about it, please email WUSA’s Education Campaigns Coordinator at education@wusa.uow.edu.au.