Cobweb - that's a pretty hard line to take! You'll excuse me, I'm sure, if I don't - as you seem to suggest I should - leave my wife of 15 years, the only woman I've ever loved, just because I still have naughty feelings about other women.

I'd be curious to hear what people on an anonymous forum think of this one. I always tend to assume that people (and I suppose men especially) who claim/act as if they're no longer attracted to people other than their partners are faking it for the sake of an easy life. Am I wrong? Are there people in whom some sort of switch gets flicked when they're in a relationship?

I don't want to start patronising Cobweb (although she did just, in effect, tell me I shouldn't be married, so maybe I shouldn't go too easy!), but I get the impression a lot of perfectly strong relationships get thrown away by people in their teens and twenties just because they haven't yet come to terms with the fact that their partners are human beings with natural responses to other people that are never going to go away.

(This is not an attempt to justify cheating on your partner as something natural and therefore morally OK... as everyone outside the New Testament knows, there's a world of difference between having feelings and acting on them.)

Magic time! what on earth makes you think men would have some particular inclination in this? All the women I know who are married, or in relationships find other men attractive (sorry lesbians, all my close friends are straight). In fact, they go on about it far more than the single ones! Perhaps women are better at being discreet about it around the significant others in their lives - only a good thing, I think. However, admiring and appreciating men absolutely does not mean that my friends are thinking about being unfaithful.

I had a boyfriend once who objected to me even finding film stars attractive, and he said he was never attracted to anyone but me: I found that very odd, and quite fake.

I think Magictime was probably just talking from his personal point of view....
I've been married for three years and still find other men attractive, but I wouldn't dream of acting on it. In fact, husband and I will openly talk about people - whether film stars or ordinary people (though not friends, I think this would be inviting jealousy -- we just don't do it, it's not a rule).... I think it's part of a healthy relationship to be able to look (not oggle!) but not go there...

Pamplemousse and magic time: yeah, looking back, I over reacted then, sorry Magic.

Hi magictime, please don't take what i said personally. My comment stemmed from a mixture of playing devil's advocate to see what others think about this issue, and also from the fact that my boyfriend also says that he never looks at or finds other women attractive, and like Eska, I find that really hard to believe. It really annoys me that he can't just be open with me, so, like I said, my comment was really just to see what others on here think, because at least I know that people are more likely to be honest about their feelings on here.
:-(

I think there is a lot of wilful misinterpretation going on.

First, the context of the article was "Seven deadly sins" of academia. That should be a clue that its not a serious article - e.g. is something like procrastination really a DEADLY sin? With that in mind anything should be taken as humour. You may not find it funny, but lots of us did and that is how humour and satire works.

Secondly, all this argument seems to have done is to polarise people into two camps; 1) "men find young ladies attractive, no big deal" and 2) "He is being disrespectful/objectifying/pervy thus has no right to speak". Quite frankly the first group is winning as they seem more realistic. The worrying thing I think is those that take a hardline feminist position (i.e. "TK is objectifying and thus should be fired") does a SERIOUS disservice to genuine instances of exploitation and harassment. Because if someone is being harassed, all the accuser has to do is paint them as a humourless, overly PC manhater, and their case goes out the window. Not good.

BHC, one of the things that gets to me about your posts is that you're often seemingly incapable of believing that two differing interpretations can co-exist.
At least from my own perspective, I am genuinely offended by the article. As I've already written, the use of humour isn't an excuse. Humour has been, and continues to be, used as a device to reinforce inequality. It's so powerful precisely because of the way in which it discourages criticism. People are always going to be reluctant to criticise if the inevitable retort is that 'but you don't get it' -- implicit code for 'you're not one of the gang'.
S

BHC, did you read my post? I said I didn't find the article offensive, I thought it was meant as satire: I found it mildly amsuing. But it clearly has been very offensive to other people, and as a VC he should have played it safe. At 18, and away from home for the fisrt time young girls can feel extremely vulnerable, they are also less likely to understand ancient literary traditions and satire, hence lass likely to see that piece as humour. I think universities should be mindful of their status as educators of young people who often feel vulnerable.

No probs Eska - I said 'I suppose men especially', cautiously, in brackets, just because I get the impression my wife's not alone among women in not thinking of that many people 'that way', and I'm not alone among men in thinking of loads of people 'that way' to a lesser or greater extent!

Cobweb - I'm not personally offended, but you did say you wanted some controversy! Didn't realise quite how much you were playing devil's advocate though - surprised to hear you talk about wishing your boyfriend could be more open with you. (You might not want to show him that last post!)

Badhaircut, I think you are oversimplifying. I just don't understand those posters in the original blog who have said 'men find young women attractive, big deal' because it is simply NOT the issue. This is not the reason so many have taken offense at the article. The sentiment of attraction is in NO WAY offensive, indeed, it's completely natural. What is offensive to many is saying things like 'She's a perk, enjoy her!' and some of the other drivel he came out with. I would like to say a few things. When I read the article I was not 'wilfully' offended, I felt offense as a gut/intuitive reaction from the tone of the piece. I simply couldn't help it. Maybe you have to be a woman to have felt this, I don't know (and that's not to say that all women will respond in the same way), but I would be interested (and relieved) to hear from men who understood wherein the offense lies. Secondly, it is not that I don't 'get' humour, but I know a joke with a jag when I hear one. The satire in this piece failed because there was an ambivalence at the heart of it- as others have said, it didn't go far enough to satirize anything. I found most of the other contributions in the article funny but they were different because they took the piss out of academics themselves whereas Kealy's piece dragged female students into the bargain, coming out as a very low form of humour. It just didn't work. Lastly, although my gut reaction was distaste I don't think he should have been stopped from saying it- better out than in as far as I'm concerned.

Look, my personal position is halfway between the two poles. However, what I am very concerned about is how this kind of mountain out of a molehill can really undermine genuine, real life exploitation and harrasment. Not some silly pointless, contrived small part of a THES fluff piece -which is what it is. I fear now it has been raised beyond all proportion this could effect real women who are battling victimisation in academia.

For me, the fact that it offends some people is neither here nor there. I am aware the theory of evolution also offends some creationists, but that is no reason to stop teaching it. I happen to think people's right to academic free speech should always be prioritised over the fear of offending others. If the offended can raise a better argument for their point then I would rally behind that. All I have seen is the same "It offends me/others like me, therfore it must be censored" knee jerk reaction that is anti-intellectual at best and band wagon jumping at its worse.

My own interpretation could be that the piece is actually laughing at sad middle aged lecherous men that believe they are fantasy objects for their female students. I could take this as offensive and misandrist if I was that way inclined, but defend the authors right to say it.

BHC, yet again you oversimplify. I definitely wasn't stating that he should be censored. Though I do think he should consider his position, coming out with some claptrap like that. That said, it's not an academic argument therefore your academic freedom point lacks weight.
Are you male?....

Hi there,

am 24, female...

First, I agree with BHC as far as the question of different interpretations is concerned. That's my whole PhD...how people's interpetations of texts diverge, borrowing from literary aesthetics and transplanting into digital literacy studies.,,anyway getting distracted..

*but* i do not agree with I think the slightly outdated take that social representation/mass mediated texts are in in any way less real, than 'real issues of power' out there. This used to be an argument, at least in media studies, in the 80s ans 90s, but of course, then we all recognized that texts, technologies, representations, in fact the media itself: not only shape attitudes and identities, but remain embedded at the heart of society and societal relationships, and sometimes even constrain/over impact readings.... I think most on here are familiar with this, so not going further into this....

The point is, I think, the above point set aside, that satire has to be done in one of two ways: (a) the first does it really well, underlining with great clarity the ones at whom the finger is being pointed and the ones who are being not patronised/rescued/redeemed but justifiably celebrated. and (b) the second way cannot quite do it right, ends up in a nebulous zone where the joke and the jag are cloudy and where, slightly fleeting interpretations or hasty readings might just get the very wrong sense out of it...

I think this piece, open, like all texts, to endless readings, belongs, regrettably to the second category. he attempts satire (perhaps), does not fo it right and ends up offending.


A nobel laureate Indian poet once, wrote a 5 page poem satiring his own linguistic group of Indians. It intended to awaken lethargic people from their stupor to move towards the struggle for independence. Every sentence was insulting, but it did its job at the time. Some were offended. but overall it has survived as a great text.

That was real satire, well done. This, I fear, made a bit of a mess up.

Good point Bug but then who becomes the arbieter of what constitutes good satire and what constitutes bad or harmful satire? I thought Swift's modest proposal was a good satire, but others said it was inhumane and in bad taste. I think it is poor in its style, but fits in with the concept of an article about "academic sins". Actually, if anyone could come up with a better article about lust in academia without causing offence, being interesting and having resonance with the audience, you have my immediate respect in that you are a better writer than most.

@ Pamplemousse, I don't know what outcome you actually want. You say you don't want to constrain freedom of speech, but you also say things like "consider his position" which to me says he should not have written it. You are very keen to take offense, but at the same time you are quite happy to potentially offend others by attacking them for "oversimplifying" (kind of necessary at times with the constraints of an internet forum) or unable to hold multiplicity of views. Do you want the dude fired? To retract it? To have the editor of the THES provide a rebuttal? (which she won't). To me it has become an academic argument, as it involves the right to free speech, is written by an academic and is based on an observation of academic life. Moreover, what difference does my gender make to my point? It just comes across like you want blood, and don't really care if its Kealy's or mine as long (as its male).

The more I investigate this (love the senior common room at my uni with all its papers) I feel none involved are coming out of this well. The Guardian's coverage looks like it has an axe to grind, Kealy's own piece in the Telegraph is self serving to say the least and essentially an unpaid advert for Buckingham.

======= Date Modified 26 Sep 2009 23:01:57 =======
======= Date Modified 26 Sep 2009 23:01:06 =======
Hi BHC, I'm not jumping on a band wagon, just remembering what it was like to be 18 - 21, and the subject of plenty of unwanted lust from men old enough to be my father and grandfather - that was not a nice situation, I think it might be hard for men to understand just how vulnerable women can feel, especially young women away from home. I can remember feeling like prey when a tutor asked me to get up and turn around so he and his colleague could see me from all angles - they were the same age as my dad, which made the whole thing even more shocking (and I mean that in the deepest sense of the word)for me. I did it because I was 17, but I felt like crap afterwards, and dropped the course. As Bug and I have said, this satire fell flat, and looks to many people like the real deal, so it will make young women feel endangered (this is not just about offence). As you say, this sort of thing happens more than we like to think and I just think it's important that students should feel safe with their lecturers, wether there is a genuine threat or not this may seem like an academic situation, but the sense of threat women can feel about theses things, especially when there is a power inbalance, is tangable, and far from academic.







It was his personal decision to write the piece the way he did, he didn't have to accept the offer, plenty of others refused - I don't think he should be censored, just more mindful of how many of his students might feel. And yes, I think a degree of self censorship in writing for publication is always a must - one mans freedom is another's prison. I'd be saying the same thing about a woman VC who'd writen the piece about young men - I was quite alarmed by Germaine Greer's book.