Victorian sensibilities...the Union wants to keep sex out of the equation
These are barren times for student politics. Radicalism has become a distant memory; party politics is less fashionable than ever and the turnout for CUSU’s presidential elections barely crossed the 10% mark.
In the face of this declining interest in politics, the university’s most hallowed political institution, the Cambridge Union, increasingly markets itself as a social club. Ostensibly, its decision to offer pole-dancing classes was an inspired one. What a shame, then, that the Union, historically a bastion of free speech and self-confidence, wilted in the face of non-existent criticism and consequently sanitised the classes of all sexual references.
Pole-dancing is a type of exercise: a particularly provocative, sexualized form of exercise. But, what exactly is wrong with that? For some reason, the powerless-that-be at the Union decided that presenting pole-dancing in this way is unacceptable. Why? We all like sex, don’t we? We’re all adults, and the classes will take place after the watershed. Where exactly does the problem lie?
It’s often said that Cambridge’s puritanical culture stretches back to its support for Cromwell in the Civil War. Undoubtedly, there is a prudish attitude towards sex in Cambridge. Continuing in this vein, the Union obviously thought that promoting something sexually exciting would be too much for tabs to swallow. Instead of celebrating the first vaguely risqué event in Cambridge since Alison Richard bared an ankle, the Union has decided to bill pole-dancing lessons as ‘aerobics classes’. Pole-dancing may well be a good form of exercise, but surely the appeal lies in the ‘saucy’ nature of pole-dancing? This is what gives it an edge over dance classes, or boxing, or one of the myriad of other fun ways to keep fit.
This doesn’t, of course, mean that pole-dancing has to be degrading or performed for the sexual gratification of others. I’m assuming this is what the Union’s press officer meant when she said, “to suggest that the Union is in some way guilty of condoning chauvinist attitudes towards women would be as insulting as it is ridiculous.” Exactly what pole-dancing has to do with chauvinism, I’m not sure, but it surely went without saying that the Union wasn’t planning on opening its doors to the regulars of Talk of The Town. Pole-dancing classes are, quite obviously, a light-hearted approach to something sexy. Good-natured fun and sex are not mutually exclusive; only a prude would argue otherwise.
The Union’s overly defensive attitude suggested that they had something to answer for, when, in actual fact, they didn’t. It is utterly absurd that the Union felt the need to gain the approval of ‘CUSU’s Women’s Campaign,’ as if they possess a rubber stamp that determines whether someone can legitimately mention s-e-x without being branded sexist. Even more laughable was the Union’s assurance that, “these classes are of course totally optional.” Well, thank God for that: I was just about to ask my mum for a sick note.
Perhaps the most unnecessary move of all was the decision to make the classes women-only. The fear, as I understand it, was that hordes of drooling perverts would descend on the Union armed with button-hole cameras and mirrors strapped to their shoes. I think I speak for every male chauvinist pig in Cambridge when I say there is no way in hell you’d catch me grinding against a pole just to see some female undergrads doing the same. The idea of filthy degenerates taking time out from loitering in dark alleys to check out students in Jack Wills tracksuits dancing around a pole is straight out of the Brothers Grimm book of paranoia. Surely the only men who would attend these classes would be those who want to pole dance, and why shouldn’t they be involved? Sadly, my lack of both Union membership and a sense of rhythm means I won’t be one of them, but there are plenty who might want to join in, and why shouldn’t they enjoy it with members of the opposite sex?
It’s a sad day when a supposedly open-minded community of students feels the need to strip something as light-hearted and Carry On as pole-dancing of its sexual connotations. Pole-dancing can be pornographic and degrading, but only when it involves people paying to watch others dance naked. The pole-dancing classes the Union is offering will be ‘racy’ but they won’t be pornographic. Surely, men and women can have fun together without anyone being objectified.
Whoever came up with the idea of these classes should be commended; whoever marketed them needs to lighten up. If we really want to reclaim sex from perverts and misogynists, then we need to celebrate it, not censor it.
absolutely brilliant.
[...] the original here: No Sex Please, We're The Union « THE TAB – http://www.cambridgetab.co.uk … By admin | category: CAMBRIDGE | tags: CAMBRIDGE, declining, face, its-decision, [...]
Totally agree with you Mr. Rivlin. I was once at a debate in the union where the speaker, Taymoor Atighetchi (a living legend) came in with a sex doll!!! The president refused to let him finish speaking and even asked security (a little chinese man) to have him escorted out of the building.
Yet again The Union has tried to present itself as 'fun' and 'with the times' yet it's as up-tight as a cat's asshole and as 'fun' as playing hide and seek with David Blunkett (could actually be quite fun…)
The Union may once have produced prime ministers. But lets be honest, the only thing they're producing now are cog-turning bureaucrats. Of course, they're afraid of women pole dancing; they'd rather their women be wrapped up in red tape.
o mr getchi a alias maybe?
Tim, stop playing with your sex doll and start pole dancing. Hop to it now, come on!
Great article!
Good sir, you are mistaken.
The Union's wary attitude can be traced back to this kind of unnecessary analysis and scrutiny. If every move, progressive or conservative will be lambasted under headlines it's no surprise the union comes out with a defensive approach – which has far less potential for damage. The union has it's reputation to think of, and a wave of national tabloid coverage might be all well and good for The Tab, but not so for the union.
A highly sexualised approach may have alienated some of the people who would be interested in attending, and would have caused a constant head-ache for the union. Moreover, as you point out, you don't have to graduate from the university of the bleedin' obvious to realise that pole-dancing can take place as part of a general schedule of fun and debauchery. As such, there's no need to advertise it; women who want to dance to impress men will still attend.
As for excluding men, your comments about the likelihood of pervs turning up may well be correct, but many women may feel uncomfortable learning to erotic dance with men present, and this may also put off attendees. Offering men-only lessons if demand is high is therefore the preffered approach.
Consider your argument firmly rebuked.
I believe it's spelled Dr. Ourke…
My point is that the Union, as a supposedly forward-thinking and self-confident institution, should have the courage to celebrate something for its own sake, rather than worry about tabloid reactions. The day that the Union attempts to 'spin' its events in order to escape criticism is a sad day for anyone who believes in acting out of conviction. A speaking Union is the last institution you'd expect to worry about offending people.
I never suggested that they should take a 'highly sexualized approach' as you imply, I'm saying that the Union shouldn't seek to conceal the mildly sexual element out of fear of offending people.
No one has criticised them, and yet they feel they have something to answer for. It's self-censorship, and you'd expect better from a society which is supposed to be a medium for free speech.
Fantastic article Mr. Rivlin, I commend thee.
No I'm afraid Mr Rivlin I disagree with you on this article. As with most tabloids the research done is usually minimal and draws conclusions based on erratic arguments. Having said though it is a well written article and is fun to read.
Now, fundamentally, you start your article saying that pole dancing is a particularly provocative, sexualized form of exercise, therefore surely you must agree that some women may find it uncomfortable rehearsing it in front of male strangers, whether or not they are on the sex offenders registry. So the Union making it clear is totally sensible.
Also, 'If we really want to reclaim sex from perverts and misogynists, then we need to celebrate it, not censor it.' Nonsense, complete nonsense. I bet if we all had the attitude of the tab cambridge would be branded perverts.
I suggest in future that you stop making a mountain out of a mole hill. Although good reading it is nonsense.
This is once again an incredibly hypocritical article to be put forward by the Tab, even if the points made by Mr Rivlin are well articulated and justified. Just one week after making ridiculously sensationalist overtones about the Union's decision to run pole dancing classes the Tab are trying to have it both ways, by accusing the Union of playing down the sexual aspect of this event.
Don't you realise that the shocking quality of Tab journalism (don't worry Mr. Rivlin, I am concentrating here mainly on Jasmin Sandelson's article). Sandelson characterised the setting up of lessons in a pathetically juvenile manner "the Union is set to jump on the ‘strippercise’ bandwagon", "Cambridge Union Society is courting controversy". It was she who labelled it a "provocative pastime" (bold lettering as well, aren't you a clever journalist) and instigated the tongue in smutty and frankly ridiculous tone of the article.
Clearly, as Mr. Rivlin points out, these classes can serve a sexual aspect and for many who partake probably will – to market them as such would however put many people off and make others feel uncomfortable, especially when combined with the playground "humour" which so many Tab journalists seem to revel in.
"The Union’s overly defensive attitude suggested that they had something to answer for, when, in actual fact, they didn’t." Clearly not, but one can tell from the tone of the previous article that had the union not adopted such a defensive stance then the tab would have been more than willing to rip them to pieces over the decision, and quite happy to caricature what is, primarily, a fantastic debating and political forum as a strip club. The Tab have done worse in the past on unsubstantiated evidence. The point is that you cannot have it both ways, poking fun at the Union's decision one week and then accusing them of being prudish the next. it is a real shame that the well reasoned articles such as this, which make a good case about attitudes towards sex in Cambridge (albeit prompted by the Tab's own sensationalist journalism) are tarnished by the atrocious quality of the rest of the journalism.
excellent
The Tab is a internet tabloid and this is an opinion piece, not a factual piece. If you don't like the Tab there is a simple solution: don't read it. But whatever you do please stop posting boring comments bitching about the 'poor quality of Tab journalism'. Nobody cares.
A series of trite and misguided observations crudely linked by clumsy reasoning. A lazy piece of writing born from the desire to express an opinion for the sake of expressing an opinion.
less talk more sex, get over yourself…..(commenting people)…its just a point of view, have you really got nothing better to do in your holidays
[...] events officer and poledancing impressario Juan Zober de Francisco described the event as "the most successful election night this place [...]
[...] to its sometimes contentious debates and holds various ents (including the innocently-named Pole Fitness) throughout term. Budding politicians: apply here; a position at the Union is likely to look good [...]