Hide Article Text (OCR)
3SM»V -Jr. - .-(T .-.rrThe last Tharunka, 1985.Fucken HurtsSOFT PORN ON CAMPUSThe debate continues/V■fV J^ if* if■A-I «*•v1*Recently the U.U- reversed a motion which kept Penthouse, Playboy etc. from sale in U.U. outlets. The move has been attacked by Tharunka in the editorial of the Women's Issue and in an article by Julia Sapsford, 'nom de poignard' for person or persons not really unknown lt;Tharunka Vol. 10). An accusation levelled Is that the U.U. questionnaire on the matter unfairly shaded the issue as one of civil liberties and censorship. I argue that this is a question of civil liberties, although not one of censorship, and that is the way the U.U. question put it.The question asked was? Do you agree that U.U. outlets should sell any publication as long as the publication is legal and there is a demand as shown by sales?*Terms such as 'ban' or ’censor’ are not even inferable from the question, merely 'not sell'. Legality and demand are the necessary qualifiers of the proposition. Neither of them could be automatically regarded as virtues, They differ in that whilst demand is a factor the students can control, legality isn't. So the question aks. ’Should the U.U. exercise further discretion with regard to legal publications for which there is a demand? Is it the role of the U.U. to decide, referring to other criteria, what should or should not be sold on campus?As was pointed out, it is impossible for the U. U. to ban these magazines. They are freely available in the outside world. Why it was suggested that anyone who answered the questionnaire stupidly supposed the U.U. could ban a publication is beyond me. The question does not suggest that the U.U. could or would do this. This is introducing a red herring to the argument, exposing a trap which does not exist.The alternative question posed was, in marked contrast to the U.U.’s.highly misleading. The alternative question posed 'Do you think the U.U. should profit by the degradation of women?'*Profit’ is a word which cuts to the quick, conjuring images of fat, beady-eyed capitalists dragging home the ill-gotten gains of their disgusting trade. Profit is. however Irrelevant to the issue. The U.U. exists not to profit from, but to provide a service for, students. Too incorrectly impugn motives in such emotive terms is unjustifiable.As for magazines which routinely degrade women, well. C/eo. Cosmo, Dolly, Woman's Day, New Idea, Vogue. The Bulletin and all afternoon tabloids would have to go. So would * any publication which routinely displayed sexist advertisements. Me thinks the magazine racks would be very bare. That in itself might not be such a bad thing, but it is misleading to apply the ‘degrading'criterion just to get Playboy. Penthouse etc. off the racks. It is staling by implication that none of the other magazines on sale degrade women and that is bfatently untrue (remember Neopolitan)!Certainly the issue of selling Playboy, Penthouse, etc is not one of censorship of publications. It is an issue of civil liberties, one of 'censure-ship' of readers. If the U.U, decides not to sell those magazines it will be contravening its general role of providing a service to students, singling out a section of its membership and deeming that section unserviceable. It is the role of the U.U. to censure readers?...... . ORtrole of the U.U. to officially criticise publications and officiallyEven if the U.U. were to do this it would hardly change the attitudes of readers it censured. Those readers who may have been amendable to the suggestion that their reading habits were not acceptable would react only with defiance to such high-handed posturing. It would not be the way to win hearts and minds, even if that were the role of the U.U.Calling for the withdrawal of the magazines also implies something of a mistake of cause and effect. After all. what is such a move expected to achieve? Is it a positive blow against sexism amongst men on campus? I would argue that it isn’t After all, the magazines merely mirror the attitudes of their readers. Playboy and Penthouse etc. espouse (terribly sexist word 'espouse') these attitudes in order to flatter their readers and thereby encourage their custom. The alleged evil lies not in the magazine but in the reader. Purging the UU shop of the magazines does nothing towards purging this campus of sexism, Apart from being a high and mighty gesture of self-righteousness, perhaps symbolic of sympathy for women's problems, removing the magazine represents little more than a gesture, a cosmetic solution to the problem of sexism on campus.More positive steps can be taken. Encouraging men through information, to write complaints to the respective magazine editors and/or withdraw their custom represents positive action. A 'matriarchial' slap on the wrist is worse than useless. It is hysterical abuse of the union fees I have to pay.So what does withdrawing the magazine achieve? Maybe I’ve failed to recognise the emotional issue. A most heartrending example is that of a man leering at the cover of one of these magazines and then leering suggestively at a woman nearby. Taking that offensive magazine cover out of sight, and' selling it from under the counter, say, will solve the problemNow the man will only leer at the women in the shop and not at the magazine covers. To think that any part of this problem leaves the UU shop with the removal of the magazines is verging on solipcism. To accept that it doesn't and still urge for the magazine's removal is, I think, an insult to the intelligence of women on campus. It is saying this campus is a bucket of sand. Put your heads in it and stop worrying. In truth, even the bucket of sand has its problems.So far, I may have assumed that Playboy and Penthouse etc. portray distasteful attitudes towards women. I dislike a lot of things I see in print, but anyone is entitled to his or her opinion (maybe one day the Australian Constitution will back me upon 1 this.; Actions may be bound by society’s laws but I believe it to be the fundamental right, the sacred and inalienable right of the individual to think as he or she pleases and to learn of the thought of Others via any printed medium, without official reproach.It is not the role of the UU, of which I am virtually compulsorily a member, to tell me what I should or should not be reading. I do not pay the Union all that money to sit around discussing the morality of people and publications. I do not pay all that money to a union which sees its role as passing judgement on such people and publications. I can judge these things for myself, and furthermore I’m entitled to.Some may suddenly see the role of the UU as that of vilifying and expurgating double-plus-ungood-think from the university community. I don’t. What ao the students think?I believe the majority of positive responses indicates that most students don’t see the UU as some kind of moral advisory committee. I applaud the UU move to cease censure on campus. From now on the self-righteous posturing can be done with someone else’s money.CHRISTOPHER (SAPSFORD) ROBSONat
Newspaper Details
Kensington Tharunka
Kensington, New South Wales, AU
Mon, Oct 14, 1985
Page 8
Full Page
Clipped by
Isabelle J.
AU 15 Apr 2024
Other Publications Near Kensington, New South Wales
Kensington Tharunka
