Yes
Health and safety bureaucracy is a bore and has the ability to arouse pretty virulent resentment, given how dull the subject matter usually is. Suffice to say that when there is a form which all STYCs are obliged to sign which so unambiguously inhibits their sex life, it has not only disappointed all you opportunists out there, but also riled up those that resent being told what they can and can’t do.
The most obvious point against the need for such a form is that sex is a consensual act. If a fresher decides to sleep with a STYC then that is their decision. Can’t we just trust in the ability of each participant to weigh up the pros and cons of partaking in such an act?
Unfortunately this is a real grey area. Clearly, the requirement to sign this form is a reactive measure. In a STYC meeting I attended at the end of last year, where there was much sniggering when a certain infamous Derwenter enquired whether STYCs are allowed to indulge in the fresh meat, the delightful Bob Hughes explained there had been issues in the past where a fresher had spoke out and claimed that a STYC had taken advantage of them.
Those kinds of scenarios are very sticky and this form will go some way to ensuring they don’t take place. Why? Because signing this form will make a STYC think twice. The value of this form is that it defends the vulnerable, which some freshers undeniably are. Leaving the comforts of home life and moving onto university is daunting. It’s the kinds of people that will find this transition most difficult that are most likely to find comfort in sleeping with a STYC, then regret their act and potentially lodge some form of complaint.
Bear in mind that in reality this form is not enforceable. We all know that some STYCs will break their promise and should they choose to do so, they do so at their own peril. But this form obliges STYCs to consider whether this fresher is the kind of person that it’s worth going ahead and doing the deed with.
And if nothing I’ve said resonates with you, permit me to tenuously claim that this form attempts to protect the sanctity of sex. If you do have sex with someone during Freshers’ Week, it’s going to be an alcohol fuelled affair. My thoroughly unscientific conclusion is that sex in a drunken stupor is often a decision which one tends to regret. If you do happen to encounter a fresher who you bond with, why not wait a while, get to know each other a wee bit better, before you head straight for ‘fifth base.’ (Theories diverge on which each base actually denotes, but you get what I mean.)
As is often the case with bureaucracy, although this form may appear unnecessary, it’s actually just a little bit of effort to try to avoid the situation where a fresher says they’ve been taken advantage of. At least with this form, we’ll know who’s in the wrong, and that can never be a bad thing.
While such incidents are rarities and thankfully not the norm, it is an issue which YUSU must take seriously to ensure full and effective welfare for all students.
No
No one, be they fresher or STYC, male or female, at university or home, in freshers week or term time, should take advantage of anyone when they are drunk, or physically or emotionally vulnerable in any way (and by the time we are in Willow, let’s face it, we are definitely all three). Having a ‘no sex with freshers’ contract that STYCs have to sign will not change this.
What undermines the contract the most is how totally unenforceable it is. If STYCs were advised to avoid sex with the freshers with the reasons explained to them, and with discussion and understanding of the issue, it is much more likely to be listened to and have an effect. If any STYC behaved indecently and ignored the advice, the University could still take action and moreover, the police could, regardless of any contract.
A contract is patronising and offensive to many who will feel they are being branded as some sort of sexual predator. It has, in fact, made a serious issue into a joke.
There is also a grey area in many of the college contracts, in terms of what ‘sexual relations’ are banned. Are they allowed to kiss? Is hugging banned or just sex? The Goodricke contract forbids even kissing freshers, which at least is slightly more enforceable as it’s easier for people to notice. And yet even this could better achieved with clear discussions as opposed so slightly to these marginally offensive contracts.
The contract is there to protect younger freshers from any inappropriate advances or manipulation by their STYCs, and yet behaviour like this is punishable by the law anyway, and not just university law. The university welfare teams are also already set up to provide help and support to those that feel taken advantage of. So if a fresher was taken advantage of, the contract would be irrelevant as it is a police matter and won’t change the support that is in place. It could actually become dangerous if for example, in the drunken confusion of a York nightclub a totally innocent STYC became accused of something. The contract would then make what would already be a horrible situation even worse for them as their degree, career and social reputation would be put at risk regardless of any legal action taken.
STYCs are told clearly that they are not here to advise, or tell freshers what to do in any way. They are there as an organised body to act as friends to help new freshers settle in. STYCs are in a voluntary position where they are helping people of the same age who they will be socialising with.
Normal STYCs (as opposed to head STYCs or any JCR members) are in no position of authority or power and are in the same position as anyone that knows an area slightly better would be.
This is not a professional relationship. Freshers could take advantage of STYCs if a STYC became (admittedly irresponsibly) drunk, or just happened to be physically smaller and less authoritative, and yet they are signing no contract. The STYCs are being given disproportionate restrictions when it comes to their sexual relations compared to the minute responsibility they hold in their role.