Lecturer or lecherer at LGBT talk?
By News
Frances Reed
A controversial professor in Sociology gave a provocative talk in Trinity College last Thursday on ‘Why gay sex is better than straight sex’.
Professor Eric Gumby Anderson, who gave a similar talk at Glasgow University earlier this year, opened his lecture by stating: “My intention is to offend you, I’m going to cuss a lot and I’m going to break down all kinds of hegemonic structures. If you’re offended by discussions of anal sex, vaginal sex, rimming, cheating, having cum all over you face then you should probably leave.”
The lecture was hosted by Oxford University’s LGBTQ society and many members of the audience had been attracted by the deliberate title, which Anderson said was designed to “piss people off and get a big audience”.
Dr Anderson said the talk was intended to “empower people….to cast off conservative ‘Oxfordian’ beliefs”. During the two-hour lecture, topics covered ranged from anal sex, bestiality and incest to religion.
Anderson, a sociologist in the department of sports studies at the university of Winchester, came out of the ‘closet’ in 1993 as America’s first openly gay high school coach.
When it was suggested that Anderson is a sexual “predator”, he said “yeah” and laughed. Anderson claimed to have had had sex with “easily over a thousand people”. He said: “I like sex with 16, 17, 18 year old boys particularly, its getting harder for me to get them but I’m still finding them….I hope between the age of 43 and the time I die I can have sex with another thousand, that would be awesome, even if I have to buy them, of course, not a problem, you pay for all kinds of entertainment and pleasure.”
When asked whether he thought he had taken emotional or physical advantage of some of the thousand people he had slept with, Anderson replied that he thought that team sports were “more damaging” to adolescents than sex. He went on to claim: “The damage that’s caused by child molestation is socially constructed by the western world;” he contrasted this to other cultures where children engage in sexual activity with adults as a rite of passage.
He said that he and his boyfriend like to travel on cruise ships because “it’s like sex tourism, which is just amazing” and “I always screw the dancers”. He went on to say “we stop at a different port every night, go to a gay club every night and have sex with people….you don’t need to know their names”.
On the topic of religion, Anderson, an atheist, said: “Islam is a horrible, homophobic, awful, disgusting religion”, when asked by a member of the audience how he could tar the whole religion with the same brush, Anderson responded: “the whole religion is predicated on the inferiority of women”. He said that Christianity was: “the most disgusting religion in the history of mankind”. He called the Archbishop Rowan Williams an “arsehole”, “a total bigot” and “a fucking liar”.
Annis Stead, the president of the University LGBTQ society, acknowledged that Anderson’s comments had been controversial, she said: “We do understand that some people may have been offended by the talk…. As with any invited speaker, the LGBTQ society does not necessarily endorse his views. We would hope that audience members and the community at large recognise that Eric Anderson speaks only for himself and not for any wider conception of the lgbtq community.”
Katie Colliver, OUSU LGBTQ Officer said that Dr Anderson “perpetuates a false and dangerous stereotype with which the LGBTQ movement is rightly no longer associated”.
In response to criticism of his lecture, Anderson said: “I only advocate for willing sex between two people of legal age. When asked about the age of consent, I responded that I thought it was “about right.” I advocated for casual, consensual sex only.
“There was very little contestation of what I had to say, and a group of students joined me for drink after.”
One student who attended the lecture said: “He argued the topic well, I really enjoyed it. He dispelled lots of myths surrounding anal sex and I think such frank, open discussion is a positive thing.”
Anderson said he had been taken aback by the prevalence of homophobia amongst academic institutions: “The places I expected to be very open minded, like my prior university, the University of Bath, Jesus, they practically ran me out of town because they couldn’t stand my research”. The University of Bath declined to comment on his accusations.
COMMENT
Professor Eric Anderson’s lecture at Oxford’s LGBTQ Society last Thursday entitled “Why gay sex is better than straight sex,” was in some ways a stimulating discussion challenging sexual customs, but was arguably a demonstration of hypocrisy on a questionable moral footing.
Anderson’s thesis, which revolved around the need to challenge sexual norms and what society deems acceptable, is at first attractive and thought provoking. He claims: “We are still so controlled by the Victorian belief that sex is bad,” especially with regard to homosexuality. Anderson says he is tired of “hearing people say that gays and lesbians are just as good as straights because they never ever say heterosexuals are just as good as gays”.
The fact that the male act of masturbation is in some ways an act of homosexual sex and that “heterosexual men are being robbed of the joys of anal sex”, continues to challenge our views of sex and is unquestionably a thought-provoking standpoint towards heterosexuality and monogamy.
Anderson’s academic arguments did not mask his flawed moral views. His argument rests on the belief that in essence everyone is the same as he is but is impinged from showing it because of social customs and archaic institutions. To claim “the damage caused by child molestation is socially constructed by the western world,” reeks of hypocrisy.
So whilst we must remain open to hearing unconventional views and challenging our entrenched stances on certain social issues, there can be little place in the LGBTQ cause to one so polemical and morally questionable. Sexual diversity and exploration can be great things but when expressed in a context to lambast other institutions, we must be wary of adopting such radical views.
Edmund Davison – the OxStu comment team
Robert Hagedorn
21/05/2011 at 23:38
Well, here’s something that might offend offensive Professor Anderson. Do a search: First Scandal.
Mark McCormack
22/05/2011 at 12:49
It is clear that the author did not like the lecture – having attended this lecture at the University of Bath, I’m sure the quotes presented from the 2 hour lecture are, at best, biased in their selection. However, it is in the comment section where the article becomes deeply troublesome.
The author asserts “To claim “the damage caused by child molestation is socially constructed by the western world,” reeks of hypocrisy.” In what way does this reek of hypocrisy? Notwithstanding the fact that this social constructionist view is fully supported by the social science literature (the area of Anderson’s expertise), for this sentence to make sense there must be an implicit accusation. I suggest that this statement is clarified, the accusation made explicit, or the article withdrawn with a full apology.
Sam Watson
22/05/2011 at 15:02
I was at the talk under scrutiny here in this article and whilst I agree the talk was polemical in nature (which was made clear at the beginning of the talk), this article is completely unbalanced and is a poor representation at best of the points being raised. The author has hand-picked quotes focussing on the speakers open discussion of his private life, which occurred in the context of the talk, to cast doubt upon his credibility, resorting to what feels like an invective argument at times. What little argument is made on the subject matter of the talk, as the previous poster Mark McCormack noted, is weak and unsubstantiated.
This article feels like a personal attack on the speaker, the author pettifogging the issues due to a dislike of the speaker’s (deliberately) controversial style and attitudes towards lifestyle.
Thomas White
22/05/2011 at 15:16
This is not journalism, it’s slander. I was at the talk with several of my friends and what appears here are misquotes and biased reporting evident in Reed’s omission of crucial contextual information. We found it intellectually stimulating and very empowering. It was based on sound academic literature and sociological reasoning. Aspects of this article are patently wrong. For example, it was never suggested that the Professor was a ‘predator’, therefore Reed’s report that “he said ‘yeah’ and laughed” is malicious fabrication. It seems that Professor Anderson is being unfairly persecuted. Professor Anderson was inspiring critical debate and raising our consciousness about being members of a stigmatized community. This sensationalist article suggests that we still have a long way to go.
John Harwell
22/05/2011 at 15:24
This is a severely unfair account of what I felt was an engaging and interesting lecture.
It’s interesting that the author includes the Q of LGBTQ — which stands for Queer (ie. anti-heteronormativity) — but fails to appreciate how fantastically queer this talk was. It was refreshing to have a talk that actually dealt with *sexuality*, rather than a stale desexualised version of it that people can talk about without blushing, which seems to have become the standard thing — you can be gay, as long as you aren’t sexy about it.
While he did make some pretty controversial statements, in some cases with not enough said to support them, he did make it pretty clear that the point of the talk was to get people thinking about things after they left the room. Which certainly happened — we discussed monogamy and sexual practice in the pub for a long while afterwards.
Frances Reed
23/05/2011 at 01:13
As the author of the news report (not the comment) I feel I should respond to accusations of “slander” and “malicious fabrication”. Professor Anderson’s lecture was recorded on a Dictaphone; I assure you that nothing in the article was fabricated. I have absolutely no interest in making any kind of personal attack against Professor Anderson. I gave Professor Anderson the opportunity to reply to the accusations made against his lecture and he responded. I was intrigued to see my report criticised for being “sensationalist”, when the lecture in question was itself designed to be sensationalist. I beg to differ with the accusation that my report has somehow impeded critical debate and the “raising of our consciousness about being members of a stigmatized community”; the report and the responses subsequent to it have surely helped to enable critical debate.
Luke Pagarani
23/05/2011 at 01:27
Well I for one thoroughly enjoyed the talk, especially the bits about gay sex – those bits were great! In fact, I was so convinced by Professor Anderson’s central thesis that I have decided to give homosexuality a go.
Sam Watson
24/05/2011 at 10:56
@Frances Reed – I agree that the comments were not fabricated however they were wholly non-contextual. Your article is entitled ‘Lecturer or lecherer…?’ where it should more appropriately be entitled ‘Lercherer’ since you have made you mind up by line three. The points raised about the lecturer side of the argument are simply dismissed as ‘hypocrisy’.
The use of subjective experience and ‘everyday’ language when discussing sex and sexuality is appropriate and important and rides against the ‘hegemonic structure’ as was made clear. Yet you have sought to defame his person and leave him little credibility to defend his thesis.
That we have a long way to go is true, you have lambasted Anderson for approaching sex and sexuality in a brutal and honest respect. This should not be labelled ‘news’ but ‘opinion’.
anon.
25/06/2012 at 13:24
erm, wait a minute. Didn’t Oxford LGBT try to get a Christian conference banned because it found their views on sex offensive? It seems like freedom of speech and freedom to not be offended is getting a little out of balance.
sarah
15/12/2012 at 00:02
eric anderson has a vile sick mind.i feel sorry for him that he seeks joy/happiness from having sex with has many men has possible.i wonder what this world is coming to when the likes of him is allowed to have children.may god help them-the poor innocent babies.his views about christianity are ignorant.our schools,medical establishements and much of our country was founded on the gospel
however we live in a democracy so he has a right to express his opinion.likewise i have a right to express mine..
David
21/01/2013 at 05:54
They declare their sin as sodom ; they hide it not- woe into their soul!
Repent repent repent- turn to Christ!
Pingback: FW: TO THOSE WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 11 – Marilyn & Alan |