Why can't we just ban page three?

(326 Posts)
Dragontamer Tue 07-Feb-12 20:04:17

Brilliant points raised by Clare Short in The Independent. To summarise:
You would think that the relentless sexism in the media would come up against 'media ethics'. However, Lord Leveson says that this topic goes beyond his remit. It is not ok to have lewd pictures of women on the office wall or before the watershed, why then are these images allowed in a widely circulated, national newspaper?

Having just had a daughter, I am anxious about what messages she will receive from this type of constant negative bombardment about women's bodies.

When Short has attempted to challenge this she has been bombarded by the snide remarks about her own body and criticised as being 'jealous'.

So, could this be a new campaign for mumsnet? Let me know your thoughts...

ragged Tue 07-Feb-12 20:10:28

I normally shun this topic but couldn't agree more!

zippy539 Tue 07-Feb-12 20:13:43

I absolutely LOATHE p3 for all the above reasons. I find it more offensive than porn because it is so 'normalised'. It is horribly demeaning to women.

zippy539 Tue 07-Feb-12 21:44:45

Just us then. grin

BasilRathbone Wed 08-Feb-12 12:04:43

Don't be silly, how can you possibly think that men's right to assess bits of women's bodies in public, should be curtailed?

One might almost think that you're labouring under the delusion that women are human.

Silly you. grin

NotYetEverything Wed 08-Feb-12 12:07:07

The fact that the evidence for the Levenson enquiry was censored, says all we need to know about how wrong it is.

noir Wed 08-Feb-12 12:10:45

When I asked my friends from overseas (Mexico, America, Spain and Norway) what the worst and most weird things are about the UK they said the dirty streets and p3. They find it truly vile and ABSURD that we would have naked young women slap bang in the middle of a 'family' news paper.

witchwithallthetrimmings Wed 08-Feb-12 12:13:17

Its interesting, back in the day when Short first raised the issue, page 3 was a really big deal. Now women and girls are bombarded with so many similar and worse images through their email, face book, and in programmes like geordie shore that it seems (to me) a quaint reminder of the good old days when all we had to do was not sit next to a man reading the sun on the bus

It is still appaling of course but there is much much worse out there that is more in our faces.

EdithWeston Wed 08-Feb-12 12:14:51

Here are the Levenson terms of reference.

I think it's pretty clear that publishing pictures of those who have consented to pose nude knowing that publication may follow is outside the remit.

It doesn't mean it is not an issue of concern; just that Levenson is not the place to deal with it.

BasilRathbone Wed 08-Feb-12 12:22:42

Oh I don't know Edith. It could sneak in under the main remit, which is

To inquire into the culture, practices, and ethics of the press

Then it lists a whole load of stuff which will be included, but it doesn't state that the inquiry will be limited to that stuff.

EdithWeston Wed 08-Feb-12 12:24:49

I don't think you can, because it the says "including" and lists specific points. It would need to have said "including but not limited to" for that to be used as a catch-all.

Notthefullshilling Wed 08-Feb-12 12:36:10

So to take the Op's question at face value and go to the heart I think of one of the modern day contradictions about many social campaigns not just feminism I would suggest the following:
We cannot just ban page 3 or any other image or text that is offensive to some but not the majority of the public.
We cannot just ban page 3 as it is part of the corner stone of a media empire that would object by running a counter campaign and using women to attack women.
We cannot just ban page 3 as it would have the effect of denying a living to the models, photographers, and the other staff a number of which will be women and who will probably go to the court of human rights to insist they have a right to earn a living in a legal occupation.
We cannot just ban page three as it would open the door to other people calling for ban's on images or text that they say they would find offensive. Breast feeding for example, or people in wheelchairs, or any religious image.

Now look before anyone starts frothing, I am not saying it should NOT be banned or that I approve, I am drawing the attention of those who talk in generalities that just because you do not like something is not a enough, you need to think through how you are to achieve the objective, what the impact would be including any negative impact, and lastly but by far the most important is the need to build up enough support to overcome the structural and vested interests that will block what you want. I think feminism like other areas of equality often fails to develop a argument that opens up the cause, in that way people who may support the objective at best stay on the fence or at worst argue against because it is not clear to them how they can engage with the issue.

JuliaScurr Wed 08-Feb-12 12:36:36

Who's going to ban it? What else would they ban?
Sticker campaigns/demonstrations outside shops/boycotts/workers refusing to handle porn might be better
But more time consuming, maybe not as reliably effective
So I dunno confused

BasilRathbone Wed 08-Feb-12 12:36:38

But Object etc., have submitted evidence haven't they?

Will the inquiry not consider it then?

JuliaScurr Wed 08-Feb-12 12:39:45

Now, if I didn't type with 1 finger (tragically crippled), I'd have written quite a lot of what Notthe posted smile

EdithWeston Wed 08-Feb-12 12:50:29

Thanks for posting about Object. Their submission (from December?) had completely passed me by. I'm still not convinced that Leveson is the right place for these issues to be pursued (as it is at best incidental to the ToRs), but it's an excellent submission.

JuliaScurr Wed 08-Feb-12 13:01:28

There was a police chief woman talking about rape cases being lost due to perpetuation of myths/stereotypes in the press <vague memory>

Notthefullshilling Wed 08-Feb-12 16:01:34

Bump this needs more thought

garlicfrother Wed 08-Feb-12 16:19:14

I mention this cautiously. At times when totty pics of men have been widely read & published, quite a few men have been offended. Socialised women being what they are, this has led to the publishers ending the series or, as in teenage women's mags, making sure there are plenty of objectified women on show as well.

I'm just wondering how a lovely big campaign of objectified male totty, with a strapline along the lines of "What's wrong with Page Three?" would go down?

Didn't one of the tabloids run a male Page Five for ages?

garlicfrother Wed 08-Feb-12 16:22:30

On a slightly more serious note, isn't it awful to travel into work, squashed up against a bloke who's engrossed in Page Three?! Or, possibly worse, facing one of those guys who deliberately examine the picture and then you.

Beaglefox4 Thu 09-Feb-12 11:13:27

I agree with the notion that page three should be banned. Such an outdated and insulting 'tradition'. Not much luck of that though seeing The Sun's editor Dominic Mohan defense of it during the Leveson inquiry www.theweek.co.uk/media/leveson-inquiry/45170/healthy-girls-page-three-sun-editors-claim-ridiculed
His point being that a page 3 girl is a much healthier role model for women than the skinny models found on fashion magazine.Pathetic...

Viv Groskop's article in today's Independent also makes some very good points on the issue, calling page 3 a fossil from a bygone era and also mentioning the terrifying Rebekah Brooks
www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/viv-groskop-page-3-is-a-fossil-from-a-bygone-era-6668606.html

I definitely think it should be banned

slug Thu 09-Feb-12 11:32:24

"We cannot just ban page 3 or any other image or text that is offensive to some but not the majority of the public."

Last time I looked women were 52% of the population. That makes us the majority.

BasilRathbone Thu 09-Feb-12 11:51:18

I don't think children like it much either.

And children should not be subjected to the sight of porn in what is supposed to be a family newspaper.

Exposing children to porn is recognised as a form of child abuse.

slug Thu 09-Feb-12 16:23:15

I know lots of blokes that find it offensive too. The argument that the majority want it is just bull puckey in my very humble opinion.

I would join up to that campaign.

Could we ban strip clubs too?

Olderbutnottoooldyetmum Tue 14-Feb-12 16:04:10

It is one of the most unjustifiable horrors that seems to carry on decade after decade. Surely there are no men left who have never seen a pair of breasts, so what is the attraction? The readership of that rag is getting older and there are fewer of them(still lots I know) and it is that age group it is aimed at. Hopefully it'll be banned once and for all.

chrissie9 Wed 15-Feb-12 21:30:32

I totally agree with Basilrathbone above: it is porn in the Sun, and it is a form of abuse to expose children to it. It is not always within one's control to prevent a minor from viewing porn eg as garlic frother states-on public transport.This material should not be available in a daily "news"paper, although calling the sun a newspaper is laughable anyway.
What are the politicians doing? How can a protest be launched that is influential enough to make them act?

Notthefullshilling Fri 02-Mar-12 20:47:41

SLUG, that argument only works if you can secure 100% of the 52% that you refer too, as I said in my post I really doubt you can deliver that so your argument is not sustainable.

I would also add that just saying that we are the majority does not deliver it, in order to force the issue a campaign that demonstrates the demand for change has to take place. How uncomfortable will it be if on the one hand as you say women make up the largest number of the population, but still cannot deliver the numbers needed to push change forward.

MrsClown1 Sun 04-Mar-12 14:12:46

It will only be banned if men and women stand up and be counted. I have often spoken against it in public places when someone has opened it up in my face. I can honestly say, not 1 woman has every joined in or agreed with me. It makes me puke.

janmoomoo Mon 05-Mar-12 18:31:51

Agree. Its hideous that men just get to oggle a pair of tits for pleasure of a morning in their paper. Sat next to me on the train. Without a shadow of embarrassment. I dont know how anyone can say it is not objectification of women.

News corp is in it up to their necks in the Leveson inquiry, so I wouldnt be surprised if the sun goes down the tubes pretty soon.

MrsClown Wed 07-Mar-12 12:32:11

As far as public transport is concerned, in the past I have turned to the person next to me and asked them to put their soft porn away as I dont want to see it. Most people have gone red but put it away. I really dont give a damn, it is my choice not to have to look at it. The more people do that the easier it will get to open our mouths. They are just too used to us putting up with it, well not this woman. Men dont have to so why should I.

Thistledew Wed 07-Mar-12 12:47:49

I have started a thread here about a debate that is raging on a popular cycling forum regarding whether it should be permitted that there are several threads of pictures of women in increasingly sexualised images, on a site that purports to be aimed at both men and women who are interested in cycling.

There are a lot of ignorant sexist attitudes displayed, but also some men speaking out in favour of the threads being removed.

Henry1980 Mon 19-Mar-12 13:46:06

Oh my goodness, I loathe page3 so much it makes my blood boil, there is a time and a place for many varied publications/behaviours but not in a newspaper that can be purchased by anyone for just a few pence !!

startail Mon 19-Mar-12 14:03:16

Breasts are not offensive, breasts are beautiful. I don't give a monkeys if a man eyes up my breasts. They've been out in public on the beach and to feed DD2 far too often for me to be in the least bothered.

Banging on about Pg. 3 is pointless it just antagonises the sort of blokes who just might be sympathetic to the feminist cause.
Flexible working, fair pay, equal paternity leave for both sexes, decent child care, these are the things that matter.

No normal bloke is going to see anything wrong in pg.3 any more than I want the Olympic male sprinters to stop wearing very tight shorts or the divers to start wearing wet suits.

Page 3 breasts are probably silicon anyway.

kris12345678910 Mon 19-Mar-12 14:55:36

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

ShirleyKnot Mon 19-Mar-12 15:46:55

kris I don't think you've quite got the hang of skirting up to the delete line yet.

Subtlety is everything

rubmeup Mon 19-Mar-12 16:38:47

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

LittleGnu Mon 19-Mar-12 16:42:38

They are adult women making their own choice in life, and a very good income too. I do wish people would stop telling others how to live their lives!

rubmeup Mon 19-Mar-12 16:44:37

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

IjustLOVEmen Mon 19-Mar-12 16:51:11

Page 3 is the daily morning reminder of a woman's place in society.

It is needed to maintain the patriarchy.

It is not just titilation. And therefore is vehemently defended to the death.

If it were just about titilation, the man would get out his smartphone and get some porn privately <another debate>

LittleGnu Mon 19-Mar-12 16:55:30

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

outofthelight Mon 19-Mar-12 17:17:44

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

IjustLOVEmen Mon 19-Mar-12 17:42:32

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

IjustLOVEmen Mon 19-Mar-12 19:07:35

Hmm delete my post

But leave up a sexist objectifying post.

That particular poster is trolling elsewhere too and probably from F4J. But in saying that, a woman would have to have had sex with him to be a member there so no, probably not from F4J.

RowanMumsnet (MNHQ) Tue 20-Mar-12 15:10:20

IjustLOVEmen

Hmm delete my post

But leave up a sexist objectifying post.

Apologies - that one's gone too now. Our inboxes are a little bit on fire at the moment but we are working our way through the backlog.

MNHQ

BareBums Wed 21-Mar-12 19:17:05

Interesting thread, my DH saw a picture of a seriously obese woman on the virgin media homepage and recoiled saying he doesn't want to see that and how dare they show it and I said well I don't want to see naked girls on page 3, they should ban that too. He said he does want to see that so no they shouldn't hmm

I loathe page 3.

ElephantsAndMiasmas Mon 26-Mar-12 17:14:11

You're reading a newspaper (for everyone, you would think) and suddenly bam here's a reminder for every woman that the default reader/audience is straight men, you are reading "over their shoulder" as it were, and this is what you should be doing - getting your tits out for the lads.

I hate it. I ripped the page out of a copy I found on the train the other day, in case a young girl picked it up after me and got those messages firing at her. I just don't want that to happen.

KRITIQ Thu 29-Mar-12 10:10:47

I think witch is right about how images on Page 3 have just become so normalised. It was close to 25 years ago that I wrote to Clare Short to support her campaign. Every word of the book she published of letters received rings true today as it did then. But sadly, sexualisation and pornification of society has escalated since that time and even more explicit, degrading images of women are seen as more or less "ordinary." I think it was Basil who mentioned evidence of the harm done to young children through exposure to such images (let alone what passes for mainstream porn today - stuff that was niche, extreme and tightly controlled when Clare Short was first campaigning on this.)

It feels like fighting a forest fire with a toy water pistol when you see how these images and messages undermine the confidence, safety and aspiration of young women and girls now - and press young men and boys into being something they may not want to be, but feel required to be in order to conform. None of this is about freedom. All of it is about conformity.

sozzledchops Thu 29-Mar-12 10:47:43

I hate page 3 and really find it hard to believe that it still exists but at least it let's you know which guys to avoid, not just for looking at page 3 but for buying The Sun in the first place. It's a bit worrying when page 3 actually seems almost quaint, wholesome and tame these days compared to all the other highly sexualised images out there on telly, and videos, mags etc. Most kids don't see page 3 but they watch all these horrendous sexual music videos which are probably a lot more damaging. Obviously It's all connected though so would love to see page 3 go but more worried about the pop stars and their images.

JosephineCD Thu 12-Apr-12 07:17:12

I am fairly sure that NI would love for the government to ban page 3. It would give them the chance to attract female readers that might otherwise not read the paper, but would allow them to avoid any accusations that they had bowed to political correctness in doing so.

Page 3 really doesn't bother me at all. As far as pictures of topless women go, they are about as sexually unprovocative as possible. The girls seem to be healthy at least, and I believe breast implants are banned (in the Sun at least).

Honestly, I think you get far more sexually provocative pictures in the other newspapers, they're just disguised as celebrity "news" and you don't generally see nipples.

And for the poster that was going on about people from other countries thinking it weird, in Germany, and I think some other countries, they have topless women on the front page of newspapers, below the fold so they can't be seen by children on the newstand, but on the front nonetheless. Germans do tend to be less prudish about sex and nudity than we are though.

RachelF1989 Mon 30-Apr-12 17:42:43

Oh get over yourselves.

For one these women CHOOSE to do it as part of their modelling careers. Nobody force them. These photos have been taken by a legitimate company and there has been absolutely nothing sleazy done in the process. Don't like it, don't look at it. Simple.

I would kill to look like those models.

Page 3 has been going for a long time now and I'm pretty sure it will carry on for much longer.

RachelF1989 Mon 30-Apr-12 17:49:25

Oh forgot to mention, if we are going to scrap Page 3, let's make sure both genders get the same treatment.

For example, Wild Boys, or whatever it's called. A live show with half naked men for people to drool over.

Or the "Mr Summer" competition or whatever they call it on This Morning, where women get to ogle men and choose the dishiest one.

If it was the other way around and that was about women, there would be mass uproar and that is a fact.

SinicalSanta Mon 30-Apr-12 18:05:43

Points that way, Rachel,

I find the you're just jealous defence amusing / and hypocritical
After all men's sexual jealousy has been allowed to shape the world in much more malignant ways than banning something so unnecessary as that. I thought we were all.equal now. Have I misse something?

SuePurblyingoodVOICE Mon 30-Apr-12 18:10:30

Don't like it, don't look at it. Simple.

If you actually think it is that simple then I think you've a fairly sketchy understanding of how society works.

And it's not exactly 'the same treatment', is it? There isn't an equivalent to Page 3 for men to ban - your examples are different issues altogether. There are already lots of beauty/swimwear ogling competitions for women (Miss World?), equivalent to this Mr Summer thing. Personally, it's all the same to me if you ban them for both sexes, but saying Mr.Summer is the same as page three is simply not true.

I assume Wild Boys is the modern Chippendales? Yes, OK, let's ban that too - just as soon as the strip and lap dancing clubs go. For it to be the same, one of the Wild Boys would have to be regularly pictured in the biggest selling daily newspaper pretty much as naked as the law allows. So that's with a flaccid penis, right? Wild Boy Jim, with his cock a'lolling on one thigh, next to a little inset box pretending to give his views on current events. Just harmless fun, nothing sleazy. British institution, innit? confused

SkaterGrrrrl Mon 30-Apr-12 18:25:13

"Oh get over yourselves.For one these women CHOOSE to do it as part of their modelling careers. Nobody force them. "

Rachel these choices are not made in a vacume, but within the context of our sexist society as it already exists. If a young girl with a nice body could as much money and get as much positive attention for starting a charity or training as a teacher as she does for stripping, then it would be a real choice. But sadly we live in a world where the most value a young girl has is a pretty face and a nice body. So posing naked for page 3 is not a real choice in any meaningful sense.

"Page 3 has been going for a long time now and I'm pretty sure it will carry on for much longer."

Slavery went on for a long time. Plenty of bad things last a long time, its no reason to keep them! Should we have allowed slavery to continue just because it was around for a while?

bronze Mon 30-Apr-12 18:28:44

I'm quite happy for them to ban the wild boys whatever they are. And the chippendales and anything else like that

Xenia Mon 30-Apr-12 19:03:38

Feminists aren't really in favour of banning things. We want more freedom of the press, not less. We need to fight a constant battle to stop censorship,. I want to live in a free world where people an propagate views I find repellant. The English do not go around banning things very often, thank goodness.

RachelF1989 Mon 30-Apr-12 19:10:25

"Rachel these choices are not made in a vacume, but within the context of our sexist society as it already exists. If a young girl with a nice body could as much money and get as much positive attention for starting a charity or training as a teacher as she does for stripping, then it would be a real choice. But sadly we live in a world where the most value a young girl has is a pretty face and a nice body. So posing naked for page 3 is not a real choice in any meaningful sense."

Like I said, it's still "their" choice to do it. There are many stunning people out there, some choose to go in to modelling, glamour modelling, choose to be a teacher or start a charity; nobody makes that choice for them. I really don't see how their choices to do it have anything to do with anyone else anyway?

My examples were of how men can be seen be "sexualised" in today's society as well. May be not a direct comparison, but it is still men doing their jobs with their bodies/ looks and to earn money from it. But society doesn't bat an eye lid at that at all. Both men an women make these choices to do these jobs, but it shouldn't be for us to decide based on our somewhat prudish attitudes.

Slavery did go on for a long time you're correct. But there is a huge difference between slavery and Page 3 modelling. You just can't compare the two of them because they are completely different. Slavery was evil, horrible, and made such a horrible existence for many people. Page 3 is someone's job that they CHOSE to do, and I wouldn't think twice that they enjoy it as well. So, again I ask, what is it to us??

ArgyBargy77 Mon 30-Apr-12 21:54:50

the choice argument is the weakest one - and it just gets repeated and repeated, usually for lack of a real argument! If everyone is free to make their own choices, then everything everybody EVER chooses to do is OK? Right? Because they chose to do it....WRONG! People make choices based on what they believe is available or possible to them, that does not mean that those choices do not impact on themselves and the society around them.

As adult women we learn to filter out the way page 3 etc make us feel, so go to a supermarket with an 8 year old girl, and see what her reaction is to porn placed at her eye level (actually placed at her 4 year old sisters eye level). It is not good, she didn't ask to see porn on her way to buy sweets, or the latest kids magazine, she has no option but to see it. Seeing it so casually placed sends a message that this is OK, this is aspirational, if the parents around this child don't challenge this, she will then grow up seeing this as a viable choice, so she made a choice based on the society she lives in, pretty sh*t society that - lets change it then!

With my 8 year old we turn the papers over - declaring loudly that the porn on display to children is disgusting, we demand to see the manager and/or write to the head office. I follow what Object is up to with their on-going campaign against lads mags and porn papers and would love to do more.

oh and what about the mens! when people say lads mags and p3 show us how open we are about sex, they mean how open we are to seeing naked female flesh, there is no true comparison - only women’s bodies are cheap enough to be plastered about in this way.

MoChan Thu 03-May-12 11:20:04

It makes me so concerned to think about the message this sends to young minds, both male and female - to boys, you may reduce women to their body parts, to girls, this is what you should be, and this is how you should behave. Though clearly, the messages have more to them than that...

Yesterday, I asked the chap who runs our village shop to put The Sport on the top shelf instead of on the bottom shelf, right next to the children's magazines. I kind of wish now that I had just asked him not to stock it any more.

mrnobody808 Sat 05-May-12 18:43:35

I registered here, specifically to reply to this thread. There is some amount of nonsense being talked.

The argument about it being a choice is not a weak argument. It is a perfectly valid argument. No one has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their own body. My body, my rules. Your body, your rules! No one forces anyone to appear on Page 3 or in "lads mags", and no one forces anyone to buy The Sun or "lads mags". You may not like what is featured in these newspapers or magazines, but you do have to live with it.

There are two types of people in this world. Those who just want to be left alone to get on with their lives, and people like you lot, who won't leave us alone.

I am not say that you aren't entitled to an opinion, of course you are! Debate and varying opinions within that debate should be welcomed, but i really object to people saying that something should be banned, just because they don't like it. If we were to ban everything that someone didn't like, we wouldn't be able to do anything.

Also, as far as i am aware, The Sport hasn't been in print form since it ceased publication in the summer of 2011.

MoChan Tue 08-May-12 12:02:00

Yes, yes, we're talking nonsense. It must be all that air our heads are filled with.

A publication called The Sport was on the shelves in my village shop last Wednesday. It had a revealing image of a woman in an obviously sexually subservient position. I did not conjure this from my imagination. I held it in my hand. It may not be the original publication, but whatever it is, it should not be on the low shelf near children's magazines.

It's not a question of 'don't like', mrnobody. We are not discussing tastes in food. We're talking about the brainwashing impact that this has on young people, the effect it has on our culture in general, the effect it has on how people view themselves, its contribution to a society which gives permission for us all to regard women as sub-human.

It's not as simple as like or dislike. And despite what you say about choices, well, sorry, but no-one forced my daughter to look down and see the image on that 'newspaper', but she's 4.5. Do you really think she made the choice?

I'd love to see page 3 go for good. Out of all the shit that's out there, nothing quite normalises the objectification of women as much as having a picture of a near naked woman in a daily 'family' newspaper.

janmoomoo Thu 31-May-12 12:53:28

Mrnobody - I think I have a bit more sense and intelligence than to disagree with something just because I don't like it, that seems rather shallow and I would hope I put a bit more thought into things than that.

You mention people being left alone to get on with their lives - unfortunately it is impossible for anyone to live in a vacuum. We all see hundreds of adverts everyday, watch TV, read papers, talk to friends, and all these things are influenced by and make up the culture we live in. And the the UK that culture includes an acceptance of being able to freely and casually oggle a woman's naked breasts over breakfast. I don't want that to be part of my culture.

And as there is no equivalent of naked men available so freely in a daily paper it therefore represents inequality which I think is wrong.

startail Thu 31-May-12 13:20:47

Because breasts are beautiful!

boodles Sun 08-Jul-12 15:30:12

OMG I totally roll my eyes when people bring up stuff like the chippendales, as if that is ANYTHING like the sexualisation of women that has gone on in society since year dot.

I don't want to see any sort of equivalent of men. I just want our young people to grow up not just thinking that girls are objects for sex. I couldn't give a hoot about the minority of peoples choices (those that 'choose' to be in P3) because those very tiny minority are affecting every single woman and how they are thought of in society. I am fed up to the back teeth of seeing naked breasts and my young children seeing it every time I go into a newsagents. Lads mags and the ilk really make me feel ill. It is, again, normalising women as sex objects. While we have that sort of thing going on we will never have equality.

Zaraa Fri 20-Jul-12 20:08:02

Hi may I ask a couple of questions?

1. What happened to "my body my choice"? Shouldn't women have the right to choose what they want to do with their own body instead of feminists making the choice for them? Isn't feminism supposed to be about freedom?

2. If you don't like The Sun then don't buy it, noone's forcing you to buy it are they?

3. Do you realize you are just giving The Sun and Page 3 loads and loads of free advertising?

4. Page 3 models are all consenting adults who get paid very well. It's a job like any other. Some people fix cars for money, some pose in front of cameras for money. What's the problem? Why ban this and put a lot of women out of work?

5. If breasts are so evil and so "harmful" to children (children have all seen their mother's breasts anyway), should we ban women from going topless at the beach too?

SardineQueen Fri 20-Jul-12 20:28:00

Totally agree with OP.

Page 3 should have been banned years ago, I hated it when I was a primary schoolgirl, I hated it when it was a secondary schoolgirl, I hated it as a young woman and I still hate it now.

I am going to eat now but will be back soon. How interesting that people have joined MN just to speak in favour of soft porn in public. How refreshing and unusual.

Zaraa Fri 20-Jul-12 20:34:46

Care to answer my Qs? Anyway there are plenty of things I dislike, but I don't campaign for them to be banned just because I don't like them.

SardineQueen Fri 20-Jul-12 20:43:46

I would like to know why it so important to you for men to be able to view soft porn in public every day.

i have to go and watch my young daughters do some kind of "show" now, apparently, but would be keen to hear why you think children, young girls and teen girls, as well as older women, need to be subjected to men ogling page 3 in public, on transport etc, every day in the UK. I am sure there is a solid, important reeason.

Zaraa Fri 20-Jul-12 20:54:43

It's about choice and freedom. I don't even buy The Sun btw because IMO it's more of a comic than a newspaper but that's my choice not to buy it.

And I wouldn't have any problem with someone sitting near me on a train reading it, neither would I have a problem with sitting near a woman reading a magazine with muscular men posing with their shirts off.

I don't like seeing overweight or ugly people in public either but I can't demand they all stay at home because I don't want to see them.

Also isn't it interesting the countries which permit things like page 3 are typically the countries where women have most rights? The middle east and africa would never permit page 3 but look at how women are treated there.

SardineQueen Fri 20-Jul-12 20:58:27

It's about the freedom of men to have the choice to look at sexually appealing young women with their clothes off, in the most inappropriate of circumstances, and in public.

They aren't choices and freedoms that I'm getting on board with, thanks.

SardineQueen Fri 20-Jul-12 21:05:17

Oh and

1. By that argument you presumably have no issue with people looking at hardcore porn on their ipads/mobiles on the tube, nor to people looking at hardcore images of men and/or women on the bus/tube etc.
2. People are forced to look at it every day who do not buy it. Often when in school uniform and on public transport with very obvious comparisons going on.
3. So what.
4. This is the new argument isn't it. Oh you will make people unemployed, that's horrible, you Horrible Feminists. Not going to wash really. I'm not going to stand up to keep any job that hinges on the object (man, woman, child, animal, whatever) that is there simply for the reason of giving men an erection.
5. Images of women which are taken to sexually arouse men are different to women's bodies just being what they are. People generally understand the difference. Except of course for people who feel that the right of men to look at tits on the tube to make their cock twitch is an essential right.

EclecticShock Fri 20-Jul-12 21:09:11

Agree with zaraa. The Victorian era was not too hot on women's rights.

EclecticShock Fri 20-Jul-12 21:10:37

Why is it so important to stop men desiring women?

StewieGriffinsMom Fri 20-Jul-12 21:10:51

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

24HourPARDyPerson Fri 20-Jul-12 21:12:18

I want the choice and freedom NOT to be casually objectified, ta. I want the choice and freedom NOT to have soft porn imagery displayed where I or children can't avoid seeing it. I don't care whether you have a problem with it or not. I do, as it's harmful. What about MY rights?

I've made this point before on a similar thread, but I'll repeat.

It's funny how a lot of Page 3 defenders are so quick to pull out the You're Just Jealous card. I snigger a bit at that non argument as it's so obtuse, the objections are so much more nuanced than that. HOWEVER even if it was...so what? Why can't women's sexual jealousy impinge on teh world in some little small way? After all we know how much credence and respect is given to men's sexual jealousy. There are compelling arguments that even marriage was founded in response to men's jealousy, and marriage has shaped society in a huge way. So, in the name of equality, or the road towards it, let's start responding to and yes, pandering to, women's jealousy in the same way. It's only fair.

SardineQueen Fri 20-Jul-12 21:21:05

"Why is it so important to stop men desiring women?"

???
Do you think if men aren't allowed to openly ogle page 3 "lovelies" on the tube while openly gazing at the breasts of women and girls near them, that it will stop men desiring women?
How does that work then. I think it sounds like bollocks, personally. I think heterosexual men will desire women come what may, and homosexual men will desire men come what may, and lesbians will desire women and so on.

Is it OK for men to look at hot young mainly naked lads cupping their erections under their pants while sitting with schoolboys on the tube, and eyeing the groins of said schoolboys? Yes, or no?

is the fact that this doesn't happen, a sign that gay men have stopped desiring men? Hmmm?

Zaraa Fri 20-Jul-12 22:28:51

1. By that argument you presumably have no issue with people looking at hardcore porn on their ipads/mobiles on the tube, nor to people looking at hardcore images of men and/or women on the bus/tube etc.

It's up to them. I don't care. Bigger things to worry about.

2. People are forced to look at it every day who do not buy it. Often when in school uniform and on public transport with very obvious comparisons going on.

No they're not "forced" to look at it.

3. So what.

Protesting to get something banned just gives it lots of attention and that almost always means more sales. Meaning your little protesting could be having the opposite effect of what you want.

4. This is the new argument isn't it. Oh you will make people unemployed, that's horrible, you Horrible Feminists. Not going to wash really. I'm not going to stand up to keep any job that hinges on the object (man, woman, child, animal, whatever) that is there simply for the reason of giving men an erection.

You don't care about making a lot of women unemployed? They are women the exact same as you except they have a different job? Isn't feminism supposed to be about supporting other women? Or does it only apply to women who have a career you approve of?

And you claming you dislike the idea of men getting erections does not help your argument any. Noone cares.

5. Images of women which are taken to sexually arouse men are different to women's bodies just being what they are. People generally understand the difference. Except of course for people who feel that the right of men to look at tits on the tube to make their cock twitch is an essential right.

It may not be a "right" but it's a choice. It's a choice for women to make money posing topless for The Sun and it's a choice for people to decide whether to buy The Sun or not.

Maybe you should be grateful you live in a country where we are free to make such choices.

SardineQueen Fri 20-Jul-12 23:22:24

1. By that argument you presumably have no issue with people looking at hardcore porn on their ipads/mobiles on the tube, nor to people looking at hardcore images of men and/or women on the bus/tube etc.

It's up to them. I don't care. Bigger things to worry about.

5. Images of women which are taken to sexually arouse men are different to women's bodies just being what they are. People generally understand the difference. Except of course for people who feel that the right of men to look at tits on the tube to make their cock twitch is an essential right.

It may not be a "right" but it's a choice. It's a choice for women to make money posing topless for The Sun and it's a choice for people to decide whether to buy The Sun or not.

So your point is that you think men should be allowed to watch hard core porn films on ipads etc while sitting next to young children / girls / teens on the tube.

Well that is your right, I guess, to want that. I think that your ideas are a bit weird and disturbing TBH.

Zaraa Sat 21-Jul-12 00:36:39

How did the topic go from breasts in a newspaper to hardcore video on ipads sitting next to a child anyway? How often does the latter actually happen anyway? Never?

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 11:00:04

I said

"By that argument you presumably have no issue with people looking at hardcore porn on their ipads/mobiles on the tube, nor to people looking at hardcore images of men and/or women on the bus/tube etc."

You said

"It's up to them. I don't care. Bigger things to worry about."

This encapsulates your views on this I think. A selfish attitude of me me me and it doesn't matter how your actions affect anyone else.

24HourPARDyPerson Sat 21-Jul-12 12:47:11

Who wants to stop men desiring women? confused daft extrapolation.

but I would like porn consumption to be, ideally, non existant, but failing that to be private, away from the general public. Sexuality should be something that's shared with consenting adults. Even mild expressions of a certain sexuality, such as ogling pg 3 girls shouldn't be forced upon the unwilling. In the real world, a teen girl on the bus for example can't do much about it. And the normalisation effect means that she internalises the idea that she is the one at fault for feeling disturbed and uncomfortable.

Zaraa Sat 21-Jul-12 16:13:14

"my actions"? For the record I have never viewed hardcore porn on public transport, and I have never once seen anyone else view it either (and if I did I don't see how it becomes my responsibility).

@24HourPARDyPerson porn consumption will never stop. Even if you made it illegal that would just create a huge underground market for it.

hairymother Sat 21-Jul-12 17:45:03

totally agree.

does any newspaper have a male page 3?

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 18:27:17

You said you have no problem with people looking at hardcore images and films on public transport.

Given that, it's not surprising that you don't have any issues with page 3.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 18:30:20

hairymother when they do have pictures of men they
a. don't show any parts that are generally kept private
and
b. don't depict the same level of sexualisation

i do wonder sometimes how all these men people who say what's wrong with page 3 if they had to sit on the tube next to a burly man looking at highly sexualised pictures of scantily clad men, who was looking at the images and then eyeing them - their bodies and groins and bottoms. Would they be comfortable with that? The answer is absolutely not.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 18:33:12

You can't ban sexuality and it's practices. Where would you stop and why is looking at breasts so wrong? I do it and I'm for feminism. Breasts are beautiful. What's the issue really? It's all consenting. I don't really like tradition of p3 as I'm not sure a newspaper is the right place for it, but then again when writing articles on entertainment there are often more explicit pictures.

Repressing women's bodies is really not helpful for womens rights IMO. By suppressing them, what you are saying is women's bodies cannot be appreciate without objectifying them do don't do it. There's no differce between telling women not to model naked and telling them to cover up on case someone looks at them. Backward thinking IMO. Although like I said, newspapers are necessarily the right media but the sun etc aren't really about news are they. They are about entertainment.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 18:34:38

Are you comfortable when couples kiss in pubic or touch each others bodies? It's all expression of sexuality. Do you turn films of at love scenes?

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 18:35:23

Sorry! Freudian slip... Public not pubic smile

DuelingFanjo Sat 21-Jul-12 18:40:46

5. If breasts are so evil and so "harmful" to children (children have all seen their mother's breasts anyway), should we ban women from going topless at the beach too?

Do yopu actually understand at all the difference between sunbathing and posing topless to titilate men?

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 18:44:51

Sexualised images of women in the mainstream press are a bad thing for girls and women.
It's just obvious.
How on earth is it good for a girl to sit on a bus next to a man leering at a picture of a young woman with her top off? How is it good for a teenager on the tube to have a man ogling page 3 and then ogling her chest?
It's upsetting, embarassing, it puts the girls in their places, it tells them what they are for. they are nothing more than their bodies and they are there to be leered at and judged by any random man who chooses to do so.

Sex should be a private matter. It is illegal to show porn to children. it is illegal to have sex in public. Unless people want to legalise these things then i don't really understand the argument that these things are no good but page 3 is great. It's nonsensical.

Men do not need to be provided with pictures to make their cocks twitch in their daily paper on their commute. It is bizarre that this happens.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 18:46:44

Fwiw, I wouldn't encourage my daughter to do it as there are better ways to express yourself and show your talents, however, we aren't all the same. There will always be people who want to do p3 whether because they think it will pay or get them onto something else or just because they are exhibitionists. I know some women don't fully understand the situation they are getting themselves into and so it should be more heavily regulated and perhaps the age range should be higher.

Do you think there is much difference between models and page 3? Aren't both objectified? Both are open to being abused as is any person. Should women stop capitalising on their bodies full stop? Should men stop capitalising on their bodies? Should people stop capitalising on their looks? What about their physicality like strength? Where does it stop? Our bodies have evolved to be amazing in so may ways and I don't think it makes sense to deny that.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 18:48:19

Men and women are titillated by so many things... There's no way to prevent someone being titillated by you.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 18:49:20

Titillated is a loaded word which really means be attracted to or fancy.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 18:51:04

eclectic this has nothing to do with whether people want to model for page 3 or not. As long as something pays there will always be someone somewhere willing to do it, no matter what it is.

What most people on this thread are saying is that page 3 is anachronistic, sexist, offensive and should be banned.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 18:51:44

I don't agree sq. it's not obvious or nonsensical, it's subjective. As I said, I don't think newspapers are the right place but what's the difference between someone looking at p3 on a bus next to a teenager or someone looking at the daily mail entertainment section?

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 18:53:47

Sexual appetite and practices really haven't changed that much other thanto become more underground. How underground do you want them to become?

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 18:54:43

I have never seen the daily mail entertainment section. Does it feature soft porn images of young women in their pants? If so then clearly that needs to go as well.

If you don't think newspapers are the place for soft porn then your posts seem odd as actually you agree with the OP.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 18:59:25

Would it not be better to educate girls and boys about sexism and objectification rather than trying to remove any potential material. It's treating a symptom perhaps, not treating the cause. You will never stamp out this kind of thing, it's entwined within our nature. It's how we reproduce after all. Men and women desire eachother and like looking at eachother.

IMO, we should be explaining these complexities to young people and hello them to understand human behaviour with the ability of critical thinking.

I'd like to see lots of things banned but we don't live in a vanilla idealistic perfect world. We are human.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:02:54

I don't agree or disagree with OP. I don't want to see anything banned, however I'd like for people to in time stop buying the sun for p3 or for the sun to realise maybe they don't need p3 to sell papers.

However, I think it's unlikely, a the DM mainly sells on its entertainment section which is far more troublesome from a feminist standpoint to me than p3.

We need to address the issues at the root cause not at the outcome.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:04:59

You can't beat and force people into behaviour. Banning doesn't work otherwise there would be no crime. Laws exist to protect people. In the case of p3, I'm failing to understand clearly what would be protected by banning it.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:06:26

Education is the only way to change behaviour. Behaviour is learned and innate. Banning doesn't work IMO, in fact sometimes it makes things worse.

AnAirOfHope Sat 21-Jul-12 19:10:43

What is laughable is that page 3 is ok on a train but if i was to lift or take my top off i would get done by the police for indecent exposure. What is the difference as i cant see it youself?

AnAirOfHope Sat 21-Jul-12 19:12:14

*myself. What if we took the modles to court for exposing themselves to us?

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:17:22

Expectation and fantasy perhaps? We watch love scenes in films but wouldn't watch couples getting it on in real life necessarily. We watch violence on tv but not real life. We watch soaps all the time but would you stand by and watch in real life? Fantasy is completely different to reality.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:18:45

Oversimplifying the complexities of the situation doesn't always help you understand them.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:22:46

Without fantasy, we wouldn't have imagination and what a useless dull species we would become. Imagination is what makes humans distinct to other species. It's what makes us great. We can emmerse ourselves in something that is not real in our environment and so think though so many possibilities. We actively encourage imagination in children but apparently adults should stop and become social robots.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:23:22

Immerse, not emmerse.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:24:58

eclectic I don't think there is anything to explain to girls about what is going on when a bloke on a train ogles page 3 and then stares fixedly at her breasts, and then back to the paper and then back to her breasts again. She knows exactly what is going on.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:27:08

eclectic do you think the london underground at 8am is an appropriate place for men to indulge in sexual fantasy in a way that makes it obvious to others around them that is what they are doing?

Schoolgirls, despite what many men like to think, do not enjoy being leered at, and they do not enjoy having men around them who are looking at soft porn.

AnAirOfHope Sat 21-Jul-12 19:28:12

Its simple men own the paper and want to see tits and there is always women willing to flash their tits for money for lots of reasons like they are just boobs its my body or its my right as a women to show my body if i want to and im fine with that or people see worse in ads on tv.

It will not be ban but i think its out dated and should be stoped now as it severs no point anymore.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:28:41

FGS now you are saying that the prospect of a man sitting on a train and obviously fantasising about the breasts of the girls and women who are near him is what makes human beings so great? Get a grip, seriously.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:31:54

Sq, girls, boys, women and men have to learn to deal and handle situations around them. We don't live in isolation. Whether its sitting next to a guy looking at p3 or sitting next to a person being racist or a person being sexist. Banning is not the solution. Educating the girl or whoever to know its not acceptable and not the way everyone thinks is what helps. Seriously, it amazes me that feminists want to ban things rather than change society. How would you feel if men banned women from looking at pictures of naked men.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:32:48

Sq, this is an open debate. Can you not be more open and polite?

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:34:37

You can't let personal feelings drive feminism. It has to be all encompassing, logical and fair. It's not about you only, it's about everyone workin together I improve things.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:35:14

"Educating the girl or whoever to know its not acceptable"

But that's not true.
It is acceptable. If it wasn't, it wouldn't happen, openly, in public.
What she is being taught is that it is that women's bodies are primarily important for men to look at, and that it is fine for men to look at her that way when she is just quietly trying to get to school.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:35:54

eclectic I think you will find that squillions of people hate page 3 and want to see the back of it.
You have said yourself on this thread that you think it is inappropriate.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:36:47

Can't you see some feminist issues arise out of bigger things and can't just be banned to suit feminism. It takes a coherent wide angled approach. Are you actually reading my posts and thinking about them or just telling me I'm wrong because I don't agree with you?

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:36:51

Can you explain why a man sitting on a train obviously sexually fantasising about the girls and women around him is a great thing? Thank you.

AnAirOfHope Sat 21-Jul-12 19:37:15

I would like to see a photo of a naked man but then you cant find any in the media. Maybe cos the top jobs are given to men or that men will not modle or that women are not allowed a sexualliy.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:37:38

You do agree with me.
You have said that page 3 is inappropriate.
So I'm not sure why you're simultaneously making out you disagree.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:38:45

I think it inappropriate in "newspapers". But let's not pretend the sun or DM are newspapers. I think it's more important that people are educated and encourage to question what they see. You can't make everyone behave the same...

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:40:42

here you go, anairofhope

If it were big strong gay men openly looking at soft porn pictures of men on the tube and ogling the men and boys around them, there would be an outcry.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:41:18

You seriously can't find pictures of naked men...

There are more naked women than men but women also buy media to see won naked and compare rather than just men for titillation. Men on average don't compare themselves to other men openly and so that's why I believe the difference exists. Look at comments on DM entertainment .... It's mainly women.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:42:21

There would not be an outcry at a man looking at pictures of a topless man.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:42:33

They are newspapers in the sense that people buy them every day and read them in public.

I have not really ever seen a man looking at nuts, zoo, that sort of thing, or anything harder on the tube. I think most men realise that woudl be inappropriate. Not so the sun though.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:43:36

Why are they obviously sexually fantasising? So you can see inside their head? If I was looking at p3, would it bother you?

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:43:38

"women also buy media to see won naked and compare"

Really?

I have never seen a woman or girl looking at soft porn images of women on the tube.
pretending that page 3 is for women is ridiculous.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:44:37

eclectic don't be silly. Normal people can tell when they are being leered at.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:45:13

I'm not saying p3, I'm saying for example DM entertainment section.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:45:56

Sq, I think that's an assumption and purely subjective.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:46:04

This thread is about page 3, eclectic.
I have never seen the DM entertainment section, if it is soft core photos of young women in their pants then that needs to go to.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:46:34

eclectic are you saying you think girls and women know when a man is leering at them?

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:46:47

DON'T know

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:47:01

The point is thankfully, it's a free country unless you are hurting someone deliberately.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:47:57

So hurting someone accidentally is fine?

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:48:40

I'm saying judging people who are not actually doing deliberate harm to you is subjective and can be argued either way.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:50:49

Judging people?
And FWIW I do think that children, girls and women are harmed by exposure to soft porn, and the attitudes and actions relating to it.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:51:40

Yes hurting someone accidentally is my they persons fault. "accident" meaning unintentional. Yes, when it causes serious detriment it has to have a consequence but IMO, men looking at p3 has not caused me serious detriment. There's many more things that do in the grand scheme of things. In fact, it helps me ascertain if they are someone who hold my values. Hence I don't date men who by the sun every day.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:52:44

Soft porn is sex and attraction... That's why it's called soft. What should people not encounter anythig sexual unless thu are actually having sex?

AnAirOfHope Sat 21-Jul-12 19:54:17

Nope i see no penis in that shot. Its legal for men to go topless what if he wear seethru trousers and no pants on a saterday night round town or if the sun took and printed full nude photos of men. Would that be equality?

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:54:37

I thought this wasn't about how individuals feel, eclectic. Therefore the fact that "it's never done you any harm" is irrelevant.

"Soft porn is sex and attraction... That's why it's called soft. What should people not encounter anythig sexual unless thu are actually having sex?"

Why should children be exposed to sex?

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:55:17

This all sounds very repressive and we all know what issues repressive cultures bring about. Sexual attraction IMO should not be underground it should be open and educated about and easy to interpret. During it underground is making it seedy, nasty and less compliance orientated. Big problems ensue IMO.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:55:30

anairofhope if you want to look at penises then google "gay porn pics" or similar.

I had a certain amount of difficulty finding a photo that did not involve a large erection grin

HmmThinkingAboutIt Sat 21-Jul-12 19:55:56

What is the goal of banning page 3?

You see this is a really important question. What side effects could this have? It could just reinforce the idea that women who dress in skimpy clothes or expose themselves are deserving or 'asking for it' by reinforcing the idea that naked women and flesh is outside acceptable boundaries of society and behaviour.

The aim is ultimately to stop the practise of page 3, but is this best bought about by changes in attitude rather than bans imposed by authority?

My answer will always be that I don't have too much of a problem with page 3. I have a lot more of a problem with other messages that are sent out in the media about women's bodies and that actually the female form isn't something that is offensive in any way. Nor should it be treated in any way that suggests it might be.

If you want to get rid of page three you need to think about other ways of achieving it, not by banning it as to me thats the path to a slippery slope of other problems.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:56:12

Why is it repressive not to expose children to adult sexuality, eclectic?

StewieGriffinsMom Sat 21-Jul-12 19:56:21

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 19:57:27

Children should not be reading the sun or any other tabloid. Full of sensationlist crap. I do not agree with children reading tabloid full stop.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:57:32

Plenty of things are banned though.
Why not page 3.
There is no place for porn in the average public daily lives of the population.
It's not difficult.
I don't want anyone - men women or children - looking at porn in public.
Really not an outrageous POV.

StewieGriffinsMom Sat 21-Jul-12 19:58:37

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 19:59:21

Why is it repressive not to expose children to adult sexuality, eclectic?

You haven't explained.

And the WHOLE POINT about page 3 is that everyone sees it, whether they buy the sun or not. And why shouldn't people sit on the bus and look at page 3 next to some children, or a pubescent girl? It is after all the UKs most popular paper.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 20:00:15

Children don't get harmed by seeing breasts, they get harmed by hearing fantasies. Looking is not a crime. Breasts are not evil or only titillating. It's inthe individual head.

HmmThinkingAboutIt Sat 21-Jul-12 20:02:10

Just because you ban something, doesn't mean you achieve the desired result though...

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 20:03:11

Fgs sake, you sound like authoritarians. Smoking, over eating, crossing the road without waiting for green man, swearing, spitting, pushing, shoving, all things which you would rather your child didn't see but we live in a society of other people. Stop blaming others, teach children to know what they and question and why.

AnAirOfHope Sat 21-Jul-12 20:05:48

Then that is what the sun is doing by putting the topless photos in a newspaper that children under 16 can buy and see.

It would not be acceptable to see a naked man with his bits out so it should be unacceptable to see a women with her tits out in a newspaper.

There are few male modles that will do nude photos without an erection cos people think its not attractive and the men will get picked on for being small! This also has an effect on young boys.

Zaraa Sat 21-Jul-12 20:08:42

*SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 18:30:20

hairymother when they do have pictures of men they
a. don't show any parts that are generally kept private
and*

You make a good point. Men's chests are usually not kept private, it is acceptable for men to go topless in many places but not women. It sounds like inequality to me. So what's the solution should we force men to cover up.. or.. why don't we try reducing the stigma with the female body? Why not campaign so it's legal and acceptable for women to go topless anywhere a man can? Isn't that the best way forward? Try and remove the stigma and taboo with the female body and show that it doesn't need to be such a big deal?

Is prudisness really the best way forward for society?

HmmThinkingAboutIt Sat 21-Jul-12 20:08:55

Are boobs offensive?

Really?

Should a woman be able to breastfed in public?

Think about it. What 'bad' messages could be sent out by a ban?

What do you REALLY want to achieve by banning page 3? What is the REAL issue that you have a problem with?

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 20:10:11

Why shouldn't I blame others when they behave badly?

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 20:13:46

Sexualised, pornographic images of women are offensive.

Honestly.
If I walk around naked at home, in front of the children, that's fine, isn't it. Ditto DH.

If he walked around at home with an erection, or if I walked around in crotchless frilly knickers, a peephole bra, high heels and bent over and wiggled my arse at DH with my legs spread, in front of the children, then that would be a matter for SS, it would be considered child abuse.

These distinctions are not hard to grasp, really they aren't.

HmmThinkingAboutIt Sat 21-Jul-12 20:17:47

SQ so why make the models the bad people and not the people who view p3?

Its backwards thinking and logic. And much the same argument is made about the fact it should be the users of prostitutes rather than the prostitutes themselves who should be prosecuted.

A ban effectively is detrimental to women in my eyes. The problem isn't with women exposing their bodies, I think we should be free to do so whenever we like. The problem is the messages about womens bodies; that are in written comment in mainstream press.

You need to change underlying attitudes that 'demand' a certain type of naked images, not ban them.

AnAirOfHope Sat 21-Jul-12 20:18:34

So we should see old women as well as young topless and they should just stand there and that would be fine.

If that happen would the sun sale figuars go down? Would women still complain?

I always wanted to water the roses topless in the evening lol

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 20:23:23

Who has made the models "bad people"?
Women who model are not "bad people" they are simply women trying to make some money and hoping for fame.
Where has this "bad people" idea come from? Most strange.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 20:25:33

I just asked DH and he said that images of topless women are softcore porn and should be age rated and therefore not shown in a newspaper.

HmmThinkingAboutIt Sat 21-Jul-12 20:26:03

SQ but thats the message that it would sent to some groups of people if you banned the practise. And there in lies the problem.

It would send one - the intended message - to some parts of society, but it would send other less pleasant and unwanted messages to other groups.

Which is why I don't agree with bans. You need to tackle the surrounding issues and make it socially unacceptable to look at page 3. Not the other way around.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 20:27:42

Anyone who cannot see the distinction between a woman breastfeeding and a page 3 picture has got serious issues and is not worth thinking about.

Our laws should not be based on people who can't distinguish between the two.

HmmThinkingAboutIt Sat 21-Jul-12 20:36:33

No they should be what you say, and not consider the horrid fact that some people don't interpret things in the way you wish them to...

Sorry, but people believe things that aren't what we would like. And tbh I'm glad we don't all think the same way and conform and obey the state to the letter as that in itself causes problems.

Tackle the real underlying issues. Bans do not work.

Here is a link to a petition - epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/17586

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 20:41:33

Bans do work.
I have not seen anyone looking at hardcore porn on the tube or bus. Certainly not in the morning rush hour.
Which is as it should be IMO. Although some on here thinks that should be OK too.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 20:43:10

Thanks for the link, have signed smile

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 20:44:05

Also hardcore porn is not published in daily papers. Because it is banned.
See, it works beautifully smile

HmmThinkingAboutIt Sat 21-Jul-12 20:47:39

Hardcore porn is different in the eyes of people though - precisely because you can't draw the same comparisons between showing flesh. I'm not saying those comparisons are right - more that they will happen and I think that is more troubling.

To me, bans instead encourage views that we should all just wear burkas to ensure that our female form isn't leered at by men...

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 20:50:54

So you just want to make sure no one has to see boobs in public. Great.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 20:50:57

"Hardcore porn is different in the eyes of people though"

yes
because it is not published in daily papers
because it is age rated

Applying the same laws to softcore porn would shift views about its acceptability. People don't tend to read nuts and zoo on the tube, or look at anything harder. if page 3 didn't exist then there would be no soft porn in the morning on the bus or tube. That would be so brilliant.

Incidentally the point of page 3 is for men to leer at women. No more page 3 = less leering = super.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 20:51:34

I want to make sure that sexualised images of womens breasts are not shown in public.
Works for me.

teahouse Sat 21-Jul-12 20:53:37

What would they put in its place - there is so little news in them as it is and much of it is misrepresented, trite and patronising anyway; can we not just ban the red tops!

On a more serious note though, I do agree that bans don't work. Page 3 is not something this country should be proud of, but we do have a free press. I think given the choice between a restricted press and having page 3, then it's page 3 for me.

Also, no one is forced to 'read' these papers and if people didn't buy them, they wouldn't exist... rather than a ban, get people to buy something with news in it.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 20:53:53

Sexualised image of boobs? What a female topless? Seriously? And what is the difference between "leering" and looking/appreciating?

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 20:56:09

Teahouse how would you feel about page 3 showing more hardcore images - pants off legs spread toys and so on?

page 3 is a sexualised image of a woman with her top off. The photo is intended to sexually arouse heterosexual men. You have trouble grasping some pretty basic ideas sometimes, eclectic. Was it you who didn't know about hovering as well?

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 20:56:09

Women and men are sexual and so are our bodies, faces, voices, intellect. This banning idea is seriously barking up the wrong tree and is far too authoritarian for my liking. How would you apply your train of thought about this topic to other issues like racism? Wear makeup to appear white?

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 21:03:04

Sq, that's for being so rude towards me. I think you have me mistaken for someone else. Hovering? My opinion does not indicate I and missing some basic principles.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 21:04:33

Thanks even. Opinion is subjective, There is no right or wrong answer. This is a debate. If you don't enjoy debating or see the benefit on it, don't do it.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 21:07:10

Why is sexualise always seen as a bad thing. It's another loaded term on here but there is nothing wrong with sex or being desired.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 21:08:33

Can we try no to make this personal. It's a debate. Why do people always resort to the personal rather than argue their point. Not very useful.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 21:21:56

This is in the Feminist Activism section of MN with an OP saying why can't we just ban page 3.

All of the responses saying "why, it doesn't bother me" are out of tune with both the thread OP and the topic.

Like going into the religion section of MN and a thread about baptism and just saying why bother. It's peculiar behaviour.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 21:23:37

No you're right it wasn't you eclectic, with teh hovering.

i still find it odd that you can't see the difference between general nudity and sexualised images / porn.

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 21:25:29

Oh well, I can't get my head around some of your posts. Horses for courses.

Stokey38 Sat 21-Jul-12 21:28:09

Apart from anything else it's just so embarrassing. I honestly thought it must have been banned years ago.

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 21:30:05

Can you really not see the difference between a woman BF and a page 3 picture?

can you really not see the difference between a person quietly thinking someone sitting near them on the bus is good looking, and a person ogling someone - looking them up and down, staring at their bottom or breasts?

do you really believe that a girl of say 13 who is upset by a man on the tube staring at page 3, then staring at her chest, and then staring at page 3, needs educating? Educating how, exactly? Rather than not having to be in that position in the first place?

EclecticShock Sat 21-Jul-12 21:39:45

Sq, that's not what is said. Re read my posts, I think I've been quite clear. Night.

Zaraa Sat 21-Jul-12 22:19:25

SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 20:41:33
Bans do work.
I have not seen anyone looking at hardcore porn on the tube or bus. Certainly not in the morning rush hour.
Which is as it should be IMO.

I think you're wrong. I still don't think many people (if any) would watch hardcore porn on the bus even if it were allowed. Sitting in your office clothes thinking about work doesn't really put one in the mood to watch hardcore porn, I imagine most people would wait until they got home where they could relax more.

Here's a question- cannabis is banned in the UK. Did that ban work? (funny how almost everyone seems to either smoke it or has at least tried smoking it).

HmmThinkingAboutIt Sun 22-Jul-12 09:43:02

Yes this is feminist activism SQ, but I object to the idea that because of that we have to all behave here in a certain way or hold certain beliefs.

This section is somewhere we can discuss what we think is the best course of action for various subjects. That does not mean we have support this idea of a ban for this subject or any other. It means that if we have issues with certain things we can explore different ways of tackling them. We do not have to blindly agree with suggestions here. It means we can critically say why we feel it isn't the best course of action.

To my mind the problem isn't page 3 at all. Its the mentality that creates a demand for page 3 behind it, and why newspapers think that it helps create profit.

I personally think its about wider issues in the press - ones that women themselves buy into with celebrity culture, beauty products & bitching about other women rather than a pair of tits.

I'd rather focus my energy on tackling that, trying to encourage positive body image and two fingers at conformity and authoritative directives that more often than not end up being a complete mess as they are handled badly, misused and send out the wrong signals.

As a rule, I'm very anti-censorship and against laws that could be used against freedoms of expression as they tend to end up being in areas it was never intended. Anti-terrorism laws have been abused to a massive extent by the police and authorities in general. I would hate to see our press, for all its failings, end up with 100s of restrictions and regulations as a result of Levenson. We would end up losing far more than we would gain.

SardineQueen Sun 22-Jul-12 14:18:07

"Sitting in your office clothes thinking about work doesn't really put one in the mood to watch hardcore porn, I imagine most people would wait until they got home where they could relax more."

People sit in their office clothes looking at softcore porn. I think maybe you over-estimate people. It should not be socially acceptable to look at softcore porn on a train when you are sitting next to young girls, but it is. Also acceptable to eye them lasciviously while perusing the soft porn. if page 3 were allowed to show harder images I do not imagine for a second that the behaviour of these people would change.

SardineQueen Sun 22-Jul-12 14:18:55

hmm so what is your 5 point plan for quickly putting an end to page 3 then?

HmmThinkingAboutIt Sun 22-Jul-12 14:29:09

I don't believe you can change attitudes quickly. I think it takes time... thats half the problem. You want quick fixes and I think quick fixes are rarely fixes.

SardineQueen Sun 22-Jul-12 14:59:28

Well banning page 3 and soft porn in all daily papers would be a good start.

you will be waiting forever if you want attitudes to change first - over the last couple of decades more explicit images in public have become more acceptable, not less. Without legislation things tend to the lowest common denominator. that is why the press is being looked at, that is why we have laws. To think that laws need to apply to everything in life, to curb the worst of human nature, but not to soft porn which is detrimental to women and children, is naive at best and disingenuous as worst.

24HourPARDyPerson Sun 22-Jul-12 16:24:49

What about the argument that children shouldn't be exposed to adult sexuality, then? Which is the anti-titillation in public stance.

Banning pg3 won't stop people fancying each other. I'm pretty certain the species will survive without it.

Zaraa Sun 22-Jul-12 19:08:20

slug Thu 09-Feb-12 11:32:24
"We cannot just ban page 3 or any other image or text that is offensive to some but not the majority of the public."
Last time I looked women were 52% of the population. That makes us the majority.

Just noticed this post and wanted to point out feminists do not speak on behalf of all women. Women may be 52% or whatever of the population, but noone has the right to say "it offends all women". The models themselves (and likely their families and friends) probably won't object to page 3. There are plenty of "sex positive" feminists who do not advocate banning page 3. Then of course there are plenty of women who don't really care about page 3- women who aren't so easily offended as feminists (or simply have bigger things to worry about).

Zaraa Sun 22-Jul-12 19:13:12

What about the argument that children shouldn't be exposed to adult sexuality

To answer this I would say we should stop being so prudish about the female body and acting like breasts have to sexual (which they don't). If parents don't fuss over nudity neither will children. Next time you watch TV and there is an accidental female nipple slip for half a second don't jam the phonelines with complaints just let it go- it's only a nipple so what it's not going to harm your children.

IMO it's not nudity itself which harms kids- it's all the fuss made by their parents which gives them an unhealthy attitude.

Nothing quite normalises the objectification of women like page 3. I'd love to see it gone. It's nowt to do with freedom of the press because 'women have tits' is hardly news.

I personally think its about wider issues in the press - ones that women themselves buy into with celebrity culture, beauty products & bitching about other women rather than a pair of tits.

I agree there are wider issues but I think rather than blaming women it's worth looking into why they buy into celebrity culture and policing each others' bodies. Internalised oppression is a handy concept here:

"Internalized oppression is not the cause of our mistreatment, it is the result of our mistreatment. It would not exist without the real external oppression that forms the social climate in which we exist.

Once oppression has been internalized, little force is needed to keep us submissive. We harbour inside ourselves the pain and the memories, the fears and the confusions, the negative self-images and the low expectations, turning them into weapons with which to re-injure ourselves, every day of our lives"

Page 3 is sexual. The only time women's breasts are allowed to be shown in public is if they are sexual. If you BF in public you have to do it 'discreetly', even if you're in the same fucking room as some bloke ogling page 3.

Leithlurker Sun 22-Jul-12 19:28:37

I also think those who would ban page three have not addressed the serious legal challenges that other women will bring up to and including the European court of human rights to be allowed to earn a living in a lawful and legitimate way. As well as the legal challenges brought by the freedom of speech advocates and the long list of people who would not support a ban because of the slippery slope argument.

If only we could solve issues by merely banning something then I suspect a whole raft of social issues would have been solved long ago. It is just not enough to say that something is bad, or good for that matter. Consider the parallel of banning people from using mobile phones when driving, a law that is widely flaunted and has a very low approval raing amongst the public. Is the law justified, hell yes it saves lives and should make people better drivers. In comparison when the enforcement of seatbelts was brought in it took some years for the law to be as widely observed as it is now, even more so once the majority of people saw the sense of it. I would suggest that the banning of page three will never have the majority backing that it deserves so it will never be brought in to being.

HesterBurnitall Sun 22-Jul-12 19:35:16

Breasts don't have to be sexual. Page 3 is all about sexualising breasts. Breasts are fab. Page 3 is porn.

There are some very, very convoluted defenses of page 3 in this thread.

EclecticShock Sun 22-Jul-12 19:40:43

Is wearing low cut tops sexualising breasts?

EclecticShock Sun 22-Jul-12 19:42:15

Breasts don't have to be sexual but they can be and there's nothing wrong with that. Why is sexualisation deemed to be a bad thing? Amongst consenting adults, it's quite typical.

EclecticShock Sun 22-Jul-12 19:43:48

Stimulating sexual desire is not a bad thing, IMO, please tell me why it is?

So with page 3, ban it and in a few years, public opinion will have caught up. Sounds good to me.

It's nothing like trying to ban cannabis. Page 3 is not controlled by some vast amorphous and ever changing international network of anonymous criminals. The Sun is a 'newspaper' with an owner and staff and it has a strong interest in obeying the law. It would be easy to ban page 3 and as someone very early in the thread pointed out, The Sun may even be grateful to be able to get rid of an embarrassing anachronism while blaming somebody else for depriving men of their breakfast wank-fodder.

The general public are not consenting adults in this situation. They haven't agreed to watching men consume porn and become aroused.

jellybeans Sun 22-Jul-12 20:02:15

Should be banned asap along with strip clubs.

EclecticShock Sun 22-Jul-12 20:02:38

You don't have to watch, they may not be getting aroused and people get aroused by all sorts of things every day... Are you going to ban women bending over in short skirts or people with sexy eyes. I think you are missing the point that getting aroused is subjective.

Huansagain Sun 22-Jul-12 20:04:34

Do men get aroused looking at Page 3?

I must admit in my unenlightened youth I used to buy The Sun, I can't imagine many men getting aroused by it.

SardineQueen Sun 22-Jul-12 20:18:49

I can only imagine that there are some people on this thread who have never been schoolgirls having their bodies ogled on public transport by some bloke who is enjoying page 3 at the same time.

SardineQueen Sun 22-Jul-12 20:22:33

The way some on this thread talk, you'd imagine that a woman going around the underground offering male passengers the chance to look at her tits would be no problem.

I genuinely don't understand the way some people think of this. The talk about consenting adults, so what etc. Sex and porn are usually kept for consenting adults in private. Page 3 is soft porn for selfish adults in public, and they don't care about the fact they are inflicting it on others.

SardineQueen Sun 22-Jul-12 20:23:10

And of course sometimes are keen to enjoy page 3 in direct and obvious relation to the actual real girls and women around him.

It's shit.

Women bend over to pick things up. People with 'sexy' eyes use them for seeing things with. What other function does page 3 serve except a sexual one?

Also, women bending over and people with eyes are people, whereas page 3 is a cultural product.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/17586

EclecticShock Sun 22-Jul-12 20:34:51

I really hope there are better arguments put forward to ban it, otherwise, there's not a hope in hell. It's not just bout the petition, you actually need a coherent argument about why it negatively impacts society. I haven't heard any yet.

EclecticShock Sun 22-Jul-12 20:36:10

Yes. I'm not sure p3 has quite the sexual impact being portrayed on this thread.

EclecticShock Sun 22-Jul-12 20:39:12

Ban p3... Women won't be any better off. Men will still find something to get arouse by in public while sitting next to your daughters, some of them will still ogle yoou daughters. Completely the wrong approach IMO.

SardineQueen Sun 22-Jul-12 20:39:44

You understand that it is illegal to show "harder" images in papers, which is why they don't?

If you are for freedom of the press and imagination and whotnot do you want those bans lifted?

Or is it that you personally have no problem with the line between what is OK and what is legally obscene is in the right place for you, and so you couldn't give a monkeys if (lots and lots) of other people want it moved.

EclecticShock Sun 22-Jul-12 20:40:57

If anything some men will say, don't wear certain clothes if you don want to be looked at... They banned p3 didn't they?.... It's so wrong to ask women to change their behaviour in this way when your issue lies with society as a whole.

HmmThinkingAboutIt Sun 22-Jul-12 20:43:09

SQ which is precisely why CONSENSUS is so important here. Rather than having a ban IMPOSED. Which is why I favour other methods to bring about the end of P3.

SardineQueen Sun 22-Jul-12 20:43:22

eclectic if a man looks at you, he looks at you. Sometimes he might stare a bit. You can guess at what he's thinking, but still.

if a man is sitting looking at page 3, then staring at your tits, then at page 3, then at your tits, it is kind of obvious, and many pubescent girls find it embarassing and upsetting when it happens.

I am genuinely surprised that there are girls who didn't feel embarrassed about seeing men looking at page 3 - when they were 10 or 11 - and didn't feel embarrassed and upset/angry at being ogled in that way when they were a little older. It's not on and it happens all the time.

Get rid of page 3 and the problem is gone. The men will still look, but maybe less as they won't have that prompt, and the girls are less likely to get upset as they haven't got a big signpost pointing out how they are being objectified.

SardineQueen Sun 22-Jul-12 20:43:52

eclectic men will look no matter what you wear.

SardineQueen Sun 22-Jul-12 20:44:38

Often school uniform.
I find your comment strange.
Do you think men only look at women and girls who are dressed in a certain way? How naive and distanced from reality.

EclecticShock Sun 22-Jul-12 20:45:00

Lots of other people, I.e the majority of the population don't feel the need to ban it. All my questions are being ignored. You can't ban something because "some" people don't agree with it. No one has responded to the pouts about where it stops. If you've been personally badly affected by p3, I'm very sorry. I've been personally badly affected by alcoholism but I don't argue to ban alcohol, I argue for people to be educated as to the dangers of alcohol.

Can you not see that?

EclecticShock Sun 22-Jul-12 20:47:02

Sq, I don't get your post about school uniform, was it directed at me?

SardineQueen Sun 22-Jul-12 20:47:40

How do you know the majority don't want it banned?

If the people who are negatively affected want it banned, shouldn't their voice count for more than for people who aren't negatively affected?

And you haven't answered my questions.
If you are all for freedom of the press then why not pants off, legs spread, toys and so on. Do you also have no problems with those images in a daily paper.

EclecticShock Sun 22-Jul-12 20:53:45

Sq, of there was that much outrage, it wouldn't be a best selling paper. Secondly, as I have said, I don't think p3 is best placed on newspapers. Hard core porn is a different subject matter and involves things that people would not see unless they were consenting. Breasts are not equivalent to hard core porn. Everyone has seen breasts and will continue to see them, they are not the same as toys, vaginas and penis's. Why are we debating the difference between breasts on show and hard core porn? Nonsensical, IMO. However, breasts on show, tummies on show, thighs on show, eyes, legs, fashion models...These are comparable IMO.

SardineQueen Sun 22-Jul-12 20:56:07

Eh?

My children see me with my pants off every day, and DHs penis. So why is it different? According to the ideas of some on this thread there is no difference between me walking around at home with my pants off, and a girl on page 3 with her pants off sitting with her legs spread in a porn-stylee. No difference at all.

EclecticShock Sun 22-Jul-12 20:56:27

Go ahead with a campaign, it will be a small and damaging victory, of it works IMO.

SardineQueen Sun 22-Jul-12 20:57:23

In your view bans don't work.
Therefore it should not be banned to show harder pictures in daily papers.
Isn't that correct.

You are not responding to any of my points.

EclecticShock Sun 22-Jul-12 20:58:45

Sq, you're only willing to argue from your own viewpoint. I'm trying to put aside my viewpoint and argue from a wider perspective. Anyway, not really getting us anywhere but it upsets me immensely that you are trying to take away women's rights and people's rights for that matter when no harm of any evidence is being caused.

EclecticShock Sun 22-Jul-12 21:00:17

That's not correct sq. my point is the detrimental effect of p3 is not enough to ban it. The detrimental effects of hardcore porn in a newspaper would be IMO.

HmmThinkingAboutIt Sun 22-Jul-12 21:00:35

SQ, ES already gave you an explanation in her views about alcohol BEFORE you asked
If the people who are negatively affected want it banned, shouldn't their voice count for more than for people who aren't negatively affected?

And in response to How do you know the majority don't want it banned? she replied by saying it was the UK's best selling newspaper.

So she has replied. You just didn't deem her responses good enough.

SardineQueen Sun 22-Jul-12 22:34:30

Eclectic has said repeatedly that she thinks a daily paper is no place for soft porn.

So I find her argumentative stance peculiar.

SardineQueen Sun 22-Jul-12 22:35:18

eclectic tell me what women's rights and what people's rights are removed by the banning of softcore porn in daily newspapers.

SardineQueen Sun 22-Jul-12 22:36:32

alcohol?

SardineQueen Sun 22-Jul-12 22:36:57

"SQ, ES already gave you an explanation in her views about alcohol BEFORE you asked "

I don't understand the point there.

Zaraa Mon 23-Jul-12 00:20:46

* jellybeans Sun 22-Jul-12 20:02:15*
Should be banned asap along with strip clubs.

Why? Again I ask what happened to "my body my choice"? Why take the choice away from women who choose to become strippers? What gives feminists the right to make the choice for women who aren't feminists?

Is this feminist logic- women should have freedom to whatever they want but only as long as feminists approve of it??

As long as strippers and their customers are all consenting adults I don't see a problem. Again if you did ban it you would just succeed in driving the industry underground- organised crime would soar and things could become nasty and dangerous (same reason I believe prostitution should remain legal in the UK).

Anyway back to page 3..

Zaraa Mon 23-Jul-12 00:24:40

eclectic tell me what women's rights and what people's rights are removed by the banning of softcore porn in daily newspapers.

How about the models, make up artists, photographers etc who make their wages from it? Should we tell them all they're all out of a job just because a group of feminists don't like what they do?

culturemulcher Mon 23-Jul-12 08:47:58

Joining the debate late and haven't read the whole thread, but I couldn't leave without adding a 'YES' to the ban page 3 campaign.

I love the fact that my DS asked me the other day what cigarettes are. I'd love my DC to be asking in a few years time 'What was Page 3?'.

jellybeans Mon 23-Jul-12 09:45:07

Zaraa because of the exploitation and the sexualisation of women. Also the effect on young girls. We can't have gender equality without banning this. Your argument that one can do what they want doesn't hold up. If one can do what they want with their body then why not drugs, walk naked down the street in public etc ... It's about the wider societal effect not just one stripper doing what they like (which in many cases they may have had no choice).

Leithlurker Mon 23-Jul-12 10:05:05

Jellybean, so how by banning something by an imposition of one groups will on another groups freedom of choice do you achieve equality?

You want to reset society and to take out the sexualisation of women and girls, right thats a whole different idea as it is the nature of society, the way all people not just men but women too think about the female body, sex, and body image. Page three is a red herring, a waste of time and energy, papers would not print it if no one was bothered, they are printing it ti exactly play up to all the aspects we do not like not because they are forcing those values on others but because our society reinforces those values. Banning page three will make no difference to those values as sexist and lewd images will continue to be seen in public spaces. Music videos for example, I take it you and others want Madonna, ryanna, etc banned as their over sexualised images are much more problematic than a still photo in a paper.

The pro banners have still not answered how they will deal with the fall out from the many women some of whom will lose an income from such a ban, who will camapign against a ban and will split feminism and women generally apart leaving the door wide open for more sever exploitation.

Zaraa Mon 23-Jul-12 10:12:57

Of course we can have gender equality without being prudes and banning anything with a bare female nipple. Just don't buy The Sun it really is that simple. You don't have to love page 3 models or what they do but you can respect their choice and accept the fact they have a different view of what "exploitation" means to what you take it to mean.

I don't know about naked but I believe women should be allowed to go topless anywhere a man can. It's inequality IMO how a man can take his top off when he's hot yet a woman can't. Drugs are a controversial issue, but it appears countries with a relaxed stance on drugs (eg Holland, Portugal) actually have less crime and less addicts than countries with tough laws, makes you wonder doesn't it?

I agree some strippers may have been forced into it, but that's not something that can be solved by passing laws. At least if strip clubs are legal its in the open and police have a better idea what's going on.

24HourPARDyPerson Mon 23-Jul-12 10:45:42

'*What about the argument that children shouldn't be exposed to adult sexuality*

To answer this I would say we should stop being so prudish about the female body and acting like breasts have to sexual (which they don't). If parents don't fuss over nudity neither will children. Next time you watch TV and there is an accidental female nipple slip for half a second don't jam the phonelines with complaints just let it go- it's only a nipple so what it's not going to harm your children.

IMO it's not nudity itself which harms kids- it's all the fuss made by their parents which gives them an unhealthy attitude.'

This doesn't make sense.

I agree with you that nudity is not the same as sex. But then you seem to be saying that Pg3 is just nudity and it's the hysterical prudish feminists that are guilty of sexualising it? Do you really believe that or are you just in a bit of a muddle in your haste to defend it?

Stimulating sexual desire is one thing. But the question I asked, in bold above, is whether it's appropriate to expose children to adult sexuality and desires. I don't think so and that's one of the reasons why I am against the ubiquity of porn from the soft end of pg 3 all the way along the spectrum.

Can anyone present an argument that it's ok for children and unconsenting adults to be deliberately exposed to deliberate sexual arousal? I know people get aroused all the time by different things, it's the deliberate flaunting of it in public that's discomfiting, in my view. It's unnecessary. One part of the population may marginally lose out by a ban (but there are alternatives for them), and another part of the population will gain. On balance, getting rid has more positives than maintaining the status quo.

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 11:24:13

I think the answer to that, pardy, is that they don't give a monkeys about children being exposed to porn, and girls and women feeling demeaned and upset by having it thrust in their faces, sometimes with leering thrown in for good measure.

It is of no consequence to them, they don't care, and so they don't know how to respond to it.

The idea that page 3 is nothing to do with sex and is just a bit of nudity is rubbish. If that were true and it were simply a case of putting the human form to admire it, then why not men and children as well.

In fact that is a good question. if it is not about sex, then why aren't there sometimes pictures of naked children on page 3? Naked children are beautiful. My 3yo is currently in the garden starkers and she looks lovely, all unblemished skin and cuteness. And their little bottoms are so sweet smile

HmmThinkingAboutIt Mon 23-Jul-12 11:34:21

Yeah well, you have people who would ban children running around on the beach or the back garden naked too if they could SQ as they see that as sexual and is about protecting the children.

I don't think this world is perfect. I also don't think its helpful to wrap children up in cotton wool and insist on protecting them from every single thing. I don't see p3 as being very much worse than a lot of images with 3 inches of material that cover a nipple and are still designed to be leered at. They are just as sexual, if not more so. But because a nipple is showing its 'porn' and therefore instantly more disgusting and 'inflicts damage' on children and we should all be shocked horrified and write to our local MP demanding a ban.

The issue is a wider one. P3 doesn't bother me any more than other images out there just because nipples are visible.

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 11:37:31

Those people aside - in your view it would be a good thing to have naked childre featured on page 3? And old women and teenage boys? If it's all just about admiring the human form.

Or have you now decided that page 3 is sexually provocative, and that is the point of it?

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 11:38:11

Reading your post again it seems you would be keen to have children, teenage boys and so on on page 3.

Interesting.

HmmThinkingAboutIt Mon 23-Jul-12 11:38:38

No, I just think that its not any better or worse than anything else out there. Which has always been my point.

The only reason you want it banned is because it has nipples imho.

HmmThinkingAboutIt Mon 23-Jul-12 11:39:46

No SQ. You just want to misquote, ignore and not see inherent problems with bans as that suits your agenda. Your prerogative.

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 11:44:51

Oh so do you think page 3 is a sexualised image now? I thought your argument was it was just a bit of nudity.

And I have said about a trillion times why I want page 3 banned. And it has nothing to do with "a bit of nipple" and everything to do with the fact that a highly sexualised image of a nearly naked young woman appears every day in britain's best selling paper, and that children and young women and older women then have a bad time directly (being leered at) or indirectly (sitting next to someone who is perusing it). It is not a nice feeling being a pubescent girl sitting on a bus next to a man who is ogling page 3 in a drawn - out manner.

And if you are going to now say that it should be the responsibilty of children not to feel embarassed when they are confronted with adult sexuality then you are out of line.

24HourPARDyPerson Mon 23-Jul-12 11:51:20

nice summation SQ.

And Hmm saying other stuff is as bad is not to say there's no problem. It just means it's a big problem! which, if you want it solved, means you must do it piece by piece.

HmmThinkingAboutIt Mon 23-Jul-12 11:58:05

No SQ. Stop putting words in mouth. I'm responding to your repeated point about that.

Pointless to talk to you anyway as you don't understand why and how regulations can be misused and are vastly counter productive anyway as you are so fixated on the 'good stuff' you aren't even prepared to open your mind to the side effects and bad stuff.

HmmThinkingAboutIt Mon 23-Jul-12 11:59:07

24Hour, I don't disagree with that.

I just think you have to tackle the problem in the right way, to achieve a goal. Not to ban this or ban that. I don't think it actually solves anything.

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 12:00:37

hardcore porn is banned in daily newspapers.
do you think that is a bad thing.
given that you believe banning is a bad thing.

HmmThinkingAboutIt Mon 23-Jul-12 12:02:31

Oh fgs.

NO point. Really NO point.

24HourPARDyPerson Mon 23-Jul-12 12:02:37

Well it would solve the immediate problem of people feeling uncomfortable and creeped out by people perusing soft porn in public.

But you are right it wouldn't solve the deeper issues of what the female body signifies to people in general, and notions of it's worth and purpose, or the quite fixed ideas of a womans' place. But I think it would be a step in the right direction, all the same.

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 12:09:28

What 24hour said.

uncomfortable and creeped out = excellent way of putting it
and the people who feel that way are often female children

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Mon 23-Jul-12 12:28:40

I agree that there are more sexualised pictures and images from music videos etc where nipples are covered. In the main, these are of women and objectify women. It's not either/or - I'm not keen on the objectification there too.

Equally, a paper could publish a topless or even a full frontal image that wasn't sexual (I'm thinking of the Naked Rambler as an example and any female equivalent) because the nudity would be the story, not the sexuality. A breast feeding or breast cancer story that showed a breast picture would not be sexual, it would be illustrative.

That's how I see the difference.

SkaterGrrrrl Mon 23-Jul-12 12:53:28

"Why is it so important to stop men desiring women?"

Page 3 and pornography across the spectrum from soft to hardcore has very little to do with real desire.

Two adults who desire each other and make love - fantastic. Dont know a feminist alive who has a problem with this. Porn is about the commodification of sex, turning women into objects and commercialising something beautiful. It is a million miles away from genuine, human desire.

Leithlurker Mon 23-Jul-12 16:38:35

Look lets get this clear shall we, the ban people argue cause and effect. Man looks at page three, then goes on to leer at any woman in his immediate vicinity. So how would not having page three stop men leering at women< uniformed young girls, women of all ages and sizes? The visual stimulus of a near naked woman is not the stimulus that provides the context of all women being available and open to ransom sexual encounters. Those messages are sent way before and are buried much deeper than page three. Removing page three would achieve nothing, in fact I doubt that any woman would notice that the absence of page three will reduce in any shape or form the way they feel whilst travelling on public transport and being leered at by men.

HmmThinkingAboutIt Mon 23-Jul-12 16:41:42

Cultural changes need wide spread cultural consensus and support that takes a long time to achieve. Thats what we are looking at here.

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 17:29:06

Have you ever been a schoolgirl with a man looking at page 3 and then looking at your breasts on the tube, leithlurker?

the presence of the picture in the paper makes it 10 x worse. Without it you can imagine that he is just gazing in that general direction, when he is looking from one to the other it is just much much worse.

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 17:30:29

And looking at page 3 does, i'm sure, turn a man's brain to thoughts of breasts and sex an young women without any clothes on in a way that an article on, say, the price of milk, doesn't.

Are we to believe that looking at page 3 does not make men think about breasts?

Leithlurker Mon 23-Jul-12 17:47:42

Considering that any man who wanted to, could be looking at the video of Britney spears in her sexually suggestive if not provocative school girls out fit on his phone or other mobile device I think I would be 100x more uncomfortable with that if I were a schoolgirl on a tube. Which leads me to ask sq why are you obsessed with page three< page three is so old tech it is hardly the most offensive thing that men could be looking at? If your clinging on to it's iconic status as a target for feminism I think again you need to re-examine what it is your trying to get rid of! Is it the message or the medium that the message is in? 20 years ago page three was relevant but now a man can watch anything he likes on his mobile phone including hardcore porn. He could be doing that whilst sitting next to or opposite a young woman, is that not worse? So you ban page three but still have music, hard core, soft core, graphic novels, advertising in and all around public spaces often with women wearing not much less than the page three models. I seriously think you need to let go of page three as a lost battle and put your efforts in to fighting the nature or should I say the root of the problem which has not and will not change, the way women are portrayer, the sexualised way that the female body is used, the status of women as objects not humans.

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 17:54:34

I'm not obsessed with page 3.
I simply dislike it intensely and would like to see the back of it.

I have never seen a man sitting on the tube looking at hardcore porn in any format. I have seen men every day looking at page 3 - the reason for this is that it is in a daily newspaper, the most popular one in the UK. i have only seen men looking at nuts type magazines a couple of times - it seems there is a general rule amongst men about what is acceptable in public and page 3 is fine and harder pictures / videos are not.

you haven't answered the question about "Have you ever been a schoolgirl with a man looking at page 3 and then looking at your breasts on the tube, leithlurker? " Has it happened to you? How did you feel? If it hasn't happened to you, can you remember back to when you were say 14 and how you would have felt with a man looking between nearly naked sexual images and your body?

Leithlurker Mon 23-Jul-12 18:01:41

I would say it takes very little for a man to think about breasts, seeing them I would agree is a good way to start him thinking about breasts. So what? Do you see many men having had the thought of breasts put in to their minds by any media, start salivating and rubbing themselves? I think not, so your assumption is that they start mentally having sex with any woman that they look at becouse of seeing a pair of tits in the paper. Now you may be right the majority of men may very well do exactly that but unless you can see inside the heads of men and know what they are thinking you can NEVER know for sure. But let's go with your idea that men do see women as sex objects and nothing else and the sight of breasts is all it needs for men to mentally entertain the thought of having sex with a complete stranger. Draw for me the line between fantasy, or daydreaming, and objectification. My line would not centre round if they had a copy of the sun in their hands, pockets, briefcase. It would be that a man would assume by the fact that they wanted to have sex with a strange woman that he could. As someone else said to fantasise about having sex with a fully willing and actively participating partner is different from thing than staring at a women obviousy salivating and rubbing his thighes.

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 18:06:56

Are you saying that women and girls do not know when they are being leered at?
Really?
Are you saying that if a man is looking at page 3 and then the chest of the girl sitting next to him, and then the paper, and then her chest, and pressing his leg up against her, that if she feels that he is leering at her she is likely to be wrong?
Really?

And you still haven't said how you have felt when this has happened to you. When you were a girl you must have had some kind of unwelcome attention - how did it make you feel? The feelings are generally embarrassment, confusion, fear, anger, intimidation, upset. What feelings did you feel?

Leithlurker Mon 23-Jul-12 18:12:52

I did not answer you as I supposed you would have remembered that I am a male, I have made no secrete of that in the many threads I have participated in. The fact that you have not observed men looking ta videos that contain sexually more explicit material whilst in public is no kind of indication that they do not. Indeed it is probably much easier to look at a small handheld device with headphones attached unobtrusively than it is to look at a paper which is a much more public thing to do given the size of the page and the sound of the pages being turned. We also seem to be focused on public transport but any public space, park, courtyard, beach, offers much more personal space for those who want to use mobile devices to view their choice privately with out anyone else knowing what it is they are looking at. If we are only saying that it is the medium of the printed page that turns men in to leering and ogling beasts, I think you need to go back to basics

NigellasGuest Mon 23-Jul-12 18:22:50

you need to understand that by having P3, the implication is that this is generally acceptable.
which in turn is NOT ok.

whereas looking at a "small handheld device with headphones attached unobtrusively" by definition implies that the weirdo person watching handheld device knows that this in a generally unacceptable activity.

Understand now?

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 18:32:29

Oh right so actually you have no idea how it feels to be a 9yo girl on a bus next to a man ogling page 3, or a 14 year old girl who is being eyed up by a man who is also looking at that page on the paper.

If someone is looking at something and no-one else can see it then that's different to someone looking at something and everyone can see it. A 9yo is not going to feel upset at sitting next to someone minding their own business with a device that they can't see, are they.

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 18:33:35

I mean seriously if you are a bloke, how can you possibly have any idea how these things make girls and women feel?

What a joke.

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 18:36:51

Like men are usually shocked to hear at the level of casual sexual harrassment the average woman experiences in the UK in her lifetime. Yeah well newsflash of course they aren't doing it to you, or when they think it might cause trouble. I bet most young teenage boys would feel pretty terrified if a burly man was looking at a gay porn mag on the tube and looking lasciviously at the young man's groin, bum, thighs etc. That would be unacceptabe. But when it's page 3 and a yougn teenage girl on the receiving end it's fine - in fact it's more than fine it's a bloody institution.

Leithlurker Mon 23-Jul-12 18:53:42

Nigeella, why cross out the word weirdo that's obviously what you feel men who look at page 3 are? Weirdo or not you are right that we have made the women s bodies sexualised and commercialised. Society has promoted the idea that women are nothing more than bits of meet to be judged by how attractive they are, or how available they are. Weirdos and others do not need page three to get that message loud and clear that women are sex objects, it is all around is in every facet of our culture and society. For you to say that we should only be banning things that others can see as opposed to things that are unobtrusive but perhaps much more exploitative makes no sense. You would by that logic ban page three but leave the massive billboards of women in underwear selling cars, or pepsi? My argument for those that need reminded is that dismantling the problem is about hearts and minds. The same hearts and minds that will baulk at a ban because fundamentally humans hate to be told what to do.

Leithlurker Mon 23-Jul-12 18:57:24

Sq shall I tell you of me the rape survivor, my sister who was abused by a starnger. Would you care for the details of how a man forced me to touch his penis in a gents toilet, or the fact that as a result of a pretty obvious disability I have been starred at all my life. Or will I just leave you to make stupid and crass assumptions as well as ignorant ant ranting posts about a problem you want to solve by fundamentally ignoring the cause.

StewieGriffinsMom Mon 23-Jul-12 18:58:57

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Leithlurker Mon 23-Jul-12 19:00:27

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

StewieGriffinsMom Mon 23-Jul-12 19:00:40

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

StewieGriffinsMom Mon 23-Jul-12 19:01:43

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Leithlurker Mon 23-Jul-12 19:05:44

I made your point clear that silencing is what was happening to me not what I was involved in. But again pulling out your own disability to trump my disability was another attempt at silencing me was it not, oh and have you read the whole thread?

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 19:15:36

So what?
you think that because you have experienced some of the things that girls and women experience, you have the right to tell them how they should feel and what is OK and what is not?
How would you have felt after that assault at a big man leering at a gay porn mag and then at you on the tube. Comfortable? Happy? No problems? I am guessing NOT but still it is fine for it to happen to girls. Right you are.

StewieGriffinsMom Mon 23-Jul-12 19:17:51

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

EclecticShock Mon 23-Jul-12 19:33:06

Sq, you can't always dismiss male perspectives just like men can't dismiss female perspectives. Mind you, it seems your dismissing any perspective that doesn't align with yours. Oh well, it's only a debate after all. Luckily, we live in a democracy smile

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 19:45:15

Men do not have a "perspective" on what it feels like to be a girl or woman who is being ogled by a man who is also looking at page 3.

They just don't.

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 19:47:34

Men dismiss female perspectives all the time.
They have been doing it all over this thread.
you would think if in doubt, most people would follow the route of less harm. After all, men aren't going to suffer if they can't look at a pair of breasts every morning. Apparently not though. The right of girls and women to go about their business without men consuming porny images of women around them is simply unimportant next to what is apparently every man's right to look at a young woman's bare chest in public.

Leithlurker Mon 23-Jul-12 19:48:36

You really should do your home work Stew, feel free to fully and in context quote from this thread any part of what I have written that promotes the mainstream view of porn, although you do not define what that is I will allow you the leeway that you have created.

Here is a clue I have been on this thread from page one, Nothefullshing, I have stayed polite and reasoned through out. I have not just turned up like sq to rant about god knows what. Not just my view but the view of others as you will see from what other posters have said, they actually might be female I have no idea. I do not make any value judgements based on gender, apparently you do as I am a male I must watch porn. And I also must not allow women to have free speech. I think that was your attempt at heading me off at the pass btw the reference to free speech and how it is part of free speech to watch porn. Well sorry old stick but I was never heading down that pass, you are quite right we are far from being a country with free speech. However we do have human rights, your ban on page three would probably be overturned and thrown out at all levels national and international, not by me and other porn watching men. But by the women employed freely and of their own volition to pose, print, photograph, page 3. If not by them I would imagine liberty with that very nice woman Shami Shakribati will take a case, after all banning page 3 could lead to banning stories of implants exploding in womens breasts. Or stories about plastic surgery. Once you start banning things you are not in control of how that ban might be used, the moral right wing could seek an extension of your ban to only have fully clothed women in sensible tweeds pictured in print.

You know I really cannot be bothered your arguing for the sake of it, like others with sq I am fed up with people who have no interest in debating just in dogmatic narrowe views

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 19:52:32

confused you have not been on this thread from day 1, it is a zombie thread that was resurrected for who knows what purpose, by someone who has started and resurrected a few threads here in the fem section.

It started in February and you were not posting on it. Have ~you read the whole thread I wonder? And seen teh deletions and the people who joined specifically to defend the right of men to look at tits on the tube?

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 19:53:12

Oh I see you have namechanged. That makes more sense.

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 19:54:45

I am happy to have a dogmatic narrow view about softcore porn being viewed in public. There is no debate. And of course it would not be illegal to say that soft-core porn is not allowed in daily "family" newspapers.

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 19:55:53

"How would you have felt after that assault at a big man leering at a gay porn mag and then at you on the tube. Comfortable? Happy? No problems? I am guessing NOT but still it is fine for it to happen to girls. Right you are."

How would you have felt. Really. How would you feel. That feeling - you are saying it is fine for young girls to feel that way. Have a word with yourself, seriously.

HmmThinkingAboutIt Mon 23-Jul-12 20:01:05

Facebook has banned all nudity. This means that women who have tried to promote issues to do with mastectomy have had images removed and haven't been able to convey the message they want as a result. They remove images of breast feeding too.

Thats the problem. Censorship like this has a pattern of being misused. Common sense and the purpose for what it was intended are frequently forgotten or deliberately abused for aims that are completely at odds with the principles of the original law.

You don't have to be female to understand that. To belittle men for expressing views isn't on. Any view. Even if men do it to women. It doesn't solve anything to act like a child and say "Well he started it". As its not just about things like 'a lack of understanding of what its like to be leered at'.

EclecticShock Mon 23-Jul-12 20:11:06

Sq, you are doing the exact same thing by telling men and people in general how they feel or should feel when looking at p3?

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 20:12:30

Facebook has it wrong.
They should be banning sexualised nudity.
The US is notorious for it's bizarre attitude to nudity, sex, porn and so on. They are a highly religious nation.
the UK is a different kettle of fish.

EclecticShock Mon 23-Jul-12 20:13:53

Sq, what do you mean when you say "there is no debate"? Is that in your opinion or in a democracy?

PosieParker Mon 23-Jul-12 20:38:49

One could argue that page three being a constant in our society has made room for lads mags and strip clubs beings such a pita today.

PosieParker Mon 23-Jul-12 20:40:16

A flaccid penis isn't banned but I can't see those anywhere in the Sun.

PosieParker Mon 23-Jul-12 20:41:30

Sure
Y if men want to see the breasts of young women they could get a girlfriend?

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 21:04:04

Yeah posie but not all men can get girlfriends
some may be between girlfriends
some may be older and married but their wives are older too

there is a load of reasons why it is necessary for page 3 to exist. not all men have ready access to young woman's breasts for sexual tittilation. Imagine if they couldn't have a good look at some in the morning paper either? It would be awful!!!!

StewieGriffinsMom Mon 23-Jul-12 21:04:33

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SardineQueen Mon 23-Jul-12 21:07:06

They can though because don't they ban the former and not the latter?

PosieParker Mon 23-Jul-12 21:13:55

I wonder if the debate isn't taken seriously because the intelligencia see The Sun as a joke, it's a shame the readers don't.

PosieParker Mon 23-Jul-12 21:16:05

As a country we're so messed up regarding breasts, I bet the same twits that purchase the Sun moan about women 'whipping them out for their baby."

EclecticShock Mon 23-Jul-12 21:17:04

If it wasn't taken seriously, there wouldn't be so many posts. I take banning things very seriously from a feminist and wider human rights perspective

Slainte Mon 23-Jul-12 21:21:22

It was only recently I realised that page 3 still existed. I couldnt believe it, I thought it would've been banned decades ago!

PosieParker Mon 23-Jul-12 21:22:17

ES it's not taken seriously at all.......it's still here. People think it's harmless fun, especially in comparison to other media,

Hardwood Thu 22-Nov-12 18:45:04

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

"you cannot deny OTHER people's rights, which doesn't just include those directly connected with the infrastructure supporting page 3 itself, but all those people who do choose to buy and enjoy looking at the girls."

Sigh. I'm starting to lose the will to live.

Hardwood Thu 22-Nov-12 18:59:56

Well said, mrnobody808 - I've posted in a similar vain (page 13 currently 22/11/12)

Leithlurker Sat 24-Nov-12 19:27:43

Notgood: Bans are very rarely the single route to achieving anything. Why would those who would ban it not do other actions like organising a "boycotte the same as was put in place against south Africa and isreal?

Frans1980 Mon 26-Nov-12 01:57:32

"A flaccid penis isn't banned but I can't see those anywhere in the Sun."

We don't see genitilia of either sex- penises or vaginas. What's your point?

Frans1980 Mon 26-Nov-12 01:58:20

Anyway Nick Clegg at least doesn't support the "let's ban" campaign.

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/12/clegg-banning-sun-page-3-illiberal

StephanieDA Tue 27-Nov-12 09:56:45

Check out this petition, share on Facebook and Twitter and let's give ourselves a voice!

www.facebook.com/#!/NoMorePage3

www.change.org/petitions/dominic-mohan-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3

I also wrote a blog as a mother, you can find it here: www.communicatingwithkids.com/our-daughters/

Gigabot9k Sat 08-Dec-12 10:03:28

Why is it that a man can take his shirt off and no one bats an eyelid, but when a woman takes her top off, she is immediately labelled as intellectually and morally retarded and requires a third party to protect her?

I would find it deeply offensive if I chose to do Page 3 and then someone claimed I was somehow incapable of being responsible for my own decision.

I understand the whole argument about sexualisation of the female body, but that sexualisation only persists because women allow it to be seen as such.

For example. Miss World shows beautiful women who train and work hard to achieve their look but are dismissed as victims. Men on the other hand, can work equally hard to achieve muscle mass in Mr Universe, and they are applauded for their hard work.

Why the double standards?

How can women ever hope to be treated as equals if other women routinely treat them as victims or children?

emcwill74 Fri 14-Dec-12 15:32:09

To take your first point, the main point of difference, fairly obviously I would have thought, is that women have external genitalia on their chest, men do not. Whether that makes any objective sense is a slightly separate debate but suffice to say if I decided to walk down the street with my nips out it wouldn't be seen as acceptable, I'm not sure it's even totally legal? Even if you say you would have no issue with women walking about topless and not bat an eyelid you only have to listen to people who tell you how disgusting it is seeing women BFing in public to accept that there IS a difference in perception!

That aside, the other difference is that society contains a certain amount of structural sexism, which is dictated by and supports male privilege. Men have not had to fight to have their own bank accounts when married, to work outside the home, to be able to vote, to be taken seriously as just 'people'. Women meanwhile, are still represented daily in a national newspaper as the sum of their bodies, as a bit of harmless fun for male titillation, whilst a sub ed puts words in their mouths that they didn't say to back up the day's editorial stance. (We don't want to know what you actually think love, just get your tits out and smile to cheer the men of the country up.) Whilst page 3 may not be totally responsible in itself for rape and DV and women being sexually and verbally harassed, it contributes to a culture that presents women as sexual objects who want nothing more than to be admired by men. When the model on page 3 stands there smiling asking for men's approval of her tits (are they nice enough for you sir?) it's hardly surprising that the man shouting 'nice tits' at the woman over the road thinks he's handing out a nice compliment. So what if I shouted 'nice pecs' at some bloke I see over the road? Would that be the same? Of course not!

As to the victim thing: I think you have misunderstood the problem that people like me have with this culture. I don't take issue because I am worried for the poor models. Admittedly I don't like the fact that they are having the piss taken out of them in News in Briefs, but I totally accept they have chosen to do that. However, what does get me is that by extension the Sun is having a massive piss-take about the whole of the female population. I haven't chosen to model for page 3 and I don't want to be reduced to a pair of tits for men's entertainment, with the 2 scenarios that if I get them out I'm thick and if I don't I'm fat and ugly and prudish.

Finally, your comparison between Miss World and Mr Universe is not like with like. Miss World is/was (does it still exist??!!) a 'beauty' competition; Mr Universe is a body building sport event. I'm not remotely into body building so won't pretend to know anything about it but when those men take their clothes off to reveal their bodies it's not like some male models being voted on who is best looking - they have engineered a very specific physique using weights in combination with diet to, as you say, achieve muscle mass. Given women practise body building too (is it actually called that, I have no idea!) I assume there must be a comparable competition. But that is not Miss World. There is no male equivalent to that, just as there isn't with page 3. Because we have male privilege and structural sexism.

And for the record, I don't think a woman taking her top off makes her intellectually retarded, but the Sun would have you believe that. Why else make a joke out of attributing some words about Cicero or the large hadron collider to her? I don't think it makes her 'morally retarded' particularly either, but I still regret her choice to do so for reasons I've already stated.

reTardis Wed 19-Dec-12 15:29:48

Blatant sexism.

Frans1980 Sat 22-Dec-12 04:32:22

"The argument that the majority want it is just bull puckey in my very humble opinion."

IMHO the majority of the population don't "want it" the majority of the population don't care and have bigger problems to worry about.

"Exposing children to porn is recognised as a form of child abuse."

What about public breastfeeding should that be banned too if female nipples are so bad?

Frans1980 Sat 22-Dec-12 04:33:21

whoops those were comments from the first page I was replying to and not the most recent comments.

Frans1980 Sat 22-Dec-12 04:37:43

"Why is it that a man can take his shirt off and no one bats an eyelid, but when a woman takes her top off, she is immediately labelled as intellectually and morally retarded and requires a third party to protect her?"

Exactly. IMO prudishness isn't the way forward for society. For example countries in mainland Europe are more open and less prudish- they have topless beaches, sex shops and brothels all over the place yet they don't have the same problem with teenage pregnancy as the UK does and their rape stats aren't any higher.

The USA is even more prudish than the UK (they would never allow uncensored bare boobs in a newspaper) and they don't exactly have low rape stats to boast about.

emcwill74 Sat 22-Dec-12 12:19:32

A pic of a woman BFing is not porn and if the Sun wanted to put that on page 3 I for one would have no problem with it. Can't see that happening somehow.

It's been repeated ad nauseum that objection is based on sexism not prudery but you can't be bothered to see that and so take the usual line of attack. It's lazy and just an attempt to shut people up in order to keep a status quo that many people are deeply unhappy about. And if most people don't care then they wouldn't miss it.

As for the bigger problems to worry about: again, it has been said over and over that it is perfectly possible to care about lots of things. But easiest for you to trot out trite, meaningless, lazy clichés.

Finally even if page 3 doesn't cause rape that doesn't make it ok. Lots of things might not cause rape but are not ok. Racism may not cause rape but we don't devote a page of a daily newspaper to promoting it.

Frans1980 Sat 22-Dec-12 15:25:00

So why isn't it ok? Because you find it morally wrong? And that's reason to ban something?

emcwill74 Sat 22-Dec-12 16:07:03

It isn't OK because (as has been said again and again and again, as you must know since you resurrected another page 3 thread to ask why we were still 'banging on' [!] and that you had said it all before - yet still feel the need to come here and say it all again, apparently) page 3 is part of a culture that presents women as visual entertainment for men. The page 3 girl appears in a publication that shows men representing the government, clothed; playing professional sport, clothed; generally going around doing newsworthy things, clothed; meanwhile the largest pic of a woman in the paper (even after one won a gold medal at the Olympics) is one with her tits out for the lads and words put in her mouth to suggest she's a brainless bimbo. Meanwhile in daily life women are routinely judged on their looks in a way men never are. Read the Everyday Sexism blog or look at @EverydaySexism on twitter if you want to see what this culture looks like from a woman's point of view.

But of course you won't, or will insist there is no link.

Meanwhile you are no doubt reading this thinking I'm a fat, ugly, hairy, lesbian minger who can't get a real man, hates sex, and is jealous of pretty women's bigger tits.

And THAT is why it is wrong.

mrnobody808 Mon 24-Dec-12 18:19:09

I have known woman, in my 40 years, who enjoy looking at the naked female and male form, in anything from classical art work to Page 3 to hardcore pornography. I also known women who have absolutely no issues about posting photographs of themselves on social media wearing their bikinis or in front of a mirror with a new dress that enhances their bodies, and i have also known women too whom Page 3 is a complete irrelevance and has zero impact on their life. To imagine for one minute that all women and feminist think the same way as the women and feminist who would have Page 3 banned, is wrong and misrepresents the views of many.

It is also wrong to suggest that there is no sexually seductive imagery of men featured in newspapers, magazines, TV show, and adverts. One which springs to mind immediately is the image of Daniel Craig walking out the ocean with his swimming trunk on, in an image taken from one of his Bond movies.

Whether we like it or not, sex is part of what it is to be a human being. Men look at women, women look at men. Its a natural part of life. It doesn't matter if you are a glamour model, police officer, a secretary in an office, a politician, a mechanic or even just a person walking down the street. People will look at you and in their mind, make a decision as to whether they find you attractive or not and that is not sexism. That is just being a normal human being and banning Page 3 won't change that, one little bit.

emcwill74 Mon 24-Dec-12 22:58:17

It would be wrong to suggest there are no 'sexually seductive' images of men and I doubt anybody has. However, how often does the Daily Mail relentlessly focus on men's weight? Or are men in tabloid articles introduced as 'pretty blonde' or 'curvaceous brunette'? How often is a man told that the political opinion he holds is because he is fat/ugly/gay/jealous/insecure? To suggest we object to page 3 because we want men and women to stop fancying each other is pathetic. What I am sick to death of is my gender, one-sidedly, being presented as an object for men to wank over in a publication that is sold next to newspapers. And then this somehow used as proof, if I object, that I am jealous minger. Those people who look at women in the street to decide if they fancy them still will, but at least it isn't being drilled into the masses' brains that the admiration of random strange men is our primary objective and we welcome vocal judgement on our tits/face/size whenever those men feel the urge. Your reply suggests you haven't read a word of my earlier post, so again: read the Everyday Sexism blog and see the culture that page 3 feeds in to.

foodmoneywirk Thu 22-Aug-13 20:44:58

bump

GoldieMumbles Sun 10-Nov-13 19:00:39

Oooh, a Zombie thread. A quick resurrection is in order as we're just past Hallowe'en. I've ploughed through all of this thread and I've read again and again that there is no male equivalent to Page 3.

Actually that's wrong. I worked in a newsagent as a summer job in the early 1990s. I'd have been about 15 or so, I suppose. Maybe a little older. I distinctly remember at that time that The Sun also had a daily 'Page 7 Fella'. I haven't picked a copy up in 20 years so had no idea that there no longer is one. But it doesn't surprise me. We just don't go in for that sort of thing in the same way as men. So I guess it was tried and it failed.

As for my opinion? It didn't bother me then. It doesn't bother me now. I did used to blush when a certain handsome chap used to buy his copy of Mayfair, though.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now