Why ban page 3?

(583 Posts)
jackburton Tue 12-Feb-13 20:44:18

Hi, this is my first post, please be gentle smile . I'm looking for some thoughtful discussion on page 3 and the objectification of women, my wife suggested posting here. Any recommendations for good articles or feedback would be great.

My main issue with a lot of the traditional discussion on this issue is that there seems to be an implicit assumption of passivity and conformity in women that I can't really relate to as a man (or feel is present in many of the women in my life). I don't particularly worry about my son seeing body building or gay lifestyle magazines or other fetishised representations of men because I see them as part of a range of different types of lifestyle that he could adopt. I would think it quite alien that the occasional image of men in this way would significantly affect me (or him). In contrast, advertising and lifestyle magazines aimed at women seem to impose a very disturbing level of conformity and one that I feel would not be acceptable to most men. Frankly a lot of female targeted products seem to objectify (in the sense of judging purely by appearance) and be misogynist (in the sense of appearing to gain pleasure from and dwelling on the humiliation of women, particularly if their superficial appearance is non-conformist). In contrast most pornographic products aimed at men include a great diversity of female personality types, some are passive but many are not, Jordan being a classic example. They aren't treated as objects in the sense that their desire is critical to their appeal, sex dolls are relatively undesirable. While there is certainly some pornography and lifestyle discussions that appear to encourage pleasure in the suffering of women I feel this is in the minority with most magazines presenting their female models as stars who are the centre of attention and whose happiness and desire is an important part of their appeal.

My initial feelings about the campaign against page 3 is that these images are being judged assuming they were present in the kind of magazine targeted at women i.e. they are a conforming image and that they would lead to humiliation of those that didn't conform. I think the majority of male culture is not oppressive in that way. Personally I find mainstream female culture to be much more of a problem for women's liberation than these products. What am I missing?

ashesgirl Tue 12-Feb-13 21:22:45

No I don't think people who want to ban Page 3 are essentially worried about the images being very conforming.

I also don't think it is much about objecting to nudity per se.

This article sets out some very good reasons why. Page 3 is a very big statement that men are the default, that women are the 'other' - there to titillate and decorate ... for men.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/11/page-3-women-rupert-murdoch

ashesgirl Tue 12-Feb-13 21:23:24
AmandaPayne Tue 12-Feb-13 21:54:37

Have a think about reading Living Dolls by Natasha Walter. It's very interesting on the pornification of our culture. It's not necessarily about page three, but I'm not sure you can totally get page three without understanding the issues people have with porn itself. Because a lot of my issues with page three are about it putting porn into an acceptable public sphere. Why on earth is it acceptable for a man to be sitting next to me on a bus looking at soft porn?

jackburton Tue 12-Feb-13 22:07:48

Thank you, that article is very interesting. Here are my thoughts on it.

The article's main criticism seems to focus on the issue that whether clothed or not a page designed to make men aroused in such a 'normal' location as a newspaper is objectionable.

The article appears to use the term objectified to mean that a man is aroused by a woman's appearance (rather than say viewing them as an object, like a dishwasher). It seems that this is often assumed to be illegitimate, presumably because it is threatening, which is understandable to a point. I don't find the notion that women would find me arousing to be illegitimate or threatening, but I suppose I'm unlikely to be raped. Perhaps this sense of threat is the real issue and ban Page-3 is an indirect objection to that.

The author also objects to the asymmetric influence that male interests have within the newspaper. I am not a big Sun reader so I can't comment on that. For commercial reasons if nothing else I would imagine there would be reason to have somewhat balanced female centric content, or perhaps it is merely the paper choosing to preferentially target men with other publications targeting women to a greater extent.

The final paragraph objects to Page 3 on the grounds that the models are being manipulated into doing something objectionable for money. I'm not sure that this is clearly the case, many people feel manipulated into doing unpleasant and to some extent humiliating work it's not clear to me that the models in question experience this more than most workers. Much of the humiliation would seem to focus on the public perception of their profession which would have more to do with anti-page 3 campaigns than anything inherent in their role as objects of sexual desire.

FastidiaBlueberry Tue 12-Feb-13 22:09:13

One of the major problems with page 3 as ashes says, is the "othering" of women.

Women are presented as being objects there to titillate men. Not all women, only the ones who fit a very narrow view of beauty, but they set the standard for all women to aspire to and are presented for your consideration as objects.

Imagine if we had complete sexual equality and men considered women full human beings, so it would be unthinkable to present them habitually as objects to admire and assess and mark out of 10. But we still had racism. And black people were presented every single day in mainstream, daily newspapers, read by families and children, as pretty objects to admire and assess.

How do you think that would advance the cause of equality for black people? Do you think it would be harmless or helpful?

Page 3 happens in the context of a society which constantly presents men as the default human and women as something other than the default. It's both a symbol of objectification and a cause of the normalisation of objectification. If your kids can see it at the breakfast table, it's no big deal is it? But what is it teaching our daughters about what it means to be a woman? And what is it teaching our sons about women?

ashesgirl Tue 12-Feb-13 22:15:07

No it's not about making men's attraction to women's appearance illegitimate.

It's the promotion of attraction above all else that irks women.

As in, our main purpose in life is to exist and look good for men. Our brains, opinions, feelings are all secondary to that. That's what objectification is. It's reducing us to our appearance and our usefulness as a sexual object.

And then to say, men and women both read this newspaper. But essentially the men are the most important and that's why we're devote a whole page to pleasing them. It ignores the fact that more women read the Sun than men, (I believe). It's saying mens' needs and wants are paramount.

FastidiaBlueberry Tue 12-Feb-13 22:20:27

"I don't find the notion that women would find me arousing to be illegitimate or threatening, but I suppose I'm unlikely to be raped."

I think here what you're doing is referencing the "sauce for the goose" argument.

On the face of it, that looks reasonable, if you believe that men and women operate in conditions of equality on an even playing field.

In reality, because that doesn't happen, what it actually does is apply a false symmetry to a non-symmetrical situation.

(See, I managed to get that concept in! grin)

ashesgirl Tue 12-Feb-13 22:23:55

It's called false equivalence. You can't just reverse the situation to get a fair assessment.

littlemrssleepy Tue 12-Feb-13 22:26:25

I think the No More Page 3 campaign is quite clear in that they are not objecting to glamour / pornographic pictures per se. As they say, that is a far bigger argument. The argument is simply that it should not be in a national newspaper. Boobs aren't news, as the saying goes. Certainly in The Sun and others of its ilk, women are often only portrayed as semi naked, rated on attractiveness etc. Men are clothed, important, going about their business / career. The top 3 pictures of females are Kate and Pippa Middleton and Madeleine McCain - so we view females in relation to who they have married (or their sister has married for Christ sake!) and in a victim status. What kind of message does this give to our daughters?? On the basis of this I still wouldn't consider Murdoch's potential climb down on Page 3 - to be replaced with 'glamourous fashionatas' much of a victory - women will be still be judged on what they look like rather than what they can offer.

FastidiaBlueberry Tue 12-Feb-13 22:27:29

That's the one.

I just lurve it.

It's so succinct.

Because false equivalence is so normal and so prevalent that when you're presented with it, it's really hard to see how to argue against it because on the face of it, it's so reasonable.

Until you learn the term False Equivalence.

jackburton Tue 12-Feb-13 22:31:53

Thank you for your comments.

The concept of 'othering' is not something I am particularly familiar with. In male culture there seems to be a great diversity of roles and so any particular representation of a man e.g. a body builder, or a film star like Brad Pitt, doesn't seem particularly restricting or threatening. As a fairly nerdy guy I feel there is an anti-nerd minority who are comfortable publicly expressing disgust of nerdy people and behaviour. To that extent I am familiar with 'othering' but only in the more blatant and personal sense, a predominance of muscled action stars or sporting heroes doesn't threaten me significantly.

I think there are clearly underlying issues with the presentation of role models for women, the lack of meaningful female dialogue in movies would be a big issue for me, but I don't think Page 3, and pornography in general, is a significant limiting factor. I am disturbed by a lot of female lifestyle magazines and feel they are much more explicitly enforcing conformity and restricting the potential for female self expression. There also seems to be virtually no working class female role models other than Jordan, which I think is one of the reasons she is such an idol for many teenage girls. But I think this needs to be addressed by some more active 'myth-making' either fictional or real of more diverse set of heroic female personalities. Demonising glamour models, or worse, pitying them, seems to be undermining one of an already small set of aspirational female archetypes.

kim147 Tue 12-Feb-13 22:38:33

Banning page 3 will probably not reduce the number of images of near naked women in the Sun. They seem to not need any excuse to publish celebrity pictures in their paper.

Just like the DM sidebar of shame. It just seems a constant at the moment. I've just been watching Stargate. That passes the Bechel test well but they've introduced a new alien character. So she's got large breasts - and they are covered in the most skin tight costume you could imagine. Straight out of a sci-fi comic strip. You don't see any of the male characters like that.

AmandaPayne Tue 12-Feb-13 22:42:41

Glamour model as aspirational female archetypes. Honestly, read Living Dolls.

jackburton Tue 12-Feb-13 22:42:50

I think the false equivalence point is interesting. It sort of gets to the heart of the issue which I'm not sure the Page-3 ban really does. It makes it clear that the real issue is not necessarily that men should not have entertainment designed to arouse them but that women should not feel overly judged or expected to adopt a particular lifestyle. I think this is certainly true but I think it is much more strongly expressed within products aimed at women, rather than those aimed at men. Pornography for men is highly diverse and there is almost certainly a subfield of pornography that fetishises most female appearances, there is certainly no 'fashion' in the same way that it exists within female lifestyle magazines.

ashesgirl Tue 12-Feb-13 22:43:03

Perhaps the conformity angle means more to you as you can emphathise with it - if as you say, you don't quite conform with the alpha-male steretype.

And a lot of what concerns us largely boils down to empathy.

I see this all the time when some people don't get sexism, they simply cannot imagine the effects of it enough to care.

All the issues you raise above are legitimate concerns for feminism. Page 3 is an extension of them and feeds back into them. Sexism is made up of hundreds of subtle and not-so-subtle issues.

Ps. yes women oppress eachother in women's magazines all the time. I'm getting very interested in how women oppress eachother.

jackburton Tue 12-Feb-13 22:45:49

Thanks for suggesting the book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Living-Dolls-Return-Natasha-Walter/dp/1844087093) I've added it to my Amazon basket.

ashesgirl Tue 12-Feb-13 22:48:53

Oh and most feminists would not demonise the page 3 models - not at all.

AmandaPayne Tue 12-Feb-13 22:49:15

Pornography really, really isn't diverse. It's generally women with very similar body types who enjoy sex at the drop of a hat. No pubic hair, love anal. Often like it rough. This isn't a diverse range of sexual appearance.

You also aren't really getting the idea of feeling 'judged or expected to adopt a particular lifestyle'. It is not as simple as overt pressure on women to be a particular way. It is an invidious culture that will teach my daughter that, as she reaches puberty, her natural body (pubic hair, unarm hair, leg hair) is revolting. That her breasts should be larger, rounder, more pert. That, purely because she is a woman, it is ok to judge her appearance every single day. That even if she is prime minister, she will be assessed on her shoes and her suit as often as her policies.

ashesgirl Tue 12-Feb-13 22:50:38

Glamour models themselves are not the problem here.

It's the patriarchal system which demands and reinforces the 'need' for them.

FastidiaBlueberry Tue 12-Feb-13 22:53:59

I think the point about men having entertainment designed to arouse them, is that if it's necessary at all (really? Do men really need to be aroused at the breakfast table with their kids or on the train sitting next to a random woman?) is that a national daily newspaper is not the right venue for wank fodder. The normalisation of men's right to assess and be aroused by women in any given situation, even where it would be mind-blowingly, puzzlingly inappropriate (see breakfast table while pouring out the kids' cornflakes) is one of the problems of Page 3.

Also the idea that getting your tits out is a reasonable aspiration for working class girls, is hideous. I really don't see the benefit of a role model like that.

FastidiaBlueberry Tue 12-Feb-13 22:56:50

Yes I remember a big row here with Mary Beard, because she did a little talk in on Radio 4 in which she said that she didn't really mind about beauty pageants as Miss Venezuela just wasn't a problem for her anymore.

But for feminists, Miss Venezuela never was the problem. It's the context in which such a being as Miss Venezuela exists, in a way that Master Venezuela doesn't.

ashesgirl Tue 12-Feb-13 22:59:06

Was reading that a lot of the staff who write for the Sun are way too embarrassed to bring the paper home in case their kids see it. What does that say?

jackburton Tue 12-Feb-13 23:02:14

"Pornography really, really isn't diverse."

...

"It is an invidious culture that will teach my daughter that, as she reaches puberty, her natural body (pubic hair, unarm hair, leg hair) is revolting. That her breasts should be larger, rounder, more pert."

Although I'm tempted to post some links, I'm not sure that would be a good idea smile. I feel that the more mainstream the entertainment the more conformist its appearance is. Within more mainstream pornographic material there is a preference for exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics (Breasts, bottom etc) and appearances which enhance the difference between male and female (no hair) and those that imply strong sexual desire (enthusiasm for taboo sexual acts). I don't think this preference is necessarily harmful, just as I don't think a cultural preference for body shapes that imply power and strength are necessarily harmful, its mostly a matter of degree and the degree to which people feel free to adopt different lifestyles if they wish.

"That, purely because she is a woman, it is ok to judge her appearance every single day. That even if she is prime minister, she will be assessed on her shoes and her suit as often as her policies."

I know that this can be common in the press but I don't feel it so strongly within male entertainment. It is, however, widespread in female targeted journalism and advertising. It is something I am surprised there is not a larger backlash against.

ashesgirl Tue 12-Feb-13 23:03:11

Apparently Murdoch does not like Page 3 AT ALL on a personal level. Nor much of the other salacious stuff they print.

But he will always favour the business over any of his personal beliefs.

jackburton Tue 12-Feb-13 23:04:58

I think Jordan is an assertive and rich woman who I could not imagine tolerating being treated without respect. To that extent I think she is a role model and one that would be a credible male role model if the sexes were reversed.

ashesgirl Tue 12-Feb-13 23:07:07

So what about Nuts, Loaded, Zoo, Page 3? Unilad, the hundreds of facebook pages devoted to 'hotties'? How can you say you don't see it in male entertainment?

ashesgirl Tue 12-Feb-13 23:07:46

It's everywhere and anywhere, it's in all media.

AmandaPayne Tue 12-Feb-13 23:12:16

You are still talking in the language of freedom to adopt lifestyles one wishes. You are analysing this as how you would feel as a man in that situation. But you are just putting yourself in that position as a man, with all the cultural, structural advantages you have had your whole life. You aren't getting, at all, how it feels as a woman who has lived in a particular society, which tells you a million times by the age of 13 who you should be and how you should look.

"Differences which enhance the difference between male and female (no hair)." I am sorry, but that bollocks. You only think it enhances those differences because the cultural norm is for women to remove all that hair. If women weren't conditioned to groom a particular way, there would be no real difference in body hair around genitals and armpits. Legs, some difference but not enormous. Men would have beards. And isn't it funny how the burden falls on the 'other' to keep up all that grooming?

You really don't see how every industry judges women on their appearance? How the BAFTA were full of women shivering in dresses, and men all in nice warm matching suits. How the front covers gleefully analysed how the women dressed, and whether they passed or failed.

I think that the 'isn't advertising awful' argument is a bit of a red herring too. It's like saying why didn't black people stop complaining about segregation on buses until they had ridded the country of divided education. Bad, in different and similar ways.

FastidiaBlueberry Tue 12-Feb-13 23:13:54

Mmmm.

I think my little girl deserves better role models than just rich and assertive. That's not enough to be a role model IMO. Also I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that people like Jordan are good enough role models for working class girls, but let's be honest, no-one would dream of saying she's a good role model for a posh girl. Working class girls deserve decent role models too.

jackburton Tue 12-Feb-13 23:14:31

"So what about Nuts, Loaded, Zoo, Page 3? Unilad"

I see them as primarily providing images of women designed to arouse men. Unlike female magazines which basically have a hot-or-not section in every issue, most of these publications are only focusing on 'hot' they aren't there to be judged, just desired. There are some more misogynist magazines, I am aware that Maxim can be on occasion, where women may be judged unfavourably but my impression from the others was just pure lust. I would have found it quite disturbing to have images that I wasn't expected to find appealing in such a magazine. If there is ranking it is more like a ranking of sportsmen (or body builders). All are expected to be desirable and even to some extent imply that all women are sexually desirable.

AmandaPayne Tue 12-Feb-13 23:14:48

Right, so where is the equivalent male role model to Jordan? I am sure she demands respect, but she has made her money in nude modelling. Where is the man whose fame rests solely on his body - not his sporting prowess and his appearance. Not his singing talent and happening to have a good body. Just giving the appearance of being sexually available all the time.

That is so, absolutely, totally, not a role model for my daughter.

jackburton Tue 12-Feb-13 23:17:50

"You really don't see how every industry judges women on their appearance? How the BAFTA were full of women shivering in dresses, and men all in nice warm matching suits. How the front covers gleefully analysed how the women dressed, and whether they passed or failed."

I didn't mean to give that impression. I do see that and I am disgusted by it, but I don't feel that this culture is particularly due to male domination. I think the dresses are for the female viewers, men generally don't talk about them unless they are extremely pornographic.

AmandaPayne Tue 12-Feb-13 23:18:19

I honestly can't believe a person can read those magaziens and see them in those terms.

What about, from a quick glance at the home page of Nuts, "Assess my breasts 12,000 breasts, get assessing". No heads or bodies by the look of it. Just breasts.

Ranking of sportsmen? I think, if you really want to get this, you need to try and stop finding male equivalents of everything.

AmandaPayne Tue 12-Feb-13 23:20:10

Ah, the BAFTA stuff is 'for women'. Oh gosh, I am sure you mean well, but you are falling into every 'male privilege stereotype' going. Honestly, do some reading. You seem a nice guy and I'm sure you'd find it interesting. We're always happy to chat.

AmandaPayne Tue 12-Feb-13 23:20:21

Off to bed now.

FastidiaBlueberry Tue 12-Feb-13 23:20:52

Do you have a daughter jackburton?

If so, do you promote Jordan as a role model to her? Am very curious about that.

"I know that this can be common in the press but I don't feel it so strongly within male entertainment."

What d'you mean by male entertainment?

Nuts, Zoo, Playboy etc.?

Or mainstream publications like the Sun, the Times etc.? (Because if you look at the journalists, editors, directors, owners, they are mostly male. And IIRC they have more male readers than females - the Mail and The Telegraph used to have the highest female readership at about 50%, but newspapers are still overwhelmingly dominated by male readers.)

jackburton Tue 12-Feb-13 23:21:57

"Right, so where is the equivalent male role model to Jordan?"

I agree that this exact position doesn't exist, although it may do within the gay community. The barrier I think is the lack of women who are interested in buying pornographic material and thus the inability to get rich by being an object of lust. The closest I can imagine is a body building actor who can't act, like Steven Seagal or Dolph Lundgren.

jackburton Tue 12-Feb-13 23:23:48

Thanks Amanda, good talking to you.

FastidiaBlueberry Tue 12-Feb-13 23:24:01

jb why do you think our culture has developed in such a way that when you look at pictures of men and women together on the red carpet, they look as if they're in different climates, one half being half naked and the other half fully dressed?

I'm off to bed now but would also recommend a bit of reading. Kat Banyard, the Equality Illusion, is excellent "feminism for beginners" stuff (better than Caitlin Moran) and has a chapter about objectification in it.

AmandaPayne Tue 12-Feb-13 23:24:58

You were saying that you thought Jordan would be a credible role model if the sexes were reversed. I was pointing out that the sexes can't be reversed. There is no such equivalent. There is no such equivalent because of the patriarchal structure of society (not as limited as 'women don't buy porn). You can't separate one from the other and claim she'd be a role model if you reversed the sexes without reversing everything. In which case, erm, she wouldn't be a good role model.

ashesgirl Tue 12-Feb-13 23:25:03

Read about patriarchy, seriously. Because this is what produces a system where women's appearance is made ultra-important.

Is it any wonder that women become focused on this when appearance is such a valuable commodity in our society?

So rather than simply saying this is about women judging eachother, you need to look at the reasons and the system that bring this into play.

AmandaPayne Tue 12-Feb-13 23:25:30

Sorry, really off now. Night all. Yes, Kat Banyard also good.

jackburton Tue 12-Feb-13 23:26:42

"If so, do you promote Jordan as a role model to her? Am very curious about that."

That is a good point. I don't have a daughter but if I did I wouldn't promote her as a role model. But I also wouldn't promote Dolph Lundgren or Steven Seagal as a role model for my son either. I would promote role models that match my own values, rather selfishly, so they would be relateable to me and would have qualities I admired in myself.

kim147 Tue 12-Feb-13 23:27:07

"jb why do you think our culture has developed in such a way that when you look at pictures of men and women together on the red carpet, they look as if they're in different climates, one half being half naked and the other half fully dressed?"

I think the more worrying aspect about that is the people making the comments on the appearance seem to be other women. I'd also suspect the people clicking on the "sidebar of shame" or going to the celebrity articles obsessed with appearance are predominantly women.

Which raises a lot of questions - the main one being "why". Even though I suspect I already know the answer.

jackburton Tue 12-Feb-13 23:31:37

Thanks for all your comments this has been very enjoyable and very interesting. Off to bed myself. Will look into your references more. I'm very interested in learning more about the underlying causes of the emphasis on appearance, I hadn't thought of it as women maximising a valuable commodity because all others were taken.

Darkesteyes Wed 13-Feb-13 00:57:44

Unlike female magazines which basically have a hot-or-not section in every issue, most of these publications are only focusing on 'hot' they aren't there to be judged, just desired.

Um no they dont. Pick up a copy of Psychologies or Red sometime.
Not all mags aimed at females are like Heat or Grazia.

Darkesteyes Wed 13-Feb-13 01:00:56

And because of the pornification of our culture even older men are expressing disgust at pubic hair.
This actors reaction towards this writer was sickening IMO.

www.getthegloss.com/article/going-south-my-first-bikini-wax-in-20-years

sashh Wed 13-Feb-13 08:16:11

For me page 3 is about making it normal for a man to look at my breasts and think he has a right to. To think that I don't mind. That I actually might enjoy it.

It's then about him believing he has a right to touch them, in a public place such as a bus or train.

The first time I was groped I was about 11 or 12. I was in school uniform.

I had blond hair and large breasts. I was still a child. But page 3 identified me as being sexually available.

Have you ever been groped? Probably not.

I didn't choose my hair colouring or my genetic make up but I have been judged on it every day of my life.

Rhiannon86 Wed 13-Feb-13 09:08:30

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

sashh Wed 13-Feb-13 09:37:20

I'm not sure page 3 is responsible for men liking to look at women's breasts.

It's not the looking, it the belief they have a right to look.

namechangeguy Wed 13-Feb-13 10:12:49

I am going to post here as the OP is a man, and I am assuming he wont immediately want to jump up and down on my head.

I was wondering how lesbian lifestyle magazines might conduct themselves with regards to advertising, and the presentation of women. The only one I am aware of - and feel safe googling at work - is Diva, so I had a quick look. Top of the homepage is an advert by an underwear company. It shows the pelvic region of three models, wearing tight boxer shorts. No face, no body, no legs - just a tanned and toned midrift and tight undies. No muffin top, no fat, perfect skin.

I would expect the readership of a publication like Diva to be pretty politically aware, and to be conversant with many of the basic tenets of feminism. I would also expect their readership to be overwhelmingly female. So why would they run an advert like that? That is a genuine question, by the way. I don't know much about Diva, and it might not be a great example.

BubblesOfBliss Wed 13-Feb-13 12:56:12

Diva from what I've seen isn't particularly feminist. Its loyalty is more to gay/queer - ie- male-defined homosexuality over women as a group or female-defined homosexuality.

Although lots of feminists are lesbians and lots of lesbians are feminists, not all lesbians are feminists by a long shot!

namechangeguy Wed 13-Feb-13 13:08:44

Thanks for that BoB, although I am now more confused than ever! From Diva's website;

^DIVA HISTORY

DIVA was first published in March 1994 and remains the only monthly glossy newsstand magazine for lesbians and bi women in the UK.

THE DIVA MISSION

DIVA aims to deliver the best information, inspiration and online shopping to lesbians everywhere! We aim to provide excellence in innovation, information and entertainment for all our customers, and to make them feel individually special, and connected to our wider community. We provide the highest-quality magazine, retail experience and web presence possible for gay women and are dedicated to creating and evolving a magazine and a community to be proud of.^

Nothing about men in there. They claim to be all about women.

BubblesOfBliss Wed 13-Feb-13 13:11:00

I have to say - the OP makes me want to weep... It illustrates just how impervious to understanding women's reality male-privilege makes men - even when they appear to be genuinely seeking to understand.

Seeing how much it taxes male imagination to even get the vaguest hint of what forcibly and unavoidably slaps women in the face every minute of every day- it illustrates the profound inequality of it all. SO depressing sad

BubblesOfBliss Wed 13-Feb-13 13:15:03

gay women.... the subgroup. It use to be 'gays' and 'lesbians' - then the male generic as in every other area of life 'gay' to describe homosexuals as a group. Using 'gay women' implies that the rhetoric and understanding underpinning the ethos of the magazine comes from the male dominated gay community rather than from the woman-centred lesbian feminist community.

namechangeguy Wed 13-Feb-13 13:21:41

Well, thanks again. And I thought feminism was complicated! confused

BubblesOfBliss Wed 13-Feb-13 13:52:54

"And I thought feminism was complicated!"

Not really. Just that male dominance and misogyny are as much the norm in the gay community as the rest of society.

FastidiaBlueberry Wed 13-Feb-13 14:08:39

Call me a fuddy duddy but a mag which claims that one of the reasons for its existence is to tell women all about shopping opportunities, isn't a mag I'd expect to have thoughtful political views tbh.

"They claim to be all about women."

Yeah, well. All about women in a patriarchal society as defined by patriarchal values.

Fillyjonk75 Wed 13-Feb-13 14:26:55

I just don't want to be confronted with sexualised naked tits in public while going about my business really, or for some guy next to me on the train to be openly leching at them. Does it require any further explanation?

BubblesOfBliss Wed 13-Feb-13 14:56:31

"I just don't want to be confronted with sexualised naked tits in public while going about my business really, or for some guy next to me on the train to be openly leching at them. Does it require any further explanation?"

Unfortunately Fillyjonk75, while most men have delusions that if the roles were reversed they would have loads of 'hot' women perving over pictures of random naked men in unexpected places - beyond being able to imagine a mild sense of jealousy about the six-packs (which would be balanced up by their mental picture of being surrounded by hot women gagging for sex all the time)- they are generally incapable of picturing anything negative, let alone sexist about it, so it really does require a huuuuuge amount of further explanation.

SplitHeadGirl Wed 13-Feb-13 15:45:17

I was in the maternity dept at my local hospital (I'm 30 weeks pregnant) and the man beside me was there with his little daughter and his wife/partner. Anyway, he was 'reading' the Sun and he opened it to page three for quite a long time.

I always hated page 3, just how it normalises women's objectification and makes men's wants and likes oh-so important, but for a man to sit and think nothing of looking at it in a maternity dept, with his little girl beside him, just told me that so many men don't have a clue. Or else they just don't care about the women around them and how we feel.

WhentheRed Wed 13-Feb-13 15:49:56

What is sadly depressing is the commentary btl on the Guardian article, which highlights BubblesofBliss's very point. In the article, the writer commented about being uncomfortable as a teenager sitting next to a man on the bus while he stared at a page three photo. She received howls of derision - everything from

- Page 3 isn't intended to arouse men (because men don't want to be aroused in public). They are just pretty pictures to give men something nice to view.
- She was a middle class schoolgirl heaping derision on the simple pleasures of a working class man.
- It's her fault she is uncomfortable with nudity.
- She made the whole story up.
- Why didn't she move?
- This whole covering-up business is feminism's fault hmm

As FillyJonk75 comments, this should be pretty obvious but it doesn't appear to be. I was unfortunate enough to grow up when nude pictures of women were on the walls of workplaces and the wet t-shirt models were on the backs of lager cans. Men openly leered and catcalled, and God forbid as a teenager you walked down the street in your school uniform.

It wouldn't be so bad if men helped out by calling out other men's sexist behaviour towards women. But they don't, do they? They are totally oblivious.

YouMakeMeWannaLaLa Wed 13-Feb-13 16:06:16

Although the Op and namechangeguy are coming across as nice people, there is the implication in your posts that theres 'not really a problem' and 'if you think about it properly, you're all wrong, it's a fuss about nothing, 'it's not a feminist issue'.

I'm certain you will refute this but that's how it seems to me.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 16:23:49

"I have to say - the OP makes me want to weep"

smile Ok I'll bite.

In some cultures it is considered disgusting when a woman appears as sexually desirable. Completely taboo to have an appearance that exaggerates sexual characteristics, like high heels, visible cleavage etc. I find this attitude oppressive and disturbing and wouldn't want these kind of moralistic restrictions on behaviour. I think without a strong harm based argument the same should be said for restricting the actions and opinions of men.

I view pornography as being primarily about men finding women sexually desirable which I think is broadly positive (it certainly beats viewing them as disgusting). I think most men are aware of women's level of interest in them and if they choose to ignore that most men are aware they are doing something illegitimate, and something taken so seriously by men that it could well lead to violence against them. I think these actions are akin to bullying or physical abuse between men, very different from thinking that women will or should consent to sexual advances, and clearly misogynistic. I feel the male equivalent of cat calls is abusive insults directed at men by similar groups, designed to intimidate and humiliate.

My main point is that mainstream female journalism appears explicitly objectifying and misogynist and much more harmful to how women view themselves. While many of the posters find it disgusting that a man might casually view an image designed to arouse him, I find it more disgusting that people would so casually take pleasure from the humiliation of others and have entertainment products that so explicitly emphasise conformist behaviour.

YouMakeMeWannaLaLa Wed 13-Feb-13 16:31:59

jack Yes, women oppress women...but WHY do you think that is (clue: other posters have already mentioned it on this thread).

Seriously, you don't see the problem, the connection?

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 16:51:14

I'm sorry if I don't get what you're saying. I'm clearly missing the point that is being made.

My impression is that you feel that women oppress women because men oppress women and that pornography is a form of oppression of women that has a causal link to women oppressing women.

I don't think the argument that pornography is oppressing to women is clear to me. For example, I've given the example of Jordan who does not seem oppressed and seems to encourage assertive behaviour in those who emulate her.
I also don't see how pornography necessarily leads to increased objectification and misogynistic treatment of women as I think most men are not confused by women's interest in them or in the illegitimate nature of advances towards them. I think those actions are abusive and their cause is entertainment and cultures which encourage abuse.

I think women oppressing women is understandable without there needing to be a causal link from men. Men bully men and impose oppressive and humiliating status hierarchies on each other without the need for influence from others. Men often do so with the threat of violence, when that is not socially acceptable psychological methods are used that are often very similar to the kind of oppressive objectification and humiliation present in female targeted journalism. Perhaps women oppressing women has more to do with an oppressive status based culture that to some extent western male culture does not feel as strongly any more. Such a culture has certainly defined male interactions in the past. In this way I think such a culture is both natural and changeable and a much greater cause of female suffering than the actions of men, at least relatively young men (middle aged on down) who have never known a society without women's rights being legally protected and advocated.

YouMakeMeWannaLaLa Wed 13-Feb-13 16:58:08

I also don't see how pornography necessarily leads to increased objectification and misogynistic treatment of women

'kin 'ell, Jack I'm not a fan of the term 'lost cause', but you may well be a candidate. I'll leave it to someone more patient than I.

Fare thee well.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 16:59:59

I am sorry you feel that way, thanks for your comments.

FastidiaBlueberry Wed 13-Feb-13 17:00:09

"I view pornography as being primarily about men finding women sexually desirable which I think is broadly positive (it certainly beats viewing them as disgusting)."

That's where I'd disagree with you.

Most porn nowadays is not about men finding women sexually desirable. Most porn is deeply imbued with horrific misogyny. If you turn off all your filters and simply google "porn", just check out the first 10 entries that come up - they're all full of really horrifically sexist, misogynist porn which assumes that women are sluts and fucking is some kind of punishment.

Given that most men nowadays access porn via the internet and google is the most popular search engine, it is utterly naieve to think that porn is primarily about finding women sexually desirable. Unless you assume that desirable = hateful, worthless slut.

Gail Dines' book, Pornland has masses of information about this.

As to the claim that women's mags are more misogynistic, I think you're missing the structural issue here: who owns the women's magazines? Who finances them? Who makes the decisions regarding whether advertisements will appear in them? In all patriarchies, men often wash their hands of the dirty work of oppressing women and get other women to do it. Hence the reason the women of the family broke and bound the feet of the little girls in China at about aged 7 or so, the reason FGM is carried out by women in many present day societies etc. Men can claim that it's nothing to do with them, it's women doing it to themselves and each other, while presiding over the system that does this to women - men would refuse to marry women who had healthy feet, they still refuse to marry women who have not been genitally mutilated, they won't finance magazines which don't specialise in telling us we're too fat/ too shit etc.

Right Wing Women by Andrea Dworkins discusses aspects of this. (One day I will read it. smile)

FastidiaBlueberry Wed 13-Feb-13 17:01:31

"I've given the example of Jordan who does not seem oppressed and seems to encourage assertive behaviour in those who emulate her."

Have you got any evidence for this?

FastidiaBlueberry Wed 13-Feb-13 17:12:11

"I think women oppressing women is understandable without there needing to be a causal link from men."

Wrong. Women oppress women in the context of living in a patriarchy, where men are seen as the default human, women are seen as the "other" and they fight for the crumbs from men's tables and fight for male approval.

"Men bully men and impose oppressive and humiliating status hierarchies on each other without the need for influence from others."

This is patriarchy. This is the "influence from others" - other men, who are buying into patriarchal values.

"Perhaps women oppressing women has more to do with an oppressive status based culture that to some extent western male culture does not feel as strongly any more."

Wrong again, I think. The oppressive status based culture is patriarchy and though it may not be expresses as explicitly as before, it's absolutely amazing to think that anyone can possibly believe status doesn't matter anymore. Tell that to the young men who kill each other because they're infringing on each other's patch in gangs.

"Such a culture has certainly defined male interactions in the past." It is still defining it now, sometimes very obviously, as in gangs, sometimes in a less raw form such as in the boardroom, at parties, clubs etc. where men jockey for position.

"In this way I think such a culture is both natural and changeable and a much greater cause of female suffering than the actions of men, at least relatively young men (middle aged on down) who have never known a society without women's rights being legally protected and advocated."

Sorry but you're falling into the trap that every society has fallen into of believing that just because women have won some rights (from an unbelievably low base) we're all pretty much equal now and the problems have gone away.

1 in 4 women get raped or sexually assaulted. 1 in 4 live with chronic domestic violence. 1 in 3 men under the age of 25, agree when asked in surveys, that rape victims are partly responsible for their own rape if they were drunk or flirting with their rapist earlier on in the evening. Most men under 25 have accessed porn, most of which is violent and misogynistic. 1 in 3 girls experience sexual harassment at school (not from the teachers, from their fellow pupils). Do you really think that young men are any less sexist than older ones? I don't think so.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 17:16:59

Here is an interesting piece advocating her as a role model.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2167327/Why-I-admire-Katie-Price-Former-glamour-model-Jordan-Womans-Hour-presenter-JENNI-MURRAY-normally-detests--So-changed-mind.html

I realise it doesn't quite hit the point I was trying to make, which unfortunately I have second hand from a friend of my wife who is an English teacher and whose female students primarily choose her autobiography as the first book they read for class. These students seem assertive but I realise it is hard to tell the difference between insecure defensive behaviour and assertive behaviour.

FastidiaBlueberry Wed 13-Feb-13 17:17:49

Do the Bechdel test every time you go to the cinema:

There are 2 women in the film
They talk to each other
The conversation is not about a man.

You would be shocked to see how many films don't even pass this basic test of portraying women at all, let alone as fully rounded characters the way they portray men.

Men are growing up in that culture. Page 3 is part of it.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 17:19:48

"Wrong. Women oppress women in the context of living in a patriarchy, where men are seen as the default human, women are seen as the "other" and they fight for the crumbs from men's tables and fight for male approval."

Perhaps there is a specific group of men you are thinking of. I have not experienced any women fighting for my approval.

FastidiaBlueberry Wed 13-Feb-13 17:20:40

How many of those girls who take Jordan as a role model are going to end up running blue chip companies? Passing legislation? Becoming experts in their fields? Living a life free of the necessity to accomodate a man less capable and brilliant than they are, because society has been structured to enable him to function and them not to except as a supporting part in his life?

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 17:21:37

"This is patriarchy. This is the "influence from others" - other men, who are buying into patriarchal values."

I honestly don't think men have a monopoly on unpleasant status hierarchies.

FastidiaBlueberry Wed 13-Feb-13 17:23:04

jackburton, you really need to do the reading.

Seriously, you do.

You are utterly unaware of your privilege. When women fight for your approval, they don't even realise they're doing so, neither do you.

I'm not surprised your wife sent you here, I bet she's bashing her head against the wall at your wilful blindness.

Go and do something useful like put the bins out, will you.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 17:27:09

"How many of those girls who take Jordan as a role model are going to end up running blue chip companies? Passing legislation? Becoming experts in their fields? Living a life free of the necessity to accomodate a man less capable and brilliant than they are"

I think this is a very important point. I certainly am not advocating Jordan as the only female role model. I think a very important project is the creation of more female role models. Your point about the Bechdel test is very important. I think that needs to be a focus of campaigns similar to how racist depictions in media have been campaigned against. In terms of addressing oppression of women I actually find Kate Middleton to be a much more harmful role model than Jordan, not a view that mainstream journalism seems to embrace (but that might be getting off the point a little).

FastidiaBlueberry Wed 13-Feb-13 17:27:28

"I honestly don't think men have a monopoly on unpleasant status hierarchies"

They have a monopoly on the status hierarchies that matter, that have POWER in society

BubblesOfBliss Wed 13-Feb-13 17:30:07

" I have not experienced any women fighting for my approval."

Jack you enjoy the benefits of women fighting for approval of 'men as a group'

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 17:32:28

"I'm not surprised your wife sent you here"

smile Please see this as an opportunity to put me right, I genuinely want to understand. (I did the bins yesterday smile )

When I read my wife's glamour magazine it often has sections obsessing over how to please your husband in bed and what men secretly think etc. So I can understand why a woman might get the impression that they should be trying to gain their partners approval. Frankly such articles scare the hell out of me due to their submissive tone. Although I don't know why men wouldn't find that sort of article acceptable and women would be attracted to it, other than because that is what is being presented as normal by other women.

BubblesOfBliss Wed 13-Feb-13 17:38:30

FastidiaBlueberry "I'm not surprised your wife sent you here, I bet she's bashing her head against the wall at your wilful blindness."

...off topic question.... Is that unsisterly? Despairingly admitting her husband is an ignorant plank - she sends him over to FWR for other women to sort out! Pretty under-handed behaviour grin

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 18:50:52

Ok, so I'm interested in your take on this.

Men often use the threat of female approval as a tool for oppressing one another. Exploitative status hierarchies are facilitated by the threat that unless a man is rich, handsome, strong, deep voiced, hairy, famous etc. they are to some extent unlovable I know of a number of men who have tolerated abusive working environments because of the fear that their wives will leave them if they don't.

I don't think that this is men being oppressed by women. I think this is men being oppressed by men, who are concealing that oppression through an exaggerated and largely fictional threat. I think in reality women's interest in men is a lot more subtle and personal except for a minority who I feel are enforcing this oppression because of their own insecurities. Objectification and misogyny of women can be viewed as a direct mirror of this.

LineRunner Wed 13-Feb-13 19:10:52

There are no 'direct mirrors' when comparing men and women within a patriarchy.

FastidiaBlueberry Wed 13-Feb-13 19:20:07

" I think in reality women's interest in men is a lot more subtle and personal except for a minority who I feel are enforcing this oppression because of their own insecurities. "

Sorry I don't understand what you mean by this?

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 19:27:09

"Sorry I don't understand what you mean by this?"

Apologies it was too elaborate a point to make at the end of a sentence like that.

What I mean is that I think there are a minority of women who would leave their partners if they didn't conform to oppressive status hierarchies. I think those women are imposing this oppression because of insecurities they have about their own status and are trying to validate themselves through their partners. Likewise I think sexist behaviour in modern men can be interpreted as insecure men reinforcing oppression on women, not because they find sexist roles appealing but because by doing so they feel more important. Although the values that are being enforced may seem to be appealing to men they are likewise more subtle in their interests and don't really want sexist stereotypes for partners. These values may come from other women trying to impose values on each other, just as men threaten men with being unloveable for not conforming to their own abusive stereotypes.

FastidiaBlueberry Wed 13-Feb-13 19:27:12

BOB

grin

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 19:38:50

BOB? (http://www.internetslang.com/BOB-meaning-definition.asp)?

Who's the BOB?

FastidiaBlueberry Wed 13-Feb-13 19:42:32

BubblesOfBliss
Still not sure whose values you're talking about tbh.

The men's values or the women's?

Not sure what you're getting at?

FreyaSnow Wed 13-Feb-13 20:04:09

What is Katie Price a role model of?

She has certainly survived some abusive situations and has dealt with a lot of prejudice in the process of raising a child with disabilities. So clearly she is a strong person and that is to be admired.

So certainly she might be a role model for young women who are experiencing abuse or prejudice.

But I'm not sure what other role it is she's representing. I don't really hear young people talk about her; I think they notice actors and musicians more.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 20:07:10

I think it's confusing because I'm describing one situation and then describing it again with the sexes reversed.

In the first case where I'm describing men oppressing men I'm saying that within those relationships women sometimes reinforce the oppression because of their own insecurity (i.e. treat men as status objects).

In the second case, imagine the sexes reversed. i.e. women oppressing women. I'm suggesting that male sexism can be understood as a male mirror of the first case i.e. insecure men treating women as status objects.

This perspective suggests that rather than their being an overriding oppressive male domination that it is really two parallel systems of same sex oppression. Men just look more successful because they can't give birth and so get more money at the top, but really lots of men and women are being oppressed but primarily by their own sex.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 20:10:37

"What is Katie Price a role model of?"

I think she has a similar role for working class teenage girls that footballers have for working class teenage boys. An example of how to be rich and do what you want while having your sex appeal validated.

LineRunner Wed 13-Feb-13 20:10:43

OP, I think you are locked into a circular argument there, and one that is detached from the reality of the partriarchy we live in.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 20:21:36

LineRunner, could you explain what I've missed in a bit more detail. I don't understand how my argument is circular. I'm suggesting an underlying psychological and sociological explanation for the dynamic between men and women. I think it offers explanations for most of the issues raised here but I may have missed something. I don't really understand the alternative Patriarchy one. I'm still confused as to why men's attitudes/actions indirectly create such strong Female to Female oppressive behaviour. Much stronger in my experience than that of the majority of direct Male to Female oppression, which I feel is relegated to an insecure male minority. Although a lot of the posts refer to an implicit male oppression, e.g. through porn, can that really be so much more influential than the explicit form in the majority of women's magazines?

FastidiaBlueberry Wed 13-Feb-13 20:38:00

Let's take slavery.

The master very rarely bothered to do the whipping himself.

The black overseer did it.

The master didn't bother to get his hands dirty.

And it might have looked like the rich white master was oppressing white poorer men, and women (which he was).

And like black overseers were oppressing other black slaves.

But they had their own system of heirarchies as a result of slavery. House slaves vs field slaves, American born vs African born. All hierarchies within slavery, all oppressions within it, existed only as a result of the original oppression. That's the long and the short of it. Any attempts to come up with fancy theories about how really field slaves were much more oppressed by xyz slaves because of blah, is really bollocks isn't it? It's just obfuscating the real source of oppression.

Which I feel is what you're doing here on this thread. And so I urge you to do the reading and then think about it. I realise that it's more reassuring and comforting for men to pretend that they're not responsible as a group for oppressing women and women actually oppress each other more than men oppress them, but tbh I'm not going to give any man that validation because I simply don't believe it's true. And if you read Kat Banyard just as a starting point, you'll see why it's not true - Banyard doesn't say anything particularly revolutionary, she just goes through facts.

FreyaSnow Wed 13-Feb-13 20:43:39

Professional football is a stereotypical aspiration for boys and singing, dance and drama is a stereotypical aspiration for girls. I don't think wanting your sexual appeal validated is equivalent to these things.

Katie Price started her career at 13 being photographed in her underwear by a convicted paedophile. I think almost all people of all ages just find that distressing and sad. My daughter aspires to creative careers and celebrity - her role model is Anne Hathaway. My daughter is a year younger than Katie Price was when she started out; I'd be really worried if she thought the way to achieve celebrity was to have her sexual appeal validated by adult men.

I think some people in their twenties did buy into that Loaded culture as teenagers, because it was quite new and a lot of people didn't realise how dark it was. Teenagers now have been exposed to it through the Internet and media and mostly seem really aware that it's not aspirational. As my teenage niece explained to my mum, it's not about how attractive you are; it's about what you're prepared to do.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 20:55:46

Thanks, FastidiaBlueberry the racial analogy is a very good one and a very disturbing one to me.
I suppose that issue has not really been addressed either, although things like Obama being president help. I also see analogies in how black music stars are often photographed to make them look like tanned Caucasians although I don't get the impression that that approach is common in magazines targeted directly at black readers (although I am hardly an expert). I think there is still insufficient objection to mainstream female culture and I still find it difficult to understand how direct male actions are leading to oppression except through a sort of post-colonialist legacy kind of way.

I have ordered "The Equality Illusion" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Equality-Illusion-Truth-about/dp/0571246273/ref=lh_ni_t?ie=UTF8&psc=1) so hopefully that will clear things up bit for me.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 21:03:36

"Teenagers now have been exposed to it through the Internet and media and mostly seem really aware that it's not aspirational."

I completely agree that the industry is seedy and exploitative, although so many are, particularly singing. I wonder what the new role models are, I still think there are some teenagers who are reading Katie Price's autobiography as a guide to how to escape their limited prospects, as that is the feedback from my wife's friend in teaching. The advantage of Katie Price's career is that, superficially at least, it looks attainable to many girls. I wonder what other, vaguely credible, role models exist for working class girls?

FastidiaBlueberry Wed 13-Feb-13 21:05:34

It's a good start. wink

This will also help, maybe.

www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 21:19:50

FastidiaBlueberry, loved the checklist I'm going to read it through again. A few of them in particular have never occurred to me. Like "Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to 'smile.'"

FreyaSnow Wed 13-Feb-13 21:25:07

The main role models for working class girls are the women they know. I don't think most working class people see being working class as something they're trying to escape from. For jobs that are not working class, many working class teenagers have aspired to go into teaching or various skilled health care roles, because such jobs usually rely less on connections (apart from medicine sadly) and they are familiar to young people. This doesn't seem to have changed and is the first choice for my son and the second choice for my daughter after acting.

Celebrity type jobs are desired by children of all classes, but most are aware that they are unlikely to achieve it. Most celebrities aren't famous because anybody thinks they're role models; they're famous because we find them entertaining which is usually their job. The fact that a lot of us would like to do that doesn't mean we're really planning to do it or see it as a realistic role model type situation.

I think trying to normalise or justify jobs in the sex industry as aspirational to people of school age is hugely detrimental when one in four young people are sexually abused according to the NSPCC.

ashesgirl Wed 13-Feb-13 21:33:56

Jack, in the nicest possible way, did you actually just want to come here and ask if the reason that women want to ban page 3 is because they are jealous of the models?

Cos seriously this is what I'm taking away from your posts smile

LineRunner Wed 13-Feb-13 21:47:25

jack, it's pretty obvious that you don't understand the patriarchy argument - you don't need to keep saying it and proving it.

I think with your comment on teenagers reading Katie P's biog as a guide to, well, anything, you are either (a) taking the piss or (b) seriously deluded.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 21:57:32

I think those are good points FreyaSnow my grandparents are half working class and half middle class. Those from a working class background have mostly taken teaching, and administrative roles, one has aimed for organising dance music gigs which I suppose is a variation on pursuing a singing career. Although I agree they wouldn't say they were trying to escape being working class, they do wish to avoid some of the less pleasant jobs, like retail, call centre and factory work. I think they all have had dreams of celebrity careers at some point e.g. sport, music etc. but generally haven't pursued them directly.

I certainly agree that it would preferable to have other role models than those in the sex industry. I think that should be a priority for feminism. I think celebrities and fictional heroes contribute a lot to how people think about what they should and could be. There are a massive collection of male ones and I think that contributes to helping men have the drive to achieve and to some extent might explain the relative disparity of men in high stress, high status jobs.

"one in four young people are sexually abused"
I'd love to find out more about these statistics as they seem incredibly high. Assuming that is mostly girls (i.e. almost half of all girls), that is so high it would be hard to get the statistics on it. It would require sample surveys across many demographics. It would also help to get that in perspective a bit more in terms of actual suffering, abused seems like a strong word to match that statistic. I am surprised there is not more policing of this issue if it is so widespread, I have never observed something I would term abuse. I have been hit by strangers twice and been threateningly felt up by a man as an adult (I knew him) although these incidents are memorable I'm not sure I think of them as abuse but perhaps I am being overly sensitive about semantics. I guess the real issue is how psychologically damaging such incidents are in comparison to other, non sexual forms of attack, such as bullying, to try and get such problems in perspective.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 22:01:56

"if the reason that women want to ban page 3 is because they are jealous of the models?"

Hi ashesgirl, no that is definitely not the point I am trying to make. My concern is that mainstream female culture is so conformist that page 3 models are a threat because by seeing them there is some expectation that they should be emulated or that others would expect all women to be like them. I think men don't have this concern because they have such a diversity of role models and lifestyles that other men consider valid. I am not threatened by lifestyles I wouldn't personally enjoy or particularly approve of (like cage fighting) but its existence is not disturbing to me because it says very little about how I should live.

ashesgirl Wed 13-Feb-13 22:04:40

Sorry I just don't understand your reply.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 22:06:59

"I think with your comment on teenagers reading Katie P's biog as a guide to, well, anything, you are either (a) taking the piss or (b) seriously deluded."

I am not alone in suggesting that people desire to be like Katie Price and I don't think the view is that strange, you might not feel that she is a legitimate role model but that doesn't mean others don't. To me she seems to be someone who has attained a desirable affluent lifestyle, much like the wider WAG community.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 22:09:22

Sorry ashesgirl, is this any clearer:

I don't think women are jealous of page 3 models I think they are concerned that they will be expected to be like them.

I think this is less of an issue for men because male culture is more accepting of a diverse range of lifestyles.

LineRunner Wed 13-Feb-13 22:09:32

You misunderstand what I said, OP.

Also could you post evidence for things you say in the vein of 'people desire' or be clear that this stuff you write is actually your own personal view.

ashesgirl Wed 13-Feb-13 22:10:15

Ok, I see what you mean. But I don't think that's the main reason for those campaigning against page 3.

LineRunner Wed 13-Feb-13 22:12:01

"I don't think women are jealous of page 3 models I think they are concerned that they will be expected to be like them...I think this is less of an issue for men because male culture is more accepting of a diverse range of lifestyles."

I think you wrong, but wrong for very interesting reasons. Which have been told to you, if you would but read and listen.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 22:13:39

Sorry LineRunner, apologies for my style I'm a university researcher and the tendency to write in an authoritative style is hard to break. All of my comments are my own view, even those with references are very selectively obtained (usually at short notice through Google) and so are certainly not objective facts.

ninjasquirrel Wed 13-Feb-13 22:14:20

I find Page 3 utterly grim and it's not about feeling expected to emulate it! Firstly it's the general view of women in that paper. Men = businessmen, sportsmen, politicians... Women = tits and a few celebs who might just squeeze in. Secondly I just don't want to be on a train with some bloke ogling naked breasts. It's just unpleasant! (not the breasts, the ogling)

FreyaSnow Wed 13-Feb-13 22:15:07

Jack, there is a breakdown for all the sexual abuse figures and a copy of the research in the statistics section on the NSPCC website, so you should be able to see how it was compiled. There are also figures on the other types of abuse including physical abuse and bullying.

There was a report on the sexualisation of children that the government funded which looked at what the psychological impact was, which somebody on here might have a link to.

ashesgirl Wed 13-Feb-13 22:16:49

Banning page 3 is about acknowledging that women are equal, that newspapers are not the sole domain of men who must be pandered to.

It's also about trying to break down the complete and utter sexualisation of women in our society.

ashesgirl Wed 13-Feb-13 22:17:55

Good post, ninja. You summed it up well.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 22:18:58

Thanks FreyaSnow. I'll check out the NSPCC stuff. The psychological impact report would also be useful if anyone knows the link.

williaminajetfighter Wed 13-Feb-13 22:26:24

....because it's very hard to have a civil conversation with a man at work when they're talking to you and looking at tits at the same time. And when you're their manager. A bit of a disconnect there, don't you think.

... because naked women shouldn't be something you have a lookie at while you're trying to read slightly legitimate news.

I have been waiting for this day forever. 2 years ago I asked my boss if we could remove the Sun from our staff sitting room---- it was there every day and bugged me that it was often open to page 3. I thought she would understand especially as a young, highly paid female manager but no... she said she 'doesn't condone censorship', told me I sounded like a bit arrogant complaining about it and made out like I am a hater of the working classes for disliking the Sun. Other staff heard our conversation and I got a bad rap as a troublemaker. I felt like Sally Field in Norma Rae!

People are very very sanctimonious about the Sun as some kind of voice of the working classes and therefore precious about changing the paper. But they shouldn't be precious about retaining naked women.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 22:26:28

"Banning page 3 is about acknowledging that women are equal, that newspapers are not the sole domain of men who must be pandered to."

I don't think newspapers should be thought of as anything other than entertainment products for different demographics. They are highly skewed to different perspectives and there is reasonable diversity between them. The existence of page 3 in the Sun places no restriction on other newspapers who don't have an equivalent emphasis. I suspect the real problem is that so many women read the Sun, if it was just viewed as another mens publication there wouldn't be as much of an issue.

ashesgirl Wed 13-Feb-13 22:28:03

Did anyone see the Neil Wallis article on the 'wimmin' who just want to get it banned? This really narked me!

He says it's middle class wimmin who eat 'wheatgerm' trying to impose their views on everyone else. And the working class women who buy the paper don't care.

Well I was brought up in a working class household where my parents bought The Sun. As a girl growing up, I used to squirm so much when anybody turned over the front page. How awful for young girls exposed to it.

So I have never bought the paper myself but I feel it does affect my life. Bugs me, when people say don't like it, don't buy it.

Bloody annoying article here ...

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/neil-wallis/page-3-should-not-be-banned_b_1908751.html

LineRunner Wed 13-Feb-13 22:28:58

OP, I don't find your style authoritative at all.

ashesgirl Wed 13-Feb-13 22:29:27

Right Jack, so tell me why you're not allowed to show sexualised topless women on TV before 9pm on telly?

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 22:30:57

Great points williaminajetfighter I think things are very different in a workplace where a person is often forced to experience something and I can certainly understand that the dynamics you describe are unacceptable.

FreyaSnow Wed 13-Feb-13 22:31:41

Here is the report about sexualisation. The impact of sexualisation isn't going to be the same as the impact of sexual abuse; the NSPCC might have more on the impact of sexual abuse:

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/Sexualisation-of-young-people2835.pdf?view=Binary

There was another report about sexualisation more recently. I think it might be the Bailey report.

BubblesOfBliss Wed 13-Feb-13 22:35:28

" if it was just viewed as another men's publication there wouldn't be as much of an issue."

I wonder Jack if the penny is beginning to drop about the issue people have been repeating in this thread: Men as default, women as 'other'...

The way things stand in a patriarchal society is that everything unless stated otherwise is for men.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 22:38:18

"Right Jack, so tell me why you're not allowed to show sexualised topless women on TV before 9pm on telly?"

Good point. I hadn't really thought about how much Page 3 intruded on other people's lives because I have mainly experienced it as a personal choice to purchase or passively present on shelves in a shop. My preference would be to encourage people to keep it to themselves to a greater extent, rather than ban it. Likewise, I find a lot of Daily Mail articles quite offensive, I would be uncomfortable with my son casually reading them (when he's older, he can't read yet) but I would definitely resist banning the paper or forcing an editorial change on it.

LineRunner Wed 13-Feb-13 22:39:10

... and male publishers control the narratives and images aimed at women.

ashesgirl Wed 13-Feb-13 22:40:58

People don't keep it to themselves. It's a daily newspaper and it sits on the coffee table in your house which is how I, as a little girl, became exposed to it every single day for years.

jackburton Wed 13-Feb-13 22:41:24

Thank you all for another fascinating discussion. Off to bed now, have a lot to think about.

LineRunner Wed 13-Feb-13 22:43:11

So, OP, you are here defending the freedom to pornify women and girls in the name of free speech.

Nice try, lots of wordiness and everything.

ashesgirl Wed 13-Feb-13 22:43:18

Pfft

ashesgirl Wed 13-Feb-13 22:43:50

It's all very fascinating when you're on the outside looking in.

LineRunner Wed 13-Feb-13 22:44:59

'another' fascinating discussion? Could you signpost the other one(s), please? I'd love to read them.

BubblesOfBliss Wed 13-Feb-13 22:55:49

ashesgirl "People don't keep it to themselves."

I know - it seems ridiculous to imagine that a ubiquitous throwaway 20p tabloid- published and distributed every day to every newsagent in the country, bought by people with families, bought for the customers in chippies and cafes, discarded on benches and buses, read on lunchbreaks and in waiting rooms..... is going to be something that you can 'encourage people to keep to themselves'.

Putting the lack of understanding of the harmful attitudes promoted by Page 3 to one side- could you think of a less practical solution? I don't think I can.

ashesgirl Thu 14-Feb-13 08:10:43

Good points bubbles. It's the sheer ordinariness of its presence that is a major issue

sashh Thu 14-Feb-13 13:24:48

I have not experienced any women fighting for my approval.

How about Jordan?

Do you really think her business is based on women?
What do you think the feud with Jodie Marsh is if it isn't a couple of women fighting for your approval?

Do you want a big, big example of 'the patriachy' from today?

A young professional woman was murdered in South Africa in the early hours of this morning. You would think her name would make headlines. It doesn't.

The headlines are all about the person accused of her murder, there have been quotes that 'everyone is rallying arouns' the suspected murderer.

Both the killer (there seems little doubt who he is) and the now deceased were / are both well kown internationly.

If a woman's murder is only reported in connection to her killer don't you think there is a problem?

RIP Reeva Steenkamp.

namechangeguy Thu 14-Feb-13 16:11:43

Jack, why don't you ask your wife to come on here and review the discussion? It would be interesting to see what she makes of it so far, and I believe it was her idea for you to post on here.

ashesgirl Thu 14-Feb-13 16:29:58

Good idea, ncg

jackburton Thu 14-Feb-13 18:51:35

"why don't you ask your wife to come on here and review the discussion?"

Naturally she's been following the discussion, she's a big Mumsnet fan. However, while I can carry on conversations that are this confrontational I'm not sure she is comfortable with them, and frankly I think it would tend to make the conversation even more personal and even less about the issues being discussed. Although I would love to keep talking about this and have found many of the points raised to be very interesting, I think it would be useful for me to read some of the books I have ordered and the reports that have been mentioned. "Living Dolls" in particular arrived today. I'm sorry if people have been offended by my posts, I realise that this discussion can be offensive to some people. Hopefully at least some of you feel that this is a way to explain your position to a man who would not have heard it otherwise. Since my first post I have found this site (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/where-to-start/how-to-use-this-blog/) which I think may be more appropriate for these discussions and where I hope to continue asking about these issues once I have done more research.

Thank you for your patience,

JackBurton

LineRunner Thu 14-Feb-13 19:02:52

jack I think you are being a little hard on yourself there. I wouldn't say you have been 'confrontational' at all.

I'm sure your wife could contribute here quite comfortably.

ashesgirl Thu 14-Feb-13 19:14:44

Understand what you are saying but it would be fascinating to hear your wife's views, genuinely. There's no need to go off anywhere else.

Zippy1111 Thu 14-Feb-13 23:07:57

Here are my thoughts on page 3:

-All the models are well paid consenting adults

-The models have made that choice to make money with their body. Isn't feminism about choice? Even if it's a choice that not every woman might agree with?

-There are plenty of newspapers to choose from which don't have any bare female nipples in them

LineRunner Thu 14-Feb-13 23:13:58

Feminism isn't about giving the patriarchy a choice to continue itself.

TheDoctrineOfSciAndNatureClub Thu 14-Feb-13 23:18:22

Jack

Some MN stories that might inform your view on how common sexual assaults are:

Sexual assaults thread

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 14-Feb-13 23:18:25

"Isn't feminism about choice?"
Perhaps it is, if you're an appallingly superficial person who actually knows nothing about it
Apologies for impatience

Zippy1111 Thu 14-Feb-13 23:19:38

But if women are making choices for themselves, how is that patriarchal?

Don't you think women should be able to continue to make choices with their own body? Or do you think it best if other women make choices for them?

"Feminism is about giving women choice, unless of course it's a choice most feminists don't agree with in which case we will make choices for them"

TheDoctrineOfSciAndNatureClub Thu 14-Feb-13 23:21:25

And because it's always worth linking in a privilege discussion:

Lowest Difficulty Setting

LineRunner Thu 14-Feb-13 23:21:37

If you think feminism should allow you to believe the same old patriarchal beliefs then you really need to invest in a dictionary.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 14-Feb-13 23:24:18

Choices cannot be divorced from the social contenxt in which they are made. feminists do not seek to deprive women of choice. Feminists seek to build a society in which the "choice" to turn yourself into a sexual commodity isn't one that it occurs to anyone to make, because it isn' prurient, sexually repressive, or inclined to treat women as objects.
Way to miss the point, zippy

BubblesOfBliss Thu 14-Feb-13 23:26:05

Zippy1111 "Here are my thoughts on page 3"

Perhaps you should say "Here is my unthinking view on page 3, predigested by the mainstream, misogynist consumer culture rhetoric":

"-All the models are well paid"

Not true actually. You can't make a living as a page 3 model, it is not very well-paid.

"consenting adults"

Consent is a non-word. Also it is relative to a persons readiness to be exploited which is defined by a persons options (or lack of).

"-The models have made that choice to make money with their body."

See above

"Isn't feminism about choice? Even if it's a choice that not every woman might agree with?"

No - although the choice to have an abortion or not means feminists may call themselves 'pro-choice' - this does not mean feminists are 'pro-all-choice' including the choice to participate in practices that harm women as a group (though it does mean - sympathy for any sister who has had to make these choices through a lack of real choice)

"-There are plenty of newspapers to choose from which don't have any bare female nipples in them"

But the ones with the sexualised and submissive objectified women can't be chosen against - they intrude whether you buy them or not.

nina17 Thu 21-Feb-13 18:04:46

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

Lessthanaballpark Fri 22-Feb-13 09:38:28

Zippy1111, I thought you'd been banned? Back again?

Lessthanaballpark Fri 22-Feb-13 09:52:07

"Feminism isn't about giving the patriarchy a choice to continue itself."

Thanks Linerunner, that's exactly how I feel about a lot of "choice feminism".

Jackburton, in relation to Jordan and other women who have made a fortune out of their bodies being a role model, I would say ultimately these women are on very thin ground. Beauty is always held up as something women should aspire to but then we unfairly look down on women who use their "feminine wiles" as being manipulative and / or shallow. Look how much people hate Jordan.

Beauty is never put on a par with intelligence or strength, which are things that boys are directed to. It is amazing how early girls are taught the message that beauty is for them, whilst strength and intelligence is for boys. Just walk into a toy shop and you will see. It's not a fair choice at all.

That is why RS was a model and OP an athlete. It's also why people mourn the loss of his talent to the world rather than hers. You wouldn't know that she was a law graduate at the start of her career and a campaigner against domestic violence unless you had more of a passing interest because what has jumped out of the trash tabloids is her body and modelling career rather than the things her mind was capable of.

The day they get rid of Page 3 will be a happy day.

TheDoctrineOfSciAndNatureClub Fri 22-Feb-13 09:52:28

TBF I don't think nina is Zippy. Though they might get on well.

Lessthanaballpark Fri 22-Feb-13 10:09:22

Doctrine, no Zippy is Zippy! Zippy is the OP of the male circumcision thread, and according to a post from MNHQ, a previously banned poster who keeps coming back like a bad smell!

TheDoctrineOfSciAndNatureClub Fri 22-Feb-13 10:40:39

Ooh, you're right - MNHQ must have missed some zippy posts!

PromQueenWithin Fri 22-Feb-13 13:54:49

Jack, you've not been back for a while. But if you're still here and are a researcher, why aren't you looking for literature on this? There's plenty out there and it should be easily accessible to you.

FrameyMcFrame Sat 23-Feb-13 10:04:09

Really enjoyed reading this thread, I've learned a lot. I've also ordered the books too smile

StickEmUp Sat 23-Feb-13 11:28:14

I laugh at page 3 is well paid. My friend got £50 for it. Its more to get yor tits out there, promotion.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 15:21:59

Evolutionary psychology would state that the page three girl is a ten and has the highest sexual market value. She is able to command most resources from men who objectify her for her beauty and health (ability to bear strong children). Likewise a mans sexual market value depends on ability to hunt and protect. Hence womens preference for athletic six foot high earning men. Women hate objectification of tens as it brings their own sexual market value into focus and makes them feel insecure, hence page 3 becomes a target. Men will always objectify women sexually and women have always used that to their advantage in procuring resources for their survival. The fact that we live in a post feminist world will never change that. The laws of nature and the survival of the human species dictate that slim women with full pert breasts will always be ogled at by men. Nature is a harsh mistress I'm afraid

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 16:41:07

"Evolutionary psychology would state" a load of old crap masquerading as science.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 17:02:28

"...a load of old crap masquerading as science."

Such a refined counter argument!..it appears you are unable to provide another reason why high status men prefer healthy young slim feminine women with full pert breasts in their mating strategies. So your only recourse is to call it crap. I'm afraid your ideology is no match for accurate observation of human behaviour.

As I said above, Mother Nature is a harsh mistress and doesn't care about your political idealogy.

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 17:12:03

I am able. Your argument is not worth the effort if it is based on "evolutionary psychology".

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 17:15:58

Then explain why old fat ugly women don't get laid as much as young, slim waisted, pretty, big breasted ones then?

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 17:24:39

Not relevant to this discussion. Do try to engage brain and disengage penis for a moment, if possible.

FrameyMcFrame Sun 24-Feb-13 17:26:15

The laws of nature???
Some of us have evolved a bit more than others I think

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 17:28:35

Of course it is relevant, it is all about finding the best genes you can to reproduce...when are you going to provide an alternative hypothesis rather than just stating "not relevant" or "crap".

FrameyMcFrame Sun 24-Feb-13 17:29:18

Men fancy page 3 models. No one's disputing that fact.

Why do the rest of us have to put up with it in a daily newspaper, that's the question.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 17:31:29

@FrameyMcFrame

You have evolved above nature then? Wow I bet that took some doing.

Bottom line is that nature doesn't care about our feelings. I know it is harsh but that is the reality.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 17:34:20

@FrameyMcFrame

Good point, I guess like all things...tits sell. I don't mind the Sun so much. PAge three is inside. It is the Daily Sport I hate as it is a porn mag on the bottom shelf with sexual pics on the front page. Young kids can see those. That is where the campaign should be

So why can't we have a tall, athletic man flashing his wallet on P3?

Sunnywithshowers Sun 24-Feb-13 17:34:55

How do you know that fat old women don't get laid?

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 17:37:46

How do you know that fat old women don't get laid?

I never said they didn't...!

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 17:38:27

"when are you going to provide an alternative hypothesis rather than just stating "not relevant" or "crap"."

If you provide an intelligent hypothesis to the issue regarding page 3, which is not based on junk pseudoscience or ridiculous statements about women getting laid, I'll think about it.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 17:40:54

@PlentyofPubeGardens

Would it sell as much? Probably one for the Daily Mirror, traditionally started out as a woman's magazine. I guess you could have Fireman of the Month or summat!:-)

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 17:42:18

@Flora

Still slandering with no counter...you really are an academic lightweight.

Sunnywithshowers Sun 24-Feb-13 17:42:39

My apologies, bum, you said they get laid less than young, attractive women.

Which has precisely what to do with page 3?

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 17:46:44

bum It's not slander to point out that you have yet to make an argument to counter.

Sunnywithshowers Sun 24-Feb-13 17:48:07

With respect, bum, you're not exactly coming across as an intellectual heavyweight yourself.

But on the other hand, I've ticked most of the squares in my 'evolutionary psychology' bingo card, so my time on this thread hasn't been entirely wasted.

WhentheRed Sun 24-Feb-13 17:49:57

What does "evolutionary psychology" have to do with page 3?

Is it supporting the argument that page 3 is there because men are entitled to objectify and stare at women and corporations are fulfilling that right by providing men with the opportunity to leer at topless young women in a public forum?

FastidiaBlueberry Sun 24-Feb-13 18:09:25

"Then explain why old fat ugly women don't get laid as much as young, slim waisted, pretty, big breasted ones then?"

You are wrong. Old fat ugly women get laid just as much as young, slim waisted, pretty bigbreasted ones. By the way, most old fat women are also big-breasted - on the whole, if you're fat, you have big breasts, just sayin'.

Most old fat ugly women were young slim waisted and pretty once and they got married and are still shagging.

Although possibly the old fat beautiful ones get laid more often, I don't know, I don't believe there has been any meaningful research into this.

As for someone who quotes evo-psychology calling anyone else academically lightweight - Arf.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 18:14:10

Still nothing but vapour from you Flora...

@WhentheRed

Men are always going to objectify and stare at women. Indeed, it is one of the pleasures a man has that makes the world a more bearable place. It isn't going to change. Indeed, Jayne Mansfield's scantily clad D cups painted on a Flying Fortress made the men's lives who were fighting WW2 a little more bearable.

Men, are, and always will be the disposable sex. One man can fertilise numerous women, it doesn't work the other way around. Hence "woman and children first". This is how nature works. It doesn't give a damn about feelings or politics. Men die to protect their women, look at WW1. Women would give white feathers to send guys into the trenches by shaming them with cowardice. Who am I to dictate if a man should not get pleasure from ogling women. Indeed, I suspect those who shrill loudest get ogled least!

Also page three is not page one. If you don't like it don't buy the newspaper. Now the Daily Sport is a paper I would cheerfully take up an argument against. It is on the bottom shelf and displays sexualised imagary, which I don't want my kids to see.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 18:16:29

@Blueberry "You are wrong. Old fat ugly women get laid just as much as young, slim waisted, pretty bigbreasted ones."

Not by high status males...who usually have a soft harem of pretty young ones.

FastidiaBlueberry Sun 24-Feb-13 18:17:42

" Indeed, I suspect those who shrill loudest get ogled least!"

Ah yes, the usual anti-feminist insults. You only care because you're ugly.

In fact you're probably those ugly fat women who shouldn't be shagging at all, it's horrific that you are.

Who let this one in?

hmm grin

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 18:21:10

@Blueberry

In fact you're probably those ugly fat women who shouldn't be shagging at all, it's horrific that you are.

and when did I say that...?

ashesgirl Sun 24-Feb-13 18:27:56

Visitors again?

FrameyMcFrame Sun 24-Feb-13 18:28:55

I think we give less and less of a shit about 'high status males' or what they want or think they are entitled to.

We've got high status females too now you know, not just the big breasted slim waisted ones either. The ones that intimidate men like you because you think the world should stay like it was in WW1 or WW2 that you're obviously obsessed with.

Women and a large proportion of men have had enough of the tired peddling of these myths that you seem to want to cling to, where women are '10s' if you want to fuck them and have little value if you don't.
Sorry if this frightens you or makes you angry.
Things are changing, page 3 etc won't last now. get used to it.

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 18:29:15

bum, whenthered threw you a lifeline in trying to bring your EP nonsense into the discussion in a meaningful way but you're still just saying men fancy hot women and anyone who objects is shrill and jealous. The EP part is an attempt to make it sound clever and sciencey and important.

I'm married to a high status male and that damn harem is so annoying, their veils cluttering up the washing machine. Don't get me started on the eunuchs!

WhentheRed Sun 24-Feb-13 18:33:42

I see, so page 3 is a sop to the low status men who read the likes of the Sun? A means to permit them to dream about a woman they will never get.

If page 3 was a means whereby a physically "10" woman (no objectification there) could bag a high status man, the women models are getting it completely wrong. They are targetting the wrong demographic. High status men don't read the Sun.

Likewise if high status men chose from the page 3 ranks, and I have never met a CEO who is married to a former page 3 model, there would be page 3s in the Financial Times.

At the end of the day, therefore, the result of the "evolutionary pyschology" theory boils down to a fantasy peddled both to men and women by corporations for profit. In a daily newspaper.

At the end of the day, however, your message seems to be that women are objects whose goal is to make life more bearable for men.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 18:36:39

@ FrameyMcFrame

Doesn't frighten me or make me angry at all. There has always been high status females as there always has been a sisterhood...Page three may go but there will always be a demand for images of young pretty women. Always!

If you think feminism will change the male sexual response then you are deluded.

TheDoctrineOfSciAndNatureClub Sun 24-Feb-13 18:41:08

Bum, are you starting a campaign against the Daily Sport? Excellent.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 18:48:55

@When I see, so page 3 is a sop to the low status men who read the likes of the Sun? A means to permit them to dream about a woman they will never get.

Yes. Nail on the Head

"If page 3 was a means whereby a physically "10" woman (no objectification there) could bag a high status man, the women models are getting it completely wrong. They are targetting the wrong demographic. High status men don't read the Sun."

They are doing it for the money and the status. How many of them end up with high status footballers. Quite a few I think. They certainly wouldn't be dating a man with no future.

"Likewise if high status men chose from the page 3 ranks, and I have never met a CEO who is married to a former page 3 model, there would be page 3s in the Financial Times."

High status men don't go looking in newspapers...the young women flock to then in herds.

"At the end of the day, however, your message seems to be that women are objects whose goal is to make life more bearable for men."

Partly true...indeed women (and their tits) do make life bearable for men. Women's primary role and goal IN NATURE'S STRATEGY is to bring new life into the world and continue the species by selecting the best genes she can to reproduce. The women with the most beauty can command the most resources to further the security of her offspring. Simples.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 18:51:50

@Doctrine

The Daily Sport is where the issue lies for me...it is on the bottom shelf with sexualised images on the front cover where any child can see it. I hate it with a loathing. Page three you have a choice, if you don't like it don't buy it. You don;'t have to see it. With the Sport there is no choice. It should be placed on top shelf by law.

FrameyMcFrame Sun 24-Feb-13 18:53:07

I don't really care about the male sexual response Bum, believe it or not, it's not the most important thing in the world!!!

I want to see the end of page three because I don't like the messages it sends to our daughters and sons.

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 18:58:52

Nature's strategy? Is she good at chess?

I suppose this EP bollox might make some men feel better about their lack of success in life, "it's not my fault I am a "low status male" / can't get a not babe, it's nature's strategy"

Look outside your cave for a moment. What? You don't live in a cave? That's because we are not cavemen. So-called Evolutionary Psychologists have no clue what the psychology of the cavemen was because THEY ARE ALL DEAD! It is a non-science based entirely on speculation with absolutely no relevance whatsoever to modern politics or society.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 19:05:44

@Frame

Actually the male sexual response is one of the most important things on the planet. Where would women get sperm from without it! You wouldn't exist if it wasn't for your dad's testicles and his sexual response to your mum.

"I want to see the end of page three because I don't like the messages it sends to our daughters and sons."

You are entitled to your opinion. However I argue that those messages are always going to be there as they have always been through history. Every culture has objectified beauty and virility. You cannot ban or stop it as it would continue like the prohibition in America. As I am sure you are aware the best defense is the healthy upbringing of children in an environment where they feel secure and loved regardless of their sexual desirability.

Page three is under control, we can chose to buy...The Sport thrusts it in our faces...we have no control. In my mind targeting the Sun is a waste of time...The Sport is where the attacks should go.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 19:10:01

@Flora Nature's strategy? Is she good at chess?

Nature created Gary Kasparov...so yes I guess she is.

"I suppose this EP bollox might make some men feel better about their lack of success in life, "it's not my fault I am a "low status male" / can't get a not babe, it's nature's strategy"

How would it make them feel better? It doesn't change the fact they are not getting laid.

You do live in a cave...only it's got central heating, usually installed by a bloke! (Had to get that one in! Heh)

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 19:30:22

I think it was custardy who said on another thread that in the end, MRA posts boil down to "a bloo bloo bloo my penis". In this case, "my very important sexual response".

bum the answer to your question to me is in the quote you included "it's not my fault"

The world you imagine yourself to be living in bears no resemblance to real life. There will be no black market versions of the Sun produced and circulated surreptitiously. In the real world, most of the time boys and girls grow up, fall in love and get married and reproduce via the male and female sexual response. This stuff about high status males with harems of women and low status men who never get laid is nonsense spouted by bitter PUA sheep who obsess about women being 10s or 3s or whatever and how can they shag a 7 rather than a 6.

Oh and have a biscuit for the ickiest post yet.

Lessthanaballpark Sun 24-Feb-13 19:42:37

Bum I think you're missing the point. We could argue back and forth about EP forever, that chestnut will never be resolved but that has nothing to do with the campaign against Page 3.

Women understand that men like "10"s as you put it. But that's not the issue is it?

The issue is that we don't want to live in a culture where women's bodies are seen as commodities, because women are human beings and whilst men might see us as sexual objects first and foremost, we don't see ourselves as sexual objects and don't want to be treated as such.

The other thing you said regarding "womens preference for athletic six foot high earning men" begs the question why there is such an imbalance. Why all naked women and no naked men? Who is being pandered to here and why?

So men fancy women and women fancy men (except for when men fancy men and women fancy women) - so what? In what way does that justify P3 in today's world?

The 'don't like it, don't buy it' argument is BS - it's everywhere - on trains, buses, in cafes, pubs and workplaces. It contributes to a hostile environment for women who, in todays world want a bit more than to be treated as something to ogle, TYVM. It's soft porn and has no place at the breakfast table or anywhere else in mixed company.

I'll support your campaign against the Sport though, let us know when you've set it up.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 19:50:09

@Flora

"Oh and have a for the ickiest post yet."

Don't blow an ovary now!

Yawn...standard feminist sexual shaming response...can't you come up with something a little more original?

Your arguments are built on straw. There will always be pictures of naked women. As to the future, men are beginning to opt out of marriage now, deciding that there is no benefit for them. As to high status and low status males..you are in denial...Are you married, if so did you marry a loser? I doubt it. You would have gone for the highest status male you could get.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 19:58:07

@Less

I would argue that there are plenty of female orientated sexual publications. As a counter I would add that men are objectified as to their earning potential and ability to get resources. A winner or a loser, so to speak.

Some of the women I have known have loved being objectified by men for their beauty, as long as it is the right man, and not a loser, of course.

Lessthanaballpark Sun 24-Feb-13 19:58:19

"Are you married, if so did you marry a loser? I doubt it. You would have gone for the highest status male you could get. "

Oh you're one of those cynics. Life isn't as strategic as you think it is. You sound highly disappointed in life, and you don't really know us.

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 19:58:29

bum oh the irony.

Lessthanaballpark Sun 24-Feb-13 20:04:33

"As a counter I would add that men are objectified as to their earning potential and ability to get resources."

Gosh you're so cynical! I would hate to see life as you do.

FWIW feminists are the last people to objectify men for their earning potential. You won't see any "there aint nothing going on but the rent" philosophy here. Because feminists believe in the right to earn their own money, to have access their own resources, so that when they find a man attractive it's for reasons other than ther wallet.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 20:05:47

@PlentyofPube

"It contributes to a hostile environment for women who, in todays world want a bit more than to be treated as something to ogle, TYVM."

I would argue that your average woman in today's postmodern feministic western developed world is the most pampered they have ever been since the dawn of time.

Lessthanaballpark Sun 24-Feb-13 20:14:48

"pampered"?!! Barf....

If you had said that we have a higher standard of living than we used to then yes of course we do. But so do men. Would you say that men are also pampered?

As for rights, opportunities and privileges, of course we have more than we used to, but relative to men we are still lacking in many areas.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 20:15:14

@Less

Not cynical...a realist. My argument is if a man wants to read page three to lighten his life we don't have the right to stop it.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 20:16:36

@Less

but relative to men we are still lacking in many areas.

Apart from divorce law...of course. This has resulted in many men opting out of marriage.

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 20:24:26

"This has resulted in many men opting out of marriage."

Do you have any evidence of this?

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 20:28:27

"My argument is if a man wants to read page three to lighten his life we don't have the right to stop it."

Why not? We make all sorts of laws to create the sort of society we want to live in. What's so special about a man's right to leer at half naked women in public?

ashesgirl Sun 24-Feb-13 20:29:37

Why don't we have topless girls on TV in the daytime then to lighten the poor men's load?

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 20:31:26

@Flora

Sure...Google marriage rates and then click on images. Most is American data.

It is a sad reality.

In Japan there is a whole breed of men who have just given up on women. They call themselves Herbivores. Sad...for them the benchmark is way too high.

Now I know that wikipedia is not the greatest of academic tools but you can read a brief on this bunch here..

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbivore_men

I quote: Many of these causes, however, may be enhanced by Japanese women and male perceptions of them. Many women refuse men that don't have steady jobs (such as the freeters and the NEET).[17] Other women feel that self-proclaimed soushokukei danshi are weak and not masculine.[18] Additionally, some men have considered themselves intimidated by more independent women, while others show little to no interest in the opposite sex.[5][19] However, a poll of 16-19 year old women found that 59% were uninterested in sex, considerably higher than the male poll.[3]

Sad...:-(

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 20:36:12

@Ashes

They do in Spain. :-)

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 20:37:58

@Flora

What's so special about a man's right to leer at half naked women in public?

There isn't, there are a damn site more important things to get wound up about than men looking at tits!

Why not? We make all sorts of laws to create the sort of society we want to live in. What's so special about a man's right to leer at half naked women in public?

this.

As for I would argue that your average woman in today's postmodern feministic western developed world is the most pampered they have ever been since the dawn of time. - I don't know whether to laugh or be sick.

Why do you keep putting @ at the start of your posts? Are you from Twitter?

ashesgirl Sun 24-Feb-13 20:41:16

Hmm, well they don't have a page 3 in many other countries. So should we copy other nations?

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 20:41:29

bum you said "this has resulted..." Falling marriage rates are not evidence that the fall is caused by men giving up on marriage. Do you understand that?

If Japanese men are rebelling about traditional sex roles, good for them. Shame they're not doing something more productive than watching porn and playing video games all day. Not seeing that phenomenon in the UK though.

TheDoctrineOfSciAndNatureClub Sun 24-Feb-13 20:42:45

You do know that marriage is between a man and a woman typically, right? So if marriage rates are down, that's women's choices as well as men's?

Lessthanaballpark Sun 24-Feb-13 20:44:09

"My argument is if a man wants to read page three to lighten his life we don't have the right to stop it."

What was the name of that Greek dude who used to masturbate in the local agora & other public places? Maybe we should bring that back too? Supermarkets could hand out free wetwipes in case they got a bit randy in the fruit and veg aisle! grin

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 20:44:15

bum thanks for telling me what to find important. Thanks also for agreeing there's nothing special about men's rights to leer at women in public. Hang on, what was your argument again?

TheDoctrineOfSciAndNatureClub Sun 24-Feb-13 20:44:30

Flora, my understanding is that typically Japanese women were expected to stop working on marriage and/or to do the bulk of the housework.

Maybe both men and women are rebelling against typical gender roles.

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 21:04:44

Doctrine I think you're right. In fact, that wiki article pointed out there are even higher levels of disinterest in sex among young women. From what bum has been saying, you would imagine they would be clamouring all over the "high status males".

I know it's anedata but a Japanese woman told me a few years ago that most of her friends were only having one child because pain medication during childbirth is frowned on and women don't want to put themselves through the pain after they have experienced it the first time. How is that relevant? Well it may not be but it is difficult to extrapolate cause from bare statistics (e.g. falling rates of marriage, childbirth) and particularly so using statistics from one culture to make a point about another culture. The same woman told me that her pre-marriage courses included flower arranging. I think I'd bail out of marriage in that case as well.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 21:15:52

@less

"What was the name of that Greek dude who used to masturbate in the local agora & other public places? Maybe we should bring that back too? Supermarkets could hand out free wetwipes in case they got a bit randy in the fruit and veg aisle!"

An argument built on straw...when did I suggest that? Your comment is invalid. nil points

LojinJoin Sun 24-Feb-13 21:19:21

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

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 21:24:09

@Plentyofpubes

"I don't know whether to laugh or be sick." Yes, the truth does have that effect on people.

@Flora "thanks for telling me what to find important. Thanks also for agreeing there's nothing special about men's rights to leer at women in public. Hang on, what was your argument again?"

No problem...I'm glad we can both agree page three is a non issue. Obviously, people are so pampered in this modern world that they have have so much time on their hands that they can even consider it.

kim147 Sun 24-Feb-13 21:24:14

You're everywhere today.

Can you give a perfectly good reason why there should be page 3?
Does it do good or harm to women in today's society?

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 21:27:10

Why was LojinJoins comment deleted...they were just pointing out facts?

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 21:30:17

bum read again. Try engaging your brain this time.

AmandaPayne Sun 24-Feb-13 21:30:42

They are aren't they Kim. It's like buses...

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 21:32:37

Kim

Yes..it enhances men's lives!

I don't think it does either.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 21:33:41

@Flora

I would if I could... try opening your eyes...it's been deleted!

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 21:36:43

I was responding to your comment to me. Again, try to engage brain before responding.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 21:40:59

"I was responding to your comment to me. Again, try to engage brain before responding."

Which comment? I have made many. Get your act together...use quotations...it helps!

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 21:46:03

Your habit of using @s should make it easier for you to follow. You really don't have anything intelligent to add to this discussion. Now you're down to "it enhances men's lives". Weak.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 21:50:59

@Flora

"it enhances men's lives"

Weak...not from my point of view. :-)

kim147 Sun 24-Feb-13 21:53:42

So men's lives would be poorer if there were no page 3. confused
Poor things - as if life isn't hard enough for them already.
I'm sure they have plenty of other opportunities to ogle women in the media.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 22:03:46

Kim...

Damn right...WW2 was won on the D-cups of Mansfield...they were inspirational to the troops. :-)

"I'm sure they have plenty of other opportunities to ogle women in the media."

So page three shouldn't be an issue then really...should it. No point in banning it if you are not going to ban all sexualisation of women in the media. Strewth what a drab horrid world that would be. I hope it never happens.

Sunnywithshowers Sun 24-Feb-13 22:05:44

What about gay men?

FastidiaBlueberry Sun 24-Feb-13 22:05:48

Just why are Mumsnet allowing this?

Seriously, why?

<Mystified>

AmandaPayne Sun 24-Feb-13 22:08:39

We could always, you know, stop talking to him.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 22:14:09

@Sunny

Gay men had their own icons at the time...however I am not up to scratch on GAY ww2 history but I'm sure they had their icons.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 22:17:17

@Blueberry

Are you saying that I should be silenced because I hold a different opinion from you? I am on topic.

kim147 Sun 24-Feb-13 22:21:17

You're on topic. Not impressed with your reasoning but you are on topic.
I don't seem to remember WW2 being won because of women in their underwear. Certainly women (and male) singers were moral boosters but positive women weren't sent out as strippers to help the troops.

And I can't really see why Page 3 needs to exist. I don't really get the media obsession with the female body anyway but page 3 is a start.

TheDoctrineOfSciAndNatureClub Sun 24-Feb-13 22:25:46

"We will fight them on the beaches, we will do a painting of some breasts, we will never surrender." As Churchill almost said.

FastidiaBlueberry Sun 24-Feb-13 22:28:06

I can point you all to some very good references from phrenology, which is excellent on the subject of human sexuality and at least as reliable as evo-bollocks.

Also more entertaining.

Sunnywithshowers Sun 24-Feb-13 22:28:55

We X posted, bum. I meant page 3, not WWII.

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 22:29:09

Hi Kim

"I don't really get the media obsession with the female body."

Increase your testosterone levels seventeen fold and you will!

"Women weren't sent out as strippers to help the troops."

Actually they were. Burlesque shows, but few and far between.

kim147 Sun 24-Feb-13 22:30:55

You mean substitute male for the word media.

TheDoctrineOfSciAndNatureClub Sun 24-Feb-13 22:35:58

<passes kim wine>

Doesmybumlookbiginthiss Sun 24-Feb-13 22:37:26

Right...goodnight all...thanks for the debate...I enjoyed it! :-)

kim147 Sun 24-Feb-13 22:38:53

"Increase your testosterone levels seventeen fold and you will!"

That's not going to happen grin

TheDoctrineOfSciAndNatureClub Sun 24-Feb-13 22:40:51

grin

AmandaPayne Sun 24-Feb-13 22:41:39

grin

FloraFox Sun 24-Feb-13 22:47:42

It wasn't a debate. You were just spouting nonsense then changing your position when called on.

gedhession Tue 20-Aug-13 23:01:08

I recall well the time Samantha Fox was immensely popular. In fact I do recall many Page 3 girls, Linda Lusardi, Maria Whittaker, Jo Guest, Katie Price, Melinda Messenger and Keeley Hazell being very popular as Page 3 girls and go on to become popular media personalities. I find it interesting that Clare Short tried to ban Page 3 at the time Samantha Fox was at the height of her popularity. Of course, just because something is popular is not a defense to some...

libertarianj Tue 20-Aug-13 23:15:05

So who was your favourite page 3 girl then ged? seeing as you like bumping these old page 3 threads.

Portofino Tue 20-Aug-13 23:33:24

Katie Proce and her life "looks attainable to many girls. I wonder what other, vaguely credible, role models exist for working class girls?" What happened to getting an education and getting a Job? I might have wanted to be Madonna in 1983, but I never foresaw me, 25 years on.

Boosterseat Wed 21-Aug-13 09:03:30

There are lots of bizarre things that are "popular" at the moment, slut shaming, DV, EA etc shall i go on?

Of course, if its happening regularly and its "popular" then of course it should be defended.

<rolls eyes>

gedhession Fri 23-Aug-13 23:40:01

Of course, I was a huge fan of Samantha Fox and thinking back to the 1980s recall how popular she was. You could not open ANY newspaper or magazine without seeing her and she was on all the TV chat shows. The media also implied her popularity with children, as her appearances in Smash Hits and J17 suggested. If you have an issue with me slamming Page 3 threads that's fine but I can't help but notice that Mumsnet has a proliferation of these threads and I feel obliged to give my view.

NiceTabard Sat 24-Aug-13 00:01:43

Sam Fox started on page 3 aged 16. That in and of itself is just grim, for 16 year old girls everywhere including Sam.

According to Wiki, her page 3 career started after her mum sent photos of her in her underwear to a competition:

"Carole Fox photographed her 16-year-old daughter Samantha in lingerie, submitting several pictures to The Sunday People newspaper's Girl of the Year amateur modelling contest. She came in second and the photographs drew her to the attention of the Sun newspaper where her first topless shots were run."

Nice.

She was managed by her father, who she sued later on as he was embezzling her money.

Wiki: "Fox's father Patrick, a former carpenter, managed her career until 1991, when Fox hired accountants to trace over £1 million that she believed he had embezzled from her accounts. She then sued her father, who by then had divorced and remarried, and in May 1995 she was awarded a £363,000 court settlement. Patrick Fox died in 2000, at which time he and Fox had not spoken for almost a decade."

AFAIK, Sam became a born again Christian and is in a long-term relationship with another woman.

So. A heart-warming story all around.

I hope Sam is happy now, as reading that it's clear as fuck that things were wrong for her earlier on.

But hey, as long as she's worth wanking over, what does anything else matter?

FFS

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Sat 24-Aug-13 00:11:42

I remember Sam Fox reviewing the singles in Smash Hits when I was about 15 (I'm now in my 40's).

There was a mini furore then about this then - setting her up as an idol for teenage girls etc - but I do remember her being everywhere at the time. I'm sure she enjoyed her fame - but it's painfully clear that she was exploited by both her parents and the Sun.

TheDoctrineOfPositivityYes Sat 24-Aug-13 00:20:15

Such a proliferation that you bumped a thread from six months ago?

Rightyho, ged.

gedhession Sat 24-Aug-13 00:45:58

Well Doctrine, I was googling following the "modesty covers" for Lads' Mags debate on BBC TV and I came across these threads. I see that some of them are inactive and I have not touched them. The ones that are active still seem worth making a contribution to. Sam Fox did start Page 3 at 16 but back then you were just considered a model doing a job , it was as simple as that, you were doing legal employment. Many of the things that happened to Samantha consequently have also happened to other popular celebrities such as pop stars and sports stars. In fact I did regard Page 3 girls as rather like being pop stars or TV stars, just young women doing something popular in a popular newspaper and becoming popular in the process.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Sat 24-Aug-13 01:08:07

Didn't it have the zombie sign (which I really love btw) if not it must have been days from getting one - it's from February?

Dervel Sat 24-Aug-13 03:30:49

I dunno. I am sure I could muster up a cogent defence for page 3 if I could be bothered, but to perfectly honest if it makes enough women uncomfortable by its mere existence why not just remove it? Are we as men really losing something that is that essential?

I think it is an important issue to raise about women's magazines fixation on certain definitions of beauty, but not strictly relevant to this issue, as if both are wrong choosing to focus on one doesn't give the other one a free pass. Besides as a man my opinion is not as relevant re: women's magazines, but I can choose not to buy page 3 papers and part of the problem.

libertarianj Sat 24-Aug-13 04:59:43

but to perfectly honest if it makes enough women uncomfortable by its mere existence why not just remove it?

That's the thing, i don't believe the majority of women are uncomfortable with it, well certainly not enough to be be bothered to sign that petition.
I personally don't even buy the sun or am really bothered about looking at page 3 girls in a newspaper, but it's the principal of banning something because a few people are offended by it, is where i have a problem. If We start to take that approach with everything, then all kinds of things will get banned and we end up a repressed society.

on a lighter note did anyone see the Daily Mail today (actual paper) - as David Cameron was topless on page 3! I only bought it for the Lego.
I think i'll have to write to Lego and complain that i don't think it's appropriate to be giving out free Lego with a paper that's not family friendly. Therefore they should revert back to the Sun as it's the lesser of two evils and 20p cheaper smile

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2400451/Awkward-moment-topless-David-Cameron-struggles-shorts-crowded-beach-Cornwall.html

Dervel Sat 24-Aug-13 13:11:29

Well I don't think you should confuse people who don't really care with those who do. I can see the point as someone raised up thread about being sat next to someone in a public place, and being made to feel awkward when there is a chap next to them ogling a half naked woman in his tabloid.

I do see your point about banning things, but can't we look at things on a case by case basis and make sensible common sense decisions rather than never examine things at all? The issue as I see it is that I as a man have precious little in the world that I may come across that makes me feel uncomfortable, but then again society is arranged for us men.

If getting rid of page 3, makes a number of women that little bit more comfortable is small step in the right direction, and honestly is the loss of page 3 really that big of a loss to mankind?

gedhession Sat 24-Aug-13 15:06:02

I think it is worth considering that even if Page 3 disappeared would people change and men in particular. I recall a documentary with this US soldier from the first Gulf War and when he captured these Iraqi conscripts he found their pockets full of pictures of nude women. I find it hard to believe that some men will never stop admiring images of women and that there are women who are obliging to that need. I'm sure there are plenty of men who look at pictures of popular and sucessful female celebrities with the intentions of fulfilling some sort of desire.

TheDoctrineOfPositivityYes Sat 24-Aug-13 15:52:16

The argument against page 3 is the appropriateness of the images being in a national newspaper that's readily available to any age group and is openly read.

I'm sure we've all nipped to the bathroom naked or whatever, yet that would never be shown in, say, Eastenders before the watershed, because it wouldn't be the right place for it. Same thing for a paper - "woman has tits" not actually being news.

Nothing to do with "men will always fancy women" or whatever.

gedhession Sat 24-Aug-13 18:41:23

Well Doctrine, I can only give my subjective opinion on that. I recall that Samantha Fox made no secret of the fact that she received letters from young teens and reckoned the average age of her fans was 14! This would have been the age that I was a fan of hers. I also think that we show to much concern about children being exposed to sexual imagery considering that children do in fact have actual sexual experiences.

YouMakeMeWannaLaLa Sat 24-Aug-13 19:58:29

hmm

NiceTabard Sat 24-Aug-13 22:50:31

hmm hmm hmm hmm hmm

FloraFox Sat 24-Aug-13 23:59:27

What the fuck?

libertarianj Tue 27-Aug-13 14:25:06

If getting rid of page 3, makes a number of women that little bit more comfortable is small step in the right direction, and honestly is the loss of page 3 really that big of a loss to mankind?

But you could use that argument about anything that makes people feel uncomfortable. Who would be responsible for making these case by case decisions? Who would decide that nudity featured in fashion shoots and art pieces in papers like the Guardian are ok but then not page 3. Surely that's highly subjective from person to person. I consider some of the arty fashion stuff to be more sexual than someone posing in an exotic location in their bikini bottoms (which seems to be the majority of page 3 shoots these days). For there to be any consistency it would have to be an all or nothing ban on topless nudity in the media, you couldn't just single out the Sun, otherwise it's just double standards

How about this small minority of people who have a problem with things like page 3, try learning to stop being so easily offended instead? We should start putting the focus back on them.

FloraFox Tue 27-Aug-13 17:34:11

Double standards, eh? We can't have those! What an outrage if men were not entitled to ogle women's bodies on a level playing field.

How about people who are not capable of forming a reasoned, political analysis, try learning to stop being so easily confused instead?

CaptChaos United States Tue 27-Aug-13 17:51:12

gedhession wrote:- I also think that we show to much concern about children being exposed to sexual imagery considering that children do in fact have actual sexual experiences.

By the same token then, you would be ok having images of child sexual abuse on page 3, considering children are in fact sexually abused?

'Children' might have 'sexual experiences', however, if those 'experiences' happen before said child is 16, then that child is below the age of consent, which brings with it a whole new debate.

CustardTheCat84 Tue 27-Aug-13 19:27:21

More a comic than a newspaper. I've never bought it nor would I consider reading a discarded copy on a train if I had nothing at hand to read. Then again page 3 is no less offensive than the Z list & expose trash surrounding footballers & such and the rest of the newspaper said page appears in. Funny how hunky rugby chaps never attract the type smile

NiceTabard Tue 27-Aug-13 19:31:14

I think that the argument that we should have page 3 because 14 year old boys like looking at 16 year old girls breasts, is one of the most compelling and convincing that I have heard to date.

grin

gedhession Wed 28-Aug-13 17:55:08

Funnily enough, I'm sure I once read an interview by Keeley Hazell where she said that Nuts once got an email from a woman that she'd got her 14 year old son Keeley's Nuts calendar for Christmas but was annoyed that all the pictures were topless. She said she was happy to have her son put pictures of Keeley on his bedroom wall as long as they are not topless. I think Nuts printed a non-topless Keeley calendar in response.

libertarianj Thu 29-Aug-13 00:55:34

'Children' might have 'sexual experiences', however, if those 'experiences' happen before said child is 16, then that child is below the age of consent, which brings with it a whole new debate.

But there is no age of consent for masturbation, which i think was what ged was referring to when he said sexual experience? Am i on the right tracks ged?

How about people who are not capable of forming a reasoned, political analysis, try learning to stop being so easily confused instead?

such a lame comeback..... so if you don't agree with someone's view, just tell them they don't understand what they are talking about. Yeah that's the way forward...hmm

CaptChaos United States Thu 29-Aug-13 06:55:23

libertarianj wrote:- which i think was what ged was referring to when he said sexual experience? Am i on the right tracks ged?

Probably not, given that he didn't write that in the post he made 24 hours after mine and several hours before yours, but put words in his mouth if you like. I'm sure he can now say that's actually what he meant wink

Such a lame apologist. grin

FloraFox Thu 29-Aug-13 13:13:52

It's lame to come onto a discussion about the impact of Page 3 on women and on society and say "try learning to stop being so easily offended instead".

Women are not offended by the sight of breasts FFS. I would expect that most of us have have seen way more naked breasts than most men.

gedhession Thu 29-Aug-13 19:57:29

I wanted to make the point that being actually sexually abused as a child will possibly have a greater effect on you than exposure to sexually explicit images. I'll even risk the contention that most underaged sex occurs between peers. I wasn't really thinking about masturbation but I'm pretty sure quite a few pubescent males appreciate the female body to orgasm.Me, a lame apologist? I don't make these things happen.

CaptChaos United States Thu 29-Aug-13 22:17:31

The lame apologist comment wasn't actually aimed at you Ged , why would you think it was?

Nice to see you and lib singing from the same song sheet ( after a bit of coaching!)

gedhession Thu 29-Aug-13 23:12:40

Oh I see Chaos, well Tabard reckoned I was defending Page 3 on the basis that it provides sexual relief for pubescent males and I assumed you've all come the same conclusion about me. Not the greatest of defense?

TheDoctrineOfPositivityYes Fri 30-Aug-13 07:45:46

Ged, is your point that the sexual abuse of children is worse than p3? I don't see any dissenters to that...

NiceTabard Fri 30-Aug-13 07:52:56

I thought he meant that many 14yo have had consensual sexual experiences and therefore what is wrong with having page 3, given that many will have had the "real deal".

He said that at age 14 he was a big fan of sam fox and many of her fans were boys that age.

STOP THE PRESS! 14 yo boys like looking at 16 yo girls tits! Doesn't mean they need to be in a "family" newspaper though does it. ESPECIALLY when it makes so many girls of those ages feel uncomfortable.

Or is it more important for males to see tits whenever they want, than for females to feel comfortable when they are out and about? <answer is obvious isn't it. We have page 3 ergo males more important than females>

libertarianj Fri 30-Aug-13 13:05:28

^STOP THE PRESS! 14 yo boys like looking at 16 yo girls tits! Doesn't mean they need to be in a "family" newspaper though does it. ESPECIALLY when it makes so many girls of those ages feel uncomfortable.

Or is it more important for males to see tits whenever they want, than for females to feel comfortable when they are out and about? <answer is obvious isn't it. We have page 3 ergo males more important than females>^

But freedom of choice and civil liberties trump both of those arguments, without them we become a repressed society. It's the slippery slope.

and the Sun, a "family" paper? with articles written by Jeremy Clarkson, Frankie Boyle and Katie Price, oh and then there's Dear Deidre too. If it's 'the kids' you are really worried about then why aren't you addressing the rest of the paper? Surely the topless models are the least offensive most innocent thing in the whole damn thing. (Not that i think they should be addressed as i don't believe in mollycoddling or censorship, i am just highlighting the inconsistency of this campaign.)

libertarianj Fri 30-Aug-13 13:09:39

Nice to see you and lib singing from the same song sheet ( after a bit of coaching!)

I don't think so, Ged completely lost me with his last argument.

NiceTabard Fri 30-Aug-13 18:17:51

So you would be in favour of having the existing laws around obscene publications removed

And you would be in favour of having the law changed about not being allowed to show an erect penis in a non "specialist" magazine

Incidentally younger children cannot read but they can understand images.

Also it is quite easy to ignore writing generally - you have to actively try to read someone elses paper on the bus for eg - but images are just there and no translation is required.

I suspect that you aren't female (?) and/or have never had a man use the page 3 image to perv over you / unsettle you and so you may be unlikely to understand why so many have an issue with this.

The difficulty with page 3 is it soft core porn that - as it is in a "family newspaper" - people deem appropriate for looking at anywhere. Playgrounds, on the bus sitting next to children, on the tube while pressed in the rush hour into young women. It is looked at in places which publications like nuts or playboy aren't. I've yet to see someone watching porn on the tube on an ipad, and I've never even seen someone reading the star. But the sun is there, in your face, every day, often with a cheerful leer at a nearby female for good measure.

NiceTabard Fri 30-Aug-13 18:19:09

Reading your civil liberties / repressed society comment again - would you have a problem with people watching porn on the tube on their ipads?

scallopsrgreat Fri 30-Aug-13 22:17:33

I'm failing to see why freedom of choice and civil liberties trumps stopping something which damages a group of people. They don't in most other areas of life.

And can I just point out (no doubt for the umpteenth time on this thread) that no-one is calling for a ban. The No More Page 3 campaign is asking The Sun (nicely) to remove it from the newspaper because it is irrelevant. Asking someone to remove something is not banning it. No civil liberties are in danger. And men's freedom of choice to objectify women's bodies can still continue elsewhere. The slight loss of privilege in this area maybe barely noticed by some hmm

scallopsrgreat Fri 30-Aug-13 22:23:12

And I am smirking slightly that seeing women's naked breasts over your morning tea is being considered as a civil liberty. Male privilege in action their grin

gedhession Fri 30-Aug-13 23:14:41

On Facebook I have friends who used to do Page 3. They told me that they got a lot of letters from females who admired them, even lesbians, quite a lot from girls who wanted to be models themselves. In Clare Short's "This is what women really think of Page 3" (is it really Ms Short?) she claimed she got 7000 letters from women concerned about Page 3 but The Sun was read by 13 million back in 1986 and got thousands of letters from Page 3 admirers each week. Even the new Online petition has attracted less than 100,000 , still significantly less than the total Sun readership. When these Object/Feminista types put "This offends all women" on Lads Mags covers are they really telling the truth?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Fri 30-Aug-13 23:59:29

I don't understand the civil liberties argument at all - what civil liberty is being broken by not having tits in a daily newspaper?

Some people might want all sorts being normalised in a newspaper - doesn't mean it's a civil liberties matter if they don't get it.

Civil liberties does not equal anyone doing what they want regardless of the impact on other people, surely?

scallopsrgreat Sat 31-Aug-13 00:14:30

Well exactly Sabrina. But obviously there are only a handful of women bothered by it and any other damage page 3 does is in our pretty little heads. Men's entitlement to ogle women must trump all other concerns.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Sat 31-Aug-13 00:19:50

Perhaps we should do the old MRA trick: -

What, you think getting rid of page 3 is an infringement of civil liberties? Why don't you go and campaign in China where civil liberties really is an issue? Stopping people ogling women's tits isn't too bad considering what goes on in other countries wink wink wink

scallopsrgreat Sat 31-Aug-13 00:26:57

I think that works well here grin

Dervel Sat 31-Aug-13 01:46:14

Ok libertarianj your response to me mystifies. Page 3 is there purely for sexual thrills, objectification of women, and the trivialisation of their thoughts (ever read some of the text boxes attributed to the women?). Now I am not against sexual thrills in the slightest, in an appropriate place. However you stack it up next to those other factors, and yeah we have a problem.

Nudity in fashion shoots and art pieces do not come attached with an innate degradation of women, so you are not comparing like with like. If you are proposing fears about people making decisions about what is appropriate in society, and people making the wrong ones, well news flash we're human, we're not perfect and yeah sometimes the powers that be enforce something I do not happen to agree with. Yet if we don't have hierarchy the whole of human endeavour screeches to a halt.

As a compromise what say we ban it temporarily and see if those that want it come forward with the tenacity and numbers of those that don't. Then reopen the dialogue at that point?

gedhession Sat 31-Aug-13 13:31:44

I found this on the web if you fancy a listen....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfNbYyDwAvM

I found it interesting that it was argued that most young girls consider Page 3 the only career option. I actually recall a woman who did Page 3 back in the 80s who was studying to be a barrister (well, so said the caption). Bit off topic, I seem to recall an article that 1/3 of lap dancers have degree and see it as meerly a way of funding their studies towards their eventual career.

OrangeClouds Sat 31-Aug-13 15:30:17

HOUSE!

NiceTabard Sat 31-Aug-13 16:20:43

<hands over prize>

gedhession Sat 31-Aug-13 17:14:10

Google this , BBC Newsnight 'Remove Page 3' debate, I like the glamour model Laura Lacole who claims that sexual objectification is a biological imperative. Was I right all along?

OrangeClouds Sat 31-Aug-13 18:18:14

Wow, ged, someone in the industry doesn't have a problem with the industry? That does of course make you Right All Along.

In other news - airlines don't agree with air fuel tax and Claims Direct don't want no win-no fee banned.

NiceTabard Sat 31-Aug-13 18:19:15

There are plenty of gay men around.
Why are there not pictures of hot young men feeling themselves up in the daily papers?

There are plenty of women who would also not be averse to seeing pictures of hot young men feeling themselves up in the daily papers. Yet still it's not there.

What is the biological reason that objectification only works in one specific instance? Why are gay men immune to the appeal of looking at scantily clad men in provocative poses? Why are women not interested in looking at attractive men with fit bodies on display? Oh hold on... They ARE! And yet it's only young women who are on page 3. Now why on earth could that be? Strange words like sexism, routine objectification of women, sexual oppression of women, enforced heterosexuality and homophobia are pinging through my brain. Most odd.

libertarianj Sun 01-Sep-13 00:47:15

So you would be in favour of having the existing laws around obscene publications removed

oh that rather vague thing from 1959, er yes

And you would be in favour of having the law changed about not being allowed to show an erect penis in a non "specialist" magazine

yeah, why not? but please tell me you aren't trying to say that the male equivalent to a woman's breasts is an erect penis? hmm

Incidentally younger children cannot read but they can understand images.
Also it is quite easy to ignore writing generally - you have to actively try to read someone elses paper on the bus for eg but images are just there and no translation is required.

and what is there to understand about topless nudity? confused and what's wrong with the naked human body?

The difficulty with page 3 is it soft core porn that - as it is in a "family newspaper"

it's not soft porn it's topless nudity. How can a woman posing in some bikini bottoms be considered porn? your beginning to sound like Mary Whitehouse.

I'm failing to see why freedom of choice and civil liberties trumps stopping something which damages a group of people.

Damages a group of people? sounds like a massive exaggeration to me? it doesn't damage anyone and i certainly wouldn't call feeling insecure about it, being damaged. I think womens mags do a far better job of that, but no your not going after them.

The No More Page 3 campaign is asking The Sun (nicely) to remove it from the newspaper because it is irrelevant.

well go and ask the sun nicely to remove it then? Actually i think the campaigners have already done this numerous times.The Sun has said no, so time to move on, otherwise it's just harassment.

And I am smirking slightly that seeing women's naked breasts over your morning tea is being considered as a civil liberty. Male privilege in action their grin&

er what did i say about the slippery slope? you know the gradual chipping away of civil liberties. Also what about the models civil liberty to pose topless in a newspaper. Oh you don't care about them do you? Do Object and UK Feminista ever consider the models opinion in their campaigns? A big fat NO.

I don't understand the civil liberties argument at all

Authoritarians never do

Civil liberties does not equal anyone doing what they want regardless of the impact on other people, surely?

can you prove page 3 has a negative impact on the general population? er no. A few easily offended individuals is not sufficient enough reason to ban something. What about if 100K religious extremists wanted to ban the wearing of short skirts in public, would you bow to their needs and ban them? hmm

Perhaps we should do the old MRA trick: -

you guys are obsessed with MRA's. It seems that if it's anything that opposes your view, then you eventually cry MRA troll. It comes across as a tactic to try and shut down freedom of speech. I sometimes wonder why you don't just set up your own private members forum where you would never get any opposing views and you can just pat each other on the back all day long?

AnyFucker Germany Sun 01-Sep-13 00:50:57

You don't like Mumsnet much, do you ?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Sun 01-Sep-13 01:03:30

But we're not authoritarian - I just believe that no group should be objectified in such a derogatory way that p3 does to women - in a self proclaimed daily 'family' newspaper. Or should we have "page 5 enormous black men's knobs" ?? because some people would like to leer at enormous black knobs?

What's that i hear? Knobs are not equivalent to breasts you say? Well why not? You're a sexual libertarian - why can't anything go on p3 then? Erect penises? Sexualised pictures of children? Jew of the month? Babe in a burkha?

Do libertarians believe that anything is ok? That there should be no obscenity laws? Would anything the sun wanted to put on p3 be ok if one group in society wanted to leer at it?

Or is it that yo just happen to feel that women's breasts are ok to have on p3 to titillate the nation - but not those others things?

libertarianj Sun 01-Sep-13 01:30:06

Dervel the text boxes or 'news in brief' feature has now been ditched. So all we have is a topless model posing in bikini bottoms. Can you please explain how this is different to a so called nude fashion shoot or so called nude art piece? We could play a game where i could post up various topless photos of women and you have to guess if they are from page 3 or from a fashion shoot? i reckon the only give away would be that the page 3 models would typically be a size 12/14 where the fashion models would be a size 8/10.

Here we go - topless fashion model vs topless page 3 model:

Fashion

Page 3

and here we get uncensored topless nudity in the Daily Mail, before you claim the fashion one wouldn't feature in a daily newspaper:

Daily Mail 1

or

Daily Mail 2

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Sun 01-Sep-13 01:44:22

"free wrestling babes" is "fashion" now is it? Ha ha hmm

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Sun 01-Sep-13 01:54:56

Oh, wait a minute. If it's 'fashion' - then surely I can go walking down the street in just a cowboy hat and nothing else? Yes? It's fashion after all. Oh - no - I'd be arrested for indecent exposure - yes? Because women aren't actually allowed to walk down the street naked but for a cowboy hat a la pirelli calendar girl. hmm Perhaps that's what the libertarians want - for women walking naked everywhere - to work, to the shops, to work...

OrangeClouds Sun 01-Sep-13 09:39:55

Hi lib

What is the male equivalent to women's breasts then?

gedhession Sun 01-Sep-13 10:48:15

Well according to Lucy Holmes, scrotums are the male equivalent of breasts. Funnily enough, I recall the comedian Jo Brand appearing on Wogan with the porn baron David Sullivan. She said to him "let's see your goolies in one of your mags".

NiceTabard Sun 01-Sep-13 12:26:33

Women's breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic. There is no direct equivalent with a man.

I reckon the closest would be a man posing with a hard on but through his pants. So it is clearly visible but not uncovered. I reckon that would be the equivalent. Happy to google images if people want to understand what I mean - lib would you like me to do that for you.

I am 100% certain that if the sun printed an image of a man posing that way on page 3 there would be uproar.

Why heterosexual male sexuality is the only one that needs to be catered to is beyond me. What about the gay 14 year old boys? Don't they need an image to wank over in the daily papers just as much as the straight ones?

Oh and as for "easily offended" I would be very interested to see how many boys in the UK (and how many men for that matter) would be totally comfortable with sitting next to a massive bloke on the tube who was perusing porny images of blokes while glancing over at their crotch. Would we expect a 14 yo boy to feel comfortable with that? Would he be "easily offended" if he didn't like it? Lib - over to you.

NiceTabard Sun 01-Sep-13 12:41:14

Ooh did anyone else take the opportunity to tick off their "you're all jealous" squares on their bingo cards a few posts ago? I nearly missed it grin

libertarianj Mon 02-Sep-13 13:48:11

Women's breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic. There is no direct equivalent with a man.

I'd say a man's chest is equivalent and men's nipples are erogenous zones too believe it or not. Are you really saying that women don't find men's bare chests sexually attractive? hmm

I am 100% certain that if the sun printed an image of a man posing that way on page 3 there would be uproar.

Why would you conclude that? that's a massive assumption there.

Why heterosexual male sexuality is the only one that needs to be catered to is beyond me. What about the gay 14 year old boys? Don't they need an image to wank over in the daily papers just as much as the straight ones?

well do a Google images for 'Gay Times' or 'Attitude' magazine. Enough said!

Oh and as for "easily offended" I would be very interested to see how many boys in the UK (and how many men for that matter) would be totally comfortable with sitting next to a massive bloke on the tube who was perusing porny images of blokes while glancing over at their crotch. Would we expect a 14 yo boy to feel comfortable with that? Would he be "easily offended" if he didn't like it? Lib - over to you.

ah the old creepy man on the tube reading the sun story, that always comes up at some point in these debates. Ticks off bingo card too. Only needs the 'how would you feel if your daughter/ girlfriend/ wife appeared on page 3 for the full house. smile

grimbletart Mon 02-Sep-13 14:01:04

I've never been able to work out what the point of page 3 is i.e. what's it for?

NiceTabard Mon 02-Sep-13 14:05:51

You are seriously stating that women's bare chests and men's bare chests are equivalent in our society?

Come off it grin

Now I know you're on the wind up.

On other points.
Gay times and attitude are not daily "family" newspapers.
The men who do things like that on the tube are not "old" nor do they look "creepy" IME. But if you want to pretend it's just a couple of pervy old weirdos who behave like that then that's your prerogative.
I also think that it is out of line to dismiss people when they tell you how things have been for them. I don't know if you have ever been a 14 year old girl - but talking about "bingo cards" when hearing stories like that is quite insensitive.

How far does a man need to go do you think, in terms of inappropriate behaviour towards a child on public transport, before that child is entitled to feel uncomfortable without it being an "over-reaction"?

All these arguments about the objectifying of women are very interesting and valid, but wrt Page 3, I simply don't understand how a man can still think it acceptable to sit there in public, potentially next to a child or woman, while arousing himself by looking at a picture of a naked model. Quite apart from any feminist arguments, it is simply grossly inappropriate, which is why such pictures have no place in a newspaper.

scallopsrgreat Mon 02-Sep-13 14:18:37

I think libertarianj is gradually showing quite horribly nicely his thoughts on women and girls in this thread. It makes understanding where he is coming from a lot simpler. It is also illustrating how far men will go to maintain their privilege, specifically the privilege of looking at women's naked breasts everyday, if they want to.

Of course it is inappropriate holmessweetholmes. But that's male entitlement for you.

gedhession Mon 02-Sep-13 20:26:53

Just a question, has anybody actually seen a man oogle at Page 3 in a public place? I know there are men who will give it a cursory glance in public but I cannot say I've seen a man blatantly oogle Page 3 in public, just like I have never seen men oogle the lingerie models in the windows at La Senza, a cursory glance maybe, but not a blatant oogle. I used to furtively flick through the Daily Sport at a big newsagents to see if my favourite model was in it but I'd never just stand there transfixed.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Mon 02-Sep-13 20:32:58

Yes, I actually have. On the train, on the tube and I once had it shoved under my nose in my work staffroom. By a group of men. Cos that's, like, so funny innit?

I guess I just need to get me a sense of humour and stop being so offended all the time.

libertarianj Mon 02-Sep-13 20:59:55

The men who do things like that on the tube are not old nor do they look 'creepy' IME. But if you want to pretend it's just a couple of pervy old weirdos who behave like that then that's your prerogative
I also think that it is out of line to dismiss people when they tell you how things have been for them. I don't know if you have ever been a 14 year old girl - but talking about 'bingo cards' when hearing stories like that is quite insensitive.

How far does a man need to go do you think, in terms of inappropriate behaviour towards a child on public transport, before that child is entitled to feel uncomfortable without it being an "over-reaction"?

wow nice way to demonize men there! so you think that's normal male behaviour do you? not the behaviour of a few weirdos? And do you really think these wierdos would act differently if it wasn't for things like page 3?

This is a classic example of the nanny state mentality, where we have to ban things for the majority because of a few idiots.

Also having seen the leaked e-mail from Object with regards to opposing lap dancing clubs, where they told members to write (lie) to councils saying they were harassed whilst walking past the clubs. I think my scepticism is fully justified.

NiceTabard Mon 02-Sep-13 21:03:15

oogle?

I assume you mean ogle?

Yes of course. It's there to be looked at after all, isn't it. Most don't start rubbing themselves up against the nearest girl at the same time, obviously. But yes, men will spend quite a time perusing page 3, even when on public transport with a woman sitting on either side of him.

It makes me feel uncomfortable, it has since I was a child. I don't think it's OK for someone else to tell me that is "over-reacting" or because I am jealous. It makes me feel uncomfortable - maybe less so now than when I was at secondary school / late teens / twenties - and that's how I felt and it's not an over-reaction. I didn't do anything, I just sat there quietly feeling uncomfortable.

I guess it was just one thing in a litany of actions from men that all took a toll.

Now it's over to you to tell me I was being silly or something.

You have to understand that sitting next to someone on the tube, when you are a young teen, and have him idly peruse a semi-naked woman, while his leg is pressed up against you, is an uncomfortable feeling. Can you empathise with that?

foodworknews Mon 02-Sep-13 21:04:50

I personally don't like page 3 but that's not about the nudity, I think the way it's set up is just sort of crap. I don't know, it isn't really a huge issue to me. I think that energy could be better spent somewhere else.

NiceTabard Mon 02-Sep-13 21:07:49

How is it demonising men to say that men who behave inappropriately are not always "old" or "creepy"?

The idea that you can "spot" sexual predators is a rape myth. Men who behave badly, from the minor things to the major things, are all shapes and sizes, ages, professions, levels of wealth etc.

You are basically saying that if women have had bad stuff done to them by men who are not "old" and "creepy" they are, what, lying? I don't understand your attitude. Young, normal looking men are perfectly capable of behaving badly towards women, from the nasty but not illegal end of the scale through to the worst crimes imaginable.

Your attitude that you can "spot" sex offenders is what caused all that trouble for that poor landlord in that murder case, who got strung up by the tabloids basically because he had bad hair. Pathetic.

NiceTabard Mon 02-Sep-13 21:13:23

Do you know, there's no point is there.

If you have never been a 12/14/16/18 year old girl then you aren't going to get it, unless you try. And neither of you are going to try. So there's really very little point.

Telling women who are trying to explain, based on their life experiences and the experiences of people they know, that they are over-reacting, and dismissing anything they say without even considering it, is just not humane behaviour. But then I guess that men who are red hot keen on page 3 aren't going to be interested in being humane towards females, that's kind of the whole point.

FloraFox Mon 02-Sep-13 21:17:16

I have seen many men ogle page 3 in public and various workplaces. I have seen men sit in malls on benches opposite La Senza and stare at the mannequins / posters. Some men may furtively consume women's bodies for their sexual arousal in public, others are less furtive. All of it is unacceptable.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Mon 02-Sep-13 21:20:23

Libertarian, should anything be allowed to be shown on p3? Anything that is sexually stimulating to someone?

I did ask you this before - but you failed to answer and just called me an authoritarian. You keep going on about the nanny state. But I would like you to answer this very simple question - does a 'libertarian' believe that a newspaper should be free to put anything it wants on pg3? (or any page for that matter).

NiceTabard Mon 02-Sep-13 21:27:47

I think it would be interesting to have a man in a sexy pose who is visibly aroused through his pants.

I think that is the nearest to page 3 you are going to get, given that there is no direct equivalent in society.

Lib does not seem keen on that idea, for some reason. Although he happily asserts that if that was randomly published one week, the vast majority of the UK would be absolutely OK with it. <clue - they really really wouldn't>

libertarianj Mon 02-Sep-13 21:30:55

All these arguments about the objectifying of women are very interesting and valid, but wrt Page 3, I simply don't understand how a man can still think it acceptable to sit there in public, potentially next to a child or woman, while arousing himself by looking at a picture of a naked model. Quite apart from any feminist arguments, it is simply grossly inappropriate, which is why such pictures have no place in a newspaper.

Objectification theory is a nonsense theory engineered by radical feminists to try and make natural human physical attraction into something sinister and wrong.

You are making too many assumptions there, you can't assume what people think or react when they see a topless image and what do you mean by 'arousing himself'? (sounds like you are getting a bit carried away there)

It also sounds as if you are trying to demonize men too, and are more or less saying men can't be trusted with such imagery. Also are you going to ban women from wearing short skirts, as under your logic they could cause men to experience that horrible arousal thing Physical attraction. Where are a you going to draw the line? ban low cut tops? skin tight jeans, leggings......There's plenty of countries that do impose such restrictions but they certainly don't provide shinning examples of equality and human rights.

NiceTabard Mon 02-Sep-13 21:36:45

I'd rather that when females (including schoolgirls) wear short skirts, men didn't leer openly at them, yes.

Plenty of people have a keen eye for attractive others, and manage to appreciate them without the other person realising or making them feel uncomfortable. Many people can even do a spot of minor flirting without creeping the fuck out of the other, or staring.

Looking really isn't a problem, open obvious appraisal & leering are.

Maybe you don't understand the difference.

CaptChaos United States Mon 02-Sep-13 21:38:36

Do at least try and compare like with like.

It might just help your thought processes.

FloraFox Mon 02-Sep-13 21:38:58

I wonder how the libertarians would feel about the following items of free speech on page 3 of a newspaper:

- paid for endorsements of products not identified as advertising
- advertising claims that cannot be backed up with evidence
- advertising falsely suggesting endorsement by a public figure
- messages paid by political parties which is not identified as such
- untrue facts about a person that are likely to diminish their reputation
- true facts about people that relate to their private lives
- images depicting graphic violence
- images depicting child pornography
- images depicting explicit sex acts
- images depicting an erect penis
- statements encouraging hatred or violence towards members of an ethnic or religious group

All of these things are restricted or banned in the UK. If you agree with any of these restrictions, you cannot use libertarianism as your argument for continuing with Page 3.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Mon 02-Sep-13 21:41:34

That's a straw man, lib. Nobody's talking about banning short skirts - we're asking for a re-thinking of the dinosaur that is page 3. Nobody's trying to ban sex, or arousal, or pretty girls - it's quite simple - we believe that there is no place for soft porn in daily newspapers.

libertarianj Mon 02-Sep-13 21:57:56

Libertarian, should anything be allowed to be shown on p3? Anything that is sexually stimulating to someone?

yes as long as it's consenting adults and legal. Then it's down to the free market to decide if it's a viable product. In the case of the sun with it's topless page 3 models it is certainly a viable product as it's still the country best selling paper. Also remember 45% of the Suns 7 million readership are women, so if they were really that upset about it then why buy it? There's plenty of alternatives out there.

FloraFox Mon 02-Sep-13 22:02:02

As long as it's legal? Not much of a libertarian then.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Mon 02-Sep-13 22:04:00

Consenting adults and legal? So erect penises would be ok? People having sex?

What about every item that's on Flora's list - are libertarians ok with all of those?

Interesting what you say about market forces - I wonder just how much the female readership would drop if they stopped page 3? Or indeed the male readership come to that. The 'keep pg3' petition has only a paltry 3000 odd signatures...strangely lacking in support.

Didn't they stop page 3 during the Olympics?

CaptChaos United States Mon 02-Sep-13 22:04:10

And lib, you're sure, absolutely sure (and have proof) that the reason the Sun is the best selling newspaper is because it has young girls' posing topless in it? Not because it's cheap and the sport section is informative? Could it also be that people buy it in spite of page 3? I have no proof either way, and I'm willing to bet you don't either. Therefore 'The Sun is the biggest selling newspaper, ergo everyone wants to looks at pg3' argument is a load of shoemakers. How many of the 7 million readers do so online? Is pg3 in the online version in the same format?

Again.

Please try and compare like with like. It might make your so far flimsy points have more substance.

libertarianj Mon 02-Sep-13 22:04:51

Plenty of people have a keen eye for attractive others, and manage to appreciate them without the other person realising or making them feel uncomfortable. Many people can even do a spot of minor flirting without creeping the fuck out of the other, or staring.

and plenty of people read the sun without making anyone feel uncomfortable. It wasn't a strawman it was demonstrating double standards at play.

scallopsrgreat Mon 02-Sep-13 22:05:48

Objectification isn't a radical feminist theory and it isn't nonsense. It isn't about men's 'arousal', it is about how women are viewed - as the sex class. This can range from the narrowed down view of 'attractive' women Page 3 has to offer or the continual stream of passing comments about how a woman looks instead of what she does all the way up to sexual assaults and rape.

But this is falling on deaf ears. Libertarianj doesn't even think society and the norms therein play a part in how anyone's psyche is formed. We all live in vacuums and evolve our behaviour arbitrarily hmm

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Mon 02-Sep-13 22:08:08

I think if we scratch the surface, libertarianj isn't as 'libertarian' as he'd like to think.

libertarianj Mon 02-Sep-13 22:11:01

Flora a libertarian is not an anarchist as i think you are trying to imply. It a is a person who believes in minimal government intervention and maximum civil liberties.

NiceTabard Mon 02-Sep-13 22:11:50

" Libertarianj doesn't even think society and the norms therein play a part in how anyone's psyche is formed. We all live in vacuums and evolve our behaviour arbitrarily"

Really?

Wow. So we have an extremist posting here.

FloraFox Mon 02-Sep-13 22:12:24

libertarianfail can you define "libertarian" without recourse to Wikipedia?

FloraFox Mon 02-Sep-13 22:13:46

libfail cross-post. Define minimal.

Tabby1963 Mon 02-Sep-13 22:14:01

It was the daily newspaper in our house, I grew up with it. I never liked the tits page, it made me feel uncomfortable. I didn't know why. I couldn't fathom why it was the newspaper of choice for my parents. It made me look at my parents in a different light.

Mum said she liked the crossword puzzle.

When I was older I argued about them reading it, I tried to persuade them to choose a different paper - didn't work. I also tried to persuade them to vote for the Labour Party - that didn't work either lol.

They read the Daily Mail now....

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Mon 02-Sep-13 22:14:25

Maximum civil liberties to ogle women's tits in a daily newspaper?

Right. On you go now.

scallopsrgreat Mon 02-Sep-13 22:15:43

Again I am failing to see how asking The Sun to remove Page 3 because it is irrelevant and damaging (whether you believe it is or not), is affecting anyone's civil liberties?

NiceTabard Mon 02-Sep-13 22:18:22

Tabby yes that's the thing isn't it. It makes females - especially pubescent girls and teenagers - feel uncomfortable. It's all a bit sad really isn't it, somehow. That society doesn't really give a monkeys about that.

scallopsrgreat Mon 02-Sep-13 22:21:47

Yep I'm wondering about teenage girls civil liberties? Aren't they being denied? Why does a man's civil liberties trump teenage girls or women?

NiceTabard Mon 02-Sep-13 22:23:44

From Wiki:

"Civil liberties are civil rights and freedoms that provide an individual specific rights.
Though the scope of the term differs amongst various countries, some examples of civil liberties include the freedom from slavery and forced labor, freedom from torture and death, the right to liberty and security, freedom of conscience, religion, expression, press, assembly and association, speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment and due process and the right to a fair trial, as well as the right to life.
Other civil liberties may also include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, there are distinctions between positive liberty/positive rights and negative liberty/negative rights."

<squints>

Can't see anything about page 3 there.

<scratches head>

The bodily integrity thing is interesting though.

scallopsrgreat Mon 02-Sep-13 22:25:09

The right to equal treatment is also interesting.

NiceTabard Mon 02-Sep-13 22:28:37

Maybe people who are interested in "maximum" civil liberties are less interested with all of the things on that list, and generally focussed on looking at the naked breasts of young women in socially unsuitable situations.

I would be interested to hear what lib had to say about the abortion laws in NI.

NiceTabard Mon 02-Sep-13 22:29:36

Assuming he's a UK -centric sort of civil liberties person.

Globally there is much to fight for, as we are all well aware.

libertarianj Mon 02-Sep-13 22:31:52

Objectification isn't a radical feminist theory and it isn't nonsense. It isn't about men's 'arousal', it is about how women are viewed - as the sex class. This can range from the narrowed down view of 'attractive' women Page 3 has to offer or the continual stream of passing comments about how a woman looks instead of what she does all the way up to sexual assaults and rape.

but how do you know exactly what people think when they see an image of a topless woman? How do you know they consider her/ him as a mere sex object? I think most people look at them as attractive models, but still appreciate that they are a real people at the end of the day. The objectification theory assumes the worst of people, the shallowest of thoughts, the lowest common denominator. It's just an assumption at the end of the day there's really no escaping that and it's certainly not a fair assumption to make.

CaptChaos United States Mon 02-Sep-13 22:36:50

scallops don't be bloody silly. Of course men's civil liberties trump women and girl's civil liberties.

nice The bit about the liberty to ogle naked breasts in socially unsuitable situations is in the small print, under the bit about bodily integrity.

CaptChaos United States Mon 02-Sep-13 22:39:44

But your assumptions lib are completely fair and justified how?

Show me evidence that 'most people look at them as attractive models' that '(most people)... still appreciate that they are real people at the end of the day'.

scallopsrgreat Mon 02-Sep-13 22:40:35

I don't need to know exactly what they think when they see a topless girl. I know how women are treated in the media and in everyday life. I see and experience how it is to be a woman and valued for my looks and attractiveness to the opposite sex rather than what I do. I know what it is like to harassed on the street. I know what it is like to be sexually assaulted.

Page 3 on its own doesn't cause all this. But the fact that it is in place at all, that to some people it makes sense to have topless women in a newspaper is a symptom of a society that places women as the sex class. Their worth is tied up in their attractiveness to men. And what is designated as attractive is narrowly defined.

scallopsrgreat Mon 02-Sep-13 22:42:52

I don't want to stop anyone's civil liberties. I just want to live in a society where Page 3 makes no sense.

NiceTabard Mon 02-Sep-13 22:44:52

Plus the presence of page 3 in socially inappropriate situations serves to remind females who are nearby of their position in society as the sex class. Which is part of the reason that pubescent girls and teenage girls feel particularly uncomfortable when they are around it.

At that age you are trying to gets to grips with your burgeoning sexuality and how all of that stuff works, and to be reminded publicly and graphically of what your place is, is confusing and discomfiting.

scallopsrgreat Mon 02-Sep-13 22:47:41

Absolutely NiceTabard. I think adult women can still feel uncomfortable too but they probably have the tools to be able to turn it round on to the man's behaviour rather than inwards on themselves as teenage girls can.

NiceTabard Mon 02-Sep-13 22:51:57

Also have learnt better to ignore.

The amount of things I ignore. I nearly got hit by a car a few years back as I never ever ever react to a car tooting any more, and haven't done since I was about 18. You learn this stuff.

gedhession Mon 02-Sep-13 22:59:26

Where I work, I have seen women put up pictures of popular actors and pop stars. Is that justifyable and acceptable?

libertarianj Mon 02-Sep-13 23:00:26

Yep I'm wondering about teenage girls civil liberties? Aren't they being denied? Why does a man's civil liberties trump teenage girls or women?

but they are not being denied by page 3, they are being denied by the 'weirdo man' doing the intimidating who is the one who should be being addressed . It's like saying we should ban cars because some people drive like idiots and kill people and me saying that the majority should not be denied the liberty of driving. Then you come back and say well what about the civil liberties of the people who got killed?
But the sensible solution is obviously to educate the bad drivers not ban cars.

and don't forget the civil liberties of the models themselves, are you happy telling other women what they can and can't do with their bodies? or that they must cover up for the good of the sisterhood. Do you even consider the models as equals? I do wonder hmm

NiceTabard Mon 02-Sep-13 23:10:11

You're not actually reading anyone's posts are yo lib.
You are skimming them for things you pick out that you think you can challenge.
You have answered hardly any questions that you have been asked.
You are not actually engaging in a conversation, you aren't interested in anyone else's views.

You have said a lot of things that are bizarre. This business about "weirdo man". Did you even read the responses about that upthread? About how assuming that men who break social rules &/or the law surrounding sexual conduct must be "weirdos", "creepy old men". These are rape myths. You need to read the MN guide to rape myths and educate yourself a bit.

NiceTabard Mon 02-Sep-13 23:11:48

Please can you list what you are campaigning for in terms of "maximum civil liberties" with reference to the wiki link upthread re civil liberties. Thank you.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Mon 02-Sep-13 23:13:33

You're arguing page 3 and cars now? I seriously can't believe how specious your analogies are. Cars have a function - and dangerous driving is punishable by law. What function does page 3 serve?

The mere existence of page 3 in a daily newspaper is what objectifies women's bodies in everyday life - not the only thing, but one of the more accessible ones. You can't argue that one groups in society is able to objectify another because of civil liberties - it's a fundamentally flawed argument.

scallopsrgreat Mon 02-Sep-13 23:16:37

You don't give a toss about the civil liberties of the models or the models themselves libertarianj. You are just using them to try and point score and that is really low. You don't care how many of them have been abused, have mental health issues, self esteem issues, what they go on to do after they've posed in Page 3 or even how many of them are perfectly OK and had a positive experience.

I am not telling anyone what they can and can't do with their bodies. If they want to get naked and pose for photographs I am not stopping them. Their civil liberties are not affected.

But this isn't about the models behaviour it is about men's behaviour. Educate you say? Well that is what the No More Page 3 campaign is trying to do. It is difficult to educate people when the messages from society are telling them it is perfectly OK to view women as the sex class.

scallopsrgreat Mon 02-Sep-13 23:23:48

And regards the weirdo man thing. The men who shout out us from a van as we are walking along aren't weird. They probably have girlfriends maybe even daughters. They are probably viewed as "one of the lads". It's what boys do innit.

It is creepy to us on the receiving end but 90% of the time they are viewed as normal. Michael LeVell springs to mind. He had a whole host of supporters saying what a thoroughly nice chap he was yet he was telling pre-pubescent girls that they would die if they told anyone what he was doing to them.

joanofarchitrave Mon 02-Sep-13 23:32:24

Male entertainment... not conformist?? Really?

'Sharon Osbourne shimmers into London's Groucho Club looking a million dollars. Or rather, three million dollars, which is what she later tells me her sensational new look costs at the plastic surgery clinic she frequents in Los Angeles.' Piers Morgan in GQ

'Think back to how she looked bending over that 1976 Chevrolet Camaro in the first Transformers movie – her otherworldly hotness seemed no more plausible than giant space-robots who could turn into trucks and fighter jets.' FHM on Megan Fox

etc etc

As for the 'emphasised difference' theory, I don't think that washes - sounds very Apewatching. Men in mainstream pornography seem to be increasingly hairless, for example. The point of hairlessness (beyond that it's a change from the past and novelty is exciting) IMO is that the genitals are more visible, and seeing genitals is the USP of pornography, just as the chance to see pert young tits with a sunny 'no issues' smile for 20p whenever you feel like it is the USP of Page 3. And if the page 3 girls are happy to do it (oh and they do look SO happy) why is any other woman remotely bothered at having their breasts appraised sexually, by anyone, at any time? I have heard men remember with emotion how humiliating it felt to have an unwanted visible erection somewhere inconvenient. Imagine having effectively two visible erections on your chest at all times, because just having breasts has been made to = sexually available, by things like page 3.

libertarianj Tue 03-Sep-13 12:51:28

^You're not actually reading anyone's posts are yo lib.
You are skimming them for things you pick out that you think you can challenge.
You have answered hardly any questions that you have been asked.
You are not actually engaging in a conversation, you aren't interested in anyone else's views.^

Actually i did read them but considering there was a barrage of posts from 6 or 7 different posters, there's no way i was going to reply to them all. I would have been up all night! I notice this safety in numbers tactic quite a lot on these forums, it's like 'lets all pile in and overwhelm the opposition, that'll break them down.' That's really no way to have an sensible and honest debate.

Also i think the ins and outs of libertarianism is a thread of it's own for the politics sub forum, and you asking my views on abortion laws in NI, well that was just a blatant derailment attempt.

libertarianj Tue 03-Sep-13 13:02:11

You're arguing page 3 and cars now? I seriously can't believe how specious your analogies are. Cars have a function - and dangerous driving is punishable by law. What function does page 3 serve?

what function does anything serve? What's the point of anything? We could use this argument about everything, just because you don't see it as significant or important or agree with it, doesn't mean it's not relevant or to be liked by other people.
And you totally missed the point of the analogy, which was to demonstrate the principle of civil liberties. Not that cars are more important than page 3.

libertarianj Tue 03-Sep-13 13:35:51

You don't give a toss about the civil liberties of the models or the models themselves libertarianj. You are just using them to try and point score and that is really low. You don't care how many of them have been abused, have mental health issues, self esteem issues, what they go on to do after they've posed in Page 3 or even how many of them are perfectly OK and had a positive experience.

But you say i don't give a toss about the models but then i am not the one who is advocating for them to lose their jobs, i am not the one who isn't even involving them in the debate. Have Object and UK Feminista actually gone and asked them for their views? Nope!

Also how would you feel if you were a model who was proud to appear in page 3 or on the front cover of a magazine. Then next thing a minority of other women and moral/ religious bigots start campaigning not only that your page 3 photos should be ditched but also your magazine cover to be put in a modesty bag or for the magazine to be banned altogether from sale. Then they proceed in telling you that you must be a victim of abuse, coerced, have self esteem issues and that you couldn't possibly have chosen that profession because you enjoy it. Now that's the real objectification as you are denying them agency.

FloraFox Tue 03-Sep-13 15:11:45

lib you couldn't define minimal interference. What is your understanding of agency? Please don't let this be another choosy-choice / two dimensional understanding.

gedhession Tue 03-Sep-13 17:56:45

Of course, when a man is ogling a picture of a woman nobody knows what he is really thinking. Linda Lusardi said that most of the letters she received from Sun readers said that her best part was her smile. Some of the men who ogle outside La Senza and Ann Summers probably fancy wearing the lingerie but haven't got the bottle to buy it. Sabrina, I would not even attempt to defend how those men treated you and you are perfectly entitled to feel that their behaviour was unnecessary, inapropriate and basically out of order. Just a further point, people have raised the matter that children ask their parents why The Sun has Page 3. Aren't there also children who ask their parents why Lady Gaga sings and dances in her bra and knickers?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Tue 03-Sep-13 18:46:35

Lib, re: your car analogy "what function does anything serve?"

Well, I get what you were trying to argue with your car analogy - that cars damage people yet we still have them. Thing is - the not-so-subtle difference between cars and p3 is that cars are tolerated by society because of the function they serve (transport) and any people that abuse their use of their car (by dangerous driving) are committing an offence punishable in law.

Page 3 neither serves any real function in society (except making money for Rupert Murdoch), nor gives any redress to the girls and women who are belittled or made uncomfortable by it.

There are plenty of other publications and online ways for men to look at women's boobs. Nuts, zoo, pornhub. Seems eminently sensible to me to either put the Sun on a high shelf and restrict the sale of it to adults only, or for them to consign p3 to the past. Either way, the men that want to, still have the dubious "civil liberty" hmm to leer at women's tits.

scallopsrgreat Wed 04-Sep-13 10:59:13

As far as I am aware Page 3 girls are not employed by The Sun, but paid per photograph, so no-one will be losing their jobs libertarianj. They maybe losing an opportunity, but as it stands there are plenty more of those.

But again, this isn't about the models, this is about men's behaviour. As Sabrina says what function does Page 3 serve other than to feed men's entitlement? I want to live in a world where this doesn't make sense, either to men or to the women who model. This isn't about morals or religion libertarianj (although there is nothing wrong with having morals). Nothing we have said on this thread indicates that is our argument. You are just making things up. Just like you are making it up about it being a few bigots opposing this. It isn't bigoted to want women to be valued for more than there looks. It isn't bigoted to want a newspaper to print news. It isn't bigoted to not want to see women in sexualised poses unexpectedly, in inappropriate aettings. It is bigoted to presume that is all OK.

In addition, this whole minority thing is based on dodgy premises. A lot of people probably are ambivalent about it. And fair enough, we live in a society where it is normalised. People are bound to just accept things the way they are. But they probably wouldn't care if was there or not. You seem to be putting them on your side of the fence for some reason. Even if it is a minority, it is a significant minority. Women do matter.

MrsClown Wed 04-Sep-13 12:49:51

Well said scallops. For me this is not a moral issue, I have no problem with nudity at all. For me it is a gender issue, it is about the way women in society are viewed. It is about my right to sit on a train or a bus without having pictures of nearly naked passive women in my face.
As far as being bigots - I know I am not a bigot I just want women to be valued and seen for more than just being a body.

As far as choice is concerned. If someone needs that type of entertainment let them find it. What about my choice of not wishing to see it everytime I go in a supermarket.

gedhession Wed 04-Sep-13 17:55:58

A glamour model claims that both men and women both objectify the opposite sex, it is a biological imperative essential for human survival. Go into the supermarket and there are plenty of sexual images of men, abet popular and famous men. Or am I talking about a completely different thing.

runningforthebusinheels Wed 04-Sep-13 19:02:36

Well she would say that, wouldn't she, ged?

scallopsrgreat Wed 04-Sep-13 19:12:32

I don't see sexual images of men in a daily newspaper, gedhessian, on a daily basis. I don't see sexualised pictures of men on the front of magazines in supermarkets.

Just because men maybe objectified on the very odd occasion doesn't make the objectification of women OK. That is a rubbish argument.

gedhession Wed 04-Sep-13 20:02:00

Well running, what she said is what ANY anthropoligist will tell you , though she doesn't quote any sources. I did ask a psychologist friend of mine and he quoted Aping Mankind by Ray Tallis. Would you tell her anything to the contary, running? Scallop, daily newspapers have pictures of popular actors, sportsmen, pop stars and even politicians where they are judged on their desirability with women. I remember when they showed a pic of David Walliams with the Page 3 model Keeley Hazell and gave him a "sexuality rating". Is there a difference between sexualisation and objectification? Newpapers do make sexual references to men.

NiceTabard Wed 04-Sep-13 20:06:57

Look at how stars are dressed on the red carpet for an excellent lesson in whose job it is to be eye candy in our society.

Even going to work the difference in male and female attire and "look" is just amazingly stark. It's amazing really that people can pretend it's not there confused

NiceTabard Wed 04-Sep-13 20:09:40

I looked through the evening standard today on the way home and there were pictures of scantily clad women on most of the first 10 or 15 pages. I didn't spot a scantily clad man. And I would have noticed - anthropology and all that dontchaknow.

I think a lot of people don't notice as that's how it is all the time and they're used to it.

If there was a day when it was all reversed people would be so confused and upset they wouldn't know what to do with themselves.

StickEmUp Wed 04-Sep-13 20:15:32

As far as I am aware Page 3 girls are not employed by The Sun, but paid per photograph,

I hate to sound name droppy but I know a page 3 girl and the rate is about £30 for the pic. Yes, that's all folks.

She told me it's a platform, and such a 'good' one you only get paid £30.

when they become like KP and are 'worth' more, they dont appear anymore.

NiceTabard Wed 04-Sep-13 20:24:20

That's got to be an "if" they become like KP, really, and it's a pretty huge "if".

StickEmUp Wed 04-Sep-13 20:31:13

Well, yes it's interchangeable. I just wrote the wrong word as I'm tired. you catch my drift I take it tho

runningforthebusinheels Wed 04-Sep-13 20:45:34

Don't start with all the evo-psych shit ged - it's always wheeled out to excuse poor behaviour.

NiceTabard Wed 04-Sep-13 20:47:43

Sure do smile

£30. I didn't know that. I would have guessed a couple of hundred.

runningforthebusinheels Wed 04-Sep-13 20:48:30

Was David Walliams posing like this?

Have you ever seen a man posed like that?

StickEmUp Wed 04-Sep-13 20:54:20

I thought that when she first told me. It's exactly like I say though, the sun feels it's such good publicity it's worth it for a women who chooses that path to do.

Going against everything in my waters to say this, she reckons the sun are very good at safety while the photo's are being taken and shit too.

NiceTabard Wed 04-Sep-13 21:02:31

Actually I can quite easily imagine david walliams posing like that grin

But your point is quite right of course.

stickemup yes I am sure the sun have professional photographers who aren't unsafe, but that should be the standard rather than so unusual it's worth mentioning.

runningforthebusinheels Wed 04-Sep-13 21:08:01

Mmm yes maybe the Walliams would grin grin

libertarianj Wed 04-Sep-13 21:57:51

As far as I am aware Page 3 girls are not employed by The Sun, but paid per photograph, so no-one will be losing their jobs libertarianj. They maybe losing an opportunity, but as it stands there are plenty more of those.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_(profession)#Glamour_modelling

It doesn't sound like there are plenty of opportunities at all for glamour modelling and the best paying jobs for this genre are in Page 3. With average earnings of £30K and potential of up to £100k. So i think your claims of no one losing their jobs are just a tad optimistic. Remember at the same time uk feminista protesters are trying to get lads mags removed too. A double whammy for the models, oh and the photographers, the make up artists, the hair stylists, the model agencies etc.

CaptChaos United States Wed 04-Sep-13 22:26:54

And yet an actual person has spoken to a real life page 3 model and said model has stated that she has earned £30 for a shoot. A £30k paycheck from £30 payments is a lot of shoots. The model also stated that she is NOT employed by news international, so unlikely she would lose her job.

Apart from Wikipedia, which lets face it, isn't the most reliable source, do you have evidence of these earnings from page 3? Or the employment status of the models?

scallopsrgreat Wed 04-Sep-13 22:32:54

It doesn't say average earnings are £30k at all! It says average earnings for models on their books and that there are very few models on their books.

So I'll rephrase, a few very well paid models will lose their jobs, with The Sun. I don't want them to lose their livelihood but I don't want 51% of the population to be objectified by men and their value measured in what their body looks like.

But your objections to this have nothing to do with women losing their job. You have shown time and again that you don't have any interest in the welfare of women, so I'm not responding to this derail any more.

NiceTabard Wed 04-Sep-13 22:33:49

Given that girls will send their pics in for free to some of the "lads mags" I am not surprised that a nominal fee is paid for page 3

From the POV of the aspiring model she is getting a huge amount of exposure (no pun intended) and thus may make headway with her career. I doubt that the sun are short on models wanting to do it. So with it being the paper that is giving the model a high profile job, I'm not surprised that it pays what probably amounts to costs.

scallopsrgreat Wed 04-Sep-13 22:47:15

I think that there is this myth in general that papers pay high prices for stories (although this isn't a story obviously which is part of the point of objecting to it).

gedhession Wed 04-Sep-13 22:59:40

I recall the Page 3 girl Keeley Hazell remarking that she'd say to anybody who wants to make any money out of modelling she'd tell them they'd have better luck doing the lottery and she's considered one of the most successful Page 3 girls. Some young girls do it for nothing they are that desperate for recognition. The "anthrpology" model is called Laura Lacole and she accepts she will never be a millionaire out of modelling, claims she isn't doing it for the money (she was actually defensive about how much money she made) and is doing it to make Ulster (where's she's from) more modern. Tabard, I know that men are usually fully dressed in the papers but they are still referred to as "hunks" or "heart throbs", referring to their desirability.

SinisterSal Wed 04-Sep-13 23:21:05

'to make Ulster more modern'

Tits out to solve sectarianism!

ModeratelyObvious Wed 04-Sep-13 23:22:06

What would Ian Paisley say?!

gedhession Thu 05-Sep-13 17:53:27

Oh yes , the things these objectified , passive women will utter. I think she also said she made the choice to express her sexuality. Laura Lacole, give her a Google. Actually Running this is one of the pics I recall

http://www.contactmusic.com/photo/annabels_night_club_11_wenn1623323

Oldest trick in the book hey, get yourself pictured with a Page 3 model in a trendy nightclub so you MUST be straight. Running, aren't their calendars with semi clad blokes dressed as firemen and builders? Aren't their women who like them?

runningforthebusinheels Thu 05-Sep-13 18:57:00

I'm not getting why that picture of David Walliams in a night club is even vaguely relevant to the page 3 debate? Can you explain please?

YouMakeMeWannaLaLa Thu 05-Sep-13 19:18:21

ged reminds me of an old poster called gabbylogon It's like reading haikus.

ged I don't want to see men objectified either (although often men featured in calenders etc. are men's imaginings of hyper masculinity, not what women actually want) but it's false equivalence anyway.

Please stop telling women what they are and aren't allowed to feel offended by.

Ta

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Thu 05-Sep-13 19:31:11

Calendars with sexy firemen on them existing does not excuse bare breasts in a daily newspaper.

For a start, people don't tend to carry fireman calendars around with them and read them openly on the train/tube/in public- or make children feel uncomfortable with them. Plus there is a difference in the type of pictures - macho and powerful poses vs. coy poses and bare breasts.

Men = dominant and strong vs. women = pretty and submissive.

Plus, as lala rightly says - it's a false equivalence anyway.

gedhession Thu 05-Sep-13 19:31:43

What's haikus?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Thu 05-Sep-13 19:40:27

I think ged just wants to chat and "recall" page 3 girls he admires wink

And damn you feminists, girl guides, MPs etc for wanting to stop him!

gedhession Thu 05-Sep-13 20:05:35

I feel like printing my very first post

I recall well the time Samantha Fox was immensely popular. In fact I do recall many Page 3 girls, Linda Lusardi, Maria Whittaker, Jo Guest, Katie Price, Melinda Messenger and Keeley Hazell being very popular as Page 3 girls and go on to become popular media personalities. I find it interesting that Clare Short tried to ban Page 3 at the time Samantha Fox was at the height of her popularity. Of course, just because something is popular is not a defense to some...

Keeley Hazell was a very popular Page 3 girl , so popular that The Sun had her photographed with David Walliams outside a trendy London nightclub. For some models , Page 3 gives them popularity and celebrity status.

Ever heard of Feminists Against Censorship? Clare Short refused to speak to them. So not all feminists are anti-porn and in fact I admire feminism for many things.....

I actually come from an Irish family and had to grow up with all the jokes about the Irish being stupid. So I know all about things that offend people.

YouMakeMeWannaLaLa Thu 05-Sep-13 20:09:01

confused

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Thu 05-Sep-13 20:44:06

So how would you feel if the sun decided to print an Irish joke on p3 tomorrow - taking up the whole page in a massive font?

Perhaps for good measure they could put a picture of a leprechaun or something in the corner - with a speech bubble coming out of it's mouth with some dimwitted news soundbite in there?

That would be racist. And illegal. But sexism and making girls and women uncomfortable is ok by you?

NiceTabard Thu 05-Sep-13 20:55:04

Sam Fox was 16 years old FFS and I posted a bunch of stuff upthead about how it sounds as if she was exploited by all around including her own parents.

I hope she is happy now but I think it has been a long path for her to get there.

The way you talk about her and the other models kind of proves the point - you don't think of them as people, you just admired their forms when they were in the papers when you were a teenager.

Given all that has been said on this thread I think re-iterating your admiration of a young sam fox's form is just bizarre.

NiceTabard Thu 05-Sep-13 20:57:04

Plus if the model from Ulster is interested in "modernising" over there, maybe she could turn her attention to the abortion laws in NI. Rather than taking her clothes off so men can look at her - which is probably one of the least "modern" activities there is.

libertarianj Thu 05-Sep-13 21:16:19

it's not sexism though Sabrina it's human sexuality and page 3 isn't degrading anyone.

It seems Ged that the peeps on here, have this major problem with male sexuality and the fact that men are generallymore visually stimulated than women. They want to suppress and control this dynamic and they think censorship of female imagery will somehow achieve this. It's like they strive for some kind of androgynous utopia. It's all a bit heterophobic really.

Interesting that you mention pro porn feminists, i mentioned a similar thing on that MRA thread. There used to be a few on here but i think they got fed up with constantly being branded 'hand maidens'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism

libertarianj Thu 05-Sep-13 21:25:06

There you go again Tabard trying to tell other woman how they should live their lives. sad

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Uruguay Thu 05-Sep-13 21:31:53

You don't see it as sexism, lib we got that. But that p3 isn't degrading anyone is purely your opinion. The fact is many women do find it degrading. And it is degrading, when put in the context of a patriarchal society, where women are considered in so many ways to be lesser than men, there to look pretty, to be eye candy essentially. Page 3 is simply part of the culture that perpetuates this view of women- but it is so much worse because it is within the pages of a 'family' newspaper.

As has already been pointed out on this thread, page3 caters for hetero men - why doesn't it cater for other sexualities? Why not men in semi naked sexualised poses to cater for gay men/women? You hav