Banning Page 3 v right to 'Free Speech'

But that issue is circular too - some (many?) men feeling under pressure to act 'like a man' will be far more likely to perpetrate violent acts against women to prove that they're not wimps or 'like a girl'.

See this TED talk for a simplified explanation as to how this works.

I agree Hatterbox. I posted that on the AIBU thread this evening on that issue. It is very insulting to men because it assumes that they're lowest common denominator.

It's the same with Nuts/Zoo etc. They assume that all men are interested in are tits and football and more tits.

I think the fact that these magazines' circulation is dropping like a stone shows that men are getting bored with being presented with such rubbish (and, of course, if they want tits, they can access them on the internet now). I saw a newish magazine for men called 'Wired' the other day which I was really heartened by - lots of interesting stuff there and not a pair of tits in sight.

Hatterbox - I completely agree with you. It is a very valid point to make.

And can I just point out that, although I am very interested in debating the page 3 issue, it would be nice to do it without needlessly rude comments.

I actually think that Page 3 and anything else of that ilk can actually be insulting to men too, in a small way.

Let me explain...

My DH isn't interested in seeing pictures of women with their breasts out, he isn't someone who has any inclination to go to a lap dance club etc, it's just not his thing.

However, he works in finance (still a very male dominated sector), and there are a lot 'flash Harry' types in his field.

He used to be part of a team of these 'cads', who on a Monday morning would come in boasting of their weekend conquests, talking about women like they are pieces of meat. They were frequently looking at the Page 3 girl or magazines like Nuts, and almost every time they'd stick the paper/magazine in DH's face, 'here cop a load of that Kit'.

When he said he wasn't interested in leering at women, they'd question his 'masculinity', and on a handful of occasions his sexuality.

It got so bad, that he made a formal complaint, but it was hard for it to be taken seriously as the bosses were all 'flash Harry' types too.

Eventually, he managed to secure a job elsewhere, at a smaller organisation that isn't dominated my 'flash Harry' types.

I'm aware I've waffled, I apologise, but it was just something I wanted to say, after asking DH if he was happy for me to share this story with you.

Obviously the main issue is the effect Page 3 and its ilk has on women, I'm not trying to claim otherwise, I just thought it might be interesting to share another side to what this kind of thing can lead to.

Could I have a bit more back than 'support your own analogy.duh'?! Now who is being snippy!

Are you saying we shouldn't ban it because you don't believe in banning things?

Or are you saying we shouldn't ban it because you don't believe that page 3 causes any harm to anyone?

I am not clear why you have taken the stance that you have.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that objectifying (ie. dehumanising) a group of people makes it easier to be violent towards them, scottishmummy. How is rape and other forms of sexual violence not an adverse health implication for potentally 51% of the population?

I'm really not trying to twist what you say, I'm just objecting to your explanation of your opinions.

Also, yes, there are links between smoking and cancer. But in some countries with extremely low smoking-related cancer rates, the smoking rate is very, very high - the difference is that the population is so chilled. Smoking = cancer is too much of an over-simplified connection. However, we know that there's a high chance that reducing public smoking could reduce cancers caused by passive smoking - but could is the important word. There's no real evidence to suggest it does make a difference, but enough of a chance to make it worth doing.

Same goes for page 3 IMO.

well naturally you support your own analogy.duh

Ok - cross posting there. There is reams of evidence out there that shows how harmful objectifying images of women have on men and women.

Did you read the Home Office report that was published last year - the Sexualisation of Young People review?

Hmmm...yes, I'm with FlamingoBingo - I really don't understand how smoking is a "silly analogy".

Sorry if I'm taking a "prefecty tone" but it's not your opinion I'm taking a dislike to - I'm confused at your dismissal of an analogy that sums up the problem of free speech vs restricting the rights of a few people perfectly.

This is an issue of the rights of a few taking a precedent over the rights of many - and the smoking example sums up that issue.

Do you not see a link? If not, is that because you don't think page 3 is harmful?

smoking is a poor analogy given smoking has demonstrable adverse health implications priamry and secondary.much as i dislike pg3 it doesnt cause ca or secondary illness in others. the cause and effect link in smoking is evidence based and demonstrable.no such proven adverse behavioural link exists for p3.

and no dont twist this as just because i wouldnt ban p3 i necessarily like it.

scottishmummy - why do you think it is a silly analogy? It's a sensible analogy. Smoking is something that some people enjoy and think they shoudl have a right to do when and where they like; and it is something that can and does harm other people who feel they should have a right not to be harmed by it. Page 3 is the same.

Do you honestly think that page 3 is harmless?

jess id like you to not make silly analogies,and i dont need to "back up" anything

you see like you,i am expressing an opinion.you may or may not likey but you ever so prefecty demanding tone is snippy

Scottishmummy - Page 3 is just one part of a bloody awful culture that causes violence against women to be accepted. It is easier to harm someone you see as an object...and page 3 encourages men to see women as objects. In that respect, it harms a huge number of the population - it probably causes more harm, statistically, than passive smoking causes.

I agree with Jess, some back up to your statements woudl be helpful. A suggestion that she stops being nippy is not a helpful suggestion as to how to change our culture so that women are equal to men.

Tonde's right, this is nothing to do with free speech. At all. Anyone who claims it is is just trying to twist the debate so that it is on their terms.

But practically there is no chance at all the Sun will stop P3.

ScottishMummy - I'd just like you to back up some of your statements a bit more sometimes!

Moderate my tone and stop being so snippy?!!! Am I back in school?!

Pornography is harmful. People just don't want to believe the evidence that is out there.

And on the other thread on AIBU people have posted their own experiences of the verbal abuse that they've received, which comes from men's attitudes that women are sex objects and that a bit of verbal sexual abuse is just a bit of fun.

Smoking is a good analogy of where one person's choice can have an adverse effect on others. And this is the case with Page 3.

I was genuinely asking what you proposed to do about page 3. You say banning is not the answer. What do you think is?

Hatterbox - I would have set him straight with a well-directed hot cup of coffee

Yes, having worked in international companies for my most of my career - most non-UK people (men and women) are very about Page 3.

Sorry to bore but I will say it again and again and again - it is NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. It would be pandering to your FB friend to engage with him on those terms.

If anything I think it is a consumer issue.

Oops, meant to say, I'm obviously also against it as it's degrading to women etc.

However the BF thing also is a huge part in why I'm so against it.

I would ban Page 3, mainly because to me, it's one of the single biggest factors in the 'anti-breastfeeding in public' society that has developed here.

Page 3 and all these men's magazines with breasts hanging out, have sexualised breasts to such a degree, that (most of) society seems to accept it, yet many of those same people see breastfeeding in public as revolting.

In summary, 'getting your tits out for the lads' is fine, using your breasts discretely for their most natural purpose isn't.

I was once discretely breastfeeding in a café, when I was told to 'go do that in the toilet' by a man who was reading (well gawping at) a copy of Nuts magazine. I soon set him straight.

And that would be saying something !

my suggestion is you moderate your tone and not be so snippy

just because i dont like something doesn't lead me to wish to automatically ban it

smoking is a poor analogy given smoking has demonstrable adverse health implications priamry and secondary.much as i dislike pg3 it doesnt cause ca or secondary illness in others.

What is then, ScottishMummy?

Education?

Because I think getting rid of page 3 is part of the education that needs to happen.

If we look at the smoking ban, should we have just tried to educate smokers not to smoke indoors and hoped that they all just went outside the restaurant/bar/pub to have a ciggie? There would be some who would respect others' rights not to be harmed by their cigarette smoke but plenty of others who just never would have bothered changing their behaviour.

The ban was necessary to make it culturally unacceptable.

And, as someone pointed out on the other thread, this is not a ban on tits or porn. There are still plenty of opportunities for breast deprived men to look at photographs of women naked. It's not like they have to look very hard for them.

What's your suggestion?