Page three

"Most people do not want page 3 banned so it is not likely to get anywhere."

Most people generally support the status quo whatever that might be and find any change threatening, but soon adapt and support the status quo again after the change has occurred. Its only a minority of people who are politically conscious, however changes still do happen for the better because of the political activities of the conscious few.

"It's pretty harmless."
Again harm can be psychological and indirect. You never back this assertion up even though there are many who claimed to be harmed by it.

"The day men don't want to look at breasts will be a rather sad day."

Again you reiterate another unrelated point. What is printed in page 3 has no bearing on what men want to look at... And sad for who? Many women find men's breast-fixation annoying, immature and a turn-off. I'm sure such women wouldn't find it a sad day.

Most people do not want page 3 banned so it is not likely to get anywhere.
It's pretty harmless. The day men don't want to look at breasts will be a rather sad day.

How many new readers from the feminist world would the sun get if they banned page 3..... I am guessing the number to be remarkably small. So unless the law changes nothing will happen because there is no leverage on the paper to change. Comes down to the bottom line, would getting rid of page 3 increase or decrease circulation? Over 3 million women read the paper daily and 4 million men. Anything to change the paper would need over 750k of the readership to want it, realistically, for the paper to change. And after the bashing feminist MPs got last time round trying to ban P3 can't see any of them running forward and getting involved.

Exactly AbigailAdams totally agree!

"If people think most men read page 3 and newspapers are not on their way out they are wrong."

What relevance is this? Printed copies of the Sun and other tabloids with porn are in every newsagent in the country. Millions of copies are made and this ubiquity affects people whether they buy them or not.

"Most people, male and female, look at sexual things on line so page 3 is a bit of a non issue."

What non-argument is this? All sorts of dubious things go on online: al qaida organise violence online, so would it also be a 'non-issue' if the Sun had a 'Terrorists Connect' section in their paper?

"I don't see any point in banning breasts in newspapers"

From what I have seen in this thread, you are unable to 'see any point in' or 'make any point about' anything.

I think the availability of similar images online actually makes the message of the campaign against p3 more pertinent. There are plenty of methods for the sordid wanker section of our population to get its kicks privately; there is not a need for a national newspaper to be broadcasting the message that young women are essentially sexual playthings for men, no matter how grotesquely unattractive or inadequate they may be.
Except that's the real point of p3 of course. Not to provide erotic entertainment but to make sure we know our place. it is female refusal to do that that makes the p3 supportes so very uncomfortable.

If people think most men read page 3 and newspapers are not on their way out they are wrong. Most people, male and female, look at sexual things on line so page 3 is a bit of a non issue. This is a matter of freedom. Of course I hope women are mostly appreciated for their business skills, or their skills as a surgeon or business leader or whatever they choose to do as their profession but I don't see any point in banning breasts in newspapers.

Breasts have only been sexualized recently in western history. It isn't innate, it is a social construct. One that has lead to a reduction in breastfeeding to the point where laws have had to be created to allow women to bf in public. Absolutely ludicrous. Page 3 plays a very definite part in perpetuating this fetishism.

"The day men don't find breasts attractive will be a very dull day and our species will probably die out."

Yes Xenia, that is exactly what the anti-page 3ers are saying: men shouldn't fancy women!!

On a bit of a tangent, just had to repost totally awesome reply from Pavlova in the comments of the New Statesman article WW linked to; to one guy dumbly asking "What do women really want?", her response: "The world they thought they were getting before they hit puberty and realised it had all been a lie."

Love it.

"The day men don't find breasts attractive will be a very dull day and our species will probably die out."

What is this statement? Another sweeping non-argument trying to pass as an opinion.

Attraction between the sexes does not equal one man making himself very rich by choosing to sexually exploit young, female and usually working class women in his publication in such a way that actually goes against the grain of respectful interaction.

Sexual attraction occurred a long time before page 3 and people will not stop fancying each other if page 3 is abolished.

Breasts are not sexualised in every culture. In some women laugh when told men are obsessed with the breasts and compare them to babies. Points to social construction to me.

I'm strongly against it. Strip clubs too. Shocking that they still allow it. It sends a very bad signal to young girls and women as well as to young boys and men. It needs banning asap.

Oh Xenia. Missed. The. Point.

Xenia - a man can find breasts attractive and still find page 3 a bit meh at least.

I found Martin Robbins's take on it in the New Statesman quite well argued:

The day men don't find breasts attractive will be a very dull day and our species will probably die out.

I'd love to see a ban. I'd love to see SOMEONE stand up for women and say that normalising the objectification of women and the belittling of women has to stop. It is just so insidious.

kim - the German Bild newspaper did it on page 1 until earlier this year- they've now put the norks page onto one of the inner pages. And I'm pretty sure there's plenty of equivalents in other countries, too

I'm not a big fan of page 3 and suchlike, but I'd just rather see them disappear because society changed in such a way that they don't have a market anymore instead of a ban.

"strawman is so huge it's really not worth engaging with it"

Okay, so what approach do you take with a powerful narcissist like Rupert Murdoch?

foodunit - that strawman is so huge it's really not worth engaging with it

"an authoritarian approach is the wrong way of trying to effect change"

Erm how else do you restrain the powerful? Pretend that we are all equal and if left to our own devices we'll all behave nicely and do the right thing? Pretend the powerful get their power by being fair and nice? What human species are you thinking of, because it can't be the one I see?

so wherever there are newspapers, there is page 3- in cafe's, in the street, on the bus.....and this affects people who don't buy it too... By printing it in a the most popular daily tabloid, this throwaway image of an objectified woman is everywhere.

^^This.

Nothing else quite normalises the objectification of women like p3 does.

I suppose you're right in terms of liberalism, but I had never thought of it in that way - what about our freedom as women not to have our bodies (or other women's bodies, which is a similar thing) taken as sexual items and sold on the street corner for people to masturbate over.

You could maybe say (though I'm thick too, so this might be very facile thing to say) that people should have the freedom to assault, or to steal, or something...there needs to be a line drawn somewhere.

severed - not wanting to ban page 3 is entirely consistent with being liberal - wanting to ban it is illiberal. Not wanting to ban it doesn't mean approving of it either btw, but just that an authoritarian approach is the wrong way of trying to effect change.