Page three

Has anypne already mentioned that there's an article in the weekend Guardian saying Nick Clegg is totally against a ban on page 3?

I despair of myself for thinking voting liberal was EVER a good idea

What a thicko

"We want England as it has always been a land of freedom as long as others are not hurt."

Firstly 'hurt' is up for debate. Hurt can be psychological, hurt can be indirect.

Secondly - freedom is not equal. The strong and powerful have freedoms which restrict and oppress the powerless, in England as well as anywhere else and always have done. Limiting the freedoms of the strong (ie the murdoch empire) increases the freedoms of the weak (ie- women living and moving in a world with less fear because harassment isn't normalised and projected by the printed press).

Only the privileged enjoy all the freedoms this country has to offer.

I think we are far too far apart to debate it.

"So say for instance the images the 'Camden Ripper' made of the dead women he murdered .. If someone took a copy of those and used them to masturbate to, is there no crime being committed in your eyes? Or any other images of violent sex crimes"

Yes, there should be no crime committed if a third party masturbates over that image. Why on earth should there be? If someone gets off on the pain of childbirth and borrows a medicla book to look at an episiotomy - so what - that's is how they are. If they want to masturbate over pictuers of sheep or piano legs, that's fine. If they want to do drawings of acts some people may not like to masturbate over - that's fine.

Anyway this is just about the worst environment on line to debate thought crime but do remember that first they ban X which X most people hate and then they ban what you might prefer. We don't want a consensus society of clones. We want England as it has always been a land of freedom as long as others are not hurt. There is no good research at all suggesting what we look at changes our conduct.

I want people to wear a T shirt saying they want police dead and not end up jailed.

I want someone to be able to joke about blowing up air ports and not be arrested. I want us to return to the freedoms we always had. i don't want comedians to live in fear of prosecution under a police type state just because the feelings of some poeple might be put out of joint because they cannot tolerate views of others which are not their views.

I don't get the problem with banning things that are hugely damaging to people.

I also don't think Page 3 is as innocent as people like to portray. It isn't just about putting women on display for men's dubious pleasure...I think it is a deliberate ploy by some to keep women 'in their place', and to make us feel uncomfortable and to remind us every day that to a whole load of people we have one purpose and that is to be objects for men's pleasure. I think a lot of people deep down know this and are happy about it. It truly sickens me.

AbigailAdams thanks x

WidowWadman "Abolitionism worries me."
So is that all you are saying? No qualification for your sweeping statement about 'abolitionism'...

What, so abolition of anything worries you? Should we bring back slavery then, since that was abolished? Perhaps its better for some people to be able to forcibly keep a human being shackled in their shed so you don't have to be 'worried' by 'abolitionism'....

Weird!

FoodUnit you are on fire. Excellent post. It is amazing how many people support male privilege when there is a threat to it, however small.

I really would like to live in a world where page 3 didn't make sense.

Yeah, I'm with Xenia on that one. Abolitionism worries me.

" I would certainly start with repealing Sections 63 to 68 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act"

"I have no problems with films showing people having sex with corpses or whatever"

So say for instance the images the 'Camden Ripper' made of the dead women he murdered .. If someone took a copy of those and used them to masturbate to, is there no crime being committed in your eyes? Or any other images of violent sex crimes.

How about if you or your daughter were held prisoner, and then filmed being sexually tortured to death. Do you feel that it is important that other people should be able to copy that film to masturbate to without punishment? Is that a cause you think is worth fighting for?

Actually I realise I cannot debate it, I find it too sickening to think there are people that think it is acceptable and worthy of class a human 'freedom' to masturbate over images of the sexual torture/murder of another human being... Depressing and sickening

and digerd as long as you're alright now eh?

I am old but am not considered prim or an old hag, bag or battleaxe, but I know a few who are in the last 3 catagories !!!! Personally, when I was younger and always " flatchested" - I had an inferiority complex about my tiny boobs, which made it worse seeing ample ones in the News of the World. I now buy the Sun for easy word workout and crossword puzzle, to do in the mornings to get my brain in gear without stressing it !!! I glance at the page 3 girls and am interested to see how different they all are, including small boobs. I am not offended at all. They do not stand provocatively, which would be a different matter, and I would be opposed to that.

Yes, I would certainly start with repealing Sections 63 to 68 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. I think it's fine to show people being shot on James Bond movies and I have no problems with films showing people having sex with corpses or whatever. I don't have a problem with violent films, cops and robbers, films of the Taleban beheading people or anything like that. I think we have gone far too far in what we ban. We need to be repealing a heap of laws.

"in essence just about anything filmed which harms no one I am in favour of allowing"

But this is a very sweeping statement about harm... do you mean only physical harm and not psychological harm? Do you mean only direct harm and not indirect harm?

Because it seems that you are saying 'in essence just about anything filmed which doesn't directly depict physical harm' and I would imagine you would add 'unless the physically harmed person consents to it' such as someone having needles stuck into them- since the laws you think went too far were actually about directly physically harming images.

I know you said "I can't really be bothered to debate it", but at the same time, if you will post strong sweeping statements on forums, it does seem to be something of an invitation to debate.

I can't really be bothered to debate it but in essence just about anything filmed which harms no one I am in favour of allowing, cartoons of all kinds however much some people may not like the content (whether it's portraying the Prophet or sex with a dog or whatever you choose). I would obviously keep a few restrictions but nothing like what we have now. i would certainly reverse a lot of new Labour's restrictive laws and the Tories and Lib Dems were voted in in part because they were going to do so and they are doing abysmally at it.

On the first statement I just mean I am one of many feminists who would not want to ban page 3.

"As a feminist I've never really had any problems with Page 3. The less we ban the better."

I don't get this statement - what does being a feminist have to do with not taking personal exception to Page 3?

And "the less we ban the better"... So does this mean allowing the reversal of everything that is illegal? Filmed rape: should that be banned? Snuff movies: should they be banned?... You have to 'ban' things to inhibit the worst acts of abuse and exploitation in a world where inequality persists, so to say 'the less we ban the better' is a non-argument and more a statement along the lines of:

'It is difficult defining the lines that need to be drawn between acceptable and unacceptable- and to be honest since I'm personally not negatively affected - I can't be f*cked to engage with it, so I'll just make this blanket statement to make it seem I actually have an opinion'

As a feminist I've never really had any problems with Page 3. The less we ban the better.

The first time I saw page three I was at junior school and it was in a shelf amongst a whole lot of other torn-up papers. I was baffled and a bit troubled by it - I didn't understand why they had a naked woman like that..... My family have never bought a copy - 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.

Oh yeah - and speech - I speak with my mouth not my tits. So the come-back should be "Its not 'free-speech, its free tits"......well tits for only 20p...

Actually femal Tory MPs are precisely the people who could take it up. Whatever the defects of the modern Labour party, I don;t see it backing the kind of campaign that was launched against poor C Short.
From what I recall, she was regarded as a rather attractive lady (alan clarke had a weakness for her) and The Sun responded by offering her a large sum to get her tits out on p3/. Ha bloody ha.

I seem to remember Clare Short having a go at banning page 3 back in the 80s and the Sun editorial of the time said something like she was too ugly to be raped. I don't think they would get away with writing that today (but, come to think of it, I wouldn't like to bet on it!!) but the fact that female MPs are still unwilling to engage with this issue properly shows the level of unease of being reproached with the "you are are a jelaous old hag" line is still pretty high.

Also, by sidestepping it with the "well don't buy it" line, these very clever and articulate women MPs who, of course, know that the issue goes much deeper than that, are actually acknowledging that this is an issue which a) is not very important as far as government or society is concerned so they don't want to waste their time on it and b) is too easily derailed by the "you are a jealous old hag, goodness me where's your sense of fun?" idiots who defend it and that the majority of the electorate will not have the critical thinking skills required to see past that argument. No MP wants to wade into a battle which is a) not important enough to win votes and b) too easy for the opposition to make them look ridiculous.

This is the large heavy instrument you hit them with - I challenge anyone to read all 600+ posts of this thread and then argue that naked boobs in a daily newspaper don't feed into this culture.

They may have been afraid the usual insults would be trotted out as they are against any prominent woman who opposes page 3.....they're jealous, they're old, they're prudes. I am always amazed when women fail to see the problem with it. I remember even as a young child feeling very uncomfortable when I saw a man reading the Sun. My mum would never allow it in the house (along with the News of the World).

clemetteattlee - My female Tory MP also refused to support the campaign using the old chestnut "if you don't like it don't buy it". Do you happen to live in Havering?

Maybe I'm in a wine-induced Friday night fog, but I'm having trouble understanding which side it is that batters people senseless, the Taliban or their opponents. If it's the oppponents, then obviously the Taliban stand to look a little better by comparison.

After you've battered them senseless with the heavy object you could say, "NO, THAT would be behaving like the Taliban - I would merely like women to be afforded respect in society without the fear of suffering objectification and underlying threats of violence - kind of the opposite of what the Taliban are generally after."

I honestly don't see this issue with page 3.

I won't be signing a petition.

Each to their own though. If that's what you believe in then go for it.