Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Why ban page 3?

582 replies

jackburton · 12/02/2013 20:44

Hi, this is my first post, please be gentle :) . 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?

OP posts:
libertarianj · 02/09/2013 22:31

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.

NiceTabard · 02/09/2013 22:29

Assuming he's a UK -centric sort of civil liberties person.

Globally there is much to fight for, as we are all well aware.

NiceTabard · 02/09/2013 22:28

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.

scallopsrgreat · 02/09/2013 22:25

The right to equal treatment is also interesting.

NiceTabard · 02/09/2013 22:23

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."

Can't see anything about page 3 there.

The bodily integrity thing is interesting though.

scallopsrgreat · 02/09/2013 22:21

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 · 02/09/2013 22:18

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 · 02/09/2013 22:15

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?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 02/09/2013 22:14

Maximum civil liberties to ogle women's tits in a daily newspaper?

Right. On you go now.

Tabby1963 · 02/09/2013 22:14

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....

FloraFox · 02/09/2013 22:13

libfail cross-post. Define minimal.

FloraFox · 02/09/2013 22:12

libertarianfail can you define "libertarian" without recourse to Wikipedia?

NiceTabard · 02/09/2013 22:11

" 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.

libertarianj · 02/09/2013 22:11

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.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 02/09/2013 22:08

I think if we scratch the surface, libertarianj isn't as 'libertarian' as he'd like to think.

scallopsrgreat · 02/09/2013 22:05

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

libertarianj · 02/09/2013 22:04

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.

CaptChaos · 02/09/2013 22:04

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.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 02/09/2013 22:04

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?

FloraFox · 02/09/2013 22:02

As long as it's legal? Not much of a libertarian then.

libertarianj · 02/09/2013 21:57

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.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 02/09/2013 21:41

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.

FloraFox · 02/09/2013 21:38

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.

CaptChaos · 02/09/2013 21:38

Do at least try and compare like with like.

It might just help your thought processes.

NiceTabard · 02/09/2013 21:36

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.

Swipe left for the next trending thread