Why ban page 3?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You are seriously stating that women's bare chests and men's bare chests are equivalent in our society?

Come off it

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"?

I've never been able to work out what the point of page 3 is i.e. what's it for?

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?

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.

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

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.

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".

Hi lib

What is the male equivalent to women's breasts then?

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. Perhaps that's what the libertarians want - for women walking naked everywhere - to work, to the shops, to work...

"free wrestling babes" is "fashion" now is it? Ha ha

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

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?

You don't like Mumsnet much, do you ?