Why ban page 3?

So you would be in favour of having the existing laws around obscene publications removed

oh that rather vague thing from 1959, er yes

And you would be in favour of having the law changed about not being allowed to show an erect penis in a non "specialist" magazine

yeah, why not? but please tell me you aren't trying to say that the male equivalent to a woman's breasts is an erect penis?

Incidentally younger children cannot read but they can understand images.
Also it is quite easy to ignore writing generally - you have to actively try to read someone elses paper on the bus for eg but images are just there and no translation is required.

and what is there to understand about topless nudity? and what's wrong with the naked human body?

The difficulty with page 3 is it soft core porn that - as it is in a "family newspaper"

it's not soft porn it's topless nudity. How can a woman posing in some bikini bottoms be considered porn? your beginning to sound like Mary Whitehouse.

I'm failing to see why freedom of choice and civil liberties trumps stopping something which damages a group of people.

Damages a group of people? sounds like a massive exaggeration to me? it doesn't damage anyone and i certainly wouldn't call feeling insecure about it, being damaged. I think womens mags do a far better job of that, but no your not going after them.

The No More Page 3 campaign is asking The Sun (nicely) to remove it from the newspaper because it is irrelevant.

well go and ask the sun nicely to remove it then? Actually i think the campaigners have already done this numerous times.The Sun has said no, so time to move on, otherwise it's just harassment.

And I am smirking slightly that seeing women's naked breasts over your morning tea is being considered as a civil liberty. Male privilege in action their grin&

er what did i say about the slippery slope? you know the gradual chipping away of civil liberties. Also what about the models civil liberty to pose topless in a newspaper. Oh you don't care about them do you? Do Object and UK Feminista ever consider the models opinion in their campaigns? A big fat NO.

I don't understand the civil liberties argument at all

Authoritarians never do

Civil liberties does not equal anyone doing what they want regardless of the impact on other people, surely?

can you prove page 3 has a negative impact on the general population? er no. A few easily offended individuals is not sufficient enough reason to ban something. What about if 100K religious extremists wanted to ban the wearing of short skirts in public, would you bow to their needs and ban them?

Perhaps we should do the old MRA trick: -

you guys are obsessed with MRA's. It seems that if it's anything that opposes your view, then you eventually cry MRA troll. It comes across as a tactic to try and shut down freedom of speech. I sometimes wonder why you don't just set up your own private members forum where you would never get any opposing views and you can just pat each other on the back all day long?

There are plenty of gay men around.
Why are there not pictures of hot young men feeling themselves up in the daily papers?

There are plenty of women who would also not be averse to seeing pictures of hot young men feeling themselves up in the daily papers. Yet still it's not there.

What is the biological reason that objectification only works in one specific instance? Why are gay men immune to the appeal of looking at scantily clad men in provocative poses? Why are women not interested in looking at attractive men with fit bodies on display? Oh hold on... They ARE! And yet it's only young women who are on page 3. Now why on earth could that be? Strange words like sexism, routine objectification of women, sexual oppression of women, enforced heterosexuality and homophobia are pinging through my brain. Most odd.

Wow, ged, someone in the industry doesn't have a problem with the industry? That does of course make you Right All Along.

In other news - airlines don't agree with air fuel tax and Claims Direct don't want no win-no fee banned.

Google this , BBC Newsnight 'Remove Page 3' debate, I like the glamour model Laura Lacole who claims that sexual objectification is a biological imperative. Was I right all along?

HOUSE!

I found this on the web if you fancy a listen....

I found it interesting that it was argued that most young girls consider Page 3 the only career option. I actually recall a woman who did Page 3 back in the 80s who was studying to be a barrister (well, so said the caption). Bit off topic, I seem to recall an article that 1/3 of lap dancers have degree and see it as meerly a way of funding their studies towards their eventual career.

Ok libertarianj your response to me mystifies. Page 3 is there purely for sexual thrills, objectification of women, and the trivialisation of their thoughts (ever read some of the text boxes attributed to the women?). Now I am not against sexual thrills in the slightest, in an appropriate place. However you stack it up next to those other factors, and yeah we have a problem.

Nudity in fashion shoots and art pieces do not come attached with an innate degradation of women, so you are not comparing like with like. If you are proposing fears about people making decisions about what is appropriate in society, and people making the wrong ones, well news flash we're human, we're not perfect and yeah sometimes the powers that be enforce something I do not happen to agree with. Yet if we don't have hierarchy the whole of human endeavour screeches to a halt.

As a compromise what say we ban it temporarily and see if those that want it come forward with the tenacity and numbers of those that don't. Then reopen the dialogue at that point?

I think that works well here

Perhaps we should do the old MRA trick: -

What, you think getting rid of page 3 is an infringement of civil liberties? Why don't you go and campaign in China where civil liberties really is an issue? Stopping people ogling women's tits isn't too bad considering what goes on in other countries

Well exactly Sabrina. But obviously there are only a handful of women bothered by it and any other damage page 3 does is in our pretty little heads. Men's entitlement to ogle women must trump all other concerns.

I don't understand the civil liberties argument at all - what civil liberty is being broken by not having tits in a daily newspaper?

Some people might want all sorts being normalised in a newspaper - doesn't mean it's a civil liberties matter if they don't get it.

Civil liberties does not equal anyone doing what they want regardless of the impact on other people, surely?

On Facebook I have friends who used to do Page 3. They told me that they got a lot of letters from females who admired them, even lesbians, quite a lot from girls who wanted to be models themselves. In Clare Short's "This is what women really think of Page 3" (is it really Ms Short?) she claimed she got 7000 letters from women concerned about Page 3 but The Sun was read by 13 million back in 1986 and got thousands of letters from Page 3 admirers each week. Even the new Online petition has attracted less than 100,000 , still significantly less than the total Sun readership. When these Object/Feminista types put "This offends all women" on Lads Mags covers are they really telling the truth?

And I am smirking slightly that seeing women's naked breasts over your morning tea is being considered as a civil liberty. Male privilege in action their

I'm failing to see why freedom of choice and civil liberties trumps stopping something which damages a group of people. They don't in most other areas of life.

And can I just point out (no doubt for the umpteenth time on this thread) that no-one is calling for a ban. The No More Page 3 campaign is asking The Sun (nicely) to remove it from the newspaper because it is irrelevant. Asking someone to remove something is not banning it. No civil liberties are in danger. And men's freedom of choice to objectify women's bodies can still continue elsewhere. The slight loss of privilege in this area maybe barely noticed by some

Reading your civil liberties / repressed society comment again - would you have a problem with people watching porn on the tube on their ipads?

So you would be in favour of having the existing laws around obscene publications removed

And you would be in favour of having the law changed about not being allowed to show an erect penis in a non "specialist" magazine

Incidentally younger children cannot read but they can understand images.

Also it is quite easy to ignore writing generally - you have to actively try to read someone elses paper on the bus for eg - but images are just there and no translation is required.

I suspect that you aren't female (?) and/or have never had a man use the page 3 image to perv over you / unsettle you and so you may be unlikely to understand why so many have an issue with this.

The difficulty with page 3 is it soft core porn that - as it is in a "family newspaper" - people deem appropriate for looking at anywhere. Playgrounds, on the bus sitting next to children, on the tube while pressed in the rush hour into young women. It is looked at in places which publications like nuts or playboy aren't. I've yet to see someone watching porn on the tube on an ipad, and I've never even seen someone reading the star. But the sun is there, in your face, every day, often with a cheerful leer at a nearby female for good measure.

Nice to see you and lib singing from the same song sheet ( after a bit of coaching!)

I don't think so, Ged completely lost me with his last argument.

^STOP THE PRESS! 14 yo boys like looking at 16 yo girls tits! Doesn't mean they need to be in a "family" newspaper though does it. ESPECIALLY when it makes so many girls of those ages feel uncomfortable.

Or is it more important for males to see tits whenever they want, than for females to feel comfortable when they are out and about?

I thought he meant that many 14yo have had consensual sexual experiences and therefore what is wrong with having page 3, given that many will have had the "real deal".

He said that at age 14 he was a big fan of sam fox and many of her fans were boys that age.

STOP THE PRESS! 14 yo boys like looking at 16 yo girls tits! Doesn't mean they need to be in a "family" newspaper though does it. ESPECIALLY when it makes so many girls of those ages feel uncomfortable.

Or is it more important for males to see tits whenever they want, than for females to feel comfortable when they are out and about?

Ged, is your point that the sexual abuse of children is worse than p3? I don't see any dissenters to that...

Oh I see Chaos, well Tabard reckoned I was defending Page 3 on the basis that it provides sexual relief for pubescent males and I assumed you've all come the same conclusion about me. Not the greatest of defense?

The lame apologist comment wasn't actually aimed at you Ged , why would you think it was?

Nice to see you and lib singing from the same song sheet ( after a bit of coaching!)

I wanted to make the point that being actually sexually abused as a child will possibly have a greater effect on you than exposure to sexually explicit images. I'll even risk the contention that most underaged sex occurs between peers. I wasn't really thinking about masturbation but I'm pretty sure quite a few pubescent males appreciate the female body to orgasm.Me, a lame apologist? I don't make these things happen.

It's lame to come onto a discussion about the impact of Page 3 on women and on society and say "try learning to stop being so easily offended instead".

Women are not offended by the sight of breasts FFS. I would expect that most of us have have seen way more naked breasts than most men.