Why ban page 3?

That's not sociobiology.... or at least it's evolutionary psychology by a different name, which is utter snake oil bunkum.

Well Actually Sabrina, it's a she. I've actually blown the dust off one of my sociology text books which has a chapter discussing more or less what she is saying. Sociobiology argues that human behaviour can be explained in terms of human survival and successful reproduction. Since women give birth to children , it is important that they are caring and nuturing and require good social skills; they are the preserving gender. Since men meerly impregnate , they can be sexual promiscious , agreesive and risk taking; they are the dispensible gender. It has been suggested that sexual objectification is part of these processes. This model is meerly using these ideas to rationalise what she does, as any human would. Yet agian Lib, good to see that you are pointing out the cliques and their gimmicks.

Sorry. some of the men. there has been a sensible male poster too.

And on the subject of the women who model for page three or similar - I am not one of them so I cannot speak for them. I don't know how they feel about page three - I imagine it varies from woman to woman what with them being individuals and all.

I am however a woman and I am a woman in male dominated society so I can speak about that. And I can speak about the mechanisms by which women (of which I am one) are subjugated by that society - page three and its ilk is one of these mechanisms.

I suspect that the men on this thread don't get that because they are not women and they are failing to challenge their male entitlement - in fact I know that because they keep coming out with arguments about the menz liking to look at the boobiez and how its all healthy, nay, natural, nay essential. This is not political analysis - it is male privilege in action.

libertarianj

Ok - so if my analysis (which is a straightforward feminist analysis) of page three is wrong then critique it. Tell me what is wrong about it rather than just saying 'says who' in the manner of a 6 year old.

And I thought that it had already been explained to you that feminists observing, analysing and discussing the objectification of women is not objectification. It is political analysis of male dominated society's subjugation of women.

You telling us that we are objectifying women by discussing the mechanisms by which male dominated society objectifies women is offensive. It also isn't very clever (it is a common tactic used by men in feminist discussions and most of us on here are familiar with it) and it is, as has been pointed out, gaslighting . Do you know what that is?

Why are you trying to trick women into not discussing women's politics? Do you realise that your rhetorical trick implies that you think we are stupid?

I'd like ged to explain why he believes "objectification is a biological imperative, essential to the survival of the species."

Is page 3 essential to the survival of the species though?? I think we should know!

good point Ged

It's quite telling that they fail to ever include the actual models and their views in any of these campaigns. The fact that they don't is another example of real objectification on their behalf. I mentioned this a few pages back and it was met with tumbleweeds and i expect it will be ignored again.

ah and running thanks for copying and pasting the definition of sexual objectification again, as i'd never considered that

Yes, it certainly seems to be the case from your posts.

er why? and where did i mention feminists? what feminists?

You know - the ones posting here, on this board. Who you keep accusing of doing the objectifying in a most peculiar twist of logic.

ah emc back with the old cheese sandwich analogies i see.. It is just a shame that a cheese sandwich is an object and has absolutely nothing to do with the human brain or biology which objectification is concerned with. I hope you didn't spend too much time and effort conjuring that up emc? and you don't even challenge any of the points Nice bit of derailment too.

ah and running thanks for copying and pasting the definition of sexual objectification again, as i'd never considered that

You can argue that feminists are the ones doing the objectifying when talking about page 3 if you like - but that would make you sound insane.

er why? and where did i mention feminists? what feminists?

Beech And page three is not about women . Page three is about body parts. And not just body parts, but young conventionally attractive body parts presented in a titillating and sexually submissive/available way. (This is the very definition of sexual objectification BTW.)

Er says who? are you speaking for everyone? er no i think you are speaking for yourself and once again another example of real objectification on your behalf. Clumsy

Objectification, like any theory or comtention, can be questioned, challenged, rejected or discredited if the evidence is there. If a young woman who is a glamour model says "I have made a choice to express my sexuality" and also argues a parent should say this to a child if asked and furthermore says "objectification is a biologial imperative , essential to the survival of the species , any anthropoligist will tell you that" this sounds to me like a human being doing what any human being is doing, rationalising what they are doing. Instead of Caroline Lucas waving a Page 3 picture in Parliament she could have looked up the model on The Net and asked her to defend herself. Clare Short was also very happy to tell everybody that Page 3 is degrading and objectifying to women but when The Sun sent a bus load of Page 3 girls to her house she refused to speak to them.

'I mean, who decides if it's a cheese sandwich anyway? The Cheese Sandwich God?!'

To be honest, I'm appalled at people who describe a slice of cheese between two pieces of bread as "a cheese sandwich". Objectifying or what?!

'The only reason you think this is a cheese sandwich is because the carbohydrate and protein snack you were given is inferior. QED.'

And women eat cheese sandwiches too.

'The problem with cheese sandwich theory is that it assumes all men are eating cheddar, but some of us are actually having pain avec Brie de Meaux. You feminists make massive assumptions reducing all men to lowest common denominator stuff...'

at cheese sandwich.

We'll be getting told that the point of a cheese sandwich is to have a nice healthy vegan snack next...

and i think i have said numerous times now that men like looking at women with their clothes off such as page 3

Okay. Lots of men do. You have no idea how much or how little socialization comes into this however.

Anyway, men like lots of things but......drum roll...... men liking things doesn't make them right/acceptable/necessary/desirable/not misogynistic. Whodda thunk it?!

And page three is not about women . Page three is about body parts. And not just body parts, but young conventionally attractive body parts presented in a titillating and sexually submissive/available way. (This is the very definition of sexual objectification BTW.)

Do these men who "like looking at women with their clothes off" want to see older drooping breasts? Do they want to see a naked woman breastfeeding? Do they want to see the breasts of a woman who has had a mastectomy? Do they want to see average breasts with one larger than the other, a couple of nipple hairs and stretch marks?

Of course they don't. They want 'girls' with their 'tits out'.

Because page three isn't about real breasts (which are glands) it is about tits (which are wank fodder).

like it running

emswill74.

Epilogue:

emcwill74: hey libs, that a cheese sandwich you're eating?

Libs: No. It's you that's eating the sandwich, not me.

emcwill74: 'hey Libertarianj, that looks like a nice cheese sandwich you're eating!'
Libertarianj: 'I'm sorry, I'm not eating a cheese sandwich!'
emcwill74: 'err, but you've got 2 slices of bread and some cheese in the middle there!'
Libertarianj: 'don't be so silly, that's not a cheese sandwich! You feminists think you can march over here telling me I'm eating a cheese sandwich when I'm not! You're all so silly!'
emcwill74: 'no, no, 2 slices of bread, cheese in the middle, it really is a cheese sandwich'
Libertarianj: 'but how can you prove it is a cheese sandwich? What does the word sandwich actually mean? How do you know your idea of cheese is the same as mine? Can you prove that a mere label really denotes what it is labelling? C'est ci n'est pas un cheese sandwich! When you discuss men eating cheese sandwiches how do actually know what they are eating? Can you prove the essential cheese-sandwichness of my snack? No you can't, and yet you draw all these conclusions based on nothing at all. Now go away and let me watch some porn whilst I snigger about my superior arguing prowess and fill up on bread with interior cheese'

[emcwill74 gives up in total bafflement concluding that any man arguing for the continuation of boobs in a newspaper, whilst telling DadWasHere he is 'just concerned with boobs' is quite insane]

libertarianj -sexual objectification is the process of representing a person as a sex object for another's consumption or pleasure.

You can argue that an individual does that on the street when they fancy someone, if you like. BUt as long as they keep their thoughts to themselves and do not harass the person, then that's ok by me. Like you say, it's human nature.

You can argue that feminists are the ones doing the objectifying when talking about page 3 if you like - but that would make you sound insane. By discussing it, feminists aren't the ones doing the objectification - they are commenting on it. As opposed to denying it (as you are).

It is the interchangeability of the page 3 models, and the nature of the sexuality submissive photos that make it objectification - this pretty, naked girl one day. Another the next, and a different one the next, and so on. The fact that a small number of models have achieved fame on the back of, and away from glamour modelling does not stop page 3 itself objectifying women.

libertarinj, only the medium and social context changes, Physical attraction stays the same. In todays world Page 3 is about Physical attraction

There are many different levels to Physical attraction and Physical attraction is universal, its only a question of degree. Page 3 is a high degree. If you meet the criteria that allows physical attraction, male or female, you are desired. If you meet it well enough it can be repackaged and sold.

Sorry thought i'd try a little experiment... by substituting 'objectification' with the words 'physical attraction', it makes a lot more sense and i'd actually agree with it. Don't you think?

The girl in the videos arguments are based on logic and common sense, her personal experiences from her looks don't really come into it. As is evident from a range of very different people who speak out against 'objectification' in those videos.

grimmbletart We are all sexual beings and notice attractive members of the opposite sex (or same sex!). That is not objectification.

and neither is page 3

Yet, without understanding the concept, she also hilariously and inadvertently succeeds in making our point when she says she doesn't notice the pizzza delivery man because she is intent on the pizza. Precisely sums up objectification and what is going on in page 3.

her point was that you can't expect to know the personality of everyone you meet/ deal with in life, it' not practical, however that doesn't mean you cant appreciate them as being real people, not objects.