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:
SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 11/09/2013 07:10

ged knows nothing about a page 3 girl's personality except their public persona - they are 'safe' women for him to leer and fantasise over - he can attribute whatever personality he likes to them, for the purposes of his fantasy 'relationship' without the bother of dealing with an actual woman's real personality or needs.

That's not to say that page 3 models don't have real personalities and needs, of course, it's just that ged doesn't know the real person - he only knows the picture in the sun.

The page 3 photo turns women into objects because they depict a naked woman in a newspaper for the only reason that she has a nice pair of boobs, and for the purposes of male sexual gratification.

DadWasHere · 11/09/2013 07:06

AFAIK it IS about the boobs libertarianJ, because knowing what a model likes for breakfast or her attitude to saving lost cats is just window dressing not even looked at by most men. I suppose for some knowing those details is a type of self-mantra that they are not dehumanising the model, because they see objectification as being the same as dehumanising. For others it could be more like those who become unhealthily interested in the -must know- details of their favourite Hollywood celeb. For others it could be because they are failing to properly separate fantasy from reality.

libertarianj · 11/09/2013 02:03

But no, no matter what twisty twist you try to put on it, a photo of a pair of boobs is not news - however much you'd like to make out that it's feminists objectifying the models hmm - it's not.

Grin There you go again, objectifying the page 3 models. Sabrina it's not just a photo of a pair of boobs, they are real people posing semi naked.

oh and those so called 'feminists' who strive for equality for all women, except for when they are a page 3 model or a glamour model.... etc, etc Hmm That's a funny kind of feminism Confused

the nature of the picture is what objectifies the woman.

How exactly? How does a photo of a woman posing semi naked turn women into objects? Also who decides when it is objectification? the objectification God?

If Page 3 is just about objectification then why do Page 3 fans such as Ged know so much about the models personalities and lifestyles as he has displayed here? If it's all about the boobs as you claim, then why do they bother to delve any further ?

Following on from that Brooke Magnanti article, i see feminist and former page 3 model Jodie Marsh is now on the lads mags case too:

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/09/jodie-marsh-lose-the-lads-mags-campaign_n_3894120.html?ir=UK+Lifestyle

SinisterSal · 10/09/2013 23:06

So look at teenagers boobs on the net then. All the political arguments still apply but AT LEAST ordinary women and girls going about their everyday business in public spaces don't have to be subjected to something that makes them feel uncomfortable.

gedhession · 10/09/2013 23:02

Don't know why that's been posted over and over but my broadband has been going do-lally these past few weeks. I just think Sabrina has summed me up pretty well there. I've always had the feeling that Page 3 is a popular part of a popular newspaper and the fact many of the models who did Page 3 , I was a fan of Samantha Fox, did enjoy a fair amount of popularity (and if you search the Net still do) is a good measure of its popularity.

grimbletart · 10/09/2013 20:22

Even posting it twice doesn't really answer it Ged Grin. Why do you want me to take Sabrina's answer? Don't you have an answer of your own?

Though you do seem to think it is pointless, which I guess is a start.

gedhession · 10/09/2013 20:05

What's wrong with rhetorical questions? Depends what answers they get and the contribution they make to the discussion I suppose. Actually, does this post made by Sabrina actually answer your question;You are basically an apologist for page 3 because you want to look at pretty girls with their boobs out, or you want to admire the girls, and pretend that you appreciate their personality. I've always considered that a popular activity amongst men and , from what I've been told, some women. Personally, I don't see the point of X Factor. Doesn't stop millions watching it, does it?

gedhession · 10/09/2013 20:05

What's wrong with rhetorical questions? Depends what answers they get and the contribution they make to the discussion I suppose. Actually, does this post made by Sabrina actually answer your question;You are basically an apologist for page 3 because you want to look at pretty girls with their boobs out, or you want to admire the girls, and pretend that you appreciate their personality. I've always considered that a popular activity amongst men and , from what I've been told, some women. Personally, I don't see the point of X Factor. Doesn't stop millions watching it, does it?

gedhession · 10/09/2013 20:05

What's wrong with rhetorical questions? Depends what answers they get and the contribution they make to the discussion I suppose. Actually, does this post made by Sabrina actually answer your question;You are basically an apologist for page 3 because you want to look at pretty girls with their boobs out, or you want to admire the girls, and pretend that you appreciate their personality. I've always considered that a popular activity amongst men and , from what I've been told, some women. Personally, I don't see the point of X Factor. Doesn't stop millions watching it, does it?

gedhession · 10/09/2013 20:05

What's wrong with rhetorical questions? Depends what answers they get and the contribution they make to the discussion I suppose. Actually, does this post made by Sabrina actually answer your question;You are basically an apologist for page 3 because you want to look at pretty girls with their boobs out, or you want to admire the girls, and pretend that you appreciate their personality. I've always considered that a popular activity amongst men and , from what I've been told, some women. Personally, I don't see the point of X Factor. Doesn't stop millions watching it, does it?

grimbletart · 10/09/2013 18:15

Why would I ask a rhetorical question? It wasn't, so I would be grateful if you could tell me what the point of page 3 is. Thanks.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 10/09/2013 18:08

Can you answer grimble's question in your own words, ged?

gedhession · 10/09/2013 17:55

Well grimble, I just thought it was a rhetorical question. Don't any of my posts provide an answer to your question? Sabrina, I do recall one Page 3 model, Louise Payne, marrying Fred Fairbass out of Right Said Fred. Of course, they showed her boobs with the story. They always did that with a Page 3 girl going out with a famous actor, popstar or sportsman. Still being objectified?

grimbletart · 10/09/2013 15:44

About a million posts ago (or so it feels like) I posed the question - what is page 3 actually for? Neither Ged nor Lib thought it worthy of answering.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 10/09/2013 13:55

Ha ha ! I really like what you tried to do there lib.

But no, no matter what twisty twist you try to put on it, a photo of a pair of boobs is not news - however much you'd like to make out that it's feminists objectifying the models Hmm - it's not. The models are being objectified full stop. It's not one person or another person doing the objectifying - the nature of the picture is what objectifies the woman.

A woman who is in a newspaper for no other reason than she has a very attractive pair of boobs on show is being objectified.

libertarianj · 10/09/2013 13:14

Sabrina/ running you say 'boobs aren't news'? So you have now reduced the models down to just their boobs Hmm. Oh so their not worthy of being in the paper are they? Maybe you should ask the models if they think they are news worthy? i somehow don't think they would share your view to be honest. You have basically just gone and objectified the models Shock. Now that's real objectification. Not some assumed primitive thought, that you keep telling us blokes think.

Also who defines what a newspaper should be anyway? oh i forgot you don't believe in freedom of choice....

I see Brooke Magnanti is more or less saying the saying the same thing as me, before you inform me again of my male privilege:

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/10295863/Co-op-banning-lads-mags-inequality-existed-long-before-lads-mags-and-will-continue-long-after.html

libertarianj · 10/09/2013 13:14

Sabrina/ running you say 'boobs aren't news'? So you have now reduced the models down to just their boobs Hmm. Oh so their not worthy of being in the paper are they? Maybe you should ask the models if they think they are news worthy? i somehow don't think they would share your view to be honest. You have basically just gone and objectified the models Shock. Now that's real objectification. Not some assumed primitive thought, that you keep telling us blokes think.

Also who defines what a newspaper should be anyway? oh i forgot you don't believe in freedom of choice....

I see Brooke Magnanti is more or less saying the saying the same thing as me, before you inform me again of my male privilege:

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/10295863/Co-op-banning-lads-mags-inequality-existed-long-before-lads-mags-and-will-continue-long-after.html

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 09/09/2013 23:42

It's celeb news - whether it's interesting news or not is a matter of opinion. But what it isn't is purely a photo objectifying women.

gedhession · 09/09/2013 23:25

Sabrina ,is a glamour model going out with David Walliams or appearing on Celebrity Big Brother news?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 09/09/2013 23:00

*it

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 09/09/2013 20:50

Of course the footy is news - and I say that as football-hater! All the things you listed ged, are all either in the ' mild public interest,' 'celeb gossip' or 'sports news.' They are all sharing information with readers - rather than being a picture of bare boobs...

Oh ok - if it makes you feel any better, sudoko isn't strictly news Hmm so perhaps we can do away with that too - but only if you can get 120,000 people sign a petition against in. Wink

CaptChaos · 09/09/2013 20:00

Lib: No I didn't say it was, but viewing/ enjoying page 3 is down to sexual attraction not objectification.

Of course it's not down to sexual attraction. If they wanted to place sexually attractive pictures on Page 3, why do they only cater to heterosexual men? Or is that class the only class that feels sexually attracted to anyone?

It is objectification, pure and simple, and anyone who suggests otherwise is being deluded at best, disingenuous at worst.

gedhession · 09/09/2013 19:05

Boobs aren't news..... then again I wouldn't consider the footy news, or the gee-gees , or the rugby. Neither would I consider the crossword or the sudoku. Neither would I consider "My binge eating hell" by some actress off Eastenders or the fact that one of the blokes off Hairy Bikers is on Strictly Come Dancing. I recall one of my teachers at school referring to the tabloids as the "newsless newspapers". Since when did anybody read The Sun for the news?

runningforthebusinheels · 09/09/2013 16:13

libertarian, what you're posting is very creepy.

You tell women to put up and shut up about being shown as sexual objects in newspapers, just because you think men are so driven by their 'biology' to want to look at breasts. You think the wants of the man trump the discomfort of the woman sitting next to him - that's creepy and privileged. Fact is, men can gaze at women's breasts to their hearts content on various specialised porn mags and online pornsites. Doesn't have to be in a newspaper. Boobs aren't news.

libertarianj · 09/09/2013 14:25

Objectification isn't sexual attraction Stop lying.

No I didn't say it was, but viewing/ enjoying page 3 is down to sexual attraction not objectification.

"As i have said previously you peeps have a serious issue with men looking at images of attractive women semi naked" And the creepiest posts I've seen on here for a long while have been made by a full card carrying page 3 aficionado. Not really helping your cause libertarianj.

But there's nothing creepy about what i have said, it's just basic human biology, which people on here seem to be struggling to understand.

Swipe left for the next trending thread