Why ban page 3?

Is that an argument for keeping page 3 ged?

Because tbh, in general it is recognised that the culture and media do place a huge emphasis on women's value being very tied into looks and beauty alone. Too much so, and way more important than for men. And this is obviously not a good thing.

But that really is a different issue to the page 3 argument. Page 3 isn't selling beauty, or fashion - but sexuality. It shows teenagers in sexually provocative poses - in a readily accessible daily newspaper. There is no male equivalent of page 3. It shows that women can be viewed as sexually available playthings - and it is all part of the same continuum that ends up with women and girls being catcalled in the street and groped on public transport.

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 - it is entirely irrelevant to the argument whether they are "the perfect female form" or whatever you were arguing. The fact is that this sort of objectification has a detrimental effect on all women and their perceived place in society.

So, say, the women in bikinis draped over high end cars at car shows are feminism's fault?

I have been so blind, but now I see.

Obvious, when you have a job , you have money to spend. The peddlers of the "perfect image" want you to spend it on their wares. Probably explains why so many young women want to be models today, being employed to sell this "perfect image".

Beat me to it Sabrina

ged You sound like a very confused individual who seems completely incapable of rational interaction and debate. I struggle to understand your ramblings and to say you make little sense, let alone a reasonable argument, is an understatement.

That's not a personal attack, just an observation.

Libertarian While your opinions are easier to understand, they are still inconsistent and offensive. Freedom of speech and expression does not equal freedom to objectify and exploit young slim white large bosomed women

You are from the same stable of people who used to find it completely acceptable and sensible to declare homosexuals as abominations and people of colour as inferior. No, I'm not saying you are racist or homophobic but I am saying you are sexist and I can't wait for the day when that is looked upon with as much scorn as racism and homophobia.

It's like ged is having a different conversation to the rest of us.

However - I call Godwin's.

Yes, the female form has been commodified. That's part of the same deal as objectification by the way, and has fuck all to do with women "going out to work"

By the way, you do know that, throughout history, the majority of women have always worked, whether in the fields with babies strapped to them or whatever.

I never considered Samantha Fox the perfect woman. In fact I do recall quite a few people making play of the fact she's very short with a dumpy body. I seem to recall a conversation at school where quite a few of the girls considered her grotesque and hideous. I also recall Linda Lursardi having a woman scream "God you are ugly" in her face. The very idea of a "perfect" human fills me with horror , reminding me of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi gas chambers. Since you mentioned men oling Page 3 on The Tube, I notice that on The Tube there is a plethora of images of women in lingerie, swimware, women dressed in hot pants, mini skirts , basques and crop tops. I wonder if children ask their parents disconcerting questions about those images? The irony of feminism and women going out to work is that instead of liberating them it has turned them into consumers. Instead of women being objectified we should become more concerned about women being commodified, the female body has become a commodity for the consumption of more goods and services so as to consume a "perfect image". There are plenty of ads on The Tube for cosmertic surgery as well. What you mentioned Sabrina goes far beyond Page 3 for it to be blamed for it.

I love how the menz argue that, on the one hand, women objectify men too (coke ad) and, on the other hand, men's nature need visual stimulation that women don't need. No contradiction there, nope, not at all.

Or it could be that society is structured (patriarchy) to privilege and accomodate the male gaze so that women are told they are the objects of male gaze and consumption. Women are told that they are sad old cougars for enjoying the sight of male bodies.

Male privilege, gedhession. Look it up.

Well, ged, page 3 feeds into the idea that women are there to be pretty, to be ogled, to be merely sexual titillation to men. You have read first hand testimony here to how that affects women and girls from a young age.

I don't see why, in the 21st century, I shouldn't take exception to men feeling entitled to ogle naked women over their breakfast cereal, or on the train, or in the staffroom, or wherever, and challenge it.

Imagine my surprise, gedhessian likes porn.

Well Sabrina, on the subject of Irish jokes, most of them were based upon the idea that Irish people are stupid. I think that most people are fairly convinced that Irish people are actually just as intelligent as any other race. Indeed, racism is based upon the idea that some races are more intelligent than others and by looking at the 21st Century world the evidence makes it clear that that is far from true. The best way to deal with offensive things and ideas is to fight them head on, not try to hide them away. I've always known that there are people who consider porn to be an evil thing; created by evil people for evil people. I don't see why I shouldn't take exception to that belief and challenge it.

Hahaha at the idea that females don't generally like looking at pictures of hot men.

yeah righto

And I'm not telling anyone how to live their life. If someone wants to be a glamour model then that is up to them, but saying that they are doing it in order to modernise a country is a bit much if you ask me. I can think of a great pile of stuff that NI could do to modernise, and strangely, more topless women in the daily papers doesn't feature.

should say too, it is your opinion as a man* - ie. not the one being subjugated as the 'sex' class.

When you've lived life as a teenage girl, constantly aware of men talking to her breasts all the time, men catcalling in the street, then maybe you can be entitled to that opinion.

You don't see it as sexism, lib we got that. But that p3 isn't degrading anyone is purely your opinion. The fact is many women do find it degrading. And it is degrading, when put in the context of a patriarchal society, where women are considered in so many ways to be lesser than men, there to look pretty, to be eye candy essentially. Page 3 is simply part of the culture that perpetuates this view of women- but it is so much worse because it is within the pages of a 'family' newspaper.

As has already been pointed out on this thread, page3 caters for hetero men - why doesn't it cater for other sexualities? Why not men in semi naked sexualised poses to cater for gay men/women? You have not adequately addressed this issue that the sun displays women only in these sexualised poses for the delectation of men.

Your libertarianism on human sexuality seems to only go so far - you didn't answer my question on whether men with erect penises and people having full sex should be shown in daily newspapers - as an expression of human sexuality? You just said some flannel about 'as long as it's legal and consenting.' That's not actually a very libertarian view!

There you go again Tabard trying to tell other woman how they should live their lives.

it's not sexism though Sabrina it's human sexuality and page 3 isn't degrading anyone.

It seems Ged that the peeps on here, have this major problem with male sexuality and the fact that men are generallymore visually stimulated than women. They want to suppress and control this dynamic and they think censorship of female imagery will somehow achieve this. It's like they strive for some kind of androgynous utopia. It's all a bit heterophobic really.

Interesting that you mention pro porn feminists, i mentioned a similar thing on that MRA thread. There used to be a few on here but i think they got fed up with constantly being branded 'hand maidens'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism

Plus if the model from Ulster is interested in "modernising" over there, maybe she could turn her attention to the abortion laws in NI. Rather than taking her clothes off so men can look at her - which is probably one of the least "modern" activities there is.

Sam Fox was 16 years old FFS and I posted a bunch of stuff upthead about how it sounds as if she was exploited by all around including her own parents.

I hope she is happy now but I think it has been a long path for her to get there.

The way you talk about her and the other models kind of proves the point - you don't think of them as people, you just admired their forms when they were in the papers when you were a teenager.

Given all that has been said on this thread I think re-iterating your admiration of a young sam fox's form is just bizarre.

So how would you feel if the sun decided to print an Irish joke on p3 tomorrow - taking up the whole page in a massive font?

Perhaps for good measure they could put a picture of a leprechaun or something in the corner - with a speech bubble coming out of it's mouth with some dimwitted news soundbite in there?

That would be racist. And illegal. But sexism and making girls and women uncomfortable is ok by you?

I feel like printing my very first post

I recall well the time Samantha Fox was immensely popular. In fact I do recall many Page 3 girls, Linda Lusardi, Maria Whittaker, Jo Guest, Katie Price, Melinda Messenger and Keeley Hazell being very popular as Page 3 girls and go on to become popular media personalities. I find it interesting that Clare Short tried to ban Page 3 at the time Samantha Fox was at the height of her popularity. Of course, just because something is popular is not a defense to some...

Keeley Hazell was a very popular Page 3 girl , so popular that The Sun had her photographed with David Walliams outside a trendy London nightclub. For some models , Page 3 gives them popularity and celebrity status.

Ever heard of Feminists Against Censorship? Clare Short refused to speak to them. So not all feminists are anti-porn and in fact I admire feminism for many things.....

I actually come from an Irish family and had to grow up with all the jokes about the Irish being stupid. So I know all about things that offend people.

I think ged just wants to chat and "recall" page 3 girls he admires

And damn you feminists, girl guides, MPs etc for wanting to stop him!

What's haikus?