Why ban page 3?

Well she would say that, wouldn't she, ged?

A glamour model claims that both men and women both objectify the opposite sex, it is a biological imperative essential for human survival. Go into the supermarket and there are plenty of sexual images of men, abet popular and famous men. Or am I talking about a completely different thing.

Well said scallops. For me this is not a moral issue, I have no problem with nudity at all. For me it is a gender issue, it is about the way women in society are viewed. It is about my right to sit on a train or a bus without having pictures of nearly naked passive women in my face.

As far as being bigots - I know I am not a bigot I just want women to be valued and seen for more than just being a body.

As far as choice is concerned. If someone needs that type of entertainment let them find it. What about my choice of not wishing to see it everytime I go in a supermarket.

As far as I am aware Page 3 girls are not employed by The Sun, but paid per photograph, so no-one will be losing their jobs libertarianj. They maybe losing an opportunity, but as it stands there are plenty more of those.

But again, this isn't about the models, this is about men's behaviour. As Sabrina says what function does Page 3 serve other than to feed men's entitlement? I want to live in a world where this doesn't make sense, either to men or to the women who model. This isn't about morals or religion libertarianj (although there is nothing wrong with having morals). Nothing we have said on this thread indicates that is our argument. You are just making things up. Just like you are making it up about it being a few bigots opposing this. It isn't bigoted to want women to be valued for more than there looks. It isn't bigoted to want a newspaper to print news. It isn't bigoted to not want to see women in sexualised poses unexpectedly, in inappropriate aettings. It is bigoted to presume that is all OK.

In addition, this whole minority thing is based on dodgy premises. A lot of people probably are ambivalent about it. And fair enough, we live in a society where it is normalised. People are bound to just accept things the way they are. But they probably wouldn't care if was there or not. You seem to be putting them on your side of the fence for some reason. Even if it is a minority, it is a significant minority. Women do matter.

Lib, re: your car analogy "what function does anything serve?"

Well, I get what you were trying to argue with your car analogy - that cars damage people yet we still have them. Thing is - the not-so-subtle difference between cars and p3 is that cars are tolerated by society because of the function they serve (transport) and any people that abuse their use of their car (by dangerous driving) are committing an offence punishable in law.

Page 3 neither serves any real function in society (except making money for Rupert Murdoch), nor gives any redress to the girls and women who are belittled or made uncomfortable by it.

There are plenty of other publications and online ways for men to look at women's boobs. Nuts, zoo, pornhub. Seems eminently sensible to me to either put the Sun on a high shelf and restrict the sale of it to adults only, or for them to consign p3 to the past. Either way, the men that want to, still have the dubious "civil liberty" to leer at women's tits.

Of course, when a man is ogling a picture of a woman nobody knows what he is really thinking. Linda Lusardi said that most of the letters she received from Sun readers said that her best part was her smile. Some of the men who ogle outside La Senza and Ann Summers probably fancy wearing the lingerie but haven't got the bottle to buy it. Sabrina, I would not even attempt to defend how those men treated you and you are perfectly entitled to feel that their behaviour was unnecessary, inapropriate and basically out of order. Just a further point, people have raised the matter that children ask their parents why The Sun has Page 3. Aren't there also children who ask their parents why Lady Gaga sings and dances in her bra and knickers?

lib you couldn't define minimal interference. What is your understanding of agency? Please don't let this be another choosy-choice / two dimensional understanding.

You don't give a toss about the civil liberties of the models or the models themselves libertarianj. You are just using them to try and point score and that is really low. You don't care how many of them have been abused, have mental health issues, self esteem issues, what they go on to do after they've posed in Page 3 or even how many of them are perfectly OK and had a positive experience.

But you say i don't give a toss about the models but then i am not the one who is advocating for them to lose their jobs, i am not the one who isn't even involving them in the debate. Have Object and UK Feminista actually gone and asked them for their views? Nope!

Also how would you feel if you were a model who was proud to appear in page 3 or on the front cover of a magazine. Then next thing a minority of other women and moral/ religious bigots start campaigning not only that your page 3 photos should be ditched but also your magazine cover to be put in a modesty bag or for the magazine to be banned altogether from sale. Then they proceed in telling you that you must be a victim of abuse, coerced, have self esteem issues and that you couldn't possibly have chosen that profession because you enjoy it. Now that's the real objectification as you are denying them agency.

You're arguing page 3 and cars now? I seriously can't believe how specious your analogies are. Cars have a function - and dangerous driving is punishable by law. What function does page 3 serve?

what function does anything serve? What's the point of anything? We could use this argument about everything, just because you don't see it as significant or important or agree with it, doesn't mean it's not relevant or to be liked by other people.
And you totally missed the point of the analogy, which was to demonstrate the principle of civil liberties. Not that cars are more important than page 3.

^You're not actually reading anyone's posts are yo lib.
You are skimming them for things you pick out that you think you can challenge.
You have answered hardly any questions that you have been asked.
You are not actually engaging in a conversation, you aren't interested in anyone else's views.^

Actually i did read them but considering there was a barrage of posts from 6 or 7 different posters, there's no way i was going to reply to them all. I would have been up all night! I notice this safety in numbers tactic quite a lot on these forums, it's like 'lets all pile in and overwhelm the opposition, that'll break them down.' That's really no way to have an sensible and honest debate.

Also i think the ins and outs of libertarianism is a thread of it's own for the politics sub forum, and you asking my views on abortion laws in NI, well that was just a blatant derailment attempt.

Male entertainment... not conformist?? Really?

'Sharon Osbourne shimmers into London's Groucho Club looking a million dollars. Or rather, three million dollars, which is what she later tells me her sensational new look costs at the plastic surgery clinic she frequents in Los Angeles.' Piers Morgan in GQ

'Think back to how she looked bending over that 1976 Chevrolet Camaro in the first Transformers movie ? her otherworldly hotness seemed no more plausible than giant space-robots who could turn into trucks and fighter jets.' FHM on Megan Fox

etc etc

As for the 'emphasised difference' theory, I don't think that washes - sounds very Apewatching. Men in mainstream pornography seem to be increasingly hairless, for example. The point of hairlessness (beyond that it's a change from the past and novelty is exciting) IMO is that the genitals are more visible, and seeing genitals is the USP of pornography, just as the chance to see pert young tits with a sunny 'no issues' smile for 20p whenever you feel like it is the USP of Page 3. And if the page 3 girls are happy to do it (oh and they do look SO happy) why is any other woman remotely bothered at having their breasts appraised sexually, by anyone, at any time? I have heard men remember with emotion how humiliating it felt to have an unwanted visible erection somewhere inconvenient. Imagine having effectively two visible erections on your chest at all times, because just having breasts has been made to = sexually available, by things like page 3.

And regards the weirdo man thing. The men who shout out us from a van as we are walking along aren't weird. They probably have girlfriends maybe even daughters. They are probably viewed as "one of the lads". It's what boys do innit.

It is creepy to us on the receiving end but 90% of the time they are viewed as normal. Michael LeVell springs to mind. He had a whole host of supporters saying what a thoroughly nice chap he was yet he was telling pre-pubescent girls that they would die if they told anyone what he was doing to them.

You don't give a toss about the civil liberties of the models or the models themselves libertarianj. You are just using them to try and point score and that is really low. You don't care how many of them have been abused, have mental health issues, self esteem issues, what they go on to do after they've posed in Page 3 or even how many of them are perfectly OK and had a positive experience.

I am not telling anyone what they can and can't do with their bodies. If they want to get naked and pose for photographs I am not stopping them. Their civil liberties are not affected.

But this isn't about the models behaviour it is about men's behaviour. Educate you say? Well that is what the No More Page 3 campaign is trying to do. It is difficult to educate people when the messages from society are telling them it is perfectly OK to view women as the sex class.

You're arguing page 3 and cars now? I seriously can't believe how specious your analogies are. Cars have a function - and dangerous driving is punishable by law. What function does page 3 serve?

The mere existence of page 3 in a daily newspaper is what objectifies women's bodies in everyday life - not the only thing, but one of the more accessible ones. You can't argue that one groups in society is able to objectify another because of civil liberties - it's a fundamentally flawed argument.

Please can you list what you are campaigning for in terms of "maximum civil liberties" with reference to the wiki link upthread re civil liberties. Thank you.

You're not actually reading anyone's posts are yo lib.
You are skimming them for things you pick out that you think you can challenge.
You have answered hardly any questions that you have been asked.
You are not actually engaging in a conversation, you aren't interested in anyone else's views.

You have said a lot of things that are bizarre. This business about "weirdo man". Did you even read the responses about that upthread? About how assuming that men who break social rules &/or the law surrounding sexual conduct must be "weirdos", "creepy old men". These are rape myths. You need to read the MN guide to rape myths and educate yourself a bit.

Yep I'm wondering about teenage girls civil liberties? Aren't they being denied? Why does a man's civil liberties trump teenage girls or women?

but they are not being denied by page 3, they are being denied by the 'weirdo man' doing the intimidating who is the one who should be being addressed . It's like saying we should ban cars because some people drive like idiots and kill people and me saying that the majority should not be denied the liberty of driving. Then you come back and say well what about the civil liberties of the people who got killed?
But the sensible solution is obviously to educate the bad drivers not ban cars.

and don't forget the civil liberties of the models themselves, are you happy telling other women what they can and can't do with their bodies? or that they must cover up for the good of the sisterhood. Do you even consider the models as equals? I do wonder

Where I work, I have seen women put up pictures of popular actors and pop stars. Is that justifyable and acceptable?

Also have learnt better to ignore.

The amount of things I ignore. I nearly got hit by a car a few years back as I never ever ever react to a car tooting any more, and haven't done since I was about 18. You learn this stuff.

Absolutely NiceTabard. I think adult women can still feel uncomfortable too but they probably have the tools to be able to turn it round on to the man's behaviour rather than inwards on themselves as teenage girls can.

Plus the presence of page 3 in socially inappropriate situations serves to remind females who are nearby of their position in society as the sex class. Which is part of the reason that pubescent girls and teenage girls feel particularly uncomfortable when they are around it.

At that age you are trying to gets to grips with your burgeoning sexuality and how all of that stuff works, and to be reminded publicly and graphically of what your place is, is confusing and discomfiting.

I don't want to stop anyone's civil liberties. I just want to live in a society where Page 3 makes no sense.

I don't need to know exactly what they think when they see a topless girl. I know how women are treated in the media and in everyday life. I see and experience how it is to be a woman and valued for my looks and attractiveness to the opposite sex rather than what I do. I know what it is like to harassed on the street. I know what it is like to be sexually assaulted.

Page 3 on its own doesn't cause all this. But the fact that it is in place at all, that to some people it makes sense to have topless women in a newspaper is a symptom of a society that places women as the sex class. Their worth is tied up in their attractiveness to men. And what is designated as attractive is narrowly defined.

But your assumptions lib are completely fair and justified how?

Show me evidence that 'most people look at them as attractive models' that '(most people)... still appreciate that they are real people at the end of the day'.

scallops don't be bloody silly. Of course men's civil liberties trump women and girl's civil liberties.

nice The bit about the liberty to ogle naked breasts in socially unsuitable situations is in the small print, under the bit about bodily integrity.