Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

I support Page 3, who's with me?

628 replies

Beth9009 · 17/01/2014 12:10

This might not go down well, but I cannot accept the campaign to ban Page 3. Here's why:

There is nothing wrong with the naked female body. A woman posing with her breasts on show is not lewd nor is it harmful to children.

Hypocrisy - Page 3 is no different to male models posing shirtless in women's magazines.

Prudishness - People who claim that newspapers should be banned from showing topless women are no different to the Victorians or to people in conservative parts of the world who don't allow women to show bare legs. It's the same principle.

Market mechanisms - if there is a demand for something and a consenting adult willing to supply it, then who is the government to get in the way?

Freedom of choice - if you don't like it, don't buy the Sun!

OP posts:
Mitchy1nge · 17/01/2014 13:19

it's not 'human' sexuality though is it OP, it's a variety of heterosexual male sexuality

Original poster
Beth9009 · 17/01/2014 13:18

AMumInScotland Fri 17-Jan-14 13:14:07
In what way are breasts functional sexual organs?

Are you serious? I'm beginning to have some significant doubts.

Breasts allow you to breast-feed a baby. They are therefore connected with sex - you know, that thing which evolution came along with to let us reproduce with others?

_

Breast feeding is not sexual!

Your claim that breasts are sexual organs because they allow us to breast feed our children is absurd. There is no connection to sex in terms of breastfeeding. Breasts ARE sexual in that men find them sexually attractive for evolutionary reasons. But it's the same a the male chest being sexual because we find them attracted for the same reasons.

OP posts:
tracypenisbeaker · 17/01/2014 13:16

I can't for the life of me get angry about Page 3. Breasts are not shameful. I dont think womens nipples should be censored- that would cure the breastfeeding in public shame right away. I think the huge appeal for men and breasts is the taboo factor anyway.

Original poster
Beth9009 · 17/01/2014 13:16

Timetoask.

I don't think you need to shield your son from Page 3. My step son (who is teenager) buys these car magazines that feature topless women and it's just a normal part of growing up. It's no different to Cosmo which I used to buy as a teenager.

As a society we seem to be going backwards! We should stop being so afraid of the human body and human sexuality.

OP posts:
BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 17/01/2014 13:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AMumInScotland · 17/01/2014 13:14

In what way are breasts functional sexual organs?

Are you serious? I'm beginning to have some significant doubts.

Breasts allow you to breast-feed a baby. They are therefore connected with sex - you know, that thing which evolution came along with to let us reproduce with others?

Beachcomber · 17/01/2014 13:13

Buffy, OMFG at the American Apparel ads.

I hope you have looked at that link OP.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 17/01/2014 13:11

But beth, we can't help being insecure. Sad

We're weak, feeble women and our precious sense of feminine security has been irrevocably undermined by the evils of feminism.

We really deserve your pity, not your anger.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 17/01/2014 13:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Mitchy1nge · 17/01/2014 13:11

well what's stopping you?

I don't think shirtless men are or should be any more acceptable in restaurants or the workplace or whatever than similarly exposed women - but on the beach, why not? I don't bother to cover up on a (european) beach as a rule

Timetoask · 17/01/2014 13:10

If a man wants to see a naked woman's picture, then he can feel free to go and buy an adult's magazine and read it in the privacy of his home. If a woman respects herself so little to sell her body in this way then it's her problem.

I am trying to shield my small son from this sort of thing, and it doesn't help when we go to have his haircut or go about our day and a man sitting with a "newspaper" opened on page 3 and a woman's boobs out on display. Newspapers should not have this type of picture on them.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 17/01/2014 13:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
Beth9009 · 17/01/2014 13:09

Imagine a group of men getting together to start a campaign to stop magazines from publishing pictures of chiseled shirtless men because it is making them feel insecure. That's what it's like, and it's quite absurd, really.

OP posts:
Original poster
Beth9009 · 17/01/2014 13:06

On the issue of the female bare chest vs the male bare chest...

They can both be sexual, equally so. When Daniel Craig is featured shirtless in a magazine, is his muscular chest just incidental? Or does it feature because women find it sexually attractive?

There is no difference and women should not be made to feel like they have to hide their breasts! If a man can walk around shirtless, I should be able to as well!

OP posts:
Original poster
Beth9009 · 17/01/2014 13:04

Buffy - yes, it is a matter of taste and taste is largely determined by biology.

Of course sexual imagery aimed at men is going to depict innocent looking women in suggestive poses. Men are hardly going to be attracted to images of an angry looking woman with her shoulders hunches over, are they?

Likewise, I am not going to buy a calender if it's full of weak looking men looking wide eyed and submissive. There are biological reasons for this.

OP posts:
Mitchy1nge · 17/01/2014 13:01
Grin
TunipTheUnconquerable · 17/01/2014 13:00

I am sensing a touch of faux-naivety here.

Original poster
Beth9009 · 17/01/2014 12:59

AMumInScotland Fri 17-Jan-14 12:56:05
Breasts are sexual organs - ie they are a functional part of your reproductive system. That makes them fundamentally different from legs, or from men's chests.
_-

In what way are breasts functional sexual organs?

OP posts:
TheSecretOfTheNile · 17/01/2014 12:56

Bloody hell Buffy, that American Apparel thing is enough to make me never want anything to do with them ever again, and to hide them from my 11 y o dd.

OP: I doubt v. much that anyone will say anything to convince you that boobs aren't news, or that pornography isn't okay in a 'newspaper' that lies around in cafes and hairdressers' and all sorts of public places. I won't ever buy The Sun, and have got behind the No More p3 campaign.

TunipTheUnconquerable · 17/01/2014 12:56

'IMO women should be able to walk around on a hot day with no top on, just as men can. That to me is feminism.'

Well, we're not going to get there through printing sexualised images of women's breasts in newspapers.

AMumInScotland · 17/01/2014 12:56

Breasts are sexual organs - ie they are a functional part of your reproductive system. That makes them fundamentally different from legs, or from men's chests.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 17/01/2014 12:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TunipTheUnconquerable · 17/01/2014 12:55

I don't think I can put it better than Buffy did. If it's still not clear why I think 'innocent' is an inadequate summary of the difference, please read her link.

stickysausages · 17/01/2014 12:55

Not me.

You are missing the point completely OP :(

CarolineKnappShappey · 17/01/2014 12:53

You have got to see it in a wider context though. Women are seen increasingly seen as sex objects in a culture that is becoming more pornified.

Ironically for a lot of girls the number of role models for girls is actually shrinking.