Sun Drops Page 3

The whole piece makes me feel uncomfortable.

Don't deny our urges.

FGS.

Yeah when girls going through puberty and feel awkward when they're being sexually harassed by boys and men looking at page 3 and then at them, they're just being prudish!

A quote: my deepest worry about the puritanism that would drive bare breasts from a newspaper is the consequence for sexual repression.

He also compares Page 3 to a Manet painting depicting a bare, lustful woman.

Article by Matthew Paris.

Looking forward to next week's letters page.

Assuming they print any response, of course.

Oh, is he proposing the Times publishes pictures of near naked men then?

Anti-objectification =/= prudish

The Times

ThecTines has an article saying we're too prudish and ought to give into our lust.

By the terms we and our I'm assuming he means men.

Us silly complaining women!

Oh, and I'd forgotten how utterly vile he was as well. Stupid of me to do an AS for his name. Although, it was quite eye opening with regards to Xenia's views on women....

No, but they do just copy and paste each other's scripts. It's a well known tactic of MRE dochebags. They openly admit it as well.

A cartoon from the Telegraph:

Just out of interest, thought you might like to compare and contrast Magnetic's first post on the site with this one, by our old PBP friend Daddancer over at the MN fan club site:

forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=76615480&highlight=#post76615480

Hard to believe Magnetic is Daddancer though, because DD would rather chew his own feet off than say he is a feminist. Just found that curious.

Yes excellent point. I hate that women are supposed to capitulate in expecting and demanding to live in a society where we have human and equal rights...all because of men's pretend NEED of visual stimulation. Their desire to be stimulated does NOT trump my need and my right to live in an equal society.

Men need to realise they are not gods.

Exactly. In the context of p3 I don't give a shit whether men are "visual creatures" or not. Why does that extend to objectifying women on a daily basis and in public as some sort of right?

Yy Buffy.

Is black an intrinsically sexier colour than, I dunno, royal blue?

Or is the fact that sexy underwear comes in black more to do with, say, ease of consistent matching across dye batches?

"WHY would men want to activate their amygdalas by viewing these sexually stimulating images in a newspaper, on the train, at work, in a cafe and so on? "

Yup.

"higher levels of activation in males viewing sexual visual stimuli than females viewing the same images"

Can you see the problem here?

And we are not all objectified and we do not reproduce based on objectification. There are important differences between objectification and attraction. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary.

Glad someone on here is a proper academic and makes sure she knows what she's talking about. Ta for the parachute Buffy.

The emotion control center of the brain, the amygdala, shows significantly higher levels of activation in males viewing sexual visual stimuli than females viewing the same images

So, putting aside the argument as to whether this is valid or not for a moment, WHY would men want to activate their amygdalas by viewing these sexually stimulating images in a newspaper, on the train, at work, in a cafe and so on? We know the Sun is frequently read in the presence of children - creepy huh?

WHY in a daily newspaper?

ooh look, we're back to nature v nurture!

web.stanford.edu/group/hopes/cgi-bin/wordpress/2010/06/neuroplasticity/

I am going off a deep end here, but... "women and men are hard wired differently" - chicken and egg. We may find eventually that it's more chicken than egg.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040316072953.htm

"The emotion control center of the brain, the amygdala, shows significantly higher levels of activation in males viewing sexual visual stimuli than females viewing the same images, according to a Center for Behavioral Neuroscience study led by Emory University psychologists Stephan Hamann and Kim Wallen. The finding, which appears in the April edition of "Nature Neuroscience," demonstrates how men and women process visual sexual stimuli differently, and it may explain gender variations in reproductive behavior"

I agree it's strange as part of the news, but that's why I don't buy it. It doesn't give me the right to tell other people what they can and can't look at. How many of the people who signs the petition are Sun readers In wonder...? It's the most popular paper in the UK so obviously loads of newspaper readers don't have a problem with it.

Of course, and that's because we're 'wired differently'.

As soon as someone throws 'wired differently' into the debate, I roll my eyes, dismiss them and metaphorically throw them a copy of Cordelia Fine.