To ask how I can explain to DH why page 3 was wrong?

[Ifyourawizardwhydouwearglasses]

He just thinks it was harmless. 'If you don't like it, don't look.' I'd like to educate him but I can't seem to find the words.

He's intelligent but can't seem to get this one.

Oh and it's no surprise that those who have objected to page 3 have been branded 'jealous, ugly, hairy, comfy shoe wearing, feminazis' and so on.

It's the old 'shut up women, you know your opinions mean fuck all'.

When I joined MN 5 years ago, I didn't get why porn was wrong...and once I learned and understood through the articulate women on here, I explained to DH and he was horrified and now he says "Porn doesn't work anymore"

For him I mean...he's been the same for about 3 years now...can't get off on porn because of the abuse and the objectification.

My mother was a Page 3 in early 70s - although I must add it was for the Mirror, and they were clothed.

Some people (myself included) don't agree that it should be got rid of. Why is it not enough that you have had your own way? Why does everyone have to be told over and over again about how your way was the right way until we agree?

I believe in freedom of expression. If girls want to show their boobs for money, why is my place to tell them that they can't? Or worse, that ridiculous infantilizing argument that they don't really want to get their tits out for money, they're just brainwashed by the patriarchy. Like it's unheard of for anyone to think they were sexy and want to show off of their own volition.

And also, I hate the assumption that no one is capable of seeing someone and thinking that their breasts are nice and still have any respect for them as a human being.

My facebook feed is full of people quick to ridicule those who are against page 3 - many are women. It makes me sad.

I feel like I'm part of a movement that is helping women & society as a whole whether they want it or not. I want to say, all gracious-like "you're welcome anyway"

Like parenting - it's for your own good, you just don't know it yet

If girls want to show their boobs for money, why is my place to tell them that they can't?

They can. Just not in a national newspaper that is an institution in this country. Not in a paper that many many kids will 'grow up' with and will come to know page 3 and men leering over it as 'one of those things'.

And also, I hate the assumption that no one is capable of seeing someone and thinking that their breasts are nice and still have any respect for them as a human being.

Yes, but we know that largely women arent viewed as human beings.

That's why 1 in 24 women in this country will be raped in their lifetime, and many more will be sexually assaulted.

It's why men like Ched Evans (and all the many many people who support him) think that turning around his taxi to go and have sex with a woman he has never even met before is ok.

It's why 2 of my DHs 'friends' bartered with another man over a prostitute on a stag do on the streets of Newcastle, while their pregnant partners waited for them at home.

Its why women constantly get threats of physical and sexual violence on social media for daring to express an opinion.

Just as a few examples, like.

This isn't about 'repressing women's rights or sexuality' or similar bollocks. It's about slowly chipping away at the idea that women are there for male pleasure and not a lot else.

What WillFerrel said.
OP, it might help your DP's thoughts of 'don't like it, don't buy it' if you show him these pics of people never having bought it yet having to sit while someone effectively looks at porn next to them:

By saying that a woman with her tits out cannot possibly be seen as anything other than an object to be used, you are repressing their autonomous sexuality. It's shouldn't be a case of buttoned up cardigan means valid intelligent member of society and that every button undone means that she is taken less and less seriously until finally she is erased.

I feel that getting rid of page three is encouraging the idea that modesty equals respect. I am capable of acknowledging the status of another human being, clothed or unclothed, and I believe that most other people are too, men and women.

That's my view and I don't need to be educated out of it.

It's shouldn't be a case of buttoned up cardigan means valid intelligent member of society and that every button undone means that she is taken less and less seriously until finally she is erased.

I agree with this. But I don't agree that there should be naked breasts in national newspapers. And it seems society does see women with naked breasts as nothing but objects to be used. And women in short skirts, or low cut tops. Or women who are drunk. Any woman that society deems to be "asking for it".

It's all part of the same issue, IMO.

I also feel that page 3 modelling and the burka are part of the same issue, that female bodies are for men.

To be honest, a 16/17/18 year old male is not sexy. Neither is a underage female.

However, the "Educating" thing is getting to me. People do not need to have the same opinion as you, they can have nuanced views, and they can frankly not give a shit about what you feel is important. "Educating" is so self-righteous I have to say it make me want to be a reactionary old bint just to spite the hand-wringers.
I hate nothing more than self-righteous people. Even the consensual ones.

Because it's always worth a link - the split between reasons for depicting men and women on the front page (clue: men - politics and business, women - victim or royal in nice dress)

womeninjournalism.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Seen_but_not_heard.pdf

I am capable of acknowledging the status of another human being, clothed or unclothed, and I believe that most other people are too, men and women.

Welly he examples I have given above would suggest otherwise.

Like it's unheard of for anyone to think they were sexy and want to show off of their own volition.

Interestingly this is a largely female phenomenon. Women spend their hen parties learning to do burlesque and 'look sexy and show off' whilst men spend theirs shooting guns and going to strip clubs while dressed as sponge bob square pants.

Women gain 'body confidence' by posing for airbrushed photos in flattering light for a 'boudoit shoot as a present for their man'. Men don't need to do this.

Why is this?

I agree that page three and the burka is part of the same issue.

A woman's clothing shouldn't be taken as a narrative to her worth. I believe we should live in a world where clothing, or lack of it, is irrelevant, and I don't see censorship as a step forward. People should not have things taken away on the assumption that they can't be trusted to look at them responsibly.

I can see both sides of the page 3 argument. Personally I am for freedom of choice - every woman has the right to as she pleases with her body and with her life, if that woman wants to, with full knowledge of any possible consequences to her actions, take her clothes off and be a glamour model then who am I to impose my own moral boundaries on her? If a woman has made that choice then more power to her I say.

But page 3 does push the objectification of women.

Men do value looking attractive. There is a huge industry for men to look good. It's just that there is not the same attitude that they have chosen being attractive over being intelligent. They are allowed to be both.

Given that society affects us in ways we don't even notice, is any choice really a free choice?

I've said on another thread today that despite knowing that I should stop eating when I'm full, I feel the need to clear my plate, and feel uncomfortable when I don't.

I have a baby son, and notice that I assume he likes cars (for example) because he's a boy, despite the fact that I bought my daughter a toy garage for her first birthday because she enjoyed playing with cars. And I really hate gender stereotypes! But it's ingrained in me, even though I know it's bullshit.

Just because a woman makes a choice to become a 'glamour model' (or cover up), doesn't mean it's really a choice and it doesn't mean that she isn't being influenced by her wider society.

OfaFrenchMind I agree with you. I don't know if it was intended this way but saying she wants to "educate" him just rubs me up the wrong way because it seems like the attitude "if you don't agree with my opinion then you aren't educated". While you are educated and don't like Page 3, someone else can be just as (if not more) educated than you and like it. Talking about wanting to "educate" someone with your opinion hints at an accusation that if they don't agree with you they must be uneducated.

Yes there is a market for men to look attractive - after all physical attraction is one of the things that makes the world to round.

There isn't a huge market for men to look and seem like they are in a perpetual state of 'fuck me right now'.

Tits might not be news but the sun is hardly a quality newspaper. It's a rag. Page 3 was no worse than the nonsense printed in the other 80 odd pages or what is printed in countless magazines and if people didn't like it, they could just not buy the newspaper and vote with their wallets.

Also, do couples have to agree on absolutely everything? Seems a bit odd to think that should be the case.

Men may value looking attractive, but they aren't judged for it in the way that women are.

And I get the 'freedom of expression, wear what you want or don want' argument, but again, there are strict parameters for women aren't there?

Woman who wants to strip off for photos for men to wank over = champion of freedom of expression.

Woman who exposes a small amount of breast in a restaurant while feeding her baby = inconsiderate attention seeker

Woman who expresses herself by having sex with multiple partners because she enjoys it = slag

And lets not forget that a woman wearing a short skirt is all well and good (fantastic in fact) until the woman gets raped. Then its all 'well, she was dressed rather provocatively'.

Know the rules women.

at all the "threat to freedom of expression", "censorship" etc. panic-mongering on here. And there I was, thinking that freedom of expression referred to something like, oh, I don't know, a national newspaper being able to publish leaked documents on global surveillance without government officials stepping in and forcing them to destroy their hard drives. But apparently I should be far more worried about someone preventing me from flashing my tits for cash. Which is funny, because that will never, ever happen.

kids should be able to read a newspaper too without seeing boobs, personally I wouldn't call the sun a newspaper more a gossip magazine but what if it was you or his sister or his daughter with their boobs out, how would he feel then?

There was NEVER a countdown to Samantha Fox's 16th birthday

There was NEVER a countdown to Charlotte Church.