Banning Page 3 v right to 'Free Speech'

[HollyFP]

I had an argument discussion with someone on FB recently about Page 3s. I am voting for a ban, they started bleating on about right to 'free speech' and this being the first step to censorship and where would we draw the line...(that tempted me further but I resisted the goading)

Now I'm all in favour of free speech in theory but not when it's harmful to the vunerable, victimised or those who can't speak up for themselves. Page 3 is the 'socially acceptable' part of porn it seems in this country.

I was getting fairly pee'd off with this person ignoring my arguments about Page 3 and instead insisting that censorship is a dangerous line to tread.

What do you say to someone when they either miss the point or think the right to free speech comes above women's rights, IYSWIM?

scottishmummy - why do you think it is a silly analogy? It's a sensible analogy. Smoking is something that some people enjoy and think they shoudl have a right to do when and where they like; and it is something that can and does harm other people who feel they should have a right not to be harmed by it. Page 3 is the same.

Do you honestly think that page 3 is harmless?

I don't even understand why this person was so adamantly against a ban, as if banning something represents a failure of democracy or some such rubbish.

smoking is a poor analogy given smoking has demonstrable adverse health implications priamry and secondary.much as i dislike pg3 it doesnt cause ca or secondary illness in others. the cause and effect link in smoking is evidence based and demonstrable.no such proven adverse behavioural link exists for p3.

and no dont twist this as just because i wouldnt ban p3 i necessarily like it.

Hmmm...yes, I'm with FlamingoBingo - I really don't understand how smoking is a "silly analogy".

Sorry if I'm taking a "prefecty tone" but it's not your opinion I'm taking a dislike to - I'm confused at your dismissal of an analogy that sums up the problem of free speech vs restricting the rights of a few people perfectly.

This is an issue of the rights of a few taking a precedent over the rights of many - and the smoking example sums up that issue.

Do you not see a link? If not, is that because you don't think page 3 is harmful?

Ok - cross posting there. There is reams of evidence out there that shows how harmful objectifying images of women have on men and women.

Did you read the Home Office report that was published last year - the Sexualisation of Young People review?

well naturally you support your own analogy.duh

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that objectifying (ie. dehumanising) a group of people makes it easier to be violent towards them, scottishmummy. How is rape and other forms of sexual violence not an adverse health implication for potentally 51% of the population?

I'm really not trying to twist what you say, I'm just objecting to your explanation of your opinions.

Also, yes, there are links between smoking and cancer. But in some countries with extremely low smoking-related cancer rates, the smoking rate is very, very high - the difference is that the population is so chilled. Smoking = cancer is too much of an over-simplified connection. However, we know that there's a high chance that reducing public smoking could reduce cancers caused by passive smoking - but could is the important word. There's no real evidence to suggest it does make a difference, but enough of a chance to make it worth doing.

Same goes for page 3 IMO.

Could I have a bit more back than 'support your own analogy.duh'?! Now who is being snippy!

Are you saying we shouldn't ban it because you don't believe in banning things?

Or are you saying we shouldn't ban it because you don't believe that page 3 causes any harm to anyone?

I am not clear why you have taken the stance that you have.

I actually think that Page 3 and anything else of that ilk can actually be insulting to men too, in a small way.

Let me explain...

My DH isn't interested in seeing pictures of women with their breasts out, he isn't someone who has any inclination to go to a lap dance club etc, it's just not his thing.

However, he works in finance (still a very male dominated sector), and there are a lot 'flash Harry' types in his field.

He used to be part of a team of these 'cads', who on a Monday morning would come in boasting of their weekend conquests, talking about women like they are pieces of meat. They were frequently looking at the Page 3 girl or magazines like Nuts, and almost every time they'd stick the paper/magazine in DH's face, 'here cop a load of that Kit'.

When he said he wasn't interested in leering at women, they'd question his 'masculinity', and on a handful of occasions his sexuality.

It got so bad, that he made a formal complaint, but it was hard for it to be taken seriously as the bosses were all 'flash Harry' types too.

Eventually, he managed to secure a job elsewhere, at a smaller organisation that isn't dominated my 'flash Harry' types.

I'm aware I've waffled, I apologise, but it was just something I wanted to say, after asking DH if he was happy for me to share this story with you.

Obviously the main issue is the effect Page 3 and its ilk has on women, I'm not trying to claim otherwise, I just thought it might be interesting to share another side to what this kind of thing can lead to.

And can I just point out that, although I am very interested in debating the page 3 issue, it would be nice to do it without needlessly rude comments.

Hatterbox - I completely agree with you. It is a very valid point to make.

I agree Hatterbox. I posted that on the AIBU thread this evening on that issue. It is very insulting to men because it assumes that they're lowest common denominator.

It's the same with Nuts/Zoo etc. They assume that all men are interested in are tits and football and more tits.

I think the fact that these magazines' circulation is dropping like a stone shows that men are getting bored with being presented with such rubbish (and, of course, if they want tits, they can access them on the internet now). I saw a newish magazine for men called 'Wired' the other day which I was really heartened by - lots of interesting stuff there and not a pair of tits in sight.

But that issue is circular too - some (many?) men feeling under pressure to act 'like a man' will be far more likely to perpetrate violent acts against women to prove that they're not wimps or 'like a girl'.

See this TED talk for a simplified explanation as to how this works.

FlamingoBingo - I agree, there are men who do feel under pressure to 'cave in' and 'act like a man', and in fact something I failed to include in my previous post, was that the morons my DH used to work with got to another man in the office who wasn't like that at first.

His way of stopping their bullying was to join in.

It makes me thankful that I found my DH, as far from being the 'wimp' they thought he was, he was clearly the strong one for standing up to them.

I absolutely agree. I now think that a "real man" is one who stands up to a group of men and says that he doesn't want to go into a lap dancing club, for example.

Here's a link to Psychology Today:

Cat calls. Cougars. Sex objects. Recent research suggests that these are not just expressions; some male brains neurologically deny sexualized women "humanity."

^A study by Princeton psychologists hooked up men to an fMRI machine. After being hooked up, these men were shown pictures of both men and women. Some were scantily clothed; some were not.

The results showed that images of people activated the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), which is highly involved in social cognition (e.g., recognizing human faces, when separating one person from another).

The exception was when men high in sexism viewed pictures of sexually dressed women. These pictures did not activate the mPFC for sexist males. This suggests that these men's brains did not perceive these women as fully human.^

Sexy women are seen as objects, Psychology Today

While that PT article is a disappointing read, sadly it's not a surprising one.

Thankfully, I'm now watching the Tony Porter talk, that's lifting my spirits back up.

I know this is a different issue, but I remember watching an episode of Jo Frost's Parental Guidance, and with the help of some 'experts' she carried out an experiment of how violent video/computer games can desensitise children to violence.

Half of the children were playing non-violent video games, the other half violent ones, and after playing the games for a set period, they were shown a range of violent images (with their reactions monitored in a similar way to that in the PT article).

The brains of the children who had been playing the non-violent games reacted to the images, but the majority of those who had been playing the violent games, their brains didn't react.

Anyway, the point of that, was I know there are violent video games that have women characters which the player can fight, the Grand Theft Auto games are an example. Given the popularity of such games, it concerns me what kind if effect they are probably having too.

Indeed, my very own cousin is an avid player of the Grand Theft Auto games, and I'm ashamed to say he's currently awaiting sentencing for a violent attack on his girlfriend on Christmas Day. This is not the first time either.

I agree with Jess and flamingo.

Page 3 impacts me. It impacts how men see women and how they treat them. I don'[t know how anyone can defend it when we look around us at all the objectification of women that surrounds us, it's disgusting that we're being treated as objects for entertainment. It contributes to women being cat called in the street and ultimately to the abuse of women in a myriad of ways.

What do you propose would be banned? Bare breasts, or should all sexually provocative pictures of women be banned? What about the underwear pictures in the dear deirdre page? Would you support a ban of pictures of men where their nipple are exposed?

Now I'm not a fan of page three or lads mags or lapdancing, but I have that hypocritical liberal dislike of banning things as I feel that definning in law what is and isn't acceptable would be very difficult.

I wonder if it's worth asking a legal expert if as Page 3 is a brand and there is no public interest or news value to it then it should be counted as advertising or advertorial and governed by those restrictions? Wonder if this is worth a legal challenge...or if it has been done already?

No-one's talking about banning pictures of bare breasts - they are talking about a national newspaper that is targeted at families reconsidering having sexually provocative pictures of young woman in a prominent position. There are numerous restrictions on sexual or violent material in easily accessible, commercial content - why is page 3 not subject to this?

I have in the course of my work created many many TV ads for 18 rated movies - none of these were allowed to be shown on prime time terrestrial TV - that is NOT a restriction of freedom of speech or expression. I was not allowed to show tits or guns on posters on the london underground or have bloody knives on packaging - this is not a restriction of the rights of the creators - it is a recognition that in an advanced society certain considerations need to be made to those who are exposed to images that may affect them.

Besides, if it's just bare breasts - why do they all belong to young, slim 18-25 year old women all pouting wetly at the viewer - why not include granny or uncle Dave? Why not a renaissance nude or a breastfeeding mum?

I also wonder if becoming a page 3 girl might not be subject to age and sex discrimination laws? That might be interesting.

Are Page 3 not restricting the RIGHTS of men and women over the age of 25 by excluding them from gainful employment?

Agree with HerBex

"And also, why don't they have a picture of a page 2 hunk opposite, with toned pecs and g string revealing oiled buttocks? Every single day?
Because their male readers would be made to feel uncomfortable, that's why."

I don't think page 3 should be shown in a national newspaper, because it puts women in a subordinate role, a sexual fantasy to be ogled at by the ruling class i.e. men.

Can you imagine if male commuters had to sit next to young women opening the pages of national newspapers with pictures of men posing in underwear. It wouldn't last for long, because men would be made to feel uncomfortable, as if they were second class citizens to be ogled at for their bodies.

Are page 3 type images allowed on adverts in the London Underground? Why should they be allowed in national newspapers?

Hatterbox, I think you are right that these violent video games and violent movies and horror films do shape the minds of the viewers. It may have made your cousin think that these things were not so unacceptable.