Why can't we just ban page three?

[Dragontamer]

Brilliant points raised by Clare Short in The Independent. To summarise:
You would think that the relentless sexism in the media would come up against 'media ethics'. However, Lord Leveson says that this topic goes beyond his remit. It is not ok to have lewd pictures of women on the office wall or before the watershed, why then are these images allowed in a widely circulated, national newspaper?

Having just had a daughter, I am anxious about what messages she will receive from this type of constant negative bombardment about women's bodies.

When Short has attempted to challenge this she has been bombarded by the snide remarks about her own body and criticised as being 'jealous'.

So, could this be a new campaign for mumsnet? Let me know your thoughts...

How do you know the majority don't want it banned?

If the people who are negatively affected want it banned, shouldn't their voice count for more than for people who aren't negatively affected?

And you haven't answered my questions.
If you are all for freedom of the press then why not pants off, legs spread, toys and so on. Do you also have no problems with those images in a daily paper.

Sq, of there was that much outrage, it wouldn't be a best selling paper. Secondly, as I have said, I don't think p3 is best placed on newspapers. Hard core porn is a different subject matter and involves things that people would not see unless they were consenting. Breasts are not equivalent to hard core porn. Everyone has seen breasts and will continue to see them, they are not the same as toys, vaginas and penis's. Why are we debating the difference between breasts on show and hard core porn? Nonsensical, IMO. However, breasts on show, tummies on show, thighs on show, eyes, legs, fashion models...These are comparable IMO.

Eh?

My children see me with my pants off every day, and DHs penis. So why is it different? According to the ideas of some on this thread there is no difference between me walking around at home with my pants off, and a girl on page 3 with her pants off sitting with her legs spread in a porn-stylee. No difference at all.

Go ahead with a campaign, it will be a small and damaging victory, of it works IMO.

In your view bans don't work.
Therefore it should not be banned to show harder pictures in daily papers.
Isn't that correct.

You are not responding to any of my points.

Sq, you're only willing to argue from your own viewpoint. I'm trying to put aside my viewpoint and argue from a wider perspective. Anyway, not really getting us anywhere but it upsets me immensely that you are trying to take away women's rights and people's rights for that matter when no harm of any evidence is being caused.

That's not correct sq. my point is the detrimental effect of p3 is not enough to ban it. The detrimental effects of hardcore porn in a newspaper would be IMO.

SQ, ES already gave you an explanation in her views about alcohol BEFORE you asked
If the people who are negatively affected want it banned, shouldn't their voice count for more than for people who aren't negatively affected?

And in response to How do you know the majority don't want it banned? she replied by saying it was the UK's best selling newspaper.

So she has replied. You just didn't deem her responses good enough.

Eclectic has said repeatedly that she thinks a daily paper is no place for soft porn.

So I find her argumentative stance peculiar.

eclectic tell me what women's rights and what people's rights are removed by the banning of softcore porn in daily newspapers.

alcohol?

"SQ, ES already gave you an explanation in her views about alcohol BEFORE you asked "

I don't understand the point there.

jellybeans Sun 22-Jul-12 20:02:15
Should be banned asap along with strip clubs.

Why? Again I ask what happened to "my body my choice"? Why take the choice away from women who choose to become strippers? What gives feminists the right to make the choice for women who aren't feminists?

Is this feminist logic- women should have freedom to whatever they want but only as long as feminists approve of it??

As long as strippers and their customers are all consenting adults I don't see a problem. Again if you did ban it you would just succeed in driving the industry underground- organised crime would soar and things could become nasty and dangerous (same reason I believe prostitution should remain legal in the UK).

Anyway back to page 3..

eclectic tell me what women's rights and what people's rights are removed by the banning of softcore porn in daily newspapers.

How about the models, make up artists, photographers etc who make their wages from it? Should we tell them all they're all out of a job just because a group of feminists don't like what they do?

Joining the debate late and haven't read the whole thread, but I couldn't leave without adding a 'YES' to the ban page 3 campaign.

I love the fact that my DS asked me the other day what cigarettes are. I'd love my DC to be asking in a few years time 'What was Page 3?'.

Zaraa because of the exploitation and the sexualisation of women. Also the effect on young girls. We can't have gender equality without banning this. Your argument that one can do what they want doesn't hold up. If one can do what they want with their body then why not drugs, walk naked down the street in public etc ... It's about the wider societal effect not just one stripper doing what they like (which in many cases they may have had no choice).

Jellybean, so how by banning something by an imposition of one groups will on another groups freedom of choice do you achieve equality?

You want to reset society and to take out the sexualisation of women and girls, right thats a whole different idea as it is the nature of society, the way all people not just men but women too think about the female body, sex, and body image. Page three is a red herring, a waste of time and energy, papers would not print it if no one was bothered, they are printing it ti exactly play up to all the aspects we do not like not because they are forcing those values on others but because our society reinforces those values. Banning page three will make no difference to those values as sexist and lewd images will continue to be seen in public spaces. Music videos for example, I take it you and others want Madonna, ryanna, etc banned as their over sexualised images are much more problematic than a still photo in a paper.

The pro banners have still not answered how they will deal with the fall out from the many women some of whom will lose an income from such a ban, who will camapign against a ban and will split feminism and women generally apart leaving the door wide open for more sever exploitation.

Of course we can have gender equality without being prudes and banning anything with a bare female nipple. Just don't buy The Sun it really is that simple. You don't have to love page 3 models or what they do but you can respect their choice and accept the fact they have a different view of what "exploitation" means to what you take it to mean.

I don't know about naked but I believe women should be allowed to go topless anywhere a man can. It's inequality IMO how a man can take his top off when he's hot yet a woman can't. Drugs are a controversial issue, but it appears countries with a relaxed stance on drugs (eg Holland, Portugal) actually have less crime and less addicts than countries with tough laws, makes you wonder doesn't it?

I agree some strippers may have been forced into it, but that's not something that can be solved by passing laws. At least if strip clubs are legal its in the open and police have a better idea what's going on.

'What about the argument that children shouldn't be exposed to adult sexuality

To answer this I would say we should stop being so prudish about the female body and acting like breasts have to sexual (which they don't). If parents don't fuss over nudity neither will children. Next time you watch TV and there is an accidental female nipple slip for half a second don't jam the phonelines with complaints just let it go- it's only a nipple so what it's not going to harm your children.

IMO it's not nudity itself which harms kids- it's all the fuss made by their parents which gives them an unhealthy attitude.'

This doesn't make sense.

I agree with you that nudity is not the same as sex. But then you seem to be saying that Pg3 is just nudity and it's the hysterical prudish feminists that are guilty of sexualising it? Do you really believe that or are you just in a bit of a muddle in your haste to defend it?

Stimulating sexual desire is one thing. But the question I asked, in bold above, is whether it's appropriate to expose children to adult sexuality and desires. I don't think so and that's one of the reasons why I am against the ubiquity of porn from the soft end of pg 3 all the way along the spectrum.

Can anyone present an argument that it's ok for children and unconsenting adults to be deliberately exposed to deliberate sexual arousal? I know people get aroused all the time by different things, it's the deliberate flaunting of it in public that's discomfiting, in my view. It's unnecessary. One part of the population may marginally lose out by a ban (but there are alternatives for them), and another part of the population will gain. On balance, getting rid has more positives than maintaining the status quo.

I think the answer to that, pardy, is that they don't give a monkeys about children being exposed to porn, and girls and women feeling demeaned and upset by having it thrust in their faces, sometimes with leering thrown in for good measure.

It is of no consequence to them, they don't care, and so they don't know how to respond to it.

The idea that page 3 is nothing to do with sex and is just a bit of nudity is rubbish. If that were true and it were simply a case of putting the human form to admire it, then why not men and children as well.

In fact that is a good question. if it is not about sex, then why aren't there sometimes pictures of naked children on page 3? Naked children are beautiful. My 3yo is currently in the garden starkers and she looks lovely, all unblemished skin and cuteness. And their little bottoms are so sweet

Yeah well, you have people who would ban children running around on the beach or the back garden naked too if they could SQ as they see that as sexual and is about protecting the children.

I don't think this world is perfect. I also don't think its helpful to wrap children up in cotton wool and insist on protecting them from every single thing. I don't see p3 as being very much worse than a lot of images with 3 inches of material that cover a nipple and are still designed to be leered at. They are just as sexual, if not more so. But because a nipple is showing its 'porn' and therefore instantly more disgusting and 'inflicts damage' on children and we should all be shocked horrified and write to our local MP demanding a ban.

The issue is a wider one. P3 doesn't bother me any more than other images out there just because nipples are visible.

Those people aside - in your view it would be a good thing to have naked childre featured on page 3? And old women and teenage boys? If it's all just about admiring the human form.

Or have you now decided that page 3 is sexually provocative, and that is the point of it?

Reading your post again it seems you would be keen to have children, teenage boys and so on on page 3.

Interesting.

No, I just think that its not any better or worse than anything else out there. Which has always been my point.

The only reason you want it banned is because it has nipples imho.

No SQ. You just want to misquote, ignore and not see inherent problems with bans as that suits your agenda. Your prerogative.