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...

I made your point clear that silencing is what was happening to me not what I was involved in. But again pulling out your own disability to trump my disability was another attempt at silencing me was it not, oh and have you read the whole thread?

So what?
you think that because you have experienced some of the things that girls and women experience, you have the right to tell them how they should feel and what is OK and what is not?
How would you have felt after that assault at a big man leering at a gay porn mag and then at you on the tube. Comfortable? Happy? No problems? I am guessing NOT but still it is fine for it to happen to girls. Right you are.

Sq, you can't always dismiss male perspectives just like men can't dismiss female perspectives. Mind you, it seems your dismissing any perspective that doesn't align with yours. Oh well, it's only a debate after all. Luckily, we live in a democracy :)

Men do not have a "perspective" on what it feels like to be a girl or woman who is being ogled by a man who is also looking at page 3.

They just don't.

Men dismiss female perspectives all the time.
They have been doing it all over this thread.
you would think if in doubt, most people would follow the route of less harm. After all, men aren't going to suffer if they can't look at a pair of breasts every morning. Apparently not though. The right of girls and women to go about their business without men consuming porny images of women around them is simply unimportant next to what is apparently every man's right to look at a young woman's bare chest in public.

You really should do your home work Stew, feel free to fully and in context quote from this thread any part of what I have written that promotes the mainstream view of porn, although you do not define what that is I will allow you the leeway that you have created.

Here is a clue I have been on this thread from page one, Nothefullshing, I have stayed polite and reasoned through out. I have not just turned up like sq to rant about god knows what. Not just my view but the view of others as you will see from what other posters have said, they actually might be female I have no idea. I do not make any value judgements based on gender, apparently you do as I am a male I must watch porn. And I also must not allow women to have free speech. I think that was your attempt at heading me off at the pass btw the reference to free speech and how it is part of free speech to watch porn. Well sorry old stick but I was never heading down that pass, you are quite right we are far from being a country with free speech. However we do have human rights, your ban on page three would probably be overturned and thrown out at all levels national and international, not by me and other porn watching men. But by the women employed freely and of their own volition to pose, print, photograph, page 3. If not by them I would imagine liberty with that very nice woman Shami Shakribati will take a case, after all banning page 3 could lead to banning stories of implants exploding in womens breasts. Or stories about plastic surgery. Once you start banning things you are not in control of how that ban might be used, the moral right wing could seek an extension of your ban to only have fully clothed women in sensible tweeds pictured in print.

You know I really cannot be bothered your arguing for the sake of it, like others with sq I am fed up with people who have no interest in debating just in dogmatic narrowe views

you have not been on this thread from day 1, it is a zombie thread that was resurrected for who knows what purpose, by someone who has started and resurrected a few threads here in the fem section.

It started in February and you were not posting on it. Have ~you read the whole thread I wonder? And seen teh deletions and the people who joined specifically to defend the right of men to look at tits on the tube?

Oh I see you have namechanged. That makes more sense.

I am happy to have a dogmatic narrow view about softcore porn being viewed in public. There is no debate. And of course it would not be illegal to say that soft-core porn is not allowed in daily "family" newspapers.

"How would you have felt after that assault at a big man leering at a gay porn mag and then at you on the tube. Comfortable? Happy? No problems? I am guessing NOT but still it is fine for it to happen to girls. Right you are."

How would you have felt. Really. How would you feel. That feeling - you are saying it is fine for young girls to feel that way. Have a word with yourself, seriously.

Facebook has banned all nudity. This means that women who have tried to promote issues to do with mastectomy have had images removed and haven't been able to convey the message they want as a result. They remove images of breast feeding too.

Thats the problem. Censorship like this has a pattern of being misused. Common sense and the purpose for what it was intended are frequently forgotten or deliberately abused for aims that are completely at odds with the principles of the original law.

You don't have to be female to understand that. To belittle men for expressing views isn't on. Any view. Even if men do it to women. It doesn't solve anything to act like a child and say "Well he started it". As its not just about things like 'a lack of understanding of what its like to be leered at'.

Sq, you are doing the exact same thing by telling men and people in general how they feel or should feel when looking at p3?

Facebook has it wrong.
They should be banning sexualised nudity.
The US is notorious for it's bizarre attitude to nudity, sex, porn and so on. They are a highly religious nation.
the UK is a different kettle of fish.

Sq, what do you mean when you say "there is no debate"? Is that in your opinion or in a democracy?

One could argue that page three being a constant in our society has made room for lads mags and strip clubs beings such a pita today.

A flaccid penis isn't banned but I can't see those anywhere in the Sun.

Sure
Y if men want to see the breasts of young women they could get a girlfriend?

Yeah posie but not all men can get girlfriends
some may be between girlfriends
some may be older and married but their wives are older too

there is a load of reasons why it is necessary for page 3 to exist. not all men have ready access to young woman's breasts for sexual tittilation. Imagine if they couldn't have a good look at some in the morning paper either? It would be awful!!!!

They can though because don't they ban the former and not the latter?