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...

They are newspapers in the sense that people buy them every day and read them in public.

I have not really ever seen a man looking at nuts, zoo, that sort of thing, or anything harder on the tube. I think most men realise that woudl be inappropriate. Not so the sun though.

Why are they obviously sexually fantasising? So you can see inside their head? If I was looking at p3, would it bother you?

"women also buy media to see won naked and compare"

Really?

I have never seen a woman or girl looking at soft porn images of women on the tube.
pretending that page 3 is for women is ridiculous.

eclectic don't be silly. Normal people can tell when they are being leered at.

I'm not saying p3, I'm saying for example DM entertainment section.

Sq, I think that's an assumption and purely subjective.

This thread is about page 3, eclectic.
I have never seen the DM entertainment section, if it is soft core photos of young women in their pants then that needs to go to.

eclectic are you saying you think girls and women know when a man is leering at them?

DON'T know

The point is thankfully, it's a free country unless you are hurting someone deliberately.

So hurting someone accidentally is fine?

I'm saying judging people who are not actually doing deliberate harm to you is subjective and can be argued either way.

Judging people?
And FWIW I do think that children, girls and women are harmed by exposure to soft porn, and the attitudes and actions relating to it.

Yes hurting someone accidentally is my they persons fault. "accident" meaning unintentional. Yes, when it causes serious detriment it has to have a consequence but IMO, men looking at p3 has not caused me serious detriment. There's many more things that do in the grand scheme of things. In fact, it helps me ascertain if they are someone who hold my values. Hence I don't date men who by the sun every day.

Soft porn is sex and attraction... That's why it's called soft. What should people not encounter anythig sexual unless thu are actually having sex?

Nope i see no penis in that shot. Its legal for men to go topless what if he wear seethru trousers and no pants on a saterday night round town or if the sun took and printed full nude photos of men. Would that be equality?

I thought this wasn't about how individuals feel, eclectic. Therefore the fact that "it's never done you any harm" is irrelevant.

"Soft porn is sex and attraction... That's why it's called soft. What should people not encounter anythig sexual unless thu are actually having sex?"

Why should children be exposed to sex?

This all sounds very repressive and we all know what issues repressive cultures bring about. Sexual attraction IMO should not be underground it should be open and educated about and easy to interpret. During it underground is making it seedy, nasty and less compliance orientated. Big problems ensue IMO.

anairofhope if you want to look at penises then google "gay porn pics" or similar.

I had a certain amount of difficulty finding a photo that did not involve a large erection

What is the goal of banning page 3?

You see this is a really important question. What side effects could this have? It could just reinforce the idea that women who dress in skimpy clothes or expose themselves are deserving or 'asking for it' by reinforcing the idea that naked women and flesh is outside acceptable boundaries of society and behaviour.

The aim is ultimately to stop the practise of page 3, but is this best bought about by changes in attitude rather than bans imposed by authority?

My answer will always be that I don't have too much of a problem with page 3. I have a lot more of a problem with other messages that are sent out in the media about women's bodies and that actually the female form isn't something that is offensive in any way. Nor should it be treated in any way that suggests it might be.

If you want to get rid of page three you need to think about other ways of achieving it, not by banning it as to me thats the path to a slippery slope of other problems.

Why is it repressive not to expose children to adult sexuality, eclectic?

Children should not be reading the sun or any other tabloid. Full of sensationlist crap. I do not agree with children reading tabloid full stop.

Plenty of things are banned though.
Why not page 3.
There is no place for porn in the average public daily lives of the population.
It's not difficult.
I don't want anyone - men women or children - looking at porn in public.
Really not an outrageous POV.