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...

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

You haven't explained.

And the WHOLE POINT about page 3 is that everyone sees it, whether they buy the sun or not. And why shouldn't people sit on the bus and look at page 3 next to some children, or a pubescent girl? It is after all the UKs most popular paper.

Children don't get harmed by seeing breasts, they get harmed by hearing fantasies. Looking is not a crime. Breasts are not evil or only titillating. It's inthe individual head.

Just because you ban something, doesn't mean you achieve the desired result though...

Fgs sake, you sound like authoritarians. Smoking, over eating, crossing the road without waiting for green man, swearing, spitting, pushing, shoving, all things which you would rather your child didn't see but we live in a society of other people. Stop blaming others, teach children to know what they and question and why.

Then that is what the sun is doing by putting the topless photos in a newspaper that children under 16 can buy and see.

It would not be acceptable to see a naked man with his bits out so it should be unacceptable to see a women with her tits out in a newspaper.

There are few male modles that will do nude photos without an erection cos people think its not attractive and the men will get picked on for being small! This also has an effect on young boys.

*SardineQueen Sat 21-Jul-12 18:30:20

hairymother when they do have pictures of men they
a. don't show any parts that are generally kept private
and*

You make a good point. Men's chests are usually not kept private, it is acceptable for men to go topless in many places but not women. It sounds like inequality to me. So what's the solution should we force men to cover up.. or.. why don't we try reducing the stigma with the female body? Why not campaign so it's legal and acceptable for women to go topless anywhere a man can? Isn't that the best way forward? Try and remove the stigma and taboo with the female body and show that it doesn't need to be such a big deal?

Is prudisness really the best way forward for society?

Are boobs offensive?

Really?

Should a woman be able to breastfed in public?

Think about it. What 'bad' messages could be sent out by a ban?

What do you REALLY want to achieve by banning page 3? What is the REAL issue that you have a problem with?

Why shouldn't I blame others when they behave badly?

Sexualised, pornographic images of women are offensive.

Honestly.
If I walk around naked at home, in front of the children, that's fine, isn't it. Ditto DH.

If he walked around at home with an erection, or if I walked around in crotchless frilly knickers, a peephole bra, high heels and bent over and wiggled my arse at DH with my legs spread, in front of the children, then that would be a matter for SS, it would be considered child abuse.

These distinctions are not hard to grasp, really they aren't.

SQ so why make the models the bad people and not the people who view p3?

Its backwards thinking and logic. And much the same argument is made about the fact it should be the users of prostitutes rather than the prostitutes themselves who should be prosecuted.

A ban effectively is detrimental to women in my eyes. The problem isn't with women exposing their bodies, I think we should be free to do so whenever we like. The problem is the messages about womens bodies; that are in written comment in mainstream press.

You need to change underlying attitudes that 'demand' a certain type of naked images, not ban them.

So we should see old women as well as young topless and they should just stand there and that would be fine.

If that happen would the sun sale figuars go down? Would women still complain?

I always wanted to water the roses topless in the evening lol

Who has made the models "bad people"?
Women who model are not "bad people" they are simply women trying to make some money and hoping for fame.
Where has this "bad people" idea come from? Most strange.

I just asked DH and he said that images of topless women are softcore porn and should be age rated and therefore not shown in a newspaper.

SQ but thats the message that it would sent to some groups of people if you banned the practise. And there in lies the problem.

It would send one - the intended message - to some parts of society, but it would send other less pleasant and unwanted messages to other groups.

Which is why I don't agree with bans. You need to tackle the surrounding issues and make it socially unacceptable to look at page 3. Not the other way around.

Anyone who cannot see the distinction between a woman breastfeeding and a page 3 picture has got serious issues and is not worth thinking about.

Our laws should not be based on people who can't distinguish between the two.

No they should be what you say, and not consider the horrid fact that some people don't interpret things in the way you wish them to...

Sorry, but people believe things that aren't what we would like. And tbh I'm glad we don't all think the same way and conform and obey the state to the letter as that in itself causes problems.

Tackle the real underlying issues. Bans do not work.

Here is a link to a petition - epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/17586

Bans do work.
I have not seen anyone looking at hardcore porn on the tube or bus. Certainly not in the morning rush hour.
Which is as it should be IMO. Although some on here thinks that should be OK too.

Thanks for the link, have signed

Also hardcore porn is not published in daily papers. Because it is banned.
See, it works beautifully

Hardcore porn is different in the eyes of people though - precisely because you can't draw the same comparisons between showing flesh. I'm not saying those comparisons are right - more that they will happen and I think that is more troubling.

To me, bans instead encourage views that we should all just wear burkas to ensure that our female form isn't leered at by men...

So you just want to make sure no one has to see boobs in public. Great.

"Hardcore porn is different in the eyes of people though"

yes
because it is not published in daily papers
because it is age rated

Applying the same laws to softcore porn would shift views about its acceptability. People don't tend to read nuts and zoo on the tube, or look at anything harder. if page 3 didn't exist then there would be no soft porn in the morning on the bus or tube. That would be so brilliant.

Incidentally the point of page 3 is for men to leer at women. No more page 3 = less leering = super.

I want to make sure that sexualised images of womens breasts are not shown in public.
Works for me.

What would they put in its place - there is so little news in them as it is and much of it is misrepresented, trite and patronising anyway; can we not just ban the red tops!

On a more serious note though, I do agree that bans don't work. Page 3 is not something this country should be proud of, but we do have a free press. I think given the choice between a restricted press and having page 3, then it's page 3 for me.

Also, no one is forced to 'read' these papers and if people didn't buy them, they wouldn't exist... rather than a ban, get people to buy something with news in it.