Why ban page 3?

[jackburton]

Hi, this is my first post, please be gentle :) . I'm looking for some thoughtful discussion on page 3 and the objectification of women, my wife suggested posting here. Any recommendations for good articles or feedback would be great.

My main issue with a lot of the traditional discussion on this issue is that there seems to be an implicit assumption of passivity and conformity in women that I can't really relate to as a man (or feel is present in many of the women in my life). I don't particularly worry about my son seeing body building or gay lifestyle magazines or other fetishised representations of men because I see them as part of a range of different types of lifestyle that he could adopt. I would think it quite alien that the occasional image of men in this way would significantly affect me (or him). In contrast, advertising and lifestyle magazines aimed at women seem to impose a very disturbing level of conformity and one that I feel would not be acceptable to most men. Frankly a lot of female targeted products seem to objectify (in the sense of judging purely by appearance) and be misogynist (in the sense of appearing to gain pleasure from and dwelling on the humiliation of women, particularly if their superficial appearance is non-conformist). In contrast most pornographic products aimed at men include a great diversity of female personality types, some are passive but many are not, Jordan being a classic example. They aren't treated as objects in the sense that their desire is critical to their appeal, sex dolls are relatively undesirable. While there is certainly some pornography and lifestyle discussions that appear to encourage pleasure in the suffering of women I feel this is in the minority with most magazines presenting their female models as stars who are the centre of attention and whose happiness and desire is an important part of their appeal.

My initial feelings about the campaign against page 3 is that these images are being judged assuming they were present in the kind of magazine targeted at women i.e. they are a conforming image and that they would lead to humiliation of those that didn't conform. I think the majority of male culture is not oppressive in that way. Personally I find mainstream female culture to be much more of a problem for women's liberation than these products. What am I missing?

Double standards, eh? We can't have those! What an outrage if men were not entitled to ogle women's bodies on a level playing field.

How about people who are not capable of forming a reasoned, political analysis, try learning to stop being so easily confused instead?

gedhession wrote:- I also think that we show to much concern about children being exposed to sexual imagery considering that children do in fact have actual sexual experiences.

By the same token then, you would be ok having images of child sexual abuse on page 3, considering children are in fact sexually abused?

'Children' might have 'sexual experiences', however, if those 'experiences' happen before said child is 16, then that child is below the age of consent, which brings with it a whole new debate.

More a comic than a newspaper. I've never bought it nor would I consider reading a discarded copy on a train if I had nothing at hand to read. Then again page 3 is no less offensive than the Z list & expose trash surrounding footballers & such and the rest of the newspaper said page appears in. Funny how hunky rugby chaps never attract the type :)

I think that the argument that we should have page 3 because 14 year old boys like looking at 16 year old girls breasts, is one of the most compelling and convincing that I have heard to date.

Funnily enough, I'm sure I once read an interview by Keeley Hazell where she said that Nuts once got an email from a woman that she'd got her 14 year old son Keeley's Nuts calendar for Christmas but was annoyed that all the pictures were topless. She said she was happy to have her son put pictures of Keeley on his bedroom wall as long as they are not topless. I think Nuts printed a non-topless Keeley calendar in response.

'Children' might have 'sexual experiences', however, if those 'experiences' happen before said child is 16, then that child is below the age of consent, which brings with it a whole new debate.

But there is no age of consent for masturbation, which i think was what ged was referring to when he said sexual experience? Am i on the right tracks ged?

How about people who are not capable of forming a reasoned, political analysis, try learning to stop being so easily confused instead?

such a lame comeback..... so if you don't agree with someone's view, just tell them they don't understand what they are talking about. Yeah that's the way forward...

libertarianj wrote:- which i think was what ged was referring to when he said sexual experience? Am i on the right tracks ged?

Probably not, given that he didn't write that in the post he made 24 hours after mine and several hours before yours, but put words in his mouth if you like. I'm sure he can now say that's actually what he meant

Such a lame apologist.

It's lame to come onto a discussion about the impact of Page 3 on women and on society and say "try learning to stop being so easily offended instead".

Women are not offended by the sight of breasts FFS. I would expect that most of us have have seen way more naked breasts than most men.

I wanted to make the point that being actually sexually abused as a child will possibly have a greater effect on you than exposure to sexually explicit images. I'll even risk the contention that most underaged sex occurs between peers. I wasn't really thinking about masturbation but I'm pretty sure quite a few pubescent males appreciate the female body to orgasm.Me, a lame apologist? I don't make these things happen.

The lame apologist comment wasn't actually aimed at you Ged , why would you think it was?

Nice to see you and lib singing from the same song sheet ( after a bit of coaching!)

Oh I see Chaos, well Tabard reckoned I was defending Page 3 on the basis that it provides sexual relief for pubescent males and I assumed you've all come the same conclusion about me. Not the greatest of defense?

Ged, is your point that the sexual abuse of children is worse than p3? I don't see any dissenters to that...

I thought he meant that many 14yo have had consensual sexual experiences and therefore what is wrong with having page 3, given that many will have had the "real deal".

He said that at age 14 he was a big fan of sam fox and many of her fans were boys that age.

STOP THE PRESS! 14 yo boys like looking at 16 yo girls tits! Doesn't mean they need to be in a "family" newspaper though does it. ESPECIALLY when it makes so many girls of those ages feel uncomfortable.

Or is it more important for males to see tits whenever they want, than for females to feel comfortable when they are out and about?

^STOP THE PRESS! 14 yo boys like looking at 16 yo girls tits! Doesn't mean they need to be in a "family" newspaper though does it. ESPECIALLY when it makes so many girls of those ages feel uncomfortable.

Or is it more important for males to see tits whenever they want, than for females to feel comfortable when they are out and about?

Nice to see you and lib singing from the same song sheet ( after a bit of coaching!)

I don't think so, Ged completely lost me with his last argument.

So you would be in favour of having the existing laws around obscene publications removed

And you would be in favour of having the law changed about not being allowed to show an erect penis in a non "specialist" magazine

Incidentally younger children cannot read but they can understand images.

Also it is quite easy to ignore writing generally - you have to actively try to read someone elses paper on the bus for eg - but images are just there and no translation is required.

I suspect that you aren't female (?) and/or have never had a man use the page 3 image to perv over you / unsettle you and so you may be unlikely to understand why so many have an issue with this.

The difficulty with page 3 is it soft core porn that - as it is in a "family newspaper" - people deem appropriate for looking at anywhere. Playgrounds, on the bus sitting next to children, on the tube while pressed in the rush hour into young women. It is looked at in places which publications like nuts or playboy aren't. I've yet to see someone watching porn on the tube on an ipad, and I've never even seen someone reading the star. But the sun is there, in your face, every day, often with a cheerful leer at a nearby female for good measure.

Reading your civil liberties / repressed society comment again - would you have a problem with people watching porn on the tube on their ipads?

I'm failing to see why freedom of choice and civil liberties trumps stopping something which damages a group of people. They don't in most other areas of life.

And can I just point out (no doubt for the umpteenth time on this thread) that no-one is calling for a ban. The No More Page 3 campaign is asking The Sun (nicely) to remove it from the newspaper because it is irrelevant. Asking someone to remove something is not banning it. No civil liberties are in danger. And men's freedom of choice to objectify women's bodies can still continue elsewhere. The slight loss of privilege in this area maybe barely noticed by some

And I am smirking slightly that seeing women's naked breasts over your morning tea is being considered as a civil liberty. Male privilege in action their

On Facebook I have friends who used to do Page 3. They told me that they got a lot of letters from females who admired them, even lesbians, quite a lot from girls who wanted to be models themselves. In Clare Short's "This is what women really think of Page 3" (is it really Ms Short?) she claimed she got 7000 letters from women concerned about Page 3 but The Sun was read by 13 million back in 1986 and got thousands of letters from Page 3 admirers each week. Even the new Online petition has attracted less than 100,000 , still significantly less than the total Sun readership. When these Object/Feminista types put "This offends all women" on Lads Mags covers are they really telling the truth?

I don't understand the civil liberties argument at all - what civil liberty is being broken by not having tits in a daily newspaper?

Some people might want all sorts being normalised in a newspaper - doesn't mean it's a civil liberties matter if they don't get it.

Civil liberties does not equal anyone doing what they want regardless of the impact on other people, surely?

Well exactly Sabrina. But obviously there are only a handful of women bothered by it and any other damage page 3 does is in our pretty little heads. Men's entitlement to ogle women must trump all other concerns.

Perhaps we should do the old MRA trick: -

What, you think getting rid of page 3 is an infringement of civil liberties? Why don't you go and campaign in China where civil liberties really is an issue? Stopping people ogling women's tits isn't too bad considering what goes on in other countries

I think that works well here

Ok libertarianj your response to me mystifies. Page 3 is there purely for sexual thrills, objectification of women, and the trivialisation of their thoughts (ever read some of the text boxes attributed to the women?). Now I am not against sexual thrills in the slightest, in an appropriate place. However you stack it up next to those other factors, and yeah we have a problem.

Nudity in fashion shoots and art pieces do not come attached with an innate degradation of women, so you are not comparing like with like. If you are proposing fears about people making decisions about what is appropriate in society, and people making the wrong ones, well news flash we're human, we're not perfect and yeah sometimes the powers that be enforce something I do not happen to agree with. Yet if we don't have hierarchy the whole of human endeavour screeches to a halt.

As a compromise what say we ban it temporarily and see if those that want it come forward with the tenacity and numbers of those that don't. Then reopen the dialogue at that point?