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?

I found this on the web if you fancy a listen....

I found it interesting that it was argued that most young girls consider Page 3 the only career option. I actually recall a woman who did Page 3 back in the 80s who was studying to be a barrister (well, so said the caption). Bit off topic, I seem to recall an article that 1/3 of lap dancers have degree and see it as meerly a way of funding their studies towards their eventual career.

HOUSE!

Google this , BBC Newsnight 'Remove Page 3' debate, I like the glamour model Laura Lacole who claims that sexual objectification is a biological imperative. Was I right all along?

Wow, ged, someone in the industry doesn't have a problem with the industry? That does of course make you Right All Along.

In other news - airlines don't agree with air fuel tax and Claims Direct don't want no win-no fee banned.

There are plenty of gay men around.
Why are there not pictures of hot young men feeling themselves up in the daily papers?

There are plenty of women who would also not be averse to seeing pictures of hot young men feeling themselves up in the daily papers. Yet still it's not there.

What is the biological reason that objectification only works in one specific instance? Why are gay men immune to the appeal of looking at scantily clad men in provocative poses? Why are women not interested in looking at attractive men with fit bodies on display? Oh hold on... They ARE! And yet it's only young women who are on page 3. Now why on earth could that be? Strange words like sexism, routine objectification of women, sexual oppression of women, enforced heterosexuality and homophobia are pinging through my brain. Most odd.

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

oh that rather vague thing from 1959, er yes

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

yeah, why not? but please tell me you aren't trying to say that the male equivalent to a woman's breasts is an erect penis?

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.

and what is there to understand about topless nudity? and what's wrong with the naked human body?

The difficulty with page 3 is it soft core porn that - as it is in a "family newspaper"

it's not soft porn it's topless nudity. How can a woman posing in some bikini bottoms be considered porn? your beginning to sound like Mary Whitehouse.

I'm failing to see why freedom of choice and civil liberties trumps stopping something which damages a group of people.

Damages a group of people? sounds like a massive exaggeration to me? it doesn't damage anyone and i certainly wouldn't call feeling insecure about it, being damaged. I think womens mags do a far better job of that, but no your not going after them.

The No More Page 3 campaign is asking The Sun (nicely) to remove it from the newspaper because it is irrelevant.

well go and ask the sun nicely to remove it then? Actually i think the campaigners have already done this numerous times.The Sun has said no, so time to move on, otherwise it's just harassment.

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 grin&

er what did i say about the slippery slope? you know the gradual chipping away of civil liberties. Also what about the models civil liberty to pose topless in a newspaper. Oh you don't care about them do you? Do Object and UK Feminista ever consider the models opinion in their campaigns? A big fat NO.

I don't understand the civil liberties argument at all

Authoritarians never do

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

can you prove page 3 has a negative impact on the general population? er no. A few easily offended individuals is not sufficient enough reason to ban something. What about if 100K religious extremists wanted to ban the wearing of short skirts in public, would you bow to their needs and ban them?

Perhaps we should do the old MRA trick: -

you guys are obsessed with MRA's. It seems that if it's anything that opposes your view, then you eventually cry MRA troll. It comes across as a tactic to try and shut down freedom of speech. I sometimes wonder why you don't just set up your own private members forum where you would never get any opposing views and you can just pat each other on the back all day long?

You don't like Mumsnet much, do you ?

But we're not authoritarian - I just believe that no group should be objectified in such a derogatory way that p3 does to women - in a self proclaimed daily 'family' newspaper. Or should we have "page 5 enormous black men's knobs" ?? because some people would like to leer at enormous black knobs?

What's that i hear? Knobs are not equivalent to breasts you say? Well why not? You're a sexual libertarian - why can't anything go on p3 then? Erect penises? Sexualised pictures of children? Jew of the month? Babe in a burkha?

Do libertarians believe that anything is ok? That there should be no obscenity laws? Would anything the sun wanted to put on p3 be ok if one group in society wanted to leer at it?

Or is it that yo just happen to feel that women's breasts are ok to have on p3 to titillate the nation - but not those others things?

Dervel the text boxes or 'news in brief' feature has now been ditched. So all we have is a topless model posing in bikini bottoms. Can you please explain how this is different to a so called nude fashion shoot or so called nude art piece? We could play a game where i could post up various topless photos of women and you have to guess if they are from page 3 or from a fashion shoot? i reckon the only give away would be that the page 3 models would typically be a size 12/14 where the fashion models would be a size 8/10.

Here we go - topless fashion model vs topless page 3 model:

Fashion

Page 3

and here we get uncensored topless nudity in the Daily Mail, before you claim the fashion one wouldn't feature in a daily newspaper:

Daily Mail 1

or

Daily Mail 2

"free wrestling babes" is "fashion" now is it? Ha ha

Oh, wait a minute. If it's 'fashion' - then surely I can go walking down the street in just a cowboy hat and nothing else? Yes? It's fashion after all. Oh - no - I'd be arrested for indecent exposure - yes? Because women aren't actually allowed to walk down the street naked but for a cowboy hat a la pirelli calendar girl. Perhaps that's what the libertarians want - for women walking naked everywhere - to work, to the shops, to work...

Hi lib

What is the male equivalent to women's breasts then?

Well according to Lucy Holmes, scrotums are the male equivalent of breasts. Funnily enough, I recall the comedian Jo Brand appearing on Wogan with the porn baron David Sullivan. She said to him "let's see your goolies in one of your mags".

Women's breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic. There is no direct equivalent with a man.

I reckon the closest would be a man posing with a hard on but through his pants. So it is clearly visible but not uncovered. I reckon that would be the equivalent. Happy to google images if people want to understand what I mean - lib would you like me to do that for you.

I am 100% certain that if the sun printed an image of a man posing that way on page 3 there would be uproar.

Why heterosexual male sexuality is the only one that needs to be catered to is beyond me. What about the gay 14 year old boys? Don't they need an image to wank over in the daily papers just as much as the straight ones?

Oh and as for "easily offended" I would be very interested to see how many boys in the UK (and how many men for that matter) would be totally comfortable with sitting next to a massive bloke on the tube who was perusing porny images of blokes while glancing over at their crotch. Would we expect a 14 yo boy to feel comfortable with that? Would he be "easily offended" if he didn't like it? Lib - over to you.

Ooh did anyone else take the opportunity to tick off their "you're all jealous" squares on their bingo cards a few posts ago? I nearly missed it

Women's breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic. There is no direct equivalent with a man.

I'd say a man's chest is equivalent and men's nipples are erogenous zones too believe it or not. Are you really saying that women don't find men's bare chests sexually attractive?

I am 100% certain that if the sun printed an image of a man posing that way on page 3 there would be uproar.

Why would you conclude that? that's a massive assumption there.

Why heterosexual male sexuality is the only one that needs to be catered to is beyond me. What about the gay 14 year old boys? Don't they need an image to wank over in the daily papers just as much as the straight ones?

well do a Google images for 'Gay Times' or 'Attitude' magazine. Enough said!

Oh and as for "easily offended" I would be very interested to see how many boys in the UK (and how many men for that matter) would be totally comfortable with sitting next to a massive bloke on the tube who was perusing porny images of blokes while glancing over at their crotch. Would we expect a 14 yo boy to feel comfortable with that? Would he be "easily offended" if he didn't like it? Lib - over to you.

ah the old creepy man on the tube reading the sun story, that always comes up at some point in these debates. Ticks off bingo card too. Only needs the 'how would you feel if your daughter/ girlfriend/ wife appeared on page 3 for the full house.

I've never been able to work out what the point of page 3 is i.e. what's it for?

You are seriously stating that women's bare chests and men's bare chests are equivalent in our society?

Come off it

Now I know you're on the wind up.

On other points.
Gay times and attitude are not daily "family" newspapers.
The men who do things like that on the tube are not "old" nor do they look "creepy" IME. But if you want to pretend it's just a couple of pervy old weirdos who behave like that then that's your prerogative.
I also think that it is out of line to dismiss people when they tell you how things have been for them. I don't know if you have ever been a 14 year old girl - but talking about "bingo cards" when hearing stories like that is quite insensitive.

How far does a man need to go do you think, in terms of inappropriate behaviour towards a child on public transport, before that child is entitled to feel uncomfortable without it being an "over-reaction"?

All these arguments about the objectifying of women are very interesting and valid, but wrt Page 3, I simply don't understand how a man can still think it acceptable to sit there in public, potentially next to a child or woman, while arousing himself by looking at a picture of a naked model. Quite apart from any feminist arguments, it is simply grossly inappropriate, which is why such pictures have no place in a newspaper.

I think libertarianj is gradually showing quite horribly nicely his thoughts on women and girls in this thread. It makes understanding where he is coming from a lot simpler. It is also illustrating how far men will go to maintain their privilege, specifically the privilege of looking at women's naked breasts everyday, if they want to.

Of course it is inappropriate holmessweetholmes. But that's male entitlement for you.

Just a question, has anybody actually seen a man oogle at Page 3 in a public place? I know there are men who will give it a cursory glance in public but I cannot say I've seen a man blatantly oogle Page 3 in public, just like I have never seen men oogle the lingerie models in the windows at La Senza, a cursory glance maybe, but not a blatant oogle. I used to furtively flick through the Daily Sport at a big newsagents to see if my favourite model was in it but I'd never just stand there transfixed.

Yes, I actually have. On the train, on the tube and I once had it shoved under my nose in my work staffroom. By a group of men. Cos that's, like, so funny innit?

I guess I just need to get me a sense of humour and stop being so offended all the time.

The men who do things like that on the tube are not old nor do they look 'creepy' IME. But if you want to pretend it's just a couple of pervy old weirdos who behave like that then that's your prerogative
I also think that it is out of line to dismiss people when they tell you how things have been for them. I don't know if you have ever been a 14 year old girl - but talking about 'bingo cards' when hearing stories like that is quite insensitive.

How far does a man need to go do you think, in terms of inappropriate behaviour towards a child on public transport, before that child is entitled to feel uncomfortable without it being an "over-reaction"?

wow nice way to demonize men there! so you think that's normal male behaviour do you? not the behaviour of a few weirdos? And do you really think these wierdos would act differently if it wasn't for things like page 3?

This is a classic example of the nanny state mentality, where we have to ban things for the majority because of a few idiots.

Also having seen the leaked e-mail from Object with regards to opposing lap dancing clubs, where they told members to write (lie) to councils saying they were harassed whilst walking past the clubs. I think my scepticism is fully justified.

oogle?

I assume you mean ogle?

Yes of course. It's there to be looked at after all, isn't it. Most don't start rubbing themselves up against the nearest girl at the same time, obviously. But yes, men will spend quite a time perusing page 3, even when on public transport with a woman sitting on either side of him.

It makes me feel uncomfortable, it has since I was a child. I don't think it's OK for someone else to tell me that is "over-reacting" or because I am jealous. It makes me feel uncomfortable - maybe less so now than when I was at secondary school / late teens / twenties - and that's how I felt and it's not an over-reaction. I didn't do anything, I just sat there quietly feeling uncomfortable.

I guess it was just one thing in a litany of actions from men that all took a toll.

Now it's over to you to tell me I was being silly or something.

You have to understand that sitting next to someone on the tube, when you are a young teen, and have him idly peruse a semi-naked woman, while his leg is pressed up against you, is an uncomfortable feeling. Can you empathise with that?