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 recall the Page 3 girl Keeley Hazell remarking that she'd say to anybody who wants to make any money out of modelling she'd tell them they'd have better luck doing the lottery and she's considered one of the most successful Page 3 girls. Some young girls do it for nothing they are that desperate for recognition. The "anthrpology" model is called Laura Lacole and she accepts she will never be a millionaire out of modelling, claims she isn't doing it for the money (she was actually defensive about how much money she made) and is doing it to make Ulster (where's she's from) more modern. Tabard, I know that men are usually fully dressed in the papers but they are still referred to as "hunks" or "heart throbs", referring to their desirability.

'to make Ulster more modern'

Tits out to solve sectarianism!

What would Ian Paisley say?!

Oh yes , the things these objectified , passive women will utter. I think she also said she made the choice to express her sexuality. Laura Lacole, give her a Google. Actually Running this is one of the pics I recall

www.contactmusic.com/photo/annabels_night_club_11_wenn1623323

Oldest trick in the book hey, get yourself pictured with a Page 3 model in a trendy nightclub so you MUST be straight. Running, aren't their calendars with semi clad blokes dressed as firemen and builders? Aren't their women who like them?

I'm not getting why that picture of David Walliams in a night club is even vaguely relevant to the page 3 debate? Can you explain please?

ged reminds me of an old poster called gabbylogon It's like reading haikus.

ged I don't want to see men objectified either (although often men featured in calenders etc. are men's imaginings of hyper masculinity, not what women actually want) but it's false equivalence anyway.

Please stop telling women what they are and aren't allowed to feel offended by.

Ta

Calendars with sexy firemen on them existing does not excuse bare breasts in a daily newspaper.

For a start, people don't tend to carry fireman calendars around with them and read them openly on the train/tube/in public- or make children feel uncomfortable with them. Plus there is a difference in the type of pictures - macho and powerful poses vs. coy poses and bare breasts.

Men = dominant and strong vs. women = pretty and submissive.

Plus, as lala rightly says - it's a false equivalence anyway.

What's haikus?

I think ged just wants to chat and "recall" page 3 girls he admires

And damn you feminists, girl guides, MPs etc for wanting to stop him!

I feel like printing my very first post

I recall well the time Samantha Fox was immensely popular. In fact I do recall many Page 3 girls, Linda Lusardi, Maria Whittaker, Jo Guest, Katie Price, Melinda Messenger and Keeley Hazell being very popular as Page 3 girls and go on to become popular media personalities. I find it interesting that Clare Short tried to ban Page 3 at the time Samantha Fox was at the height of her popularity. Of course, just because something is popular is not a defense to some...

Keeley Hazell was a very popular Page 3 girl , so popular that The Sun had her photographed with David Walliams outside a trendy London nightclub. For some models , Page 3 gives them popularity and celebrity status.

Ever heard of Feminists Against Censorship? Clare Short refused to speak to them. So not all feminists are anti-porn and in fact I admire feminism for many things.....

I actually come from an Irish family and had to grow up with all the jokes about the Irish being stupid. So I know all about things that offend people.

So how would you feel if the sun decided to print an Irish joke on p3 tomorrow - taking up the whole page in a massive font?

Perhaps for good measure they could put a picture of a leprechaun or something in the corner - with a speech bubble coming out of it's mouth with some dimwitted news soundbite in there?

That would be racist. And illegal. But sexism and making girls and women uncomfortable is ok by you?

Sam Fox was 16 years old FFS and I posted a bunch of stuff upthead about how it sounds as if she was exploited by all around including her own parents.

I hope she is happy now but I think it has been a long path for her to get there.

The way you talk about her and the other models kind of proves the point - you don't think of them as people, you just admired their forms when they were in the papers when you were a teenager.

Given all that has been said on this thread I think re-iterating your admiration of a young sam fox's form is just bizarre.

Plus if the model from Ulster is interested in "modernising" over there, maybe she could turn her attention to the abortion laws in NI. Rather than taking her clothes off so men can look at her - which is probably one of the least "modern" activities there is.

it's not sexism though Sabrina it's human sexuality and page 3 isn't degrading anyone.

It seems Ged that the peeps on here, have this major problem with male sexuality and the fact that men are generallymore visually stimulated than women. They want to suppress and control this dynamic and they think censorship of female imagery will somehow achieve this. It's like they strive for some kind of androgynous utopia. It's all a bit heterophobic really.

Interesting that you mention pro porn feminists, i mentioned a similar thing on that MRA thread. There used to be a few on here but i think they got fed up with constantly being branded 'hand maidens'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism

There you go again Tabard trying to tell other woman how they should live their lives.

You don't see it as sexism, lib we got that. But that p3 isn't degrading anyone is purely your opinion. The fact is many women do find it degrading. And it is degrading, when put in the context of a patriarchal society, where women are considered in so many ways to be lesser than men, there to look pretty, to be eye candy essentially. Page 3 is simply part of the culture that perpetuates this view of women- but it is so much worse because it is within the pages of a 'family' newspaper.

As has already been pointed out on this thread, page3 caters for hetero men - why doesn't it cater for other sexualities? Why not men in semi naked sexualised poses to cater for gay men/women? You have not adequately addressed this issue that the sun displays women only in these sexualised poses for the delectation of men.

Your libertarianism on human sexuality seems to only go so far - you didn't answer my question on whether men with erect penises and people having full sex should be shown in daily newspapers - as an expression of human sexuality? You just said some flannel about 'as long as it's legal and consenting.' That's not actually a very libertarian view!

should say too, it is your opinion as a man* - ie. not the one being subjugated as the 'sex' class.

When you've lived life as a teenage girl, constantly aware of men talking to her breasts all the time, men catcalling in the street, then maybe you can be entitled to that opinion.

Hahaha at the idea that females don't generally like looking at pictures of hot men.

yeah righto

And I'm not telling anyone how to live their life. If someone wants to be a glamour model then that is up to them, but saying that they are doing it in order to modernise a country is a bit much if you ask me. I can think of a great pile of stuff that NI could do to modernise, and strangely, more topless women in the daily papers doesn't feature.

Well Sabrina, on the subject of Irish jokes, most of them were based upon the idea that Irish people are stupid. I think that most people are fairly convinced that Irish people are actually just as intelligent as any other race. Indeed, racism is based upon the idea that some races are more intelligent than others and by looking at the 21st Century world the evidence makes it clear that that is far from true. The best way to deal with offensive things and ideas is to fight them head on, not try to hide them away. I've always known that there are people who consider porn to be an evil thing; created by evil people for evil people. I don't see why I shouldn't take exception to that belief and challenge it.

Imagine my surprise, gedhessian likes porn.

Well, ged, page 3 feeds into the idea that women are there to be pretty, to be ogled, to be merely sexual titillation to men. You have read first hand testimony here to how that affects women and girls from a young age.

I don't see why, in the 21st century, I shouldn't take exception to men feeling entitled to ogle naked women over their breakfast cereal, or on the train, or in the staffroom, or wherever, and challenge it.

Male privilege, gedhession. Look it up.

I love how the menz argue that, on the one hand, women objectify men too (coke ad) and, on the other hand, men's nature need visual stimulation that women don't need. No contradiction there, nope, not at all.

Or it could be that society is structured (patriarchy) to privilege and accomodate the male gaze so that women are told they are the objects of male gaze and consumption. Women are told that they are sad old cougars for enjoying the sight of male bodies.