Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Why ban page 3?

582 replies

jackburton · 12/02/2013 20:44

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?

OP posts:
runningforthebusinheels · 07/09/2013 19:50

... "to the best of your knowledge" ...

But you have spammed MN with the same post over and over on any and every thread about page 3, afaics.

gedhession · 07/09/2013 20:57

Many years ago I did jury service. In one case we had to decide if a 70 year old man had committed a list of very serious sexual offences, including rape, against two young boys. In the end we decided that he was just a harmless old man who had done absolutely nothing wrong. So yes, I've had to decide , to the best of my knowledge (beyond reasonable doubt is the actual term) if a person was guilty or innocent of very serious charges. It happens to people all the time. I'd seen something on TV about Lads Mags and when I googled "Page 3 blogs" I noticed that Mumsnet had actually quite a few on the subject. Some are actually dormant and I ignored them. I therefore decided to put the same post on a few of the active ones to improve my chances of getting a response.

NiceTabard · 07/09/2013 22:46

Wow.

YouMakeMeWannaLaLa · 08/09/2013 00:26

And you've used your real name to post all this shit!

If I were you I'd get my posts withdrawn and disappear.

libertarianj · 08/09/2013 10:46

As i have said previously you peeps have a serious issue with men looking at images of attractive women semi naked. You don't trust them, end of.

YouMakeMeWannaLaLa
Libertarian While your opinions are easier to understand, they are still inconsistent and offensive. Freedom of speech and expression does not equal freedom to objectify and exploit young slim white large bosomed women

No one is being objectified or exploited though are they? sexual objectification is a concept that has been invented to make natural physical attraction into something sinister. Oh and you obviously have never seen page 3, because the models are not all white, slim, big bosomed. Always assumptions isn't it?

You are from the same stable of people who used to find it completely acceptable and sensible to declare homosexuals as abominations and people of colour as inferior. No, I'm not saying you are racist or homophobic but I am saying you are sexist and I can't wait for the day when that is looked upon with as much scorn as racism and homophobia.

It's not sexist, it's sexy. (anyone remember Spinal Tap? Grin)

You sound really confused about this issue, if you can't understand this physical attraction and try to equate it to being on par with racism and homophobia.

That's not a personal attack, just an observation. Smile

gedhession · 08/09/2013 11:02

Lib, I found your post interesting where you claim that some pro porn feminists starting posting on some of the other threads , only to have cliques discredit them. I've used The Net long enough to know about cliqueism. I take comfort from the fact I'm not the only one.

scallopsrgreat · 08/09/2013 11:49

Objectification isn't sexual attraction Stop lying.

"As i have said previously you peeps have a serious issue with men looking at images of attractive women semi naked" And the creepiest posts I've seen on here for a long while have been made by a full card carrying page 3 aficionado. Not really helping your cause libertarianj.

libertarianj · 09/09/2013 14:25

Objectification isn't sexual attraction Stop lying.

No I didn't say it was, but viewing/ enjoying page 3 is down to sexual attraction not objectification.

"As i have said previously you peeps have a serious issue with men looking at images of attractive women semi naked" And the creepiest posts I've seen on here for a long while have been made by a full card carrying page 3 aficionado. Not really helping your cause libertarianj.

But there's nothing creepy about what i have said, it's just basic human biology, which people on here seem to be struggling to understand.

runningforthebusinheels · 09/09/2013 16:13

libertarian, what you're posting is very creepy.

You tell women to put up and shut up about being shown as sexual objects in newspapers, just because you think men are so driven by their 'biology' to want to look at breasts. You think the wants of the man trump the discomfort of the woman sitting next to him - that's creepy and privileged. Fact is, men can gaze at women's breasts to their hearts content on various specialised porn mags and online pornsites. Doesn't have to be in a newspaper. Boobs aren't news.

gedhession · 09/09/2013 19:05

Boobs aren't news..... then again I wouldn't consider the footy news, or the gee-gees , or the rugby. Neither would I consider the crossword or the sudoku. Neither would I consider "My binge eating hell" by some actress off Eastenders or the fact that one of the blokes off Hairy Bikers is on Strictly Come Dancing. I recall one of my teachers at school referring to the tabloids as the "newsless newspapers". Since when did anybody read The Sun for the news?

CaptChaos · 09/09/2013 20:00

Lib: No I didn't say it was, but viewing/ enjoying page 3 is down to sexual attraction not objectification.

Of course it's not down to sexual attraction. If they wanted to place sexually attractive pictures on Page 3, why do they only cater to heterosexual men? Or is that class the only class that feels sexually attracted to anyone?

It is objectification, pure and simple, and anyone who suggests otherwise is being deluded at best, disingenuous at worst.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 09/09/2013 20:50

Of course the footy is news - and I say that as football-hater! All the things you listed ged, are all either in the ' mild public interest,' 'celeb gossip' or 'sports news.' They are all sharing information with readers - rather than being a picture of bare boobs...

Oh ok - if it makes you feel any better, sudoko isn't strictly news Hmm so perhaps we can do away with that too - but only if you can get 120,000 people sign a petition against in. Wink

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 09/09/2013 23:00

*it

gedhession · 09/09/2013 23:25

Sabrina ,is a glamour model going out with David Walliams or appearing on Celebrity Big Brother news?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 09/09/2013 23:42

It's celeb news - whether it's interesting news or not is a matter of opinion. But what it isn't is purely a photo objectifying women.

libertarianj · 10/09/2013 13:14

Sabrina/ running you say 'boobs aren't news'? So you have now reduced the models down to just their boobs Hmm. Oh so their not worthy of being in the paper are they? Maybe you should ask the models if they think they are news worthy? i somehow don't think they would share your view to be honest. You have basically just gone and objectified the models Shock. Now that's real objectification. Not some assumed primitive thought, that you keep telling us blokes think.

Also who defines what a newspaper should be anyway? oh i forgot you don't believe in freedom of choice....

I see Brooke Magnanti is more or less saying the saying the same thing as me, before you inform me again of my male privilege:

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/10295863/Co-op-banning-lads-mags-inequality-existed-long-before-lads-mags-and-will-continue-long-after.html

libertarianj · 10/09/2013 13:14

Sabrina/ running you say 'boobs aren't news'? So you have now reduced the models down to just their boobs Hmm. Oh so their not worthy of being in the paper are they? Maybe you should ask the models if they think they are news worthy? i somehow don't think they would share your view to be honest. You have basically just gone and objectified the models Shock. Now that's real objectification. Not some assumed primitive thought, that you keep telling us blokes think.

Also who defines what a newspaper should be anyway? oh i forgot you don't believe in freedom of choice....

I see Brooke Magnanti is more or less saying the saying the same thing as me, before you inform me again of my male privilege:

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/10295863/Co-op-banning-lads-mags-inequality-existed-long-before-lads-mags-and-will-continue-long-after.html

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 10/09/2013 13:55

Ha ha ! I really like what you tried to do there lib.

But no, no matter what twisty twist you try to put on it, a photo of a pair of boobs is not news - however much you'd like to make out that it's feminists objectifying the models Hmm - it's not. The models are being objectified full stop. It's not one person or another person doing the objectifying - the nature of the picture is what objectifies the woman.

A woman who is in a newspaper for no other reason than she has a very attractive pair of boobs on show is being objectified.

grimbletart · 10/09/2013 15:44

About a million posts ago (or so it feels like) I posed the question - what is page 3 actually for? Neither Ged nor Lib thought it worthy of answering.

gedhession · 10/09/2013 17:55

Well grimble, I just thought it was a rhetorical question. Don't any of my posts provide an answer to your question? Sabrina, I do recall one Page 3 model, Louise Payne, marrying Fred Fairbass out of Right Said Fred. Of course, they showed her boobs with the story. They always did that with a Page 3 girl going out with a famous actor, popstar or sportsman. Still being objectified?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 10/09/2013 18:08

Can you answer grimble's question in your own words, ged?

grimbletart · 10/09/2013 18:15

Why would I ask a rhetorical question? It wasn't, so I would be grateful if you could tell me what the point of page 3 is. Thanks.

gedhession · 10/09/2013 20:05

What's wrong with rhetorical questions? Depends what answers they get and the contribution they make to the discussion I suppose. Actually, does this post made by Sabrina actually answer your question;You are basically an apologist for page 3 because you want to look at pretty girls with their boobs out, or you want to admire the girls, and pretend that you appreciate their personality. I've always considered that a popular activity amongst men and , from what I've been told, some women. Personally, I don't see the point of X Factor. Doesn't stop millions watching it, does it?

gedhession · 10/09/2013 20:05

What's wrong with rhetorical questions? Depends what answers they get and the contribution they make to the discussion I suppose. Actually, does this post made by Sabrina actually answer your question;You are basically an apologist for page 3 because you want to look at pretty girls with their boobs out, or you want to admire the girls, and pretend that you appreciate their personality. I've always considered that a popular activity amongst men and , from what I've been told, some women. Personally, I don't see the point of X Factor. Doesn't stop millions watching it, does it?

gedhession · 10/09/2013 20:05

What's wrong with rhetorical questions? Depends what answers they get and the contribution they make to the discussion I suppose. Actually, does this post made by Sabrina actually answer your question;You are basically an apologist for page 3 because you want to look at pretty girls with their boobs out, or you want to admire the girls, and pretend that you appreciate their personality. I've always considered that a popular activity amongst men and , from what I've been told, some women. Personally, I don't see the point of X Factor. Doesn't stop millions watching it, does it?