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?

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?

Even posting it twice doesn't really answer it Ged . Why do you want me to take Sabrina's answer? Don't you have an answer of your own?

Though you do seem to think it is pointless, which I guess is a start.

Don't know why that's been posted over and over but my broadband has been going do-lally these past few weeks. I just think Sabrina has summed me up pretty well there. I've always had the feeling that Page 3 is a popular part of a popular newspaper and the fact many of the models who did Page 3 , I was a fan of Samantha Fox, did enjoy a fair amount of popularity (and if you search the Net still do) is a good measure of its popularity.

So look at teenagers boobs on the net then. All the political arguments still apply but AT LEAST ordinary women and girls going about their everyday business in public spaces don't have to be subjected to something that makes them feel uncomfortable.

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.

There you go again, objectifying the page 3 models. Sabrina it's not just a photo of a pair of boobs, they are real people posing semi naked.

oh and those so called 'feminists' who strive for equality for all women, except for when they are a page 3 model or a glamour model.... etc, etc That's a funny kind of feminism

the nature of the picture is what objectifies the woman.

How exactly? How does a photo of a woman posing semi naked turn women into objects? Also who decides when it is objectification? the objectification God?

If Page 3 is just about objectification then why do Page 3 fans such as Ged know so much about the models personalities and lifestyles as he has displayed here? If it's all about the boobs as you claim, then why do they bother to delve any further ?

Following on from that Brooke Magnanti article, i see feminist and former page 3 model Jodie Marsh is now on the lads mags case too:

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/09/jodie-marsh-lose-the-lads-mags-campaign_n_3894120.html?ir=UK+Lifestyle

AFAIK it IS about the boobs libertarianJ, because knowing what a model likes for breakfast or her attitude to saving lost cats is just window dressing not even looked at by most men. I suppose for some knowing those details is a type of self-mantra that they are not dehumanising the model, because they see objectification as being the same as dehumanising. For others it could be more like those who become unhealthily interested in the -must know- details of their favourite Hollywood celeb. For others it could be because they are failing to properly separate fantasy from reality.

ged knows nothing about a page 3 girl's personality except their public persona - they are 'safe' women for him to leer and fantasise over - he can attribute whatever personality he likes to them, for the purposes of his fantasy 'relationship' without the bother of dealing with an actual woman's real personality or needs.

That's not to say that page 3 models don't have real personalities and needs, of course, it's just that ged doesn't know the real person - he only knows the picture in the sun.

The page 3 photo turns women into objects because they depict a naked woman in a newspaper for the only reason that she has a nice pair of boobs, and for the purposes of male sexual gratification.

If it wasn't about the women's breasts then they wouldn't have them uncovered

To deny that the point of page 3 is for people to look at young women's naked breasts is utterly bizarre.

It is gaslighting NiceTabard

Dad AFAIK it IS about the boobs libertarianJ, because knowing what a model likes for breakfast or her attitude to saving lost cats is just window dressing not even looked at by most men. I suppose for some knowing those details is a type of self-mantra that they are not dehumanising the model, because they see objectification as being the same as dehumanising. For others it could be more like those who become unhealthily interested in the -must know- details of their favourite Hollywood celeb. For others it could be because they are failing to properly separate fantasy from reality.

but these are all assumptions, and they are negative and pessimistic assumptions too. This is exactly what objectification theory does, it assumes the worst of people. Yet in reality it is just harmless, healthy physical attraction and there is zero unbiased evidence to suggest otherwise.

If it's not about the boobs, then the women on page 3 can have their clothes on, and everyone will be happy.

There we go, problem solved

Sabrina do you take issue with people having fantasies? and isn't it the case that virtually all celebrities have a public persona. I don't see how this is a negative thing, as a long as the fantasy doesn't become an obsession, then it's all perfectly healthy.

The page 3 photo turns women into objects because they depict a naked woman in a newspaper for the only reason that she has a nice pair of boobs, and for the purposes of male sexual gratification.

That's not really an explanation though, it's just your own subjective opinion. and really 'sexual gratification' from page 3? I think that's a bit far fetched, maybe mild titillation at most.

NiceTabard If it wasn't about the women's breasts then they wouldn't have them uncovered confused

I wasn't saying that men don't enjoy seeing women's breasts just that there is a lot more to it than just that. Using your logic, then wouldn't they just feature close ups of women's breasts on page 3, without bothering to show their face or the rest of their body? I somehow don't think that would be popular.

libertarianj many images have a keystone, its an issue with composition and intention unrelated to sexuality, the nature of what makes an image what it is. But the keystone need not be the totality of the image, just in context what 'makes' the image. For example, take out just one tree in a landscape and the point/composition of the image can collapse if that one tree is fundamental to the power of the image. It can also collapse if that one tree becomes the totality of the image as well.

In this case, page 3, get the girl to button up her shirt the contextual keystone disappears, it also dissapears if her portrait is cut off at the neck. Her boobs are still fundamental to the image but if it were ONLY her boobs, IMO, the image would move past objectification to dehumanising.

Gaslighting. Yes - that is what lib's trying to do.

The "whaaaaat? - it's just a healthy expression of male sexuality" argument, tempered with the "oh, you're just a prude, you're an authoritarian" peppered with a complete denial of what objectification is

Sabrina, I've come to the conclusion that it takes a very special sort of man to understand female objectification. It needs intelligence, insight, empathy and the ability to put themselves into a woman's shoes. If they have not had a lifetime of being the subject of objectification I think they genuinely cannot understand the concept.

Either that or they do, are in denial and rationalise it by maintaining that freedom of expression always trumps the case for consideration of the bigger picture.

Mind you, there is a view that the breast fixation comes from early weaning, so it's a subconscious infantilism where breasts are viewed as sexual objects in this culture (but not in many others) both by men, who want to view them and women who want to display them. Not sure I buy that but it is an interesting theory. Googling will find examples.

You are fairly jumping through hoops now lib. It's rather endearing at this stage. Keep going!

I think for me the objectification argument is separate from the In Public View argument. It makes public spaces intimidating and unwelcoming for girls and women. Does 'mild titilation at most', (when the world hardly lacks opportunities) for men trump that?

Interesting post there Dad, it certainly got me thinking. Although i don't think that the covering of the breasts would change the contextual keystone with page 3. Also just to add that a number of people on here who have said they have no problem with the actual nudity element, but it's more the fact that the woman is only there to be desired/ admired for her looks. It's that aspect that they take issue with. Well so they say...

I also don't think the keystone for page 3 is ' photos of women showing off their breasts', i would say it is more ' women posing semi naked' or 'Glamour photography'. and there is a difference, it's not just re-wording.

Glamour photography is, and always has been a euphemism for 'pictures of women showing off their breasts'.

Again, if page 3 isn't all about women in a state of undress, or purely there to titilate heterosexual men, what is it there for?

sorry but you are wrong about glamour photography:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glamour_photography

or

www.wisegeek.com/what-is-glamour-photography.htm

and i think i have said numerous times now that men like looking at women with their clothes off such as page 3, and that it is perfectly natural attraction, not a sinister or bad thing which terming it objectification tries to make it out to be.

oh and women also dispute objectification theory too, Grimbletart. More so than men it would appear, judging by the number of videos on youtube. (There seems to be a bit of a backlash!).

There's a good video here, which pretty much re-iterates what i have been saying throughout this thread with regards objectification:

libertarianj a photograph changes with historical and social context. If I took a photo of a woman's naked ankles today the only men interested in such a thing would be a minute sub-class of men who were fetishists of that particular body part. If I took that same photograph back to Victorian times society would be outraged and I would be imprisoned. Context is everything in terms of what erotic photography is. If the bulk of average women simply walked about bare chested as part of normal society then 'page 3' could just as easily be any page in the paper, since there would be no contextual difference.

If you want to talk objectification itself, related to the women in the link you posted, that women clearly had to walk a path only large busted women could understand, and by that I mean a path further along the alphabet than DD, where girls have to grow up being objectified for their boobs not only by men but by women as well.

Dad But what you are observing is repression throughout the eras, that's the only contextual element. If you look at historic depictions of erotica or naked statues for example, the only thing that has really changed is the medium. Also as you mentioned it, i certainly don't think us going back to the Victorian era is the way forward but seems to be what some persons on here would strive for.

If you want to talk objectification itself, related to the women in the link you posted, that women clearly had to walk a path only large busted women could understand, and by that I mean a path further along the alphabet than DD, where girls have to grow up being objectified for their boobs not only by men but by women as well.

well i posted that video from my smart phone and hadn't even noticed her breast size. I typed in objectification into youtube and it was one of the top videos that came up and she has very similar views to my mine.

I think you are judging other people by your own standards dad and it's quite obvious that you put a lot of emphasis on breasts. For example where i see a page 3 model as a real person looking attractive, you are just concerned with their boobs.

It's funny how all the people on here crying objectification are the ones doing the real objectifying.

Here is another video along the same kind of lines.