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?

The woman in that video does not understand objectification. She confuses it with a hatred of male sexuality when it has sweet FA to do with that. By conflating noticing a pretty girl passing in the street, and going about her daily life, with objectification (or she could have said a woman noticing a handsome man for that matter) she utterly misses the point. We are all sexual beings and notice attractive members of the opposite sex (or same sex!). That is not objectification.

Yet, without understanding the concept, she also hilariously and inadvertently succeeds in making our point when she says she doesn't notice the pizzza delivery man because she is intent on the pizza. Precisely sums up objectification and what is going on in page 3.

Surely the difference between the two examples is not too subtle for page 3 aficionadas to grasp is it?

X posted. I was referring to the first video. Not seen the second.

Actually the difference probably is too subtle. Page 3 is not known for subtlety and neither I imagine are its fans.

What utter bullshit. Serious bullshit. Stupid 'argument'

Gaslight anyone?

blatant

Not even to try and root it in any form of truth.

FFS

libertarinj, only the medium and social context changes, objectification stays the same. In todays world Page 3 is about objectification because it would not be page 3 without boobs, its different to the clothed 'real person looking attractive' in other pages.

As to the breasts of the women in the 1st video, I clicked play and because it seemed like only audio-relevant content I started reading the comments people left about the video while I listened. One of them was about her boobs, none too subtle, so I went back to look at the video. That woman undoubtedly had to grow up being objectified by both men and women because of the size of her breasts. She would have a view of objectification that is more gender neutral because of her personal experience.

There are many different levels to objectification and objectification is universal, its only a question of degree. Page 3 is a high degree. If you meet the criteria that allows objectification, male or female, you are objectified. If you meet it well enough it can be repackaged and sold.

I would suggest, grimmbletart, that you watch the second video, its far better than the first.

libertarinj, only the medium and social context changes, Physical attraction stays the same. In todays world Page 3 is about Physical attraction

There are many different levels to Physical attraction and Physical attraction is universal, its only a question of degree. Page 3 is a high degree. If you meet the criteria that allows physical attraction, male or female, you are desired. If you meet it well enough it can be repackaged and sold.

Sorry thought i'd try a little experiment... by substituting 'objectification' with the words 'physical attraction', it makes a lot more sense and i'd actually agree with it. Don't you think?

The girl in the videos arguments are based on logic and common sense, her personal experiences from her looks don't really come into it. As is evident from a range of very different people who speak out against 'objectification' in those videos.

grimmbletart We are all sexual beings and notice attractive members of the opposite sex (or same sex!). That is not objectification.

and neither is page 3

Yet, without understanding the concept, she also hilariously and inadvertently succeeds in making our point when she says she doesn't notice the pizzza delivery man because she is intent on the pizza. Precisely sums up objectification and what is going on in page 3.

her point was that you can't expect to know the personality of everyone you meet/ deal with in life, it' not practical, however that doesn't mean you cant appreciate them as being real people, not objects.

libertarianj -sexual objectification is the process of representing a person as a sex object for another's consumption or pleasure.

You can argue that an individual does that on the street when they fancy someone, if you like. BUt as long as they keep their thoughts to themselves and do not harass the person, then that's ok by me. Like you say, it's human nature.

You can argue that feminists are the ones doing the objectifying when talking about page 3 if you like - but that would make you sound insane. By discussing it, feminists aren't the ones doing the objectification - they are commenting on it. As opposed to denying it (as you are).

It is the interchangeability of the page 3 models, and the nature of the sexuality submissive photos that make it objectification - this pretty, naked girl one day. Another the next, and a different one the next, and so on. The fact that a small number of models have achieved fame on the back of, and away from glamour modelling does not stop page 3 itself objectifying women.

emcwill74: 'hey Libertarianj, that looks like a nice cheese sandwich you're eating!'
Libertarianj: 'I'm sorry, I'm not eating a cheese sandwich!'
emcwill74: 'err, but you've got 2 slices of bread and some cheese in the middle there!'
Libertarianj: 'don't be so silly, that's not a cheese sandwich! You feminists think you can march over here telling me I'm eating a cheese sandwich when I'm not! You're all so silly!'
emcwill74: 'no, no, 2 slices of bread, cheese in the middle, it really is a cheese sandwich'
Libertarianj: 'but how can you prove it is a cheese sandwich? What does the word sandwich actually mean? How do you know your idea of cheese is the same as mine? Can you prove that a mere label really denotes what it is labelling? C'est ci n'est pas un cheese sandwich! When you discuss men eating cheese sandwiches how do actually know what they are eating? Can you prove the essential cheese-sandwichness of my snack? No you can't, and yet you draw all these conclusions based on nothing at all. Now go away and let me watch some porn whilst I snigger about my superior arguing prowess and fill up on bread with interior cheese'

[emcwill74 gives up in total bafflement concluding that any man arguing for the continuation of boobs in a newspaper, whilst telling DadWasHere he is 'just concerned with boobs' is quite insane]

emswill74.

Epilogue:

emcwill74: hey libs, that a cheese sandwich you're eating?

Libs: No. It's you that's eating the sandwich, not me.

like it running

and i think i have said numerous times now that men like looking at women with their clothes off such as page 3

Okay. Lots of men do. You have no idea how much or how little socialization comes into this however.

Anyway, men like lots of things but......drum roll...... men liking things doesn't make them right/acceptable/necessary/desirable/not misogynistic. Whodda thunk it?!

And page three is not about women . Page three is about body parts. And not just body parts, but young conventionally attractive body parts presented in a titillating and sexually submissive/available way. (This is the very definition of sexual objectification BTW.)

Do these men who "like looking at women with their clothes off" want to see older drooping breasts? Do they want to see a naked woman breastfeeding? Do they want to see the breasts of a woman who has had a mastectomy? Do they want to see average breasts with one larger than the other, a couple of nipple hairs and stretch marks?

Of course they don't. They want 'girls' with their 'tits out'.

Because page three isn't about real breasts (which are glands) it is about tits (which are wank fodder).

at cheese sandwich.

We'll be getting told that the point of a cheese sandwich is to have a nice healthy vegan snack next...

'The problem with cheese sandwich theory is that it assumes all men are eating cheddar, but some of us are actually having pain avec Brie de Meaux. You feminists make massive assumptions reducing all men to lowest common denominator stuff...'

And women eat cheese sandwiches too.

'The only reason you think this is a cheese sandwich is because the carbohydrate and protein snack you were given is inferior. QED.'

To be honest, I'm appalled at people who describe a slice of cheese between two pieces of bread as "a cheese sandwich". Objectifying or what?!

'I mean, who decides if it's a cheese sandwich anyway? The Cheese Sandwich God?!'

Objectification, like any theory or comtention, can be questioned, challenged, rejected or discredited if the evidence is there. If a young woman who is a glamour model says "I have made a choice to express my sexuality" and also argues a parent should say this to a child if asked and furthermore says "objectification is a biologial imperative , essential to the survival of the species , any anthropoligist will tell you that" this sounds to me like a human being doing what any human being is doing, rationalising what they are doing. Instead of Caroline Lucas waving a Page 3 picture in Parliament she could have looked up the model on The Net and asked her to defend herself. Clare Short was also very happy to tell everybody that Page 3 is degrading and objectifying to women but when The Sun sent a bus load of Page 3 girls to her house she refused to speak to them.

ah emc back with the old cheese sandwich analogies i see.. It is just a shame that a cheese sandwich is an object and has absolutely nothing to do with the human brain or biology which objectification is concerned with. I hope you didn't spend too much time and effort conjuring that up emc? and you don't even challenge any of the points Nice bit of derailment too.

ah and running thanks for copying and pasting the definition of sexual objectification again, as i'd never considered that

You can argue that feminists are the ones doing the objectifying when talking about page 3 if you like - but that would make you sound insane.

er why? and where did i mention feminists? what feminists?

Beech And page three is not about women . Page three is about body parts. And not just body parts, but young conventionally attractive body parts presented in a titillating and sexually submissive/available way. (This is the very definition of sexual objectification BTW.)

Er says who? are you speaking for everyone? er no i think you are speaking for yourself and once again another example of real objectification on your behalf. Clumsy

ah and running thanks for copying and pasting the definition of sexual objectification again, as i'd never considered that

Yes, it certainly seems to be the case from your posts.

er why? and where did i mention feminists? what feminists?

You know - the ones posting here, on this board. Who you keep accusing of doing the objectifying in a most peculiar twist of logic.

good point Ged

It's quite telling that they fail to ever include the actual models and their views in any of these campaigns. The fact that they don't is another example of real objectification on their behalf. I mentioned this a few pages back and it was met with tumbleweeds and i expect it will be ignored again.