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'd like ged to explain why he believes "objectification is a biological imperative, essential to the survival of the species."

Is page 3 essential to the survival of the species though?? I think we should know!

libertarianj

Ok - so if my analysis (which is a straightforward feminist analysis) of page three is wrong then critique it. Tell me what is wrong about it rather than just saying 'says who' in the manner of a 6 year old.

And I thought that it had already been explained to you that feminists observing, analysing and discussing the objectification of women is not objectification. It is political analysis of male dominated society's subjugation of women.

You telling us that we are objectifying women by discussing the mechanisms by which male dominated society objectifies women is offensive. It also isn't very clever (it is a common tactic used by men in feminist discussions and most of us on here are familiar with it) and it is, as has been pointed out, gaslighting . Do you know what that is?

Why are you trying to trick women into not discussing women's politics? Do you realise that your rhetorical trick implies that you think we are stupid?

And on the subject of the women who model for page three or similar - I am not one of them so I cannot speak for them. I don't know how they feel about page three - I imagine it varies from woman to woman what with them being individuals and all.

I am however a woman and I am a woman in male dominated society so I can speak about that. And I can speak about the mechanisms by which women (of which I am one) are subjugated by that society - page three and its ilk is one of these mechanisms.

I suspect that the men on this thread don't get that because they are not women and they are failing to challenge their male entitlement - in fact I know that because they keep coming out with arguments about the menz liking to look at the boobiez and how its all healthy, nay, natural, nay essential. This is not political analysis - it is male privilege in action.

Sorry. some of the men. there has been a sensible male poster too.

Well Actually Sabrina, it's a she. I've actually blown the dust off one of my sociology text books which has a chapter discussing more or less what she is saying. Sociobiology argues that human behaviour can be explained in terms of human survival and successful reproduction. Since women give birth to children , it is important that they are caring and nuturing and require good social skills; they are the preserving gender. Since men meerly impregnate , they can be sexual promiscious , agreesive and risk taking; they are the dispensible gender. It has been suggested that sexual objectification is part of these processes. This model is meerly using these ideas to rationalise what she does, as any human would. Yet agian Lib, good to see that you are pointing out the cliques and their gimmicks.

That's not sociobiology.... or at least it's evolutionary psychology by a different name, which is utter snake oil bunkum.

I was just coming on to say to ged that his post sounds like a load of evo-psych bollocks to me. But I see others have got in first Evo-psych is worthy of it's own thread.

It is constantly wheeled out to explain why people (mainly men!) are allowed to behave in a not too society-conscious way - I've seen evo-psych nutters use it to excuse rape ffs.

Only a douchbag spouts sociobiology evo-psych pseudoscience.

I didn't say I neccessarily agreed with it, I was only quoting this glamour model and the way she used it to rationalise what she does. Evolutionary psychology is snake oil bunkum? Feminist objectification theory isn't , somehow it's a set of better ideas? Do you get the feeling I don't entirely buy that either?

Why would you quote something if you didn't agree with it, ged?

Feminism is political, ged. It's not, and nor does it pretend to be scientific.

No lib it didn't take me any time or effort at all to make the point that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. But please don't waste any opportunity to be a patronising jerk on my account. Oh it's OK, you haven't. There was no derailment, you are either too dense to see my point, or else are deliberately refusing to do so. Or maybe degrees of both.

As for why I haven't challenged any of your points, I've done it time and time again on other threads and it just get tiresome. You won't change our opinions and we won't change yours so why keep coming back on posting on these threads on MN like some scab you can't stop picking?

There was nothing clumsy about what Beachcomber said. She is right. The models are shown to give men boobs to look at. This is not me objectifying them, this is me pointing out the objectification that is occurring. Doesn't mean I don't think they are real people. It doesn't mean I am slut shaming or dislike them or think they are thick or anything else. I think they all individuals, but I don't think their individuality is the point of page 3. I don't need to ask the models' views because unless you think they are begin coerced to pose against their will then obviously they disagree with me and won't accept that what they are doing adds to the ingrained sexism in society where men are encouraged to view women as things to look at, and prize their appearance above all else in a society that privileges male heterosexual sexuality above gender equality. Just because I am a feminist doesn't mean I have to agree with every decision every woman makes!

Page 3 is not, whatever Ged tries to claim, a vehicle for women to 'express their sexuality' (I'm not sure how Page 3 does that anyway!) it is giving men who like looking at boobs some naked flesh to look at in order to shift papers. Lib you can claim all you want that I don't know what is going through men's heads and I am assuming the lowest common denominator, but this is exactly what you yourself like doing when you watch porn and go to strip clubs. Whether you buy the Sun or not it is that impulse that they are targeting to make money. The fact is that you look at naked women and/or people having sex for you own sexual gratification, and that's no different to someone buying the Sun for a bit of thrill from looking at boobs, which normally one doesn't get to see outside of intimate relationships. It is the 'naughtiness' of it that is central to its thrill. Getting on your high horse about looking at the models as real people etc is silly. It is not 'physical attraction'. Page 3 is just one end of the porn spectrum, which is visual stimulus for you either just to experience the thrill of arousal, or else masturbate to or have sex during/after. That is what makes it (the photo, not the model) an object. If it were about the models as people with personalities then why are they topless? (And why is this in a paper anyway?!) You are being disingenuous in your refusal to answer this with any degree of honesty.

Ged's mention of telling a chid that the model is expressing her sexuality makes me feel extremely icky. Are you seriously saying that is how to reply to a toddler who asks 'Mummy, why does that woman have no clothes on?'

I note Ged claims objectification is a theory that can be challenged, before saying it is a biological imperative. So is it a theory or is real Ged? You seem confused. You and Lib need to get your stories straight.

And as for your ridiculous point about Short not talking to the busload of page 3 girls! Well why might that be?! It was a blatant intimidation tactic! How could she have 'discussed' anything with a busload of women sent to bully her?! If they had set up a debate/discussion between Short and one or 2 models then I am sure she would have done. But The Sun is not, and never has been, interested in discourse. This is why Dinsmore and Mohan have both refused to reposed to the No More Page 3 campaign. Even though it has been said by ex-Sun execs that the senior management hate having to justify page 3 and would like to get rid of it, but are simply worried that they would lose circ to the Star.

PS Forgive typos due to computer auto-correct on overdrive. There's a 'begin' that should be 'being' and a 'reposed' that should be 'respond'.

I know I'm going to regret getting into this.

Sociobiology is a sub discipline of sociology. Some anthropologists use it, but only a very small minority. The majority of anthropologists either use a different environmental theory or don't use environmental theories at all.

It is entirely untrue that most anthropologists would support the idea that objectification is somehow advantageous for human survival or fitness.

As for sociobiology being somehow scientific and feminism not, sociobiology is an approach within the social sciences which has been criticised as flawed by many other scientists and social scientists. Feminism is a political movement which requires an understanding of how the world works. As such, it draws from a wide range of academic disciplines to inform its approach, but as mentioned by pp, it doesn't claim to be a science in itself, any more than supporters of democracy claim democratic ideals are a science.

An anthropological idea that I do think applies here is that there is a lot of evidence cross culturally that people want to integrate their sexuality into the wider social sphere. People want sexual desire, sensuality, human relationships and social behaviour to all be integrated with each other. They don't generally find sex fulfilling if it is separated from wider social interaction.

Where sexual interactions take place away from 'real' life, such as on the Internet, people rapidly build up a social world around that - so there will be friendships, discussions, moderation roles, wider contexts that make the online environment more domestic/familiar with group membership and acceptance. It isn't just about building up an infrastructure that makes the sexual expression possible, replication of the social world of real life makes the sexual expression more fulfilling.

The issue with sexual objectification is that you cannot get those social functions from the person you are objectifying, because they are now just a body and a few character tropes in your mind (although some people involved in porn in a more collaborative way will presumably not be objectifying to the same extent and will have those social functions). If you aren't getting those social functions because the other person is an object to you, you have to get those social functions from other people as part of your sexual experiences.

It must be obvious to everyone that objectified images of people are widely available on the Internet, and there is absolutely no need from a perspective of mere sexual gratification for them to be visible in newspapers, or in supermarkets on the cover of lads' mags. Either because a. heteronormative mainstream sites and associated web spaces offer limited social rewards or b. certain men are not prepared for their sexuality to be only fully socially rewarded and integrated within those online spheres and want wider social attention to find their sexual experiences fulfilling. As such, to integrate their social and sexual experiences and find both rewarding, they not only want to look at images of sexually objectified images, they need all of us to look at them too in a shared social world. And a newspaper, which is read in public and is all about the social world as it contains news is the ideal medium to make everyone socially share in your sexual experience. And a supermarket, where vast numbers of people, particularly women, have to go for food, is the ideal social space to make everyone socially share in your sexual experience.

So some viewers of these images become very angry if we ask them to buy these images in a sex shop or only view them in privacy online, because having reduced their own sexual fulfilment by objectifying a woman and getting no wider social or personal experience from her, they can only feel fully sexually fulfilled and socially empowered if the rest of society and women in particular are forced to participate by being exposed to the same material in multiple everyday contexts.

Genuinely fascinating stuff GlassHare, about which I knew nothing but it makes sense. Thanks for an interesting read. Is your background sociology/anthropology? (No need to answer if you don't want to, obvs, in light of your saying you're going to regret getting into this, just interested!)

I have an anthropology background, but the actual topic of sexuality is not my area. It is more that having seen MRAs make such bizarre claims about human behaviour, which I know from wider anthropology to be odd, I've ended up reading more on the anthropology of sexuality. The whole idea of sexuality being integrated into the social sphere is supported by studies from hunter gatherers through to studies of online communities. I'm suggesting it as an explanation of why certain consumers feel a need to expose everyone to material that they individually find sexually fulfilling, but I haven't read that elsewhere yet (it is probably out there hundreds of times in feminist writing).

And that is the core of the issue, isn't it, with page three and lads' mags? I get that some people want to look at it, but the question is why do they have such a need to make everyone else look at it too, even children?

Many people have explained why they don't want to view it or don't want their children to view it, but I don't see the arguments from those who consume those images as to why they require the whole of society to either view them or go to extraordinary and impractical lengths to avoid them.

emcwill74 To me objectification is a contention and like any contention evidence can be used against it. I don't regard Page 3 as a woman "making a choice to express her sexuality". To me it's a model doing a job to sell newspapers and , in some cases, managing to enjoy popularity and a public profile. If a particular model wants to say "I've chosen to express my sexuality" and advise parents to say the same thing to their children well that's her perogative. I myself don't actually recall asking my parents why Samantha Fox kept showing her boobs in The Sun. As far as I was concerned it was something tabloid newspapers did to keep them popular.

I don't think it is ethical to tell children that adults choose to express their sexuality towards children as if that is some morally neutral thing that just happens. Beyond a quite limited spectrum of behaviours, it isn't acceptable to behave sexually without the consent of others present just because you want to, and children, by definition, cannot consent.

GlassHare For long as I can recall, I have experienced a popular culture with sexual imagery. Not just Page 3, but sexualised dancers and pop stars on TV and in the other forms of popular media. Many men claim that their first form of sexual arousal is from looking at their mother's catalogues with the lingerie and swimware. It's certainly very hard to make children avoid images of human sexuality and for it not to have an influence on them which I openly admit to.

Lingerie and swimwear models in catalogues hardly bear comparison! They are showing potential purchasers what the products look like! Sure, this may be a turn-on for adolescents, and may indeed shape their nascent sexuality, but that's a by-product! Not remotely the same as a topless model in a newspaper for no other purpose than titillation!

As I said, there is a spectrum of sexual expression which is acceptable in the public sphere. This is to some extent controlled collectively by society. Some music videos can be shown at any time of day and some can't. It isn't practical or useful for children to never see any sexual expression whatsoever. We don't suddenly emerge at 16 from no knowledge of sexual expression into fully experienced adults. None of that is justification for showing children objectified images of women which are devoid of any context related to that woman and are instead incongrously coupled to a social context of national news and a social space of grocery shopping.

For me your last sentence hits the nail on the head GlassHare! I object to page 3 in a way I don't object to nudity in film, for example, because there is narrative context for that. It is the lack of context for page 3 that makes it so objectifying.

GlassHare: Where have you been for the whole of this thread ?

Very, very good points.

Where I've been is watching the number of posts grow and apprehensively wondering what must be going on!

Right, emcwill - I don't object to nudity in films either, for the reason you state. I reject the idea that we're all catsbum-mouthed authoritarian prudes too - that's just a silencing tactic to get us to stfu.