I support Page 3, who's with me?

[Beth9009]

This might not go down well, but I cannot accept the campaign to ban Page 3. Here's why:

There is nothing wrong with the naked female body. A woman posing with her breasts on show is not lewd nor is it harmful to children.

Hypocrisy - Page 3 is no different to male models posing shirtless in women's magazines.

Prudishness - People who claim that newspapers should be banned from showing topless women are no different to the Victorians or to people in conservative parts of the world who don't allow women to show bare legs. It's the same principle.

Market mechanisms - if there is a demand for something and a consenting adult willing to supply it, then who is the government to get in the way?

Freedom of choice - if you don't like it, don't buy the Sun!

Ban Page 3. Ban Robin Thicke. Censor Nuts magazine. Ban 'sexist' words from the media. Ban this, ban that.

I'm sorry, but as someone who values free express and the freedom of language, I cannot be part of this movement.

I'm very glad to hear it. This thread fills me with an urge to pick the OP up and shake her! It's good to know that ther are young women out there who can see the flaw in this kind of logic.

Still, I suppose I was probably as naive when I was single and childless.

There's nothing quite like returning to work, organising childcare, and trying to raise a child to see where the media is suckering them into a crap worldview to make you think about your views!

OP - you just don't get it. I can see that. We can probably all see that.

This is not about wanting women to cover up. It's about wanting them to know they have the choice of covering up. It's not about not wanting them to have sex, it's about wanting them to know that the choice of whether or not to have sex is theirs and theirs alone, and that society ought not to place value judgements on them for those choices.

I want new generations of young women to grow up confident in their bodies, and their minds, to be able to expect to be treated as valuable human beings and not walking talking sex toys. To have thoroughly enjoyable sexual relationships with men who want to share pleasure with them, on an equal basis.

And as long as images of women's tits are seen as 'a bit of fun', to be ogled at over a cup of tea and then thrown in the bin or used to line the parrot's cage, young women are not going to be in a position to learn that they are worth any more than that. And young men are not going to be learning it either.

Those young men are going to struggle to learn that women have sexual needs,. Jerking off over a disassociated set of tits is easy. Getting to know a woman and enjoy a fulfilling sexual relationship with her is difficult in comparison. But it gets more difficult still if society has told you that women's tits are easy to jerk off on, and you've grown up thinking that's what women are for.

It's not a debate if you refuse to engage.

Shouting "You lot are all prudes" while sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting La La La to drown out the multitude of reasonable points is not really engaging.

Were you ever a Page 3 model yourself? Do you have a vested interest in convincing us all that displaying yourself for men to wank over is somehow a good thing for women?

Turnip, just because I'm 25 it doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to historical issues.

I cannot be part of this movement.

^NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

This is the worst thing that happened to Feminism since Robin Thicko.

Clearly you don't, if you think feminists challenging sexist language is anything new.

Im 26.

Not even as a teenager did I think men "needed" page 3.

My father taught me better than that.

Don't worry, beth, I don't think your lack of understanding of historical issues is down to your age either.

I'm totes unradical myself, as we twentysomethings are wont to be. But which bit of Dworkin did I miss, where she discussed how page 3 is, like, well liberating?

This is one of the most depressing things I've come across on this site. My daughter is 12. She is not a sexual object (and never fucking will be, thanks) and is leaps and bounds ahead of you, OP, in her 'free thinking' already. She can spot sexism a mile off (like that Blurred Lines song, which she won't listen to because she's twigged what it's about) and has figured out (without my input) that Page 3 is objectifying women in a way that is wrong.

My sons are 9 and 5 - I don't buy The Sun, but their Dad (my ex) does and did when we lived together. Do I want them growing up thinking that's what women are for? No, I don't.

And at the risk of being deleted I can say this to you - you are a child. I read your other thread about your step-son. Except he isn't because you are 10 years older than him, he couldn't even technically be your child because you were a child when he was born. He is not going to call you Mum and give it a few years and your desperation to be cool and hang out with him is going to embarrass him.

When you have kids of your own, I hope you look back at your posts and your attitude here and are ashamed of yourself. And I hope to God you never have a daughter because your idea of feminism is shocking.

TunipTheUnconquerable Fri 17-Jan-14 17:03:20
Clearly you don't, if you think feminists challenging sexist language is anything new.

There's a difference between challenging it through writing literature and starting Facebook pages to have it banned. Banning words, ha! The arrogance is astounding. That's what some of these modern feminists want. They want men sacked from their jobs if they dare utter a word that isn't part of the prescribed terminology. These people are dangerous.

I know posters on here who are younger than you and have more sense!

OP, you are embarrassing yourself.

I'm embarrassed for you.

You missed the bit just before page 4 LRD where Dworkin whilst posing in a pair of pale pink lacy pants, outlined just how liberating objectified pictures of women are.

And you call yourself a feminist. You're not half the feminist Beth is!

Yeah, right, everything that's wrong in the world can be blamed on feminism and political correctness

One of my pet hates is the over-general use of the term 'literature'.

'Literature' should not refer to political or ideological writing, IMO. War and Peace is 'literature'; The Second Sex is not.

However, despite the use of a high-sounding word to justify the fact you imagine we're not like writers of 'literature', actually, yes, these are part of the same thing.

It's called feminism.

(Oh, and I'm on the bandwagon with the sacking of men! Ooh yes! My DH first, please, the penis-bearing misogynist that he is, earning the money and supporting my witterings on the net.)

K8 that's a horrifying image.

Whiskwarrior, just because you don't agree with me, it doesn't mean I don't have any sense.

And on your post, right, your daughter's decision to describe Robin Thicke as sexist was entirely off her own free will. Sure it was. I'm sure your daughter is a very bright girl, but obviously she has been influenced.

So, erm, if it is not mysognistic words or imagery that needs to be tackled what am I supposed to be doing as a feminist?

Or Beth, do please tell me!

But you haven't been influenced by society at all?

Are yo

Even my phone is giving up.

just because you don't agree with me, it doesn't mean I don't have any sense.

And like an ever spinning wheel op, we return to the need for evidence. Just a shred would do.

You know, if I were an internet troll, which I'm not, I would stop using grammatical constructions that beg for snarky replies.

beth, no-one is blaming your evident lack of sense on the fact that whisk doesn't agree with you. The two things are both true, and unconnected with each other.

Maybe she was 'influenced' (not by me, I might add because I've not played the damn song or had the music channels on), but she still understands what's wrong with it. She gets it in a way you never will.

And if she is influenced, I'm glad she's under the right kind of influence rather than the kind who believe we're all just sexual beings and that's what matters.

"These people are dangerous."

Sticks and stones love.

Rapists,Pedophiles and murderers are dangerous. Or are they just expressing their sexual desires? Free speech/thought and actions yeah?