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!

Page three is unacceptable. Why is it acceptable to bear breasts in a newspaper photograph but not to go down to your local supermarket like this.

Buffy - That is one of the most sad things I've read on this forum. And I include the abusive trolls in that. You think there's nothing wrong with a young man viewing his female peers as attractive objects? Is that what you meant to say?

You think it's wrong for boys to see girls as attractive object, or girls to see boys as attractive objects? Why is it wrong?

When I look at a hot guy in the street, all he is to me is an object. I don't know him and I don't need to. I'm just looking because I want to. Is that so wrong?

Secondary sexual characteristics then.

Anyway, my point is the same whatever you say in terms of definition.

A woman's bare breasts are not the same, in our society, as a man's chest or anyone's legs.

The important thing about all of this is whether Page 3 pictures are indicative of, and feed into, a whole attitude towards women's bodies which is objectifying and damaging. And I would say that they are.

Do you think otherwise? Do you honestly believe that treating women this way - posing them as vacuous sexual playthings, to titillate men, and having those pictures lying around in normal everyday contexts where both boys and girls see them and unconsciously take in the message that this is what women are for - is a good thing?

Are we playing "there's nothing wrong with page 3 bingo" ?

I've got my big pen!

Oh someone has already called house. I'm too late

Beth - until there's a parliament full of women, a UN full of women, and men have had 2000 years of international subjugation (with all the violence etc that comes with it ) to women you cannot compare the objectification of men and women.

Please go and read the FAQs on the no more page 3 website. A lot of your regularly asked questions are answered there.

We like men to be dominant and strong, whereas men are attracted to the innocent look.

^ Beth replace the we with you please.

Do you really think a -cough cough-- newspaper should contain sexual images? Surely you know that tits aren't news? This so called family newspaper pedals £9 holidays alongside sexed up images? How fucked up is that!

Its grim and unnecessary.

MumInScotland
_-

Yes, you're right, society does view the naked female torso differently to the naked male torso. And I think that's wrong! Both are equally sexual and should be treated the same.

On your point about whether objectification is damaging, I would say that it is natural. We are sexual beings and it is perfectly normal for us to want to find sexual titillation independently of personal/emotional connections.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist Fri 17-Jan-14 13:42:25
There is a difference between looking at a person you don't know and thinking that they are attractive and thinking of them as an object. An object is something you use.
_

In what way are men who look at Page 3 'using' the women any more than I am using a hot guy who I look at for my pleasure?

Ridiculous brainwashed views OP. One of the worst things about growing up as a girl/young woman in our culture is the feeling of being valued mainly by your looks and how sexually attractive you are. Page 3 and other such muck reinforces these views. Why do you think some people are embarrassed by breastfeeding? Because breasts are sexualised in the media. It's ok to get your tits out for some scummy paper but not for their natural purpose? And not to mention they often only show one 'type' of woman who is only seen for her fu**ability. You only have to read some of the comments on the pictures of the Sun's P3 FB page. Leering over women as objects..

"Oh dear, Beth just because you say something is true, doesn't mean it is. I could say that everyone who supports page 3 does so because secretly they hate women. I could say it convincingly. Wouldn't make it so."

I could say that Beth is either a wind up merchant or a rather cleverer than usual tourist from Another Place. But me saying it wouldn't make it so. So I won't.

am not sure anyone is arguing that to double the problem by objectifying men as often, in the same ways and to effect a similar outcome would in any way be a Good Thing OP

sexual attraction to individual people and objectification of a group of people, rendering them 'the sex class' are quite different things don't you think?

OddFodd Fri 17-Jan-14 13:39:18
You've posted some rather interesting threads OP. This, your fiance who can't come except on your tits, your fiance's son who you're really good mates with ...

I posted a thread about my partner and a problem in the bedroom. What is your point?

And yes, the thread on my soon-to-be step son? This is 'Mumsnet', isn't it. That thread is the reason I signed up. What is your point?

IMO women should be able to walk around on a hot day with no top on, just as men can. That to me is feminism.

hahahah. You want to buy a dictionary love!

On your point about whether objectification is damaging, I would say that it is natural. We are sexual beings and it is perfectly normal for us to want to find sexual titillation independently of personal/emotional connections

If that's what floats your boat that's fine - but why when I walk in to a newsagents must my dd's who are 8 and 13 have to look at it? Why when I sit on a bus must my children be confronted by a sexual image of a young woman showing her breasts? By all means look for titillation but please do it in private! Not in a newspaper or on the front of magazines on show in a place where children will be.

Jellybeans -

Sex is a big part of life. Of course people are valued largely on their looks! You can't change nature and it's dangerous to try. The most messed up societies IMO are the ultra-conservative religious ones that oppress women and their bodies by hiding their sexuality under the rug.

' Breasts ARE sexual in that men find them sexually attractive for evolutionary reasons. But it's the same a the male chest being sexual because we find them attracted for the same reasons.'

Don't make assumptions about all cultures though. In some cultures women don't cover up and breasts are not seen as sexually attractive. In fact I watched one documentary where the women were laughing at Western men (when told about their attraction/media male obsession with breasts) and comparing them to babies (since that was what breasts were soley seen as for in their culture).

Beth Do you think it is a problem in a family newspaper? Do you understand just how inappropriate this is?

Are women better off in the liberal European societies where porn and sexual imagery is the norm...or in ultra-conservative Saudi Arabia where women can't even show an ankle?

I know where I'd rather live.

CaptainHindsight Fri 17-Jan-14 13:54:55
Beth Do you think it is a problem in a family newspaper? Do you understand just how inappropriate this is?

It's a matter for parents. If they don't want their kids to see female breasts (gasp!), then they shouldn't buy the Sun.

You can't change nature and it's dangerous to try

^ This is exactly what your problem is.

Hope your DF doesn't want to change either eh?

Women not being able to show an ankle and women on page 3 are on the same continuum. They are both about the sexual objectification of women in a patriarchal society.

The response is different but the root is the same. Women there for sexual gratification of men.

I wouldn't buy the sun anyway. Its for idiots.
Feel free to "read" away love

Why does it have to be one or the other? Porn outside of main society for those who want it is one thing, in a family newspaper or on display at child's level in a supermarket is wrong.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist

The majority of men do not grope women or sexually harass them in the way you describe.