Home Politics & Debate

No to Page 3

**helen****helen** Mod malarkistPosts: 9,235 Listening Ear
I know this story is a bit 'last week' but curious to hear what you guys think of the campaign - http://www.carolinelucas.com/media.html/2013/06/12/no-more-page-3-in-parliament,-says-mp/

:chin:
«13456710

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would be happy to see the back of the page 3. I still remember being confused as a child as to why a newspaper put a picture of a topless girl right at the front of the paper. It sends out confusing messages. It should be left to the likes of nuts magazine and other top shelf stuff (though I don't agree with the messages they send out either and think they're much more damaging).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with getting rid of page three - I buy a paper to read news not to look at naked women. Notably I'm a lefty and buy the guardian or the independent so I don't see them, but its just a bit sexist these days.
  • *BananaMonkey**BananaMonkey* Lyrical Poster Posts: 5,422 Part of The Furniture
    I personally don't buy the paper, but I think it's stupid having somebody topless in the paper, papers are for reading, not staring at topless women.
    " And everywhere I am, there you'll be, your love made me make it through, oh I owe so much to you "
    " So I say thank you for the music, the songs I'm singing, thanks for all the joy they're bringing, who can live without it, I ask in all honestly what would life be? Without a song or a dance, what are we? So I say thank you for the music, for giving it to me "
    '' It's a beautiful day and I can't stop myself from smiling "
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't like page 3 and obviously it is objectification which I don't think is healthy.

    But i don't like to run around telling people what they can and can't do. The models are paid presumably, the people who enjoy the papers are happy to buy it. Why is it my business to tell them that's wrong?

    I would say I think objectification especially with regard to impressionable people needs to be scrutinised. Maybe make the sun age restricted?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What exactly are people's problems with it?

    ETA: presumably Caroline Lucas is in favour banning Heat et al. for posting topless photos of Daniel Craig / <insert dreamboat here>?

    Not that for one second I'd grant Caroline Lucas any power to tell me what I can and can't look at.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    As long as it's each person's choice to be in the page or to buy it, I have no objection to its existence.
    Anyone who wants the paper but isn't interested can simply ignore it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think that the main point of the campaign is actually more along the lines of where rather than what.

    Family paper and all that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    I don't like page 3 and obviously it is objectification which I don't think is healthy.

    But i don't like to run around telling people what they can and can't do. The models are paid presumably, the people who enjoy the papers are happy to buy it. Why is it my business to tell them that's wrong?

    I would say I think objectification especially with regard to impressionable people needs to be scrutinised. Maybe make the sun age restricted?

    The point is more this kind of thing belongs in top shelf magazines, not a 'family newspaper' (if the Sun can be called that).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What right-minded person would consider The Sun a "family newspaper"? Isn't even one of the cartoons sexual in nature? Anyway, I'm not sure such a thing even exists, not in our mainstream anyway.

    This whole debate always smacks of a narrow field of vision, our schizophrenic attitude towards nudity as a nation, and someone trying to elect themselves as moral arbitrator of The Flesh.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    I admit to never having looked at the page but from what I understand there's nothing sexually explicit on it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When I was younger, me and a friend used to go to the newsangents for an ice lolly every night after school and we'd open up the page 3 and just stand their laughing at it for ages pointing and giggling, we we're around 10 at the time. When I think now, I have an 11 year old sister..I wouln't want her seeing them things, she's to young..
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Too young to see breasts? Most people have seen them when they were a lot younger.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "Daddy, why does that lady have no clothes on?"

    That question was enough for me to want Page Three "banned", i.e. moved to where it should be- the top shelf.

    If the Daily Star want to sell their papers purely on norkage then they can be treated like any other of Dirty Des' grot pamphlets.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What did you say when she asked?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the page is hilarious, just based on their thought for the day. For the nay-sayers, read just one of them. It'll change your mind ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    our schizophrenic attitude
    :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Apparently Unison have waded in. I can't help thinking that I want my union to concentrate on the important things, things we pay them as members to do. Like looking after me at work.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Also, perhaps the campaign should bet get boobs out of the sun etc. Otherwise the paper could easily just move the image to further back. Pedantry yes, but kind of requires the campaign to change their name then non?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I find it sad, grim and a bit laughable that a paper that takes a conservative stance to most things think their target audience (presumably white, working class bloke) wants to stare at the boobs of an 18 year old whilst wringing their hands at how a teacher can run away to Paris with a 15 year old.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    Also, perhaps the campaign should bet get boobs out of the sun etc. Otherwise the paper could easily just move the image to further back. Pedantry yes, but kind of requires the campaign to change their name then non?

    You really think they're that thick?

    It's just a slogan for them to use. You think they're just targeting The Sun? Or that the campaign objective specifically says that they want to get rid of "Page 3"?

    Don't be an idiot. It's not about one paper. It's about allowing what is essentially pornographic imagery in publications which are distributed to anyone and could be seen by impressionable kids. They leave out The Sun in the pile of daily papers in McDonalds ffs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You really think they're that thick?

    It's just a slogan for them to use. You think they're just targeting The Sun? Or that the campaign objective specifically says that they want to get rid of "Page 3"?

    Don't be an idiot. It's not about one paper. It's about allowing what is essentially pornographic imagery in publications which are distributed to anyone and could be seen by impressionable kids. They leave out The Sun in the pile of daily papers in McDonalds ffs.

    I would have thought that both the sarcasm and the use of etc after saying the sun, would highlight both the seriousness of my post and that I wasn't necessarily referring to the sun exclusively.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    Without Page 3 how can there be a Page 4?

    Kids seeing boobs isn't the worst thing they can see or read in a newspaper.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Kids seeing boobs isn't the worst thing they can see or read in a newspaper.

    It's not the boobs, it's the message that women have nothing to contribute but their bodies (and those bodies must conform to what our editors / readers have decided is the ideal). Sure, that message is all over the Sun and most of the rest of our media, but you have to start somewhere.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    piccolo wrote: »
    It's not the boobs, it's the message that women have nothing to contribute but their bodies (and those bodies must conform to what our editors / readers have decided is the ideal). Sure, that message is all over the Sun and most of the rest of our media, but you have to start somewhere.
    This. I also enjoyed this article on the matter http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/men-dont-really-understand-objectification-our-point-of-view-on-page-3-then-is-suspect-8668499.html I also read somewhere that the editors excuse was 'it's part of british culture', more like part of british male culture.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    I don't think the message is that women can't be anything but a set of body parts.
    Why can't they be both smart and beautiful.

    Men objectify women, it's a natural thing for us to do, we're very visual. When I see a nice pair of tits, or some nice legs, I like to look at them and I'm not sorry to admit that. It's doesn't mean I treat women like shit.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    piccolo wrote: »
    It's not the boobs, it's the message that women have nothing to contribute but their bodies
    How does it show the "nothing but" part? One doesn't exclude the other.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think you need to look at @EverydaySexism to get a fuller understanding.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Thinking of women (or men, for that matter) as "sex objects" isn't sexism. Thinking of women (or men, for that matter) as not being people with feelings that matter is sexism.

    If it were impossible to think of someone as both a person and a sex object, that would be different.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thinking of women (or men, for that matter) as "sex objects" isn't sexism. Thinking of women (or men, for that matter) as not being people with feelings that matter is sexism.

    If it were impossible to think of someone as both a person and a sex object, that would be different.

    The word "object" isn't a clue there?

    Fiend is right - the @EverydaySexism Twitter feed (and EverydaySexism.com) are good ones to read.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Everything is an object, as long as it has mass and volume. It doesn't exclude people.
    Besides, I think "object" as used here has the meaning of the object in a sentence.

    And even if you disagree with that, you're only arguing terminology. Sexy photos, on their own, don't mean that someone is only there for sex any more than a photo of a cook means they're only there for cooking.
Sign In or Register to comment.