Home Politics & Debate

No to Page 3

14567810»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ballerina wrote: »
    Yeah because we're all jealous of page 3 girls/models/anyone else who gets their clothes off for money so we're hating on the young, slim, pretty models :rolleyes:
    You could also argue that the girls that get their kit off 'for charity' are equally as insecure because really, I've always wonder how much the naked charity calendar thing was more of an excuse to seek attention/validation by using the charity calendar as a bit of a smoke screen.
    As for who are you blokes supposed to listen to? Well, you're grown men with a brain, I'm sure you can make your own minds up.

    Wind it back in please, I didn't say or imply "all" women were jealous (insecure was the word I used anyway).

    Well yes we can make up our minds and we do. However it seems if women as a collective aren't sure whether it's degrading or not then it's a bit rich when they have a go at us if we say we're in favour of it and blame us for the continued exploitation of some women.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well not everyone is going to agree, that's life. But the fact that it's gaining a lot of backing recently such as the British Youth Council and the Welsh Assembly and the Union for Headteachers to name a few in recent weeks suggests that it's not just 'insecure women' hating on pretty models.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nobody has suggested it's "just" insecure women. It wasn't the Welsh Assembly by the way it was just a few AMs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well you can make your own mind up. Do you think images of topless women belong in a newspaper?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not bothered either way to be honest. If the reasons for getting it 'banned' (or whatever) are due to perceived objectifying of women then I doubt the removal of 'page 3 images' will make much of a difference.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not bothered either way to be honest. If the reasons for getting it 'banned' (or whatever) are due to perceived objectifying of women then I doubt the removal of 'page 3 images' will make much of a difference.

    Read back through the thread, this came up before. The general idea was that images like that should be kept where they belong, i.e top shelf magazines and not in a national newspaper that is readily available on public transport, waiting rooms and pretty much anywhere. It won't change things over night but it's at least making an example and getting people to think
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest I don't feel inclined to go back through 18+ pages to find something. If you can give me the gist of it I'll be happy to comment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    However it seems if women as a collective aren't sure whether it's degrading or not then it's a bit rich when they have a go at us if we say we're in favour of it and blame us for the continued exploitation of some women.

    Apologies. Didn't get the memo about opinions having to match those of every other woman on the planet.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kaff wrote: »
    Apologies. Didn't get the memo about opinions having to match those of every other woman on the planet.

    Now why would you say something like that? I've made it clear that right now I'm on the fence about the subject. But when the people who I assume are the majority against page 3 (women) seem to have conflicting views about it and can't seem to agree then it's going to be a lot harder for us to get behind you on it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You can make up your own mind without waiting to see which crowd has the most followers first.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ballerina wrote: »
    You can make up your own mind without waiting to see which crowd has the most followers first.

    Actually I can't. I can see a lot of women say it objectifies them. On the surface (and I stress that) in the past I couldn't see that as being such an issue however I'm willing to admit I'm wrong about that going on the strength of feeling being displayed especially with the debate in the Senedd about it recently. I'm not female so I'm sure some of you can at least understand I may not be readily aware of the issue from the perspective of women.

    However there are equally a lot of women who say they are happy to be glamour models. I'm friends with one who you have probably heard of (Welsh, z-lister, was once in Big Brother, no names mentioned) and she's always wanted to be a glamour model and so far has been relatively successful.

    No way am I going to suggest that all women involved in glamour modelling are happy to be doing it but I'm not sure anyone has confirmed numbers to work out exact figures. When the topic of banning Page 3 comes up there always seems to be enough women in the industry to defend their 'job'.

    I can see both sides of the argument. Both compelling and have merit. As such I'm on the fence about it. I'm not going to say the 'anti' brigade need to 'get over it' or whatever blokes seem to be expected to say these days. I'm not going to say the 'pro' women are deluded.

    I've never seen any argument compelling enough to tip me either side. True enough I would not want any of my daughters to appear on Page 3 however as I understand it they only use models aged 18+ and once my girls are that age there's nothing I'd be able to do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Banning page 3 won't put models out of work, they're not employed by the newspaper. And it's not about hating on glamour modeling, it's about the appropriate placement of such images.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ballerina wrote: »
    Banning page 3 won't put models out of work, they're not employed by the newspaper. And it's not about hating on glamour modeling, it's about the appropriate placement of such images.

    I'm not suggesting it would put them out of work, and that's not really what I meant but on that subject I'm sure the way they view it as publicity for them rather than whatever they get paid for it. There seems to be almost a 'badge of honour' in their world to be chosen for page 3. Not saying I agree or disagree, just stating what has been implied in the past.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think there was a consensus that it was out of place, the consensus was that there wasn't really anyone who liked it being in prominent positions. There's also been a lot of links to blogs and the like, it's an emotive topic as you might imagine and a lot of people have strong feelings over it one way or the other. Whilst on the one hand, I don't feel like I should be rallying against things that some people like, just because I personally don't like it - there's the consideration that if Page 3 really is upsetting a lot of people then that carries some weight.

    For example; in the Welsh assembly Rebecca Evans stated that "?Page Three normalises the trivial objectification of women, entrenches inequality and sexist attitudes, and, well, quite simply, half-naked women just aren?t news!". This is a strongly held opinion of a lot of people, though there isn't any literature on the subject (not even on glamour photography - I've looked), they are generally opinions people hold. So on the one hand people's opinions do matter and we shouldn't be trying to offend people, on the other hand I do believe sometimes a lot of people can hold the same opinion and strongly believe it, but be incorrect (example: opponents to gay marriage, abortion, etc.)

    There's always multiple angles to look at things though. On the subject of perfect body image: there's a lady doing photoshoots of post-pregnancy ladies as often stretch marks etc. are not seen as attractive and can be upsetting, and women should feel empowered whatever they look like. A retort to this was that part of what she is doing is pressuring women to be happy with their bodies regardless, when sometimes being unhappy with the way we look (for men and women) or other aspects about ourselves is natural.

    Tl;dr its complex, and I think anyone (myself including) trying to make a summary argument as to whether its right or wrong or whether it should be stopped or continued would be doing it an injustice not to recognise its not black and white
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Hm: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23620775

    If the problem isn't the nudity but the fact that they're pages for (consensual or not) ogling in what otherwise is supposedly a "normal" newspaper, putting bikinis on them shouldn't make any difference, right?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I guess as I alluded to above it's subjective - it's about people not wanting to be offended. Less people will be offended by bikinis than being topless.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    I guess as I alluded to above it's subjective - it's about people not wanting to be offended. Less people will be offended by bikinis than being topless.

    Which is absurd
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's progress I guess. But not much.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Ballerina wrote: »
    It's progress I guess. But not much.
    It's not progress at all, according to what I understand the problem is. Why is it any better to ogle women in bikinis than topless ones?
    It's like saying that photos of brutal murders are OK if the blood has been coloured green.

    The problem isn't the colour of blood (or what the models are wearing), it's why the photos are there to begin with.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not progress at all, according to what I understand the problem is. Why is it any better to ogle women in bikinis than topless ones?
    It's like saying that photos of brutal murders are OK if the blood has been coloured green.

    The problem isn't the colour of blood (or what the models are wearing), it's why the photos are there to begin with.

    I agree. But I was trying to be positive. :P
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not progress at all, according to what I understand the problem is. Why is it any better to ogle women in bikinis than topless ones?
    It's like saying that photos of brutal murders are OK if the blood has been coloured green.

    The problem isn't the colour of blood (or what the models are wearing), it's why the photos are there to begin with.

    Again, its a compromise isn't it.

    In Germany violent video games are banned unless they use green blood.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Neddy wrote: »
    Which is absurd

    Perhaps, but we have to recognise that (despite indiviual beliefs) we are probably closer culturally and politically to the US where puritanical evangelism is a central tenant of the political discourse, than to The Netherlands where sexual education and sexual liberation is paramount.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's a marginal improvement, in as much as the soft porn kids could be casually exposed to is a little less porny.

    But as far as the real crux of the issue, Indrid is absolutely right.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Kaff wrote: »
    It's a marginal improvement, in as much as the soft porn kids could be casually exposed to is a little less porny.
    Thanks. I disagree with this part though. It's not less porny, unless you mean it in the same sense that something not pink is "less girly".
Sign In or Register to comment.