If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Yes, not only am I a frothy-mouthed misogynist but also rampant homophobe and zealous racist. You've peeled back my thin veneer with your rhetorical knife. Congrats.
Clearly I was talking about feeling out the issue of how damaging, if at all, Page 3 is - for anyone interested in a conversation
I don't think sexual objectification always has to be a bad thing.
Has any considered that both men and women like to be viewed as sexual objects at times, just not all the time, and just no only as a sexual object?
I'm not a big viewer of pornography and I certainly don't read the Sun but I'm always a bit cautious about censorship. I have viewed pornography before by myself and with partners, page three and porno mags were plenty easy to get hold of when I was younger. These things havn't turned me into some mad misogynistic twat.
I personally think the fashion idustry does far more damage than page 3.
Page 3 is just a small party of the wider problem but it is part of it. It feeds and is fed by the attitude that some men hold about women, which is the same attitude that leads to cat calling and groping, and it tells men not to worry about taking women seriously.
Yes there are girls who do page 3 for fun, but glamour modelling is soft porn and should be treated as such.
This!
It's not that I'm against glamour modelling as a rule, so long as it is being provided and consumed by consenting adults. It has no place in a "family" paper.
Did I even read somewhere in this thread that it is 'not sexual'? Of course it is sexual! This is not as simple as not wanting kids to see boobs. My kids see boobs all the time! But they see them being washed or dressed, or being used to feed infants or just as a part of the anatomy. This is a context issue. They do not (and should not) see them being presented to men to ogle.
The wider issue has been highlighted perfectly by this thread, where we emotional, hysterical women have been told that we are essentially just fussing over nothing. As if we might know our own opinions and feelings! What are we like?! Back in your kitchens, please, ladies
Terminology then. If that's what you consider the word to mean, that's fine. But it doesn't change the meaning of anything anyone has said, only what words should have been used instead.
Obviously I exaggerated for dramatic effect, but just go back and read this thread.
Every single female has said that they are offended to some extent by page 3, and yet we are still getting the response that it is our problem, our FAULT, for being offended by something which is harmless.
If we are all offended by it, it is not harmless.
Also, no one has said it's your problem or your fault (wtf?). People simply disagreed. If disagreeing with someone means you consider them to be at fault, I think that is your problem.
I've got no problem with glamour modelling as such - just in its place. A regular newspaper is not it's place - a top shelf magazine is.
The wider issue highlighted here is that it's difficult to express areas of reservation on a topic such as this without having one's concerns lazily parodied or being dismissed as an idiot. You cite 'back in the kitchen' and 'hysterical women' because even though no one has got anywhere close to taking that tact it's a lot easier to dismiss a parody of a position that tackle and convince people of the fallacies in their actual arguments.
No one's arguing sexism isn't prevalent and isn't harmful. We're trying to figure out if this case is an example and extension of it. And whether banning or restricting would help.
But it is.
Page 3 feeds 'lad culture' where women are seen as merely bodies to leer at.. sorry 'appreciate'. It makes it seem justifiably okay to wolf whistle a lone woman walking down the street, to shout phrases like 'get your tits out for the lads', to comment, critique and rate marks out of 10 as to the attractiveness of women.
If that kind of attitude is encouraged in the UK's most popular tabloid then what hope is there of change?
Here is todays picture of a semi naked woman. It's the most obvious example of a woman you'll find in this daily publication. The sole reason we've put this image here is for men to gawp at. You won't find nearly such a prominent image of a woman in this paper with her clothes on, and you won't find a semi naked man. We claim to be a newspaper, but actually, we're also circulating soft porn and doing our bit to normalise gawping.
(The above is a question, see the ? at the end?
Removing the photos won't suddenly force a transformation over night - but taking away one aspect that currently supports a notion that it's normal to gawp at women as part of your daily routine, and that based on square inches of coverage in that paper - the main role for a woman is to be gawped at, can only help.
What do you mean? (slow morning sorry
I'm saying that they do I suppose!
That's a good point, I guess. However, I don't think that would do anything unless all such photos were banned. Anyone who wanted to find them would just get another magazine, I seriously don't think that which one they're in makes a difference.
By the way (I'm just saying this here to avoid making two posts in a row; it's not because of the above) I've seen other discussions on this topic and pretty much everyone seemed to fall in one of two categories: "Everything's fine, leave it as it is" and "Boobs are evil, get this filth out of my face" (EDIT: That's an exaggeration of course -it was actually "Always fine" or "Always bad"). The point about which magazine this page is in didn't seem to be brought up at all. It's interesting, because it's actually a good one.
I know men like gawping. I'm sure some women like gawping too. I don't actually have a problem with that as such. What I object to is the normalisation of it. I don't see any need to ban all the images, just to put them in the correct place.
:yes: Which reminds me, I meant to respond to something Indrid said earlier about Brits being prudish about nudity.
I totally agree, but if you want children to grow up comfortable with nudity, take them to a naturist resort and talk to them about size, shape and the whole person.
And this:
Is what I should have said pages ago!
I have no problem with nudity- Sodbaby has seen me naked. I also have no problem with sex- again, Sodbaby has a basic grasp of the birds and the bees because she asked. But there is no way of explaining the continuing existence of page three; it's both taking the piss out of women for being women and reducing them to their body parts.
As for the idea it isn't sexual, I shall look forward to The Sun diversifying their range of models. Maybe showing a woman breastfeeding might be good.
It is very different to having a second glance at a good looking woman in the street. People who can't grasp that concern me.
My interpretation. The culture in which The Sun operates being afraid of nudity, something like that? Sorry I couldn't find the exact post to quote.
I do apologise if I've totally made that up / misremembered!
I suspect this was the bit that planted the prude thought in people's mind.
I still say the same thing. Regardless of the reason for someone's nudity, I don't think it's "adult" unless the actions of the individual are sexual.