Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

No to Page 3

1235710

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I suspect this was the bit that planted the prude thought in people's mind.

    That is what I meant! So to paraphrase my awkward response, I intended to say that there are other ways of viewing nudity where it needn't be adult, but AR has covered it better than I could!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Page 3 is sexual. It has one purpose to put sexy adult suggestions in mind. There's nothing wrong with sexy adult suggestions. But I can't think of many magazines is the same category that one would take to work or leave on display. Pg 3 is porn, tame porn to be sure. But still porn. As such if shouldn't be in mainstream media.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've skimmed through the thread but it seems to be rehashing a few of the same arguments. It's objectification I think everyone has agreed on. Not everyone has agreed that it's damaging, although this would be apparently due to male ignorance rather than there being two sides to every argument (since "its telling all women see it as damaging"). I wonder if the models themselves think of it as damaging?

    I personally do think it's a bad thing as it fuels the gender disharmony we are generally talking about. But not everyone would agree with me.

    Though, I would like to point out, who has ever had the discussion around gender without the sarcastic: "What are we like?! Back in your kitchens, please, ladies". Nobody here has told women to shut up.

    So what to do? Do we ban the Sun? Do we censor page 3? Do we make it an adult only publication? Where do we draw the line?

    My view as I have said is that pressure should be put on the Sun's owners to be forward thinking and realise that a lot of people do find page 3 backward, and contributing to the whole issues we are talking about.

    I don't like it, but I don't think we can ban it (write new rules, the sun will skirt around that - nothing to stop them still including boobs but making it 'artsy' afterall is there?) and I don't think we should ban it (which presumably is part of what the 'No to page 3' campaign is about?).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Page 3 is sexual. It has one purpose to put sexy adult suggestions in mind. There's nothing wrong with sexy adult suggestions. But I can't think of many magazines is the same category that one would take to work or leave on display. Pg 3 is porn, tame porn to be sure. But still porn. As such if shouldn't be in mainstream media.

    Cosmo?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are we just saying words now? I've not read it. So you'll have to illustrate
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Cosmo?

    Cosmo doesn't have naked men in it as far as I know. It also caters to a specific audience and is placed appropriately in newsagents and such like, and people are highly unlikely to leave a magazine costing several £ on a train seat, unlike the 40p "news"paper that people will discard without thought.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To view the discussion through the other side of the lens: I'm not sure I have any strong feelings towards the trashy women's magazines (Heat, et al.) who, from what I remember, have/had a male Torso of the Month section and featured pictures of Daniel Craig on the beach in his speedos. And, to be honest, with their oscillating between 'too fat' and 'too skinny' celebrity editions, I'd imagine they do more harm to women's perceptions of themselves than Page 3 does.

    I'm not saying this as a validation of Page 3. I just don't have the instinct to classify trashy women's magazines or teen pop magazines as pornography.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Are we just saying words now? I've not read it. So you'll have to illustrate

    Cosmo is a very well known magazine, also referred to as Cosmopolitan. It is not unusual to find it in a stack of magazines in an office or left on display. It has very racy articles inside it and imagery with sexual overtones that could cause a lot of questions for children.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Cosmo is a very well known magazine, also referred to as Cosmopolitan. It is not unusual to find it in a stack of magazines in an office or left on display. It has very racy articles inside it and imagery with sexual overtones that could cause a lot of questions for children.

    And is placed appropriately on shelves.

    Nobody is objecting to the what. We're objecting to the where.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I have less of an objection to Nuts/FHM than I do The Sun. Does that help with the point that's I'm trying to make.

    It's not the 'what' so much as the context it's framed in. Cosmo promotes itself as a womens mag, that focuses on the more adult/intimate side of things. Nuts/FHM promote themselves as lads mags. The Sun claims it's a newspaper.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nobody is objecting to the what.

    Apologies, the meander of discussion over the last 9 pages led me to feel it bothered a lot of people.
    We're objecting to the where.

    Where should it go then? Should this be a legal requirement, (akin to 'top shelf' magazines)? Should it be a voluntary arrangement for retailers to put the Sun in less prominent positions?

    As for Cosmo, my understanding is the only reason it's in the 'women's lifestyle' area is because that's how the retailer has chosen to merchandise their store. They believe they get the best sales / best customer experience doing it like that. There is no limitation as far as I'm aware for anything below a certain 'Adult only' threshold.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Where should it go then? Should this be a legal requirement, (akin to 'top shelf' magazines)? Should it be a voluntary arrangement for retailers to put the Sun in less prominent positions?

    As for Cosmo, my understanding is the only reason it's in the 'women's lifestyle' area is because that's how the retailer has chosen to merchandise their store. They believe they get the best sales / best customer experience doing it like that. There is no limitation as far as I'm aware for anything below a certain 'Adult only' threshold.

    A very good point; as long as the argument focusses so narrowly (and I do accept that this is a very narrow way to look at the issue) then we're missing that bigger picture.

    I think as with all things it would be better not to legislate, but to have a more soft-touch approach whereby (ideally!) the Sun stops publishing topless women in their 'newspaper' or the retailers agree not to store the Sun with the newspapers. I dunno.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What Picc said.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    From how I recall the magazine and newspaper section in shops to be, they're all just grouped roughly together by category: newspapers, women's mags, teen pop, etc. The only distinction is for porn and that is in opaque packets on the top shelf.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Interesting...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22987051

    The end is worth reading, about 'research' into wether porn affects/chnages peoples attitudes.


    'In other words, it is unlikely that researchers will ever be able to prove that pornography is causing behaviour change.'
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Where should it go then? Should this be a legal requirement, (akin to 'top shelf' magazines)? Should it be a voluntary arrangement for retailers to put the Sun in less prominent positions?
    It should go somewhere other than a "family" newspaper. It is pornographic (albeit mildly) content and should be presented as such in an appropriate way. I think it's (at best) a bit double standards that (some) parents object to Nuts/Zoo et al appearing full frontal in the newsagent but are quite happy to pick up a copy of The Sun and have it lying around their house.
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    As for Cosmo, my understanding is the only reason it's in the 'women's lifestyle' area is because that's how the retailer has chosen to merchandise their store. They believe they get the best sales / best customer experience doing it like that. There is no limitation as far as I'm aware for anything below a certain 'Adult only' threshold.

    I'm going to tread a fairly risky line here, but:

    There is a difference between Cosmo/Heat/Women's Lifestyle magazines (which I object to for the same kind of reasons that CCH has pointed out - although that's a different debate), and things like Nuts and Zoo. CCH pointed out the "Torso of the week", which is probably about the best comparison out there, but even then the...porno-qualities differ. If they were showing men with hard-ons in their tighty-whiteys, I would agree. But the male torso is not sexualised in the same way that a woman's breasts are. I'm aware that this is down to physiology and that in that case, there is never going to be a way to compare the two equally, but it's still the case.

    Besides which, like I said, the argument is about context. You expect women's magazines to be fawning over Henry Cavill and Daniel Craig in the same way you expect there to be glamour models in Lad's Mags. You don't (or, shouldn't) expect the same glamour models to also be appearing in a 40p newspaper that's been left on someone's tube seat. It's inappropriate for the format.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    But the male torso is not sexualised in the same way that a woman's breasts are.
    Here's a counterpoint: Unlike genitals, breasts aren't inherently sexual. It's only society that has made them so.
    There's people who find feet sexual, and many among them would find them more sexual than breasts. Feet aren't any more or less sexual than breasts; it's only that certain people view them so. The only difference is that in the case of breasts they're many more people.
    Where exactly is the line that defines how many people (or what percentage) has to view something as sexual before it's considered to be porn?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not exactly sure where that line sits, I'd imagine that most people would find to to be a pretty broad, grey, brush stroke rather than a well defined hard, line.

    I'd suggest though that Page 3 sits pretty firmly the on the 'intended to cause arousal' side of the line - and would be surprised if there are many who would argue with that.

    Yes, it's a issue of societal perception - this whole discussion pretty much centres on societal perception, so I'm not sure how that really stands as an argument for keeping Page 3 as is. And if there was a full page polished photo of feet, put there with the intention of causing arousal then the arguments against that feature would be the same as against the current images.

    It comes down to not normalising gawping at images of women that are solely being featured for the purposes of arousal.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Well, that's your view, and you're entitled to it of course.
    Mine remains the same for the moment: As long as the content itself isn't inherently sexual, the intention is irrelevant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If I were to go out with my top off I would be arrested for indecent exposure. If I were to go out with bare feet I'd get tetanus. World of difference.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    If I were to go out with my top off I would be arrested for indecent exposure. If I were to go out with bare feet I'd get tetanus. World of difference.
    Think again. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh right. Well that makes it completely different. Which is why you see it so often and there would in no way be dirty looks or a word from the police.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    Oh right. Well that makes it completely different. Which is why you see it so often and there would in no way be dirty looks or a word from the police.
    So? I already said that what's different is how many people think this way. You're just repeating that.
    As for the police, if it's not illegal they can't stop you. I read that in New York the headquarters had to send a reminder to all stations because they were getting sued by women who got wrongly arrested.

    The point is, legality (which you tried to invoke) isn't an issue. Then you said about how most people would react, which I already addressed and was replied to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There have been people arrested for public nudity under a common law offence called something like Offending Public Decency.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    piccolo wrote: »
    There have been people arrested for public nudity under a common law offence called something like Offending Public Decency.
    I can't find that on that website, can you find any description? I wonder why it would override the other one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whether or not it is technically illegal - I think we all know what the public response in general would be. Which I would hope makes the point.

    Yes maybe society need to change it's attitude, but until it does, the current arrangement just supports the gawping = ok.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Yes maybe society need to change it's attitude, but until it does, the current arrangement just supports the gawping = ok.
    I think we're getting off topic here. It's about photographs on a "newspaper", not what you can do in the street. The latter was only brought up as a point on legality.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My point was in reference to page 3. You were making a comment on the attitude of society I believe, one which was then partially undermined by Fiend. Yes, there was a drift onto a legality issue, but the main point stands.

    Generally, in public, topless women are considered inappropriate. There are some circumstances when not, but in general, is currently the case. Same judgement should apply to the sun.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The male torso is less sexualised than women's but that doesn't negate the point. Torso of the Week (and all the rest) is purely designed for sexual titillation and presumably objectifies the man in the same fashion Page 3 does with women - the men don't even get the ridiculous political quote provided on Page 3. I think the notion that it's OK because they don't have raging boners in y-fronts misses the point. If you think objectification of one gender is negative then surely you do with the other. I suspect if there was a women in skimpy clothes (no bare breasts) on Page 3 there'd be the same argument - as I think there should be because I'm not sure nudity is the crux of the matter.

    I'm also not sure I draw such the location of Page 3 in a newspaper holds as much weight as seems to be given to it. The argument for not condemning Nuts or Heat seems to be that people expect to find it in there. That to me just argues - if you're inclined to believe such a thing, I'm not sure I am, yet - that we've created objectification ghettos and the Page 3 is bad because there's a place for objectification and that's the ghettos we've created.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually, I'm not keen on nuts or cosmo or heat either. But that is not as overt does makea difference. Also, having not seen torso of the week I'm going to assume it's men who are athletes or actors or musicians, famous for a talent and incidentally good looking. Which I think makes it different too.

    Pg 3 isn't the only thing wrong, but it is a good place to start.
Sign In or Register to comment.