Home Politics & Debate

No to Page 3

145679

Comments

  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    As an aside, she needs to be bloody careful if that's what she's doing. If the NMC get wind of that she'll be struck off; nurses shouldn't be moonlighting, and definitely NOT as a sex/entertainment worker.

    But your sister's job is largely irrelevant. She is stripping off in a place that, really, you're only going to go in if you want to have someone's fandanjo waved in your face. The strippers are adults and, crucially, the punters are too. There's nothing to see here.



    It is sexist because of how uncomplimentary it is to women. As I've said before, it isn't just the nudity, it is the way that nudity is presented. The women aren't just being valued on their body, any other qualities they may have are being actively mocked. FWIW a lot of lifestyle magazines are pretty sexist and nasty, Heat especially, but what makes Page Three especially odious is the way it is presented in a "family" newspaper that sets itself up as standing against perverts and nonces everywhere.

    It wasn't so very long ago that the Daily Star had a countdown to when Charlotte Church would be "legal", and many Page Three models throughout the years were 16 or 17. Makes you think the hysteria about that teacher who ran off with a girl just under 16 to be rather, well, hypocritical.

    My issue with Page Three isn't the nudity, it is the context in which that nudity is displayed. Teenage boys will always look at art pamphlets, of course they will, but that's not really the point. I like boobs and I like sex; it doesn't mean I want it in a newspaper that children see.

    What my sisters does when moonlighting is irrelevant, and without moonlighting she wouldn't be able to afford the open university course.

    The point is, glamour modelling is no more sexist than lap dancing, both involve getting your tits out for money, the only difference with page three is that it's a more accessible format. Any adult knows page three exists, so I fail to see how any adult can complain when they open the paper to find s pair of Bristols staring them in the face. As I say the only reservation I have is that it's easily accessible to kids. That doesn't mean I think a ban is the answer though.

    Would any of you still have a problem if it were just a woman in tight revealing clothes without any boobs on show?
    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
    Yes, I would have a problem with page 3 if the model were wearing, say, a leotard, if the intent remained the same.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    piccolo wrote: »
    Yes, I would have a problem with page 3 if the model were wearing, say, a leotard, if the intent remained the same.

    I see women hitting the town on a friday and saturday night scantily clad, whats the difference appearing in a paper scantily clad?
    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: »
    What my sisters does when moonlighting is irrelevant, and without moonlighting she wouldn't be able to afford the open university course.

    Go tell the NMC that.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    They're not likely to find out, so its irrelevant.
    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
    It's the same reason why the majority of posters on this message board get riled at the latest DM headline, just for fun: 'Muslim single mum gets free house in Buckinghamshire, 500k a month in benefits plus a life time supply of Tetley tea bags'. -Because we see THROUGH it. We know what they are trying to do. And I think the reason why people get riled by it is because so many people genuinely get taken in by it and fall for the garbage because it's a national mainstream tabloid that is widely circulated and read by millions for 'news'. Not so dissimilar to The Sun..

    Now Page 3 could be viewed as wrongly placed titillation but I think it runs deeper in that it supports the builders wolf whistling at the lone girl walking to the shops, it endorses the chant 'get your tits out for the lads' and it has a special place in its heart for the 'cheeky' uncle pinching his niece's bum. Comparing Page 3 to a feature in Cosmo or Heat is not a compelling rebuttal. Stating 'what about this?' may work as a good diversion tactic for a little while but the issue at hand is Page 3. If you are truly up in arms about 'Torso of the Week' in a trashy magazine then start a new thread and I'll gladly agree with you.

    And it isn't sexist to suggest the fact that the majority of people against it in this thread are female speaks volumes about what is seen by others as a harmless issue and a bit of fun. Men will never get what it's like to be a woman. Sure- as humans we can empathise (as AR is so eloquently doing) but you can't actually fully 'get it', same as I cant fully 'get' the pain felt when kicked in the balls. It's just not gonna happen.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    We've already said it, but the topic was never about if women get harassed and how bad that is, nobody here disputed that. It was whether the certain page encourages is that and you don't have to be a woman to explain why it does or doesn't, so a person's sex is irrelevant for this argument.
    As far as I'm concerned, the fact that it probably does has been adequately demonstrated. But it was shown that it does because it's a mainstream magazine, and not because it shows women for no other reason than having people ogle them.

    One can say that such pictures in any magazine contribute to sexism, but if you try to ban them everywhere then you infringe on some people's rights, most notably the women who want to be in these photos but also the people who want to see them (a minority of which are sexist).
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    I dont disagree that it may be misplaced, but the actual content is no more sexist than Nuts, GQ, Razzle or Spearmint Rhino.
    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
    I think in the case of Page 3 - it's the overall combination that makes it worthy of special attention. Yes, there are comparisons that can be made with plenty of other stuff that's out there, but page 3 is unique in the combination of factors that it brings together.

    That's what makes it different to womens lifestyle mags/fhm, nuts/that breed of mens 'car' mags etc. They've all got company, and fall into a category and are pretty up front about what they are doing - Page 3 insists it's part of a daily newspaper.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In that case, you did mean that women should be allowed to pose with as many or as few clothes they want and have their photos published in a magazine.
    How could someone do that without the boobs being put there with the sole purpose of being looked at?

    If someone wants to pose with their kit off, fair enough. Who am I to tell them they can't? But keep it for adult consumption. Keep it in the right context. Like I keep saying, it's all about context.

    My concern is with kids growing up seeing images like that and letting it shape their view of themselves and of the world.

    And, pre-emptively, yes it does do that. A thread full of women and girls from all walks of life is telling you that it does.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Your comment that I replied to didn't include context. If it had, I wouldn't have had anything to say about it. You've clarified it now so that's fine.
    Kaff wrote: »
    My concern is with kids growing up seeing images like that and letting it shape their view of themselves and of the world.

    And, pre-emptively, yes it does do that. A thread full of women and girls from all walks of life is telling you that it does.
    Unless you can show how being a woman would make you more capable of knowing how people become sexist, your sex/gender is still irrelevant.

    At the same time, even if you keep this kind of thing in specialised magazines I feel pretty sure it won't stop teenagers from finding them, one way or another.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, it won't stop teenagers finding them - but it might plant the seed that there's a time and a place for it, rather than it being ok all the time.

    I don't think there's a suggestion that the female population can answer why people become sexist any better than the male - more that they've got a very different understanding of what the knock on effects of the implications made by page 3 are.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    No, it won't stop teenagers finding them - but it might plant the seed that there's a time and a place for it, rather than it being ok all the time.
    And I've agreed with this for a while now, do I have to keep repeating it?
    I don't think there's a suggestion that the female population can answer why people become sexist any better than the male - more that they've got a very different understanding of what the knock on effects of the implications made by page 3 are.
    Have any of the people who have discriminated against you mentioned page 3 as a reason? If not, how can you tell that it changed them for the worse in any way?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Caroline Lucas in Parliament said this,
    The government's own research shows that there is a link between the portrayal of women as sex objects in the media and greater acceptance of sexual harassment and violence against women.

    I am struggling to find a link to the research, but the PM's rebuttal didn't dispute its existence nor the findings she reports.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    piccolo wrote: »
    Caroline Lucas in Parliament said this,
    I am struggling to find a link to the research, but the PM's rebuttal didn't dispute its existence nor the findings she reports.
    It doesn't need research really, except to confirm it. Of course it would do that. But that's because people make a logical leap: From "It's ok to stare at women who have agreed to be stared at only because of how they look" to "Women only exist to look at and for sex". That leap is the main problem, unless we find a way to stop people making it sexism (or at least this expression of sexism) will still exist. Hiding these portrayals will alleviate the symptoms, but at the cost of causing inconvenience to people who aren't sexist at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hiding these portrayals will alleviate the symptoms, but at the cost of causing inconvenience to people who aren't sexist at all.

    In the cost-benefit analysis that seems a no-brainer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    I dont disagree that it may be misplaced, but the actual content is no more sexist than Nuts, GQ, Razzle or Spearmint Rhino.

    I disagree. As Kaff says, the more "specialist" magazines show that sex is a part of life but that there's a time and a place for it. Page Three, however, gives the impression that women should always be nothing more than sex objects.

    I don't see the point of Spearmint Rhino- I have a naked girl at home- but it's not the same issue at all. Strip clubs are frequented by consenting adults, for one thing, and they have special rules. They show that sex is a part of life, not an expectation.

    The context of page Three makes it worse than grot mags. Much worse.

    Indrid, what inconvenience? Making the poor menz have to look at norks on their phone- and be more discreet about it- instead?
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    piccolo wrote: »
    In the cost-benefit analysis that seems a no-brainer.
    In other words, you think that, in order to prevent some people use something as an excuse (not reason) to do inappropriate things, it's worth it to completely ban something that there's nothing inherently wrong with even if it benefits others, albeit not much?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think AR made the point earlier about 'News in Briefs'. Now it's no more :wave:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/06/good-riddance-news-briefs-nastiest-part-page-3
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In other words, you think that, in order to prevent some people use something as an excuse (not reason) to do inappropriate things, it's worth it to completely ban something that there's nothing inherently wrong with even if it benefits others, albeit not much?

    No, in order to stop reinforcing the idea that there's nothing inappropriate about it - it should be stopped (stopped rather than banned) because the benefit is minimal compared with the negative message it sends.

    You can't prove it with research, there's no cause and result, because we're talking about an underlying subconsicous thought process of society.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    odd-one-out.png
    Am I the only one who sees a common pattern between these three things (and others) but an odd one out for the proposed solution?

    And, just to make it clear: As I've said already, I agree that it should be removed from a mainstream publication. I'm addressing the point that it should be removed from everywhere. If you don't think it should be removed from everywhere, this post isn't addressed to you.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    You can't prove it with research, there's no cause and result, because we're talking about an underlying subconsicous thought process of society.

    So this is all speculation and theory then?
    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
    Yep.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In other words, you think that, in order to prevent some people use something as an excuse (not reason) to do inappropriate things, it's worth it to completely ban something that there's nothing inherently wrong with even if it benefits others, albeit not much?

    Did I say "ban"? No, I agree with the others that a ban on glamour modelling is inappopriate, but Page 3 is the wrong outlet.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you don't think it should be removed from everywhere, this post isn't addressed to you.

    :thumb: Noted!

    You're right, in your table, that a total ban would be disproportionate. I'm not sure anyone in this post is proposing that, though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The differentiation people are making between The Sun and Heat et al., PC Gamer or Motorcycle News seems to be pretty arbitrary to me. If the argument is against the negative effect of encountering material in everyday life which some less enlightened people use to validate their already negative views, then The Sun isn't some hyper-available publication while all the rest are behind bars in opaque packets. You walk in a newsagent and there are a whole host of magazines - not all of which are exclusively about naked women - using scantily clad women to advertise themselves/their products; you pick up PC Gamer and when you get it home there are semi-naked women holding microchips; MCN has them on the cover; you switch on the telly and it's hot girls advertising beer. I don't see why people are reticent to extend their condemnation of this phenomena if that's the position they hold.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    An interesting aside, a propos of nothing
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just wrote a wordy post and pressed the back button... oops :p.

    There is evidence that violent porn affects some (not all) men and makes them more likely to be sexually violent.

    There is no current research that I'm aware of that looks at either softcore pornography or glamour photography for any behavioural links.

    We still don't know whether page 3 is a cause, effect, or cause & effect of a culture of sexual predation.

    I think part of the objection to page 3 is who we feel the typical sun reader is, as well.

    I don't think I've argued that I either like Page 3 or that I'm a big supporter, and I hope people have realised what I feel about it.

    My viewpoint is, just because I don't like something, that's not a good enough reason for me - to feel that I should go around telling people it has to change. I don't even read the Sun! If there was some evidence, or even some well argued rhetoric, about why Page 3 specifically had to change - then great.

    Page 3 is on it's way out, mark my words. It will be gone. Media is a reflection of society, rather than society being a reflection of the media. The reason it's not going to go now, is because of the issue. Sun readers would feel they're being nannied by Guardian readers, so the Sun's editorial team will keep the feature for now. And afterall, controversy is good for readership (both the Sun and the Guardian readership - everyone wins!)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not doubting for one moment the amount of objectifying of women that goes on in the world. But in all these anti-page 3 campaigns I can't help wonder how much is down to insecurities.

    Anyway all this reminds me of when some female Portsmouth students posed naked and semi-naked for a charity calender then moaned and acted shocked when it turned out some of the pictures ended up on porn sites. The university had said "When the girls are told they are doing something for charity this is not the sort of thing you expect to happen".

    Really? Really?! :rolleyes:

    Then we hear stories like this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2251006/Its-porn-Student-Hettie-Reed-stripped-charity-calendar-defends-harmless-nudity.html

    I'm not dismissing anyone's opinions here but who the hell are us blokes supposed to be listening to? The women who are happy to do this sort of thing or the feminists who are arguing with them about it showing women as 'sex objects'?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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 rather than it really being about charity. It still suggests that a cause needs to be sexualised in order to get peoples attention - very much like the PETA ads you often see.
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.