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.
Options
No to Page 3
**helen**
Deactivated Posts: 9,235 Supreme Poster
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:
:chin:
0
Comments
" 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 "
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?
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.
Anyone who wants the paper but isn't interested can simply ignore it.
Family paper and all that.
The point is more this kind of thing belongs in top shelf magazines, not a 'family newspaper' (if the Sun can be called that).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.