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
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
Also, yes, CCH asks a good question.
Personally I'm not bothered by 'silent gawping' as long as they're not blatantly staring and looking me up and down - that's when it starts to get a bit creepy. Otherwise I don't really notice. People are going to look and have an opinion, that's life. But acting on it is very different, that's what people have a problem with. You can look and think what you like, so that's why I find it hard to understand some peoples need to act on it by cat calling and so on.
An no Indrid, it's not the same as removing references to sex from normal society. Not at all, in the slightest. I think you're missing the importance of the implication. It may be fine in your world if you think in a very black and white manner - but to most people the context of their surroundings influences their thought processes.
Sex is consensual, rape isn't. Looking at photos of women in a magazine is concensual, "gawping" at ones in the street isn't.
How do the photos promote gawping, when speaking about sex doesn't promote rape?
About the black-and-white thing... It's strange, I often have the impression that eveyone is seeing in greyscale while I can notice colours.
Putting pictures into a newspaper that are there for the express purpose of gawping, as part of a standard daily routine - gives an implication that gawping is ok.
Yes, there is a difference between doing it over the pictures in the paper that are consenual and to passers by in the street who aren't - but the subliminal message is still being put across by the paper that gawping is ok. It doesn't come with big warnings that this is only ok under some circumstances - it implies that it's ok all round. By being in a normal, all round circulating item of the press. When you put those gawpy pictures in specialist magazines it makes the point that there are suitable and unsuitable places/times/people for it. Being in general circulation doesn't give over the same message.
Accepting the above as true, I don't think I have any more objections to the idea. Thanks.
It seems to me that the problem is there are people out there who have an unhealthy attitude towards people of the opposite sex. And this moral sickness manifests in a whole host of ways. e.g. quietly pervasive ways in the workplace or in crass, intimidating ways in the street. I'm in complete agreement that there's no place for this in a modern and progressive society. And I also think we should educate people in order to eradicate this behaviour.
What I do question is whether censoring Page 3 is a effective use of our time in this pursuit - or whether it's even required. It feels like taking alcohol off sale because there are alcoholics or indeed asking supermarkets not to sell it as alcoholics exist. It smacks of keeping the whole class behind. The problem is people who have a shitty attitude towards the opposite sex. And these people will find reinforcement for their attitude - as we all fall foul to confirmation bias - from every corner of their life. A stronger focus on gender equality in schools might be a far more effective approach.
There does seem contention over the actual harm caused by page 3, but from a quick Google there aren't any authoritative sources just lots of opinions. Certainly page 3 is connected to a harmful wider eco system of objectification, but could page three still exist outside of that? Is page three the problem? If we moved to a perfect world where everyone was happy, could a form of page three exist for people who enjoy looking good at the female form?
To give an analogy, mars bars are part of a junk food eco system that contributes to obesity and a national health crisis. Can we fix the problem and still have mars bars? Or do mars bars need to go to fix the problem? Parents complain that their children might eat mars bars and have health problems because of that. Mars bars are, after all, in every shop up and down the country. And obesity is a really bad thing. I'd insert a long list why it's bad, but I think you guys already know.
You are vaguely aware that Rosie in accounts has a life and a job and a USE. That you simply think she looks fit as she goes about it is fine! That's what humans do. If you walk down the street and see a pretty girl going about her business and think she has nice legs or a great set of tits, that's ok too - I'm not sure anyone would have a problem there, obviously so long as you are not making comments or staring too much.
The main problem I have is not that the men are looking at the boobs. It's that the boobs have been put there with the sole purpose of being looked at. It is the presenting of a topless girl for ogling as if she has no other purpose. That is the problem.
Is it much different than someone who writes an article on a film? That person is being presented as if they have no other purpose than commenting on films.
But does page three directly imply that the model has no value other than her boobs? I don't know, and I'm not sure why it's been asserted repeatedly because it does seem to be a tenuous conclusion. I just haven't seen a compelling argument for that thus far.
Do you genuinely not recognise a difference between having a talent and looking good?
I remember in year 8, (so, about 12/13) a lot of the boys would talk about Page 3. Yes, I know they're teenagers, (or about to be) but how is that ok?
Agreed
My sister works weekends as a lap dancer. She makes a lot of money from being objectified and it might shock some of you to know she generally enjoys it.
She's also a nurse and doing an open university degree in psychology.
Is page three sexist? I don't think so. Should there be tits on show in a mainstream tabloid accessible to kids, i'm not so sure.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jun/26/sun-page-3-topless-women-david-dinsmore
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.
Their bottom line is much more affected by the headline they use on the front page than the quality of the articles. You don't expect an undercover sting to blow the lid of a secret spy operation, you expect Jeremy Clarkson moaning about Europeans trying to stop him driving his car by a green tax. It's just entertainment.
I suspect the boobs thing might be something they would eventually phase out to draw in a wider audience (i can't imagine there's many who buy for page three alone) but the campaign against it puts a line in the sand. The Sun readers who are for keeping page 3 (with a mix of men and women) would be very annoyed if it was removed. As an editor the obligation presumably is to pander to the readers. If anything the publicity is good for business. People who weren't going to buy still aren't going to buy, people who might have bought (all newspapers are losing readership year on year - it's a dying medium) previously may buy again in support of the supposed fight for boobs.
Like the greggs pasty tax. Nobody cares if greggs goes up by 15p. Everyone cares if it's a political issues or they're taking away our pasties / boobs.
This is a central point to me. I can look at Rosie in accounts - someone I don't know personally - and admire her form. I am aware she is a person. I look at Page 3, admire her form and am similarly aware she's a person. I've never looked at a sexy picture and thought "this person has no intrinsic values other than her body". And if I did, I struggle to see that the picture is the issue.
Do you not recognise that looking good can be a product of hard work, determination, awareness of style and sacrifice? A talent, if you will.
I don't think that this means they shouldn't use it, however.
Awareness of style aside (and it's largely irrelevant in the case of naked (or near enough) women), none of those constitute talent. I could spend hours working on my singing voice and I'd still be crap because I have no natural affinity for it. You just have to look at half the X Factor contestants to realise that.
As a point of interest, I thought this might be relevant here:
http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/06/male-sexuality/
It's interesting you raise this, my final year project on feminism is accounting actually talked about the issue of women not being allowed to embrace their femininity or the embodiment of it. E.g. If you look sexy in the office you are not taken seriously.
The concern there was, why should a woman have to play by a man's rule that she has to dress impeccably and can't be overtly sexy. It's almost as if as soon as a woman is acknowledged as having a physical being, her other values are ignored.
Rather than encouraging women to dress more and more conservatively, my view would be the opposite: that men and women should learn to take women seriously regardless of how sexy or not they are. The current status quo is that to be successful a woman has to act and dress like a man. Don't get pregnant. Don't cry. Be ruthless. Stay out late.
If Margaret Thatcher was ever seen naked she would be immediately discredited. Thus is the ethos that many see a woman naked and reduce her (women do this too) to a simple object with no value. The solution is not to stop showing nudity, but have more of it and tell people to deal with the fact that a woman can be brilliant and smoking hot, not one or the other.
No, that is not at all what I am saying. I am trying to simplify my point to make it clearer, but it seems to be getting taken further away from what I actually mean. My problem is with the presenting. The Sun is doing the presenting, therefore my problem is with The Sun. Absolutely nowhere did I blame the women in the shots.
I said somewhere pages ago that it is all about context. Specialised magazines are irrelevant. My three-year-old is not likely to casually stumble across a porn mag, or even a copy of Nuts. But I'm betting no one would think twice about her picking up a daily newspaper. My in-laws regularly bring a copy round to our house. It magically finds its way into the recycling box.
ETA: ok, it took me so long to write that that Arctic Roll said everything I wanted to first, and better than I did. What he said.
What you said that I was referring to is this: Assume that you didn't mean what I thought you meant. 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?
Your example of singing is an interesting one. I've a friend who teaches acting and signing and they say it's perfectly possible to train your voice to be better. But this is besides the point. I'm not denying that some people are naturally better looking than others, that would be absurd. But if you're telling me that you can't be lauded for putting the effort in to eat right, exercise, dress well and generally take care of yourself, then I think you've a very narrow view of talent. I don't think the only things that can regarded as talent are latent abilities.
Essentially, what this is leading to is Fiend's sketchy idea of it being fine to ogle a topless chess champion who's put in the hard work to learn their craft but it's not to ogle a Page 3 model who's expended effort and time and made sacrifices to look good.