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
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?
I see women hitting the town on a friday and saturday night scantily clad, whats the difference appearing in a paper scantily clad?
Go tell the NMC that.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
In the cost-benefit analysis that seems a no-brainer.
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?
http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/06/good-riddance-news-briefs-nastiest-part-page-3
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.
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.
So this is all speculation and theory then?
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.
: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.
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!)
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'?
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.