Anti-Page-3 campaign

[3point14]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

I don't think the complain is that it's either/or, I think the complaint is that the brain is ignored unless it's wrapped in a flaunt-worthy body. I don't know much about the Sun, other than other people calling it a trash rag. The picture Duffy Moon posted gave me the impression that it is poking fun at the stereotype that men are only paying attention if she is showing her breasts.

I think I've expressed that badly. Let me try again.

Why is it those people born with exceptional brains are allowed to flaunt them for the entertainment of others and for financial gain and are lauded for it whereas those born with exceptional bodies are frowned upon when they flaunt those bodies and try to use them for financial gain?

See also terrific hand eye coordination and raw physical strength.

[GlennB]

Way back, a feisty woman at my workplace (offices) got fed up with the girlie calendars dotted all around the place and stuck up provocative pics of hunky, handsome and (obviously) well-hung men.

It took about 10 nanoseconds before all such stuff was banned by management on the goose v. gander principle.

Just sayin ...

[Didaktylos]

Originally Posted by Multivac

Thought it was already in the sewer.

It was - but the sewer had it evicted for lowering the tone of the place ...

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by 3point14

I think I've expressed that badly. Let me try again.

Why is it those people born with exceptional brains are allowed to flaunt them for the entertainment of others and for financial gain and are lauded for it whereas those born with exceptional bodies are frowned upon when they flaunt those bodies and try to use them for financial gain?

See also terrific hand eye coordination and raw physical strength.

That's a good question. Admittedly, with my negative reaction to women flaunting their bodies, no amount of rationalization gets me around the fact that it's pure jealousy. I can't find a single moral high ground that makes a beautiful woman flaunting her body, negative without invoking my personal feelings.

It is, however, still a different subject from the complaint in the OP. Her complaint has to do with the Sun's choice to promote breasts and possibly the public's appreciation of breasts, rather than the individual's choice to flaunt them. The two subjects do tend to overlap and I think the topic of your question is what the woman from the OP overlooks; it's the model's personal choice and right to pose and be looked at for her breasts that underminds the woman's complaint.

[BrewnSki]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

A naked woman, sitting in a helicopter, eating bacon, while discussing astrophysics?

My very attractive fiancée is a high energy astrophysicist, and loves bacon. Unfortunately we don't own a helicopter so I can't really comment.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

Just to be quite clearm this is not Lucy Anne Holmes (the real one with the wiki page), singer. actress. writer, director, and Kylie Minogue impersonator.

This is Lucy-Anne Holmes who has a facebook called lucyanneholmes.co.uk, a little known English-language internet. (according to http://www.webwiki.com/lucyanneholmes.co.uk)

Imagine my chagrin when I punched Lucy Anne Holmes into google images and was confronted with pictures of some hottie objectifying herself for fame and money. After a bunch of laughing, I got down to some serious oogling then that rational part of my brain piped up in the background, saying, this can't be right.

Some more clicks, facebook was in there, then I land on this blog. and after more time than I'd care to publicly admit to spending on it, I came away with Napoleon XIV singing a medley of their hit in my head.

Originally I was thinking that LAH was a recent emigrated to the UK from some far off amazon island where they'd never heard of page three ( or at least wondered what Mark Knopfler was on about in the song Industrial Disease ) but as soon as I heard her accent I began to question the whole story about picking up a copy of The Sun and, apparently, just noticing page three.

So now I'm thinking this is just some sort of therapeutic plea for attention. A way to further a public persona and career perhaps ?

So here's the deal, Lucy. Feminists keep telling men that they're not women and can not possibly know what women are thinking by virtue of not being a woman. If that's the feminist viewpoint you going to accept then you must be aware that there's some truth to the converse as well and quite possibly, your feminist stance is rooted in error.

What do you mean Stout ? Did you have stout for breakfast again ?

Here we have feminist Naomi Wolfe Andrea Dworkin...saying Dworkin was wrong about porn and how men think.

Dworkin tells us that porn is going to turn men into rape-monsters, ten years later we have Wolf telling us that porn is turning men into the opposite, that they'll all be staying home with their monitors, dating Mrs palm and her five daughters.

Here we are, a decade or so after that Wolf article was written and where are we ? Are women screaming that men won't date them, that men won't have sex with them because men don't have to drive porn home afterwards ?

Heck no.

So, Lucy, take it from me, a man, here's the secret. Men can simultaneously treat a woman with respect and think about her boobs at the same time. It's biological, we're hard wired that way, sorry, it's reality, deal with it.

Oh, you say, "that's not what I learned when I was getting my graduate degree in sociology". " They taught us that men were socially/culturally conditioned to find women attractive and want to have sex with them." "Patriarchy !!!" "awwwwk"

Well why then do you think women evolved breasts ? I mean they're pretty useless right ? we know that breast size has noting to do with milk production so they couldn't have evolved for that reason. Just what is the intended purpose of the funbags then if not to tittivate men ?

Awesome logic Mr. Stout, thank you.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Duffy Moon

Indeed.

Here's lovely Danni commenting on this year's scientific breakthrough:

http://i48.tinypic.com/2s1qil2.jpg


Fun fact - Lovely Danni is a local girl.
A workmate sees her in the pub from time to time.
"She can't string a sentence together" he notes, suggesting that her knowledge of particle physics might not be as extensive as we once believed.

Dsnni Ashe I tend to presume.......?

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Stout

Imagine my chagrin when I punched Lucy Anne Holmes into google images and was confronted with pictures of some hottie objectifying herself for fame and money. After a bunch of laughing, I got down to some serious oogling then that rational part of my brain piped up in the background, saying, this can't be right.

Some more clicks, facebook was in there, then I land on this blog. and after more time than I'd care to publicly admit to spending on it, I came away with Napoleon XIV singing a medley of their hit in my head.

Originally I was thinking that LAH was a recent emigrated to the UK from some far off amazon island where they'd never heard of page three ( or at least wondered what Mark Knopfler was on about in the song Industrial Disease ) but as soon as I heard her accent I began to question the whole story about picking up a copy of The Sun and, apparently, just noticing page three.

So now I'm thinking this is just some sort of therapeutic plea for attention. A way to further a public persona and career perhaps ?

So here's the deal, Lucy. Feminists keep telling men that they're not women and can not possibly know what women are thinking by virtue of not being a woman. If that's the feminist viewpoint you going to accept then you must be aware that there's some truth to the converse as well and quite possibly, your feminist stance is rooted in error.

What do you mean Stout ? Did you have stout for breakfast again ?

Here we have feminist Naomi Wolfe Andrea Dworkin...saying Dworkin was wrong about porn and how men think.

Dworkin tells us that porn is going to turn men into rape-monsters, ten years later we have Wolf telling us that porn is turning men into the opposite, that they'll all be staying home with their monitors, dating Mrs palm and her five daughters.

Here we are, a decade or so after that Wolf article was written and where are we ? Are women screaming that men won't date them, that men won't have sex with them because men don't have to drive porn home afterwards ?

Heck no.

So, Lucy, take it from me, a man, here's the secret. Men can simultaneously treat a woman with respect and think about her boobs at the same time. It's biological, we're hard wired that way, sorry, it's reality, deal with it.

Oh, you say, "that's not what I learned when I was getting my graduate degree in sociology". " They taught us that men were socially/culturally conditioned to find women attractive and want to have sex with them." "Patriarchy !!!" "awwwwk"

Well why then do you think women evolved breasts ? I mean they're pretty useless right ? we know that breast size has noting to do with milk production so they couldn't have evolved for that reason. Just what is the intended purpose of the funbags then if not to tittivate men ?

Awesome logic Mr. Stout, thank you.

May I be the first to ask, "What are you on about?" What does Men's Rights 101 have to do with whether or not titties belong on page 3 of a purported newspaper?

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Stout

Imagine my chagrin when I punched Lucy Anne Holmes into google images and was confronted with pictures of some hottie objectifying herself for fame and money. After a bunch of laughing, I got down to some serious oogling then that rational part of my brain piped up in the background, saying, this can't be right.

Some more clicks, facebook was in there, then I land on this blog. and after more time than I'd care to publicly admit to spending on it, I came away with Napoleon XIV singing a medley of their hit in my head.

Originally I was thinking that LAH was a recent emigrated to the UK from some far off amazon island where they'd never heard of page three ( or at least wondered what Mark Knopfler was on about in the song Industrial Disease ) but as soon as I heard her accent I began to question the whole story about picking up a copy of The Sun and, apparently, just noticing page three.

So now I'm thinking this is just some sort of therapeutic plea for attention. A way to further a public persona and career perhaps ?

So here's the deal, Lucy. Feminists keep telling men that they're not women and can not possibly know what women are thinking by virtue of not being a woman. If that's the feminist viewpoint you going to accept then you must be aware that there's some truth to the converse as well and quite possibly, your feminist stance is rooted in error.

What do you mean Stout ? Did you have stout for breakfast again ?

Here we have feminist Naomi Wolfe Andrea Dworkin...saying Dworkin was wrong about porn and how men think.

Dworkin tells us that porn is going to turn men into rape-monsters, ten years later we have Wolf telling us that porn is turning men into the opposite, that they'll all be staying home with their monitors, dating Mrs palm and her five daughters.

Here we are, a decade or so after that Wolf article was written and where are we ? Are women screaming that men won't date them, that men won't have sex with them because men don't have to drive porn home afterwards ?

Heck no.

So, Lucy, take it from me, a man, here's the secret. Men can simultaneously treat a woman with respect and think about her boobs at the same time. It's biological, we're hard wired that way, sorry, it's reality, deal with it.

Oh, you say, "that's not what I learned when I was getting my graduate degree in sociology". " They taught us that men were socially/culturally conditioned to find women attractive and want to have sex with them." "Patriarchy !!!" "awwwwk"

Well why then do you think women evolved breasts ? I mean they're pretty useless right ? we know that breast size has noting to do with milk production so they couldn't have evolved for that reason. Just what is the intended purpose of the funbags then if not to tittivate men ?

Awesome logic Mr. Stout, thank you.

Reminded me of this.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

May I be the first to ask, "What are you on about?" What does Men's Rights 101 have to do with whether or not titties belong on page 3 of a purported newspaper?

Seems to me he's raising a reasonable point, these effects have been claimed and don't seem to have come to pass.

The Sun's depressingly high circulation certainly suggests there's a market for it and there's considerable competition to become a Page 3 girl so I don't think anyone is being coerced into appearing. Look around the world at the moment at the countries where scantily clad women (and men for that matter) can appear on billboards, magazine covers, car shows etc and those countries where they can't and ask yourself which ones you'd rather be a woman in?

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Seems to me he's raising a reasonable point, these effects have been claimed and don't seem to have come to pass.

The Sun's depressingly high circulation certainly suggests there's a market for it and there's considerable competition to become a Page 3 girl so I don't think anyone is being coerced into appearing. Look around the world at the moment at the countries where scantily clad women (and men for that matter) can appear on billboards, magazine covers, car shows etc and those countries where they can't and ask yourself which ones you'd rather be a woman in?

It's thread drift to the point of derailment. There are numerous other Men's Rights threads out there. Is anyone denying that some people are attracted to boobs? Or that people who are attracted to a specific gender find great bodies of that particular gender to be attractive? I haven't seen any such claim, so his entire post is a strawman.

I kinda thought that the discussion was whether or not the Page 3 gimmick belongs in with the "hard" news, and whether or not its inclusion in the Star is indicative of a "Cor, check out the headlights on that babe!" mentality and fostering same.

I loves me some women. I do not see fit to express that admiration to my friends or passersby every time an attractive or shapely woman passes by. I do not watch the evening news hoping that Katie will flash a little nipple, nor do I expect to be reading about the dispute on council assessments in Fromleigh on Floof. The inclusion of the busty babe on Page 3 is the Star's way of saying, "Look, you lot. We know you're too thick to actually get anything deeper than Benny Hill, but we want you to buy a paper, so here's some tits to distract you."

Again, I realize it's a silly discussion because it's the Star, but maybe it's a good thing that she's starting this campaign. The Star's male readers are the least likely to give a crap about the campaign but maybe their wives and daughters and girlfriends will wake up. It's gratuitous flesh-peddling.

[DrDave]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

It's thread drift to the point of derailment. There are numerous other Men's Rights threads out there. Is anyone denying that some people are attracted to boobs? Or that people who are attracted to a specific gender find great bodies of that particular gender to be attractive? I haven't seen any such claim, so his entire post is a strawman.

I kinda thought that the discussion was whether or not the Page 3 gimmick belongs in with the "hard" news, and whether or not its inclusion in the Star is indicative of a "Cor, check out the headlights on that babe!" mentality and fostering same.

I loves me some women. I do not see fit to express that admiration to my friends or passersby every time an attractive or shapely woman passes by. I do not watch the evening news hoping that Katie will flash a little nipple, nor do I expect to be reading about the dispute on council assessments in Fromleigh on Floof. The inclusion of the busty babe on Page 3 is the Star's way of saying, "Look, you lot. We know you're too thick to actually get anything deeper than Benny Hill, but we want you to buy a paper, so here's some tits to distract you."

Again, I realize it's a silly discussion because it's the Star, but maybe it's a good thing that she's starting this campaign. The Star's male readers are the least likely to give a crap about the campaign but maybe their wives and daughters and girlfriends will wake up. It's gratuitous flesh-peddling.

I think you mean The Sun, The Star puts their topless ladies on page 5

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by DrDave

I think you mean The Sun, The Star puts their topless ladies on page 5

Yeah, the Sun. I'll leave it in the post - peeple make mistakes.

[3point14]

To be fair, "gratuitous flesh-peddling" could apply to the advertising industry, the sports industry, the fashion industry and any number of other industries that use scantily dressed men and women to make their product more appealing.

And anyway it's not boobs that cause the problem is it? It's nipples. Ask Janet.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

It's thread drift to the point of derailment. There are numerous other Men's Rights threads out there. Is anyone denying that some people are attracted to boobs? Or that people who are attracted to a specific gender find great bodies of that particular gender to be attractive? I haven't seen any such claim, so his entire post is a strawman.

I kinda thought that the discussion was whether or not the Page 3 gimmick belongs in with the "hard" news, and whether or not its inclusion in the Star is indicative of a "Cor, check out the headlights on that babe!" mentality and fostering same.

I loves me some women. I do not see fit to express that admiration to my friends or passersby every time an attractive or shapely woman passes by. I do not watch the evening news hoping that Katie will flash a little nipple, nor do I expect to be reading about the dispute on council assessments in Fromleigh on Floof. The inclusion of the busty babe on Page 3 is the Star's way of saying, "Look, you lot. We know you're too thick to actually get anything deeper than Benny Hill, but we want you to buy a paper, so here's some tits to distract you."

Again, I realize it's a silly discussion because it's the Star, but maybe it's a good thing that she's starting this campaign. The Star's male readers are the least likely to give a crap about the campaign but maybe their wives and daughters and girlfriends will wake up. It's gratuitous flesh-peddling.

Actually, I'd say that refering to either the Sun or the Star as 'hard news' is thread drift! I don't know how questioning if the proported negative effects of page three is derailment either.

The Sun has a very wide readership, my elderly mother buys it every day as she has throughout my lifetime as does my employer (an international software company) for the staff break room. It's not my paper of choice but it's it's availability during my teenage years was probably an influence.... The Sun isn't Newsnight, it's more like a daily entertainment magazine with some news in it as well and anyone who buys it regularly knows this.

Quote:

I do not see fit to express that admiration to my friends or passersby every time an attractive or shapely woman passes by.

Well done, me neither, funny thing is that everything I hear suggests that this kind of behaviour is more prevalent in countries where page 3 wouldn't be acceptable than those where it (more or less) would.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Really? You never noticed that the male libido responds to different sexual stimuli, and responds differently to stimuli, than the female libido?

It really never occurred to you that after several thousand (ten thousand? hundred thousand?) years of gender differences, civil society has evolved some fairly predictable conventions and taboos that take into account those differences?

I mean, I dunno, maybe it's your idea of a comedy routine, to play the ignoramus who doesn't see that men and women are different? Some kind of Jerry Seinfeld schtick maybe? "What is the deal with women and makeup?"

Something like that?

Strongly disagree. Some societies have such nudity prohibitions and many don't. You seem to be arguing from your/our cultural norms as if they are somehow the "right" norms?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

I would hope it wouldn't be news to anyone but newspapers exist, and have existed for a long time, in order to entertain. Yes, they're supposed to inform along the way but the bottom line is the bottom line and if people don't enjoy a newspaper they won't buy it. I would think that if Page 3 attracts even a few who wouldn't otherwise pick up a newspaper - even The Sun - then it should be worth it, even if it irritates those sensitive souls that have never seen a breast before..

Also, there are still newspapers?

I'd say most exist in order to make money for the owners.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

It's thread drift to the point of derailment. There are numerous other Men's Rights threads out there. Is anyone denying that some people are attracted to boobs? Or that people who are attracted to a specific gender find great bodies of that particular gender to be attractive? I haven't seen any such claim, so his entire post is a strawman.

I kinda thought that the discussion was whether or not the Page 3 gimmick belongs in with the "hard" news, and whether or not its inclusion in the Star is indicative of a "Cor, check out the headlights on that babe!" mentality and fostering same.

My post wasn't even close to an MRA derailment, nor was it a strawman. My whole point was that men can be biologically attracted to women and still respect them as people which runs contrary to feminist analysis that the two are mutually exclusive.

Feel free to attack that idea.

The issue at hand has nothing to do with the location of the picture, and everything to to with it's existence and effects percieved effects on the male psyche.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Again, I realize it's a silly discussion because it's the Star, but maybe it's a good thing that she's starting this campaign. The Star's male readers are the least likely to give a crap about the campaign but maybe their wives and daughters and girlfriends will wake up. It's gratuitous flesh-peddling.

If you don't mind me asking; wake up to what?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Really? You never noticed that the male libido responds to different sexual stimuli, and responds differently to stimuli, than the female libido?

...

I obviously have been with some very atypical women...

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

It's gratuitous flesh-peddling.

Maybe so, but the models want to do it, are paid and may even become quite famous, the photographer wants to do it, the paper wants to do it and the buyers want to buy it. Unless you can demonstrate some kind of harm associated with it I don't see that it is worse in any way than the political slant, non-news and celebrity ******** that fills the rest of the paper.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I obviously have been with some very atypical women...

Well, if they got erections in response to sexual stimuli then I think someone needs have a little talk.....

[3point14]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I obviously have been with some very atypical women...

The 'woman respond to different sexual stimuli to men' meme is pretty powerful.

I have some anecdotal evidence that counters it, but none of you want to hear that.

Bottom line is that I don't think there's the data to garner an accurate impression either way.

The 'women aren't visual/don't watch pornography' thing certainly isn't true for all, if not most, women.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by 3point14

The 'woman respond to different sexual stimuli to men' meme is pretty powerful.

I have some anecdotal evidence that counters it, but none of you want to hear that.

Bottom line is that I don't think there's the data to garner an accurate impression either way.

The 'women aren't visual/don't watch pornography' thing certainly isn't true for all, if not most, women.

And even if it were it wouldn't follow that page three bad, fifty shades good of course.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Well, if they got erections in response to sexual stimuli then I think someone needs have a little talk.....

Perhaps you need the talk. There is a little part of the female area that does get engourged in response to stimuli... just sayin

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

And even if it were it wouldn't follow that page three bad, fifty shades good of course.

Of course. There is nothing in the known, or any conceivable universe that could make 50 shades good.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Perhaps you need the talk. There is a little part of the female area that does get engourged in response to stimuli... just sayin

Damn, I'm burned but good!

Perhaps I should have added 'that you could see through their jeans'.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

Of course. There is nothing in the known, or any conceivable universe that could make 50 shades good.

Oh no, I have to disagree with that.

It has any number of uses. Emegency firelighter, emergency loo roll. You could probably even use it as cigarette papers in a pinch.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I obviously have been with some very atypical women...

Or someone is not that well informed about women. If folks want to know how much and how often women think of sex pick up some "romance" novels or any of the current splurge of so-called supernatural books aimed at women. Absolutely full of sex, every bloke in the book will be judged on how he looks and how much the female protagonist wants to shag him!

[sackett]

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

I still can't figure out why womens chests need to be covered up, and mens chests don't.

Some men's chests should be.

Not MINE, of course.

[sol]

Originally Posted by amensae

Well, I guess we know who has a profound emotional and intellectual impairment.

you dont know how right you are.

[Stomatopoda]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Damn, I'm burned but good!

Perhaps I should have added 'that you could see through their jeans'.

So... women and obese men would be in the same category?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Perhaps you need the talk. There is a little part of the female area that does get engourged in response to stimuli... just sayin

And sometimes quite a lot of engorgement results. Usually internally, but sometimes not.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by Stout

Well why then do you think women evolved breasts ? I mean they're pretty useless right ? we know that breast size has noting to do with milk production so they couldn't have evolved for that reason. Just what is the intended purpose of the funbags then if not to tittivate men ?

Because humans have so flat faces compared to other primates, the breasts evolved that way so we don't suffocate our babies when breastfeeding them.

Not all cultures are so sexually obsessed with breasts as yours is.

[Stomatopoda]

Asking why anything evolved anything shows a complete lack of understanding of evolution, anyway.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Because humans have so flat faces compared to other primates, the breasts evolved that way so we don't suffocate our babies when breastfeeding them.

Not all cultures are so sexually obsessed with breasts as yours is.

Interesting, yet other primate breasts only swell when breastfeeding while human breasts are swollen all the time. One theory among many I suppose.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by Stout

Interesting, yet other primate breasts only swell when breastfeeding while human breasts are swollen all the time. One theory among many I suppose.

What are the other theories, then?

[Shrike]

Page 3 of this thread has a disappointing lack of boobs

[KDLarsen]

Originally Posted by Darat

Or someone is not that well informed about women. If folks want to know how much and how often women think of sex pick up some "romance" novels or any of the current splurge of so-called supernatural books aimed at women. Absolutely full of sex, every bloke in the book will be judged on how he looks and how much the female protagonist wants to shag him!

.. but enough about the Twilight-series.

(which, if the "the readers will copy everything they read"-theory is anything go by, should churn out some very messed up young adults...)

[fuelair]

and. pretty pathetic and uninformed horror fans........