Anti-Page-3 campaign

Puppycow · 19th December 2012, 06:22 PM

Or, because I don't want to see it, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to see it either.

British Tabloids Face Pressure Over Page 3

Quote:

LONDON — Lucy Holmes finally lost patience with Britain’s best-selling newspaper, The Sun, when she bought it to read about the Olympics last summer and discovered that the biggest picture of a woman inside was not a triumphant athlete but a young model wearing just her underpants, captioned “Emily from Warrington.”

Suddenly enraged by something that has been a constant feature of British life since 1970, she created the No More Page 3 campaign, dedicated to persuading The Sun to drop the topless images of young women on Page 3.

. . .

Ms. Holmes finds it hard to explain why bare breasts are still integral to The Sun, which is bought by 2.7 million people every day, remarking with genuine bemusement: “Boobs are not news.”

“Men don’t actually need to see young women’s nipples in order to learn about the news. Every man I’ve ever met has managed to get through The Six O’Clock News without them. And really if there was a desperate need for a nipple, well... we have the Internet now,” she argues on her campaign blog. “Page 3 has created a ‘Cor, look at the tits on that’ culture that I think is really problematic.”

Ms. Holmes says she is “not versed in feminist campaigning,” but for the past four months, she has all but abandoned her previous work as an actor and writer, pouring her energy instead into composing passionate letters and video appeals to The Sun’s editor, Dominic Mohan, attempting to persuade him that it is time to stop publishing topless images. She has had no reply but is gathering much support from elsewhere, and she now has more than 61,000 petition signatures.

Here's a novel suggestion: BUY A DIFFERENT BLEEDING NEWSPAPER!
Are there no tits-free newspapers in Britain?

lionking · 19th December 2012, 06:25 PM

Does Ms Holmes realises that this protest will have exactly the opposite result she is looking for?

Monketey Ghost · 19th December 2012, 06:34 PM

Cor, look at the tits on me!

amensae · 19th December 2012, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Or, because I don't want to see it, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to see it either.

You are allowed to see naked torsos. So far as I know, there are no laws stopping you. If public pressure is put on a newspaper to stop publishing photos of naked torsos, that has nothing to do with your right to see them.
It’s the “free speech” fallacy. Your right to free speech does not mean society has to accommodate your right.

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Here's a novel suggestion: BUY A DIFFERENT BLEEDING NEWSPAPER!
Are there no tits-free newspapers in Britain?

Here’s a not-so-novel idea: People are allowed to protest about issues that don’t affect them directly. You don’t have to be poor to protest against poverty. You don’t have to own a pet to campaign against cruelty to pets. Etcetera.

Originally Posted by lionking

Does Ms Holmes realises that this protest will have exactly the opposite result she is looking for?

Really? What an odd thing to say.

lionking · 19th December 2012, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by amensae

Really? What an odd thing to say.

We're talking the Sun. What do you reckon, they will say after 40 years "oh good point, we'll just piss off our readership and stop our page 3 girls" or "you beaut, we'll put another one on page 4 just to get more outrage". My money's on the latter.

amensae · 19th December 2012, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

We're talking the Sun. What do you reckon, they will say after 40 years "oh good point, we'll just piss off our readership and stop our page 3 girls" or "you beaut, we'll put another one on page 4 just to get more outrage". My money's on the latter.

I get your point. And certainly, if any rag can ooze from the gutter into the sewer, it would be the Sun.

kerikiwi · 19th December 2012, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

We're talking the Sun. What do you reckon, they will say after 40 years "oh good point, we'll just piss off our readership and stop our page 3 girls" or "you beaut, we'll put another one on page 4 just to get more outrage". My money's on the latter.

Quite possibly. Is that a valid reason to not protest?
Slavery went on for a good long time...

sol · 19th December 2012, 07:15 PM

Well i guess we know who has ugly nipples.

lionking · 19th December 2012, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Quite possibly. Is that a valid reason to not protest?
Slavery went on for a good long time...

I'm saying you pick your targets. The Sun is best ignored.

amensae · 19th December 2012, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by sol

Well i guess we know who has ugly nipples.

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

Sam.I.Am · 19th December 2012, 07:23 PM

We used to love getting The Sun when we were in Scotland and it had absolutely nothing to do with the news that it may or may not have contained inside. Hey, what did you expect from a bunch of guys crowded into a steel tube anyway.

ehcks · 19th December 2012, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Quite possibly. Is that a valid reason to not protest?
Slavery went on for a good long time...

Uh... showing skin is like slavery now?

Please oh please just be my misunderstanding.

Sledge · 19th December 2012, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Ms. Holmes finds it hard to explain why bare breasts are still integral to The Sun

Because people like them. I wonder if she can explain what her problem is, other than "Boobs are not news"? Seems a fairly pointless criticism of The Sun, most of the crap in it isn't "news."

Sam.I.Am · 19th December 2012, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Sledge

Because people like them. I wonder if she can explain what her problem is, other than "

"? Seems a fairly pointless criticism of The Sun, most of the crap in it isn't "news."

Tell Janet Jackson that...

arthwollipot · 19th December 2012, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Or, because I don't want to see it, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to see it either.

Except that's not what she's saying.

She's saying “Page 3 has created a ‘Cor, look at the tits on that’ culture that I think is really problematic.” [source]

Her point is that page 3 has contributed to a culture where it's considered normal and appropriate to judge women based solely upon their physical attributes and secondary sexual characteristics - where the worth of a woman is based on whether you'd "do" her or not. And that this is problematic.

Ambrosia · 19th December 2012, 07:47 PM

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

theprestige · 19th December 2012, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

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

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?

Stout · 19th December 2012, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

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

Women don't need to be covered up in Canada. There was a big hullabaloo about topfreedom and it was decided, women could be topless.

I never see it outside of things like the world naked bike ride.

pity.

kerikiwi · 19th December 2012, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by ehcks

Uh... showing skin is like slavery now?

Please oh please just be my misunderstanding.

Completely your misunderstanding.
The point was that the fact that something has been going on for a long time is not a valid reason to refrain from protesting against it.

fuelair · 19th December 2012, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Or, because I don't want to see it, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to see it either.

British Tabloids Face Pressure Over Page 3

Here's a novel suggestion: BUY A DIFFERENT BLEEDING NEWSPAPER!
Are there no tits-free newspapers in Britain?

They can take away my Page 3 when they can pry it from my cold, dead hands!!!!

fuelair · 19th December 2012, 08:23 PM

And I don't even live in England!! But Page 3(s) are a ruddy institution!!!

GrouchoMarxist · 19th December 2012, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

They can take away my Page 3 when they can pry it from my cold, dead hand!!!!

ftfy

Puppycow · 19th December 2012, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by amensae

You are allowed to see naked torsos. So far as I know, there are no laws stopping you. If public pressure is put on a newspaper to stop publishing photos of naked torsos, that has nothing to do with your right to see them.
It’s the “free speech” fallacy. Your right to free speech does not mean society has to accommodate your right.

You are taking the word "allowed" I used too literally. That's not the sense in which I meant it. I'm aware that she's not advocating for a legal change, but she is advocating for something to be taken away that some people want to see.

Quote:

Here’s a not-so-novel idea: People are allowed to protest about issues that don’t affect them directly. You don’t have to be poor to protest against poverty. You don’t have to own a pet to campaign against cruelty to pets. Etcetera.

Of course. And by the same token, I am allowed to speak up in opposition to her protest.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Except that's not what she's saying.

She's saying “Page 3 has created a ‘Cor, look at the tits on that’ culture that I think is really problematic.” [source]

Her point is that page 3 has contributed to a culture where it's considered normal and appropriate to judge women based solely upon their physical attributes and secondary sexual characteristics - where the worth of a woman is based on whether you'd "do" her or not. And that this is problematic.

The same thing I wrote above about taking the word "allowed" too literally.

Is it really considered "normal and appropriate to judge women based solely upon their physical attributes and secondary sexual characteristics"? I don't think so. It's just not factually true. However I see no reason why women and men can't be appreciated for their physical attributes and secondary sexual characteristics. Different people have different things to offer. Many women are appreciated in society for things that have nothing to do their their physical attributes and secondary sexual characteristics.

theprestige · 19th December 2012, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Completely your misunderstanding.
The point was that the fact that something has been going on for a long time is not a valid reason to refrain from protesting against it.

Another way of looking at it is that if something has been going on for a long time, you need a good reason to change it.

If Page 3 girls aren't bad like slavery, why should we change the status quo?

angrysoba · 19th December 2012, 09:01 PM

It's an immensely silly idea that campaigns like this can achieve the right kind of social conditioning^TM and end the wrong kind of social conditioning instead^TM. She'll just have to get used to the idea that men like looking at tits.

Puppycow · 19th December 2012, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by amensae

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

I'm pretty sure sol was just joking.

theprestige · 19th December 2012, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by amensae

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

And I guess we know who has really strong feelings about this subject.

Have you been concerned about Page 3 girls for a while, or did the sudden appearance of this thread trigger a response to something else that's been bothering you?

arthwollipot · 19th December 2012, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

The same thing I wrote above about taking the word "allowed" too literally.

Is it really considered "normal and appropriate to judge women based solely upon their physical attributes and secondary sexual characteristics"? I don't think so. It's just not factually true. However I see no reason why women and men can't be appreciated for their physical attributes and secondary sexual characteristics. Different people have different things to offer. Many women are appreciated in society for things that have nothing to do their their physical attributes and secondary sexual characteristics.

My point was that you had misrepresented her position by saying "because I don't want to see it, you therefore shouldn't be allowed to see it either". That was not her argument.

Babbylonian · 19th December 2012, 09:25 PM

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?

Puppycow · 19th December 2012, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

My point was that you had misrepresented her position by saying "because I don't want to see it, you therefore shouldn't be allowed to see it either". That was not her argument.

She is advocating that it be taken away though.

Yes, people who want censor* things usually don't phrase their arguments that way, but that is what it boils down too. Whether it's Page 3 or cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, or "blasphemy".

(*To avoid another argument over semantics, "censor" here is not meant in a narrow sense of making it illegal, but includes any attempt to remove some speech from public discourse through social pressure or economic pressure or by other means of pressure)

So I don't think I have misrepresented the essence of what she is advocating.

Foolmewunz · 19th December 2012, 09:49 PM

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?

Well, it might not be news to some. I checked the Sun and cannot locate an article saying "Newspapers Exist ... In Order to Entertain". Of course, that's the Sun and maybe all the other tabloids have their news articles on "News is for Entertainment" on page 3, but they've given up page three to daily hooters.

I also seem to recall something in my journalism class... it's a little sketchy because that was a long time ago but I think it was something to the effect that newspapers should present, like, "news". Are boobs really news? Seeing as to how the average woman has slightly less than two of them and there are over 2 billion women in the world, I'd think they were fairly common.

The Sun is not exactly a model of journalistic integrity but as long as the discussion is whether or not tits are news, I'm going to opine that while they're certainly fun and can be rather entertaining when I'm in the right mindset, there's nothing newsworthy about them and certainly not front-of-the-paper newsworthy. Maybe a boob page next to the horoscope, bridge column, daily comic and cryptic crossword?

Puppycow · 19th December 2012, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Well, it might not be news to some. I checked the Sun and cannot locate an article saying "Newspapers Exist ... In Order to Entertain". Of course, that's the Sun and maybe all the other tabloids have their news articles on "News is for Entertainment" on page 3, but they've given up page three to daily hooters.

I also seem to recall something in my journalism class... it's a little sketchy because that was a long time ago but I think it was something to the effect that newspapers should present, like, "news". Are boobs really news? Seeing as to how the average woman has slightly less than two of them and there are over 2 billion women in the world, I'd think they were fairly common.

The Sun is not exactly a model of journalistic integrity but as long as the discussion is whether or not tits are news, I'm going to opine that while they're certainly fun and can be rather entertaining when I'm in the right mindset, there's nothing newsworthy about them and certainly not front-of-the-paper newsworthy. Maybe a boob page next to the horoscope, bridge column, daily comic and cryptic crossword?

Your argument fails because as you yourself noted, most newspapers (probably all or almost all newspapers) also contain content that is clearly only for entertainment, not "news" such as a crossword puzzle or comic strips. Whether that content is on page 3 or another page is a minor issue.

angrysoba · 19th December 2012, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Well, it might not be news to some. I checked the Sun and cannot locate an article saying "Newspapers Exist ... In Order to Entertain". Of course, that's the Sun and maybe all the other tabloids have their news articles on "News is for Entertainment" on page 3, but they've given up page three to daily hooters.

I also seem to recall something in my journalism class... it's a little sketchy because that was a long time ago but I think it was something to the effect that newspapers should present, like, "news". Are boobs really news? Seeing as to how the average woman has slightly less than two of them and there are over 2 billion women in the world, I'd think they were fairly common.

The Sun is not exactly a model of journalistic integrity but as long as the discussion is whether or not tits are news, I'm going to opine that while they're certainly fun and can be rather entertaining when I'm in the right mindset, there's nothing newsworthy about them and certainly not front-of-the-paper newsworthy. Maybe a boob page next to the horoscope, bridge column, daily comic and cryptic crossword?

Journalism need not be simply about news. Most newspapers, even "highbrow" ones such as the Telegraph, Guardian, New York Times and Washington Post have lifestyle sections, cooking recipes, "humourous" op-eds from top quality pundits such as George Will talking about his pet cat and various other bits of frivilous nonsense that anyone under the misapprehension that the Sun is a newspaper should also get to see and read about Sharon from Rochdale if they want, shouldn't they? And I highly doubt that being told it is not news is going to be a...er... clinching one.

rikzilla · 19th December 2012, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

They can take away my Page 3 when they can pry it from my cold, dead hands!!!!

You mean "hand" don't you? BTW; have you heard there's an internet?

Noztradamus · 20th December 2012, 12:02 AM

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)

14 minutes and counting

malicus · 20th December 2012, 12:27 AM

News just in: woman doesn't understand men's fascination with breasts.

Strawberry · 20th December 2012, 12:47 AM

A campaign against page 3 girls? How quaint. Is it part of the '70s revival?

Foolmewunz · 20th December 2012, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Your argument fails because as you yourself noted, most newspapers (probably all or almost all newspapers) also contain content that is clearly only for entertainment, not "news" such as a crossword puzzle or comic strips. Whether that content is on page 3 or another page is a minor issue.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Journalism need not be simply about news. Most newspapers, even "highbrow" ones such as the Telegraph, Guardian, New York Times and Washington Post have lifestyle sections, cooking recipes, "humourous" op-eds from top quality pundits such as George Will talking about his pet cat and various other bits of frivilous nonsense that anyone under the misapprehension that the Sun is a newspaper should also get to see and read about Sharon from Rochdale if they want, shouldn't they? And I highly doubt that being told it is not news is going to be a...er... clinching one.

So put the boobs in the entertainment sections. Frankly, of the things wrong with the Sun, the positioning of their boobs feature is probably not the worst. But it's stupid, it's gratuitous and it's got no place in the areas of a newspaper where you'd expect to find news. That, plus the points raised by the woman who started the campaign.

DrDave · 20th December 2012, 02:06 AM

Don't the page 3 girls comment on the news. Therefore it's in the right section.

Anyway, The Sun doesn't have enough tits in for my liking. I get all my news from Razzle

Didaktylos · 20th December 2012, 02:06 AM

There are many reasons not to buy the Sun (especially if you're a Merseysider - see the Hillsborough thread): the fact that it's owned by Rupert Murdoch being the most important.

19th December 2012, 06:22 PM	#1
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,751	Anti-Page-3 campaign Or, because I don't want to see it, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to see it either. British Tabloids Face Pressure Over Page 3 Quote: LONDON — Lucy Holmes finally lost patience with Britain’s best-selling newspaper, The Sun, when she bought it to read about the Olympics last summer and discovered that the biggest picture of a woman inside was not a triumphant athlete but a young model wearing just her underpants, captioned “Emily from Warrington.” Suddenly enraged by something that has been a constant feature of British life since 1970, she created the No More Page 3 campaign, dedicated to persuading The Sun to drop the topless images of young women on Page 3. . . . Ms. Holmes finds it hard to explain why bare breasts are still integral to The Sun, which is bought by 2.7 million people every day, remarking with genuine bemusement: “Boobs are not news.” “Men don’t actually need to see young women’s nipples in order to learn about the news. Every man I’ve ever met has managed to get through The Six O’Clock News without them. And really if there was a desperate need for a nipple, well... we have the Internet now,” she argues on her campaign blog. “Page 3 has created a ‘Cor, look at the tits on that’ culture that I think is really problematic.” Ms. Holmes says she is “not versed in feminist campaigning,” but for the past four months, she has all but abandoned her previous work as an actor and writer, pouring her energy instead into composing passionate letters and video appeals to The Sun’s editor, Dominic Mohan, attempting to persuade him that it is time to stop publishing topless images. She has had no reply but is gathering much support from elsewhere, and she now has more than 61,000 petition signatures. Here's a novel suggestion: BUY A DIFFERENT BLEEDING NEWSPAPER! Are there no tits-free newspapers in Britain?
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22 Last edited by Puppycow; 19th December 2012 at 06:34 PM.

19th December 2012, 06:25 PM	#2
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,650	Does Ms Holmes realises that this protest will have exactly the opposite result she is looking for?
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

19th December 2012, 06:34 PM	#3
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,808	Cor, look at the tits on me!
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

19th December 2012, 06:53 PM	#5
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,650	Originally Posted by amensae Really? What an odd thing to say. We're talking the Sun. What do you reckon, they will say after 40 years "oh good point, we'll just piss off our readership and stop our page 3 girls" or "you beaut, we'll put another one on page 4 just to get more outrage". My money's on the latter.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

19th December 2012, 07:15 PM	#8
sol New Blood Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 19	Well i guess we know who has ugly nipples.
sol New Blood Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 19

19th December 2012, 06:47 PM	#4
amensae Suspended Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Australia Posts: 223	Originally Posted by Puppycow Or, because I don't want to see it, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to see it either. You are allowed to see naked torsos. So far as I know, there are no laws stopping you. If public pressure is put on a newspaper to stop publishing photos of naked torsos, that has nothing to do with your right to see them. It’s the “free speech” fallacy. Your right to free speech does not mean society has to accommodate your right. Originally Posted by Puppycow Here's a novel suggestion: BUY A DIFFERENT BLEEDING NEWSPAPER! Are there no tits-free newspapers in Britain? Here’s a not-so-novel idea: People are allowed to protest about issues that don’t affect them directly. You don’t have to be poor to protest against poverty. You don’t have to own a pet to campaign against cruelty to pets. Etcetera. Originally Posted by lionking Does Ms Holmes realises that this protest will have exactly the opposite result she is looking for? Really? What an odd thing to say.

19th December 2012, 07:02 PM	#6
amensae Suspended Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Australia Posts: 223	Originally Posted by lionking We're talking the Sun. What do you reckon, they will say after 40 years "oh good point, we'll just piss off our readership and stop our page 3 girls" or "you beaut, we'll put another one on page 4 just to get more outrage". My money's on the latter. I get your point. And certainly, if any rag can ooze from the gutter into the sewer, it would be the Sun.

19th December 2012, 07:15 PM	#7
kerikiwi Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 5,845	Originally Posted by lionking We're talking the Sun. What do you reckon, they will say after 40 years "oh good point, we'll just piss off our readership and stop our page 3 girls" or "you beaut, we'll put another one on page 4 just to get more outrage". My money's on the latter. Quite possibly. Is that a valid reason to not protest? Slavery went on for a good long time...

19th December 2012, 07:17 PM	#9
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,650	Originally Posted by kerikiwi Quite possibly. Is that a valid reason to not protest? Slavery went on for a good long time... I'm saying you pick your targets. The Sun is best ignored.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

19th December 2012, 07:17 PM	#10
amensae Suspended Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Australia Posts: 223	Originally Posted by sol Well i guess we know who has ugly nipples. Well, I guess we know who has a profound emotional and intellectual impairment.

19th December 2012, 07:23 PM	#11
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel Posts: 4,154	We used to love getting The Sun when we were in Scotland and it had absolutely nothing to do with the news that it may or may not have contained inside. Hey, what did you expect from a bunch of guys crowded into a steel tube anyway.
	__________________ "Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar.

19th December 2012, 07:35 PM	#12
ehcks Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,693	Originally Posted by kerikiwi Quite possibly. Is that a valid reason to not protest? Slavery went on for a good long time... Uh... showing skin is like slavery now? Please oh please just be my misunderstanding.
ehcks Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,693	__________________ Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

19th December 2012, 07:36 PM	#13
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Quote: Ms. Holmes finds it hard to explain why bare breasts are still integral to The Sun Because people like them. I wonder if she can explain what her problem is, other than "Boobs are not news"? Seems a fairly pointless criticism of The Sun, most of the crap in it isn't "news."
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

19th December 2012, 07:39 PM	#14
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel Posts: 4,154	Originally Posted by Sledge Because people like them. I wonder if she can explain what her problem is, other than ""? Seems a fairly pointless criticism of The Sun, most of the crap in it isn't "news." Tell Janet Jackson that...
	__________________ "Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar.

19th December 2012, 07:46 PM	#15
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,005	Originally Posted by Puppycow Or, because I don't want to see it, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to see it either. Except that's not what she's saying. She's saying “Page 3 has created a ‘Cor, look at the tits on that’ culture that I think is really problematic.” [source] Her point is that page 3 has contributed to a culture where it's considered normal and appropriate to judge women based solely upon their physical attributes and secondary sexual characteristics - where the worth of a woman is based on whether you'd "do" her or not. And that this is problematic.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

19th December 2012, 07:47 PM	#16
Ambrosia Good of the Fods Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,738	I still can't figure out why womens chests need to be covered up, and mens chests don't.

19th December 2012, 08:03 PM	#17
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,576	Originally Posted by Ambrosia I still can't figure out why womens chests need to be covered up, and mens chests don't. 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?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,576

19th December 2012, 08:09 PM	#18
Stout Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 1,988	Originally Posted by Ambrosia I still can't figure out why womens chests need to be covered up, and mens chests don't. Women don't need to be covered up in Canada. There was a big hullabaloo about topfreedom and it was decided, women could be topless. I never see it outside of things like the world naked bike ride. pity.

19th December 2012, 08:16 PM	#19
kerikiwi Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 5,845	Originally Posted by ehcks Uh... showing skin is like slavery now? Please oh please just be my misunderstanding. Completely your misunderstanding. The point was that the fact that something has been going on for a long time is not a valid reason to refrain from protesting against it.

19th December 2012, 08:20 PM	#20
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,932	Originally Posted by Puppycow Or, because I don't want to see it, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to see it either. British Tabloids Face Pressure Over Page 3 Here's a novel suggestion: BUY A DIFFERENT BLEEDING NEWSPAPER! Are there no tits-free newspapers in Britain? They can take away my Page 3 when they can pry it from my cold, dead hands!!!!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,932	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

19th December 2012, 08:23 PM	#21
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,932	And I don't even live in England!! But Page 3(s) are a ruddy institution!!!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,932	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

19th December 2012, 08:26 PM	#22
GrouchoMarxist Cowardly insulter of Buddhism Join Date: May 2008 Location: Surly Bonds correctional facility Posts: 939	Originally Posted by fuelair They can take away my Page 3 when they can pry it from my cold, dead hand!!!! ftfy
	__________________ I can't believe that having said what I said was interpreted as having been what I said when I said it, because I said it where I said it, when I said it, and who I said it to. Only in America!

19th December 2012, 08:37 PM	#23
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,751	Originally Posted by amensae You are allowed to see naked torsos. So far as I know, there are no laws stopping you. If public pressure is put on a newspaper to stop publishing photos of naked torsos, that has nothing to do with your right to see them. It’s the “free speech” fallacy. Your right to free speech does not mean society has to accommodate your right. You are taking the word "allowed" I used too literally. That's not the sense in which I meant it. I'm aware that she's not advocating for a legal change, but she is advocating for something to be taken away that some people want to see. Quote: Here’s a not-so-novel idea: People are allowed to protest about issues that don’t affect them directly. You don’t have to be poor to protest against poverty. You don’t have to own a pet to campaign against cruelty to pets. Etcetera. Of course. And by the same token, I am allowed to speak up in opposition to her protest. Originally Posted by arthwollipot Except that's not what she's saying. She's saying “Page 3 has created a ‘Cor, look at the tits on that’ culture that I think is really problematic.” [source] Her point is that page 3 has contributed to a culture where it's considered normal and appropriate to judge women based solely upon their physical attributes and secondary sexual characteristics - where the worth of a woman is based on whether you'd "do" her or not. And that this is problematic. The same thing I wrote above about taking the word "allowed" too literally. Is it really considered "normal and appropriate to judge women based solely upon their physical attributes and secondary sexual characteristics"? I don't think so. It's just not factually true. However I see no reason why women and men can't be appreciated for their physical attributes and secondary sexual characteristics. Different people have different things to offer. Many women are appreciated in society for things that have nothing to do their their physical attributes and secondary sexual characteristics.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

19th December 2012, 08:53 PM	#24
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,576	Originally Posted by kerikiwi Completely your misunderstanding. The point was that the fact that something has been going on for a long time is not a valid reason to refrain from protesting against it. Another way of looking at it is that if something has been going on for a long time, you need a good reason to change it. If Page 3 girls aren't bad like slavery, why should we change the status quo?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,576

19th December 2012, 09:01 PM	#25
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,523	It's an immensely silly idea that campaigns like this can achieve the right kind of social conditioning^TM and end the wrong kind of social conditioning instead^TM. She'll just have to get used to the idea that men like looking at tits.

19th December 2012, 09:07 PM	#26
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,751	Originally Posted by amensae Well, I guess we know who has a profound emotional and intellectual impairment. I'm pretty sure sol was just joking.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

19th December 2012, 09:14 PM	#27
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,576	Originally Posted by amensae Well, I guess we know who has a profound emotional and intellectual impairment. And I guess we know who has really strong feelings about this subject. Have you been concerned about Page 3 girls for a while, or did the sudden appearance of this thread trigger a response to something else that's been bothering you?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,576

19th December 2012, 09:25 PM	#28
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,005	Originally Posted by Puppycow The same thing I wrote above about taking the word "allowed" too literally. Is it really considered "normal and appropriate to judge women based solely upon their physical attributes and secondary sexual characteristics"? I don't think so. It's just not factually true. However I see no reason why women and men can't be appreciated for their physical attributes and secondary sexual characteristics. Different people have different things to offer. Many women are appreciated in society for things that have nothing to do their their physical attributes and secondary sexual characteristics. My point was that you had misrepresented her position by saying "because I don't want to see it, you therefore shouldn't be allowed to see it either". That was not her argument.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

19th December 2012, 09:25 PM	#29
Babbylonian Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Lake Oswego, OR Posts: 4,470	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?
	__________________ Where am I going to find a piece of metal? Here...in space...at this hour?

19th December 2012, 09:43 PM	#30
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,751	Originally Posted by arthwollipot My point was that you had misrepresented her position by saying "because I don't want to see it, you therefore shouldn't be allowed to see it either". That was not her argument. She is advocating that it be taken away though. Yes, people who want censor* things usually don't phrase their arguments that way, but that is what it boils down too. Whether it's Page 3 or cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, or "blasphemy". (*To avoid another argument over semantics, "censor" here is not meant in a narrow sense of making it illegal, but includes any attempt to remove some speech from public discourse through social pressure or economic pressure or by other means of pressure) So I don't think I have misrepresented the essence of what she is advocating.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

19th December 2012, 09:49 PM	#31
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,516	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? Well, it might not be news to some. I checked the Sun and cannot locate an article saying "Newspapers Exist ... In Order to Entertain". Of course, that's the Sun and maybe all the other tabloids have their news articles on "News is for Entertainment" on page 3, but they've given up page three to daily hooters. I also seem to recall something in my journalism class... it's a little sketchy because that was a long time ago but I think it was something to the effect that newspapers should present, like, "news". Are boobs really news? Seeing as to how the average woman has slightly less than two of them and there are over 2 billion women in the world, I'd think they were fairly common. The Sun is not exactly a model of journalistic integrity but as long as the discussion is whether or not tits are news, I'm going to opine that while they're certainly fun and can be rather entertaining when I'm in the right mindset, there's nothing newsworthy about them and certainly not front-of-the-paper newsworthy. Maybe a boob page next to the horoscope, bridge column, daily comic and cryptic crossword?
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

19th December 2012, 10:39 PM	#32
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,751	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Well, it might not be news to some. I checked the Sun and cannot locate an article saying "Newspapers Exist ... In Order to Entertain". Of course, that's the Sun and maybe all the other tabloids have their news articles on "News is for Entertainment" on page 3, but they've given up page three to daily hooters. I also seem to recall something in my journalism class... it's a little sketchy because that was a long time ago but I think it was something to the effect that newspapers should present, like, "news". Are boobs really news? Seeing as to how the average woman has slightly less than two of them and there are over 2 billion women in the world, I'd think they were fairly common. The Sun is not exactly a model of journalistic integrity but as long as the discussion is whether or not tits are news, I'm going to opine that while they're certainly fun and can be rather entertaining when I'm in the right mindset, there's nothing newsworthy about them and certainly not front-of-the-paper newsworthy. Maybe a boob page next to the horoscope, bridge column, daily comic and cryptic crossword? Your argument fails because as you yourself noted, most newspapers (probably all or almost all newspapers) also contain content that is clearly only for entertainment, not "news" such as a crossword puzzle or comic strips. Whether that content is on page 3 or another page is a minor issue.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

19th December 2012, 10:55 PM	#33
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,523	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Well, it might not be news to some. I checked the Sun and cannot locate an article saying "Newspapers Exist ... In Order to Entertain". Of course, that's the Sun and maybe all the other tabloids have their news articles on "News is for Entertainment" on page 3, but they've given up page three to daily hooters. I also seem to recall something in my journalism class... it's a little sketchy because that was a long time ago but I think it was something to the effect that newspapers should present, like, "news". Are boobs really news? Seeing as to how the average woman has slightly less than two of them and there are over 2 billion women in the world, I'd think they were fairly common. The Sun is not exactly a model of journalistic integrity but as long as the discussion is whether or not tits are news, I'm going to opine that while they're certainly fun and can be rather entertaining when I'm in the right mindset, there's nothing newsworthy about them and certainly not front-of-the-paper newsworthy. Maybe a boob page next to the horoscope, bridge column, daily comic and cryptic crossword? Journalism need not be simply about news. Most newspapers, even "highbrow" ones such as the Telegraph, Guardian, New York Times and Washington Post have lifestyle sections, cooking recipes, "humourous" op-eds from top quality pundits such as George Will talking about his pet cat and various other bits of frivilous nonsense that anyone under the misapprehension that the Sun is a newspaper should also get to see and read about Sharon from Rochdale if they want, shouldn't they? And I highly doubt that being told it is not news is going to be a...er... clinching one.

19th December 2012, 11:23 PM	#34
rikzilla Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,001	Originally Posted by fuelair They can take away my Page 3 when they can pry it from my cold, dead hands!!!! You mean "hand" don't you? BTW; have you heard there's an internet?
	__________________ "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon." -Chancellor Gorkon "inside Mr .Skinny lives a big man" -pillory (18 Jan 2007)

20th December 2012, 12:02 AM	#35
Noztradamus Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,847	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) 14 minutes and counting
	__________________ The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.