Anti-Page-3 campaign

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

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.

You still don't see the strawman? There's plenty of reasons she's an idiot. You don't need to go making up more.

[Multivac]

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?

Most papers in the UK are, sadly, tits free.

As much as I like looking at tits, I cannot bring myself to buy the Sun, but usually read the Independent and Guardian websites.

[LandR]

The Suns is celebrity and sex obsessed sensationalist garbage.

What did she expect ?

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by lionking

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

Probably not.

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by amensae

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

Thought it was already in the sewer.

[Multivac]

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.

I certainly agree that women shouldn't be judged by their appearance, but think this has more to do with fashion magazines using insanely skinny models rather the Sun showing boobies.

[Manger Douse]

What I don't understand is, all the other items with naked nipples in the newsagents are on the top shelf. How do the Sun, Star and (the now sadly missed) Sport get away with it?

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Didaktylos

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.

Indeed. Along with the general bias, poor news coverage, gutter journalism and awful quality of printing.

[DrDave]

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

What I don't understand is, all the other items with naked nipples in the newsagents are on the top shelf. How do the Sun, Star and (the now sadly missed) Sport get away with it?

But they're not. Women's magazines often have pictures of nipples. If I was to guess at the rule it seems that it is what is on the cover that determines where it is placed.

ETA: and the Sunday sport shoots down my guess

[P.J. Denyer]

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.

I think it's a valid viewpoint but I'm not sure how well the evidence backs it up. While not wanting to inappropriately imply causation (I really don't want to suggest that page 3 is some kind of beacon of feminism) there seems to be a pretty strong link between modesty laws/pressure to cover up and genuine repression of women's freedom and autonomy. Page 3 models and the like may be being valued primarily for their appearance and sexuality, but at least it's their appearance and sexuality and not reserved for and controlled by the man who 'owns' them.

[Duffy Moon]

Originally Posted by DrDave

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

Indeed.

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




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.

[Manger Douse]

Originally Posted by DrDave

But they're not. Women's magazines often have pictures of nipples. If I was to guess at the rule it seems that it is what is on the cover that determines where it is placed.

ETA: and the Sunday sport shoots down my guess

Fair enough - I thought it might have something to do with the intent of the article though - On the TV they can show full frontal male nudity before the watershed if its a program about testicular cancer for instance.
Boobs for the sake of boobs - although something I support like a wonderbra - doesn't really seem to cut it

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

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.

The boobs are in the Page 3 section, on Page 3, where EVERYBODY expects to find them.

[commandlinegamer]

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.

I suspect though many people in pubs are incapable of stringing a sentence together.

[angrysoba]

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.

I can't believe there wasn't talk of her getting the Higgs' bosom off her chest.

Standards are slipping.

[HotRodDeluxe]

http://youtu.be/VYeUNxFepog?t=1m7s

[3point14]

Why is it acceptable to flaunt a good brain but not a good body?

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by Duffy Moon

"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.

Well.. you know... string theorists... something, something... boobies.

[DrDave]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Why is it acceptable to flaunt a good brain but not a good body?

A fiver says the woman complaining is fugly.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Why is it acceptable to flaunt a good brain but not a good body?

I'm not sure.

Should this forum have a daily page 3 girl, commenting on particle physics or whatever her specialist discipline may be, while showing us her tits?

I can't really understand how the UK's biggest selling daily newspaper has managed to maintain for decades the sexist anachronism of filling most of its third page with material that would definitely count as NSFW here.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Why is it acceptable to flaunt a good brain but not a good body?

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.

[gambling_cruiser]

The problem lies by your countrys definition of NSFW.

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Should this forum have a daily page 3 girl, commenting on particle physics or whatever her specialist discipline may be, while showing us her tits?

Yes. Pretty much everything can be improved by the addition of breasts or Airwolf.

[DrDave]

Don't forget bacon

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by DrDave

A fiver says the woman complaining is fugly.

Reminds me that for several years Claire Short MP campaigned against Page 3 and, sadly for her, being a bit (what's the word?) homely, most of the response she got seemed to be comments on the above theme.

[LandR]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

the UK's biggest selling daily newspaper

That's really depressing.

[sgtbaker]

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

[DrDave]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Reminds me that for several years Claire Short MP campaigned against Page 3 and, sadly for her, being a bit (what's the word?) homely, most of the response she got seemed to be comments on the above theme.

It's jealousy. Like how you can tell how attractive a woman is by how many times another woman calls her a whore.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by gambling_cruiser

The problem lies by your countrys definition of NSFW.

Actually, my country is the one which puts tits on page 3.

I suspect that's not what you intended to say was the problem.

[DrDave]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

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

Quick, call channel 4. They'd probably commission that. And I would watch every episode

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

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

I'm in love

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

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

What's that internet law about whatever you can think of, there is porn of it?

Your mission is clear. Google awaits.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Reminds me that for several years Claire Short MP campaigned against Page 3 and, sadly for her, being a bit (what's the word?) homely, most of the response she got seemed to be comments on the above theme.

It's actually irony (I think?). I woman complains that women are treated like eye candy and the response it to ponder her level of attractiveness.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

It's actually irony (I think?). I woman complains that women are treated like eye candy and the response it to ponder her level of attractiveness.

Oh, come on. It's an obvious train of thought (too obvious for my taste), not to mention potentially amusing.

There's a worthwhile distinction to be made between judging a woman based on her beauty and judging the physical sexual attractiveness of a woman, and the same goes for men. I'd never look at a Page 3 girl and believe that her only value was in the shape of her body, but that doesn't make it inappropriate for me to enjoy that shape.

Physically attractive women shouldn't have to be subject to ostentatious ogling or more objectionable sexual harassment in their day-to-day lives, nor should less attractive women be mistreated because they don't look like models. That these things are inevitable (because some people are jerks) doesn't make it acceptable, but I think this is also an issue that would exist whether The Sun shows a half-naked woman on page 3 or not. Humans are animals.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

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

I'll be in my bunk.

[GrouchoMarxist]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

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.

That's true.
She has points all her own, sitting way up high.
Way up firm and high.

[Damien Evans]

This reminds me of a classic Yes, Prime Minister sketch...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Monketey Ghost]

That's hysterical and you don't need to know the papers named to find it so.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Oh, come on. It's an obvious train of thought (too obvious for my taste), not to mention potentially amusing.

There's a worthwhile distinction to be made between judging a woman based on her beauty and judging the physical sexual attractiveness of a woman, and the same goes for men. I'd never look at a Page 3 girl and believe that her only value was in the shape of her body, but that doesn't make it inappropriate for me to enjoy that shape.

Physically attractive women shouldn't have to be subject to ostentatious ogling or more objectionable sexual harassment in their day-to-day lives, nor should less attractive women be mistreated because they don't look like models. That these things are inevitable (because some people are jerks) doesn't make it acceptable, but I think this is also an issue that would exist whether The Sun shows a half-naked woman on page 3 or not. Humans are animals.

I don't condemn looking at people for their physical features, otherwise I would be a total hypocrite. I've also made no comments on whether or not I think women are judged predominantly on their physical attractiveness. I just think comments like that, validate her claim.

You know what? I frequent car shows. At Ride-ins and open to alls, I register my Jeep. The founder of my husband's camaro club is always joking about renaming it Space Coast Camaros and a Jeep. At about 2/3rds of the car shows, there is always some scantilly clad model from Hooters, or the Casino Boat, or Rachel's that walks around with a photographer. She picks the cars she likes and poses in them. My first that is always; why did I eat that cheeseburger for lunch? But after that I think; man this is really alienating to straight women. These shows still seem to cater, predominantly to male crowds, despite the fact that there are increasingly more women involved, showing off their own cars. I want it stopped because it makes me uncomfortable (and partly because they never pick my car to pose in). I am not going to lie, I get insecure and jealous. I always rest on this, though; it's not going to stop, partially because there will always be men that appreciate a beautiful body on a woman. It's not going to stop, mostly, because there is no shortage of women that enjoy being looked appreciated for having a beautiful body. I put time and money into my car. I am proud of it and want to show it off. It falls slightly higher on my priority list than doing my hair and makeup. I would probably laugh at someone who approached me and said, "I don't have that kind of jeep and it makes me feel bad when you show yours off. Can you please cover it up?"

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Multivac

I certainly agree that women shouldn't be judged by their appearance, but think this has more to do with fashion magazines using insanely skinny models rather the Sun showing boobies.

^-- This times 100.

I'm not in the U.K. so I don't read the sun, but I rather suspect the models appearing in the Sun are (for the most part) rather normal... Yes, breasts may be emphasized (and I'm sure makeup and photoshoping are used), but the women are probably not so different than the ones you'd see on a daily basis.

Compare that to what you see in fashion magazines, where overly-skinny women are regularly selected to be 'fashion icons'. (Not to mention the use of photoshop to make women even skinnier.) Furthermore, those magazines are targeted at women, potentially making them even more damaging.