No More Page 3

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Some of the arguments here are bullshit.

 

"It's 100% biology"

No.  It's really not.  People finding other people sexually attractive is perfectly, biologically natural.  One gender being objectified in print on a daily basis for four decades, in mass circulation newspapers in one country of the world is not "biology".  It's propaganda.

 

"I'm against censorship."

Really?  All censorship?  So you're OK with child porn, snuff, incitement to hatred, libel, etc? If so, you are an amoral coward, copping out of any ethical decisions.  (That's a dangerous road to go down.)  If what you really mean is that you agree with some censorship, but you draw the line before banning Page 3, then say so - and explain your reasoning.

 

"It goes both ways"

It doesn't really, though.  Sure, some women's magazines use any excuse to print pictures of men with their shirts off.  (That'd be more akin to the sidebar of the Daily Mail website than to Page 3: at least they try to make an excuse for it!)  The reason Sex in the City was a phenomenon was the novelty value of seeing women portrayed as actively, rather than passively, sexual: it was a "man bites dog" show.  Imagine a witty and charming programme about middle-aged men perving over young women and objectifying them.  You don't need to imagine it, do you?  

 

"It's a nice earner for the girls"

I was surprised to find out that it's not even that.  There was a woman who was publicly pilloried in the Echo a few years ago because she'd claimed benefits while working.  Because she'd been working as a tit model, that gave the story added "spice" and promoted it to the front page.  But when you read about what she'd claimed and what her earnings were, it was hard to see how she could have got by without benefits.  She had been in The Star, Nuts, Zoo, etc. - what I would have thought of as "making it" in the "tits out for the lads" industry.  And yet, she was getting paid less than the average bog cleaner.

 

It's really not "just a harmless bit of fun" as the publishers often claim.  It's corrosive.  It's there to remind men and women of women's place in society: earning less than men; being subjected to more harassment and sexual violence than men; having their value as a person overlooked and being judged solely on their appearance.

 

Nor is the campaign a case of "feminist ideals only going one way".  The idea that people should be treated as people is really not "PC gone mad".

 

[Section_31]

While I agree with some of what you say, I don't see any value in page 3 and can't stand lad's mags, and I do think women have become over sexualized and far younger than they used to be, at the same time I don't like the idea of men being portrayed as out of order for wanting to look at pictures of women. That is biology, I don't care what anyone says, Bill Hicks famously says something along those lines with regards how advertising works, sex sells and it sells for a reason.

 

There's very much a culture of what's good for the goose no longer being good for the gander, i.e because I don't personally approve of strip clubs, porn mags etc that it's inherently wrong or even weird and unnatural. It's not, consenting adults should be free to do what they want as long as nobody is hurt.

 

It's ironic that we have such an OTT attitude to sex in this country while at the same time being so reserved. When I was a kid the scando TV channels on cable used to pump out soft core porn by the bucketload, the German channels had adverts for sex shops and escorts, are their societies going around snacking women on the arse and telling them to get back in the kitchen?

 

I really don't think it's as simple as all this.

[moof]

Is anybody forcing these girls to get their tits out? As far as I can tell it's totally consensual.

 

Page 3 is in, what, 2 daily papers? One of them is basically a porn mag and the other is a rag I wouldn't wipe my arse with. It's not as if it's poisoning the wider media.

 

Page 3 is pretty low on the list of things I have a problem with newspapers printing.

[VladimirIlyich]

I'd rather so the actual 'news' papers that show the pictures fucked off rather than just one part of it.

 

If i want to see porn i will just find it on the internet so those topless pics with their cosmetic,photoshopped women dont do anything for me anyway.

 

I do feel that this campaign,if successful, would be a forerunner to banning much more benign things under a 'moral crusade' banner.

 

Look at the aftermath of the recent riots and ask yourself if you'd be happy with the current government being able to hand out censorship based on their skewed perception of morality.

[Tony Moanero]

Quite frankly I'm against banning it, because it'll transverse into lad mag territory and there will be calls to ban them too. Then it'll be "how can we let our children access this vile pornography on the internet, it's degrading towards women and creates an unhealthy attitude towards sex". The lemmings will choose to follow each other in a non offensively ordered line, off the cliff.

 

I'm against it because it's just another example of censorship, feminist ideals that seem to only go one way, for example would these same people wish to ban torso of the week, the female equivalent in magazines like Heat, closer and Okay? It actually makes me want to go the other way and turn into Oliver Reed, just to readdress the cosmic balance.

I'm all for banning it. Anything to fuck The Sun.

[Section_31]

I'd rather so the actual 'news' papers that show the pictures fucked off rather than just one part of it.

 

If i want to see porn i will just find it on the internet so those topless pics with their cosmetic,photoshopped women dont do anything for me anyway.

 

I do feel that this campaign,if successful, would be a forerunner to banning much more benign things under a 'moral crusade' banner.

 

Look at the aftermath of the recent riots and ask yourself if you'd be happy with the current government being able to hand out censorship based on their skewed perception of morality.

The problem with everything in this country is the removal of morals from the equation. Capitalism isn't wrong, but it is if you place your own personal wealth above the wellbeing of everyone else. Drinking isn't wrong, but it is if you walk around town centres fighting and speweing up in the street. Sexual imaginary isn't wrong, but it is if you've got no moral compass reining in the urge to purely objectify every girl or woman you see.

 

We've become well practiced at throwing off any sense of personal self governance, we simply do what we want and fuck the consequences for others. Other societies don't function that way, we have to wonder why ours does.

 

For me, the mainstream media is more to blame, the way radio DJs talk about the way celebs are dressed, the dance moves and lyrics in pop videos etc are ten times more likely to have an impact on young people's view of sexuality than page 3 or pornos.

[Pony Princess]

The otter is going the long way round coming out of the closet.

[ph245]

Donna Ewin, Sam Fox, Jo Guest, Linda Lusardi...... they all helped a teenage me if I had no jazz mags & it was before the interweb.

[Red Dawn]

When I was a teenager I remember seeing a Page 3 of Gabby Roslin (Yorath) or whatever her name is along with Doug Mountjoy's daughter with their chesticles out under some caption about "Welsh sporting legends daughters posing topless"  with footballs and snooker cues.

 

At the time I thought it was marvelous. I have searched many times for this picture online without success. I need to see this picture again before I die.

[Elmyn Noos]

Some of the arguments here are bullshit.

 

"It's 100% biology"

No.  It's really not.  People finding other people sexually attractive is perfectly, biologically natural.  One gender being objectified in print on a daily basis for four decades, in mass circulation newspapers in one country of the world is not "biology".  It's propaganda.

 

"I'm against censorship."

Really?  All censorship?  So you're OK with child porn, snuff, incitement to hatred, libel, etc? If so, you are an amoral coward, copping out of any ethical decisions.  (That's a dangerous road to go down.)  If what you really mean is that you agree with some censorship, but you draw the line before banning Page 3, then say so - and explain your reasoning.

 

"It goes both ways"

It doesn't really, though.  Sure, some women's magazines use any excuse to print pictures of men with their shirts off.  (That'd be more akin to the sidebar of the Daily Mail website than to Page 3: at least they try to make an excuse for it!)  The reason Sex in the City was a phenomenon was the novelty value of seeing women portrayed as actively, rather than passively, sexual: it was a "man bites dog" show.  Imagine a witty and charming programme about middle-aged men perving over young women and objectifying them.  You don't need to imagine it, do you?  

 

"It's a nice earner for the girls"

I was surprised to find out that it's not even that.  There was a woman who was publicly pilloried in the Echo a few years ago because she'd claimed benefits while working.  Because she'd been working as a tit model, that gave the story added "spice" and promoted it to the front page.  But when you read about what she'd claimed and what her earnings were, it was hard to see how she could have got by without benefits.  She had been in The Star, Nuts, Zoo, etc. - what I would have thought of as "making it" in the "tits out for the lads" industry.  And yet, she was getting paid less than the average bog cleaner.

 

It's really not "just a harmless bit of fun" as the publishers often claim.  It's corrosive.  It's there to remind men and women of women's place in society: earning less than men; being subjected to more harassment and sexual violence than men; having their value as a person overlooked and being judged solely on their appearance.

 

Nor is the campaign a case of "feminist ideals only going one way".  The idea that people should be treated as people is really not "PC gone mad".

Nonsense. There is a demand for women to be looked at sexually by men. There is less demand for men to be looked at sexually by women. That's biology right there. It's the demand that drives the industry, not the other way round.

 

Men are wired differently to women no matter how much the feminist movement and its propagandists wish it weren't so. The women who regularly get their norks out are actually doing womankind a huge service in reminding us why we tolerate their shit attempts at stand-up comedy, their inept business people management skills, their irritating obsessions with handbags and shoes, and their promotion of a vacuous celebrity culture.

 

If they didn't have tits and fannies, we'd have let the useless fucks go extinct a long time ago.

[Kevin D]

In my experience, people being exploited, or degraded, tend to have a good grasp of what's happening to them, so it would be illuminating to hear what the models themselves think about the situation.

[Elmyn Noos]

In my experience, people being exploited, or degraded, tend to have a good grasp of what's happening to them, so it would be illuminating to hear what the models themselves think about the situation.

I doubt that very much. Not because they are models, but because they are women. They almost certainly think whatever they boyfriends think.

[Dr Nowt]

In my experience, people being exploited, or degraded, tend to have a good grasp of what's happening to them, so it would be illuminating to hear what the models themselves think about the situation.

 

I knew you were Iceberg Slim in a previous life.

[Elysian Red]

Jenny, 19 and from Plymouth, doesn't see a problem with topless pictures. "I like men admiring my body. Can I just say that I would really like world peace?"

[Champ]

In my experience, people being exploited, or degraded, tend to have a good grasp of what's happening to them, so it would be illuminating to hear what the models themselves think about the situation.

 

That is not the same as being happy with that situation.

I wouldnt imagine that 'Page 3 girls' do see themselves as being degraded but it is the insidious effect of the ubiquitous images of 'ideal' womens bodies that have played their part in skewing society's view of the worth of women and the roles expected of us

[Elmyn Noos]

That is not the same as being happy with that situation.

I wouldnt imagine that 'Page 3 girls' do see themselves as being degraded but it is the insidious effect of the ubiquitous images of 'ideal' womens bodies that have played their part in skewing society's view of the worth of women and the roles expected of us

More feminist nonsense I'm afraid. The pressure that women feel to have "ideal" bodies comes from women themselves. I look at some fake tanned six-pack muscle laden blert on the cover of a mens magazine and instantly the first thought that enters my mind isn't "Oooooh I wish I looked like that", it's "he's gay". It's not "expected" of you to look like these women by anyone other than yourselves. Most blokes with an ounce of maturity in them don't even find the skinny bitches that you aspire to be attractive. The mags that you lot buy tell you this is attractive, you buy it, then moan about it, then blame men, as us blokes look on, mystified by your stupidity.

[Fowlers God]

You only have to see that sex sells by looking at adverts on tv or pictures in magazines l. This could be selling mints or perfume by the guy/girl Are always lookers aren't they!

 

I couldn't give a shit if my tabloid (star) has tits in or not. I only buy it for the racing pull out. If I want to be stimulated intellectually then u will by the Telegrapgh.

 

This is a nothing story crrated by women who are to ugly to be ogled by men! (this statement nay or not be true)

[FanchesterCity]

More feminist nonsense I'm afraid. The pressure that women feel to have "ideal" bodies comes from women themselves. I look at some fake tanned six-pack muscle laden blert on the cover of a mens magazine and instantly the first thought that enters my mind isn't "Oooooh I wish I looked like that", it's "he's gay". It's not "expected" of you to look like these women by anyone other than yourselves. Most blokes with an ounce of maturity in them don't even find the skinny bitches that you aspire to be attractive. The mags that you lot buy tell you this is attractive, you buy it, then moan about it, then blame men, as us blokes look on, mystified by your stupidity.

 

Yep, the very magazines that women say 'pressure' them are the ones they keep buying. It's not lads mags, it's Vogue / Cosmo etc etc.

And although blokes might strike up the odd conversation about good looking women, their opinions are quite varied in who is fanciable... it's women who spend far longer pondering what it takes to look good, and bitching amongst themselves about who has put on weight, or dresses like a tart etc.

 

I can't tell you the number of times I've heard blokes (including myself) trying to explain to women why some 'plain jane' woman is actually quite attractive - cos she's not caked in makeup, doesn't power dress, and just looks sexy 'as is'. Less is more and all that.

[Bjornebye]

My ex once had a right fucking go at me for buying GQ which had Cameron Diaz doing a shoot for her interview in it. I picked up one of her fucking celeb obsessed shit magazines (Heat or something) and turned straight to the page 'Torso of the month' 

 

Would she accept that she was a fucking hypocrite? Would she fuck. 

 

I've never bought a paper with a page 3 bird so I don't give a fuck. 

[Fowlers God]

My ex once had a right fucking go at me for buying GQ which had Cameron Diaz doing a shoot for her interview in it. I picked up one of her fucking celeb obsessed shit magazines (Heat or something) and turned straight to the page 'Torso of the month'

 

Would she accept that she was a fucking hypocrite? Would she fuck.

 

I've never bought a paper with a page 3 bird so I don't give a fuck.

How old an insecure was your ex?

[Champ]

I wouldnt imagine that 'Page 3 girls' do see themselves as being degraded but it is the insidious effect of the ubiquitous images of 'ideal' womens bodies that have played their part in skewing society's view of the worth of women and the roles expected of us

 

 

More feminist nonsense I'm afraid. The pressure that women feel to have "ideal" bodies comes from women themselves. I look at some fake tanned six-pack muscle laden blert on the cover of a mens magazine and instantly the first thought that enters my mind isn't "Oooooh I wish I looked like that", it's "he's gay". It's not "expected" of you to look like these women by anyone other than yourselves. Most blokes with an ounce of maturity in them don't even find the skinny bitches that you aspire to be attractive. The mags that you lot buy tell you this is attractive, you buy it, then moan about it, then blame men, as us blokes look on, mystified by your stupidity.

 

You say the pressure on women comes from women themselves. Do you not read the posts on here!

 

But (sort of) joking aside, I do find it weird that women's idea of beauty and how they present themselves appears to be at odds with what men actually find attractive.

 

But, yes, 'society' is not just men's views and I do agree that in general women are their own harshest critics and instead of deflecting their (our)

perceived shortcomings, as you so helpfully described, they internalise them and judge themselves as the ones not living up to some unattainable goal.

[rubble-rouser]

I love porn.

 

I don't watch it in public.

 

I wouldn't let my kids see it.

 

The publication of pornographic pictures in mass circulation newspapers that people read on the train and the bus is indefensible.  

[Elmyn Noos]

You say the pressure on women comes from women themselves. Do you not read the posts on here!

 

But (sort of) joking aside, I do find it weird that women's idea of beauty and how they present themselves appears to be at odds with what men actually find attractive.

 

But, yes, 'society' is not just men's views and I do agree that in general women are their own harshest critics and instead of deflecting their (our)

perceived shortcomings, as you so helpfully described, they internalise them and judge themselves as the ones not living up to some unattainable goal.

The posts on here prove my point! You'd be hard pressed to find a woman of any shape, colour or tit size that every bloke on here agreed was perfect, and by hard pressed I mean you'd find it impossible. There is no "perfect" woman. What most blokes agree on is that skinny is just as unattractive as fat, so surprise surprise, most of us would happily stick our dicks into just about anything in between. The posts on this forum bear out the fact that pretty much whatever you look like, as long as you're happy to whip out your norks, we're happy to gawp at them.

 

Blokes are simple creatures. It's women that complicate things.

[Boss]

Tuebrook, I'm sorry but being anti censorship doesn't include being against banning child pornography or snuff, that's a case of 2 + 2 = 5 in your mind. Anti censorship in my view is trying to stop this moral crusade to protect people, that don't need your protection. In the case of a page 3 model, it's 100% consensual, their being paid handsomely and it's ultimately their choice, your trying to take that choice away from them and it's not your right to do so.

 

They want the job and they have no problem getting their tits out in a newspaper / magazine. I don't understand the abuse of it. The readership want to see it, the girls aspire to be in it, it's supply and demand, the first rule of business.

 

Now I don't even buy page 3 newspapers, so it doesn't really affect me either way, but the people that want it banned A. never read it and B. aren't the girls in that industry. So the people that are being punished are the people that are or aspiring to be page 3 models, and the readers that get enjoyment from it. All because some liberals that never even buy the damn thing don't want it to be made available.

 

 

 

 

[Elmyn Noos]

I love porn.

 

I don't watch it in public.

 

I wouldn't let my kids see it.

 

The publication of pornographic pictures in mass circulation newspapers that people read on the train and the bus is indefensible.  

It's hardly porn is it? It's a pair of nipples. If the nipples were covered it would be acceptable to most, and could even be art. Miranda Hart is indefensible. Birds with their tits out in newspapers is just a bit crass.