Unbelievable Jeff Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 You are talking purely about your own experience though. What about the young girls at school being derided as fat because they don't look like the latest skinny model or pop star? Do you get women slagging you off because you don't look like Pelle? So girls get bullied for not looking like the latest model, but do the bullies look like these models then? I used to get slagged off (I wouldn't say bullied because I 'tend' to associate that with more violence rather than being called Fatboy) for being fat at school, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 I don't like page 3. I'm not saying women shouldn't be able to model, or get their boobs out for photos etc if they so wish. If that is their choice, more power to them. I do have a problem with the placement of it. This is a newspaper, not a top shelf porn magazine or 'lads-mag'. Now, obviously most people know that The Sun is hardly the pinnacle of top quality journalism. However, having a topless woman everyday in a paper costing (I'm guessing as I don't actually buy it) 30/40p with some banal comment roughly relating to something going on, in the highest selling paper in the country sends a message. As trashy as The Sun it, it still legitimises this message by being a 'newspaper'. This is what women are for, look at how attractive this woman is. Look at her silly little comment about the war, or how she doesn't know anything about politics, but it's ok because you can see her boobs. It is a dangerous message. I'm sure I wasn't the only young lad that bought The Sun with your mates and oggled at the page 3 girl - hey it's accessible as f**k, any newsagents and it costs less than a can of coke! It serves to condition boys that women are a sideshow to the real-world. There to have their bodies and attractiveness admired. They are objects, not people. To girls, it reinforces that idea. You are there to be attractive to men. This photoshopped image is what men want, and it is how you should want to look. The notion that of oh well there are men with their tops of is nonsensical whatabouttery, and false equivalence. It's a nice idea if you totally detach yourself from the world we live in. If men and women were treated equally, and subject to the same pressures and societal attitudes their may be some debate to be had. But it's not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 My anoxeric daughter, when she was at her most skeletal looking, was told by girls in her school that she looked "really good." How many page 3 girls are skeletal? Hardly any, as it is more a celebration of more buxom women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 So girls get bullied for not looking like the latest model, but do the bullies look like these models then? I used to get slagged off (I wouldn't say bullied because I 'tend' to associate that with more violence rather than being called Fatboy) for being fat at school, yes. C'mon man. Bullying does not require violence to be damaging or hurtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 I don't like page 3. I'm not saying women shouldn't be able to model, or get their boobs out for photos etc if they so wish. If that is their choice, more power to them. I do have a problem with the placement of it. This is a newspaper, not a top shelf porn magazine or 'lads-mag'. Now, obviously most people know that The Sun is hardly the pinnacle of top quality journalism. However, having a topless woman everyday in a paper costing (I'm guessing as I don't actually buy it) 30/40p with some banal comment roughly relating to something going on, in the highest selling paper in the country sends a message. As trashy as The Sun it, it still legitimises this message by being a 'newspaper'. This is what women are for, look at how attractive this woman is. Look at her silly little comment about the war, or how she doesn't know anything about politics, but it's ok because you can see her boobs. It is a dangerous message. I'm sure I wasn't the only young lad that bought The Sun with your mates and oggled at the page 3 girl - hey it's accessible as f**k, any newsagents and it costs less than a can of coke! It serves to condition boys that women are a sideshow to the real-world. There to have their bodies and attractiveness admired. They are objects, not people. To girls, it reinforces that idea. You are there to be attractive to men. This photoshopped image is what men want, and it is how you should want to look. The notion that of oh well there are men with their tops of is nonsensical whatabouttery, and false equivalence. It's a nice idea if you totally detach yourself from the world we live in. If men and women were treated equally, and subject to the same pressures and societal attitudes their may be some debate to be had. But it's not true. So when you used to oggle page 3 with your mates, did you all decide that it wasn't on because it objectified women? Did you look at it and think, the girls in my class are beneath me, and shouldn't bother with school, they should be happy to spend their days at home looking after the kids in later life. No, you thought, "****, they're nice tits. I like tits. Perhaps I'll buy the paper tomorrow so I can see more nice tits, cos the girls at school aren't interested in showing me theirs". Don't overthink it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 C'mon man. Bullying does not require violence to be damaging or hurtful. Perhaps, but in that case I was bullied at school for not being thin. It doesn't mean I have an issue with watching Diet Coke ads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 So when you used to oggle page 3 with your mates, did you all decide that it wasn't on because it objectified women? Did you look at it and think, the girls in my class are beneath me, and shouldn't bother with school, they should be happy to spend their days at home looking after the kids in later life. No, you thought, "****, they're nice tits. I like tits. Perhaps I'll buy the paper tomorrow so I can see more nice tits, cos the girls at school aren't interested in showing me theirs". Don't overthink it. I think it's overly simplistic to say what we consume (by that I mean the media - TV, Film, Music, Books, Games and yes what we read and look at) doesn't affect or influence the way we think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 (edited) I genuinely can't see why people get so up in arms about a pair of norks? In a paper, on a page, that everyone knows shows norks.got to agree but we brits have a puritan attitude to sex always have had compared to most of europe. two of the worst puritan offenders were staunch right wingers mary whitehouse and victoria gillick,so its not a lefty thing ... whatever that is.. seems a bit dated that term. i leave it up to the women or men concerned who model rather than than the modern day puritans . Edited 22 January, 2015 by solentstars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 Perhaps, but in that case I was bullied at school for not being thin. It doesn't mean I have an issue with watching Diet Coke ads. Firstly, it's obviously awful if you were bullied. Bullying is a crappy thing for anyone to go through. As I said above, isolating certain examples and comparing them doesn't really stand up, as you are removing all societal context. In that respect, image, sexualisation and objectification are much larger issues for women. It'd also be interesting to know who was behind the Diet Coke ads. I'm genuinely curious as to what the make of the team that made the adverts was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 I don't like page 3. I'm not saying women shouldn't be able to model, or get their boobs out for photos etc if they so wish. If that is their choice, more power to them. I do have a problem with the placement of it. This is a newspaper, not a top shelf porn magazine or 'lads-mag'. Now, obviously most people know that The Sun is hardly the pinnacle of top quality journalism. However, having a topless woman everyday in a paper costing (I'm guessing as I don't actually buy it) 30/40p with some banal comment roughly relating to something going on, in the highest selling paper in the country sends a message. As trashy as The Sun it, it still legitimises this message by being a 'newspaper'. This is what women are for, look at how attractive this woman is. Look at her silly little comment about the war, or how she doesn't know anything about politics, but it's ok because you can see her boobs. It is a dangerous message. I'm sure I wasn't the only young lad that bought The Sun with your mates and oggled at the page 3 girl - hey it's accessible as f**k, any newsagents and it costs less than a can of coke! It serves to condition boys that women are a sideshow to the real-world. There to have their bodies and attractiveness admired. They are objects, not people. To girls, it reinforces that idea. You are there to be attractive to men. This photoshopped image is what men want, and it is how you should want to look. The notion that of oh well there are men with their tops of is nonsensical whatabouttery, and false equivalence. It's a nice idea if you totally detach yourself from the world we live in. If men and women were treated equally, and subject to the same pressures and societal attitudes their may be some debate to be had. But it's not true. Thank you. A far more eloquent explanation than I could ever muster but you're absolutely right on all counts. Thank you again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 Thank you. A far more eloquent explanation than I could ever muster but you're absolutely right on all counts. Thank you again I found my niche on here BTF, the annoying feminist bloke. Don't thank me, truth is I'm fairly new to this, and I'm pretty poor at it really. Most of what I say is like feminism 101. But your kind words are appreciated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simo Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 When will people getting offended for others ever end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 I think it's overly simplistic to say what we consume (by that I mean the media - TV, Film, Music, Books, Games and yes what we read and look at) doesn't affect or influence the way we think. Perhaps, but I think Page 3 is one of those things that is pretty harmless. If you want to have an issue with something then p0rn has a far more detrimental effect on teenagers than page 3 ever could, did or will have, as do magazines of the Heat variety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 Firstly, it's obviously awful if you were bullied. Bullying is a crappy thing for anyone to go through. As I said above, isolating certain examples and comparing them doesn't really stand up, as you are removing all societal context. In that respect, image, sexualisation and objectification are much larger issues for women. It'd also be interesting to know who was behind the Diet Coke ads. I'm genuinely curious as to what the make of the team that made the adverts was. It wasn't a big deal for me in all honesty, I had a lot of friends, and i wasn't unpopular so it didn't really matter. I also broke one kids nose and it got better... Probably mostly blokes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 I found my niche on here BTF, the annoying feminist bloke. Don't thank me, truth is I'm fairly new to this, and I'm pretty poor at it really. Most of what I say is like feminism 101. But your kind words are appreciated See, now BTF will fancy you cos you seem kind and understanding. His Twitter photo has him with a nice beard as well BTF, if you like that kind of thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 It is not but the numbers are troubling. Has there been a significant increase in sexual violence over the last decade? If not then why is it worrying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lloydie Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 I thought after charlie hebdo we were fighting for papers and magazines to put whatever images they want in them? Or are we doing the other thing now it's so hard to keep up!? (unless you're looking at boobs on page 3 in which case its quite easy to keep it up) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 Perhaps, but I think Page 3 is one of those things that is pretty harmless. If you want to have an issue with something then p0rn has a far more detrimental effect on teenagers than page 3 ever could, did or will have, as do magazines of the Heat variety. Oh, no doubt porn has a massive affect on teenagers. It's scary to think what that is going to start doing. Which also makes me think, why the f**k bother with page 3? The vast majority of people are a matter of seconds and a few clicks away from porn of almost any imaginable type. At least porn is on a porn site (ordinarily). As I said, I'm not saying outright ban women (or men) getting their bits out on camera. Heck, I have friends who are models and even pornstars (Jeff you follow me on Twitter, you may well see me talk to her a fair bit. My problem with page 3 is the placement of it. It serves no real purpose, offers very little to anyone and as I outlined before sends a harmful message. I know they are extreme cases, but there has been more than one instance of men attacking and killing women because they are virgins, and can't get women to sleep with them. Whilst I am not for one minute placing blame for this solely at the door of page 3, I think it is one tiny aspect that helps go towards creating an attitude that women are objects for men to f**k and that men are owed sex by women. There's a whole mess of other crap that also falls into this category, and I am not at all implying it is anywhere near the worst offender. But it is one minute change to make, that has no effect on anyone that may just make a small, helpful change. It's not as if not showing a model with her top off is going to stop anyone from ever seeing it if they so wish, it's just the placement and accessibility of it that is the problem. I know it has been around for ages, and there are worse things out there, but these are both p!ss poor reasons to not want to try and make changes for the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 Another dreadful role model which is actively marketed at impressionable teenage girls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 See, now BTF will fancy you cos you seem kind and understanding. His Twitter photo has him with a nice beard as well BTF, if you like that kind of thing Aye, and stupid long hair. Fair to say I'm no Pellè. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 Another dreadful role model which is actively marketed at impressionable teenage girls What point are trying to make with that exactly? Miley has come under a fair amount of criticism from all angles for this, and subsequent antics on her tour. She certainly isn't a role model, it's a pretty transparent attempt to A) Shock (a poor one at that) & B) Shake off the child/disney star image and prove how adult she is. Sadly, it's so poorly thought out that she actually just seems pretty childish. It's a shame, as it ultimately detracts from her talent as a pop star. Call me some arm flailing liberal lefty or whatever, but it was just cringeworthy to watch. A semi-naked girl grinding up against a guy probably not a million miles off twice her age is just grim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 How many page 3 girls are skeletal? Hardly any, as it is more a celebration of more buxom women. Missing the point mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 What have a pair of breasts got to do with the news anyway? We all know a half of the population have them, hardly a daily news story is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 I thought after charlie hebdo we were fighting for papers and magazines to put whatever images they want in them? they should do a page 3 of Prophet Muhammad with his nips out, it would could unite all parties or start terrorwar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 What have a pair of breasts got to do with the news anyway? We all know a half of the population have them, hardly a daily news story is it? they're different almost every day and you also find out a little bit about situation in Gaza or something like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 What point are trying to make with that exactly? Miley has come under a fair amount of criticism from all angles for this, and subsequent antics on her tour. She certainly isn't a role model, it's a pretty transparent attempt to A) Shock (a poor one at that) & B) Shake off the child/disney star image and prove how adult she is. Sadly, it's so poorly thought out that she actually just seems pretty childish. It's a shame, as it ultimately detracts from her talent as a pop star. Call me some arm flailing liberal lefty or whatever, but it was just cringeworthy to watch. A semi-naked girl grinding up against a guy probably not a million miles off twice her age is just grim. My point is that Page 3 is heavily criticised for sending out the wrong message to young girls about how to look and behave. There are many other examples which are far worse and, unlike page 3, are actively marketed at young women. Miley was heavily criticised but I haven't seen any particular clamour for her to be banned from performing. I agree, it was dreadful and it's not an isolated case. Katie Perry, Nikki Minaj, Britney, Christina Aguelerlelelriea and many others have all donned skimpy outfits and been branded, 'you should look like this' to teenage girls. To me that is the key difference. They are being sold as role models in the media to young women, whereas page three isn't. That's just pictures of boobs for white van men, nothing more nothing less. Just because people see it, they don't automatically feel the need to imitate it. I watch porn but I've never felt the need to go round to my next door neighbour and fix her boiler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 What have a pair of breasts got to do with the news anyway? We all know a half of the population have them, hardly a daily news story is it? I thought this is in relation to page 3 though, and the way that makes women think they should look like them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 I watch porn but I've never felt the need to go round to my next door neighbour and fix her boiler. Bloody good job I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 My point is that Page 3 is heavily criticised for sending out the wrong message to young girls about how to look and behave. There are many other examples which are far worse and, unlike page 3, are actively marketed at young women. Miley was heavily criticised but I haven't seen any particular clamour for her to be banned from performing. I agree, it was dreadful and it's not an isolated case. Katie Perry, Nikki Minaj, Britney, Christina Aguelerlelelriea and many others have all donned skimpy outfits and been branded, 'you should look like this' to teenage girls. To me that is the key difference. They are being sold as role models in the media to young women, whereas page three isn't. That's just pictures of boobs for white van men, nothing more nothing less. Just because people see it, they don't automatically feel the need to imitate it. I watch porn but I've never felt the need to go round to my next door neighbour and fix her boiler. Well, I addressed this above. Saying well this isn't the worst thing out there is a great way to stop changing anything. There's always something worse out there. I agree, there are worse things out there than page 3. That doesn't mean page 3 is a ok, or that we shouldn't think about whether it is worth keeping, or attempting to change it. Should we stop child porn, there's snuff films out there where people are killed and that's much worse etc. Again, this is taking it to the very extreme. Obviously page 3 are not the same or even similar. But simply saying there are worse things out there is not a great excuse to keep things as they are. Also, it's not just about role models. Yes, page 3 isn't targeted at teenage girls. That isn't the issue with it. The issue is that it is targeted at men, and the problems that can cause. Also, fair play that is quite funny. I don't think that is exactly the point, but funny none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 This is the thing though - there are many who see it as harmless but that doesn't mean we ignore those who see it differently. Totally agree with that, but at what point do you look to ban something like page 3? When 1 person doesn't think its harmless? When 10% don't find it harmless? 50%? Its all very well people debating what they think is right and wrong about it (that after all is what a forum such as this is all about) but at what threshold does opinion turn into action (e.g. banning it) on something like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 (edited) I worked for the Times, Guardian, Telegraph and Spectator, albeit before the digital age. The Guardian used to make a fortune out of ads in those days - equal to the cover price revenue. Re readership - you do know that anyone who has seen a front page (or any part) of a newspaper is said to have "read" it? Probably why they kept Page 3 going for so long! Revenue split from the Sun is still 50/50 cover/ ad revenue now. The NRS has evolved beyond looking at the Front page now (thankfully, their demographic break downs particulary are extremely accurate), anyway you can't argue with ABC circulation figures and they all bear the same ratio of readers/ buyers. Guardian (Scott trust) has lost money for ever, the little it ever did make used to be from from Public Sector jobs pages (News UK recruitment ad' teams are made up from ex Guardian/ Obs employees that have left since the Tories turned the tap off that gravy train post 2005). You worked for Broadsheets OK, I worked for TT/ ST for 7 years, are you saying it was easy to go into West End Ad' agencies and sell space to premium brands for a higher yield than mass market? The agencies I deal with would kick me out for suggesting that, far far far more potential revenue from mass market brands like P&G, Unilever, FMCG brands, volume car manufacturers and banks than premium lifestyle brands with tiny ad' budgets. Look at ALF/ BRAD to see exactly how much money premium brands spend on marketing compared to mass market products. Edited 22 January, 2015 by JackanorySFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 Has there been a significant increase in sexual violence over the last decade? If not then why is it worrying? It is worrying that so many people are being raped each year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 Totally agree with that, but at what point do you look to ban something like page 3? When 1 person doesn't think its harmless? When 10% don't find it harmless? 50%? Its all very well people debating what they think is right and wrong about it (that after all is what a forum such as this is all about) but at what threshold does opinion turn into action (e.g. banning it) on something like this? I don't think it should be banned. I just think, in 2015, it is high time that we move on from "Page 3", leave the boobs for the girlie mags and internet sites and treat newspapers as newspapers and not somewhere where you get a cheap thrill. We wouldn't tolerate Love Thy Neighbour on TV anymore as we are now a more enlightened culture apparently. Page 3 comes out of the same era and is just as dated. Rather than it being banned it would be nice in tabloid editors decided that topless girls no longer have a place in a daily newspaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 Revenue split from the Sun is still 50/50 cover/ ad revenue now. The NRS has evolved beyond looking at the Front page now (thankfully, their demographic break downs particulary are extremely accurate), anyway you can't argue with ABC circulation figures and they all bear the same ratio of readers/ buyers. Guardian (Scott trust) has lost money for ever, the little it ever did make used to be from from Public Sector jobs pages (News UK recruitment ad' teams are made up from ex Guardian/ Obs employees that have left since the Tories turned the tap off that gravy train post 2005). You worked for Broadsheets OK, I worked for TT/ ST for 7 years, are you saying it was easy to go into West End Ad' agencies and sell space to premium brands for a higher yield than mass market? The agencies I deal with would kick me out for suggesting that, far far far more potential revenue from mass market brands like P&G, Unilever, FMCG brands, volume car manufacturers and banks than premium lifestyle brands with tiny ad' budgets. Look at ALF/ BRAD to see exactly how much money premium brands spend on marketing compared to mass market products. Not arguing with the readership figures but as you know, there is more to that when deciding where to place your advertising. Just because The Sun has more ABC1 readers does not mean that they would get an account that would only suit the readership profile of The Guardian or Independent. when I joined the Guardian the sales were around 230,000. After a few years and before The Indy came along we hit over 400k which for The Guardian was huge. One of our ad girls realised that the average age of the Telegraph readers was over the target age of their job ads and we cleaned up as we had a much younger readership profile. We had a number of really successful years on the back of that and the young lady concerned eventually became MD. As you say, The Guardian/Observer are owned by The Scott Trust and as such are the only truly independent newspaper in the UK. Whilst this means that it cant compete financially with the likes of News International it does mean that the editorial team don't have to worry about proprietorial interference. It was been over 15 years since I worked in the print and I appreciate much has changed in that time. I also worked in the Circulation Dept rather tah Advertsining so will have a different view to you. I was made redundant from The Guardian at a time when advertising started to go online. I don't know how they can afford to print a paper version any more as I think the sales have dropped back to around 200k. You will know better than I how much they make from their online edition but I know that over the last few years many of my ex colleagues have lost their jobs. I know you are a News International man ( I was in The Times pre Murdoch so I am not) but The Guardian and Observer have had a much tougher ride and have had to survive on their wits rather than being a part of a multi national corporation. For those here that sneer at The Guardian and The Observer, given that that are truly independent they should be valued for the service they provide, even if you don't like the content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 they're different almost every day and you also find out a little bit about situation in Gaza or something like that Ok I concede. If it helps people get a better understanding of world affairs lets keep the baps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 Rather than it being banned it would be nice in tabloid editors decided that topless girls no longer have a place in a daily newspaper. They'll only do that when it doesn't sell newspapers, which brings me back to my question: how many people have to find this sort of thing anything other than harmless for public opinion to start swaying the editor of The Sun (and The Daily Star)? Some people see it as harmless, you and others don't. Who decides who's right and who's wrong....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 My point is that Page 3 is heavily criticised for sending out the wrong message to young girls about how to look and behave. There are many other examples which are far worse and, unlike page 3, are actively marketed at young women. Miley was heavily criticised but I haven't seen any particular clamour for her to be banned from performing. I agree, it was dreadful and it's not an isolated case. Katie Perry, Nikki Minaj, Britney, Christina Aguelerlelelriea and many others have all donned skimpy outfits and been branded, 'you should look like this' to teenage girls. To me that is the key difference. They are being sold as role models in the media to young women, whereas page three isn't. That's just pictures of boobs for white van men, nothing more nothing less. Just because people see it, they don't automatically feel the need to imitate it. I watch porn but I've never felt the need to go round to my next door neighbour and fix her boiler. You are right that no one has called for the banning of Miley etc but as you also say she has come in for heavy criticism. Annie Lennox has been leading an argument about how pop videos are overly sexed up. No one is calling for a banning - just a use of common sense. There is a place for porn and it isn't on TV over the dinner table (ooer missus). Just as a pair of nice pert boobs isn't really appropriate over the cornflakes (ooer missus). Unfortunately not everyone is as well adjusted as you and there are people who use porn and then go out and act out what they have seen. Not just peados. There are people who feel that they are not sexually attractive because they don't look like one of the girls on Page 3 (and most women don't). We do not live in a well adjusted society and there are the Ched Evans of this world sadly who do believe that women are there for their self gratification. This has come through their upbrining and the messages they pick up growing up. I went to an all boys secondary school. If a girl walked past the school kids would be hanging out of the windows wolf whistling and cat calling. When we played the local mixed school at football again we would be showing off to the girls. The boys at that school didn't bat an eyelid because they were used to be around the girls all the time so they were nothing special. We saw them a sex objects because we were kept apart from them and anything in a skirt was something to be lusted after rather than treated as a normal human being. Probably not making my point well here but in a well adjusted society people should not be objectified and treated differently just because they have boobs and a vagina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 They'll only do that when it doesn't sell newspapers, which brings me back to my question: how many people have to find this sort of thing anything other than harmless for public opinion to start swaying the editor of The Sun (and The Daily Star)? Some people see it as harmless, you and others don't. Who decides who's right and who's wrong....? Society. How decides if it is ok to be rascist or not? There are a lot of people that think that the objectification of women as sexual playthings is wrong. Not just "wimmin." As I said, I have no objection to women getting their kit off for the cameras. Some want to do it and there is clearly a market for it. My problem is where does that sit with a daily family newspaper. You may think it harmless but you need to listen to the victims of sexual assault of eating disorders. I am not saying these are all down to Page 3 but there is something about the way that woman are portrayed by the tabloids that doesn't make sense in 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 I thought after charlie hebdo we were fighting for papers and magazines to put whatever images they want in them? Or are we doing the other thing now it's so hard to keep up!? (unless you're looking at boobs on page 3 in which case its quite easy to keep it up) I don't think we are saying that you cant show naked pictures of people. It is just is it appropriate to put these picture, every day, in a family newspaper. If it is so innocent why are people getting wound up about breast feeding in public. The pictures are there for sexual reasons and as we know, there is plenty of free access to nude pics without them being shoved in your face over breakfast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 Society. How decides if it is ok to be rascist or not? There are a lot of people that think that the objectification of women as sexual playthings is wrong. Not just "wimmin." As I said, I have no objection to women getting their kit off for the cameras. Some want to do it and there is clearly a market for it. My problem is where does that sit with a daily family newspaper. You may think it harmless but you need to listen to the victims of sexual assault of eating disorders. I am not saying these are all down to Page 3 but there is something about the way that woman are portrayed by the tabloids that doesn't make sense in 2015. Fair points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 I went to an all boys secondary school. If a girl walked past the school kids would be hanging out of the windows wolf whistling and cat calling. When we played the local mixed school at football again we would be showing off to the girls. The boys at that school didn't bat an eyelid because they were used to be around the girls all the time so they were nothing special. We saw them a sex objects because we were kept apart from them and anything in a skirt was something to be lusted after rather than treated as a normal human being. Probably not making my point well here but in a well adjusted society people should not be objectified and treated differently just because they have boobs and a vagina. yeah prob makes the opposite of your point, ain't it! Thinking about it, I don't remember ever finding page 3 sexually exciting. I don't think I've ever jacked it to page 3. The mere fact of bare boobs is v.little to me, if I think anything, I think "Oh, boobs" and then move on with my life. I'm desensitised! I'd prob be even more menace to society if I'd never seen boobs! Like in Carry On Camping when those 40 yr old men is going to extreme lengths just for merest glimpse of Nudist Boobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 yeah prob makes the opposite of your point, ain't it! Thinking about it, I don't remember ever finding page 3 sexually exciting. I don't think I've ever jacked it to page 3. The mere fact of bare boobs is v.little to me, if I think anything, I think "Oh, boobs" and then move on with my life. I'm desensitised! I'd prob be even more menace to society if I'd never seen boobs! Like in Carry On Camping when those 40 yr old men is going to extreme lengths just for merest glimpse of Nudist Boobs. This is kind of what I was getting at. Can anyone actually give a decent reason to keep page 3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 Perhaps, but in that case I was bullied at school for not being thin. It doesn't mean I have an issue with watching Diet Coke ads. Here you go again Jeff. You think that because you dealt with this okay then why cant others? Because they cant that is why. As I told you about my daughter. She had few friends at school and it was only when she lost weight (she was never overweight) to the point she was skin and bone did she start to get positive messages from some of her peers and became popular. Some kids have such a hard time of it at school they take their own lives. They are plenty of well adjusted people out there, there are also lots who find life unbearable because they cant deal with what they perceive is to be their wrong body image. It is much easier for blokes. When someone like Hugh Hefner can get the type of women he does even at 108 (or whatever age he is) it just goes to show how skewed and f**Ked up the world is. Bloke, if you are ugly and fat but super rich, no worries, sorted. Bernie Ecclestone. WTF? Look at his wife. But you don't see these rich powerful men with overweight munters on their arms do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 yeah prob makes the opposite of your point, ain't it! Thinking about it, I don't remember ever finding page 3 sexually exciting. I don't think I've ever jacked it to page 3. The mere fact of bare boobs is v.little to me, if I think anything, I think "Oh, boobs" and then move on with my life. I'm desensitised! I'd prob be even more menace to society if I'd never seen boobs! Like in Carry On Camping when those 40 yr old men is going to extreme lengths just for merest glimpse of Nudist Boobs. Phoarrrrr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 This is kind of what I was getting at. Can anyone actually give a decent reason to keep page 3? I suppose Murdoch would argue it keeps his circulation up (oo-er). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 Thank you. A far more eloquent explanation than I could ever muster but you're absolutely right on all counts. Thank you again BTF if I recall correctly you said at one time you were a dancer. Now I know it wasn't an exotic dancer but I wonder if your dances had sexual undertones? I recall the coke advert with women looking out of windows at a well toned bloke and the Levi ad. I assume you showed the same disgust to those images, I'm sure it undermined a lot of men who think they were not up to standard. Perhaps that's why so many men are now working out to extremes. Men like visual things, whereas I have read women prefer the mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 yeah prob makes the opposite of your point, ain't it! Thinking about it, I don't remember ever finding page 3 sexually exciting. I don't think I've ever jacked it to page 3. The mere fact of bare boobs is v.little to me, if I think anything, I think "Oh, boobs" and then move on with my life. I'm desensitised! I'd prob be even more menace to society if I'd never seen boobs! Like in Carry On Camping when those 40 yr old men is going to extreme lengths just for merest glimpse of Nudist Boobs. So by making a big thing out of them (like going out of our way to put them in a newspaper every day) we are making them something special when 50% of the people have them ( well more if you include moobs). If they are not giving people a cheap thrill, why publish them in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 This is kind of what I was getting at. Can anyone actually give a decent reason to keep page 3?Perhaps an individual's choice would be a fair reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 BTF if I recall correctly you said at one time you were a dancer. Now I know it wasn't an exotic dancer but I wonder if your dances had sexual undertones? I recall the coke advert with women looking out of windows at a well toned bloke and the Levi ad. I assume you showed the same disgust to those images, I'm sure it undermined a lot of men who think they were not up to standard. Perhaps that's why so many men are now working out to extremes. Men like visual things, whereas I have read women prefer the mind. It's impressive how many things you miss the point on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 22 January, 2015 Share Posted 22 January, 2015 It's impressive how many things you miss the point on here. In your world. Afterall Iam a man and by your rules 'All men are vile' so your views are clouded by that view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now