Should Page 3 discontinue?

jaja321

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So what? Do you want to regulate what can or cannot appear in pint in certain publications? If nobody's rights are being violated against their will, there's nothing wrong with it and there are no legitimate grounds for regulation, IMO.

The law exists to protect out rights, not to enforce some imaginary morality which is an entirely subjective concept.

Eh.. no. Did I say I did?

Scanlas The 2nd

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I doubt very much the Beckham ad was aimed at gay men. The assumption seems to be women don't enjoy looking at attractive male bodies.

I'd say they make up a massive part of his target market. How come most of the products he advertises are for men?

Why would they aim for a minority market?

Hetero men can buy his products too.

hatrickpatrick

jaja321 wrote: »

Eh.. no. Did I say I did?

So how is it relevant were its current affairs or not? Horoscopes aren't news either...

kfallon

Is it just The Scum that still do Page 3? Is The Daily Sport still going? Always used to laugh at the made up court case reports in that, someone would be up for 'voyeurism' and the report would have something like the following:

"I was undressing for bed and had just released my hefty bangers when I peered out the window and saw him handling his meaty fookstick which was glistening with the first signs of his baby gravy", the woman told the court yesterday :pac:

jaja321

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So how is it relevant were its current affairs or not? Horoscopes aren't news either...

I don’t see horoscopes as news either and I don’t buy my newspapers to read horoscopes. I just think it’s all a bit stupid to be honest, and I don’t really see its relevance in today’s world. My only real ‘issue’ with it would be similar to what Eve Dublin said above – making the girls out to be complete morons, that’s the most offensive thing about it. If people want to buy that crap, then off with them. I think it’s silly and that’s my opinion. I said nothing about regulation or banning anything.

Eve_Dublin

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Why would they aim for a minority market?

Hetero men can buy his products too.

My point is, those posters are not aimed at women. Much like stunning and scantly-clad women selling stuff to us. Were supposed to aspire to be like them, apparently. All pretty horrible stuff.

BunShopVoyeur

This is fine though, right?

Craptacular

Page 3 should not discontinue. For over 40 years it has been helping to normalise the objectification of women. Page 3 was a leading light in convincing women that it's OK to be seen as nothing more than a pair of tits and a nice smile. Much of the portrayal of women in mainstream media, i.e. a nice figure and a ditsy comment, is thanks to Page 3's decades of ignoring feminists who claim it's degrading.

Let's not forget that the girls do it of their own free will and are well paid for it. This helps society to normalise paying girls for their bodies.

So what if children see them? They're just tits which are perfectly natural (the concept, not necessarily the page 3 examples) and it just helps teach young boys to judge girls by them and teach girls how important they are in attracting the boys.

Really, Page 3 hurts nobody and has helped make our society what it is today. For that we should be thankful and celebrate it rather than calling for it to end. What do you want? Burkas?

Eve_Dublin

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

This is fine though, right?

What do you think?

rgmmg

If anything, it should continue from pages 3 through 8 at least.

Scanlas The 2nd

What's the problem with objectification anyway? I don't care if someone I don't know objectifies me, how other people perceive me is none of my business as far as I'm concerned.

BunShopVoyeur

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

What do you think?

I have no issue with it.

As I'm sure many women bemoaning having to see a pair of tits in a newspaper (which nobody is making them buy, look at or acknowledge) will have no issues gawping at a near naked man.

Craptacular

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What's the problem with objectification anyway? I don't care if someone I don't know objectifies me, how other people perceive me is none of my business as far as I'm concerned.

Remember when Fr. Jack died and Fr. Ted and Fr. Dougal were talking to the female solicitor? That's part of the problem with objectification, pet.

BunShopVoyeur

Thanks for educating us sugar tits.

Yakult

Page 3 on the forums? I do not know of any other "pages"

Varied

There's more pages after page 3???

BunShopVoyeur

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

This is fine though, right?

damn fine:cool:

harney

Varied wrote: »

There's more pages after page 3???

Try unsticking them, you'll find a wealth of valuable informa, you'll find unbiased views on, actually no.

BunShopVoyeur

bluewolf wrote: »

damn fine:cool:

Thought so





(I mean, I'm deeply offended by that filth)

mackg

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I don't have a problem with the topless photos in The Sun as such because it is a fooking rag of "newspaper" but it's the comments beside the models and what they imply (that the woman is brain dead and can't possibly form an intelligent opinion on her own) that bug me somewhat. The comment from Guy:Incognito above highlights what many readers must feel when they look at those photos and I feel it's horribly unfair and exploitive.

It's all very well to say the women are free to do as they please and it's sexually liberating and it's "just a bit of fun" and it's a free country but when the paper purposely makes them out to be morons, then I have a problem.

That's an interesting point but the practice of labelling people as thick is common in many other professions. Look at hairdressers, supermarket staff, footballers, labourers, taxi drivers etc. Do you think that peoples assumptions about these women would change if the blurb was removed?

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I'd say they make up a massive part of his target market. How come most of the products he advertises are for men?

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

My point is, those posters are not aimed at women. Much like stunning and scantly-clad women selling stuff to us. Were supposed to aspire to be like them, apparently. All pretty horrible stuff.

Beckham is an odd case in that I know hetero guys who still love him from his United days. One friend copied every haircut he got for years in school and never got the piss taken out of him over it. That's how accepted he was as an icon for guys. Obviously a lot of gay guys like him because he's a style icon. Then also there is the fact that a lot of the products he endorses are bought in huge amounts by women as gifts for men, his fragrance for example. How many bottles of whatever it is will be bought by women for men this Christmas? His advertising appeals across the board, so although I agree gay men probably buy a lot of his stuff I doubt they make up an unusually big proportion.

Craptacular wrote: »

Page 3 should not discontinue. For over 40 years it has been helping to normalise the objectification of women. Page 3 was a leading light in convincing women that it's OK to be seen as nothing more than a pair of tits and a nice smile. Much of the portrayal of women in mainstream media, i.e. a nice figure and a ditsy comment, is thanks to Page 3's decades of ignoring feminists who claim it's degrading.

Let's not forget that the girls do it of their own free will and are well paid for it. This helps society to normalise paying girls for their bodies.

So what if children see them? They're just tits which are perfectly natural (the concept, not necessarily the page 3 examples) and it just helps teach young boys to judge girls by them and teach girls how important they are in attracting the boys.

Really, Page 3 hurts nobody and has helped make our society what it is today. For that we should be thankful and celebrate it rather than calling for it to end. What do you want? Burkas?

This is an interesting point. Is there something to back it up or is it just conjecture? Also how does page 3 in particular differ from all the other ways sex is shoved down our throats 24/7 these days and are you against all that too?

jill_valentine

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I doubt very much the Beckham ad was aimed at gay men. The assumption seems to be women don't enjoy looking at attractive male bodies.

They do, but not in the same way.

Consistent with our hypothesis, our findings showed that the inversion effect emerged only when participants saw sexualized males. This suggests that, at a basic cognitive level, sexualized men were perceived as persons, whereas sexualized women were perceived as objects.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1568&context=psychfacpub&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ie%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DIntegrating%2BSexual%2BObjectification%2BWith%2BObject%2BVersus%2BPerson%2BRecognition%253A%2BThe%2BSexualized-Body-Inversion%2BHypothesis%26sugexp%3Dchrome%2Cmod%3D11%26sourceid%3Dchrome%26ie%3DUTF-8#search=%22Integrating%20Sexual%20Objectification%20Object%20Versus%20Person%20Recognition%3A%20Sexualized-Body-Inversion%20Hypothesis%22

That happens in both male and female viewers by the way, so don't think I'm waving a rolling pin at a whole gender here. Both male and female brains, when presented with human bodies, will process male bodies as a whole and a person, and female bodies as a collection of parts and an object. Straight women don't, in general, objectify men in the same way, because they're (generally) hardwired a little differently.

Since we mentioned porn earlier, for instance, it might be worth finding some that's been made for female viewers - for research purposes of course, ahem - just to see how different the perspectives are. By and large, female viewers don't find the performers bodies in themselves sexy, so it's all about the participant's reactions and responses, and they're much less tolerant of unrealistic examples of both. It's also why women tend to use erotic fiction for their sexy alone time rather than visual stimuli.

Women account for 85% of consumer purchases - if imagery of a sexualised male form was the best way to sell to them, then believe me you'd see a lot more of it.

Scanlas The 2nd

jill_valentine wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I doubt very much the Beckham ad was aimed at gay men. The assumption seems to be women don't enjoy looking at attractive male bodies.

They do, but not in the same way.

Consistent with our hypothesis, our findings showed that the inversion effect emerged only when participants saw sexualized males. This suggests that, at a basic cognitive level, sexualized men were perceived as persons, whereas sexualized women were perceived as objects.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1568&context=psychfacpub&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ie%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DIntegrating%2BSexual%2BObjectification%2BWith%2BObject%2BVersus%2BPerson%2BRecognition%253A%2BThe%2BSexualized-Body-Inversion%2BHypothesis%26sugexp%3Dchrome%2Cmod%3D11%26sourceid%3Dchrome%26ie%3DUTF-8#search=%22Integrating%20Sexual%20Objectification%20Object%20Versus%20Person%20Recognition%3A%20Sexualized-Body-Inversion%20Hypothesis%22

That happens in both male and female viewers by the way, so don't think I'm waving a rolling pin at a whole gender here. Both male and female brains, when presented with human bodies, will process male bodies as a whole and a person, and female bodies as a collection of parts and an object. Straight women don't, in general, objectify men in the same way, because they're (generally) hardwired a little differently.

Since we mentioned porn earlier, for instance, it might be worth finding some that's been made for female viewers - for research purposes of course, ahem - just to see how different the perspectives are. By and large, female viewers don't find the performers bodies in themselves sexy, so it's all about the participant's reactions and responses, and they're much less tolerant of unrealistic examples of both. It's also why women tend to use erotic fiction for their sexy alone time rather than visual stimuli.

Women account for 85% of consumer purchases - if imagery of a sexualised male form was the best way to sell to them, then believe me you'd see a lot more of it.

What about the morals of objectification, do you find it wrong?

IMO what goes on in someone's head is no one else's business?

suicide_circus

say_who_now? wrote: »

As soon as I read that, all I could think was "Jedward" for some reason!

Why does everything have to be construed as offensive though, is a more pertinent question?

because a lot of feminists, while claiming to be "pro-choice" when it comes to womem's bodies, actually just rejoice in any opportunity to be offended and won't see any hypocrisy at all in it. Their pro choice only extends as far as it fits in their own agenda. Pro choice (abortion) good. Pro choice (get your tits out for money) bad.

pickarooney

jill_valentine wrote: »

Women account for 85% of consumer purchases

There's an eye-raising statistic. Is that by number or value?

CharlieZeroOne

sorry i got to page 4 of this thread and got impatient. i tried.

is this not just a reaction to last weeks hillsborough fiasco regarding the sun, you know, "those seedy ******* ******** why are they still in business?" kinda vibe

its a bit confusing to me personally, i want rupert murdoch to die an unhappy man (plz santa) but on the other hand i like boobies. but then, i have x videos,
so ill go with putting the sun through pain, and support the campaign

Eve_Dublin

mackg wrote: »

That's an interesting point but the practice of labelling people as thick is common in many other professions. Look at hairdressers, supermarket staff, footballers, labourers, taxi drivers etc. Do you think that peoples assumptions about these women would change if the blurb was removed?

I don't think what you've mentioned above is the same thing.

The stereotypes are there of course but The Sun is their employer (temporarily). Most employers would be taken to court for their treatment of these women. It's not right in a supposed civilised society like the UK. And people talking about how harmless these pictures are and how prudish it is to disapprove. Along with those comments, they most definitely aren't. I can't imagine a woman with a decent amount of self-esteem would put herself in a position to be ridiculed like that (I'm referring specifically to the comments and what they blatantly imply and not the nude modelling).

I'm putting myself in their shoes and speaking about how I'd feel. Maybe I'm well off the mark.

H2UMrsRobinson

God I hate how the word feminist has now transpired into meaning "veritable battleaxe with no sense of humour who wants to spoil men's fun". It's supposed to be about empowerment and equality and not have the negative connotations that are being bandied about in here. Anyway that's another soapbox.

I don't think we need page 3 (I don't need 30 odd pairs of high heels but I'd kill anyone than tried to take them from me) it will surely die of natural causes in it's own time rather than be euthanised for it's own good. If it doesn't then clearly its still wanted ? needed? entertaining ? - Do men really need a daily flash of bap to get them through the day, and if so more power to them. It takes 3 coffees and a couple of bennies to get me going in the morning.

I can't vote in this poll as neither option expresses my views. It's something I never think about. I don't notice it now and would never notice if it disappeared. I actually don't mind either way -there's arguments for both sides.

If I had tittys rather than tattys and the price was right would i do it - heck yeh - 30 pairs is really not enough!!

kowloon

Perfume ads, particularly popular around Christmas, have a target audience that is not necessarily the end user.

I've forgotten who's said what but to argue that there isn't a difference between a female chest and a male is to miss the point. Obviously there shouldn't be a difference, in fact, if anyone needs to get their nipples out it's a woman with a baby. Apparently these things have a real world use.

That nudity is given a different treatment depending on gender is only proof of the objectification of the female body. Take TV as an example, comedies regularly have male nudity as part of gags, usually 'gross-out' type humour. Be it Mr. Beans back side or a mickey in a 15s rated movie. We seem to have shed the hang-ups surrounding male nudity, or at least we're in the process of doing so.

For women it's different. Women in films and in media in general get their kit off for one reason and one reason only. We need to shake off the Victorian mindset and not automatically make the nudity=sex association.

Page 3 is a symptom of a bigger problem, the same problem that has religious extremists telling us that it's all terribly naughty, that society has no morals and it all needs to be hidden away under a burqa or whatever.

kowloon

pickarooney wrote: »

There's an eye-raising statistic. Is that by number or value?

I'd say it's number, women tend to do the household shopping and purchases for any children. My old fella hadn't seen the inside of a supermarket for two decades after he was married. Jaffa Cakes are great until they're all you have for dinner :pac:.