The Student Room Group

Murdoch may stop Page 3

Scroll to see replies

Anything made by Kelvin Mackenzie deserves to die, so I'm rather pleased.
Original post by doggyfizzel
I'd like to see you definition of empowerment tbh. Empowerment can apply to vast number of things, someones sexuality is one of them. The freedom to do as they please in that regard without stigma.


Freedom and platform are two different things. Yes, people should have the freedom (at least legal freedom) to sell sex, but it doesn't mean that it's always right for individuals or corporations give them a platform to do so.
Reply 62
I do hope it doesn't go just because some zealous protesters have complained too much. I don't read the sun so it doesn't affect me but I do hate to see peoples freedom being cut because others can't see that posing naked isn't a problem for everyone. I personally see it as a step backwards because of the campaigns insistence that women accepting and participating in sexuality in a way they choose is unnaccept and shameful. If people find the idea of women showing their naked bodies unpleasant don't read it but please don't try and force your prudish views on others. Not everyone has such tight views on sexuality and many women have no problem as is seen by the way they volunteer for it. Regardless of their situation the fact they choose to model means that it is better than the alternatives. Many women who model long term are happy with their lives and earn decent money for very little work- i'd jump at the chance to earn that sort of money by just standing around for short photograph.
Reply 63
Original post by Dirac Delta Function
No, the government shouldn't do anything, but I would advocate that people like Murdoch close down this component of their business.


Why? Is it some moral objection which you don't believe in quite strongly enough to think it should be law? Because otherwise, it's a service/product that people want to have, provided by people who want to give it in return for the money they are paid. You could argue they're not being paid enough, but unless you have some figures indicating how many extra sales those models bring the paper, I don't know how one could say what the right figure should be.
Original post by Hopple
It provides more choice for women, which can't be a bad thing, and will be a good thing for those who choose to take it. Being able to go fishing (for example) isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it's a good thing to be able to do for those who do want to do it.


It provides an economic opportunity, not a choice in the sense of freedom to choose, which in any case is not under discussion.

Though they may benefit as individuals, you have to also consider the social and cultural costs associated with it. You can't consider those who benefit in isolation of those who don't.

And really, who actually benefits? Those girls will take one or two photos get paid a bit for them and that's it. The newspaper's stakeholders get a constant stream of young girls stripping in front of the nation and it makes them a lot of money.
Original post by Hopple
Why? Is it some moral objection which you don't believe in quite strongly enough to think it should be law? Because otherwise, it's a service/product that people want to have, provided by people who want to give it in return for the money they are paid. You could argue they're not being paid enough, but unless you have some figures indicating how many extra sales those models bring the paper, I don't know how one could say what the right figure should be.


Yes, precisely what I'm saying, that's basically all it is, part of the sex industry. I don't personally have a moral doctrine to say whether it is moral or not, I'm amoral about it, but I think that to peddle the idea it is empowering beyond creating a employment in the sex industry is disingenuous.
Original post by Kiss
Not that I care about the Sun, but he shouldn't just pull it because of some campaigners who can't understand the concept of empowerment. But judging from the timing I think he might be wanting to move it in a different direction, not because of political pressure.


How on earth is appearing half naked in a family newspaper anything like empowerment?
I have nothing against porn, or lads mags and the like. Because you know what you are getting there, and it should only be accessible by adults (at least older teenagers).
The problem with page 3 is that it is a family newspaper. It shouldn't have that in it.

Oh, pretty pathetic looking through my post history just to neg me.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Dirac Delta Function
Freedom and platform are two different things. Yes, people should have the freedom (at least legal freedom) to sell sex, but it doesn't mean that it's always right for individuals or corporations give them a platform to do so.
It ridiculous logic, you are saying someone should have freedom but then in effect restricting them by denying them a stage on which to express any freedom. I'm not sure if its because you are replying to multiple people but are missing out pretty crucial parts of your argument. Why is it not always right? By which test are you deciding which is right and which is wrong. I'm still looking for your definition of empowerment, I'm interested as I want to see how you are going to decide which areas someone can be empowered in, and by what scale empowerment is measured.
Reply 68
Original post by Dirac Delta Function
It provides an economic opportunity, not a choice in the sense of freedom to choose, which in any case is not under discussion.

Though they may benefit as individuals, you have to also consider the social and cultural costs associated with it. You can't consider those who benefit in isolation of those who don't.

And really, who actually benefits? Those girls will take one or two photos get paid a bit for them and that's it. The newspaper's stakeholders get a constant stream of young girls stripping in front of the nation and it makes them a lot of money.
What's wrong with being paid a bit for them and that's it? Sure, it'd be nice to get more money, but if it wasn't worthwhile they wouldn't have agreed to it in the first place.


Original post by Dirac Delta Function
Yes, precisely what I'm saying, that's basically all it is, part of the sex industry. I don't personally have a moral doctrine to say whether it is moral or not, I'm amoral about it, but I think that to peddle the idea it is empowering beyond creating a employment in the sex industry is disingenuous.


I think the case could be made either way, depending on your definition of empowerment. But if you're amoral about it, then why would you want Murdoch to stop it instead of perhaps just telling off people who says it's empowerment?
Original post by doggyfizzel
It ridiculous logic, you are saying someone should have freedom but then in effect restricting them by denying them a stage on which to express any freedom. I'm not sure if its because you are replying to multiple people but are missing out pretty crucial parts of your argument. Why is it not always right? By which test are you deciding which is right and which is wrong. I'm still looking for your definition of empowerment, I'm interested as I want to see how you are going to decide which areas someone can be empowered in, and by what scale empowerment is measured.


Yes, because we are talking about two types of restriction of freedoms - one imposed and another voluntary. This is not contradictory.

I'm against it because I dislike the idea of the biggest selling paper in the country coming out every day in its millions with a young naked girl on it. Other than being uncivilised and trashy, I think it plays a part in sexualising society in a harmful way.
Original post by Hopple

I think the case could be made either way, depending on your definition of empowerment. But if you're amoral about it, then why would you want Murdoch to stop it instead of perhaps just telling off people who says it's empowerment?


Because I do think that it is part of a harmful current of sexualisation in society. It also glorifies an industry which I think is harmful to womens' interest and actual empowerment.
Reply 71
Original post by Dirac Delta Function
Because I do think that it is part of a harmful current of sexualisation in society. It also glorifies an industry which I think is harmful to womens' interest and actual empowerment.


Would you say the same to any company that uses an unnecessarily attractive woman (or man) to advertise/endorse a product? An inside page of a newspaper which kids most likely won't read is going to be among the least influential things to a child, compared to a lot of other things, even magazines meant for teenage girls to read.
Original post by Dirac Delta Function
Yes, because we are talking about two types of restriction of freedoms - one imposed and another voluntary. This is not contradictory.

I'm against it because I dislike the idea of the biggest selling paper in the country coming out every day in its millions with a young naked girl on it. Other than being uncivilised and trashy, I think it plays a part in sexualising society in a harmful way.
If you are applying pressure politically its not voluntary, its under duress. Applying pressure to outlets to boycott sales is not a paper voluntarily deciding not to publish something.

It comes out in its millions because millions of people voluntarily buy it. Its not pumped down people's throats. The girls are all above legal age, they are all adults. Uncivilised and trashy are just view point, people may consider your entire life uncivilised and trashy, its an arbitrary view point.The sexualisation of society its just society moving towards its natural state. You cannot stop it without censorship on society on the whole, it goes far deeper than page 3.
Reply 73
I will never buy that rag tits or no tits . Merseysider,, btw_
Reply 74
Original post by WelshBluebird
How on earth is appearing half naked in a family newspaper anything like empowerment?
I have nothing against porn, or lads mags and the like. Because you know what you are getting there, and it should only be accessible by adults (at least older teenagers).
The problem with page 3 is that it is a family newspaper. It shouldn't have that in it.

Oh, pretty pathetic looking through my post history just to neg me.


Look at my response on page three then come back when you've got a substantial argument instead of a petty hissy fit.

Don't dish out what you can't take :wink:
Original post by Kiss
Look at my response on page three then come back when you've got a substantial argument instead of a petty hissy fit.

Don't dish out what you can't take :wink:


What actually seems to be happening is that a bunch of chaps who rather like looking at Page 3 are coming on here to make all kinds of spurious justifications for keeping it. Their/your arguments are transparently fabricated and hollow. You haven't made any substantial arguments and you ignore facts and evidence about women's experiences that don't fit your "case". Although it's a stretch to call it a "case".
Reply 76
Original post by Fullofsurprises
What actually seems to be happening is that a bunch of chaps who rather like looking at Page 3 are coming on here to make all kinds of spurious justifications for keeping it. Their/your arguments are transparently fabricated and hollow. You haven't made any substantial arguments and you ignore facts and evidence about women's experiences that don't fit your "case". Although it's a stretch to call it a "case".


That's incredibly rich coming from you. You haven't bothered to even look at my response have you? You've ignored every aspect of my argument and judging from your lack of substantial response I can only summise you cannot respond.
Original post by Kiss
That's incredibly rich coming from you. You haven't bothered to even look at my response have you? You've ignored every aspect of my argument and judging from your lack of substantial response I can only summise you cannot respond.


It's been a busy night. In one sentence lines, please repeat your key points.
Original post by Anichebe
I will never buy that rag tits or no tits . Merseysider,, btw_


It's not just Merseysiders but your commitment is much appreciated by everyone else around the country who loathes Murdoch and everything his treacherous family and paid-for followers stand for.
Reply 79
Original post by Fullofsurprises
It's been a busy night. In one sentence lines, please repeat your key points.


Lol! Well thank you for confirming my assumptions :colondollar:

Quick Reply

Latest