Are boobs offensive: ban page 3?

Original post by the mezzil

Yes said "viewed in a sexual way", which refers to sex. Why is this negative? Is sex bad? Is sexuality bad?

I see page 3 as an off topic appreciation of the human body, something to remind us the world is not all negative doom and gloom. Yes it is irrelevant, boobs aren't news. But advertisement aren't news when you see the same thing everyday. Cartoons aren't news. Random health and fitness tips aren't news. Sudoku and cross words aren't news. Are you suggesting we ban them too? Nothing but news should appear in a newspaper?

Oh for the love of christ!
WHY does avoiding pushing sex in everyone's face somehow equate to the act itself being "bad"??? What kind of logic is that?What's wrong with a little restriction?EVERYTHING is over-sexualized these days..."sex" or slight hints on "sexuality" are the main weapons used in advetising,selling etc...what exactly is your problem with banning soft-core porn in a newspaper????Are you that much of a pervert that you feel the need to be exposed to that stuff 24/7????
So what if it's a natural act?So is $hitting (pardon my french)-does that somehow mean that everyone should be keen on having THAT shoved in their faces constantly?

There is NOTHING wrong with taking a more conservative approach-especially in this day and age(where pretty much every other second person is a promiscuous piece of meat).

Reply 42

OP

Original post by Clause

I do though really question the need for a topless page 3 girl when the internet is full of thousands of pictures and videos of much more enjoyable hardcore pornography with millions of naked women and men but whatever.

You could say the same about the massive amount of newspapers we have. Or chocolate bars.. Or t shirts.... Why do we need more than one?

Reply 43

Original post by the mezzil

Although I agree, sexualisation and sex is not bad. It is natural.

Children should not fear sex.

And what exactly gives you the right to sexualise children?What kind of campaign are you on?

Reply 44

El Salvador

21

Original post by the mezzil

Although I agree, sexualisation and sex is not bad. It is natural.

Children should not fear sex.

It's normal but boobs are not only for sex. It shouldn't even be constrcuted as anything. If people like them for artistic reasons, let them do. If people like them for sex, let them do. If people associate them with food, let them be.

Reply 45

OP

Original post by P357

Oh for the love of christ!
WHY does avoiding pushing sex in everyone's face somehow equate to the act itself being "bad"??? What kind of logic is that?What's wrong with a little restriction?EVERYTHING is over-sexualized these days..."sex" or slight hints on "sexuality" are the main weapons used in advetising,selling etc...what exactly is your problem with banning soft-core porn in a newspaper????Are you that much of a pervert that you feel the need to be exposed to that stuff 24/7????
So what if it's a natural act?So is $hitting (pardon my french)-does that somehow mean that everyone should be keen on having THAT shoved in their faces constantly?

There is NOTHING wrong with taking a more conservative approach-especially in this day and age(where pretty much every other second person is a promiscuous piece of meat).

The Sun is not pushing naked women in your face anymore it is pushing McDonalds Cheeseburger meals in the advert on the next page. Don't like it? Don't look at the picture. Don't buy the newspaper.

Again, why is sex bad?

Oh and I personally don't look at porn, or buy the Sun. I buy the Telegraph. However, I believe in freedom.

Reply 46

OP

Original post by P357

And what exactly gives you the right to sexualise children?What kind of campaign are you on?

It's called sexual education. Children should realise sex is not a taboo.

Reply 47

Clause

6

Original post by the mezzil

You could say the same about the massive amount of newspapers we have. Or chocolate bars.. Or t shirts.... Why do we need more than one?

No it's much more akin to me saying there's no point in having this short article about a subject when this much more in indepth well written one exists.

Whatever the readers of these newspapers have IQ's relative to babies at a pre-verbal stage let them waste their money.

Reply 48

Original post by the mezzil

The Sun is not pushing naked women in your face anymore it is pushing McDonalds Cheeseburger meals in the advert on the next page. Don't like it? Don't look at the picture. Don't buy the newspaper.

Again, why is sex bad?

Oh and I personally don't look at porn, or buy the Sun. I buy the Telegraph. However, I believe in freedom.

There are people who enjoy The sun and dislike page 3.Simple as that.
No one said anything about sex being bad.I did however rant about NOT wanting it shoved in my face constantly.
Yes yes yes-freedom. What an elusive concept that is.

Reply 49

OP

Original post by Clause

No it's much more akin to me saying there's no point in having this short article about a subject when this much more in indepth well written one exists.

Whatever the readers of these newspapers have IQ's relative to babies at a pre-verbal stage let them waste their money.

I agree the newspapers are crap, but I am talking about fundamental freedom, and the sexist remarks by the page 3 group.

Reply 50

jammy4041

18

There is nothing sinful about the female form. But what is wrong is how it used to sell stuff. Guess who the publishers, editors and owners of the red top newspapers are? Most of them are men. As for free those saying it is a woman's free choice, I put it to this: consider their likely backgrounds, level of education. How exploited are they? To that end, can you really call it 'free choice'; what if they signed up to do one thing, and forced to do another, resulting in them appearing in page 3?

The fact that there is a page 3 in a newspaper, used to sell said newspaper is what is wrong about the whole 'page 3 culture'; it does encourage a 'lad culture' and obectification of women. That's wrong. The S*n is the most popular paper in Britain and it is not because of their insightful analysis on political events or their 'excellent journalism'. People read the s*n for two things...and I'll let you guess where I'm going with this. What's also wrong is how easily accessible it is. If it was in a 'lad mag' it'll be on the top shelves in stores. That, when combined with a cheap price, means young minds are being exposed to it, again leading to a proliferation of 'lad culture' and further objectification of women. This is why feminist campaigners are so against page 3.

Reply 51

Original post by the mezzil

It's called sexual education. Children should realise sex is not a taboo.

Like in the Netherlands?The wh0re capital of the world where they give sex education to children as young as 5?
Great idea-lets tell children everything and let them make their own choices about everything. Sheltering is bad bad bad-they are after all properly developed mentally and all that.ffs.

EDIT-oh right,you do history.that explains quite a bit.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 52

OP

Original post by P357

There are people who enjoy The sun and dislike page 3.Simple as that.
No one said anything about sex being bad.I did however rant about NOT wanting it shoved in my face constantly.
Yes yes yes-freedom. What an elusive concept that is.

Don't buy the newspaper. Don't look at the photograph. It is not being forced in your face anymore than Wayne Rooney's face is being shoved in your face every time he score a goal.

And you said sexualisation is bad. Explain why.

Reply 53

cerlohee

16

Original post by the mezzil

Define objectification, and explain 1) how "society objects women" and 2) why this is a bad thing.

Then tell me why you have viewed sex in a negative way.

Then tell me why stopping males and females celebrating the female body a) furthers women's opportunities and b) improves women's rights.

That's a lot of requests :biggrin:

Objectification: To treat a person as a thing, without regarding their other qualities

1) Society objectifies women by using the female body to sell things. For example, newspapers, perfume, yoghurt, I could go on.

2) It is a bad thing because if women are treated as objects, how're they going to get the same rights as men. They're not. They're not going to get their voice heard. They're not going to get the same opportunities, choices or potential power as men, and that's not alright.

I don't view sex in a negative way at all, it's objectification that I have a problem with.

There's nothing wrong with celebrating the female body. But that's not what page 3 intends to do. Page 3 is there so that people pay money to buy boobs instead of news. If they wanted so badly to appreciate the female body, they could photograph colours of different ethnicities, sizes, ages. They could have women with hairy legs, or dimples on their thighs. Because these things are what women are. They're not what's shown on page 3. That's celebrating a type of woman, and idealizing these women.

If people accepted women as they were, and didn't value them on how much they were worth sexually to them, perhaps they would have a little more time to hear what they actually have to say. They might realize that despite them having boobs or lack thereof, they don't deserve any less just because they have a vagina.

Reply 54

Srstimes

SrsWho ever says page 3 is worse than looking at David Cameronis a tool

Reply 55

OP

Original post by P357

Like in the Netherlands?The wh0re capital of the world where they give sex education to children as young as 5?
Great idea-lets tell children everything and let them make their own choices about everything. Sheltering is bad bad bad-they are after all properly developed mentally and all that.ffs.

Should we really get into statistics on teenage pregnancies in the Netherlands then? :wink:

You will lose, I assure you. The most sexually liberal country, has one of the lowest rate of teenage pregnancies buddy. It also has one of the lowest rates of abortion. (Not that this is a bad thing)

Reply 56

SophieSmall

21

Original post by the mezzil

But you are, otherwise you would not of posted.

What is disgusting about a semi - naked body on a newspaper?

I don't think she even knows why she finds it disgusting or else she would have argued her point clearly, which she has yet to do.

Personally I am not arsed about tits in a newspaper, tits are normal the models are paid and do it consensually so no problem there. There are plenty of other things in a newspaper that are not news and no one argues about them so that's not the real problem people have.
If it's people screaming "oh but think of the children" since when have you seen a child read a newspaper unless it's directly near them, or the parents have bought it? If that's the case and the parents don't want the children to see the page 3 girls then either don't buy the newspaper or keep it away from your child just like you keep your lads mags away from your children.

So really what is the problem?

Reply 57