ISLAM: Now that I have your attention, the No More Page 3 campaign...

1. When Rupert Murdoch tweeted that he thought that the women on Page 3 should be clothed, as they look more beautiful this way, the tweet got an excellent response from No More Page 3 proponents. But surely one of the main problems with Page 3 is that it shows off a women simply for her looks, in a document which is supposed to be about news, and often talks about male individuals for their power or intelligence. Surely she is being no less 'objectified' no matter how she is dressed. She is still there for men simply to look at. Clearly, this isn't the main problem. The main problem is that they are uncomfortable with the nudity. Puritanical indeed.

2. The No More Page 3 website states: 'It’s soft porn in the UK’s no.1 selling family newspaper that children are exposed to. Until 2003 the models were only 16 (and made to dress up in school ties and hats – seriously!) It’s never been OK. One day we’ll look back on this and think “oh my goodness, we did what?!”'.

It's pretty amazing that in a newspaper filled with the prostitution of tragedies, the worst thing they think for a child to see is a pair of knockers (incidentally, the very part of the body which is specifically for them). How much more puritanical can you get than thinking that a mildly sexualized image of a member of our own species without the addition of clothes is more damaging for a child to see than highly sensationalized, tactless and exploitative stories of violence, horrific accidents, and other such horrors.

(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

KingBradly

Additionally, if there is a slightly sexist element to Page 3, it's that it only shows women. This could be rectified by having a topless man on Page 4.

Reply 2

username1530463

What I want to know is how are breasts sexual? Of course, genitals are sexual, but breasts were made to give breast milk to babies and genitals are used to reproduce sexually. Therefore, genitals are sexual, but breasts are not.

Reply 3

KingBradly

Original post by asmuse123

The argument is because men find them attractive. However, I think men would be much less turned on by them if it wasn't normal for women to cover them. Plenty of women in tribes walk around topless. I'm sure the men don't get a boner every time they see them.

Reply 4

syrettd

Campaign started by Lucy Anne Homes- I remember her from when she first started writing books, before the campaign. She set up a blog called 'How to start a sexual revolution'. Funny that now she started this campaign, this website (along with her occasionally fairly graphic posts) no longer exists. But you can see the Facebook page. Complete with photos she uploaded herself, photos of naked models.

Apparently it's not objectification of other women if it's for her own personal gain.

Reply 5

KingBradly

Sometimes it seems like if you don't write about Islam, you can expect to get very little discussion.

Reply 6

syrettd

Original post by KingBradly

Sometimes it seems like if you don't write about Islam, you can expect to get very little discussion.

Possible thread title for you:

ISLAM: Now that I have your attention, the No More Page 3 campaign...

Reply 7

Snagprophet

Original post by syrettd

Possible thread title for you:

ISLAM: Now that I have your attention, the No More Page 3 campaign...

That reminds me of a poster I made for a student union candidate at college. Black background, white text, "This poster has nothing to do with SEX so vote ... so he can get you some" and I made "SEX" be really big and the rest of the text really small.

Best. Title. Ever.

Original post by KingBradly

The same argument can be made of genitals though, so it's a rather weak one.

Reply 10

masterridley

Original post by Jammy Duel

The same argument can be made of genitals though, so it's a rather weak one.

Ancient Greeks runned and wrestled in the nude. Why didn't they have a problem with the "sexual nature" of their genitals and we do?

I don't know, it seems to me that it can work both ways. Personally I'm more turned on with women wearing sexy clothing than with butt-naked women. Why is that?

Reply 11

parentlurker

Original post by KingBradly

1. . Surely she is being no less 'objectified' no matter how she is dressed. She is still there for men simply to look at. .

No- she is being objectified but less so. One step at a time.

2. Not all children can read, even very young children can see pictures.

3. Parents have to decide how and when to tell their children about the horros of the world, it's not something that is avoidable and it's not something that affects one sex only.

Reply 12

Jammy Duel

Original post by masterridley

I would expect at least partially because you're expeted to; you're made to believe it to be more erotic and then find it such. But what makes the argument weak is that breasts are being dismissed as non-sexual because of the reason given, while the genitals are being given as trivially sexual despite the same logic being able to be applied which would define them as non-sexual

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 13

syrettd

Can't believe you took my thread title suggestion on board :lol:

I'm so proud!

Original post by Snagprophet

Did you win? You'd have definitely got my vote!

Reply 14

masterridley

Original post by Jammy Duel

Yeah, of course breasts are sexual. In fact, it's one of the most widespread "likes" like butt or legs are. In fact, any area of the body can be sexual, eg look up belly button fetish.

What I'm personally trying to say is that if people walked around naked I wouldn't necessarily be aroused all the time, like people at a nudist beach aren't aroused...

Reply 15

Snagprophet

Original post by syrettd

Can't believe you took my thread title suggestion on board :lol:

I'm so proud!

Did you win? You'd have definitely got my vote!

I didn't put them round the college in the end and no wins, sadly.

Reply 16

Jammy Duel

Original post by masterridley

And I expect the people who oppose P3 would probably rather have P3 than that :tongue:

Reply 17

KingBradly

Original post by parentlurker

No- she is being objectified but less so. One step at a time.

Is she? Can you explain how? I doubt it because the term 'objectified' in this context is meaningless anyway. I explained why this is in a previous post:

Original post by KingBradly

Many people say that pornography and erotic photos are bad because they 'objectify' women.

Objectify is a word that is little more than essentially meaningless rhetoric. 'Objectify' means to bring someone down to the status of an object. To treat someone with no more respect than an object. It was originally used to describe how people in death camps or slaves were treated by their captors. So to use it describe the treatment of women who have voluntarily chosen to model or star in a porn film is a pretty big stretch.

The basic idea is that pornography or glamour photography objectifies women because men aren't interested in the model's personalities, they're simply interested in seeing their bodies, only viewing them as sexual entertainment. I don't care what the actors in a porn film's views on Confucius are, I just care about them turning me on. But so what? There's loads of people that provide services for me who I'm not interested in the personalities of. I don't care if the postman shags sheep, I just want him to bring my post on time. I don't care what religious beliefs a sprinter has, I just would like to see him run fast. I don't really care if the builder laying my wall have some terrible disease or not, I just want them to build the wall well. That's just the way life is. Wikipedia states: "According to the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, a person is objectified if they are treated:^[1]

•

as a tool for another's purposes (instrumentality);

•

as if lacking in agency or self-determination (denial of autonomy, inertness);

•

as if owned by another (ownership);

•

as if interchangeable (fungibility);

•

as if permissible to damage or destroy (violability);

•

as if there is no need for concern for their feelings and experiences (denial of subjectivity)

All of these things can be just as much applied to a pizza delivery boy or a waiter as they can be for a Page 3 model. Most people are 'objectified' in some way or another.

We see so many videos of people falling over or doing silly things, or entertaining us in some way that tells us nothing about them. We don't care who they are, all we care about is the entertainment they give us in the video. And there is nothing wrong with this, it is not harmful, and I don't think many people think it is. But to say viewing people in this way is suddenly a bad thing when sex is involved is so blatantly puritanical, because what has suddenly made it bad is the sex part of it.

And please don't give me that 'but sex isn't comparable to those other things because it's supposed to be an intimate union of souls' rubbish. Believe it or not, in the 21st century sex can just be fun and casual. It doesn't always have to be some kind of deep spiritual experience.

Original post by parentlurker

2. Not all children can read, even very young children can see pictures.

That's an awful argument and you know it. The problem they have is children seeing the newspaper below the age of 16. Most kids over 4 or 5 can read. Below that age they won't even notice newspapers. And also, the pictures of terrible stuff are there to see, often on the front page.

Original post by parentlurker

3. Parents have to decide how and when to tell their children about the horros of the world, it's not something that is avoidable and it's not something that affects one sex only.

Unfortunately, you seemed to have utterly missed my point. I detest The Sun, because of the way it reports news. I don't have a problem with children learning about the nasty things that happen in the world. But I do have a problem with them learning it through the sensationalized, tactless and exploitative articles of The Sun, which make any violence sound like it's part of some kind of action film. If you think that is better for your kids to be exposed to that than a pair of knockers, then you have become fairly adrift from reason.

And as I added in my comment below the post, I do agree there is possibly a sexist element to there only being a Page 3 girl. This I think should be rectified by having a man on Page 4. Although honestly, I'm not sure how much demand there is for it from women. I'm sure if there was a demand for it they'd already have put it in, but because there isn't they haven't. So the reason behind why there's only Page 3 girls, and not also Page 4 guys, is not necessarily a sexist one. However, it might be good idea to add it anyway. I mean I just saw a picture of David Gandy only wearing tight Y-fronts, plastered to the side of a bus, so perhaps women are becoming more inclined to seeing sexy topless men. As someone who appreciates the male physique (and isn't horribly insecure), I certainly have no problem with it.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 18

KingBradly

Original post by masterridley

Yes, and in addition, I'm sure if you asked people in tribes where women have their breasts exposed all the time, they wouldn't find that breasts turn them on much.