Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

No more breasts :'(

Scroll to see replies

I find the whole issue bemusing to be honest.

Show topless women? sexist
Criticize women for wearing revealing clothing? sexist

You can't have it both ways!

Reply 101

limetang

Original post by Blazar

Those men are portrayed as idols, not as objects. It's not a fair comparison.

Of course it's a fair comparison, they're portrayed as both (and your asserting otherwise doesn't change that fact), just as women are portrayed as both.

I'm sorry if facts are getting in the way of blinkered ideology here.

je suis le soleil

Original post by молодой гений

Heat is trashy crap though. Don't get me wrong, so is the Sun, but the Sun is at least supposed to be a newspaper.

Well only by virtue of the sort of paper it's printed on.

Reply 104

Josb

Original post by Kim-Jong-Illest

je suis le soleil

LOL

Reply 105

Blazar

Original post by Drunk Punx

It's a perfectly fair comparison. Your perception of it, much like the perception of the user who posted underneath you, is down to personal interpretation, not the inherent nature of the images.

You're clearly a feminist, and I have both respect for you and caution around you for that (the former because I respect anyone who challenges the status quo and seeks the restoration of an equal society [and that extends past sexism], the latter purely because I don't know just how far you like to push the envelope).
I see this as a victory for Feminism, but not one for equality (an apparent contradiction, but not a thought that has passed many peoples' lips). Do you agree or disagree? I have a few points to make regarding that statement:

1) It's something that many people have pointed out, so I won't spend much time on it especially considering I have already mentioned it, and that is topless men posing for media. One cannot be a force for evil and the other a force for good, not if you truly believe in egalitarianism. Likewise, if your belief in Feminism is rooted in the basis for equality then it's hypocritical to campaign for the removal of one while remaining silent about the other.

2) The removal of the idea of breasts being seen as solely as sexual objects is something that has been noted regularly as of late.
A) The removal of images of breasts from the public eye doesn't change that view, it merely censors it.
B) If you adhere to the notion that breasts shouldn't be sexualised then why bother campaigning to the have them removed in the first place?

3) It also be argued that this isn't even a victory for Feminism so much as it is a victory for common sense; the notion that breasts, a part of the body that is seen by society as sexual (rightly or wrongly. Personally I believe in the latter as just because a part of the body can be used for sexual purposes that doesn't mean that it's inherently sexual) and therefore to a certain degree pornographic, are available for viewing on a low shelf where they're easily accessible to children doesn't sit well with me.
This seems to be an argument that feminists have hijacked and are using to promote their own agenda, so zero points for creativity on that one. Like most other agendas by all manner of social politicians and commentators that have come before it, using children for an argument as a means to your own ends doesn't seem to be beneath anybody these days.

At this point I want you to know that I'm not trying to prove you wrong or belittle you about anything you may say. I've got the day off work, am bored, and fancied a debate.

Firstly, I do think it's wrong for people of any gender to be objectified. I'm commenting mainly about women because a) they are the victim of this much more often than men are, and b) this thread is about a newspaper section that exclusively depicted women. I don't agree with the "victory for feminism but not for equality" statement. A victory for women's representation, yes, which is part of feminism. But the victory isn't won until people, regardless of gender, are no longer presented as objects by the media. Feminism isn't just about women; it's about gender equality, which a lot of people don't realise as for some the name implies female supremacy. It's fine if people are comfortable having themselves photographed, but the problem arises when the media starts portraying them as products rather than people.

I personally don't have a problem with images of female breasts any more than I have a problem with depiction of hands, in theory. What I disagree with is when breasts are portrayed in an inherently sexual way. For example, a lot of people find breastfeeding babies in public unacceptable because they regard it as the display of a sexual body part, when in fact it's a body part whose purpose is to feed babies. There also seems to be something of a double standard, in which male nipples are regarded as perfectly normal and those of women are regarded as something sexual that needs to be censored.

With regards to your third point, I honestly don't know how I feel about that. Of course children should be protected from content that objectifies human beings of any gender. However, I don't think that feminists have intentionally hijacked that argument, at least not in any of the commentaries that I've read. To an extent, I think the way society views these issues affects the degree to which children needed to be shielded from them, and it's something that perhaps should be considered more carefully by everyone.

Original post by Zander01

Pretty sure one of the magazines, heat maybe? Has a 'torso of the week' :facepalm:

I don't read those magazines, so I didn't know that, although I find the idea of it repulsive.

Reply 106

PussyPounda

I love boobs

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 107

datpiff

Original post by SarcasticMel

Sad day for all boobie lovers

Posted from TSR Mobile

What year do you live in? This isn't 1985. The internet has made page 3 irrelevant and a relic of the past. I can just type in boobs in Google now and you'll have an endless supply of tits. You even have tits on Tumblr.

Again I stand by my view held that TSR is full of kiddies in their 1st and 2nd years of uni who haven't even bothered to look at any feminist material and haven't a clue about feminism. I'm no expert myself, but I do know a lot of people in here have no business telling people that they're the main authority on what feminism is about. Of course the movement like any movement has problems, but a lot of people simply haven't a clue. Get to your university library and do some research kids. You're paying for the use of your library. Might as well use it.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 108

datpiff

Original post by Zander01

Utter nonsense. So films like magic mike don't sexualise men? They're simply the ideal for men who want to be dancers? Infact, according to your logic, women probably aren't even turned on by half naked, muscular men :rolleyes:

And even if what you were saying were true (which it isn't). Don't people also complain about unrealistic standards being placed upon women after thin beautiful models being placed in advertisement? So why is it acceptable the other way round?

Did you even watch Magic Mike? There's more to the film. It's like The Full Monty in that there isn't actually much stripping and the thing that is focused on is the life of the characters. Most people who expected a movie that was just there to give women a load of 'eye candy' were extremely disappointed.

I feel the same about the film as I do about Boogie Nights. It's a look into the lives of the people in the industry.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 109

puma21

Original post by lucaf

I find the whole issue bemusing to be honest.

Show topless women? sexist
Criticize women for wearing revealing clothing? sexist

You can't have it both ways!

Actually they can and are currently having it both ways.

Reply 110

BitWindy

Original post by n00

I presume by that you mean don't question the staggering level of hypocrisy in your post.

You have a problem with this if the decision was in any way influenced by feminists, why?

Ultimately the decision was made by the Sun, you are now putting pressure on them to reverse it, how are you any different to the feminists? Shouldn't you really do as you preach and simply shut up and stop buying it.

I thought it was fairly clear that I support the primacy of demand over "campaigning".

But anyway, if you had taken more time to read perhaps you would have noticed that I believe the pressure put on by feminists was undue. No where did I argue that all pressure of this method should be ignored.

Not hypocrisy.

Reply 111

lucaf

Original post by puma21

Actually they can and are currently having it both ways.

Not really, models continue to get their tits out and people continue to tell them to cover up.

Reply 112

Larissa14

If the women have the boobs, might as well flaunt them

Reply 113

AstroNandos

Original post by Blazar

Well, as a woman I'm quite happy about this. Hopefully men will stop objectifying us so much in future.

I take it you don't mean to generalise,

Right?

Reply 114

datpiff

Original post by lucaf

I find the whole issue bemusing to be honest.

Show topless women? sexist
Criticize women for wearing revealing clothing? sexist

You can't have it both ways!

Actually a lot of feminists have no problem with showing topless women. It's all about the message that is expressed. Most glamour modelling and pornography is an expression of male culture through which women are commodified and exploited. The whole industry is in male hands. The majority of glamor modelling and porn is all about what men want and the male fantasy and what makes men feel horny. Ever thought about why porn isn't at all like real sex? Maybe i'm getting off topic here?

This woman actually describes herself as a feminist and is proudly involved in porn:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/10/porn-film-director-petra-joy-women_n_3898955.html

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 115

Drunk Punx

Original post by Blazar

The parts bolded when combined with the italicised part have caused me slight confusion, although I'll be first to admit that (the action of doing so) it's pedantic yet has some grounds. Advocates of Feminism have repeatedly claimed that the movement is about equality for all genders (something that I hold dear to but see very little evidence of), but for the most part all I see is "female this, women that".
You're right when you imply that women face more sexism than men, and this is largely the prime reason why it concerns mostly women which has given rise to the predilection of female-orientated campaigning, but I also see very little being done by anybody who claims to be a feminist about the rights of males.
The Men Rights Movement has got it spot on for a few topics (though they also miss a lot of their targets and seem quite content spewing thinly veiled misogyny the rest of the time), but largely they seem to attract misogynists and sexists which not only keeps them separate from Feminism, but also makes them the butt of many a joke which stops people from taking them seriously on issues that should actually be taken seriously (child custody being the first and foremost that comes to mind, alongside the difference in prison sentences being handed out between the two sexes).
I haven't seen nearly as many women campaigning for changes in those two things as I have for something as comparably trivial as someone willingly getting their kit off for a newspaper, and the above two examples affect a lot more people in the real world than a 19 year old being photographed partially nude.

I like to think that Feminism really does try to focus on egalitarianism, but the reality is that it primarily focuses on issues that are dear to women while not looking anywhere nearly as much into mens' issues. I could go on to say that they only do this because with child custody and prison sentencing they have the upper hand and therefore have no inclination to do anything about it, but I don't want to be that guy. That being said, I'm finding it hard to seek an alternative reason why those issues are being shunned in favour of issues that affect a comparatively minuscule amount of people in the real world.

Plus, as previously mentioned, I don't see many Feminists getting together in a bid to stop pictures of topless male models being circulated throughout the media. In the past they've attacked Page 3 and "lads mags", and now that they've gotten rid of Page 3 it wouldn't hurt for them to turn their attention to [insert publication here] (what with looking at male models not being a habit of mine I'm kind of out of the loop). That being said, it's a waste of time. They should be turning their attention to FGM or other issues that affect people in a very real-world environment, but here comes the "in the interest of equality" argument surrounding topless male models again, which is where we start to go in circles.

Feminism and the MRM should be working together to help solve inequality throughout the world, but because their memberbase is so divided in belief the likelihood of that coming into fruition before it turns into pissing contest is, sadly, minute.

With regards to the underlined bit (which ties in with the above): a lot of the Feminists I've come across are genuinely pro-equality. They're on the morally righteous path and believe in true equality for both sexes, and take part in debates that affect all sides of the gender spectrum.
That being said, there are a hell of a lot of rad-fems out there, which is a shame because they pollute the name of Feminism just as Islamic extremists pollute the name of Islam.
So with that in mind, I put forward a theory, and that is that there are, at base, three types of Feminist:
- Those who are egalitarians.
- Those who are using Feminism to serve their own self-interests.
- Those who are female supremacists.

Those in the first lot are doing what they do because they are passionate about achieving true equality, the second lot are difficult to pinpoint as you could throw that accusation at anyone and the resulting argument would get very messy (but as I've stated above, the evidence for pro-male equality is insignificant compared to pro-female equality), and those in the third lot are using the name of Feminism to promote their own self-interests (kinda like the woman who wrote that all PIV sex is rape, that **** was bonkers).
Unfortunately with all the social media we now have, the issues we deal with boil down to a simple fact of life: those who shout the loudest will get heard the most. And rad-fems have nearly exhausted their lungs for all the shouting they've been doing about how all men are rapists and other such twaddle. So with that in mind, I'm not surprised that people are struggling not to take issue with Feminism when there are idiots like that around, but what said people fail to realise is that that's only a specific branch of Feminism and certainly isn't representative of Feminism as a whole.

I personally don't have a problem with images of female breasts any more than I have a problem with depiction of hands, in theory. What I disagree with is when breasts are portrayed in an inherently sexual way. For example, a lot of people find breastfeeding babies in public unacceptable because they regard it as the display of a sexual body part, when in fact it's a body part whose purpose is to feed babies. There also seems to be something of a double standard, in which male nipples are regarded as perfectly normal and those of women are regarded as something sexual that needs to be censored.

I can understand that, and I agree with you. The Sun's representation of women was far from "art" and wasn't tasteful in the slightest. However, I still stand by my "victory for Feminism but not for equality" argument. All you need to do is ask yourself who benefits from the dropping of Page 3 to see that the statement can hold its own ground.

With regards to your third point, I honestly don't know how I feel about that. Of course children should be protected from content that objectifies human beings of any gender. However, I don't think that feminists have intentionally hijacked that argument, at least not in any of the commentaries that I've read. To an extent, I think the way society views these issues affects the degree to which children needed to be shielded from them, and it's something that perhaps should be considered more carefully by everyone.

I've seen plenty of people saying it and putting it across as a pro-Feminist argument, or including it as part of a Feminism-based article as for why Page 3 should be condemned, instead of its' rightful owner; common decency.
They may not have intentionally hijacked it, but they've been using it as (and I'm using this phrase incredibly loosely) "feminist propaganda" for the banning of Page 3.

Reply 116

datpiff

Original post by Drunk Punx

I still stand by my "victory for Feminism but not for equality" argument. All you need to do is ask yourself who benefits from the dropping of Page 3 to see that the statement can hold its own ground.

The Sun represents for me the older generation. The Sun isn't relevant anymore and will probably die with the baby boomer generation. I believe the focus for feminists should be on digital media. A worrying trend in my opinion is the new trend of streaming porn sites. Anyone can post up a video. I've seen videos of girls on popular websites (you all know them) who look underrage, in distress or who look trafficked. Anyone can put up videos and unlike the sex industry of before there isn't much policing. The trend which has seen the industry move to Eastern Europe because it's cheaper.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 117

n00

Original post by BitWindy

I thought it was fairly clear that I support the primacy of demand over "campaigning".

Lovely, and these feminists you hate don't.

Original post by BitWindy

But anyway, if you had taken more time to read perhaps you would have noticed that I believe the pressure put on by feminists was undue. No where did I argue that all pressure of this method should be ignored.

Oh you believe hey? Well i guess that settles it then.

Original post by BitWindy

Not hypocrisy.

Oh yes it is.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 118

Smash Bandicoot

Original post by Simes

Oh you poor thing. Not allowed to buy your own magazines? You have a man choose them for you?

Anyway, Cosmopolitan is probably favourite for this. Which if the following is the abusive man?

Cosmopolitan.co.uk
Digital Editor: Kate Lucey: [email protected], Twitter @KateLucey_
Claire Hodgson, Senior Digital Writer: [email protected], Twitter: @Claire_Hodge
Jess Edwards, Digital Fashion Editor: [email protected], Twitter: @JessMessEdwards
Bridget March, Online Beauty Editor: [email protected], Twitter: @bridgetmarch
Gem Royston-Claire, Digital Writer [email protected], Twitter: @gemfatale
Cat Harvey-Jenner, Digital Intern: [email protected], Twitter: @CatHarveyJenner
Amanda Statham, Online Travel Editor: [email protected], Twitter: @amanda_statham

Entertainment:
Jacqui Meddings, Entertainment Director: [email protected], Twitter: @JacquiCosmo

Features:
Rosie Mullender, Features Editor: [email protected], Twitter: @mullies
Sophie Goddard, Features Writer: [email protected], Twitter: @sophiegoddard

Beauty:
Ingeborg van Lotringen, Beauty Director: [email protected], Twitter: @CosmoBeautyBoss
Kate Turner, Beauty Editor: [email protected], Twitter: @KateBeautyEd
Cassie Powney, Beauty Writer: [email protected], Twitter: @cassiepowney
Lucy Partington, Beauty Assistant: [email protected], Twitter: @lucyparts

Fashion:
Shelly Vella, Fashion and Style Editor: [email protected], Twitter: @shellyvella
Holly Coopey, Fashion Assistant: [email protected], Twitter: @HollyCooop

Online advertising enquiries:
Tegan Carter, [email protected]
Ashley Bloem-Sale, [email protected]

Cosmopolitan Magazine:
Louise Court, Editor in Chief
Ella Dolphin, Publishing Director
Laura Capon PA to The Editor

legend. I hate Cosmo it's clearly misandry central. Fortunately I've found very few women over the age of 16 who discuss it without irony

(I've found very few women irl full stop but bridge over troubled water :redface:

)

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 119

datpiff

Print media is declining at a huge rate. Who buys print media on this site anyway? The only time I read a paper is when I drag a Metro off a seat on a train. The only thing I need because i'll get more info from lots of different sources on the internet.

Anyone who is up in arms about Page 3 being taken away is a dinosaur. At this point who cares? Who wants tits in a paper anyway? Newspaper sales are sinking like the Titanic.

You'd read it on the train? You have people staring at you like some sort of pervert. You have kids on the train too.