Page 3 -Smut Or A British Institution?

Discussion in 'Discussions on Language, History & Culture' started by Mangosteen, Jan 20, 2015.

  1. Wildlings

    Wildlings Baguette Jouster

    Eight legs and the body of an ant or six legs and the body of a spider?
     
  2. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    The first ant is actually a spider! Those are one pair of its eyes. Apparently there's a lot of these spider ant mimics.

    [​IMG]

    I saw one in New York State when I was setting up a dart frog terrarium.
     
  3. Bozza Bostik

    Bozza Bostik Antichrist on Button Moon

    I'd like to see an ant that has 7 legs, spits venom and makes webs...I think that's what I would be aiming for.
     
  4. Johnno

    Johnno Valued Member

    What have ants and spiders got to do with a discussion of page three? Don't get me wrong, I've always found them fascinating. But I can't see how they are relevant.
     
  5. Wildlings

    Wildlings Baguette Jouster

    Perhaps we need a MAP spiders and insects thread at this point?
     
  6. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    Like everything though...if he has the right to wear what he wants I should also have the right to point out what he's wearing is inappropriate for the context he was in and would/could be seen as part of the marginalisation of women in his field.
    Which frankly is a conversation that should have happened way before he got on global TV.
    There were so many opportunities for it not to happen.
    Taylor himself had to pick the shirt, his superiors see him in it, the editor and director of the TV and media see him in it and not one of them thought "that's shirts not suitable in this context". Not one.
    And that to me is the real issue. As wildlings pointed out...sexual imagery of women is so commonplace no one batted an eyelid when a scientist chose to display some in a damn science presentation.

    Put those images in a book and I'd probably buy the book myself. I've got plenty of graphic novels and such with similar images.
    Put those images in a different context and I think there are issues that need raising.

    When is the right time though? When he's not in the media? A few days after the event when no one is really interested? A year later?
    If you have a complaint with a shop you don't go and complain when the shop is empty and the manager isn't there. You make sure you will get heard and listened to.
    People don't go on strike when it suits someone else. They go on strike when it will have an effect.
    There was literally no point complaining about Taylor's shirt at any other time.
    People saw it, they complained (in not very harsh terms at all) and he apologised and acknowledged they had a point. It could have ended there. But everything after that was internet fueled backlash and counter backlash.

    I have to say though I think Chloe made a stupid point. You think in a 1000 years people will be comparing the Venus de Milo to "Tracy from Essex" in her pants saying that "Simon Cowell is too harsh on x-factor" (or some other such inanity) on page three of the Sun? The only thing in common between the two things is that a naked woman is involved. The thought, artistry and context are utterly different.

    I hope you'll at least concede I have thought about this quite a bit. :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2015
  7. Bozza Bostik

    Bozza Bostik Antichrist on Button Moon

    Yeeeeeeeeeeees!

    I want to know about Bitey!
     
  8. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    Hmm fair enough. That's a fair way of putting it.

    Personally I think the very reason they pose in the way they do, revealing the amount of flesh they do is precisely for the reason that it's considered sexually attractive and appealing. In the exact same way that a women's mag might show a woman in a similar state of undress going on about "perfect beach bodies" :rolleyes:.

    Just because "it's nowhere near as suggestive", it doesn't mean that it isn't still deliberate objectification of men.

    I can't remember the exact comments but if he did say that (which he probably did), then they are wrong and I can't support that.

    But why is it that the media and twitterati didn't bother to report on his choice of language and only his shirt? I could probably find a fair few blogs and columns by people who attack him not for his choice of language but for his shirt.

    By all means attack his choice of language. Just not the shirt IMO.

    Very true.

    But the problem I have is people are basically sitting there going "This shirt is not sexist itself, but over here is lots of sexism so the shirt is obviously a problem!". That I have a problem with.

    Actually...that's a good point.

    I was worried someone would open that can of worms :p.

    Honestly I tend to go by three ruling guidelines for a lot of things. They're not perfect but they cover a huge amount of scenarios:

    1) Is it legal?
    2) Is there consent from any and all parties relevant?
    3) Has the decision been an informed one?

    Discriminating against Jews, blacks, etc, certainly in the UK, are all considered crimes of a different nature. Doesn't matter if I like it or not, they are crimes. And though I do support freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of expression, I don't support freedom from consequences. It's just that the consequences need to be appropriate to the action.

    It's not a complete catch all and there are still situations where I morally object to it because I would never consent to something happening or believe that the reasons behind the decisions are reasonably and logically informed.

    Going back to The Sun...yes, page 3 is legal (and tacky as an advertising trick). Yes, there is consent from the models and photographers (as well as the readers who view or buy their crappy content). Yes, there is in informed choice about what it is they're doing and buying (a load of rubbish). Since I can't object to the legality of it, I can express my lack of consent by making an informed decision to stay the hell away from that pile of rags.

    A bigger objection for me is that a national media source is allowed to publish a photograph of a potentially sexual nature that isn't considered "top shelf" material, making it easier for children to be exposed to it. Regardless of gender.
     
  9. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    It's not appalling it's what being human is like.
    I can pretty much guarantee you behave differently depending on context. You are slightly different depending on if you are at work, with your kids, out with mates, with your missus etc etc.
    So long as you don't compromise your core values and be a complete hypocrite when you slightly change from one context to the next I think that's just part and parcel of being a responsible human that recognises context.
    It's why I can sit and watch "Tangled" with my kids one minute and then 3 hours later I can watch "The Wolf of Wall street". :)
     
  10. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    Just want to take a quick moment to say this:

    Yeah, you have :).
     
  11. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    I'm trying to find the language Taylor used but could only find this really. Apparently he said of the mission “She’s sexy, but I never said she was easy.”.
    Which I think is inappropriate too.
    I've also found before and after pictures where Taylor was wearing a plain polo shirt (the one seen under the horrible shirt) but then he's wearing the horrible shirt later.
    So that puts pay to the thought that "he just cluelessly put on the first thing he grabbed as he headed out the door". The guys clearly an exhibitionist and likes to flaunt his "style".
     
  12. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    Oh and I'd be willing to bet that in his contract of employment there'd probably be something about sexism or prejudice in the workplace that that shirt would have contravened.
     
  13. Wildlings

    Wildlings Baguette Jouster

    Quick reply here: I didn't say there isn't objectification. Just that they're not sexualised. And considering the target audience of said mags I'd be surprised if they chose those pics hoping that said audience would find them sexually attractive.
     
  14. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen Hold strong not

    Context context context...
    What's so hard to understand that issues in society don't happen in a vacuum, they happen in a certain context.
     
  15. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    Suggestive poses do not objectify people. Context does.

    Fitness magazines put sexy, strong men on their covers so that men see them and think "that guy's sexy, I want to be sexy, I want that magazine". Same goes for many women's magazines. Cover models aren't chosen for their wit or academic qualifications.

    I would have no problem with someone wearing a shirt that had sexy Jews, homosexuals or black people on it.

    The problem with objectification stems mainly from our society's taboos. If the naked human body weren't seen as something "naughty", page 3 would get no traction, let alone become an institution.
     
  16. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    I would say that they wouldn't exist if the people buying them didn't find them sexually attractive.
     
  17. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    Is that really acceptable though? I think if we put our heads together we could probably argue that (example) being racist is also being human like (as an extreme form of tribalism), but I wouldn't suggest that was an OK answer.

    That is true and you're probably right, there probably are changes I would go through I may not even notice myself.

    Ridiculous as it sounds, I don't think there is that much difference.

    "Timmy! Stop reading the Sun! It's a sexist paper that promotes objectification and misogynistic views of women and can only reinforce negative stereotypes of women in culture! It is part of the casual sexism culture and the rape culture that pervades society today! It can only reinforce negative stereotypes to young women and is an absolute disgrace!

    ...Now come with me into this museum where we can stare at completely naked ladies in both paintings and statues while we call it 'art'..."


    Yes the medium has changed as has the availability. But both project an objectified view of women (and sometimes naked men) completely nude often without further context. The only difference is we call one "art" and the other "smut" or something similar.

    Granted though, those bally awful blocks of text on the side are just patronising in the extreme.
     
  18. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    Nothing wrong with that. What I object to is removing a situation out of the original context in which it can be viewed to place it in another context in order to justify a position.

    Terrible example of how it comes across to me: Take a dog. By itself, it's a dog. Shove it in a field of ponies and it's still a dog. But suddenly because it's surrounded by ponies in a pony only zone and it must also be a pony by association.

    I hope that makes some sense.
     
  19. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen Hold strong not

    Wut... I don't get it...
     
  20. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    It may not be to turn men on but at the absolute least to flaunt the "sexualised perfection" they could achieve.

    Yeah, I saw that last night. I'm not comfortable with that to be honest.

    I'd agree with you on this.

    There probably is something about that in his contract but whether or not he broke it I think is between him, his fellow staff and his employers. Certainly his staff mates seemed to like it.

    That's true.

    In case I didn't make it clear, I don't object to your right to object to his top. I do object to the notion that it was sexist or that he deserved to be made an example of. I may not agree with it but your right to speak up is sacred.

    Yep.

    Had it been a woman wearing the same shirt, him wearing a shirt full of guys in the same poses or a woman wearing a shirt with men in equal poses and attire, would the outcome have been different?

    Probably actually. Like the Batman onesie, most people probably would have laughed or shaken their head but left it at that.

    Again, I don't personally think objectification in itself is immediately wrong. A lot of it depends on how and where it is done.

    Agreed, if something offends you, complain about it as soon as it is relevant.

    I'm just not sure that complaining about his shirt being sexist was the right move to make at all.

    Yet no-one seemed to care from the anti-shirt group that they brought the man to tears over an article of clothing. Does that really seem like the kind of guy who is naturally sexist or misogynistic?

    Again, slight context change - had Matt been a woman with the same shirt and drawn the same outrage, I would be willing to bet that there would be a feminist outcry about "empowerment" or "right to wear as she chooses" and how insulting it was they were ridiculing this academic over her clothes in favour of ignoring the revelations at hand. Just because Matt happened to be a guy doesn't make it any better.

    "Not very harsh"...some of it wasn't, other comments were. Blogs like "I don't care that we landed on a comet, your shirt is sexist and insensitive" (paraphrased) didn't help things at all. Nor did the fallout or the sheer coverage in the media that near on eclipsed the original event in hand. To be honest, it was over the top. "Internet's gonna Internet" is, in my opinion, not a good enough excuse for being a douche bag.
     

Share This Page