Page 3 -Smut Or A British Institution?

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

  1. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    IMO, you're basically saying it's sexist because:

    You have to take it out of the original context, compare it to context elsewhere, look for similar examples, conclude that those examples exist in somewhat similar nature, thus the shirt was sexist and the man wearing it obviously supports it.

    Again, assuming the dog is a pony because you've found other ponies in the same place.

    MA example: Put a MMA practitioner in a Karate dojo for a day and suddenly saying he's a karateka. He's not.

    I don't want to be rude and I'm sorry if this is condescending, but I don't know how to break it down further than that.
     
  2. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen Hold strong not

    Try without he analogies?

    I'm not saying the shirt was sexist, I'm saying it was a bad idea to wear that shirt because it alienates young females interested in science.

    If he wore a shirt with black guys in hip hop clothes he would be alienating young black kids interested in science.

    It's why Charlie Hebdo cartoons were a bad idea because they alienated Muslims who are the last people the French should be alienating.

    Page 3 is sexist (page 3 as far as I'm aware exists solely in the context of the sun) not because of the photos but how those photos are used (to show women in solely one role)

    None of these things should be banned, thats freedom of expression and the press, but they really require more empathy from those who make the decisions.
     
  3. Wildlings

    Wildlings Baguette Jouster

    I think you might be right here.


    I don't think it's about nudity in particular, perhaps more about sexuality?
     
  4. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    As a society, we have made nudity synonymous with sexuality, and lightly demonised both as "naughty" activities.

    If we saw naked people of all shapes, sizes and ages all the time, then people wouldn't look at page 3 and think "phwoar, look at the knockers on her!", because seeing breasts just wouldn't be a big deal.
     
  5. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen Hold strong not

    some weirdly freudian stuff to look at breasts and get aroused.
     
  6. FunnyBadger

    FunnyBadger I love food :)

    Society is stupid.
     
  7. Moosey

    Moosey invariably, a moose Supporter

    I don't think that's necessarily true. We see faces all the time, but when you see a girl with a pretty face, your brain still goes "Whoah!"

    I'm just not sure there's anything wrong with that. As long as you treat people with respect, there's nothing wrong with finding faces, or breasts, attractive.
     
  8. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    Aaaaannd I'm home and have access to the strange thing that is a decent internet connection. For better or worse :p.

    Agh, now my brain must work backwards! Curse you! :p

    Hmm, let's see.

    Page 3 is there purely for the sake of showing off topless women for advertisement and entertainment purposes. From its' creation to its' publication, we know exactly why it is being done and how it will be displayed, save for minor points like ridiculously patronising blocks of text on the side. Displaying the female form in a sensual/sexual context has been happening for thousands of years in a myriad of forms as you know. How we perceive that context may vary, but it's core purpose is there.

    The Sun as a whole publication exists for the sake of delivering "news" to a target audience. That is the context in which it exists and presents itself. It is essentially a mainstream specialist publication. While it does publish horrendous articles like "benefit boob job scrounger mum eats thirteen babies while having sex with a pigeon in a nursery!", it does also come back with equally horrendous equivalents about men. While it does feature a lot of "important men" in varying roles, it does also show "important women". For all its' faults, while it can be argued to have a predominance in the way it presents itself, it does also show the other side. It is, at the end of the day, meant for a specific audience and tailored to appeal to them in a particular way. No different to a nudey lads' mag in that respect.

    But where I disagree with you is, for me, it sounds like you're arguing that (a) Page 3 is sexist by association and/or (b) Page 3 is sexist for only showing sexualised images on women and/or (c) NEEDS MOAR SAUSAGE!!!

    With point (a), it would be like having an art gallery dedicated to images of sexualised women in subservient positions...then having photographs of naked women at feminism rallies with things like "my body, my choice" scrawled across them and saying all of the photos were sexist because of the context in which they're being shown. Realistically they're not even by inclusion in a sexist environment.

    With point (b), it's no different (IMO) to saying that a publication that publishes models of the sake of objectifying them and displaying them as sexual individuals is sexist. On the surface that's fine. But for me you start to get into dodgy grounds when you think that could include art magazines that publish live model paintings, "specialist adult publications" for men & women, lingerie catalogues, specialist catalogues for the sake of promoting adult entertainment toys (*cough* Ann Summers *cough*), etc.

    All of them publish women/men for the sole purpose of objectifying them as sexual individuals for the sake of advertisement, appeal and objectification. They don't promote any of their models as being "this is business owner X with a LLB in Criminal Psychology...".

    If it's (c), then I don't think just having more sausage will help. It may show men and women in equal measure in that respect, but it still doesn't improve the standing of women within the publication. I think PASmith said something about "not creating equality by lowering the tone but by bettering it" or something similar. I think he's right on that one.

    Either consensual, legal and informed objectification of a person or people (by the model, the publication creators, the consumers) is OK or it's not IMO.

    Does that make sense? Please say yes? :p

    If you're alienating young girls because of arguably sexualised caricatures of women leading them to doubt whether or not they can be considered equal...isn't that (essentially a form of) sexism embodied? About reinforcing negative stereotypes that a woman must be "sexy" and may still not be considered seriously in, say, an academic field (by virtue of being women)?

    Apologies if I have confused your intention at any point during this thread, I thought that was genuinely the angle you were going with. I may or may not be getting confused with your responses, PASmith's and Wildlings :(.

    I imagine it seems a bit fuzzy, but isn't that slightly different? One represents a caricature of one gender in not-particularly-demeaning poses as a rule of thumb, the other deliberately violates religious beliefs with the direct intent of being funny by being insulting?

    On that I think we agree :).
     
  9. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    I agree there's nothing wrong with finding any bits of people attractive.

    But my point is you get to see faces all the time, and can look at them fairly openly and without shame. How many people would pay a website subscription to look at photos of attractive faces? If we lived in a topless society, how many people would pay to see breasts?
     
  10. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    How many people pay a website subscription to look at the parts of any person? What mugs :p
     
  11. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    Some of us like "allnavelsallthetime.com". Jerk.
     
  12. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    Stick "selfie" in tumblr. All the navels you could ask for.
     
  13. Ste_88

    Ste_88 Valued Member

    Personally I couldn't give one either way, the fact that people actually buy that repulsive rag speaks volumes.
     

Share This Page