On Page 3 topless models, and the objectification of women
With 21,000+ signatures at the time of writing this post, the petition asking Dominic Mohan to consider removing Page 3 from The Sun Newspaper has certainly picked up momentum, with people leaving messages like
because boobs aren’t news
and
Because women contribute to society in many ways that do not involve a man’s erection.
and
Because boys are growing up thinking there are two types of women. There’s the mothers, nans, sisters, cousins, daughters etc, and then there are the women who it’s fine to dehumanise and treat as a tradeable commodity.
I’m skeptical. When you sit back and think about this rationally it really isn’t as simple as people are making it out to be. I don’t think women who pose topless are solely to blame for the objectification of women, and I think that telling women they don’t contribute as much to society with their clothes off as they would if they put their clothes on is disgraceful, but that’s just me…
I don’t necessarily believe that the inside cover page of a newspaper is the best place to put a topless photo of a woman, but I don’t think we should be removing such photos from the newspaper because they allegedly corrupt society. I think petitions like this have good intentions but have the potential to deliver negative messages to younger generations – that people wont take you seriously if you take your clothes off, and that your nakedness betrays other women. This can be harmful. We should be encouraging a society where people who feel comfortable in their skin know it’s okay to feel like that, and where other people don’t react as though it’s the most morally outrageous thing they’ve ever seen.
This is why I have such a big issue with people who are outraged by women who breastfeed their babies in public, but that’s a different blog post.
I have several friends who work in the sex industry who have made an empowered decision to do so. This doesn’t mean that all sex work is okay – there are problems within such an industry that need to (and are being) tackled, but that equally doesn’t make all sex work a bad thing. This is something I think that many fail to acknowledge when asking a newspaper to
stop showing topless pictures of young women in Britain’s most widely read newspaper, stop conditioning your readers to view women as sex objects. (source)
It’s important to point out that I’m not suggesting nude models are sex workers, I’m using this comparison because just as women often make the empowered decision to become a sex worker, they also make the empowered decision to pose topless or naked.
I think this petition treads on an awkward line where it leans more towards disempowering women more than it liberates them. ’Objectification’ is regularly used as a buzzword for sexual expression that people don’t like, but when you take into account all the points I’ve written about above (and more) you soon come to realise that lots of people don’t have a good definition upon which they base their accusations of ‘objectification’. The assumption is often that if someone is seen in a sexual way, they must be in the midst of objectification but this takes away the empowerment of the decision the person made.
As a friend pointed out when I was bouncing ideas off of her about this topic, if you remove sexuality from the concept of objectification and you examine things like a person working as a clerk in a store ,or a person taking out the garbage, we would see that we objectify people all of the time. This shouldn’t negate their life choices, though. Because of this, there’s good reason to believe that the concept of objectification isn’t really about women’s liberation. Instead, it can be disempowering.
I also think that petitioning for Page 3 to be removed from the paper gives men less credit than they’re due. There may exist a link between porn and misogynistic attitudes in some (something that needs more research) but there are so many other things that create misogynistic or sexist attitudes in people too. Many will paint the picture in their mind of men masturbating over photos of Page 3 model and point out this is the problem, this is the objectification, but actually it really is more complicated than that.
For example, A study by Heather A Rupp and Kim Wallen found that men are more likely than women to first look at a woman’s face before other parts of the body while viewing pornography, and that women focused longer on photographs of men performing sexual acts with women than the males did. Again this is an area that needs more study, and an area of study which is sadly difficult to get funding for, but such studies do demonstrate how the interaction between men and nude models isn’t as solidly perverted, or as objectifying as many would suggest. (source)
Get the tits off of Page 3? I don’t know that it’ll achieve any good. Firstly because most of those signing the petition don’t read The Sun newspaper so The Sun have no good reason to listen to them, but secondly because I don’t think this is the problem those signing the petition are wanting to actually tackle, and thirdly because if you go and read the comments left on the petition it becomes quite apparent that people are not very well informed on the subject they are commenting on. They don’t know about the findings of studies on the links between pornographic material and sexist attitudes (summed up by Stuart Ritchie here). I’m not suggesting Page 3 is brilliant, what I’m suggesting is that people should get a clue before they start acting in the perceived best interests of others.
*update* I have written further thoughts on this subject here.
The issue with things like page 3 is that culture informs the media and media informs the culture. It’s a symbiotic (not parasitic as some suggest) relationship. It’s also not a relationship that can be explained, as many seem want, in terms of the media shaping public opinion.
The relationship is more that the media reflects public opinion and their reflection supports and magnifies the original opinion. It’s basically groupthink on a grand scale.
Sex is a hot button issue for all number of issues. First Skeptics on the Fringe we, quite rightly for falling into the trap of unthinking sexism, received complaints about the male:female ratio in speakers. We worked on improving it and now we get complaints about giving women a platform to present positions that question traditionally negative attitudes towards sex or question the ideas that sex work is bad, sex trafficking is as large a problem as it is presented and that lap dancing clubs cause sexual violence. Sex is something where morality, ideology and personal opinion always seem to hold more sway than objective evidence sadly.
I also wonder if there isn’t a form of intellectual snobbery about campaigns against page three. Large scale studies of male porn consumers have found that they tend to hold liberal views and were pro-women in many ways (Pro women working and anti all sorts of traditionally conservative ideas about what women should and could do). They also found that porn consumption was not generally related with negative sexist attitudes but was related to a kind of paternalistic sexism. A “chivalrous” one. It made men more protective of women. More likely to open doors for them, do things for them like that.
I doubt the same holds for page three. But perhaps opposition to it might be more about perceived social class and economic position than some might like to admit.
Not that I think page 3 should be in the Sun. Not for any puritanical reasons but purely because I think it would harm their sales and I hate the paper.
Do you know if those large scale studies are online anywhere? I think that would be interesting to link to.
You could try @stuartjritchie on twitter. He likely has them to hand faster than I do. Did a Fringe talk on this subject last year.
Agree and am going to do something a bit rude, I wrote about this, and it explains why I agree, so I am just going to put the link up. http://itsjustahobby.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/tits/
Is page 3 even a sexual thing? To me it seems very dated and somewhat sexist, but I am not convinced people look at it for the purpose of arousement.
I guess it could be for some people? I don’t know.
Excellent post Hayley. You might be interested in this article: Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review. It covers a wide variety of topics surrounding the subject, looking for links between porn and misogyny, violence, and sex crime — the short version is that there aren’t any. You might find it interesting that they did, however, find a link between sex crime and a strict religious upbringing.
A quick quote for those casually browsing and too lazy to click through
What a sensible blog post. What bothers me is the write up alongside the photo that makes the woman out to be an airhead. Also, the accompanying ‘News in Briefs’ story. The photo itself is cheesecake and a bit of an embarrassment. If a man or woman wants to use their body, without coercion, to make money then I have no issue with that. And even if lonely Bernard does sit at home with his penis in his hand, then isn’t that something normal?
Nice post. I’ve never really bought into the campaign against Page 3 either, although I don’t particularly like it either. It seems to miss the point a bit, and I think you’re spot on when you say that: “I don’t think this is the problem those signing the petition are wanting to actually tackle.” To put it another way, tabloids aren’t problematic because they publish pictures of bare nipples; they’re problematic because they publish a gigantic clusterfuck of material – textual and visual – that reinforces misogynistic attitudes. Picking out Page 3 as the most problematic because you can see nipples is almost like you’re saying it would be okay if they put a bra on the models, and I don’t think it would be.
Just some half-thought thinks anyway.
This!
“women often make the empowered decision to become a sex worker, they also make the empowered decision to pose topless or naked.”
It’s not empowering to conform to roles set by society and maintain the status quo which says women must conform to set ideals, none of which include much of valuing them for education, work or achievements. The objectification comes in where it’s done to appeal to men and women’s sexuality is commodified and defined by male interests. The boobs on page three is exactly that, as is the outrage at women breastfeeding in public. That does need to change, it’s not about prudery or feeling uncomfortable with flesh but the social construction that women are defined by looks that is perpetuated by the use of women to, well, basically sell newspapers and other stuff and by the constant judging of women by their looks. Men don’t face such hurdles in the main. The real empowering thing would be where a woman could make choices to go topless without without the need to comply with the requirement that she pose for men to look at or to the need to satisfy certain requirements, otherwise she ought to cover up. It’s ubiquitous – here’s Hilary Clinton and she’d just answered a question about how women can succeed today (she had replied: “it requires, for a woman, usually in today’s world still, an extra amount of effort because I think it’s — the fact that women are still sometimes judged more critically,”) Then this happened:
Moderator: OK. Which designers do you prefer?
Clinton: What designers of clothes?
Moderator: Yes.
Clinton: Would you ever ask a man that question? (Laughter.) (Applause.)
Moderator: Probably not. Probably not. (Applause.)
That is the problem, and it extends beyond page three. If you don’t address the more obvious manifestations, the situations where only the size of a woman’s breasts count, attitudes won’t change. Men don’t face those things, and it’s interesting to see how people tacitly support things staying the same, it’s not a problem, it’s an choice. Unfortunately, many of our choices aren’t free, and no one can avoid being influenced by all of this. Touching on the idea of working in a shop as ‘objectification’, it isn’t. There is a difference between purchasing a person’s body to use by the hour, and a person working and using their skills and abilities to do a job in a relationship with an employer who needs those skills but it’s not that. One relationship is on a much more equal footing than the other.
And it’s sometimes women have a choice, not often. That choice is again a complicated one, and it includes entering something that again is in the main catering for men and their interests and often can work against the best interests of women, especially as there are some significant risks there. At the worst of it, there have been murders and assaults of sex workers and trafficking. Economic coercion is just as real, as is lack of opportunities and other social problems and it can’t be ignored that those things can and do have significant influences or can place limits over the range of decisions that can be made.
“It’s not empowering to conform to roles set by society and maintain the status quo which says women must conform to set ideals, none of which include much of valuing them for education, work or achievements. ”
Your values, which you seem more than happy to impose on those who do not share them. You value certain roles, and clearly look down on sex workers. Feminist concern trolling over this merely shows their prejudices. Why do you value having a paper qualification over being able to give a mean blow job? Why should your value system be the only one that matters.
As for the argument people (because there are male sex workers and nude models too) turn to their professions to pay the bills. Yes, and…? Strangely I do not think the majority of people would work for free.
Do men get offended by breast feeding in public? You know, that giant monolith?
I used to work in a shop that had a coffee shop attached, and in my experience, it was always women who got offended. However, that’s completely subjective.
You might not find it empowering, but many women do. Many women who become involved in Sex work, or perhaps nude modelling do it because they want to, not because they’re ‘conforming to society’, and by making that suggestion I think you are greatly undermining the intelligence of the women who do make that decision. And as Jemima pointed out about valuing them for education, work, or other achievements – those are your values.
I know that the objectification of women is a problem – especially within the media, and that is something that has to be tackled, but how sure are you that only men get off on Page 3? Is that such a problem if the women who pose topless have consented to being there knowing what Page 3 is marketed like? I don’t think we can tell those women they are being objectified if they’ve made an informed decision.
If you don’t address the more obvious manifestations, the situations where only the size of a woman’s breasts count, attitudes won’t change.
If people see a naked woman and think only her nakedness counts I would suggest that is a problem within itself. I haven’t said Page 3 is perfect and it does have its flaws that can be addressed, but as I stated in the post you’ve commented upon Page 3 being a problem because of the way it is marketed and delivered, and the objectification of women as whole are complex problems that don’t sit perfectly next to each other. If you go and read the comments left by people who’ve signed the petition you will see that many of them don’t know much about the studies that have been conducted on how pornographic imagery and film does and does not make people think and act.
If you’re campaigning against something you should do so from an informed position, and many of those commenters are not informed. That I have a huge problem with.
What you mean to say is ‘the best interests of women, in my opinion’. I also did comment upon the problems that the Sex industry faces and how it is trying to tackle those, and I would also point out that porn featuring women isn’ta lways catering for men.
First try at posting appears to have been eaten, second try.
Jemima101 “You value certain roles, and clearly look down on sex workers.”
Please read again for comprehension, I said nothing about people in the sex industry but stated that choices aren’t always free and made a mild criticism of the industry, that it doesn’t always act in the best interests of women and that there are risks there. It’s true too, look up the Pig Farm murders and tell me that anyone actually cared about those women that went missing. The authorities didn’t care, and nor did the industry they were in. Took years before something was done. Can’t have that though, it’s ‘feminist concern trolling’ apparently to address any concerns, even the real risk of sex workers experiencing violence or the problem of underage workers and trafficking. As for paper, my statement was pointing to differing power dynamics inherent in the two transactions and that it’s not objectification nor can you treat every transaction between humans as objectification. How you got to blow job performance and looking down at sex workers says something about your values, about how you react to considering how women are viewed in society and how this is all driven. It’s obviously just not on. The fact is there is a difference there in those two transactions, one person has more power and leverage in the situation including legislative protection, whereas the other may not even have much of a choice or control over what happens if they want to make some money that day, and there can be intermediaries in there too, in the form of pimps and brothel owners who also want to make money out that transaction with a client and may control the transaction entirely, leaving it out of the sex workers hands. Legislative protection can vary greatly depending on where the transaction takes place, in some countries there is none and the transaction criminalised which can mean even less control. I’d say it’s you that values people in the sex industry less, you’re not concerned about the conditions or any that lack choices but how well they perform the acts whilst doing it.
“As for the argument people (because there are male sex workers and nude models too) turn to their professions to pay the bills. Yes, and…? Strangely I do not think the majority of people would work for free.”
I didn’t make that argument at all. I talked about economic coercion, where lack of opportunity otherwise could mean a person may have to make a choice that may not be entirely free. Economics does come into, but it’s not about working for free or anything like that. It’s about lack of choice. That there are men that might engage in the industry, or pose doesn’t remove that workers within the sex industry may be exploited as they may have few alternative choices. Some of those exploited may well be men and boys, that doesn’t make it better nor does it address the exploitation they are experiencing.
Here’s a job for you, I’ve googled the term “dirty whore taking it up the ass” and found 8,510,000 results, all advertising porn. That’s saying something about how women are valued, and it’s made by the industry and repeated many thousands of times. Do you find anything to criticise about that, or are you only concerned about being upset at even the mildest criticism of the industry and that it may be exploitative? Since you’re into reading value judgements into things, you should have something to say about that. Make it the right criticism.
Your comments are misrepresenting what others are saying to make their points look bad. You are suggesting those who are sex positive here are turning a blind eye to exploitation when that is not the case. As I quite clearly stated in the post being commented upon:
“I have several friends who work in the sex industry who have made an empowered decision to do so. This doesn’t mean that all sex work is okay – there are problems within such an industry that need to (and are being) tackled, but that equally doesn’t make all sex work a bad thing.”
I am replying to you as my previous post was attacked as lacking in comprehension, and I do not appreciate being talked down to.
Those anti sex work bring up extreme cases in order to make themselves seem compassionate and “good” people. http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm 173 people died in the workplace according to the govt stats for 2011/2012. Each one of those deaths is a personal tragedy for the peple involved. The number of people dying from workplace aquired illness is of course far higher. I live in the north of England, if you want to see pain and degradation google black lung.
The current socio economic system means people have to work to live, many choose jobs that others would not do, that endanger them and have side effects. Sex work has no special status except in the minds of those who look down on it.
Hayley, that is not the case and I didn’t say that. You can in fact discuss this without going all black/white about it and including recognising that there are problems there, and some are significant. They don’t stop existing because someone says “but men are in the industry” which ignores the main point anyway. That’s especially as I said “mainly” for a reason.
“Many women who become involved in Sex work, or perhaps nude modelling do it because they want to, not because they’re ‘conforming to society’, and by making that suggestion I think you are greatly undermining the intelligence of the women who do make that decision.”
I was talking about roles in society, are you saying it’s entirely uninfluenced by a society in which people do have attitudes about the role of women, about gender roles and which can and does undervalue women’s achievements? Look at Hilary Clinton, she’s Secretary of State and worked very hard to get there. Then they ask her about clothes. It’s subtle, but there is a statement there that positions her by her looks and what she wears, not what she says about North Korea. As she said, they wouldn’t ask a man that and it undermines her intelligence and abilities in the role, her acumen isn’t the important thing to reporters. I don’t think you can completely ignore those pressures and pretend they don’t exist and that it’s an entirely free choice in all circumstances. There is also a newspaper that wants the images and will seek out women to pose for them so they can sell their product to the consumer. I think you need to move away from the transaction and that there is ostensible consent to pose, and look at why the pictures are wanted in the first place, who it’s meant to be marketed to (and it’s not the hypothetical random woman who might look at them) and why they buy it. Look at how this feeds into attitudes that mean women are valued for looks, not achievements. It’s not undermining anyone’s intelligence to unpack this and look at things like who is seeking women for this and why. It is conformity, because it is driven by what the consumer wants, and that consumer is not women, but men (insert exceptions here, but please note, that you can find exceptions doesn’t mean in general that is what happens). That consumer wants boobs on page three, and the paper is happy to deliver. Maybe it’s time to use the operative in newspaper and report the news instead of using the image as a marketing point. It isn’t empowering because it’s not about women expressing their sexuality, or making truly free choices uninfluenced by exterior events or pressures, or lack of earning ability given the wage gap and that women’s work is lower paid, there are subtle influences that push towards conforming with what society, let alone the consumer says is their role. It’s not about telling them they are objectified, they are objectified whether or not the effect is intended.
You said this at the start – “I don’t think women who pose topless are solely to blame for the objectification of women, and I think that telling women they don’t contribute as much to society with their clothes off as they would if they put their clothes on is disgraceful, but that’s just me…”
That suggests by saying it’s not women that are solely to blame, that women are largely the drivers of this and responsible for objectification and . As said above, they are certainly engaging in it, but that’s not the driver. Men aren’t passive in this or only have a small role and it’s wrong to essentially dump the responsibility for objectification at women’s feet. It’s actually men driving it, putting them in that box that says sex sells, and women by and large are the vehicles that are used for that.
and part two: “If people see a naked woman and think only her nakedness counts I would suggest that is a problem within itself.”
That IS the problem, and if you say that Page 3 is only a problem because of the way it is marketed and delivered, and differentiate off what feeds into it and ignore that it is objectifying women, as does advertising that uses sex to sell that is merely making an artificial divide between the manifestation of objectification and the concept, while allowing it to stand as it is.
You say “If you don’t address the more obvious manifestations, the situations where only the size of a woman’s breasts count, attitudes won’t change.” but the problem is that page is one of the obvious manifestations of this phenomenon, and it’s not the only one. If we don’t address this, I’d say fat chance sorting out a lesser and more subtle issue such as the constant reduction of women politicians down to how they look and what they wear.
“If you’re campaigning against something you should do so from an informed position, and many of those commenters are not informed.”
But reactions to porn isn’t informative, objectification and sexism occur and are not likely to be made any worse by the addition of more objectifying material to the mix. It’s artifice to say this is research that debunks page 3 as a problem, it is research, but it’s looking at it the wrong way and ignoring that those themes are already in place and porn is the endpoint of a lot of other things going on.The attitudes are already there in society and they are there in the language in the film, in the advertising, it’s part of the product. That a focus may be made of the face temporarily doesn’t mean much either, I’d be more interesting in the broader presentation, how they depict women, and how they talk about them. It’s not there by accident that they put the word ‘whore’ in there, nor is anything else. Neither is page 3.
“What you mean to say is ‘the best interests of women, in my opinion’. I also did comment upon the problems that the Sex industry faces and how it is trying to tackle those, and I would also point out that porn featuring women isn’t always catering for men.”
It’s a comment, it’s opinion, like your blog post is opinion. That should be a given. The statement was “…and often can work against the best interests of women, especially as there are some significant risks there.” and I’ll stand by that. There are demonstrable harms that occur there, there are problems in the industry and they can’t be just hand waved away by saying yes, there are problems then rolling it back by saying it’s being tackled. I haven’t seen that, what are they doing? Are they addressing the problem of underage girls out there? That’s a hard one, they fall right out of the cracks. And don’t think they can eliminate violence either, and many women in the industry have experienced that. And yeah, there is lesbian porn out there. Often it’s done to depict lesbians as men think they are, with heavy use of sex toys. Not much relationship with reality.
Do I live in a parallel universe? I have often seen men questioned about their clothes in a work environment. And perhaps there is another issue here that could be interpreted as a female privilege of sorts: the freedom of restriction from suit, shirt and tie that women enjoy. Men tend to wear a uniform in those situations and women may not. If someone is asking of a woman’s clothes could it perhaps be they are genuinely interested? And where is the evidence that such questioning equates to not taking that woman seriously?
Can we just keep Page 3 and ditch the Sun?
One would hope that rad fems might consider this, especially after Hillsborough. Sadly the right of middle class white women to be offended matters more than the lies, bigotry, racism, homophobia, disability bashing, immigrant bashing, sexism and general hatred of everything Murdoch doesn’t approve of that is printed everyday in The Sun. But no, the most important issue is that working class models make money from topless pics of themselves.
Completely in agrrement with Michelle regarding the language and depiction of women in porn. The use of words like whores, sluts, dirty and the complete negation of the women’s physical sensation are so prevalent in mainstream porn now.
No odubt some people – male and female – believe they are making an empowered decision to take part in the industry. Indeed, Jodie Marsh tweeted today that she thought Page 3 was about her exploiting men, rather than the other way round. But what this argument ignores is the effect on the users of porn who start to see these as viable ways to have sex, the viewers of page 3 who start to think of it as normal to look at semi-naked, compliant women, and the subsequent effects on women who have not chosen to participate in the industry, who are just trying to go about their business, have relationships etc.
It is easy to say there is no direct link between page 3 and sexism, and no doubt there isn’t, but it is just one aspect of an asymmetrical culture that privileges men’s right to look at women and women’s respnsibility to make themselves consumer goods. It doesn’t create objectification but it reinforces it, it gives it another facet. Any why would we want to encourage that?
Have you ever seen a porn movie? It doesn’t sound like it, merely taken a class and been told what to think.
More anti sex rhetoric that negates the experiences of those of us who have a sex positive take on life. What is wrong with watching porn and thinking I want to try that? Unless you have the idea that the only acceptable sex is that with the lights out and never experimenting or trying anything new? I am always amused by the rad fem view of sex, since it fits perfectly with the right wing patriarchal view . Do it if you really must, but don’t dare be kinky, and especially do not have sex just for the fun of it. Sex for a woman must be an expression of romantic love and nothing else!
There are some assumptions here Rachel. Firstly, the negation of female sensation in pornography. I would totally disagree. Whilst it may be acting in some cases, the female orgasm always featured reasonably prominently.
There are also women in the real world who want to be called a slut or similar between the sheets. Just as there are men who like to be dominated. These are perfectly viable ways of having sex. Another question is this: Is porn shaping the views of what is viable or are these sexual preferences biological?
But you are right in that there is a problem when people cross the line into mirroring what happens in the bedroom into the wider world, unless they are cool with that. It is disrespectful, assumptive and bad mannered to do so. And, to avoid the obvious retort, is the rapist still going to commit his vile act (an abuse of physical power) even if he hasn’t seen the film of Japanese faux schoolgirls? And that is not a rhetorical question.
Trystan,
I’m not sure that I’d agree that female orgasm is ‘always featured reasonably prominently’, but it is too subjective to debate so let’s perhaps say that it may be depicted in some places and not others and that the viewer will probably choose what he or she prefers in any case. I guess the issue is that, even if the woman is depicted as enjoying the experience, many of the things that occur are ones that would be mostly niche in real life, so it creates a false reality. That’s no different than a great deal of visual culture, and so I wouldn’t necessarily single porn out for that. I think the ‘harmless’ stuff like page 3, women’s magazines and advertising that conforms to and reinforces narrow gender roles is more insidious.
It’s true that people like all manner of variety in bed and that in itself is not a reason to find it negative when depicted in porn or elsewhere, but I think it’s clear that the meanings of those words are, in mainstream interaction, negative ones and it’s therefore not too much of a leap to see that enjoyment in them is derived from the edginess, but in a safe environment. I doubt most people would genuinely want to be called a whore or a slut by a stranger. How could cultural preferences ever be described as biological? Perhaps I have misunderstood you.
I don’t think there is a clear relationship between porn (or page 3, to keep on topic) and sexual violence, and I wouldn’t argue that but I think that these things have a negative effect on images of women, and on women’s self image, a form of symbolic violence I guess, which contributes to direct harms and more diffuse ones – from rape to street harassment to being overlooked for promotion to eating disorders to failure to live up to potential. Ultimately I think those things are damaging to men and boys too. This article includes some info on a study (hope it is ok to post it here?) http://www.widgetserver.com/syndication/l/?p=1&instId=cca92203-e712-4fa2-a4f6-6a1564694f20&token=6a23c624117e566512bde29ad72e0851346cb76600000139db36a319&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesociologicalcinema.com%2F1%2Fpost%2F2012%2F09%2Fsexually-objectifying-bodies-in-motion.html
I signed the petition, not because nudity offends me, but because I think page 3 has had its day and, like the Tennants Lovelies, should be relegated to the past. If titillation isn’t the purpose of page 3, then I don’t see what other function it performs. And, if titillation is what people want, there are much better sources than The Sun and its ilk. It’s the 21st Century and it’s time for a change. That’s my view.
Yes, censorship and telling people what is acceptable, must be a change for the better. Lets ban something it offends me. I do really despair.
I think this is a really interesting topic. Aside from whether a petition could be effective, it looks like the main issues for everyone here are
1. what has my experience of page 3 been?
2. am I a second or a third wave feminist?
1. Whether one has read The Sun (or The Star or whatever else), I would add that there seems to be a passive aggressive element to reading the paper e.g. on the Tube or in a greasy spoon. I have NEVER seen anyone reading “porn” in public.
2. Women’s lib was a good thing. Can women today be happy if they choose to conform to Mad Men-type roles (or Carrie in Sex and the City)? I think this is actually the same question as Can muslim women really “choose” to wear a hijab. Third-wavers generally say yes, and second-wavers generally say no. In a vacuum, given a free choice between one role and another, perhaps third wave feminism makes sense, but in the actual world, where sexism still exists, and where gender roles are differentiated culturally through behaviours partially normalized and reinforced through the media, I think women who genuinely “choose” to be page three girls, or sex workers, are vanishingly rare.
Interesting article, but I think you have assumed that being against page 3, means being against pornograhy and nudity. Your article seems more concerned with the issues relating to the whole spectrum of pornography, rather than page 3 for what is.
I think it needs to go because It’s a defining symbol of the culture of everyday sexism,
Hello,
No I haven’t made that assumption, and I wouldn’t tar all of those against Page 3 with the same brush. I’m simply writing this based on the comments I have seen being left on the petition which demonstrate a lack of understanding on this subject.
Hi,
Ok, I was tired when I wrote that and It wasn’t very articulate. I was trying to make the point that I think while page 3 is technically pornography, the issue with it is distinctly separate from the issue’s surrounding other porn which you (and the comments you referenced) mention. I think that if all types of pornography are brought into the discussion then the more pertinent points about page 3 get distracted from.
The sun is left out and read everyday at my workplace, and there is some pretty frequent and shocking sexism there. I know that all types of pornography could influence this type of behaviour but other types of pornography are not acceptable to leave lying around in the workplace.
Then you can see why people conflating such issues are incorrect in their assessment of ‘the problem’
It’s only the third comment you used:
“Because boys are growing up thinking there are two types of women. There’s the mothers, nans, sisters, cousins, daughters etc, and then there are the women who it’s fine to dehumanise and treat as a tradeable commodity.”
-that could be argued of conflating issues as it’s a very broad statement, I think the other three comments, when attributed to an anti page 3 petition, give no indication at all to the commenters views on pornography, sex workers or nudity.
Nice piece Haley, but for some of us, it’s the pictures being in a journal that is published, allegedly, to report news that is the issue. Page 3 is there to get young working class men to buy a paper, for them to be fed Murdoch’s right-wing agenda, and that is the real issue.
Hi, I don’t know that I agree. The papers reflect public opinion more than they create it. Even though it seems the other way around sometimes. They sell what people want to hear.
Haley,
Just a few comments on some of your statements.
” I don’t think women who pose topless are solely to blame for the objectification of women, and I think that telling women they don’t contribute as much to society with their clothes off as they would if they put their clothes on is disgraceful”
A valid point, but relevant to what? Nowhere in the anti page 3 campaign is this stated as beliefs.
“I think petitions like this have good intentions but have the potential to deliver negative messages to younger generations – that people wont take you seriously if you take your clothes off, and that your nakedness betrays other women. This can be harmful.”
Do you really believe this message is more negative than the page 3 message? So what, keep page 3 in case people start thinking nudity in general is a bad thing? I think the campaign explains the rationale well. This campaign isn’t a generalised anti-nakedness campaign, it is specific to one page in one newspaper – it being nakedness in a newspaper the key point.
” it’s the most morally outrageous thing” – again, who has said this? You seem to be basing your argument on what commentators have said, not what the actual campaign is saying. I daresay any campaign has supporters who support it for slightly different reasons that the originator intended; yet you seem to think this invalidates the entire thing. Equally I can see you disagree with some of the campaigner’s (Lucy) sentiments about sex; OK, maybe they’re not fully analysed and thought through; maybe she’s not fully versed in feminist theory, granted, and….so what?
To me it’s simple; you either support page 3, or you don’t. If you don’t, you support this campaign. How you can see page 3 as any way empowering is a joke.
Point 1 – that sentiment is echoed throughout the comments in the petition, some of which I quoted at the top of this post.
2 – yes, I do think such a message is more negative, and no I’m not saying ‘keep page 3 incase people begin to think nudity is a bad thing’. The point I have made throughout the post is that people need to educate themselves on the facts before they start acting in what they perceive to be the best interests of other people.
I also have not stated anywhere that I think Page 3 is empowering. I would suggest to leave your pre-reached ideas about what I’m saying out of this, reread the article, and then maybe you’ll understand what I’m saying. As it is, you are misrepresenting what I have said.
For me the awkwardness of Page 3 is the social acceptance of inviting readers to pause mid-article and casually appraise a woman based on her naked form. I don’t deny – or even reject that ‘checking each other out’ is something men (and women) do to each other each day. And I’m not a prude.There’s just something inappropriate about a newspaper being a platform for this interaction. I
For the record would feel no less happy if the model was fully clothed and there was a question at the top of the page “what do you think – fit or not?”
It’s easy to over-intellectualise the debate – or even over-sexualise it – but ultimately for me it just comes down to whether a news platform is the right place to be sprinkled with pictures of naked women. And that’s before we even put that debate to one side and tackle the question of how women are made to feel about themselves based on the “accepted beauty” page 3 purports to publish.
I do believe that the media in general has a bad attitude about women and it does need to be tackled, but Page 3 (which I don’t really care for myself) is just one little element of that.
Whatever someone’s reason for signing this petition, those who started the petition have their own agenda that they are trying to pursue. It’s an inherent problem with petitions – people sign them for their own reasons, but then the results are used to show that a large number of people agree with the views of the originator. In this case, that page 3 is ‘conditioning [Sun] readers to view women as sex objects’. That’s a quote from the petition.
A few years back there was a picture of David Beckham in his pants in an advert. As a man, I felt neither objectified nor empowered by that picture, but it probably sold a lot of pairs of pants! Page 3 sells a lot of newspapers, and page 3 will be there until it doesn’t sell papers any more. I don’t read the Sun, so I don’t see the pictures that are there. That’s my choice. I buy a newspaper because I want to read interesting and stimulating articles, and the Sun doesn’t provide that.
Good points, but as I wrote in ‘further thoughts on Page 3′ the person who started the petition has some seriously ill informed opinions of her own.
So…you would prefer that page 3 didn’t exist, but only if the person spearheading the campaign thinks in the same way you do? Everyone has their own reasons but this is a fairly black and white goal. I realise sometimes supporters’ motivations do matter, but not this time.
I’m not arrogant enough to demand others think exactly as I do. I just don’t like it when people campaign for something when they are misinformed on the subject.