There is a risk, or a hope, that the Sun’s Page 3 girls might be prohibited by the EU.
What do you think? Should newspapers, TV shows and advertisements be banned if they affront human dignity by demeaning women or by presenting gender stereotypes?
I don’t give your links very much longer before they are edited away…
As for the question, Nah. Don’t ban anything for any reason. If people don’t like it, they don’t have to look.
Those links are NWS. Thanks for the warning, december.
Absolutely not.
Well, ok ban SOME things for SOME reasons… But not that.
I don’t understand. Are Brussels feminists proposing to use the power of the EU to control what content the Sun can put in its paper in the U.K.? Or is it the case that the Sun has a considerable circulation on the Continent and the Sun wouldbe forced to drop the Page 3 girls in the continental editions?
And of course not, don’t ban 'em, if you let those anti-sex feminists have their way they’ll have your nuts hanging on their mantelpieces in no time.
Are they going to ban all erotica, or only the ultra-soft stuff like centerfolds and beer commercials?
Not unless they violate policy at these boards.
I’d be curious to see a list of all the things they’d ban under this rule. Are they showing reruns of Home Improvement anywhere in Europe? Tim Taylor is an insulting stereotype of guys if ever I’ve seen one.
No matter how bad pop culture gets, you don’t put politicians or bureaucrats in charge of what people are allowed to see.
What’s the point? Someone’s view of women is not going to be set by what’s portrayed in a tabloid. It’ll be set by how they’re raised. There will always be some version of Page Three exploitation. Perhaps instead of banning it all, parents could instill non-explotative values in their kids.
Well here’s one feminist who finds the Sun’s editorial pages far more offensive than its Page 3.
blech
F’ing EU. Welcome to the United States of Europe.
Okay, I read the article three times. What exactly are they referring to with the phrase “gender stereotypes”??
Do they mean presenting women in a sexy way, as is done on the page 3 site?
If so, what the…?
How silly. And this is from an old (44) woman on whom things have been subjected to Mean Old Mr. Gravity.
My personal opinion? (and I just KNOW I’m probably going to get flamed by someone on this, so I’m ducking and donning my firehat).
Women who lead protests against sexy young women being allowed to pose sexily while scantily clad are just pure D jealous. Don’t lie. How does it hurt women’s image for other women to pose in sexy lingerie etc. We ARE part sexual creatures you know!!! I sure as heck am not just a project manager.
It “demeans” them? How? If you’ve got it flaunt it, I say. Who’s being exploited here anyway? The girls? Heck, don’t they get a pretty penny for posing in these ads?
Seems to me that it’s the poor men being exploited. I don’t know how much the newspaper or magazine in which page 3 is displayed costs, but “Playboy” etc are several dollars an issue (is it $6 now guys?).
So, they get to look at pretty and sexy women that they’ll never even get to meet, let alone talk to, and they plunk down their money to do so, and it’s the women being exploited?
And yes, I’m aware that the mags using the advertising are getting a lot of money for this. So, if this is a job (modeling) that these girls are doing, how much would they have to be paid for it not to be considered “exploitation” or to be demeaning?
I think that shoveling manure is pretty damn demeaning, and since the stable hand makes minimum wage (okay just an example, so if stable hands make a lot more, don’t jump on me), then HE’S sure as heck being exploited, as the stables make a bunch of money thanks in part to his work.
Sheesh and I thought we American’s were prudes. Actually, I AM a prude in some ways, and even I think this is a bit silly.
HOW DARE YOU BE SO SENSIBLE, CANVASSHOES?!?
Just for the ladies, don’t forget The Sun also runs (or at least used to) a “Page 7 Hunk” column too, showing men in similar states of undress.
Anyone got a clue as to the amount of young girls in the UK who apply to be featured on Page 3? I don’t know, but I’ll wager it is a heck of a lot.
It’s like a being national icon, for a day, for a certain class of person.
Personally, I think that the Page Three girl thing is eyerollingly stupid. If you want soft porn, buy Loaded. I absolutely don’t see the connection between news and boobies. It’s cringeworthy and embarassing.
But if they want to show their colours by including it and others want to demonstrate their inanity by buying it (and as ruadh says, it’s far from the most offensive thing in that particular brand of toilet paper), then it’s up to them. I don’t see what’s to be gained by banning it - it’s just grist to their mill.
pan
The chances of that becoming law are 1.2 E-125 Millijerks.
The amount of nudity present in the media in Souther Europe is such that it is just impossible for that to become law. You cannot watch Spanish or Italian TV or read their magazines without seeing a lot of nudity.
You can probably find similar things in the USA every day: PETA says killing animals is murder and some PETA activist is elected to some post and proposes such a law. So what?
These people represent Europeans to the same degree PETA are representative of Americans.
Hmm…
News… boobies … NEWBIES!
Is this why we gotta be nice to them?
This is a Great Debate, not a Pit rant. The board is too slow for me to move this thread. From now on, december, place your posts in the correct forum. Also, do not link to gratuitous sexuality.
Lynn
For the Straight Dope