He wants to block images online with filters but defends opposition to Page 3 ban ?

[Sdrawkcab]

Ok here we go:

 

Remive the images and remove an aspect of rape culture? Seriously?

 

Yes.

 

What about 2000 years ago, rape was happening then, hardcore porn or wank mags (as you put it) didnt exist. Same for 1000 years ago, 500 years ago, 50 years ago.

 

Things change - 2000 years ago we had slavery, homophobia and open racism. The same for 1000 years ago, 500 years ago, 50 years ago. Does that mean they're still okay today? This argument is utterly and totally invalid, sorry.

 

As for men thinking of women as things. Sorry dont buy it. That usually only happens in a backwards cultural upbringing. I was raised and taught about page 3, i had access to porn as a teen. Do I see my wife or daughter as things i own? No.

 

I don't think anyone conciously thinks like that, I wasn't trying to imply that they do. But seriously, have you heard the way teenagers talk to each other nowadays? Are you aware of things like The Game/"PUA" culture, negging, being "alpha"? These things are extremely damaging, and they definitely revolve around treating women as things - points to be scored, notches on the bedpost, challenges to be conquered. Things like page 3 directly contribute towards this culture by providing validation for these opinions, and by teaching young men that women are objects to be desired, to be tarted up and trotted out for the enjoyment of men.

 

Look at the scorn a woman gets for deciding, for example, not to shave her arms/legs. The Sun directly propogates the outmoded idea of gender roles like this through Page 3.

 

As for the sun. Are you seriously telling me the almost daily 16 page pull out for the olympics, plus the 10-16pages of sports at the back, plus the front covers highlighting gold medal winners from team GB isnt giving enough coverage to the athletes? What planet are you on.

 

I bought the sun every day during the olympics. The biggest and most prominent picture was of a topless woman. Every day, before we even turned to the olympics pull-out section, we were treated to a three-quarter page spread of young Lacey from Essex proudly getting her tits out for the lads. This was never intended to be a criticism of how The Sun reported the olympics, just commentary on the prominence they gave (and still give) to page 3 over actual news.

 

JUST TO BE CLEAR: I am not saying we shouldn't have pornography (we shouldn't, but that's a whole different argument which should really be in a different thread). I am saying that we shouldn't have pornography on the third page of the most widely read paper in the UK. A paper which - as I said earlier - is available on the bottom shelf of newsagents everywhere.

 

I should also be clear that I don't think removing page 3 from the sun will resolve the entire problem either. We've got a long way to go from there (look at how advertising is targetted towards men and women, for example). It's one step which we need to make down an incredibly long path if we're ever actually gonig to have real gender equality, though.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Sdrawkcab

[Sdrawkcab]

I don't think an all out ban is quite the way to go - I agree it sets a bad example to an extent, but for some out there - this is something they enjoy doing as a job, so why take that away from them?

 

I also agree that it shouldn't be the main highlight when you open a newspaper/magazine etc - it needs toning down a little (a lot). I'm 20 years old and don't see women as "things" or "posessions to be owned", and I don't think it's images like this that cause people to think that way either, I think it's down to the people they're brought up around (not necessarily parents or close family) and their attitude towards women.

 

Again, I think it's down to educating people on the subjects, letting them know what's right and what's wrong. If someone wants to look at pictures of semi-nude models, then as long as the models are happy doing that for a living then why not let them? And I'm not just talking about female models either - although they're not as well published/seen, I'm pretty sure there will be published images of men of a similar orienation.

 

Once again - I'm not criticising glamour modelling/pornography/naked photos. As I said, that's a whole different argument which really doesn't belong here, so it'd be nice if we could stay away from it.

 

Naked pictures shouldn't be in our national newspapers. It's as simple as that.

[pcstru]

I bought the sun every day during the olympics.

Why? Surely the first step in addressing the issues you argue should be addressed is to stop paying people to produce the stuff.

[gtg93]

Things change - 2000 years ago we had slavery, homophobia and open racism. The same for 1000 years ago, 500 years ago, 50 years ago. Does that mean they're still okay today? This argument is utterly and totally invalid, sorry.

 

Not really - the point he was making is that, way before all this sort of material was being published/made widely available, rape was still a thing (much worse in actual fact), so you can't blame our "rape culture" on these types of publications. So, his point is actually quite valid.

 

 

points to be scored, notches on the bedpost, challenges to be conquered

 

And, in all genuineness (probably not a word, going with it anyway), I know more women who think/speak in this way than I do men.

 

 

just commentary on the prominence they gave (and still give) to page 3 over actual news

 

This is true - If I'm buying a paper, I want to know news - not the bra size of a woman I don't even know, and certainly not anything about the latest celebrity to have a baby with a weird name (but if that's not what you want to see you just buy another paper). As @localzuk says - If we ban it so children don't see it, we're making the whole topic of sex a taboo subject - by allowing it, we're in no way saying that objectifying/raping women is OK.

Edited November 27, 2013 by gtg93

[abillybob]

I don't get it, takes a simple search on the internet on how to manage what websites your children can view. Even some routers for example like the ASUS DSL-N55U (I have this one) you can set the firewall to block catergories of websites for example adult themes or comments on youtube. With proper research and management you can stop your children from accessing this content. Blocking porn sites is not the answer. Children can get around this very easily look at TPB that got blocked by all UK service providers yet it is still the most used bittorrent site accessed in the UK! David Cameron doesn't have a clue and I say don't mess with something that you don't understand. So now let's take into consideration other inappropriate videos. Fighting, 18+ trailers etc.. Kids aren't stupid when a website asks them for their age and they're looking at a GTA trailer they don't put in their actual age they drop it to 1979 or something. What will he block next.... We're not North Korea.

[gtg93]

Even some routers for example like the ASUS DSL-N55U (I have this one) you can set the firewall to block catergories of websites for example adult themes or comments on youtube.

 

Good point - many newer routers support this. Even my bog standard Sky supplied router can manage that (albeit, probably not quite as many features as yours) - a little education for the parents would work much better, and might even teach them a little something other than e-safety.

[Sdrawkcab]

Not really - the point he was making is that, way before all this sort of material was being published/made widely available, rape was still a thing (much worse in actual fact), so you can't blame our "rape culture" on these types of publications. So, his point is actually quite valid.

 

"Rape Culture" and "Rape" are not really the same thing. Rape culture is more about the culture we have around gender roles, particularly with regards to the objectivication of women in the media and the way that the media reports things like rapes (google the Steubenville rapists for a really good example - all the media could do was talk about how these young men (rapists) had had their lives tragically ruined). It's referring to things like the fact that tabloids trawl facebook photos of murdered young women to find bikini/revealing photos to use on the front page.

 

Rape culture is a pretty extreme turn of phrase for what it refers to, but that's why I like it.

 

Rape is another thing entirely. I'd even go so far as to say it's totally unrelated. Rape culture affects peoples attitudes when things like this happen, but doing away with it won't make rapes stop happening. That doesn't mean it's not worth fighting for, though.

 

This is true - If I'm buying a paper, I want to know news - not the bra size of a women I don't even know, and certainly not anything about the latest celebrity to have a baby with a weird name (but if that's not what you want to see you just buy another paper). As @localzuk says - If we ban it so children don't see it, we're making the whole topic of sex a taboo subject - by allowing it, we're in no way saying that objectifying/raping women is OK.

 

Except that's exactly the message we are sending - look this way and men will want you, and men wanting you is the most important thing of all. Not just with page 3, but with the media and advertising as well.

 

I should also point out that this happens to men too, I'm not trying to pretend that it doesn't. I'm not discussing the objectivication of men here though, as I think it's a significantly less societally damaging problem.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Sdrawkcab

[pcstru]

Rape culture is a pretty extreme turn of phrase for what it refers to, but that's why I like it.

Well, that's just Phrase Fascism!

 

"Rape Culture" seems to be a victim of itself, surely conflating rape with "culture" (meme propagation) could only be language that is a product of a culture that is desensitised to the horror of rape. I'm not entirely sure how that relates to the issue of the pornography of Page 3 vs pornography via internet. For Cameron to favour one and dis-favour the other at least means he finds there is some meaningful distinction and that he has a view that some 'pornography' is acceptable and that some is not. I'd guess most people are in the same boat; very few would find all pornography unacceptable - probably fewer still would find all acceptable. Most draw a line somewhere, the only difference is where.

[LosOjos]

Most draw a line somewhere, the only difference is where.

 

And therein lies the problem with government controlled censorship filtering

[pcstru]

And therein lies the problem with government controlled censorship filtering

Yes and no.

 

No in that the vast majority would agree there is a line, somewhere, and that (only) governments should draw it. Yes in that the vast majority would agree that wherever the government draws the line, it is the wrong place to draw it.

Edited November 27, 2013 by pcstru

[pcstru]

And we believed them when they said they wanted filters just for smut? Of course we did!

 

First they came for the Communists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me

And there was no one left

To speak out for me

[sonofsanta]

Updated:

 

First they came for the perverts

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a pervert

Then they came for the extremists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a extremists

Then they came for the hackers

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a hacker

Then they came for the civilian journalists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a civilian journalist

Then they came for me

And there was no one left

To speak out for me

[X-13]

Updated:

 

First they came for the perverts

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a pervert

Then they came for the extremists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a extremists

Then they came for the hackers

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a hacker

Then they came for the civilian journalists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a civilian journalist

Then they came for me

And there was no one left

To speak out for me

 

...and because the only people left were the politicians, I felt no shame in raining down firey destruction upon them.

[mavhc]

First they came for the journalists, we don't know what happened after that