Page 3 Stunners : Right or Wrong

[madhair60]

Would you be up for a newspaper, one you will never read, printing pictures of bestiality or kiddie-fucking?

yes

[Video Game Fan 2000]

i strongly agree with trenter's post. naturalisation is definitely the problem before it gets to any talk about empowerment or disempowerment, privilege or normalisation or whatever. that you can hold superficially 'good' opinions on all those things, or align yourself with social justice, while still endorsing the naturalisation of sexual roles and aggression is a big ideological problem for whatever changes we need to make to our society

falsely assume a social role or behaviour has a 'natural' reason is the least helpful way to think of things. as ever, it needs pointing out that there is a complicity between naturalisation and absolute relativism.

[dontpaintyourteeth]

as ever, it needs pointing out that there is a complicity between naturalisation and absolute relativism.

do this all the time mate

[Video Game Fan 2000]

do this all the time mate

Dontpaintyourteeth, 19 from Oscillations, delights the lads by "doing it all the time". Phwoar!

[madhair60]

can we please modify the thread title to the correct nomenclature of "stunnas"?

[Video Game Fan 2000]

isnt that a wrestling move

[Video Game Fan 2000]

because if it is

 phwoar

[Buelligan]

yes

REPORTED (to the Pigs).

[Proactive]

the other dimension here is that imagining that the Sun was hegemonic or obligatory in the sense that some people are, grants it exactly the status as the organ of the british people that Murdoch always wanted for it to attain

the push back is part of it. talking about things in terms of normativity and society as a single-minded totality completely ignores the function of giving someone something you can tell them (with reason) that others do not want them to have. as we're moving definitely into another post-PC, this time post-Woke, era for progressivism its time to take this seriously.

i know CaB likes memes but this is like a sexual version of the Murduch "careful mate, that foreigner wants your cookie" cartoon. its absolutely false to think of things in terms of being always tilted towards male pleasure, then suddenly feminism happening and there being a pushback against it. its more like the 'trad' things were in terms constructions against the progress of the 50s/60s. one decade prude-shocking tits in the front, ten years later the mean trolls are rude about womens bodies, then next decade prude-shocking tits again - always posed against some other force who doesn't want the things you want, the things only our paper really understands. whether its trolls, incels, the EU, prudish feminists, wets, wokesters or whatever - our paper has you covered against them taking your cookie.

U wot mate?

[Video Game Fan 2000]

U wot mate?

about half of the content of tabloids and the mail is telling people that some nebulous group is getting owned by them liking something

all the shit about kate middleton is about how royal watchers and the palace outsmart the trolls. its stupid to look at page 3 in isolation from tabloid news as a whole, which switched seamlessly from "this girl is bare chested, saucy, the feminist prudes don't want her to do it!" to "this girl is in a bikini, empowered, the bodyshaming trolls don't want her to do it!" and it could easily switch back

[Video Game Fan 2000]

everything we're doing now is empowering and evidence of agency

everything we did in the past was because of socio-historical determinations. better keep the status quo or else we'll backslide. our freedoms are at risk.

[Midas]

Lol wut

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverage_of_the_Hillsborough_disaster_by_The_Sun#Merseyside_circulation

[bgmnts]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverage_of_the_Hillsborough_disaster_by_The_Sun#Merseyside_circulation

Yeah I understood the reference, it just read like a trivilialising of it, so I was a bit perplexed.

[madhair60]

i fucked up earlier about the nomenclature; i believe it is, in fact, "page 3 stunnaz". please edit the thread title to reflect this.

[Blumf]

Page 3 Stannah Stairliftz

[dontpaintyourteeth]

3 Tunna Brix

[Video Game Fan 2000]

my new tits
you should see my new tits

[H-O-W-L]

[Dex Sawash]

What are boxing cards, and what's wrong with holding them?

Like race cards but only used Dec 26

[Buelligan]

Like race Christmas cards but only used Dec 26

FTFY

[greenman]

i strongly agree with trenter's post. naturalisation is definitely the problem before it gets to any talk about empowerment or disempowerment, privilege or normalisation or whatever. that you can hold superficially 'good' opinions on all those things, or align yourself with social justice, while still endorsing the naturalisation of sexual roles and aggression is a big ideological problem for whatever changes we need to make to our society

falsely assume a social role or behaviour has a 'natural' reason is the least helpful way to think of things. as ever, it needs pointing out that there is a complicity between naturalisation and absolute relativism.

I think you see it in action quite a lot these days in alpha/bro/incel/wahetever culture were theres an obsession with naturalisation as a justification for sexual harassment or worse, Peterson or the like going on about women wearing lipstick at work being some incredible sexual provocation.

[touchingcloth]

I think you see it in action quite a lot these days in alpha/bro/incel/wahetever culture were theres an obsession with naturalisation as a justification for sexual harassment or worse, Peterson or the like going on about women wearing lipstick at work being some incredible sexual provocation.

People always pick a convenient starting point for this sort of thing to suit their narrative, too. Tate will talk about how "humans have always had kings and peasants", but even with all of the other issues aside, "always" is doing a lot of lifting there.

My sister-in-law believes that a diet which is essentially Atkins is the correct one for her to follow, because "that's what ancient Britons ate", but she's not an ancient Briton, her heritage isn't exclusively British, and if the ancient Britons managed to adapt from what humans who left the Great Rift Valley ate, why couldn't modern Britons have adapted from what the ancients ate?

[greenman]

People always pick a convenient starting point for this sort of thing to suit their narrative, too. Tate will talk about how "humans have always had kings and peasants", but even with all of the other issues aside, "always" is doing a lot of lifting there.

My sister-in-law believes that a diet which is essentially Atkins is the correct one for her to follow, because "that's what ancient Britons ate", but she's not an ancient Briton, her heritage isn't exclusively British, and if the ancient Britons managed to adapt from what humans who left the Great Rift Valley ate, why couldn't modern Britons have adapted from what the ancients ate?

I think you could argue the same argument that men are biologically sexually aggressive in an uncontrollable way ends up being a pretty central pillar of a lot of transphobia as well.

[FeederFan500]

I think you see it in action quite a lot these days in alpha/bro/incel/wahetever culture were theres an obsession with naturalisation as a justification for sexual harassment or worse, Peterson or the like going on about women wearing lipstick at work being some incredible sexual provocation.

Maybe Petersen has gone further since his first well-publicised musings on makeup but iirc it was more "where do you draw the line?" in terms of society and its causal effects on behaviour, vs individual freedom. In some places married women are/were meant to cover their hair, in others their face, there is a sort of arbitrary nature to it as breasts aren't reproductive organs either. Both men and straight women like looking at conventionally attractive women* for aesthetic, non-lustful reasons so it's not necessarily easy to pinpoint this line.


Back in this thread sexual assault has been linked to page 3, not causally exactly but part of the culture. But nobody would be able to justify sexual assault on the basis that page 3 exists, and equally one couldn't argue that women showing more skin or wearing makeup contributes to a sexualised society that results in sexual assault. I think you have to argue against page 3 on its own misogynistic terms and consent is another issue completely.

I agree with the poster before that was making the point that it stopped because there was enough critical mass of different groups to be against it.

*Curiously, only straight women (and gay men) like looking at attractive men.

[Blumf]

Are we sure The Sun stopped it because of the protests, and not because their marketing dept. realised it was losing more sales than they gained?

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Are we sure The Sun stopped it because of the protests, and not because their marketing dept. realised it was losing more sales than they gained?

its incredibly unlikely it was stopped because of protests and not because reality tv was starting to sell as many tabloids as sports

ditto with lads mags becoming unpopular. the bubble had burst. other equivalents are fine and seen as evidence of 'choice' and 'agency' not 'patriarchy' - if you follow the liberal understanding of things then 'patriarchy' means the market choices made in the recent part but 'agency' describes equivalent market choices being made now. people in the past were doing as society wanted, people now are free to choose.

[gilbertharding]

Are we sure The Sun stopped it because of the protests, and not because their marketing dept. realised it was losing more sales than they gained?

The Sun, to a certain extent, doesn't really care about how many newspapers it sells. The name of the game is to be talked about on the BBC etc, and for politicians to be in thrall to the owner's agenda.