No More Page 3 and ‘Rape Culture’

I haven’t blogged about this before now, so firstly: if you haven’t seen the No More Page 3 campaign, I do encourage you to have a look and sign the petition if you agree. Frankly I think Page 3 is a dinosaur – a relic of a bygone age which should have been gone long ago. (Well, should never have been allowed to start, but let’s not go there.)

I signed the petition a while back, but what prompted me to blog today was this article about ‘rape culture’. I find it seriously disturbing to know the kind of things which are going on around Universities these days (although, to be fair, it was probably going on when I was at uni almost ten years ago too – but the rise of Facebook and social media seem to have made it more prominent).

I’m not sure how we got to this point in our society: clearly there are many factors at play, and I’m not clever or well-versed in history enough to understand them. But I do wonder whether this is partly down to our understanding of what it means to be human: if people coming through school are constantly being told “we’re basically fancy bald monkeys” – i.e. we are animals, nothing more and nothing less – then can people really be blamed for indulging in ‘animal instincts’ a bit? If men are designed by evolution to spread their genes as widely as possible – can they really be blamed for trying to indulge that?

Obviously that is far from the whole picture, but it seems that once a society abandons the idea of a good Creator who values each of his creations equally, this kind of thing is almost to be expected. (Similarly with my previous thoughts on secularism and infanticide). It will be interesting to see what, if anything, can be done about this in our society: I struggle to believe that more ethical education is what is needed for lads who are being educated at university.

A societal change is needed, and indeed I believe abolishing page 3 is a step in the right direction. The question is, whether it’s enough to stem the tide in a sex-saturated culture, or whether a more deep-rooted and fundamental change needs to happen in the life of society.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “No More Page 3 and ‘Rape Culture’

  1. No harm, and much good (probably), would come from abolishing page 3. However, it will not address in any way the “rape culture”. The entertainment industry has been actively promoting the rise of the “rape culture’ for 40 years (or more). They have been doing so with the intent of destroying the Christian moral underpinnings (although Jewish morals are close enough as makes no difference for this) of our society. The only hope for our society is a revival of the BASIS for holding Christian morals…more people being transformed by developing a personal relationship with God.

    • Thanks, good thoughts. I think we’re in an interesting situation at the moment because society are kind of trying to hold on to Christian morals in some respects, but not in others, at the same time while dispensing with Christianity.

      I’m hoping that our society doesn’t get too bad before we realise this, but we’ll see.

      • I am praying that we have a revival before our society completes the transition it is currently undergoing. The only chance for stopping the slide is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

  2. Getting rid of page 3 isn’t going to do anything, at all. Think about it.

    Lets say its gone. that means that about 2.5million (thats their daily circulation March 2012) people that is less than 5% of the population will stop seeing a pair of breasts every day (if every copy gets bought and read)

    How about the barrage of people especially young people who look at porn every day, horrific graphic porn where the girl really is being degraded. That to me is the issue. That I can see leads to what you call ‘rape culture’ and I bet the figures are miles higher now, with the increase of smart phones etc.

    And to say that its from a by gone age… really? i don’t read it but I’m a straight man and boobs are still very much in fashion for me. I won’t be embarrassed about liking them because of some antiquated Victorian ethics that are still hanging on in some areas. To say it promotes ‘rape culture’ is very harsh.

    For me the Christian part has nothing to do with it. Morals come from our parents and guardians, be they Christian or not that’s where you learn them.

    I feel I have a strong moral compass. Seeing a pair of breasts, if that’s the biggest issue and people have time to worry about…. Then you need to reset your compass. Christian or not and think about the real issues.

    • “Lets say its gone. that means that about 2.5million (thats their daily circulation March 2012) people that is less than 5% of the population will stop seeing a pair of breasts every day (if every copy gets bought and read)”

      Put it another way: that’s 5% of the population who won’t be encouraged to see women only as sex objects every day. 5% sounds small but that is massively significant in nationwide terms. I also wonder how many people visit the Sun website for the same thing and whether that could be changed.

      “That I can see leads to what you call ‘rape culture’ and I bet the figures are miles higher now, with the increase of smart phones etc.”

      As I said, Page 3 is by no means the only factor here. But I do think it’s symptomatic of a culture which things sexism is OK.

      “I won’t be embarrassed about liking them because of some antiquated Victorian ethics that are still hanging on in some areas.”

      You’re missing the point. It’s not that men like boobs – it’s that they’re in a national newspaper. Let me repeat that: a newspaper. You’re always telling me about cultural relevance. In my last post you were lecturing me about how the Church of England was not culturally relevant any more because of its view of women. And yet the Sun is perfectly culturally relevant, because of…?

      “For me the Christian part has nothing to do with it. Morals come from our parents and guardians, be they Christian or not that’s where you learn them.”

      Read the previous post I linked to about secularism. You may learn morals from your parents but that doesn’t give them any authority. And if we are just animals there’s no real reason for us to behave one way rather than another way.

      “Seeing a pair of breasts, if that’s the biggest issue and people have time to worry about…. Then you need to reset your compass. Christian or not and think about the real issues.”

      It’s not “the biggest issue people have time to worry about”. People are capable of worrying about more than one issue at once. It’s just an issue that many feel like it’s time to do something about. When it’s done we can move onto something else. But one thing at a time, eh?

      If you read the actual website you’ll find more info about these kind of objections.

  3. I did read the ‘actual’ (as oppose to the non actual one) website, what a waste of time and effort.

    5% is is tiny (and its not even 5% its less than! – and thats there best circulation figures, the likely hood is its more like 2% or 3%) thats 5 people per 100!! Nothing. It has no influence any more online is where it is all at!

    You say newspaper…. I would class the sun as a bad tabloid news paper. And everyone knows what is in there.

    People have free choice, so surely they can decide whether they want to read it or not. The fact that some people feel its their moral duty is rubbish frankly. If they felt so strongly about it they would really be all over the internet issue rather than a newspaper that has been doing this for years.

    I’m not for protecting the Sun – I hate it its a horrendous ‘newspaper’ but if we start telling people what they can or cant print. Where next? Its a pair of boobs! Seriously!

    Sexism is not ok, but this is not sexism, it is porn. There is a big difference.

    Anyway. Lets not get too heated! Great Post again!

    • “5% is is tiny (and its not even 5% its less than! – and thats there best circulation figures, the likely hood is its more like 2% or 3%) thats 5 people per 100!! Nothing. It has no influence any more online is where it is all at!”

      According to Wikipedia, the Sun has the biggest UK circulation figures of any newspaper in this country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation

      I’d say that was a problem worth dealing with. (I feel equally strongly about the Daily Mail for slightly different reasons).

      “If they felt so strongly about it they would really be all over the internet issue rather than a newspaper that has been doing this for years.”

      The point is, internet porn is a private thing which people do at home. The Sun is a public thing, part of the national consciousness, which people read in public and it’s perfectly legal for children to buy. I think it contributes to a culture where sexism is acceptable in everyday life (see the Everyday Sexism website for example).

      Yes, I do think the kind of porn you mention should be dealt with. But IMO I think that’s a separate battle which will need to be fought quite differently.

      “if we start telling people what they can or cant print. Where next? Its a pair of boobs! Seriously!”

      We already do tell people what they can and can’t print to some extent. This wouldn’t be changing anything with regards to freedom of the press.

      And I can’t quite buy the argument “it’s just a pair of boobs!” Why are they there in the first place? Why do women not walk around topless? In fact, how is it possible to have bare boobs in the sun but if a woman walks around topless she might get arrested? The fact of the matter is, saying they’re ‘just’ boobs is, to my mind, glossing over a problem that boobs are sexualised and that displaying them in that context is a sexual thing which can only be wrong in a national newspaper (even if it is the gutter press).

      Anyway, like I said in the original post, it’s something which as a society needs to change, maybe this won’t make any difference. But I hope it does.

  4. I see your point but I think we may have to agree to disagree. I still think its an over reaction, and I suppose I agree, what is it doing in a national newspaper, but I don’t think its an issue we should loose any sleep over. I think people are clever enough to realise its just boobs, and I don’t see that it promotes sexism.

    And yes it does have the biggest circulation figures. 2.5million – or 5% (which is what I said) which has been steadily declining year on year.

    Whats IMO by the way? I looked it up and got International Maritime Organization and International Meteor Organization or International Mathematical Olympiad… assuming this is not what you mean… haha.Seriously these come up in the first page! haha.

    Anyway, that’s my ore thrown in. I hope your not offended by my comments I love reading your post, and I find it great to discuss these points even if we don’t agree, I don’t want to offend!

    • I think we will have to agree to disagree, not a bad thing, it’s what makes us different after all 🙂

      IMO = In My Opinion; sorry, you always have to be careful when using acronyms on the internet! IMHO is In My Humble Opinion which was used more often in the 90s I think.

      I’m not offended by your comments at all, it’s good to discuss things. Sorry if I come across a bit harsh sometimes, It’s far too easy to get involved in something and lose sight of the big picture!

      Thanks for commenting, it’s good to have people disagree – keeps me on my toes 🙂

  5. Haha, great, 🙂 I think its so easy to sound harsh online when your typing away. I know I must come across so harshly sometimes too! But I think that’s what makes it fun! LMHO is soooo 90s! roflcopter – rolling on the floor laughing like a helicopter (as in legs are making me do a helicopter wheel).

Comments are closed.