Yes love, they can

Have we reached a watershed? Can anyone other than pornographers justify printing pictures of naked women when there has been such an uproar over the topless pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge?

It\’s a simple matter of acknowledging human beings as they are. The male of the species enjoys looking at nekkid baps. Indeed, there is strong (although perhaps not conclusive) evidence that baps are there for men to enjoy. Other primates suckle their young with very similar milk glands but without the presence of protuberant titties after all.

And one of the hallmarks of a free society, of a liberal one, is that people should be able to and indeed can get on with what they enjoy as long as that enjoyment is not coming from direct harm to either the persons or rights of others.

And no, being made uncomfortable doesn\’t cut it.

Thus, yes, nekkid baps, they are printable, as long as it is with the consent of the owner of said titties. And most certainly, you do not get to say what any other woman gets to do with her baps, photoed, pictured, printed or not.

Case closed.

27 thoughts on “Yes love, they can”

  1. Yes, publishers should be free to print pictures of naked women, with their consent.

    However, we do not, as a matter of custom rather than law, read pornographic magazines in public. I’d like to see that restraint extended to pornographic newspapers. Just because you are free to do something doesn’t mean you should do it.

  2. ‘…as long as that enjoyment is not coming from direct harm to either the persons or rights of others.’

    Ah – that weasel word ‘direct’! I suspect a lot of mischief in there.

    And why can’t you just call them breasts?

  3. There is a clause in that statement that I think has been missed:

    Can anyone other than pornographers justify printing pictures of naked women

    Sure everything TW says is true, but I think it is still right for the rest of us to be able to call them pornographers. In fact I think it is important that we call them pornographers.

    The rest of her argument is stupid though.

    Lone dissenters like Clare Short have been attacked for being jealous, petty killjoys who just want to spoil the fun because they’d never look as good with their breasts out as Amii, 25, from Birmingham.

    It is a perfectly reasonable assumption that what is driving this is a determined effort to reduce competition for male attention. The Trade Union of Women wants the scabs out so men have to remain satisfied with whatever they have at hand. So to speak.

    The response to anyone who dares to criticise Page 3 – send round a load of girls in bikinis to counter-protest, as happened to Short, who says that the Sun and the News of the World went to “vicious lengths to undermine me” – has only ever proved how misogynist the concept is.

    The horror! I hope the Sun never sends a group of bikini clad young women around to my place. Vicious? Misogynist? I think she keeps using these words but that they do not mean what she thinks they mean.

    Yet still it has remained, day after dangerously objectifying day.

    Dangerously? How?

  4. Of course we could always close art galleries or at least remove those pornographic paintings from display. We could burn them to protect our sensibilities as well.

  5. “The horror! I hope the Sun never sends a group of bikini clad young women around to my place. ”

    (Thought bubble appears above head; BING!!)

    I wish to become a prominent anti Page 3 campaigner. Where do I sign up?

  6. Just because you are free to do something doesn’t mean you should do it.

    And the point of classical liberalism is to support people’s rights to do something you disapprove of. If you approve of it, your support isn’t evidence for any liberalism.

  7. Demonising heterosexual male desire seems to be part and parcel of modern feminist policy. ’50 Shades of Grey’ is, by all accounts, a pornographic work but there are no complaints about that being read in public.

  8. Not exactly SE. I don’t think people should do certain things, and I’ll argue that with them, I’ll write articles saying they shouldn’t. Where I draw the line is a) using physical force to stop them or b) asking someone else to do so, especially the government. I think Paul is saying that people can be tut tutted for reading porn in public, which is fair enough.

  9. I think Paul is saying that people can be tut tutted for reading porn in public, which is fair enough.

    Fair enough. But illiberal, in the classical sense.

    Porn – Paul disapproves of. A lot of people disapprove of displays of homosexual affection – is it fine to “tut-tut” them? What about displays of heterosexual affection? What about women who aren’t in burqas? Or not escorted by a male member of their family?

    Hell, I disapprove of this “air kissing” thing that Londoners do. Should I start “tut tutting” or just carry on ignoring them?

  10. There’s a lot of snobbery about sex, that the lower classes can’t deal with it.

    There’s a campaign against Page 3 because of the people who read The Sun. No-one is suggesting banning 50 Shades of Grey, despite the fact that it is publicly available, probably gets left on trains, and contains scenes of sodomy and BSDM, because it’s assumed that the lower classes don’t read books.

    Likewise, no-one worries about Goya’s La maja desnuda being on public display any more, despite the fact that it objectifies women just as much as Page 3 does, because it’s assumed that the plebs don’t go in galleries, and that nice, Middle class people have the intelligence to make the distinction between women.

    Likewise, art house movies have always faced far laxer censorship than multiplex movies. The scene in True Romance featuring a woman getting beaten in an interrogation scene led to it not getting a video certificate for many years, while the Belgian film Man Bites Dog was passed, despite containing a gang rape scene.

  11. Surreptitious Evil – “Hell, I disapprove of this “air kissing” thing that Londoners do. Should I start “tut tutting” or just carry on ignoring them?”

    Oh please, don’t keep on ignoring them.

    A liberal society needs people to disapprove. We should be as free to do so as people are to do things we disapprove of. But if bad behaviour is not discouraged, everyone will do it.

  12. SFMS – “I think it is still right for the rest of us to be able to call them pornographers. In fact I think it is important that we call them pornographers.” Why?

    I’m genuinely interested, as I wouldn’t have thought that pictures of naked (or rather,as in the case of the Sun, semi-naked people) must necessarily be considered pornographic.

    Otherwise, I think TA’s analysis @ 11 is bang on target.

  13. But does the Sun print the most pics of breasts? All articles in the posh press about breast cancer, breast feeding etc. have a breast picture, and not flabby ones either.

    The incidence of prostate cancer, and the rate of false positives, is very similar to rates for breast cancer. Yet somehow we don’t get pictures of men’s arses in the posh press.

    Secondly Kate’s breasts have been published in women’s magazines, not men’s.

    Could it be that everyone prefers tits to arses?

  14. To be honest I’d be embarassed to be seen reading The Sun in public. Or The Mail, or The Grauniad for that matter.

    I stick to good, wholesome literature, like ‘120 Days of Sodom.’

  15. It’s ironic that the debate over pictures of breasts has come to involve the topless photos of Her Royal Kateness…

  16. Aaarrrggh.

    More comments on tits.

    If she wants to show me them I want to look at them.

    If she don’t I won’t.

    Simple? I thought so…

  17. Porn – Paul disapproves of. A lot of people disapprove of displays of homosexual affection – is it fine to “tut-tut” them? What about displays of heterosexual affection? What about women who aren’t in burqas? Or not escorted by a male member of their family?

    I don’t disapprove of porn. But these are good questions; an explanation of the answers I would give would be long. Suffice it to say that I do disapprove of overt consumption of porn in public. And titillating pictures of breasts are pornographic, whether in a newspaper or a specialist magazine.

  18. Churm Rincewind – “Why? I’m genuinely interested, as I wouldn’t have thought that pictures of naked (or rather,as in the case of the Sun, semi-naked people) must necessarily be considered pornographic.”

    Well not Salo levels of pornographic, but still it is produced for the sexual gratification of the readers. Hence porn.

    In a liberal society there is a tendency for people to say if it is legal it is fine. I disagree. I think there is a whole world of behaviour that is best dealt with by public disapproval and peer pressure. If that disapproval fails, then the law has to step in and we are all worse off. But those standards can only be maintained by a day-to-day struggle by other people. If we all let people jump the queue pretty soon everyone will be jumping the queue and the government will have to pass laws – you may think this is a joke but I have seen policemen overseas lay into crowds in railway stations to make them queue. Better we disapprove.

    16 blokeinfrance – “Secondly Kate’s breasts have been published in women’s magazines, not men’s. Could it be that everyone prefers tits to arses?”

    Could it be that few men want to see Kate’s tits? I have not bothered. But then I must be the only Brtitish passport holder who hasn’t seen the other Kate (Price)’s either. Oh my God. Perhaps I have been confused about my sexuality all along!

  19. These photos are printed in WOMENs magazines, read almost entirely by women. Its women who want to see Kates tits FFS. Its celebrity bollox not mens porn.

  20. These photos are printed in WOMENs magazines, read almost entirely by women. Its women who want to see Kates tits FFS. Its celebrity bollox not mens porn.

    It’s (I think) about how women really like to see other women destroyed. Heat is basically about gorgeous celebs being photographed doing all the plebby things like picking their nose, or looking like crap. People buy it because it makes them feel better about themselves.

    The thing with the pictures is that they show Kate having really unspectacular tits. Not very big, and a bit saggy. Most 30 year olds could look at her and think that she might be good looking and married to one of the richest people in Europe, but at least they’ve got better tits.

    If Kate’s tits had been spectacularly good, they probably would have ended up in a different place.

  21. Well not Salo levels of pornographic, but still it is produced for the sexual gratification of the readers. Hence porn.

    One point I agree with about that article is that Page 3 is a relic now.

    Go back to the 1970s and it was about the 2nd most pornographic thing you could easily get hold of (in order: Mayfair, Page 3, Benny Hill, Miss World). And if you look at Page 3 shots from the 1980s, there was far more of a sexual tone to them – you had women shot in bedrooms, in stockings and so forth.

    Today’s Page 3 has shots that are what you’d see on a beach in the South of France. I’d argue that Kylie’s ad for Agent Provacateur is more erotic/pornographic.

    You could get rid of it, or cover up the tits and I doubt The Sun would lose many sales. I suspect that more people enjoy the joke of the caption than the tits now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *