The feminist war on porn is really a war on male heterosexuality

In this article I’m going to do something quite out of the ordinary for a heterosexual man in this era. I am going to admit to using porn, I am going to defend my use of it, and I am going to defend the medium itself. This has become almost unheard of by virtue of it being very taboo, and doing so will usually result in eye-rolls, ridicule, and utterances of such ad-hominem prattle as “well you would say that ‘cause you’re a man” etc etc. But I think the war on porn desperately needs to be repelled, for the sake of humanism, liberty, and tolerance. Feel free to roll your eyes and call me a pervert to your heart’s content.

It seems that a few years ago, it was quite normal to be open about one’s porn use. Now, it has become far less fashionable to act in such a way, and the internet is full of articles and even entire websites dedicated to informing us of the “dangers” of porn. Despite this, surveys unanimously show that porn use is more commonplace than ever. According to PornHub, Irish citizens spend longer looking at porn than many other European countries. A UNICEF survey found that 80% of Irish men watch porn. Yet both left and right-wing media currently seems very desperate to peddle fear and self-righteous disdain for the medium. The right bases its disdain on moral conservatism, and doesn’t really bother to hide it. The left’s hatred for porn also has puritanism at it’s heart, but they try to cover it up by accusing porn of being misogynistic by virtue of it being “degrading to women.”

Puritanism has really made a comeback recently. It seems as if we are constantly bombarded by prigs preaching about how there’s too many women being sexualised in TV, film, video games, etc etc. Perhaps the most dumbfounding eruption of moral conservatism recently was the feminist backlash towards the Victoria’s Secret show. Apparently, they were upset that the models were walking around in only their lingerie. A company that sells ladies underwear had it’s models wearing… their underwear… Truly shocking stuff. They tried to justify this blatant display of puritanism by blaming their distress on the fact that the male pop stars who performed at the show were wearing suits. Which is a terrible argument, considering that Victoria’s Secret only sells women’s lingerie. The VS models and their underwear were clearly intended to be the focus of the show, and if the male performers had worn underwear it would have generated a lot of confusion, and potentially would have prompted viewers to think that the company was launching a new line of men’s underwear.

Anyway, I digress. The point is, as much sex as there may be on TV, as much porn may be available on the internet, a real backlash of self-righteous prudish sexual conservatism appears to be rearing its tedious head, and it seems that news sites, blogs, forums, and comment sections are full of both men and women who are eager to show their distaste for pornography, either claiming that they consider it misogynistic, seedy and degrading to women, or contrary to traditional, wholesome values. Both The Guardian and The Daily Mail have published myriad articles filled with fear about what porn is dooin to oor men. Articles trying to demonize porn usually contain absurd totally unscientific “evidence” . Something I have heard quite frequently is that watching porn may make you less intelligent. This sounds as ridiculously Victorian as the idea that masturbation causes your palms to grow fur. This “fact” arose from a study which found that men who watch more porn have less grey matter. Anyone with a decent amount of that precious grey matter will of course see that this could never be considered evidence, and that there is absolutely no way that looking at an image could cause brain cells to die. But the hysteria about porn, like all hysterias, is filled with this kind of unsubstantiated rubbish and wild conjecture, because there are so many people who readily lap it up, and so few who will stick their neck out to refute it.

The reality is that most feminists want to either stigmatize porn, or outright ban it. Saying this will inevitably lead feminists to use the old evasive tactic of pointing out that some feminists are actually positive about porn. By “some”, they really mean about ten or twelve. It’s also worth noting that if feminists do stand up for porn, they will often be accused of not being “real” feminists. This has happened to both Wendy McElroy and Camille Paglia, two women for whom I have sincere respect. If all feminism was based around McElroy’s intelligent and pragmatic idea of it, then I would fully support it. There is a kind of feminism which I believe could have a place in our society. But this kind of feminism would be concerned with the welfare of women, and would deal with problems that are unique to women, or are particularly common among them. This kind of feminism would not be centred around vilifying masculinity, but instead would be based around agendas such as fighting for the rights of women in Islamic countries, and thinking of ways to make the sex industry more reputable and ethical, to improve the lives of the women working in it.

Any feminist who believes in stigmatizing or banning porn, stripping, or prostitution is simply not interested in the welfare of the women involved. It is self-evident that the more you discredit and push something underground, the less legitimate it gets. Stigmatizing porn helps to keep the industry out of the public eye, allowing the companies involved to act more disreputably than other media industries. Not only that, there is no incentive for porn producers to act more ethically, because no matter what they do, feminists will consider them misogynistic pigs, and conservatives will consider them lowlifes and perverts. Feminists may pretend to be on the side of the sex workers, but really they are not. They may wince at words such as “slut” being used for porn stars, but they will happily reel off about how these women are “degrading themselves”, a put-down which is no less belligerent, especially considering that it is by definition impossible to degrade yourself doing something you feel comfortable with. Porn will never go away, and if feminists really gave a fuck about improving the welfare of the women involved, they would realise this and try to make the medium more reputable, regulated, and respectable. Thus the women would in turn would be treated with more respect, it would be less underground and more in the public eye, producers would be under pressure to act more ethically, and there would be greater incentive for respectable people who care how people perceive them to work in it due to the public not thinking poorly of them for doing so. Of course I’m sure there would still be some seedy goings-on, but this can be said about any industry. But as a general rule of thumb, the more respected an industry is, the more reputable it is. Sometimes it becomes respected because it is reputable, sometimes it becomes more reputable as it becomes more respected. But generally, the two go hand in hand.

The reason feminists hate porn is because they have a totally puritanical hatred for male sexuality. They find it degrading to women because they view male sexuality as being a pollutant, something which corrupts any subject it casts its gaze on. Why else would they have such a problem with men gaining sexual enjoyment from looking at women? Why else would they have a problem with whenever a women is portrayed in a way to titillate men? Why else would it be that, despite the fact that 40% of Irish women watch porn, and that there is a huge industry for gay porn, the only problems feminists have with the medium are always related to male heterosexuality? They hate the way women in porn films often seem to be there to please the men. But the reality is that this isn’t even the case in the majority of porn films. Perhaps if they actually watched it they’d see this. A large percentage of porn films feature long scenes of cunnilingus and attractive, musclebound men, and there is now loads of porn made by women, for women. A lot of porn now is also amateur, and doesn’t seem to have any kind of gender bias. And if a porn film is aimed at men, so what? It’s not supposed to be a realistic depiction of sex, it’s a fantasy, and I’m sure viewers understand this. One of the main complaints against porn is that some of it is extreme, and shows women being tied up and treated like sex slaves. Again, so what? The vast majority of people who like BDSM realise it is just a fantasy. It’s no different to people who enjoy watching people being decapitated in the SAW films, or mowing down pedestrians in Grand Theft Auto. Just like those people, BDSM enthusiasts are surely sentient enough to realise that it’s not real, and that you should obviously never do anything like it in real life except in a controlled environment, with a willing partner, and a safeword. People don’t choose to enjoy BDSM, and I think it’s terribly intolerant to chastise them for their sexuality.

Perhaps, also, porn doesn’t make people violent rapists, but instead quenches lust, and relieves anxiety. I certainly know it does for me. Watching porn relaxes me and releases tensions that have been building up in me. And I believe this is probably the case for most people.

Anyway, the point is that the hysteria feminism creates about porn is blatantly misandrist. At it’s core is a belief that male sexuality is dirty and depraved, and that men are little more than irresponsible animals who are simply unable to control their desires. The reality is that gender equality is better than ever and rape rates are declining rapidly in the Western world, so it seems unlikely that the rising use of porn really could be doing much damage. The fight to defend porn is a fight to defend male sexuality. It is also about warding off censorship, and tired, out-dated, and intolerant sexual conservatism.


The Anti-Lad Culture Brigade

In the UK we having something called “lad culture”. Basically, “lad culture” is just a catch-all term for the current tide of young, machismo men who usually go to shitty clubs on weekends to get rat-arsed and fuck girls. They usually love to talk about the gym, protein shakes, their sexual conquests, and little else. They also have a strange sort of essence of homo-eroticism, due to their obsession with their appearance. They are often orange from the fake tan they plaster themselves with, and have silly, greasy hairdos.

There is no doubt they are annoying. There have been a few times I’ve had run ins with these types, where they haven’t been so much aggressive, but very arrogant and pushy.

But recently, these “lads” have begun to be treated like they are the new Third Reich. Not only that, “Lad culture” has been applied to anything remotely masculine, and anyone with an opinion that dissents from those of Guardian reading Women’s Studies tutors will be dismissed as being a “Lad”.

Sitting in my University’s medical care waiting room, I picked up the latest copy of the student newspaper. The front page article was simply titled “LAD CULTURE”. It then went on to describe “lad culture” like it is some rising phenomena of neo-Vikings who are on the brink of raping and pillaging every town in the country. But then, halfway in, it dropped this bombshell: apparently, according to a BBC report, a third of students have seen sexualized images of women being used to advertise things on their university campus. Holy shit. How deplorable. I hope those poor students didn’t need therapy.

What fucking planet do you have to be living on to find it shocking to see advertising with hot women in it? What planet? The Wahhabi planet? The fucking Amish planet? How the fuck is that a sign of some misogynistic and dangerous social movement arising? How is it even sexist? People (who aren’t totally insecure) like, or at least don’t mind, seeing hot women. It’s not misogynistic, it’s just fucking evolution. If people were fine with sexualized images of women, but not sexualized images of men, that would be unfair. But no one is. I regularly see muscly, topless, handsome men advertising things, and I get it. Girls just wanna see a nice hunk. Big fucking deal. Sex sells, and if you can’t fucking handle that then you need to grow up, because there’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that it’s a problem.

But then it got even more conservative. Yes, apparently “lad culture” will only disappear if all images that “objectify” women disappear first. So no woman should be allowed to choose to display her body for the titillation of viewers? Wow. Banning women from choosing to do something which clearly a fairly large number of them enjoy doing; that’s really bettering women’s lives. And, if all sexy images of girls disappeared, what exactly would men be able to release their sexual tension over? Do they really believe that men’s sexual fantasies are any less “objectifying” than what can be found in Playboy? Do they think that without this kind of media, men would be imagining having deep and personal conversations with women before gradually moving into making love? This is so blatantly anti-sex, puritanical, priggish bullshit, rather than anything to do the with the aim of creating a more egalitarian future.

“Lad culture” does not mean acting like a healthy human being naturally does. These people just want everyone to be sexless fucking robots, and “lad” is just another label they’ve attached to people who don’t abide by their highly contrived rules.

How Western, mainstream feminism is stopping the Middle East from progressing

I’ve spoken to women in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, about how they feel about the oppressive laws against them (having to wear black tents etc). Many of these women responded similarly to how they are reported to in this article:[1] .

A quote from this sums up many Saudi women’s attitudes: ”I can swim and do sports and go to restaurants and wear what I want, but not in front of men. Why should I show my legs and breasts to men? Is that really freedom?”

I have also heard both Arabic men and women talk about how in the West we “objectify” women, while in the Middle East they treat women with respect.

This kind of logic is of course totally backwards. If a woman wants to walk around in a black tent, OK, but the problem is she doesn’t have the freedom not too. Also, the idea that a woman who doesn’t wear a tent is “showing herself to men” can only come from a genuinely patriarchal view of life, where men’s perspective of them define everything they do. It also includes the idea that “showing yourself to men” is wrong. Many women enjoy feeling and being feminine and attractive, but they don’t have the freedom to do that there. What about them? And the idea that gazing at someone sexually is “disrespectful” is essentially puritanical, as it views it as essentially immoral or disgraceful (without any logical reason for this). And of course, lastly, why do only women have to hide themselves from the opposite sex? Why don’t men have to?

Islamic culture is undoubtedly and unequivocally very patriarchal and misogynistic. I haven’t even mentioned how Islamic countries treat sexual abuse and women’s rights.

But this idea that the West is actually worse to women than everywhere else has arisen due to modern, mainstream, sex negative feminism. Feminists very rarely spend any time criticizing Islamic countries, instead putting almost all their effort into creating hyperbole loaded attacks against every aspect of Western culture. Most feminists are also usually the kind of people who love to tell us why we can’t criticize other countries when our own are so sexist (Saudi Arabia would probably behead a women for appearing nude in a video, but ya know, that’s “respecting” women more than the West do because they aren’t allowing soft pornography).

This has been lapped up by Muslims across the world, and now whenever you hear someone criticizing Islam for its disgusting misogyny, it has become completely routine to hear Muslims retort by saying that the West objectifies women and treats them with no respect. This is of course a total red herring. Most Muslims don’t really give a toss about feminism, but it looks good and it’s a great defense because Social Justice Warriors lap it up.

And so the Middle East will remain stuck in the 12th century, women will continue to be lashed for not wearing veils, they will continue be thought of as chattel, and they will never be allowed to express their sexuality and femininity. All helped by the excuses and roundabout thinking that feminists have given them.

Nice one mainstream feminists. Glad you’re really helping women’s rights across the world.

The squeels of the swine following the Paris attacks

The latest pogrom against humanism, liberty, and sanity by those fanatic Mohammedans in Paris has resulted in an upwelling of sanctimonious, pious, stinking right-on spiel that is enough to make one want to slip off into the fringes of society to get good and lost in a wretched smack habit.

Apparently, many right-on types feel it is their duty to bravely defend Islam against any nastiness that the religion might be unduly subject to due to this incident. I really have trouble trying to image how utterly fucking myopic someone needs to be to think that the world’s fastest growing and second largest religion needs to be defended as if it is a poor little lamb. When it turned out the policeman who bravely took a bullet to the brain trying defend the Charlie Hebdo offices was a Muslim, I saw numerous tweets and statuses from people attributing his bravery to the “love and peace” message of Islam, rather than the integrity of his character. Fucking sad if you ask me. It’s like saying Schindler saved all those Jews because he was a Nazi. Anyone who’s read the Quran or has had the displeasure of glancing through the Bukhari Hadiths knows that Islam’s idea of “love” is more like “gruelling adherence to traditional Arabic family roles”, and peace more similar to “shutting up, obeying the Qu’ran, and treating anyone who doesn’t with contempt”.

Then came the Tim Willcox debacle. The BBC reporter interviewed a holocaust survivor who was talking about how the Jews have always been persecuted, and how this attack is just a continuation of it. Then Willcox retorted that “Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well”. Obviously, Palestinians do suffer at Jewish hands, but it’s completely irrelevant to what the lady was saying and it doesn’t make antisemitism any less problematic. It’s essentially like saying that Jews kinda deserve to be persecuted because of what a tiny minority do in Israel, a country most of which have never even been to.
I really struggle to believe that if a reporter was interviewing someone talking about the persecution of Palestinians, and he retorted by pointing out the amount of terror attacks which happen in the name of Islam, there would be so many people supporting such a statement.

The second attack was directly committed against Jews, and yet all I have heard is people defending Islam, the very ideology that the attacks were committed in the name of. As I stated earlier, Islam is the fastest growing, second largest religion in the world. Jews by comparison are a tiny, tiny minority, and an ethnicity, rather than simply a religious group (A Jew can stop following Judaism, but he can’t change the fact he is still an ethnic Jew. “Muslim” is simply a name for someone who follows the ideology which is Islam). 75% of Jews are thinking of leaving France due to antisemitism they’re experiencing. Where are all the people bringing this up? Where are all the people making sure that Jews don’t yet again fall subject to severe antisemitism? The idea that media and society is biased towards Jews because they control it is utter rubbish propaganda of the kind that has been around for years and years, and yes, right back to the holocaust.

In the UK, many people’s defensiveness for Islam is also bolstered by some absurd idea that people who defend Islam are a very small, unrepresented minority by the media (have you ever noticed that people always love to believe they are an unrepresented minority?). I have heard so much shit about how the media is using the Paris attacks to demonize Islam. The Guardian, Independent, Observer, and the BBC all spout exactly the same, apologist views for Islam, following the Paris attacks. But of course, when people say “the media”, they don’t mean media which agrees with them. When I pressed people to see what they mean by this great, majority media which has demonized Islam due to the Paris attacks, they have usually said “Fox News”. We don’t even get Fox News in the UK.

My problems with the term “sexual objectification”, and the fear-mongering associated with it

Sexual objectification as it is most commonly used means treating someone as if they are a thing, the subject-object dichotomy where a subject acts, and an object is acted upon. (It doesn’t necessarily mean seeing or portraying someone as if they are aesthetically like an object, although as I shall go onto later, it is sometimes used in this way.) Thus, goes the theory, by objectifying women men remove their ability to act and hence their power.

The feminist philosopher Martha Nussbaum states that a person might be objectified if their treatment corresponds to one or a selection of the following properties:

  • Instrumentality – as if a tool for another’s purposes
  • Denial of Autonomy – as if lacking in agency or self-determination
  • Inertness – as if without action
  • Fungibility – as if interchangeable
  • Violability – as if permissible to damage or destroy
  • Ownership – as if owned by another
  • Denial of Subjectivity – as if there is no need for concern for their feelings and experiences

Now, it hardly seems credible that the treatment of a nude model falls under any different a selection of those conditions with any more severity than any waiter, pizza delivery person, or supermarket cashier.

Surely a photoshoot in Playboy treats its subject with no less concern for her feelings, as if she is no more or less interchangeable, as no more a tool, as no more inert or owned, and certainly no more permissible to harm, than a hotel treats its staff.

In fact, it seems likely that a model is seen as being considerably less interchangeable, owned, inert, and lacking agency. If dining in a restaurant, do we pay much attention to the waitresses’ thoughts, experiences, concerns, or emotions any more or less than those of a pole dancer’s in a strip club?

A cashier in a supermarket has no more agency, no more autonomy, no more ability to express their personality than a model in a soft-porn magazine. A teenager masturbating over a “lads mag” will be sparing no less emotions and sentiment for the girls he’s lusting over, than he would for a server in McDonalds. We “objectify” others all the time, because it is simply not possible to deeply care and thoughtfully consider each and every person who provides a service for us or works for us.

This is certainly not problematic, but simply natural. If this is what can be considered objectification, then it is not a problem. It is a healthy way which we deal with everyday life.

So what’s the difference here? Why is the objectification of models or strippers so often highlighted, but not the objectification of pizza delivery boys or waitresses? Why does it seem to be the “sexual” aspect that is so problematic?

An argument which regularly makes an appearance relates to the idea that sexual objectification portrays women as aesthetically akin to objects, implying that when you look at someone and only focus on their sexuality you are actually seeing them as an object or thing. That is to say that someone being sexually objectified isn’t only given as little thought as a thing, but is literally seen as being a thing.  It implies that a sexualised image of a woman, in say, Playboy, shows the woman as as if she is actually an object.

However when you look at a person sexually and only sexually, you may have a very impersonal relationship with them, but if you are sexually aroused by them you are not seeing them as an object, as “objects” are intrinsically not sexual (an argument that individualist feminist Wendy McElroy makes). People are not typically sexually aroused by cabbages or chairs.

Even if an actual object is to be made to appear sexual (such as sex dolls), it has to be given the resemblance of a human in order for it to be sexually attractive. Or, in other words, for an “object” to be viewed as sexually attractive, it has to be designed so that it no longer appears to be an object.

Therefore, the property of something being or appearing to be an object makes it intrinsically not sexually appealing, so to say that when someone is being displayed solely for their sexual appeal this portrayal makes them look like an “object” is simply fallacious, as “objectuality” is the antithesis of sexuality.

Sexual objectification may be very impersonal, it may be very passive, but it does not make sense for it to literally mean the portrayal of women as objects.

This may seem as though it’s simply a question of linguistic semantics, but that’s not the case. When discussing subjective opinions it’s absolutely necessary that the words or terms you use have a definite, clear, concrete meaning, especially a term such as “sex object” which has such currency in society today.

If a term is both nebulous and emphatic, then it is hyperbole. If it is used as axiomatically and prolifically as “sex object”, then it enters the realm of being propaganda.

Then there’s the oft repeated notion that porn, erotic images, glamour photos, or stripping are correlated with rape.

Where is the empirical evidence for this? Where is the data, the statistics, that prove this to be the case? And if people believe “sexual objectification” causes rape, does that mean they believe that sex workers and lap dancers cause rape because their work involves being “sexually objectified”? Do girls who post nude pictures of themselves online cause rape? Can erotic fiction cause rape? Do models cause rape? Perhaps girls in short skirts and crop tops cause rape?

This all sounds rather akin to victim blaming and slut-shaming. Should we police and regulate women to ensure they do not cause themselves to be raped? Aren’t rapists the only ones at fault? Shouldn’t women be able to live in a world where they can choose to do what they want with their bodies without fear of being blamed for causing sexual abuse?

People should not incur blame for actions that others independently commit unless they intentionally tried to incite them. Such an idea undermines the very foundations of justice and liberty.

Salman Rushdie should not have received blame for the violence in Pakistan that ensued after the release of The Satanic Verses. Christopher Nolan shouldn’t be blamed because some maniac watched The Dark Knight and shot up a cinema. And a stripper should not bear the blame for sexual assault.

The “No More Page 3” campaign

In the UK we have this abysmally crap newspaper called The Sun, and on it’s third page it features a picture of a topless girl.

Many prigs in the UK hate this so they have started a pressure group[1] .

This whole thing really gets on my tits and I’m honestly sick of hearing their stupid fucking arguments. In the UK the left’s attitudes to sex are almost identical to the right’s, i.e they’re really fucking puritanical. The only difference with the left is they do accept nudity, but only if its not sexual. They maintain that this means they aren’t puritans, but the fact that they only seem to like nudity if it isn’t “sexualized” seems pretty fucking puritanical to me.

Anyway, back to the “No More Page 3” campaign.

Here are the reasons the campaign’s site states why Page 3 must go.

1) It’s 2014! Page 3 was first introduced in the sexist 1970s. A lot has changed over the last 30+ years in our society, we think it’s time The Sun caught up…

The “sexist 1970s”? Were they really “sexist”? A time for radical change for women’s rights was “sexist”? Hmm. And what exactly about the world has changed since then that makes Page 3 old hat? Porn and nude modelling is more accepted than ever. The only thing that seems dated about Page 3 is how tame it is.

2) It’s soft porn in the UK’s no.1 selling family newspaper that children are exposed to. Until 2003 the models were only 16 (and made to dress up in school ties and hats – seriously!) It’s never been OK. One day we’ll look back on this and think “oh my goodness, we did what?!”

Ok, on the first point complaining about it being “soft porn in the UK’s no.1 selling family newspaper”. Firstly, using the word “porn” in accordance with Page 3 is bordering on hyperbole. Secondly, if you have read The Sun you would know that it is filled with a mixture of celebrity news and horribly tactless and sensationalized reports of murders, rapes, terrible violence, horrible accidents and other such tragedies. Now, of course kids have to learn about the darkness in the world, but I’d never want my kids learning about said darkness from the hyped up, tactless, insensitive, sensationalized prostitution of atrocities and tragedies that can be found in The Sun. If you think the least family friendly thing in this tabloid is a pair of breasts then you have a pretty twisted, and yes, a pretty fucking puritanical, view of the world.

On the second point about the models being 16, why does it matter to say that now if they stopped that over a decade ago?

On the “oh my goodness, we did what?!” part, what the fuck do they mean by “we”? I didn’t do it. What a bunch of journalists choose to put in their rag has fuck all to do with me.

3) What does it teach children? They see page after page of pictures of men in clothes doing stuff (running the country, having opinions, achieving in sport!) and what are the women doing in this society they’re learning about? Not much really, other than standing topless in their pants showing their bare breasts for men. It’s not really fair, is it?

Well, this might touch on something, accept for the fact that The Sun doesn’t only report about men, which is what this makes it sound like. I mean, The Sun has female journalists and the paper features reports on women just as much as they report on men. Also, most of the “stuff'” people are doing in The Sun is bad stuff which you wouldn’t want your kids to emulate.

4) Women say, do and think so many interesting and incredible things and should be celebrated for their many achievements. They are people, not things! Not ‘that’. The fact that we hear ‘look at the tits on that’ or ‘I’d do that’ is disgusting, disrespectful and objectifying. Page 3 of The Sun is the icon that perpetuates and normalises this horrible sexist ‘banter’.

This makes it sound like if Page 3 went, so would all sexism. What a lovely little fairy-tale these people live in. I fail to see how focusing on a girl’s physique undermines other women’s abilities or achievements. Women ARE celebrated for their achievements just as much as men are these days, and Page 3 has fuck all influence on this whether it exists or not. Do these people think its impossible for people to focus on one woman for her physique as well as focus on other women for their intellect or creativity? Also, if people such as the No More Page 3 campaigners made the breakthrough of having a little more respect for the models of Page 3 (maybe, ya know, respect that they have minds too which are capable of making their own decisions), then perhaps this would begin a trend and there’d be more respect for them in general. And thus there would be less men saying stuff like “I’d do that”.

5) Every single weekday for the last 44 years in The Sun newspaper the largest female image has been of a young woman (usually of a very particular age, race, physicality) showing her breasts for men, sending out a powerful message that whatever else a woman achieves, her primary role is to serve men sexually. Pretty rubbish that really.

Urm, wait, what? How? How did they jump to that conclusion? I’ve regularly seen large images of women gracing the front page. One only has to type ‘Thatcher’ and ‘The Sun’ into Google to see that this is simply incorrect. And since when did image size correlate with level of achievement?

6) The Sun newspaper could be so much stronger without Page 3. Because currently, any story they run about women’s issues such as rape, sexual abuse, harassment, domestic violence or the dangers of online porn is drowned out and contradicted by the neon flashing sign of Page 3 that says ‘shut up, girls, and get your tits out.’

The Sun could be “stronger”? Really? Page 3 is pretty much the only part of it that is at least moderately appealing. The paper is the fucking raggiest of rags. It really is total utter shite. Also, how the fuck does Page 3 say “shut up girls and get your tits out”. YOU said that, not The Sun. Why does Page 3 undermine reporting issues of rape, sexual abuse and domestic violence? What the fuck does a picture of a highly paid model smiling and standing there with her boobs out have any-fucking-thing to do with any of those things? And I fucking hope that it does undermine stories about “the dangers of online porn”, considering that the only stories I’ve heard about the “dangers” of online porn have been utter, mumsnet fucking sensationalist garbage with wafer thin evidence to back them up.