My male friends freely admit they use porn - a fact that makes no difference to me.
After all, so do I and my female friends. Whether we're thinking about that guy on the tube, a Dolce and Gabbana advert or 50 Shades Of Grey.
Yet, according to Lynne Featherstone, writing in support of a petition to ban Page Three models, pornography and domestic violence go hand in hand.
I guess in that case it's remarkable, my mates have all ended up in such loving, equitable relationships.
According to both Women's Aid and the Women's Resource Centre, there is no evidence that grown-up men are turned into brutes by looking at naked women.
But somehow, female anger towards the objectification of women in the media in general has morphed into a censorious tirade against the Sun.
Campaigners, such as Lucy Holmes, whose petition entitled 'Take the bare boobs out of the Sun' has more than 30,000 signatures, seem convinced that removing this masturbation material would have a significant impact on gender politics.
However, this tired, out-dated crusade against Page Three comes at a time when the rest of mainstream media is actively conquering and exploiting a far more insidious form of female objectification.
While feminists feebly fight the Sun, the online titillation monster grows daily, snatching bite-sized chunks of celebrity bikinis from the hands of news publications and serving them up to whomever types 'Kim Kardashian' and 'bikini' into Google.
![]()
From the Huffington Post (above) and the Daily Mail (explanatory hyperlink hardly necessary), to female-focused publications such as Marie Claire, Handbag.com and MyDaily, these entertainment news stories all comment on women with far less courtesy than shown towards the Sun's Courtnie from Plymouth.
Perhaps that's because their motives are entirely cynical - to drive up readership numbers in the fiercely competitive news world by weaving 'keywords' into stories that can be found by people looking for thrills.
Perhaps it would be better if every magazine or newspaper just had a porn section. At least all those 'objectified women' would have agreed to have their photos taken.
The sincere petition that Lucy writes to Dominic hints that if only this 'man' would stop labelling these 'women' as sex objects, the world would change.
However, half of the publications listed above have female editors - and all are driven by the need to return readers to their management by any means necessary.
If you type 'sexy bodies' into Google, you're as likely to read a piece in a tabloid, as find pornography. However, the porn might be less critical about the woman's cellulite.
A spokesperson for Women's Aid pointed out to me that it's not images of female sexual objectification that are the problem per se - but how they are interpreted by the viewer.
Phew. Thanks goodness, most of online stories about celebrities in bikinis contextualise the images properly and promote women's bodies positively. Oh hang on...
Instead of fretting over the Sun, let's start being a little more honest about how the media is really warping men's minds towards women.
The message many online newspapers deliver is simple: if she's half-naked, she's fair game.
Follow Sarah O'Meara on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sarahomeara
Sarah O'Meara: Five Reasons I Love My Virtual Husband
Page Three - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Sun: Page 3 - the woman you'd love your woman to be like ...
The censorious campaign against Page 3 is driven by the oldest and ...
Former Page 3 girl Nina Carter calls for topless ban
High profile celebrities back the anti-Page 3 petition
Brit politician blames topless Page 3 pictures for domestic violence
A definition "Something displeasing to the eye"
The girls in page 3, and any photos of less clad or naked women I do not find displeasing, and I am damned sure that most women like the look of healthy young men.
What I do find PORNOGRAPHIC are photographs of the horrors of war, of mans inhumanity to man, which you can find on documentary programs before the watershed.
My Point is:
If a group of men and women marched down a street, in uniform, to a marching band, displaying their weapons of death, they would be cheered.
If those same men and women marched down a street naked, displaying weapons of life, they would be arrested
Strange aint it
One definition is "Something displeasing to the eye".
I am afraid that page 3, or women less that dressed is not in the least displeasing, and I am sure that most healthy women dont mind eying up a fit young man.
What I class as PORNOGRAPHY, are photographs of the death and destruction caused by war which is shown on many documentary channels during the day.
If a group of men and women came down the street in uniform all in step to a marching band they will be cheered.
If the same men and women came down the street nacked displaying weapons of life, they will be arrested.
I do like pictures of fit under-dressed women though. I suspect I would enjoy life less if I had a girl less attractive than portrayed in these pictures.
I dislike it that women always seem to be on perpetual diets, even when they have no need to be.
I wondered whether Page 3 had an effect, perhaps by giving the abusers less reason to respect the women they were attacking, or because the commulative effect meant that they were now more likely to attack women.
Maybe it was just that I was anti Page 3 or that, now that Page 3 had begun to loose it's effect, papers found that to pull im the readers something more was needed.
There was something pornographic about these sex attack reports. The victim was telling anyone who would listen about the sex that had taken place, and, in those days, that was something. I remember the newspaper I read repeating in gory detail each day of the court case the full account of the attack, as well as what the court had heard the previous day, with a fuller report when the guy was convicted. Part of my problem with those reports was that those days noboddy had anominity. If the guy was acquited they didn't say so, they just stopped reporting the case. It lead to my belief that details of all cases should be with held until there was a verdict.
People in glass houses...
Well, way cool: monetising sexualised women to sell magazines is OK with you and therefore the rest of us should tolerate it quietly and go along with the huge burden (on both sexes) the objectification of women imposes? because it earns you money?
Foxtrot Oscar.
We are all responsible for our own actions and that includes marketeers who want money at any cost. The answer lies in what beliefs you hold but it will only be your answer and maybe not mine.