To ask you all to sign the "No More Page 3" petition?

(464 Posts)
UnrequitedSkink Mon 17-Sep-12 21:18:01

It's a bit of a no-brainer really. How are we ever supposed to show our kids that women are more than just sex objects when Page 3 exists? It's archaic and totally unnecessary. It's also an anachronism and offensive. Please sign if you believe that pictures of topless girls don't belong in a so-called family newspaper.

More info here and a facebook page here

Fantastically, the petition has gone from 2,000 signatures yesterday morning to over 16,000 today!

YANBU. Done.

UnrequitedSkink Mon 17-Sep-12 21:30:32

Thank you! I was beginning to feel like a lone voice shouting into the wilderness...

MrsTerrysChocolateOrange Mon 17-Sep-12 21:35:04

Signed. I worked in a warehouse in my teens and <shudder> my creepy boss used to leave this lying around. I bet he wouldn't have done it with porn.

whitewineinthesun Mon 17-Sep-12 21:38:42

done. and posted on facebook

hiddenhome Mon 17-Sep-12 21:51:22

Done.

My childhood abuser used to force me to look at Page 3 images when he was abusing me sad

griphook Mon 17-Sep-12 21:51:49

Done

jellybaby25 Mon 17-Sep-12 21:53:35

Yes, you are being unreasonable. Not sure if The Sun is a family friendly newspaper. The women who do it are not being exploited. Men will always look at boobs whether Page 3 exists or not. You don't have to buy it or show it to your kids. Can't se what is wrong with it really.

GoldShip Mon 17-Sep-12 21:54:36

I won't and my reasons why are scattered all over the 'ban page 3 topic' wink

But fair does if you're fighting for what you believe in.

GoldShip Mon 17-Sep-12 21:56:07

In the name of stopping repeated arguments, I'll just link people to this www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1522461--to-want-to-ban-page-3

omfgkillmenow Mon 17-Sep-12 21:58:54

if i had the bod I would have done it, and my abuser made me look at razzle, they are just boobs, the girls aren't forced into it, look at how it has made Jordans career...I would say that I am a feminist but if a lassie wants to get her tits out then its her right...
Just dont let your kids see the sun, or if you are offended just don't buy it. Its only a pair of boobs theres a lot worse on t'internet

Meglet Mon 17-Sep-12 22:03:48

Did it, shared and followed last week grin. I've been RT them every day on twitter.

Will bang it out again on my FB page soon.

It's not about 'banning' page 3 at all. It's a campaign that is asking whether images of naked women are appropriate in a family newspaper (which the Sun says it is) in 2012. The 'men will always look at boobs' argument is irrelevant. Yes, they will. But soft porn in a newspaper makes a statement about the role of women in society which is outdated and degrading and I, for one, have had enough.

Meglet Mon 17-Sep-12 22:08:06

As they've been saying...... "Boobs aren't news".

UnrequitedSkink Mon 17-Sep-12 22:11:26

I am not in the least offended by bare breasts – the female form is beautiful. And I’m sure the models do their job willingly and without coercion, and I’m sure they’re paid well for it. But the real harm caused by printing daily pics of bare breasted girls for men to leer over is done to all other women, who didn’t choose it. Page 3 has a detrimental effect on all women, and on mens’ perception of women. The Sun DAILY reinforces a view of women as primarily sex objects.

You’re right, I don’t have to buy it. I don’t buy it, but that’s not really the point is it? Millions do buy it, and millions of men and women repeatedly read and absorb the message that it’s fine to sexually objectify women

jellybaby25 Mon 17-Sep-12 22:16:06

But to be frank, women are sex objects for men. Just as men are sex objects for women. It's the way of the world...

Raspberryandorangesorbet Mon 17-Sep-12 22:18:48

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

notanaxemurderer Mon 17-Sep-12 22:18:50

My goodness, Jellybaby - is that the message you're going to impart to your DD, if you have one?

"Sorry that man made a comment about your breasts, darling, but because you were born with a vagina you'll just have to put up with it, it's the way of the world."

confused

MrsTerrysChocolateOrange Mon 17-Sep-12 22:19:01

Just for the record...

Boobs, not a problem.

News, not a problem.

It is as if they are saying, here is some news. Since you are reading the news you must be a straight man or a lesbian presumably but I don't know what The Sun's audience share is there so here are some tits. It is a little bizarre if you think about it. They do all seem very young as well. <old gimmer>

Raspberryandorangesorbet Mon 17-Sep-12 22:21:03

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

hawaiiWave Mon 17-Sep-12 22:40:22

Yanbu, done.

jellybaby25 Mon 17-Sep-12 22:42:38

Yes, really! Obviously women are not just sexual beings in the eyes of men
... but we have to be realistic ... sex is the main driver for men and women.

anditwasallyellow Mon 17-Sep-12 22:45:20

While I could write an essay on everything that is wrong with page 3. I think a petition will only draw more attention to it in a no publicity is bad publicity sort of way.

I don't think it will stop while people are buying the paper. And sadly isn't The Sun the UKs top paper, says a lot really doesn't it.

MrsTerrysChocolateOrange Mon 17-Sep-12 22:47:39

sex is the main driver for men and women Not really when I am looking at news. When I go to the BBC online, I don't think, "you know what this report on the Middle East needs? A big cock."

squeakytoy Mon 17-Sep-12 22:54:34

YABU. I have no objection to page 3.

anditwasallyellow Mon 17-Sep-12 22:57:25

sex is the main driver for men and women you know what my main problem with that statement is in relation to page 3 is that I'm sick of breast being seen as purely a sex object. I mean yes men love them which is great, but from things like page 3 comes all sorts of other things like women blowing them up to be twice their natural size.

LostinaPaperCup Mon 17-Sep-12 23:06:27

It's not about sex drives, it's about putting women in their place. Women are not just topless on p3, they are ridiculed.

Also, many of them are not paid but are led to believe it will lead to paid work.

randomfemale Mon 17-Sep-12 23:13:59

No objection to Page 3 here. I would not say you are BU you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine smile

Redbindy Mon 17-Sep-12 23:18:21

I can see both sides, but must admit it doesn't bother me that much. I don't really see how this petition stands any chance of success. As the law stands the Sun is behaving quite legally, and it's content is considerably less offensive than a lot of other publications available in newsagents. While the Sun is the best selling paper in the UK I don't think that this petition stands much chance of persuading the owners to change their business model. One for Saint Jude maybe.

JockTamsonsBairns Mon 17-Sep-12 23:20:16

Done

squeakytoy Mon 17-Sep-12 23:23:24

"Also, many of them are not paid but are led to believe it will lead to paid work"

I do not believe for one moment that any page 3 girl has not been paid for their picture being on there..

moonieponds Mon 17-Sep-12 23:31:18

Done.
Thank you OP.

GoldShip Tue 18-Sep-12 08:29:49

I'll just pop in to say they're all paid.

delightfullyfragrant Tue 18-Sep-12 10:41:21

Actually there was a thread on here about page three, someone linked above, where an ex page three girl said they were not all paid I believe.

GoldShip Tue 18-Sep-12 10:45:17

I'm an ex, they are all paid.

In magazines like Nuts they aren't always though.

threeOrangesocksmorgan Tue 18-Sep-12 10:46:26

no
the sun is not what I would class as a family newspaper.

spooktrain Tue 18-Sep-12 10:48:31

Done. I posted this yesterday on chat. I think it's sad so many people see this as a perfectly acceptable career choice for a young woman. Including the young women themselves.

LadyBeagleEyes Tue 18-Sep-12 10:58:21

If you think a petition will make a blind bit of difference, you are deluded Op.
People have been trying for years and it's only going to happen when The Sun decides it's not in the paper's interest any more.
It doesn't bother me because I don't buy the Sun and never have.

Raspberryandorangesorbet Tue 18-Sep-12 11:06:02

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Dear god its a willing model in a newspaper!

Why would you want to ban it? confused

If anything there should be one of naked men for woman!

GoldShip Tue 18-Sep-12 11:11:09

Awww I got mumsnet luffs! I feel all warm and glowey blush

BarredfromhavingStella Tue 18-Sep-12 11:14:32

Please no naked men-a nice tight pair of jockey shorts yes, but not all naked & dangly confused

thebeesnees79 Tue 18-Sep-12 11:16:28

Done it and got my family too also smile
come on ladies lets stop all the blatant sexism! What's the point of equality for women if a tabloid paper still publishes daily tit pics!

Tuttutitlookslikerain Tue 18-Sep-12 11:16:32

What SPsFanjo said!

What about a snug pair of Speedos? grin

I honestly don't see the issue with Page 3. If I looked like some of the women in it I'd do it too!

tut <<chest bump>> grin

YANBU for your beliefs but I wont be signing as I dont see a problem with page 3!

BarredfromhavingStella Tue 18-Sep-12 11:20:43

Speedos don't really do it for me but hey whatever floats your boat........ grin

thebeesnees79 Tue 18-Sep-12 11:21:11

oh my god it has 18,000 names already! whoop ass smile

Tom Daley in Speedos floats my boat!

<rubs thighs>

Im as bad as the men looking at page 3 arent I?

Mind you, thinking about page 3 and then you oogling Tom Daley makes me think where the hell did the page 7 hunk go?? Maybe we should campaign to bring him back smile

BarredfromhavingStella Tue 18-Sep-12 11:23:59

Lol, not a thing wrong with looking........

BarredfromhavingStella Tue 18-Sep-12 11:25:12

Betty I'll sign that petition grin

betty let's petition to get it back!

UnrequitedSkink Tue 18-Sep-12 11:26:04

Found this in a blog post here and it pretty much brilliantly encapsulates how I feel:

It’s a pretty good rule of thumb, when wanting to test the sense of any life situation, to ask yourself: how would I explain this to a child? If you can’t communicate the logic of something in simple terms a kid can grasp, there’s a good chance it might be completely ridiculous. Extra light mayonnaise, for instance. Or why they let the contestants on Four in a Bed decide each other’s scores.

Now, I’d like you to think about how you would explain the existence of Page 3 to a child who has never encountered it before. Go on – have the imaginary conversation in your head. I’ll wait.

Tricky, isn’t it? Because when you stop to think about it, Page 3 is like an embarrassing old curtain pelmet from the 70s that everyone has somehow forgotten to take down. I like to think that when it finally ceases to be, just like smoking in restaurants, it’ll seem oddly incredible that it was ever A Thing in the first place.

Yanbu, I signed! It seemed to go up about 2000 between opening the page and signing. Hope it continues!

Hell Yeah!! smile Page 7 hunk could brighten up my day!!

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 11:37:01

YADNBU!! I've been 'banging on' [feminists or anybody who even occasionally might possibly think 'that's a little bit sexist' never do anything except 'bang on'] about this on this thread for days and days!

Welcome to 2012 MNers! It's good to part of a revolution that's been a long time coming! Nice one OP wine and [flowers] and brew and biscuit!

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 11:37:29

whoops! meant this: thanks

It's just some boobs in a paper! Willing models who have decided to do it.

Give people their own choices to make instead of taking it away because you don't like it. It's a page in a newspaper. You know what paper and you know what page. You don't have to even look at it

KellyElly Tue 18-Sep-12 11:41:35

Should we also be petitioning to ban Heat's Torso of the Week? Has to work both ways doesn't it?

Startailoforangeandgold Tue 18-Sep-12 11:53:00

For fucks sake find something important to start a petition about!

strandednomore Tue 18-Sep-12 11:58:03

I have signed it and (I think?!) linked it to Facebook. As I said in the petition when asked my reasons, it's because I don't want my daughter's growing up thinking this is such a normal thing to do that it is done in one of the most popular newspapers in the world. Ie they are making it "respectable" and normal to relegate women to nothing more than a pair of breasts.

However, I don't think there's anything that ridiculous about extra light mayonnaise is there (hopeful, thought it was something I could have on a diet?!).

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 11:58:05

SPSFanjo - I've said all this before on the other thread but I'm willing to say it again: not buying the paper doesn't help! I don't buy it and it's not looking at it that is the problem, I'm not 'offended' by some boobs, I've got my own thanks. But the context in which is sits is everything. The tits are there with no context at all (it's a NEWSPAPER) and in the meantime the largest-selling newspaper tells society this is what women are for. They exist for the appreciation of the male gaze and this is our highest achievement, we like being ogled and men have every right to judge us all on our bodies and not treat us as anything better than a 'thing' for their amusement/entertainment/pleasure. This really hit home when Ennis wins gold and the largest pic of any woman in the Sun at that time is reserved for a woman with no top on. What does that say about how society should value women? What our role models are? And all this in a 'family newspaper' that sells itself with free Lego promotions. What is a young girl whose boobs are just developing supposed to make of all this: that her tits are public property and if they don't grow to look like that woman's she has failed? That this is the best way to achieve success as a woman? The way to be loved?

If you think it has no negative affects on society then take a look at the @EverydaySexism feed on twitter. Tweet after tweet by women who can't even get home on a train without being groped, harrassed, told they are fit/ugly, or sat opposite men masturbating whilst looking at them (that comes up so depressingly often). Of course there is a link when that is how the Sun tells society to treat women: we love a bit of 'appreciation' and our looks and what men think of that is our chief preoccupation. If the way things are depicted in a national newspaper made no odds then why do advertisers spend thousands sticking their products in them?

Finally, I suggest you read this so you understand the arguments involved, since by saying 'don't like it, don't buy it', you clearly don't: slaveofthepassions.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/no-more-page-3/.

The women in the photos chose to model and get their boobs out. They know men will be looking at the pictures and women too yet still do it. It is their own choice!

Just because you don't like it doesbt mean it has to stop!

It's one page in one newspaper!

What about the pictures of half naked men in magazines? That obviously needs to stop too then??

This is a load of bull shit tbh.

Women trying to women making choices that's all it is. If they are willing I can't see how that can bother people!

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 12:03:45

You haven't read that link have you...?

Tweet after tweet by women who can't even get home on a train without being groped, harrassed, told they are fit/ugly, or sat opposite men masturbating whilst looking at them (that comes up so depressingly often).

People like that are sick, I cant imagine banning page 3 would have any impact on their behavior at all. Page 3 in the grand scheme of things is very very mild!

Been harassed on the street isn't because one woman got her tits out for a newspaper its because the men doing it are dickheads! They would do it weather Miss Tallulah from Wales poses for a photo or not.

Don't blame women getting their boobs out for why some men are wankers.

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 12:05:25

Yes page 3 is 'mild' but this is the message it gives people! Look at that woman with her tits out! Women love a bit of that! They love to be 'appreciated'! They love it when I grab them and tell them what a nice pair they've got... Of course there is a link!

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 12:05:57

SPs - I'm not blaming the women that do it, I'm blaming the Sun.

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 12:06:36

..or to clarify, the Sun promoting it reinforces this whole culture.

Any sane intelligent person damn well knows that there is a massive difference between appreciating a visual image and copping a feel. Plus the fact, if they dont know the difference what would happen if they cant look at innocent enough images on say page 3.....they will turn to darker methods to get their kicks wouldn't they!

If we need to petition about anything I would have thought it would be illegal porn sights/kiddie port etc etc rather than piffling page 3!

So a newspaper is forcing men to behave like that? confused

Bull shit. If that's the cause then every man that has looked at page 3 will be wanking in train cabins and groping women!

I think every man has seen page 3 at least once so in that case all men are dirty perverts then who want to call you ugly while wanking.

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 12:11:29

I didn't say a newspaper was 'forcing women to behave like that', I said the Sun perpetuates this culture of objectification by normalising it.

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 12:12:26

sorry: 'men to behave like that'!

LadyBeagleEyes Tue 18-Sep-12 12:12:57

How would your children ever see it if you don't buy the paper. Unless they sneak looks in the paper shop, which is both highly unlikely and there's a lot worse in Zoo and Nuts which are on the same shelves.
I honestly think it's an anachronism now as there are so many images all over the internet, it makes page 3 just look like a saucy postcard from the seaside.

Bit it is normal to appreciate the opposite sex. I remember as a young teen growing up me and my mates used to oggle the mens pants in my mums catalogue, same as my brother and his friends used to look at the bras. None of us have turned into sexual predators groping innocent people.... we are sane people who know the difference between reality and fantasy.

Nothing wrong with normality.......as usual the minority always fuck stuff up for the majority.

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 12:16:30

Zoo and Nuts are not on the same shelves at all! The Sun is on the main news stands! That is the problem! A newspaper is read in public, on trains/buses, in work places, all over the place! Of course women and and children see it whether they want to or not! And it's not just about 'my children'! What about the kids whose parents get the Sun everyday! Do you think it's hidden from them?! (I grew up in a house that had the Sun delivered. My parents didn't keep them under the wardrobe!) I have nothing against tits but they have no place in a newspaper.

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 12:17:36

'Appreciating the opposite sex' is one thing: objectifying them into nothing more than a pair of tits is another! Why is it 'normal' that women are treated like this and men aren't?

The boobs in a paper normalise wanking on trains and groping women? hmm

If you are going to do that I don't think a newspaper picture been banned is going to stop you doing it.

It's one photo! Have you seen what can be found on the internet?!

So will you be doing a petition to get heat to ban their torso of the week then? Because that may cause woman to grope men and fiddle on a train

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 12:18:58

I can see this heading into 'you're a prude' territory - I'm not. Nor do I have body issues. It is the outrageous sexism I object to, and the message it gives out about women.

Appreciating the opposite sex' is one thing: objectifying them into nothing more than a pair of tits is another! Why is it 'normal' that women are treated like this and men aren't

Another good reason to petition to bring back the page 7 hunk then!!

Why is it 'normal' that women are treated like this and men aren't?

Have you not seen any magazines lately? Half naked men in most of them.

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 12:20:57

SPs - have you even looked at the petition page? It's not about 'banning'! The petition asks Mohan to stop it - very different.

Torso of the week doesn't compare because men are not treated in this way by society as a whole. Men are shown in the tabloid press as active participants in society; women are shown on the sidelines looking nice for the benefit of men.

GoldShip Tue 18-Sep-12 12:21:17

In all fairness there are make equivalents. I made this point in the other thread but I think it may have been ignored.

Sigh, let's not all start again! Read the other thread peeps!

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 12:22:19

I do agree with your 2nd point Goldship - read the other thread peeps. But of course they won't.

threeOrangesocksmorgan Tue 18-Sep-12 12:24:45

so is there going to be a petition to ban magazines like heat, they have topless pics of men in them....

JodieHarsh Tue 18-Sep-12 12:25:04

If this gets banned do we also need a petition against that grim 'Torso of the Week' shot in Heat (or whatever?)

And is it so different from all the very-slightly-cringy perving over 'only just legal' Tom Daly during the Olympics?

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 12:25:32

As I have already said sigh if you actually look at the petition it is not about 'banning' anything...

Torso of the week doesn't compare because men are not treated in this way by society as a whole

Have you ever been to a ladies night?? I went to one years ago and I tell you, the women were scary....worse than men!! They were grabbing him, smacking his arse and all sorts. Obviously he was butt naked covered in baby oil so he knew what he was letting himself in for but yes, this just proves than women can be just as bad as men if they are that way inclined rightly or wrongly. Dont make objectification a feminist issue, its a humanist issue really!

JodieHarsh Tue 18-Sep-12 12:26:52

FWIW I find Page 3 a fraction as offensive as the crotch-shots in FHM et. al.

The little blob saying things like "Elsa, 22, from Basildon, says "Dylan Thomas wrote 'Do not go gentle into that good night', something we can all bear in mind as the Paralympics come to an end.' etc. etc.

grin

LadyBeagleEyes Tue 18-Sep-12 12:27:24

You just need to read some threads on MN where many women talk about the men they lust after and what they'd like to do them, with links wink
Are we all demeaning men on these threads

threeOrangesocksmorgan Tue 18-Sep-12 12:28:29

did you not see the thread about Oscar on here....

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 12:28:56

FFS! It isn't the same talking about pics of men! For a start women have breasts, that are sexual body parts (yes I know they are used for BFing but the Sun don't show women nursing do they?!) whereas men don't have them. A man's torso is not the same - if it were then why aren't women walking around topless like men do in summer? But more to the point, men do not have to prove themselves professionally in the way women do. They aren't already on a back foot, and don't suffer from sexual violence in the way women do. Men's chests in mags does not compare. Plus, we're not talking about mags, we're talking about a NEWSPAPER!

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 12:30:30

And I haven't even started on News in Briefs... cos yes, we women are all thickies who can't possibly have an intellectual opinion on anything. chortle.

threeOrangesocksmorgan Tue 18-Sep-12 12:30:33

the sun, a newspaper?
doesn't the star also have a topless page?

JodieHarsh Tue 18-Sep-12 12:30:36

ARf at the idea that we don't objectify men. See the pictures of Beckham in his tightie wighties. See the Tom Daly perving. See the Cumberbitches.

One thread had people linking to the time on the iPlayer that Benedict Cumberbatch was Doing Teh Secks. The hilarity that ensued when they realised they were watching a painstaking adaptation of a modernist classic was quite funny grin

OBVIOUSLY it's worse where women are concerned by pointless saying it's not increasingly the case for men too.

You are going way off track now!

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 12:31:30

The Star is terrible but doesn't have the massive circ of the Sun.

JodieHarsh Tue 18-Sep-12 12:31:38

Me? Sorry blush

No not you, Em .......I am agreeing with you Jodie smile

Feminism gone mad!

The only reason you feel like this is because you look for it!

Jesus not sure weather you are a feminist or just a sexist to men!

I honestly perve over men a lot and I will be perving soon when I see the gorgeous man in phones 4 u in his tight suit trousers grin

MrsClown Tue 18-Sep-12 12:34:37

OP - a great big thank you, and the others, for making me realise I am not mad. YADNBU

I once watched Kat Slaters sister being interviewed by someone as she had been on page 3. She had also slept with some Japanese tourist for money. When the interviewer asked her why she had ended up sleeping with someone for money after being on page 3 she said that women dont earn enough regular money doing topless modelling on page 3 so had to supplement their earnings. She said it is the best kept secret in the business. Before anyone flames me she said that, not me.

I have no problem with nudity at all. My problem is the sexualised image of women is available to all ages. I must admit if I go on public transport and someone is reading it next to me and opens it on page 3 I politely ask them to put their soft porn away until they get home. I also have some cards that say 'You have just offended a woman, your prick will fall off in 1 minute!' It usually does the job. I have also asked many young men if they would put up with having half naked fit young blokes in their faces every time they go into a shop and all of them have said 'Yes I would object' They are lucky, they dont have to put up with it.

I really really hope that before I drop off the mortal coil, a large percentage of women will stop thinking that they have been put on this earth just to look nice and please men! I dont hold out much hope though.

OP - keep at it - dont be stopped by the loud mouthed minority. Women have put up with this for too long.

Sorry to go on.

JodieHarsh Tue 18-Sep-12 12:34:39

Oh jolly good!

Also don't page 3 only use naturally-gifted ladies?

There! Striking a blow for the female form as nature intended. Hurrah! <mischievous>

JodieHarsh Tue 18-Sep-12 12:35:29

"I also have some cards that say 'You have just offended a woman, your prick will fall off in 1 minute!' It usually does the job."

shock

LadyBeagleEyes Tue 18-Sep-12 12:36:19

Well, as goldship said, this was all done on t'other thread so not sure why you started another one.
I did read the Oscar thread, there were rather a lot of women wanting to lick him all over and other vulgar remarks, which were totally objectifying that fine young man, and not mentioning his athletic performances at all grin
Disgusting.wink.
There's also that pic of Terry Wogan that get's linked to sometimes, where everybody has a laugh. Maybe that should be banned too.

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 12:36:35

SPs - I really have to go do some work, much as I could 'bang on' about this all day. It's ridiculous for you to tell me I'm being 'sexist to men'. I'm happy to debate this endlessly when I have more time but if you can't be arsed to read this slaveofthepassions.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/no-more-page-3/ then there's not much point because you are clearly not remotely interested in understanding why so many of us feel so strongly. That's up to you but I have better things to do than continue to argue with someone who can't be bothered to engage.

When the interviewer asked her why she had ended up sleeping with someone for money after being on page 3 she said that women dont earn enough regular money doing topless modelling on page 3 so had to supplement their earnings. She said it is the best kept secret in the business.

She obviously spends beyond her means............i dont think her being a page 3 girl had anything to do the road she took, really dont think you can blame the sun newspaper for that. I mean, god forbid, if she had been say working in a shop on minimum wage how on earth do you think she would have supplemented her income then?? The mind boggles!

I know I wasnt put on this earth to look nice and please men and I personally dont know any women who think that at all. I like to look nice for me....I like to please me........I just dont sweat the little things.

threeOrangesocksmorgan Tue 18-Sep-12 12:53:16

-" dont be stopped by the loud mouthed minority."
ok so someone disagrees with you, insult them !!

surely the whole point of AIBU is that some people will say you are.

Nux Tue 18-Sep-12 13:00:34

Caitlin Moran wrote on Twitter 'I would urge any strident feminists out there to follow the campaign @nomorepage3. Teenage tits aren't news OR a feature' <<< That is exactly the point. Why are they in a newspaper?

Nux Tue 18-Sep-12 13:01:31

It's over 19000 signatures by now, btw :-)

JodieHarsh Tue 18-Sep-12 13:02:04

Because in a world full of murder, war, torture, and ignominy, the sight of a pretty girl beaming at you with her knockers out and a mildly amusing caption quoting Aristotle raises a smile?

I'm not saying that's a justification. but it's possibly a reason.

markjohnson Tue 18-Sep-12 13:02:55

When I read my partners heat magazine it is full of nearly naked men being listed over so if we ban page 3 we may aswell ban that too

watchoutforthatsnail Tue 18-Sep-12 13:06:46

Jodie, but why do we need to raise a smile in a newspaper?
Are the readers so dim, they cant take serious news for long, so need to oggle some boobs to make it all better for them?

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 13:08:07

JodieHarsh - doesn't make me smile. Makes me livid that they dare objectify women like this to sell their shitty rag, and then takes the piss out of the models for doing it. So the thought of a woman with her tits out actually having a brain cell - owwwww my aching sides!

markjohnson - seriously, at least read the page we're on first before posting. You'll find this has been addressed... People: IT'S. NOT. A. BAN.

JodieHarsh Tue 18-Sep-12 13:09:20

Why not? There are loads of light-hearted and amusing bits and bobs in newspapers.

I just think the whole 'it's not news' thing is a bit of a red herring, that's all.

If you think naked breasts should not be on display, that should be argument alone. the fact that it's not news is neither here nor there.

(As it happens I think there is nothing wrong with naked breasts on display, and that this is far from new - see everything from unearthed fertility statuettes dating back to 3000 BC right up to the Pre-Raphaelite prints I used to have on my bedroom wall).

JodieHarsh Tue 18-Sep-12 13:10:28

em well yes, and I see your point entirely, though I don't agree. If you don't want women to take their clothes off to be looked at, that is entirely up to you.

I'm just saying (see comment above) the fact that it's in a newspaper isn't really the point. Presumably you also disapprove of them diong it in FHM etc..

Raspberryandorangesorbet Tue 18-Sep-12 13:11:55

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JodieHarsh Tue 18-Sep-12 13:12:38

grin

I was only about 14. My granny once slept in my room and requested they all be taken down!!

Raspberryandorangesorbet Tue 18-Sep-12 13:14:19

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 13:16:11

I think the fact it is a newspaper is entirely the point! I can't say I think it's great in FHM etc no, but at least they are on a separate shelf to the main news stands, and, as I have said, not read in the same way on a daily basis, not read in a family enviornment. It's not about not liking boobs, it's not about being ashamed of nudity/sexuality, it's about perpetuating the idea via the biggest-selling newspaper that this is what women are for - cheering up the lads. Never mind if one gets a gold medal at the Olympics - let's turn the page quick and look at the big pic of the random woman with her tits out. It just trivialises women's entire existence and says we can never achieve equality with men because they're too busy staring at our boobs and having a laugh about them with their mates.

JodieHarsh Tue 18-Sep-12 13:19:37

I sort of wish I wholeheartedly agreed, because it'd be simpler, and would fit in with who I think I am, IYSWIM confused

I guess I don't see the two things (fancying women like mad and looking at their tits/thinking they're your equal etc. etc.) as being necessarily mutually exclusive.

Those women on MN who were frothing at the gusset over Tom Daly in his little knickers presumably respect the men they work with - even if they are young and handsome? One would hope so!

Anyway. Good luck with the campaign. I'm a fickle cow and will probably wake up tomorrow morning convinced I should sign - but not at the moment. Er, not that my support makes one jot of difference, but you know what I mean.

lowercase Tue 18-Sep-12 13:19:46

great idea, you start the campaign Mark, and i will sign it.

JodieHarsh Tue 18-Sep-12 13:20:54
Raspberryandorangesorbet Tue 18-Sep-12 13:24:37

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 13:25:14

Jodie - I wish I could persuade you but in the mean time smile I accept you have a right to your opinion and really appreciate you being nice about it rather than trying to belittle us as prudes etc. [flowers]

whoops - was that a bit not-very-MN?

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 13:26:31

arse - done the [flowers] thing again...

JodieHarsh Tue 18-Sep-12 13:32:15

smile

It's important to try and understand all sides I think.

I saw a photo recently of someone holding a placard at a protest. It said something like:

"WHAT DO WE WANT?

Mutually respectful discourse with a view to achieving better understanding and a productive way forward!!

WHEN DO WE WANT IT?

I am free now, but would be keen to arrange a mutually convenient date!!"

grin

gilbertta Tue 18-Sep-12 14:44:45

I've always thought there should be a subsidy for proper newspapers, perhaps funded by a tax on the tabloids. The difference could be defined by the ratio of current affairs articles to gossip/scandal/titty pics.
(Guardian Telegraph, Times, Independent would qualify as serious news, Mail and Express would tax neutral, and the Sun, Mirror, Star etc. would be a little dearer in the shops).

I signed this earlier. What a prude I must be. hmm

markjohnson Tue 18-Sep-12 14:53:41

wtf is it if it's not a ban then? Petition to get rid of = ban

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 15:05:55

From OED: 'ban' (vb) 'to officially or legally prohibit something'. The petition (as you would clearly see if you clicked on the link) is not to any politicians, but to the Sun's editor to ask him to stop doing something (voluntarily) that the Sun started in 1970. There was a time when we didn't have Page 3 you know! Asking someone not to do something is a very different kettle of fish and bicycles to legally preventing them from doing so.

modifiedmum Tue 18-Sep-12 15:19:55

I swear some people have the brains of a gnat, if it was being petitioned to be "banned" that would mean it would dissapear from all papers as as i recall, daily star also has a page 3, if you actually took the time to read and not jump on the "all these women must be fat ugly munters" bandwagon you might see the petition is just aimed at the sun editor. Teenage titties are NOT news. Also, there is PLENTY of magazines for men who like to look at tits, go buy them. Again someone else was wrong, the sun is not on the same stand as nuts/zoo what shops do you shop in? I work at a well known supermarket and in the bigger and little versions and both shops they are no where near each other :S same with WH Smith and all the news agents down here. Infact we have to keep the lads mags at a certain level so they arent eye length so a child can see...

Also YANBU. I do modelling and guess what before anyone flames me, i also have done topless modelling but for magazines for THAT purpose. And paid work. I would never take on paid work for page 3 as i dont want my tits in a newspaper, its just weird the fact that we have school kids come in and buy it to. No thanks.

LadyBeagleEyes Tue 18-Sep-12 15:35:48

Wow modifiedmum
"Brains of a gnat"
"all these women must be thick ugly munters" er who said that?
"Teenage titties".
Well that is a really persuasive argument, ta for that.
<Rushes off to sign petition>
Not.

princesschick Tue 18-Sep-12 15:43:14

YANBU. Page 3 is simply creepy. And that's it. Consider your petition signed.

delightfullyfragrant Tue 18-Sep-12 16:32:59

Isn't torso of the week aimed at gay men.

Also correct me if I'm wrong but closer isn't selling news. I wouldn't be crying if all those 'celeb' were put in room 101

AliceHurled Tue 18-Sep-12 16:45:21

YANBU. Signed and shared.

GeorgeEliot Tue 18-Sep-12 17:59:05

Didn't used to think this was a big issue either way.

Until last week, when my 10-year-old son picked up a copy of The Sun in the barbers while we were waiting to get his haircut.

Some very awkward questions - 'Why Mummy?'

I am going to ask the proprietor (nice guy) to stop buying it - it is where all the local kids go for cheap hair cuts. and if he refuses, I will stop taking my kids there.

GeorgeEliot Tue 18-Sep-12 18:02:25

And I signed the petition.

YANBU.

Nancy66 Tue 18-Sep-12 18:28:41

No ta.

...think it's a bit outdated and I believe it will be faded out slowly over the next couple of years anyhow but i wouldn't want to ban it.

StaceeJaxx Tue 18-Sep-12 18:36:18

Signed.

margerykemp Tue 18-Sep-12 18:36:19

Are there really still more that a rather daft tiny minority of women who still believe in page 3 in 2012?

That astounds me.

CanIOfferYouAPombear Tue 18-Sep-12 18:39:20

Yanbu, signed it.
I have no problem with the female form, or porn, but I do think it's very unnecessary to have it in a family news paper.
I also agree with all the other excellent points others have raised on this thread.

LadyBeagleEyes Tue 18-Sep-12 18:49:04

It's not that people believe in it Margery, it's just not something I get my knickers in a twist about.
I think people who think that signing a petition will make any difference are rather daft.
It would be hypocritical for me anyway, I was a topless bar hostess many years ago in Amsterdam.grin

What lady said. apart from the topless waitress bit. I wish I had done that!

voddiekeepsmesane Tue 18-Sep-12 19:18:00

Until last week, when my 10-year-old son picked up a copy of The Sun in the barbers while we were waiting to get his haircut.

Some very awkward questions - 'Why Mummy?' Really GeorgeEliot ?

I would think by 10 a lot of these questions would have been already answered. My 8 year old certainly has had a talk about these things.

We cannot continue to be so prude and "oh dear me" about these things.

Wasn't feminism all about choice and I truely beleive that women in Britain doing a page three is not the down trodden female of yesteryear and have very much taken control of their lives and know exactly what coverage and (excuse the pun) exposure page three gives them.

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 19:20:35

Nancy66 - you'll be delighted to hear that the petition is not calling for a 'ban', as can clearly be seen by actually spending a few milliseconds reading it, so you are quite free to sign it and, hopefully, hasten the fading out you see coming anyway.

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 19:25:33

voddie - feminism is about equality. This petition is not about the models and 'protecting them', it is about protecting society from the harm it does in presenting women as a sexual underclass, here for men's entertainment above all else. If page 3 bit the dust there would still be plenty of other options for the models to 'take control of their lives' and attain their desired 'coverage' and 'exposure'.

I am not a prude, or 'oh dear me' about these 'things'.

voddiekeepsmesane Tue 18-Sep-12 19:38:10

Feminism is about choice of equality. If I choose to be subservient to my partner...fine. If e wants to be subservient to me ...fine. If we want to be equal thats good too.

I DO NOT see page three as a threat to women and feminism...we have moved on surely.

We as women perceive a sexual underclass only because we are seen as hysterical "femenists". I agree with Nancy66 it will die a death on its own. The more women make a fuss the more men will want it kept.

Nancy66 Tue 18-Sep-12 19:41:05

A petition got together by readers of the The Sun would make sense. Not this.

It's appealing direct to the editor - why would he take into account the views of those who:

1)never buy his product
2) never will

???

LadyBeagleEyes Tue 18-Sep-12 19:44:44

Exactly Nancy.

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 19:47:23

voddie - How you and your partner conduct your relationship is absolutely a personal matter and not one that interests me. In the broader world there is no reason that women should not be men's equals. When we have a newspaper that puts a pic of a woman with her tits out on page 3 everyday but never has a man there, we are not equal. When a male athlete is called 'an athlete' but a female one is called 'a female athlete' we are not equal. When a woman wins a gold medal at the Olympics but the Sun reserves its largest photo of a woman in its paper for another woman one with her top off, but never treats male athletes thus, we are not equal. When the Star invites readers to rate the 'female athletes' (but not male ones) on their attractiveness we are not equal. When women suffer sexual violence and harassment we are not equal. When I am told on internet sites by men who don't know what I look like that I am fat/ugly/jealous/insecure because I express an opinion that is anti-page 3, and thus insulted as to what my body looks like in a way men never are we are not equal. So no, we still have page 3, we have not in any way 'moved on'. We are stuck in 1970.

And it isn't just women making a fuss, plenty of men have signed that petition. But of course no one will accuse them of being 'hysterical feminists'. It must be nice to be a man and be able to express an opinion without being called nagging/hysterical/banging on/a nut job etc.

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 19:48:06

Nancy - because it's terrible PR.

UnrequitedSkink Tue 18-Sep-12 19:49:07

Maybe he could take the enlightened view that more women might buy the paper if page 3 wasn't in it? We have money of our own to spend these days you know.

Nancy66 Tue 18-Sep-12 19:51:27

It's a tough call for the editor all right. Does he

a) change his hugely successful product for 10,000 or so leftie types who wouldn't dream of wiping their arses on it in a million years

or

b) consider the views of the three million or so who DO buy it.

Hmmmmm. tricky.

ladygoldenlion Tue 18-Sep-12 19:51:53

If you don't like it, don't buy the paper or look at it online.

YABU

Signed.

They would also sell a lot more copies if there was no page 3- hopefully appealing to good business sense.

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 19:59:23

Nancy - why assume all the people who buy the Sun do so for Page 3? It seems quite possible to me that most buy it for its pretence at journalism and trotting out tory policy to people who can't read long words. Not all of them will necessarily miss page 3. Also, so far there have been around 22,000 sigs and shows no sign of slowing. Not 10,000.

lady - oh not the 'don't like it, don't buy it' argument again! It has been explained so many times now as to why it is far from the point, but herewith the summary again as to why this doesn't work (not written by me, just a good summary): slaveofthepassions.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/no-more-page-3/.

UnrequitedSkink Tue 18-Sep-12 20:00:39

Oh FFS, how many times, I DON'T buy the sodding paper, it's not about whether I look at it, it's about the fact that The Sun printing page 3 normalises the objectification of women EVERY SINGLE DAY in a publication that purports itself to be a family paper.

It's about the fact that this paper's largest single image of women throughout the Olympics was their page 3 model.

It's about the fact that it's archaic and, as someone else has said, frankly creepy.

21,000 people (loads of men too) have signed the petition since it opened, 10,000 of them in the last 24 hours.

UnrequitedSkink Tue 18-Sep-12 20:01:47

emcwill - "trotting out tory policy to people who can't read long words." grin

notanaxemurderer Tue 18-Sep-12 20:03:41

I can't believe the people saying 'if you don't like it, don't look at it'.

Do you feel this way about all issues? Poverty? War? And I doubt anyone who has signed the petition actually DOES look at page 3! It's about its significance on wider society, not actually about being offended by a pair of breasts.

Flisspaps Tue 18-Sep-12 20:04:14

From what I can see, the only difference between Page 3 and what most people deem as porn is a pair of knickers.

I have no problem with porn, but given that so many women on MN do, I am surprised that on this thread there are so many voices saying Page 3 is fine, it's a choice these women make etc yet on a thread where the OP is concerned that her DP is looking at porn, the general consensus is that it's evil, women are being exploited and that anyone who looks at it should be ashamed and educated about the horrors of the porn industry.

How is a girl (and they're barely more than girls) standing with her top off in The Sun so much better than a girl (and quite possibly the same girl) posing with her knickers off in Escort?

Nancy66 Tue 18-Sep-12 20:05:44

I don't assume they buy it for page 3 - but some will and the editor is going to be more inclined to keep them happy than you lot isn't he?

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 20:08:31

Nancy - well I guess time will tell. I actually think there is a very high chance of this succeeding. And if not, anyone signing has wasted a whole minute of their life. So what? Hardly a reason not to sign!

Well I'd be more likely to buy it/read it if it didn't have the bare boobs in. I know a lot of men think the same.

catwoo Tue 18-Sep-12 20:11:17

yabu the arguments on this page have more holds than a hold course

catwoo Tue 18-Sep-12 20:12:30

holes than a golf course . Silly phone

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 20:16:14

...as you plan to elucidate, presumably...

LynetteScavo Tue 18-Sep-12 20:18:46

I'm not sure how this would be enforced?

Would it mean the end to all pictures of naked breasts in all newspapers? What about a picture of a a woman breast feeding, showing some nipple in a broadsheet? Would that still be allowed? Would fashion pages be allowed to show models wearing see through tops?

I'm not sure how P3 can be banned. If someone can explain how it can be banned, without all boobs being censored then I'll happily sign. Otherwise I'll continue to show my distaste by not purchasing the Sun.

emcwill74 Tue 18-Sep-12 20:21:13

Lynette - it's not about a 'ban'. It's asking Mohan to stop putting a woman with her tits out who bears no relation to any news story on page 3 of the Sun. (If he moves it to another page that doesn't cut it.) It is a very narrow focus. We used not to have page 3 (pre-1970), now we do. We are asking to go back to not doing. No boob censorship.

Look forward to you signing smile.

Signed.
Page 3 has always made me feel uneasy.

FreudiansGoldSlipper Tue 18-Sep-12 20:36:36

done

passed on to friends who i know will sign it

CakeBump Tue 18-Sep-12 20:37:54

Well it's not the tits that stops me buying the Sun - it's a rag.

Although I don't really care that there are naked girls on page 3 because I don't read it, no-one I know reads it and my children won't ever see it. Meh.

Kasbaah Tue 18-Sep-12 20:38:10

Signed, with a sigh. What a huge waste of effort that really should be directed elsewhere. Not that I disagree with the campaign, just it needs to get sorted. Are we doing something wrong that its still here?

HmmThinkingAboutIt Tue 18-Sep-12 20:51:30

75,000 signed the petition for a debate for more midwives in the UK. In six months.

21,000 signed this petition in a couple of days.

Just goes to show the power of tits...

Now what does that say about this country?

ConstantCraving Tue 18-Sep-12 20:55:47

Signed.

BlackTieNTails Tue 18-Sep-12 21:03:04

people have been trying to ban page 3 since Mary Whitehouse and her cronies

Personally I think you are being ridiculous, but if it keeps you off the streets ........

TBH I find Mumsnet far more offensive some days

FreudiansGoldSlipper Tue 18-Sep-12 21:08:17

well it just shows how many would rather the sun got rid of page 3

one day our voices will not just be heard but be taken notice of too this is how petitions work

GoldShip Tue 18-Sep-12 21:10:46

hmmthinkingaboutit that's really sad.

threeOrangesocksmorgan Tue 18-Sep-12 21:11:08

still think yabu

HmmThinkingAboutIt Tue 18-Sep-12 21:22:49

Isn't it Goldship?

We are apathetic about issues which have very real potential to save lives and stop traumatic experiences, and yet issues like this and you get far more outrage and scandal...

Therefore Tits = More important than better healthcare for women.

Very sad state of affairs.

And by that you can also conclude the power of Tits and how much of value they are to sell newspapers and magazine, as a certain Kate will testify to. So if people think this will stop the Sun having page three they are somewhat deluded.

Tits sell. Thats the bottom line.

Given the demographic of the readership of the Sun I don't think they'll be too bothered by very (middle class) outrage from people who don't buy the Sun anyway. They don't make their money from them...

The ONLY thing the Sun would listen to, particularly in a market of declining sales of printed newspapers, is an organised boycott of the paper. Hit their pocket, not the extra publicity headlines. Cos as they say, there's 'no such thing as bad publicity'...

HmmThinkingAboutIt Tue 18-Sep-12 21:25:36

Oh and I won't sign the petition.

Far more important things to worry about.

I hope all the women on this thread who are signing are all ending their subscriptions to the various celeb/womens mags at the same time as the vast majority objectify women just as much as Page 3.

The lack of 3 inches of fabric do not morally define the problem.

FoodUnit Tue 18-Sep-12 21:33:40

Awful how Page 3 is used to harass women and girls and create a hostile environment for them.

It legitimises blatant perving in public spaces, legitimises hollering and hassling, legitimises openly commenting on women's bodies, it legitimises degrading behaviour.

Get rid!

FoodUnit Tue 18-Sep-12 21:33:42

Awful how Page 3 is used to harass women and girls and create a hostile environment for them.

It legitimises blatant perving in public spaces, legitimises hollering and hassling, legitimises openly commenting on women's bodies, it legitimises degrading behaviour.

Get rid!

I signed the midwife petition and the page 3 petition.

You can believe in and sign up for more than one idea.

CakeBump Tue 18-Sep-12 21:54:49

What about topless midwives Strawberry?

Would you sign?

<moral dilemma>

prettyontheinside Tue 18-Sep-12 22:24:18

why stop there? what about the BLATANT Lad's Mag's? you can't go to the supermarket, petrol stations, newsagents without seeing boobs, a gusset etc. at the very least, these magazines should be top shelf or in a cover.

threeOrangesocksmorgan Tue 18-Sep-12 22:25:04

what about women who sunbathe topless, or wear revealing tops

prettyontheinside Tue 18-Sep-12 22:28:16

the real women you see topless sunbathing are tangible and possibly not airbrushed to within an inch of their pubes, oh that's right the ones 'represented' in the media don't have them anymore.

DisappointedHorse Tue 18-Sep-12 22:30:27

Done.

bionicmummy Tue 18-Sep-12 22:30:57

there should be more publicity of this - like on radio/tv/etc - and get more votes and something actually done.

prettyontheinside Tue 18-Sep-12 22:34:43

i'm off to bed to watch the adult freeview where i can see some woman jiggling her butt cheeks whilst shaking a phone like a maraca. petition signed.

morethanpotatoprints Tue 18-Sep-12 22:42:59

I can't believe so many women are trying to stop this. There would be an uproar if you weren't allowed to see the male flesh you see in womens mags. I would much rather my normal lads as teenagers take a ppek at page three than wander onto a really disgusting and outrageous porn movie online. You have no right do dictate what people look at, so YABVU

Honsandrevels Tue 18-Sep-12 22:54:21

I've signed.

TheCreepingLurgy Tue 18-Sep-12 23:16:54

I find it rather sad, morethanpotatoprints, that you think your l normal lads have only two options: look at page 3 or a disgusting porn movie. How about considering girls for who they are rather than how they look?

This is exactly why page 3 is so demeaning. It shows how normalised judging women on their tits has become. It shouldn't be the norm. We shouldn't encourage it by condoning it.

Plus, there's always the possibility that your lads wouldn't go looking for a disgusting porn movie if page 3 wasn't there. Now that I would consider normal.

Plus the petition is not about banning or not allowing or dictating what people look at. It is harnessing public opinion to entice a voluntary change.

thebeesnees79 Tue 18-Sep-12 23:26:12

looks like its getting round more, over 22,000 people signed!! we might have a chance after all

blonderthanred Tue 18-Sep-12 23:40:33

Hmmthinking you can have more important things to worry about and still care about this.

And I gave up reading gossip magazines years ago for that very reason, when their tone changed from lighthearted to bitchy to misogynistic.

DadDancer Wed 19-Sep-12 00:32:29

Evening Ladies, I came here from the Stripping the illsuion blog (the pro lap dancing club blog not the Object site). I'd heard from them about the antics on the mumsnet forum so thought i'd check it out for myself. So far it hasn't dissapointed and i am pleasantly surprised to see so many female page 3 supporters on here.

I personally find the whole objectification of women argument a bit condescending. It appears to me that it was conveniently invented by disgruntled feminists to try and win the moral high ground on such issues as this. So basically you are saying that if a bloke views a nude picture of a women, fancies them or fantasizes about an image of them, they suddenly regard all women as sex objects? It's nice to know that some women still regard us as such primitive beings who can't be trusted with such imagery.
Maybe you think by banning page 3 you can somehow reign us in or re-educate us?

With regards to such material not being suitable in the context of a newspaper, since when was there a rule book which defines what a newspaper should be? Whatever happened to freedom of expression and diversity. Take away page 3 and the celeb gossip from the Sun and you are left with a right wing paper similar to the Daily Mail which would be pointless.

I am not normally a Sun reader myself but to sometimes buy it when they give away the free Lego and alton towers tickets, etc. Of the times i have read it, i thought the page 3 was very tastefully done, and the girls were quite curvy and natural looking. Nothing like the surgically enhanced, air brushed girls who some of the posters have portrayed here.

In reply to DadDancer the majority of posters on here are mothers. Speaking for myself I quirm when I get asked why has that lady got no clothes on. I'm an occasional Sun reader, when a head line grabs me or the week there was the Lego giveaway.

I have no objection to anyone enjoying looking at boobs if that's what floats their boat. There are lads mags for that. And I take your point about freedom of the press but a posed image of a page 3 girl is not news.

Yamyoid Wed 19-Sep-12 01:02:36

I would just like to object to the crap spouted by DadDancer. I am not one for getting into slanging matches on MN, but couldn't ignore the post. Have you not read some of the very good arguments put forward against page 3 on this thread?

You are obviously trying to be provocative and patronising simply by beginning 'evening ladies'.

I cannot ever see how a page 3 image can be considered 'tasteful'.

Newspaper - the clue's in the name. Although the Sun only just qualifies for that name. Yes, maybe you're right, its existence is pointless.

I have signed the petition.

Dana1981 Wed 19-Sep-12 01:48:39

Have you not read some of the very good arguments put forward against page 3 on this thread

What "good arguments"? The impression I get is you simply want it removed because you personally morally object to it.

if a bloke views a nude picture of women, fancies them or fantasizes about an image of them, they suddenly regard all women as sex objects?

I don't know how exactly, but that seems to be the general feminist logic.

And as someone said most likely all you are doing is giving the Sun and Mr Dominic lots of free publicity and advertising. When you are trying to sell something any publicity is good publicity! The worst thing that could happen to The Sun and page 3 would be if if got no attention at all and people stopped buying it.

bottom line- do continue with your little petition but as long as people keep buying the Sun they will continue to print it (along with page 3).

DolomitesDonkey Wed 19-Sep-12 06:19:04

Oh how exciting, it's the daily campaign.

I'm rather looking forward to dolphins myself.

Do any of you former page-3 girls get recognised? I bumped in to a girl in Miami I'd been to school with 16 years previous - she recognised me and is very good friends with my sister. She'd done page 3, once, before that. A man approached her and asked if she was "x, the page 3 girl". 8 years later! shock

thebeesnees79 Wed 19-Sep-12 07:44:04

daddancer I am so glad my husband does not have the same morals as you!!
Pro lap dancing & pro page 3, does it get any worse

cakebump I might have to start my very own petition against that ;)

Daddancer I sincerely hope you have no daughters. You obviously have no idea of the lasting damage to women lap-dancing does, it leads to prostitution and porn for a lot of the girls I knew. I suppose you're not against that either? Anyway that's off subject.

CakeBump Wed 19-Sep-12 08:42:49

I'm wondering where the campaign against Heat magazine's "Torso of the Week" is?

Or are we somehow ok with that? Is it just TITS which we don't like?

<confused>

blonderthanred Wed 19-Sep-12 08:46:52

No, no-one thinks that one man looking at one picture of one woman's boobs makes him objectify women. Reductio ad absurdum is an easy, lazy rhetoric.

However, lots of men and women growing up surrounded by lots of pictures of women's tits will grow up feeling that that is all women are worth, that any woman can be valued on whether they are worth a wank or not.

threeOrangesocksmorgan Wed 19-Sep-12 08:59:27

I do have to lol at all these women signing a petition to stop other women from choosing to do something!!

ComradeJing Wed 19-Sep-12 09:17:10

YANBU

Signed it.

catwoo Wed 19-Sep-12 09:21:13

why don't we go the whole hog and make women wear burkhas for fear they be viewed as sex objects.

LadyBeagleEyes Wed 19-Sep-12 09:24:40

How is it that I go to paper shops, I surf the internet and I never see women's boobs?
I can't say I ever notice, maybe I'm just unobservantconfused

emcwill74 Wed 19-Sep-12 09:34:37

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

FutTheShuckUp Wed 19-Sep-12 09:37:19

Yes, of course insisting all woman wear a burkha is the same as not wanting topless women in a newspaper- catch yourself on dear

delightfullyfragrant Wed 19-Sep-12 09:38:31

there are loads of men on the petition writing that they want it to stop and they find it patronising to them. This is not solely a feminist issue.

delightfullyfragrant Wed 19-Sep-12 09:48:31

catwoo in regards to your burkha comment........

They are same problem in my view, they are both patronising to the majority of men by depicting all women as sexual objects that men can't stop lusting over.

Topless girls in a newspaper because men like to gawp at young bare flesh and burkha's because obviously men can't be trusted not to look at the opposite sex without have inappropriate thoughts.

Both ends of the scale are extreme and patronise men more than anything. Judging by the number of men signing the petition it would seem I am right in these assumptions.

SimplyTes Wed 19-Sep-12 10:32:31

Signed, have always loathed Page 3, my parents bought the Sun when I was growing up and it really confused me as a child why I would see a naked woman/girl every morning, would loathe my sons to ever think it is OK.

ComradeJing Wed 19-Sep-12 10:40:00

Disgruntled feminists grin

Yeah, I'm a feminist cos I can't get a shag...

catwoo Wed 19-Sep-12 11:51:13

'Yes, of course insisting all woman wear a burkha is the same as not wanting topless women in a newspaper- catch yourself on dear'

It is an extreme extrapolation of the same argument.

ClippedPhoenix Wed 19-Sep-12 11:59:40

Do I have to bin my sexy fireman calendar now?

clipped I want a fireman calendar! I do have a firestation up the street and happen to walk past it often.

SabrinaMulhollandJones Wed 19-Sep-12 12:03:47

Having checked that there is no mention of women having to wear burkhas in the petition, I have signed. grin

ClippedPhoenix Wed 19-Sep-12 12:38:53

grin at Fanjo. I can get you one of each if you like.

Quodlibet Wed 19-Sep-12 13:06:04

There are so many massive logic fails on this thread.

You have no right do dictate what people look at, so YABVU
So, as a society, we shouldn't collectively make decisions about what is and what is not available in the public domain with regards to porn/sexual imagery? It's a complex, multi-faceted thing deciding where the line should be drawn, but surely we can all agree we need to draw the line somewhere.

Arguing that topless shots have no place on p3 of a 'family' newspaper DOES NOT mean that we are simultaneously arguing that ALL nude/sexual images are wrong in EVERY context. The same as you are presumably not arguing that no-one should 'dictate' what people look at and all sexual imagery should be legal and accepted on all platforms (including sexual imagery of children? Snuff porn?)

There are lots of people who think page 3 is harmless. This is their opinion. There are a lot of other people who think it is harmful, for all sorts of reasons. We need, socially, to moderate between these two points of view. This petition is a statement of opinion from a body of people that they do not find it acceptable to have female-only sexual imagery as part and parcel of 'news'.

DadDancer Wed 19-Sep-12 13:42:37

Thanks for the replies Dana1981 and fortifiedwithtea. I think with the internet and news so readily available these days, the daily paper needs to offer a bit more than just basic news, with additional things like entertainment, reviews, crosswords, agony aunts etc. To me the sun is a bit like a daily version of a lads mag and for that reason i think it is in context that it features a page 3 girl.
Yeah i appreciate the majority of posters are mothers and that is why i said 'evening ladies' to emphasize that a dad newbie was joining the debate, It wasn't intended to be patronising as one poster implied.
To the other posters who replied back i take it the rule about keeping things civil doesn't apply then?, and as you resorted in using personal insults rather than constructive debate i won't be replying back. Sorry but your argument is lost at that point.

On a separate note i would like to ask if any of the persons who dislike page 3 would be happy if the girls were to pose with their tops on?, would this be acceptable or would you still oppose the fact a girl features on page 3 of the Sun?

emcwill74 Wed 19-Sep-12 13:50:21

If you think the Sun should operate in the same arena as a lads mag, then let's have it on that shelf, not on the main news stand then. No other lads mags sit next to the Telegraph.

Personally, no I would not be happy if they just stuck a bikini top on the page 3 girl and kept her there, but I'm not speaking for anyone else on that point. If it's that or the status quo I'd take that but I don't see why it should be.

MunchkinsMumof2 Wed 19-Sep-12 14:27:49

signed, Page 3 has always bothered me and I've never understood why it exists. Can you imagine opening a newspaper and seeing a flaccid cock in the morning, why the hell should anyone want or need to see boobs?

threeOrangesocksmorgan Wed 19-Sep-12 14:30:52

Quodlibet you do relise I assume that this is a thread in AIBU
not in campaigns or some petition topic.
so people can disagree

minipie Wed 19-Sep-12 14:36:16

Trying to sign but getting an error message sad will try again later.

DadDancer I don't object at all to a daily paper including daily light entertainment as well as news. I do object to pictures of breasts being used as a form of daily light entertainment.

Dad but The Sun isn't a lads mag, it is a paper. My fil buys it daily and I would be furious if my dd had to ask me why there was a lady naked on page 3.

No I would not be ok if the girls posed with their tops on unless they were selling the tops. They are not selling anything other than their bodies.

emcwill74 Wed 19-Sep-12 14:41:32

minipie - I noticed on twitter people were reporting probs yesterday. Maybe try again in a bit. The numbers are going up when I refresh it so people are obviously signing it but there may be a technical difficulty and I've alerted Lucy. Don't give up!

delightfullyfragrant Wed 19-Sep-12 14:44:38

daddancer

I remember squirming with embarrassment when I was around 16 and sitting on the tube next middle aged men 'reading' the sun with the full page spreads of tits next to my elbow. Yes, I'd look away but soft porn images of girls around my age at that time are not something I was comfortable inadvertently having to share with men old enough to be my grand father. It made me feel really queasy.

I honestly think that if male genitalia or a full page oiled male bum shot was on page three many men would feel embarrassed to buy the paper. Sitting on the tube with huge male butt checks staring at them. I can't see it happening can you? And that is why it's wrong.

princesschick Wed 19-Sep-12 14:49:09

Hi DadDancer

Now I come at this with the utmost of respect for you and your views. We live in a free society and open discussion is always really important. That's why I find people like you really interesting.

I am a feminist, I am also an attractive women who loves my husband. I am not jealous of page 3 models. Let's get that out there first because a lot of people seem to think that being anti-page 3 or being feminist goes hand in hand with being jealous of page 3 types. Right that's that out of the way!!

So, on the one hand, you can argue that we live in a free society and we are free to express ourselves as we see fit and that page 3 models are just filling a role and being paid to get their boobs out for The Sun. Eveything is commercialised these days: men will always want to look at hot young ladies. Their brains are programmed to like looking at hot young ladies. So there is a business opportunity to exploit this. People like looking at porn, so there is a business opportunity to exploit this. People like eating chocolate, buying stuff, looking nice...we live in a capitatalist society where all of our needs can be sated commercially. So page 3 is just exploiting a business opportunity. If you believe in a free market or if indeed you are a libertarian perhaps you believe that this is acceptable simply because there are so many people that want to consume these images.

I thought I would fill you in about how I feel, I appreciate that you will probably never change your views on this but here we go anyway.

The issue I have about page 3 is not about hot naked young women having fun and doing as they please. But I don't think they are doing women kind any good and as other eminent feminists have written, these girls are female chauvinist pigs. They are letting other women, like me, down. I'm sorry but it's true. I didn't ask to live in a world where it's ok for women to be subjugated and viewed as sex objects. They are not doing this for themselves, they are doing this for men to fulfill a male 'want'. This industry was invented by men, for men. I work in a male dominated industry and I have been privy to enough conversations about so and so on page 3, so and so in Zoo or Nuts, what happened at that strip club over the weekend, who they would 'do' from the admin department, how female directors must have got there by chowing down on some big wig cock - charming. As a women, it's intimidating and makes you want to be swallowed up. I just want to work hard, earn a decent living and be respected by my peers. I don't think I'm superior (I have better qualifications but that's another matter) I would just like to be respected and not viewed as a piece of meat. In these environments I find it very difficult to interact with colleagues who view women this way. I've walked into an all male office where you are looked up and down and called 'poppet' or 'sweetheart' by your colleges. Male collegues do not call each other poppet or sweetheart or darling, so they shouldn't refer to me as that either. My name is fine. Over time I've learnt to ignore and sometimes challenge this kind of behavior, which is typically met with eye rolling and 'calm down dear' or 'she must be on the blob' kind of attitude. I don't find this acceptable behaviour. But the media normalises this sort of behavior and the way women are portrayed in the media especially Page 3 continues to fuel this. It doesn't help us to be respected as intelligent individuals. Now I appreciate that not all men think like this. My husband for one doesn't. And neither do my friends. But I feel they are sadly in the minority. So this is why I don't like page 3. But that's not the issue we're really discussing.

The biggest problem I have is the context in which page 3 is printed. And that's what this campaign is driving at. It wouldn't be appropriate to put page 3 type images in children's films or on telly before the water shed so why is it ok to put them in a family newspaper? If it's not appropriate for children, then it shouldn't be readily available for children to see. Papers that want to print sexually charged images such as the Sun and the Star should be on a different shelf.

But then DadDancer maybe you thinks it's ok for children to privy to these images? Maybe you want your boys to grow up to be blokey blokes who love page 3 and strip clubs and do man things and your girls to be page 3 models / strippers who have no other purpose in life other than to be a sex toy for their man and to one day pop out some kids oh and wash and iron his shirts? If that's your view, and I'm not insulting you if it it is, I may have a better understanding of your stance. For me, I'm merely trying to understand where you are coming from?

So, in summary, for me I don't think sexy posed ladies is appropriate for kids. Or for a newspaper.

My final point, again for me , pictures of 16 and 17 year old girls for older men to assess, leer at, joke about, put up on their wall or wank over is just creepy. Simple as.

I have signed the petition because this is something I feel strongly about. I appreciate that you have your views. I would be interested to learn why you feel the way you do about this and I hope I have explained my feelings for you to deliberate.

Quodlibet Wed 19-Sep-12 15:11:26

threeOrangesocks I'm not saying people can't disagree. I think what I wrote said precisely the opposite. People can and do disagree. What I was doing was pointing out the flaw in the absolutist argument that there should not be any 'dictating of what people see'. Follow that line to its conclusion and it's totally nonsensical. Unless you believe that there should be no restriction whatsoever on what sexual/pornographic imagery is displayed or where?

MrJudgeyPants Wed 19-Sep-12 15:45:34

I think it's a sign of how fucked up our society is that we are worried about traumatising children should they happen to catch a glance of the very thing that evolution provided for the purpose of feeding them! That is inevitably another discussion about social norms and conventions but the day I have a funny turn whilst looking at Mrs Pants' new dinner service will be the day I will accept that I need psychiatric help.

If a woman chooses to exchange a photo of her fun bags in return for a bag of money then who am I to condemn her? As far as I am concerned, the Sun can print whatever it likes - the chances of me buying it will remain as close to zero as can be mathematically modelled - and, as no one is compelling me to buy the rag, it is of no concern to me whatsoever what its contents are.

In many ways there is a parallel between this campaign and the carnage in the Middle East caused by the spoof anti-Islam video. If you look for it, you can find offence and take offence wherever you choose. But for freedom of speech to be worth anything at all, one person’s right to speak MUST be considered to be of greater importance than another person’s right to not be offended. Without this basic premise, freedom of speech is nullified. Any commentary is gainsaid and drowned out in a sea of mock outrage. As things stand with our system, the Sun can print what it likes and I can continue to ignore it. If you are right and page 3 has no place in a modern 'newspaper', readers will desert it until it reforms - unfortunately for your argument, the Sun is the bestselling newspaper in the country which, if one is daft enough to confuse causation with effect, would suggest that the Guardian had better start a page 3 pretty pronto just to survive! Simply put, most people (i.e. the UK population minus the 3 million or so who actually read the Sun’s page 3) have already registered their disproval by not buying the bloody rag - those that have signed this petition merely seek to enforce their prejudices on the rest of the population and that is something I could never support.

In many ways these sorts of campaigns remind me of the well intentioned do-gooders from the 19th century. Those middle class puritanicals who preached temperance, morality and chastity and who have morphed into latter day anti-smoking campaigners, drug-prohibitionists or anti-obesity campaigners and have historically looked down their nose at anyone whose idea of enjoyment differs even a hairs breadth from their own. These people claim to act in the interests of those they consider below them in society, yet every solution is the same; ban, tax or prosecute.

In the words of C.S. Lewis, author of the Chronicles of Narnia, ^"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.^"

On that note, I won’t be signing.

GoldShip Wed 19-Sep-12 15:52:25

Wow, awesome post mrjudgeypants

emcwill74 Wed 19-Sep-12 16:05:40

Not remotely as awesome as the one by princesschick a few above. All of whose points it ignores.

GoldShip Wed 19-Sep-12 16:06:46

I haven't ignored it, I just don't agree with it

princesschick Wed 19-Sep-12 16:16:02

MrJudgeyPants I'm not a moral judgey pants or busybody over all of this. I think it's quite amusing that your name is MrJudgeyPants and that you are being judgey about other people being supposedly judgey grin which I for one am not wink

I take your points about business and freedom of expression. I think I made a similar point above. But I don't agree with your sentiment or your calling the people who sign the petition moral crusaders. Do you think it would be ok to put porn on mainstream day time telly? I expect it would be very popular and therefore bring in lots of advertising revue and lots of people would like it, so it might be a good thing to do? Obviously page 3 isn't porn in a puritanical sense but I just wonder how far you take this free market, libertarian argument?

I just don't like women being treated as sex objects and for sexy pictures to be deemed appropriate for a family newspaper. I have no objections to nudity. I think the nude reclaim streets bike ride in Brighton is brilliant because it's a protest and people are making a case for freedom by being confident and happy and are not doing it to be sexually provocative. Lots of different body shapes and sizes and a much healthier display of the human form than homogenized page 3 fodder. I don't mind nude beaches or topless sun bathing. I even get my boobs out on the beach from time to time myself, because I don't want tan lines and not because I want to excite men on the beach next to me. I don't put my finger in my mouth and pout or wiggle my thumbs in the top of my bikini bottoms as I run to the sea and look at them in the eye as the wind blows my hair out. I spent time in France where they have naked women boobs out and everything advertising shower gel at 5pm in between family cartoons. They're washing. Not standing there soaping there breasts whilst pouting in the camera to get male attention. I don't like the titillation aspect of page 3, or lads mags or strip clubs. I really dislike the way we our culture dictates to girls that they have to be slim, big boobed, pretty and pouty to be attractive and get ahead in life. I don't like feeding this sentiment to men in a family paper every day so that they think it's ok to leer young girls in the street or to put colleagues down in the work place etc etc . That's all.

I don't think society is "fucked up" (as you eloquently put it) for thinking that children will be traumatised by seeing pictures of boobs! That's ridiculous! I do think society is "fucked up" for grooming girls to have to be a certain way to get male attention, be attractive and earn money. Come on we all know it's sleazy and undermines women! The same way that we know smoking causes cancer and obese people are more prone to life threatening diseases. That's not be judgy, that's exercising common sense!

MrJudgeyPants Wed 19-Sep-12 16:16:55

emcwill74 Firstly, my post wasn't a retort to princesschick's post, it was my own opinion. With regard to her post, her assumption is that the Sun is a 'family newspaper'. If it has a page 3 it isn't really suitable for families and using the term 'newspaper' to describe the Sun is stretching credulity to say the least.

GoldShip Thanks.

emcwill74 Wed 19-Sep-12 16:17:02

I mean MrJudgeyPants had ignored it, not you GoldShip, and gone back to the incorrect assumption that those of us that would like to page 3 gone do so because are all so terribly offended (by our own choice) and reaching for smelling salts at the thought of seeing (or a child seeing) a nipple, when it has been stated over and over and over again that this is not the driver behind this campaign at all.

It is nothing to do with children catching a glance of that used to feed them - how many pics does the Sun show of nursing mothers on page 3? It is about context (lack of) and the wider effect on society, not personal 'offence'. None of which the poster engages with. Of course. Instead we're back to being puritans.

What freedom of speech is being compromised by the editor withdrawing a picture of some random tits, unconnected with any news or opinion? The freedom of speech of the sub eds to make the model look thick in News in Briefs?

emcwill74 Wed 19-Sep-12 16:18:12

If it's not a family newspaper then why does it sell itself with free Lego giveaways? Articles about helping kids with their homework?

GoldShip Wed 19-Sep-12 16:21:02

Emcwill - I mean this in the kindest way, I think you should just step back for your own sanity. I did, I had my say in the other topic. I don't agree with you, you dont agree with me and neither side is sver going to step down!

princesschick Wed 19-Sep-12 16:22:30

MrJudgeyPants then they should put an age limit on it and put it on a top shelf. Or in plain paper bag. I think you're ignoring the obviously about the wider impact. And no I don't read The Sun either. However, it is a newspaper, it contains news and tits and crosswords. I choose to read a different kind of newspaper with a different kind of journalism and more challenging crossword but The Sun Newspaper, is still strictly speaking a newspaper, no?

MrJudgeyPants Wed 19-Sep-12 16:22:56

emcwill74 "What freedom of speech is being compromised by the editor withdrawing a picture of some random tits, unconnected with any news or opinion?"

You cannot say that a self-appointed elite compelling an editor to change what his paper prints doesn't constitute a removal of freedom of speech. As I said in my post, if it offends you so much, don't buy it.

emcwill74 Wed 19-Sep-12 16:25:45

Goldship this means a lot to me. My sanity is doing as OK as ever! It really frustrates me when I am reduced by pro-page 3 people to a prude (which I am not) despite the fact that I and lots of women and men feel strongly about this for other reasons! I appreciate I can't change everyone's mind but I can't bear for this campaign and my support of it to be misinterpreted so badly!

emcwill74 Wed 19-Sep-12 16:26:46

Oh no, back to the don't buy it argument. Sigh... This really has been answered to death.

'elite'? What on earth do you mean?

GoldShip Wed 19-Sep-12 16:27:02

Fair does emc. In all fairness I will say that despite me disagreeing, you are one of the few who argued the case well.

bemybebe Wed 19-Sep-12 16:27:36

I am entitled to judge as I see fit people viewing page 3 alongside Holocaust deniers and other undesirables but I am totally against going down the route of censorship and bans. It is a very slippery slop and a very dangerous one.

princesschick Wed 19-Sep-12 16:30:38

emc there's lots of support out there for this and a lot of feminists who think like you do. And not because they are prude, judgy, middle class, looking down on others type people. I think people are purposefully missing the point to get their point across IYSWIM. I like to consider arguments from all angles and have in the past changed my mind when I have been well enough convinced that my thinking was flawed. This is called being open minded. So far, no-one from the pro-page 3 movement has made a dent on my opinions. So I wouldn't take it personally smile

emcwill74 Wed 19-Sep-12 16:32:16

Thank you Goldship and princesschick!

Have signed, and made my feelings very clear on the form to boot.

Dana1981 Wed 19-Sep-12 16:32:54

threeOrangesocksmorgan I do have to lol at all these women signing a petition to stop other women from choosing to do something!!

Me too. I thought feminism was about choice for women- the choice to do things (including things that might seem a little controversial). But guess not, it seems feminists only want women to make choices that they agree with.

And not all women are feminists so feminists can't speak on behalf of all women.

MrJudgeyPants Wed 19-Sep-12 16:35:59

Unfortunately, the real world calls - but I will return later on and hopefully pick this up again.

I am neither pro-page 3, pro-Sun, anti-feminist, anti-prude or the devil incarnate - I just take exception to people imposing their likes and dislikes upon the rest of us, whatever likes or dislikes they happen to be. Whilst there remains no compulsion to read a paper with or without a page 3, I see no reason to get too worked up about this.

So what if some men see women as sex objects, there are many who treat people from different races appallingly too. It's human nature and, fortunately, we have a word that describes them - they are 'arseholes'.

Unfortunately, I must dash - will be back later on.

princesschick Wed 19-Sep-12 16:43:05

Dana do you have your own bank account? Do you value the vote? Do you want to choose to have a career? Or do you live your life as the possession of a man, doing what he tells you and being his property? If not, then you are a feminist! Feminism comes in all different forms. I'm sure you like to be treated equally to men and with respect. I don't hate men, I just want to be treated the same as men.

Oh and I'm all about choice. Women can take their clothes off for money if they want. That's not the point. But then it's been said so many times on this thread already.

smile

emcwill74 Wed 19-Sep-12 16:46:10

threeOranges - but where is my choice in all this? My choice to live in a world where I am respected as a man's equal, not judged on my appearance? To live in a world in which the national press doesn't serve up my gender as solely for the entertainment of the other in this one-sided way? No one is trying to take any choice away from the models to do this. We are requesting (not banning!) that it is not in a newspaper. That is all. There are plenty more topless modelling contracts.

MrJudgeyPants - we have a word for people who treat people of other races appallingly too: racists. We don't devote most of a page in a national newspaper to promoting racism. I do see a reason to get worked up about this so I guess we differ.

gilbertta Wed 19-Sep-12 17:44:24

I won't be signing.

I would sign a petition to the Big Four supermarkets asking them to put The Sun, Star, etc. out of reach of kids, on the same shelf as Nuts and the like.

It would be far more effective, methinks. The supermarkets have far more reason to listen to women than the editor of The Sun, whose audience is surely mostly male.

If it worked, I suspect it would so affect the bottom line that Rupert Murdoch would have a word with Mohan and page 3 would be no more.

Except on the internet, of course. But then again, the OP isn't worried about that.

GoldShip Wed 19-Sep-12 17:48:33

The only petitions I sign are for animals. They can't speak for themselves

emcwill74 Wed 19-Sep-12 18:00:02

gilbertta - I'd very gladly sign that petition in addition to this one! As would my husband. Drives him mad when he goes to buy petrol and has some woman's crotch staring out of the Sport/Star at him on his way to pay! It's terrible they're sold at toddler height!

Have you signed for the badgers GoldShip - I have!

DadDancer Wed 19-Sep-12 21:17:50

delightfullyfragrant i take your point about 'passive' reading of the sun but surely that's more a question of etiquette for the blokes concerned rather than the literature they were reading?
I honestly wouldn't have a problem with a paper that featured naked blokes as you suggest. Like i said before there shouldn't be a rule book on what a newspaper should contain.

DadDancer Wed 19-Sep-12 21:29:02

emcwill74 by putting the Sun on the top shelf wouldn't you be turning it into the forbidden fruit and hence would give it more attention and mystic?

emcwill74 Wed 19-Sep-12 21:30:21

DadDancer - what like Loaded and FHM? Are they 'mystic'?

emcwill74 Wed 19-Sep-12 21:36:45

Actually can you replace the above with Nuts and Zoo. I am behind the times. But yeah - Nuts and Zoo: super mystic.

emcwill74 Wed 19-Sep-12 22:10:20

And just worked out what you meant about 'passive' 'reading' [ahem] (good phrase!) so wanted to say, but that is part of the whole point of this campaign - why those in favour are objecting to page 3 because it is in a newspaper! Any other mag featuring porn (and I know you will say this is not porn, we've had this argument on another thread and my belief is that it is, just very tame by today's standards) isn't normally read in public. There is no similar 'etiquette' about page 3, however because it's in a newspaper. A best-selling one. People read papers on trains. In front of people who don;t want to see it for whatever reason, be it body issues, having kids in tow etc. There was a thread on page 3 on here yonks ago where a group of dads were poring over page 3 in a school playground FFS!

And as to your second point: you personally might not have a problem with that scenario, but a lot of blokes would. And therefore it's not one you would EVER come across in a newspaper. Because page 3 is grossly sexist and unbalanced.

thebeesnees79 Wed 19-Sep-12 22:39:57

I am due my third baby in the next few weeks & take pride in the fact that my 5 & 3 year old know my boobs will provide milk for their new sibling. that is after all the primary function of a woman's beasts. although page 3 & nuts/loaded would have you think otherwise

Wheredidmyyouthgo Wed 19-Sep-12 23:27:19

Done and liked on fb. Thanks OP.

Tryingtothinkofnewsnazzyname Wed 19-Sep-12 23:37:14

Signed.

Seenenoughtoknow Wed 19-Sep-12 23:45:21

Done, and respect to you for doing this - you can't buy class smile

themiss Thu 20-Sep-12 00:22:10

YANBU - done

MrJudgeyPants Thu 20-Sep-12 00:26:49

Right - back again. I'd just like to pick up a few points.

princesschick "Do you think it would be ok to put porn on mainstream day time telly?"

Nope - I agree this would be inappropriate but our society has laws in place to prevent this from happening and plenty of scope to circumvent this via the internet. We also have plenty of porn channels available on a subscription basis - to my knowledge, none of these runs throughout the day. I don't know if it is legislation or their business case which guides these channels but I don't see a huge public clamour for 24 hour pornography in any case.

"I just don't like ... sexy pictures to be deemed appropriate for a family newspaper."

And I disagree that the Sun is a family newspaper. It may give away toys (someone mentioned Lego) for kids but if Razzle gave away a toy (for children - keep it clean!) that wouldn't make it a family magazine.

"Come on we all know it's sleazy and undermines women! ... That's not be judgy, that's exercising common sense!"

No it isn't - that is expressing an opinion.

emcwill74 you argue that your opposition to page 3 is not about taking offence to it but is about the wider effect on society. If you aren't taking offence at it, what is the point of opposing it?

"'elite'? What on earth do you mean?"

You are placing yourself in opposition to page 3 without incorporating the views of its supporters. You seek to nullify their argument without engaging with them (For the record, I am neither for nor against page 3 and am vehemently anti-Sun - I'm a Liverpool FC fan - but I am very much against a self appointed group seeking to ban something widely accepted and totally legal that it finds distasteful when there is no compulsion to purchase). What about the models? Does their view count? You seek to make them unemployed but what if they take the view that they are able to earn good money by preying on man’s base desire to see boobs. Who's exploiting who?

”but where is my choice in all this?” This harks back to my earlier point that your right to take offence should never be allowed to trump someone else’s right to cause offence. The freedom of speech and expression is the freedom from which all of our other freedoms must flow from. Once that gets taken away (and there’s a whole essay in me about how this is happening in Britain right now) the game’s up and we are ruled by a tyranny.

bemybebe & Dana1981 Spot on. That is the way it should be. We can disagree with whatever each of us says but we must defend the right to say it.

gilbertta is right when they say that the supermarkets hold the key to how newspapers are distributed and would be more likely to be reactive to your cause than the newspapers proprietors.

Finally, I’d like to add that in my opinion, page 3 is a minor contributor to young women having low self worth. Having chanced a look through the magazines that Mrs. Pants has been known to buy on occasion – Closer and Heat – these supposedly women’s magazines did more to reinforce the concept of the perfect female form far more than page 3 ever does. In one magazine, I forget which, I was appalled to see that there was a page devoted to close up images, captured by paparazzi with their powerful lenses, of various celebrities where every blemish, wrinkle and imperfection had been highlighted, discussed and condemned. It seemed like an unhealthy voyeurism for an unobtainable aesthetic – at least, by contrast, page 3 doesn’t judge or condemn.

DadDancer Thu 20-Sep-12 00:28:54

Hi princesschick thanks for your lengthy reply, you certainly got me sussed as i do indeed regard myself as a libertarian and i am totally against any form of censorship. Also a lot of people describe me as being a metrosexual or an indy boy. Maybe not the Peter Stringfellow image that some people may have conjured up of me!

I have to agree that your work place does sound pretty horrendous and something from the dark ages. I can't say i ever witnessed that kind of sexism in any of the places i've worked, including both the private and public sector in my current position. Although i do sympathise with your situation i don't think it is fair to use page 3 as a scapegoat. I also don't think it is fair to blame page 3 girls, lap dancers etc for the downfall of womenkind. I don't buy into this whole womens club that somehow if a girl takes her top off for page 3 then she tarnishes the reputation of all other women or that it sets the precedence for what men should expect all women to do. I think people desreve more credit than what you are giving them.

I think as MrJudgeyPants say's in his brilliant post below it is pretty sad that some parents are worried about their sons and daughters seeing a few breasts in a paper and that they will be scarred for life. I would add that i think topless nudity is perfectly acceptable for anytime viewing on tv as per most other european countries.

Empusa Thu 20-Sep-12 00:30:31

"So what if some men see women as sex objects, there are many who treat people from different races appallingly too. It's human nature and, fortunately, we have a word that describes them - they are 'arseholes'."

That is an accurate word yes, but does that mean that you wouldn't try and discourage them from being arseholes? Would you in fact allow them a space in which being an arsehole was both allowed and encouraged?

I've signed this petition, though I fear it wont achieve much sad
The problem is the people who dislike Page 3 don't buy the Sun anyway.
The people who do like it, do buy it.
The Sun doesn't care about the people who don't buy it, they'd only care if their sales dropped. Somehow you'd have to change the attitude of their whole demographic - which would be great, but I've no idea how you'd manage it. It's a catch 22.
- In order to change the attitude of the demographic you'd have to change what the think, best way to change what they think is for the paper to be anti Page 3.
- In order to get the paper to be anti Page 3 you'd need the demographic to change their attitude.

DadDancer Thu 20-Sep-12 00:38:35

great posts MrJudgeyPants
With regards to the free lego i get it for myself not the kids!

MrJudgeyPants Thu 20-Sep-12 00:49:05

Empusa my point was that there are nob-heads spouting nonsense everywhere you look and that you can't silence them all. I think it's much better to get these ideas out in the open where they can be seen for what they are, challenged, ridiculed and then given a damned good ignoring than it is to bottle up any dissent from the majority view. Disappearing off on a tangent here but Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time was the high water mark for the BNP. Once the myth had been shattered and he was seen as just another politician without a clue - albeit one with odious views - their collapse into infighting and irrelevance has been a joy to watch.

Occasionally, and it doesn't happen very often, that lone voice can be right and we are collectively better off for it. So yes, I would allow them space but no, I wouldn't encourage them.

MrJudgeyPants Thu 20-Sep-12 00:58:35

DadDancer Technics is the best - can't wait for my little one to be old enough but I still couldn't buy the Sun.

Curiously enough, much of Liverpool still maintains an embargo on the Sun dating from negative headlines made in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster. Whilst many scousers would seek to ban the newspaper outright, I disagree believing that the boycott has sent a more dignified message to the world than a clamour for a ban. Scousers could buy the Sun but chose not to.

SabrinaMulhollandJones Thu 20-Sep-12 01:04:20

I don't agree that all men that buy the sun like p3. I worked with a man that bought the sun for it's sports coverage and would never ever read pages 2 & 3 - would just turn them over together and never even look at them because he hated the images.

Someone says p3 doesn't 'condemn' anyone - well it does - it condemns me, a woman, owner of a very fine pair of breasts, to being ogled and reduced to just a pair of breasts. That's not on. overtly sexual imagery in a 'newspaper' - and that is what the
Sun purports to be- does that. Women should not be sex objects. Morals don't come into it - women are just asking not to be considered sex objects alongside the daily news.

I well remember the discomfort of men bringing the sun into my first ever workplace as a young girl - and I wish my daughter to not have to go through the same.

That's why I signed the petition- which isn't asking for censoreship, but for reconsideration of p3.

SabrinaMulhollandJones Thu 20-Sep-12 01:06:48

Meant to add, I'm heartened by the number of men joining the petition. smile

Darkesteyeswithflecksofgold Thu 20-Sep-12 01:20:03

Im pretty sure that its not the readers of Closer and Heat who shout nasty comments about my figure on the odd occasion when ive walked past a pub.

Seenenoughtoknow Thu 20-Sep-12 01:38:47

Princesschick and Emcwill74 - you are fighting the good fight, and my husband and I salute you. If you have children, they must or (if young or unborn) certainly will be proud of you. What fabulous and reasoned arguments you both give...I look forward to sharing your excellent and strongly demonstrated points with my four daughters and son, whom are all at impressionable ages. What they see and hear in everyday society is frankly quite disturbing. A number of the teenage boys in school with our daughters tease them and call them 'frigid' because they won't send them naked photographs of themselves like some of the other girls. Our society has become so pornographised that my 12 year old daughter has friends who fight for the attention of a certain boy who will only speak to the girls who've sent him said photo's! When my daughter asked her friend what her father would say after she's sent the lad her naked photo, her friend replied that "dad couldn't say anything...he looks at the page 3 girl's and had photo's of girls with their tits out at his garage". What an very sad example of parenthood. Keep up the good work Princesschick and Emcwill74...you have my complete admiration and respect.

Funnylittleturkishdelight Thu 20-Sep-12 06:46:24

Signed!

IvorHughJanus Thu 20-Sep-12 08:31:13

Done.

I have a young son and do not wish him to grow up in a country where the objectification of women is so commonplace that pictures like this appear daily in a 'family' newspaper. It is archaic and insulting.

WorraLiberty Thu 20-Sep-12 09:48:09

Matthew Wright show now on Channel 5, they're just about to discuss this if anyone's interested.

Empusa Thu 20-Sep-12 10:01:36

"Empusa my point was that there are nob-heads spouting nonsense everywhere you look and that you can't silence them all."

No, but you could refuse to condone their behaviour rather than normalise it in a national newspaper

emcwill74 Thu 20-Sep-12 10:07:16

MrJP - I disagree with all that you say about 'elite'. Using this you are turning the argument into one of snobbery just as Brendan O'Neill did when he totally failed to understand the arguments involved and yet still spouted his usual load of bile on the Torygraph blog. (Are you actually Brendan O'Neill by the way?) I am not 'not engaging' with Sun readers because I think I am 'better' than them, I am asking their editor that he rethink a...ermm...what the hell does one call page 3...a feature?...it's not a feature is it?...that his paper includes, but didn't used to do so, and goes back to not doing so. For the trillionth time (please actually read the wording of the petition if you intend to debate it or you just appear ill-informed) this is not about a group of people trying to 'ban' anything, again, it is asking the editor to consider whether this 'feature' [hate using that word in this instance] is appropriate to 2012 where we have a more enlightened view of women than we did in 1970.

You bring up this whole canard of the models being unemployed again yet admit yourself that porn in all its spectrum, from a woman posing in her knickers to hardcore, is readily available in so many other media. The Sun is hardly the only contract available to would-be topless models you know! Of course they won't be unemployed! That argument just really isn't a god one. You also say they earn good money but we have so far had 2 posters on this thread and the other one say say that actually it doesn't pay as well as you might think. One poster who used to be a tabloid journalist said that 5 yrs ago it was £300 a photo. GoldShip denied this was the case (having done page 3 herself) but did not offer any other figure until quite a few posts later when she mentioned the figure of £300 herself (not having a go at GoldShip in any way, just pointing this out). Given that no model is on the page every day (I've no idea how often they rotate - does one appear every couple of weeks?) I doubt that page 3 alone will make any of its models rich - they would need to back it up with other modelling work and spin-off work on the back of it. So, no, I'm afraid I don't think the view of the models does count given this petition is not seeking to prohibit all topless modelling, just request it is not in a newspaper. As for the exploting/empowerment argument - it may feel 'empowering' to the models but it doesn't do anything to empower women at large. (Have you ever seen the vile Sun ad for 'the woman you'd like your woman to be'? Doesn't feel very empowering to me to have the Sun reach out to the nation's men and say 'next time you look at your partner, just consider that she's not as good as this 'stunna'.) And how empowered are the models anyway when he Sun tells its readers they can view her in 360º on their iPads and she can 'pirouette at their command'?

And why does my 'offence' (I dislike that word as I have already explained. I am 'objecting' to Sun portraying my entire sex as mere entertainment for men, not because I faint with disgust at the sight of nipples, if you don't get that then you simply haven't understood the issues involved in any way at all) trump your freedom to cause it? Because by taking page 3 out of the Sun your freedom is reduced in a minimal way. The Sun continues to satisfy all its readers that buy its for its sport, political slant, easy read, celeb gossip, bingo, horoscopes, free Lego etc etc. Those that want to look at tits can easily do so, and even for free, elsewhere. Right now that 'freedom' is hindering women from ever really achieving equality with men. And no pair of tits trumps that.

I agree with all you say about women's mags also eroding self-worth. But that angle is one part of the reason why 25,000 and continually increasing are asking for the Sun to end this now. My main objection is that by daily depicting women as decorative items our best-selling paper is perpetuating the idea that his is how they should be treated. I would like to see the women's mags stop obsessing over women's bodies, but that is for another thread.

Response to DancerDad coming up.

delightfullyfragrant Thu 20-Sep-12 10:22:21

Daddancer
"delightfullyfragrant i take your point about 'passive' reading of the sun but surely that's more a question of etiquette for the blokes concerned rather than the literature they were reading?

Etiquette? What do you mean by this? If they are reading the paper on a tube shoulder to shoulder how can they use etiquette to not offend me or make feel uncomfortable. It's the very fact that it's in a main stream newspaper that this happens and is why I don't think it should be in there.

Also in regard to FHM, I don't see this mag littered all over the tube and streets and it certainly isn't being brought into the classroom in the guise of news.

emcwill74 Thu 20-Sep-12 10:28:11

DancerDad - you say to princesschick that you haven't personally encountered the kind of sexism she regularly does. Perhaps that is a simple fact. I think it more likely (not a personal attack, just my opinion) that this is because it is so deeply embedded in our society and so normal that you haven't even noticed it. If you are twitter I really suggest you take a look at @EverydaySexism. It paints a shocking picture of the millions of constant incidences of sexism that women face of sexism as they go about their day - by which I mean situations that men simply don't. Women going to buy cars, taking their partner along, and the salesmen talking solely to him. Women who have worked in IT for years and years being told by a male client they want to see a man as the problem is 'a bit technical'. Women being told to 'smile' as though they exist solely for men's amusement. Women told if they wore a dress/high heels they could look nice. Women being told asked walking home from work 'who let you out the kennel?' Women who have their bottom patted/waist grabbed by complete strangers. It goes on and on and on. Most women will recognise things from princesschick's post: whether it's by being told she is on her period if she ever gets annoyed at something, being called something patronising like 'poppet' in a situation where a man never would, being told she must have slept with someone to have achieved something (I can tick every single one of those!) No we can't make page 3 the single scapegoat for any of this, but whether it is a symptom or a cause it necessarily perpetuates this culture. The reason you don't notice an of this is because you don't need to.

I'm not sure I agree that topless nudity is fine for anytime viewing on TV but at least on TV it normally has a context - i.e. people going to bed/getting up etc. Page 3 is totally devoid of context other than 'here are some tits to look at'. This is why it is objectification: it is not about the woman as a person, it is about her body being served up like meat.

I never said any woman taking her top off tarnishes the reputation of all women. It is not that simple and I do not 'dislike' topless models on any personal level.

Seenenough - thank you so much for your lovely post, it means a lot to me. For too long now the Sun has belittled and used personal attacks to shame anyone who speaks out against page 3 into silence. Its treatment of Clare Short was monstrous and Mohan's spineless 'I probably wouldn't run that now' was laughable. He should officially apologise on behalf of previous editors. For too long the voices of those who object have been stifled like this as it was 'embarrassing' to admit you were uncomfortable with page 3. Not any more - this petition shows that people - men and women - of all backgrounds and all attitudes to porn - can say, actually we'd like this out the paper thanks.

MrJP - I forgot to reply about it being a family paper. Of course it is! I grew up in a house that had the Sun delivered. It was used as the TV guide. It was left lying around. I totally understand adults liking Lego but if that were on the front of the paper and I had it my kids would leaf though to look at Lego. On the Sun's website they mock up front pages of historical events etc to help kids with their homework and the print edition has articles on this. A newspaper differs from a magazine in that it is read in public and in a family setting. Either it's on the news stand as a paper, with no random [soft] porn, or the lads mag shelf. You can't have it both ways.

MrJudgeyPants Thu 20-Sep-12 10:30:01

Empusa I could never gag another person or prevent them from expressing whatever opinion they hold.

Once expressed, I am happy to challenge it though.

MrJudgeyPants Thu 20-Sep-12 11:06:22

emcwill74 OK, you ask Dominic Mohan to drop page 3 (I don't know why the Daily Star is exempted but there you go). You ask him very nicely. He says no. Where do you go from there? You have to either drop the whole thing or escalate it by seeking a ban. My money is on the later course of action at which point you would be changing what can and can't be legally printed in a law abiding newspaper. This crosses a big line to me.

Your second paragraph, about the economics of topless modelling, is irrelevant. If a woman wakes up one morning with the intention of getting her boobs seen by millions on page 3 that is her prerogative. Your third paragraph effectively states that her right as a woman to get her boobs out is trumped by your right as a woman to believe that page 3 hinders women from achieving equality - I disagree with both your premise and your conclusion.

"I agree with all you say about women's mags also eroding self-worth. But that angle is one part of the reason why 25,000 and continually increasing are asking for the Sun to end this now."

Let me get this right - because Closer and Heat erode self-worth amongst women by obsessing about the blemishes of the famous with a schadenfreudeic forensic detail, page 3, which by contrast is nowhere near so judgemental, must be banned?

runningforthebusinheels Thu 20-Sep-12 11:13:22

Thanks op - I've signed.

Mr JP- it has been repeated pointed out to you that the petition is not asking for a ban. Nobody's gagging anybody. Lucy's petition is asking for consideration as to whether p3 is appropriate in a daily newspaper in 2012.

runningforthebusinheels Thu 20-Sep-12 11:13:52

*repeatedly

emcwill74 Thu 20-Sep-12 11:19:55

The reason the Star is 'exempted' is that the Sun has a massive circulation and normalises the presentation of women this way. I don't like the Star either, I don't agree it should carry on doing what it does, but my feeling is to start with the Sun and go from there. I should point out for the sake of clarity this is not my petition, I didn't create it, but I 100% support it. I don't need to think about where we go from a point of it failing because I don't believe it will. This thread is dedicated to discussing the petition in question.

If my 2nd para is irrelevant, well I was directly answering your points, so your points must have likewise been irrelevant. You also, again, fail to take into account that I am not trying to stop a woman 'getting her boobs out', I am asking the editor of the Sun that she does not do so there. As I have repeatedly said, many many other places for her to exercise that right.

Again, you use the word 'ban' in relation to this petition in your last para, when I have repeatedly put it to you there is no such call for a ban under discussion on this thread. The two issues (those mags and page 3) have a large overlap but are distinct. If anyone wants to draw up petitions relating to those magazines I would happily read them and consider signing and we could discuss them on another thread. Page 3 is to me by its nature judgemental - it offers women's breasts up for judgement whilst mocking their owner in News in Briefs.

I am happy to respond to questions you put to me but see no point in either of us wasting each other's time discussing the broader issues of libertarianism. We see the world differently and will continue to do so, this is not the place for such a debate simply because it is off topic.

WashingLion Thu 20-Sep-12 11:21:56

Signed.

Empusa Thu 20-Sep-12 11:22:13

"Empusa I could never gag another person or prevent them from expressing whatever opinion they hold. "

It's not about gagging them, it's about not making it appear acceptable.

emcwill74 Thu 20-Sep-12 11:22:37

[thinks] hmmm, no reply to 'are you Brendan O'Neill question...' Can I ask MrJP - do you have kids? Not that it matters, just curious as to why you are posting here and whether you are doing so as a father or just to engage in this specific debate? I fully accept I haven't posted very widely on MN (a thread about ironing!) but I do post here as a parent. Not any criticism - just wondering.

Empusa Thu 20-Sep-12 11:25:19

"OK, you ask Dominic Mohan to drop page 3 (I don't know why the Daily Star is exempted but there you go)."

The Sun aims itself at the family market more than the Daily Star.

Also being against page 3 doesn't mean you aren't also against shite like Closer and Heat. But this thread is about page 3, not Closer and Heat.

MrJudgeyPants Thu 20-Sep-12 11:30:23

emcwill74 Fair enough, this seems like a good enough point to end our discussion.

For the record though, the petition seeks the names of one million supporters. I think that this is an unfeasibly large number to gather, especially when considering that the governments e-petitions require just a tenth of that number to trigger a discussion in parliament and to date, only 12 petitions have even managed to reach that figure.

emcwill74 Thu 20-Sep-12 11:33:48

I agree we can probably leave it there, I think we've both put our points across and I certainly have other things to get on with. Actually I agree with your points about the million figure and suspect it was just an arbitrary large number that is essentially meaningless.

I'm pleased to end on a note of agreement. Thank you.

MrJudgeyPants Thu 20-Sep-12 11:37:06

One more point, I am not Brendan O'Neill, I have a daughter and have posted extensively on this site - mostly within the Politics or In The News boards. I am a small state libertarian, as you correctly identified, and generally post about such weighty matters(!) as the tyranny of the majority, the madness of the tax system and how you can rely on governments of any hue to fuck up something as simple as making a cup of tea!

emcwill74 Thu 20-Sep-12 11:38:06

Thanks for clarifying. Bye for now!

Signed smile

princesschick Thu 20-Sep-12 11:43:31

Tits are not news. That's my final word and my own opinion on this matter. I've said everything I've wanted to say

MrJP and DadDancer I have a better understanding of your views now I have read your responses. However, I will not be budging on my beliefs and opinions on this matter, because you haven't convinced me otherwise. Men like tits, some women are happy to sell the image of their tits for money, and for those consenting adults involved it's a win-win situation. Although I could argue against that - but it would be a waste of breath on you two wink . There is a place for tits presented in a titillating and overtly sexual manner and that's not in the most widely read paper in the UK. The petition isn't asking for a ban. But I appreciate that you are both libertarians and that your opinion o this is very different to mine. I wish you well.

On a separate note, I was saddened to hear that the 5 page news story about the two policewomen killed in Manchester was interrupted in the sun yesterday by tits. One of those women was a friend of mine and I find it wholly distasteful.

Emc you write very well and I'm really impressed by your tenacity.

Seenenough thank you for your kind words. Sadly I'm not a mum yet but hope that it may work out for me and hubby soon.

It would seem Matthew Wright and Chris Evans have both expressed support for this campaign to remove page 3 images from a newspaper and I'm quite (pleasantly) surprised. Didn't see that coming at all. I think there's an awful lot of support out there to remove this outdated feature from a national newspaper from people who are not judging or trying to infringe civil liberties / freedom of the press.

If this campaign isn't successful then at least those who don't agree with page 3 made their voices heard together. That shouldn't be underestimated in a free democracy.

Finally, I read this morning that Lucy and the campaign are contacting companies who advertise in The Sun to withdraw their adverts to help back up this campaign. I'm not sure where this will lead but hopefully they'll get the support they need.

emcwill74 Thu 20-Sep-12 11:53:36

princesschick - you write very well too! Your comments on your workplace hit a nerve and it's always good for women to be reminded that we all suffer that crap to varying degrees and it's not OK, on whatever thread/discussion etc! I also saw that Matthew Wright had expressed support and was knocked sideways! As you rightly say, even if this campaign has no effect on Mohan/the Sun it has, and is, very important for 'allowing' people to find a voice on this subject. Debate is always good! Bullying by a media superpower is never good!

DadDancer Thu 20-Sep-12 12:30:48

delightfullyfragrant They can skip past page 3 rather than stand there gawping at it. Basic manners i would have thought.

Nancy66 Thu 20-Sep-12 12:31:08

lobbying the paper's advertisers is not really in keeping with the 'we're asking you nicely' petition is it?

Typical women. Can't make their minds up.

princesschick Thu 20-Sep-12 12:43:14

Nancy perhaps they are asking the advertisers nicely to prompt them to think? Just a thought.

delightfullyfragrant Thu 20-Sep-12 12:53:30

Daddancer

"delightfullyfragrant They can skip past page 3 rather than stand there gawping at it. Basic manners i would have thought."

So you are admitting it can be offensive to people then? You will also agree it is a newspaper which is aimed to read amongst other places on public transport?

I rest my case.

gilbertta Thu 20-Sep-12 12:59:17

Bare breasts should not be banned in newspapers, but should be on a higher shelf, and getting the supermarkets to agree is the best way to achieve that quickly. No-one at the Sun is going to listen to 20k, 100k or even a million non-Sun readers.
But Tesco will listen to Tesco customers. And if you win, and the sales decline because it is on a higher shelf, and thus displayed less prominently, I'd bet my mortgage that even the Sun Executives will take notice and suddenly decide to run an editorial saying that after much consideration, they have decided that page 3 has become 'unsuitable for a modern newspaper like your number one Sun', or some such drivel.

Bottom line is where it counts!

emcwill74 Thu 20-Sep-12 13:05:41

gilbertta - good points, but with nothing to show the support I suspect Tesco highly unlikely to agree to move the country's biggest-selling paper off the main news stand! Perhaps this petition might encourage them to consider it? As has been often stated now, there is nothing in the petition about a 'ban'.

delightfullyfragrant Thu 20-Sep-12 13:08:50

great posts BTW EMC and princesschick amongst others smile

DadDancer Thu 20-Sep-12 16:20:00

emcwill74 'but my feeling is to start with the Sun and go from there'

It's this statement that leads me to believe that maybe you do have an agenda for a ban. When will you end?, next it will be the Star, the Sport, Nuts, Loaded, Razzle and then female mags that depict women topless in a way that doesn't suit your criteria, then art mags and on and on and on...............Also the newsagents better get some extra big reinforced top shelfs fitted to accommodate all the extra weight of magazines and newspapers you want consigned there! lol

With regards to your response to my previous post I would ask the same question to yourself that maybe you have been embedded with so many feminist principles that you have lost all perspective and now every little thing is somehow deemed as sexist? Evidence of this was when i got crucified for saying 'hello ladies' for example. It's going overboard and that is how I feel towards your attitudes regarding page 3. It's a step too far. We have equality laws now and if they are not being adhered to then that is a separate issue that you should be addressing. All you are doing with your page 3 campaign is trying to suppress a persons sexuality and identity. Make the models and the persons who read the Sun feel bad about their behaviour and feelings. It’s very similar to homophobia or any other kinds of prejudice really. Shame you can’t see that.

princesschick 'Finally, I read this morning that Lucy and the campaign are contacting companies who advertise in The Sun to withdraw their adverts to help back up this campaign. I'm not sure where this will lead but hopefully they'll get the support they need. '

To me that goes beyond just having your say and is pressuring and trying to manipulate people. The companies who advertise already know that the Sun has page 3 so why should you hassle them about it?

You know what, I think I may go and buy a copy of the sun. It can be like my counter to your petition.
The question is, will I be able to view the page 3 girl as anything more than the equivalent to a beef joint or a pork chop? I couldn’t possibly think she’s an attractive girl and wonder what her personality is like could i?

SabrinaMulhollandJones Thu 20-Sep-12 16:32:18

Yes, being against p3 is just the same ad homophobia... confused

thebeesnees79 Thu 20-Sep-12 16:44:07

hahaha homophobia, now that is fucking hilarious!
I am sure my gay uncle having suffered years of prejudice would beg to differ.
These women get paid decent money to show off their tits to the lads, we simply want it removing from a family paper and put where it belongs in a "lads" mag. tits for the lads in a lads mag =proper place!
Imagine if Terry the 19 year old trainee plumber's flacid todger was in the equivalent paper on page three. Would love to watch the lads gagging on their cooked breakfasts haha.
and before anyone says anything, I do not want a woman's version of page 3 because looking at cocks is not what I want to do when reading the national news thanks very much.

emcwill74 Thu 20-Sep-12 16:44:57

You can believe what you like about my agenda. Since I haven't stated any then that is mere speculation as to my 'criteria'. I was replying to a direct question as to why the Star is being 'exempted' when it is just as bad - if not worse - than the Sun. I think there is a wider problem with the way the tabloids depict women, it doesn't end at page 3, certainly. However this thread is about a specific petition. My comment 'go from there' was vague, right now I have no specific action plan beyond hoping this petition convinces the Sun that women are worth more than being depicted as a pair of tits out of all other context.

Thanks for helpfully telling me I have lost perspective. Very helpful to be put in my place in such a patronising manner. It's not that 'every little thing' is sexist, but when behaviours that many women don't like are extended to them and not men, then that is sexism. Yes we have equality laws and I don't actually see how page 3 sits within those in any way. I am not trying to repress anyone's sexuality but here we are again back to the whole prude thing. There is almost no point in continuing to counter this because I've done so before and you haven't understood so you are either unable to do so or choosing not to. As if it needs saying again: if women wish to engage in topless modelling there are other contracts than the Sun and other newspapers on the main news stand! I am not trying to make the models 'feel bad' but if they feel bad then should they ask themselves why? This is akin to your saying that I hate page 3 because I feel bad about my body. What about developing girls/teenagers who see page 3, feel they don't look like that and feel bad about their bodies?

Far from seeing my attitude as similar to homophobia I find page 3 itself similar to homophobia. It encourgaes society to view women differently - and in an inferior way, this is really hammered by News in Briefs which just takes the piss out of the models! All it does is joke with the punter 'ha ha! as if a woman with her tits out has a brain cell! what a larf!' I've said this before and no one has answered me yet: if it were a picture of a steretypically gay man in a limp-wristed pose, wearing a sailor's hat with a comment along the lines of 'backs to the wall boys!', would that be OK? I think not, I think it would be encouraging homophobia and there would (rightly) be a huge outcry. So why is it OK to do this to women?

I'm just getting tired of writing the same stuff again and again and appreciate people who disagree me with probably equally wish I'd shut up and stop 'banging on' and repeating myself, but it is so frustrating when people don't get it. I'd really rather say now we disagree and leave it at that. Fine - buy the Sun. Whatever. But if you really are looking at that girl on page 3 and wondering what her personality is like, why does she have to be semi-naked for that? Doesn't a girl have a personality when she has clothes on? I have a quote for you: 'feminism is the radical concept that women are people'. Next time you find yourself thinking 'I really need to see some tits and ass' can I suggest you just have a think about that quote? Just see how it feels at that moment when you want visual gratification? And no, I'm not having a go, or attacking you, making a serious point for you to have a think about.

thebeesnees79 Thu 20-Sep-12 16:53:08

emcI think all the points you have made are valid. and I agree the daily star is just as bad as is the daily sport (is that still going??)

princesschick Thu 20-Sep-12 17:20:02

DadDancer yes, I would like Lucy to get wider support for this. I think it's important. I know you disagree. I respect your entitlement to an opinion. I don't understand why you feel the need to pick every tiny little thing that is said on here to pieces? Is there a point that you are trying to get across but isn't being understood? If so, please make yourself heard loud and clear.

So I'll try and explain again.... to me this campaign is important. I realise you are irritated by this thread and petition. Did you say you have a daughter? You may feel differently when she is older and is subjected to some of things that my friends, relatives and I have experienced throughout our lives and which are considered "harmless fun" but actually give us deep seated anxiety, worries, make us depressed, undervalued, useless, inferior and 2nd class citizens. Many people recognize that women are not yet treated equally in this society. There are also all sorts of stats to back this up. I don't think it's appropriate to put tits in the news. I've explained my reasoning to you. I've even said, I understand where you are coming from and I respect your right to an opinion. Thanks for explaining. But still you want me to come back and validate every tiny point I make. In someways, I feel that you are taking exception to every little thing that I have said. Why? I want to be treated as an equal to you. As long as girls (and they are girls) are objectified in this way in a national newspaper which normalises the idea that girls are for leering at not for treating with respect, it makes it very difficult for me to be treated as an equal. I know that you don't fully understand this. I can tell from your tone that you don't fully want to understand. You can't possibly, you're a man. And a man who support lap dancing and page 3 at that.

Can I ask what's wrong with asking politely for some advertisers to consider supporting the campaign? Maybe they will say no, or maybe they will go, d'ya know what, I hadn't really considered that. I don't want to support women being objectified and I think page 3 is a bit out of date. Yes Lucy I will support your campaign? They can only say no and everything is worth a try. As I said, this is important to me.

Mellower Thu 20-Sep-12 17:21:48

This was on something on TV today when I was cleaning my rug 85% said yes Page 3 should be banned.

emcwill74 Thu 20-Sep-12 17:30:22

Mellower - it was on Loose Women on ITV. A lot of people have told me this petition is just by middle-class lefty Guardian readers so is basically invalid. I doubt that defines the Loose Women audience - there will be a much broader demographic of viewers, some of whom may even be Sun readers. Interesting.

Mellower Thu 20-Sep-12 17:35:37

Oh yeah it was around lunch-time!! That would be the one, I generally have TV as background noise, but picked up on the Page 3 bit after seeing it here yesterday.

Mellower Thu 20-Sep-12 17:36:27

Oh if you are a Sun reader anyone please can you send me those tokens?? PM please grin

watchoutforthatsnail Thu 20-Sep-12 17:57:47

Its so strange that every one, though I agree, see it as a left wing argument.

Several of my male friends are adamant It's a right wing, daily mail, Mary whitehouse argument, And nothing I say can convince them otherwise...

Tips to win this against them?
I'm wondering if they are deliberately viewing it from the wrong perspective to make me look bad.

emcwill74 Thu 20-Sep-12 18:03:32

watchout - People say it's right wing because they see the intentions as prude and therefore illiberal. I was thinking about this today too funnily enough in light of some comments on the Indie website that hosted an article by the petition writer. You have to convince them you're not a prude: good luck!!

watchoutforthatsnail Thu 20-Sep-12 18:17:55

They know me, know I'm far from it smile

My post on the subject started, ' I like boobs, I like porn'
So, they understand It's not about that...

I'm just being lamblasted for bring right wing, banning peoples rights and then defending porn as I like it, therefore apparently contradict my own argument and am stupid.

Which I'm.not, they can't seem to wrap their head around it. I'm.not nuts, am i?

delightfullyfragrant Thu 20-Sep-12 18:18:32

Daddancer
I would really like your comments regarding my post at 12.53.

I said "I remember squirming with embarrassment when I was around 16 and sitting on the tube next middle aged men 'reading' the sun with the full page spreads of tits next to my elbow. Yes, I'd look away but soft porn images of girls around my age at that time are not something I was comfortable inadvertently having to share with men old enough to be my grand father. It made me feel really queasy."

you said it was "bad etiquette" and "They can skip past page 3 rather than stand there gawping at it. Basic manners"

so you agree it can be offensive to women? In which case why are you against a petition to "politely ask" it to stop.

Why should I and lots of other women feel like this, it's vile?

HellATwork Thu 20-Sep-12 18:29:49

Signed. Makes me think of that thread aaaaaages ago about the man in the playground waiting to pick up his DCs pausing on page 3 for a very long time to the discomfort of the OP waiting for her DCs. I wonder whether Daddancer would consider that "bad etiquette" either?

emcwill74 Thu 20-Sep-12 19:18:23

watchout - no you're not nuts. You are just being belittled by people who have no desire to understand. It must be nice to be male and not have to. [And no I am not a 'man-hater'! I'm not saying this applies to all men! My husband restores my faith in humanity, as do my many male friends.]

googlyeyes Thu 20-Sep-12 19:30:19

Have signed

How utterly depressing that people can seriously believe that torso of the week and a pair of tits are on a par. Or that men are objectified in anything like the way women are.

I remember once I was walking to work and a bloke in a van called out 'love your tits' to a v attractive young woman in front of me. She stared ahead and kept walking but this bloke went berserk at being ignored. He started shouting out threats, interspersed with the word 'cunt', and he did his best to pull over but thank god he was unable to.

Not exactly sure why but this story suddenly came to mind. I guess to me it illustrates to me how the objectification of women often has a pretty sinister undercurrent. A man being leered at by a women would v v rarely feel the same sort of implicit threat.

watchoutforthatsnail Thu 20-Sep-12 19:48:19

Emc - indeed, they cant see the problem as ' It's just a pair of tits' I explained that that statement illustrated how objectified women were, in a NEWSpaper but again I was called a hypercrit as I watch porn.
Apparently viewing porn, in the privacy of you own home, means you should be ok with anything. And so the fact I'm not means I'm a right wing Mary whitehouse c**t.

I despair really.

DadDancer Thu 20-Sep-12 22:24:38

Thanks for your replies emcwill74 and princesschick yes I agree we are probably never going to agree on this matter. It is a clash of libertarian vs feminst. At least we engaged in debate which has got be at least something?

If i was the Sun editor i would come to a compromise and have the news text bit on page 3 removed completely (that i do agree is demeaning rubbish). I would keep the nudity but go for a more artistic approach.

Thanks for the quote emcwill74 i will bear it in mind.. actually what was it again? 'feminsts are radicals that men should ignore' nah only kidding!grin

watchoutforthatsnailUsing the political compass i would say that being against page 3 can be left or right wing, it's the other axis that makes the difference which varies between libertarian at the south to authoritarian at the north.

Right my work here is done - point me in the direction of the lap dancing club thread. Actually 2nd thoughts i'll save that one for another day! Is there a Mr Tumble thread?

thecook Thu 20-Sep-12 22:29:29

YABU - Nothing wrong with Page 3. Let the women earn some money. I will not be signing.

emcwill74 Thu 20-Sep-12 22:30:30

Yep DadDancer I think we've gone enough rounds in the ring now. I need some sleep and am not around so much tomorrow so there will be less banging on from me on here generally! Thanks for the debate.

delightfullyfragrant Fri 21-Sep-12 06:49:36

Daddancer

I would really like your comments regarding my post at 12.53.

I said "I remember squirming with embarrassment when I was around 16 and sitting on the tube next middle aged men 'reading' the sun with the full page spreads of tits next to my elbow. Yes, I'd look away but soft porn images of girls around my age at that time are not something I was comfortable inadvertently having to share with men old enough to be my grand father. It made me feel really queasy."

you said it was "bad etiquette" and "They can skip past page 3 rather than stand there gawping at it. Basic manners"

so you agree it can be offensive to women? In which case why are you against a petition to "politely ask" it to stop.

Why should I and lots of other women feel like this, it's vile?

GinSoaked Fri 21-Sep-12 08:26:42

Signed!

Unless you have a pair of tits (as in the kind that require a bra), I don't see how you can judge how page 3 makes those of us with a pair feel...

PageThreePiffle Fri 21-Sep-12 08:57:24

the BBC radio 5 phone in which is called Your Call is discussing getting rid of Page 3 any moment now - they are referencing the petition that has been linked to from the top of this thread -

it will be full of people saying it's harmless -

is anyone able to phone in to say the issue is about the normalisation of this sort of image, rather than the fact that you can find a lot stronger stuff elsewhere anyway so why focus on P.3? which is probably what they will be saying?? call 0800 909 693

PageThreePiffle Fri 21-Sep-12 09:05:40

or if you just want to listen to the debate, BBC radio 5 is on 909 or 693 medium wave and digital channel 705 on Freeview, (TV)
and on digital radio

PageThreePiffle Fri 21-Sep-12 09:12:01

sorry got number wrong!

it is 03700 100 500

Twibble Fri 21-Sep-12 11:55:30

Hello,

I'm a man (currently guardian to a new baby for complex reasons). I hope my presence on 'Mumsnet' will be tolerated.

Most people who post on topics are naturally those who feel strongly about it either way. I was just browsing vaguely on the topic of the Page 3 campaign when I read this thread and became interested.

I'm a very ordinary kind of man and my thought processes are doubtless shared my millions of others, so I thought I'd just I'd give you an honest insight, for what its worth.

Firstly, I think women, including their breasts, are just wonderful. They are one of my very favourite things about being alive. The urge to look at them seems so basic to my nature it doesn't seem very far from my the urge to eat and sleep. So I think it is fair to say that I am 'hardwired' to be this way rather than have it as conditioned behaviour. I must admit to checking women out constantly whilst I am out and about, though hopefully never in an aggressive and leering way. If I thought I was being offensive or making a woman unhappy I would be mortified. I just love the way women look. They're fantastic.

I have lots of female friends and prefer their company to men. They are less aggressive, less competitive and more caring. I can't stand laddish, loudmouth ed blokes and would always rather go out socialising with women than men.

Finally getting to the point, I think Page 3 is a fairly horrible institution. I actually feel quite exploited that an odious rag like The Sun is trying to get me to buy it by appealing to my very basic desires. It also offends many women for reasons that are obvious - I'm not traditionally 'handsome' and the constant valuing of a person by their looks alone would irritate me intensely if men were the on the receiving end. However, I am also a libertarian -but a libertarian also believes that people should not only be allowed to access this material, but also to avoid it. Therefore I support the campaign. There is something just too public and invasive about raw sexuality in a newspaper. We live in an age where nudity and sexuality can be everywhere for those who want to access it, and we should live in age where it is nowhere for those who don't. There is no need for it in a shared space any more. Don't ban Page 3 but stick it on the top shelf with the lads' mags so it is there for those who want it, and everyone should be happy.

As one last point,I should also point out most men are nowhere near as secure as some women think they are - we also are under tremendous pressure to conform in certain ways, and our objectification and abuse is becoming more widespread. I followed a link from Lucy's petition and immediately found the following discussion topic - 'Why do so many women shag old, ugly men?' Nice. Reverse the sexes in that sentence and see if it still seems a reasonable question.

Hope my presence on this thread isn't too intrusive. Peace and love to all.

emcwill74 Fri 21-Sep-12 12:14:38

I said yesterday I wouldn't be on here so much today (and I shouldn't be, I have 101 more urgent things to do!) but wanted to say hi Twibble and thanks for your comments. I'm fascinated that you are a professed libertarian as coincidentally we have had 2 men posting recently who are (what is it with libertarian men on MN?!) but their POV was that as libertarians page 3 should exist as part of a free, totally uncensored press. I don't agree with that argument personally, I think there are lines to be drawn on what a newspaper should contain where it promotes racism/sexism/homophobia etc, but I'm therefore really interested that you find the 'put it on the top shelf' argument that this campaign petitions for sits with your libertarian world view (though I don't think the Sun could be just put there as it is to be honest, it is too strong a brand, which is why I'd prefer page 3 removed and then people have lads mags on that shelf should they want them). And also, I agree that reverse sexism is not OK, I don't think putting an objectified man on page 4 makes page 3 OK, but I think men face it a lot less and to much less of a detrimental effect than women do.

And that's all really, no criticism, no argument, no banging on, just a muse and a hello smile

Twibble Fri 21-Sep-12 12:31:09

Hi ecmwill74, (can I call you ecm?),

Thank you for your nice response.

I think liberty is a frequently abused term - one person's liberty is very frequently detrimental to the next person's liberty. So, there will always have to be compromise. Where you draw the line is always down to a matter of consensus, social conditioning and so on.

If someone reads a lads' mag, or uses pornography, or looks at Page 3 of the Sun in their own personal space, I cannot see why that is anybody's business. If they show it to someone who is disgusted by it on the bus then it is an infringement of the other person's liberty. Liberty should be to avoid as well as to indulge. I love breasts so don't get negative feelings from their portrayal, but I know how it feels to be offended in a newsagent's. I hate shooting magazines and I don't see why I should have to see them on the shelves. But shooting is legal, so have the magazines on the top shelf acknowledging their divisive quality, there for those who want them and out of eyeline of those who don't, and the world keeps spinning without anyone's day being ruined.

TheShriekingHarpy Fri 21-Sep-12 12:56:04

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NigellasGuest Fri 21-Sep-12 13:03:36

how is freedom of expression being eroded by having P.3 removed from a mainstream newspaper and relocated to the top shelf where it won't be forced on to people who don't want to see it, and more importantly, children?

TheShriekingHarpy Fri 21-Sep-12 13:14:06

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheShriekingHarpy Fri 21-Sep-12 13:17:31

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NigellasGuest Fri 21-Sep-12 13:21:54

that source of revenue would NOT be closed off.
The images would be in other places, that's all.
i.e. places where people who choose not to see this, and especially children, will not be looking.

TheShriekingHarpy Fri 21-Sep-12 13:28:03

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

tigercametotea Fri 21-Sep-12 13:28:07

Signed petition and liked the FB page. Yanbu. Boobs don't belong on a newspaper.

NigellasGuest Fri 21-Sep-12 13:36:21

yes Harpy i see what you are saying, but children do still get to see it.
Some people buy The Sun and leave it lying around the place.

I remember as a child back in the 70s , old newspaper was used at primary school to cover the tables during painting lessons. Quite a few pairs of tits were very often slapped over the table tops. Would HATE that to happen to my DDs, and in front of boys in their class too. Just horrible.

And I know my DDs have seen these images as for just one example, The Sun was displayed on a garage forecourt I went to recently, with all the other papers, and the wind was gaily blowing it open so P.3 was freely visible to everybody as they went into the shop to pay for their petrol.
It just DOES NOT BELONG IN A NEWSPAPER. That's the whole point.

thebeesnees79 Fri 21-Sep-12 14:43:54

twibble its great to get a mans perspective on it and one who can see past the "women are just jealous" argument or "its censorship" bull crap.
No one is asking for naked breasts to be banned altogether however (bangs head against brick wall repeatedly) it has no place in a national family newspaper that is the reason it needs removing!
I don't want my daughter to think that if her body does not match up to that of a page three girl she is doomed. I want her to ooze confidence in who she is as a whole person, not just her body! Its so wrong on so many levels.
Men are visual creatures I totally understand that its nature, magazines are there to provide such stimulus and I would hope that nuts & loaded etc are out of reach of young eyes.
My two kids are fascinated by my pregnant body (I am 36+6 weeks) & I don't hide away from them, I want them to see bodies as none sexualised and appreciate the human body and how amazing it is.

DadDancer Fri 21-Sep-12 16:29:22

Sorry delightfullyfragrant for not replying back. Basically I was implying that it is the behaviour not the literature that was at fault in the case you mentioned, as you said there were a load of old men all gawping at page 3 in your presence. If they had just viewed the paper as in reading it and you caught a glimpse of page 3 then that is a different matter which I don’t have as much sympathy for. Either way I still feel it is no grounds to restrict it, just because a few people get offended or that they may accidently get a glimpse of something they don't like. We would have to ban everything if we took that logic everytime.

DadDancer Fri 21-Sep-12 16:42:18

Just to add emcwill74 I would go for the reverse sexism argument and if the petition had been for an alternate male model one day and female another or a page 4 dedicated to topless blokes. I would have definitely have signed it. To me that fulfils both the equality argument and preserves freedom of expression.
I still think my suggestion to the editor would be a good one to ask to remove the dodgy text bit and make the photos more arty and tasteful whilst keeping the nudity element. Why not aim for something like that first, which is a more realistic target and is at least a compromise?

DyeInTheEar Fri 21-Sep-12 16:47:09

Signed. Page 3 belongs to a bygone era - along with racist sitcoms, Benny Hill, single mothers being shut away in mum and baby homes and so on. Some things have to be consigned to the past. It's not about curtailing freedom of speech - it's about progress. The pictures also don't belong in a "newspaper". I stopped using newsagents where my 4yo DS was confronted by women in thongs bending over on the front of The Daily Star / Sunday Sport. I complained to Tescos and was told in not so many words that I was against freedom of speech so I stopped going there as well. I'm absolutely not against freedom of speech. I'm not even against porn. I just don't think a mainstream newspaper should be full of sexualised images of women.

emcwill74 Fri 21-Sep-12 17:01:35

DadDancer - no time to reply at length but if there is a problem with men 'gawping' at page 3 (rather than what? You can't 'read' a picture: turning the page hurriedly in an embarrassed fashion?) and you feel that isn't appropriate in public, then why is it appropriate to have it at all? Who defines how long the male gaze lingers on it to be 'gawping'? Where does a glance that delightfullyfragrant just has to deal with as you've no sympathy, become a 'gawp' that you consider unreasonable? How about it just isn't there and said men can 'gawp' at boobs in private at home as they do with other porn?

As for having men in there too - doesn't cut it for me. You can't have equality of sexism because men do not and have not suffered the same sort of sexism that women have faced and do face daily. I can't be bothered to go on at length about this because I know you disagree that we do. But even if you put that aside adding more objectification (i.e. of men) into the equation doesn't resolve, for me, the problems associated with objectification.

As for getting rid of News in Briefs - you may think that more realistic. For myself I don't want a compromise, nor do the other near 30,000 that have signed so far. I think it realistic to ask for random pics of tits in newspapers to be consigned to the dustbin of history and people to get a titfix in private elsewhere.

Gotta run!

princesschick Fri 21-Sep-12 17:40:00

DadDancer

I would go for the reverse sexism argument and if the petition had been for an alternate male model one day and female another or a page 4 dedicated to topless blokes

Two wrongs don't make a right. This is about objectification of a person and it's effect on wider society. It's demeaning to see men as sex objects too. Although as emc points out it doesn't happen very often.

Can I remind you:

Tits are not news

Taking tits out of the newspaper is not removing freedom of speech. Other countries have free press without sprinkling tits through their other 'features'. Germany got rid of their page 3 equivalent this year, perhaps because they realise it's old fashioned, unnecessary and creepy.

Would you be ok with your daughter modelling for page 3? Would it make you proud? If so, I think that's sad. I also wonder what happens to these girls when they grow up and perhaps are no longer able to model. Not everyone is Melinda Messanger or Katie Price. I can't imagine being taken seriously in my current career if someone found out that I'd been a page 3 model in the past. And I'm sure with the internet the way it is, it isn't easy to hide your past.

On another note, DH went to school with a page 3 model (The Sun waited for her to turn 16 and she did it just after her 16th birthday) and the teachers had taken the page out and put it up in their staff room with the following title... "This is what our students achieve" I don't think that they were proud. I think that this was said with a raised eyebrow. Although I expect a number of the make teachers 'appreciated' her talents. I obviously don't blame the Sun for the actions of teachers in the mid-90s, but these actions are not against the law, and perhaps they thought it was ok because this sort of material is freely available to all regardless of age. Also, a couple of teachers at that school were prosecuted for having inappropriate relationships with under age girls. This makes my skin crawl. That they may have been 'appreciating' a young former student who set a president for other young girls still at the school to be 'appreciated'. shudder I'm not putting any of this together in a "pedophile teachers slap picture of 16 year old to wank over in the staff room" sort of way. But because it's available, without restriction, it's ok to make a joke of. But then they're just expressing themselves and we live in a free society.

Would you be happy for your daughter's picture to be put on walls across the UK for people to 'appreciate'? I think my Dad, DH and other male relatives would be mortified!!!

Anyway, I digress. I don't get how taking page 3 out of a newspaper is infringing on freedom of speech?

And if I choose to go out topless, or naked, I could be arrested for indecency. How is it that it's ok to put these sorts of pictures in the Newspaper if I can't walk down the road with my breasts out? confused

Can I ask you how you feel about public breast feeding. Merely because I'm interested smile

Nancy66 Fri 21-Sep-12 18:33:38

You know a hell of a lot of perverts Princess...have you ever thought of moving in slightly different circles?

CastielsTrenchcoat Fri 21-Sep-12 18:42:10

Signed. Twibble I enjoyed your post, interesting viewpoint.

princesschick Fri 21-Sep-12 18:50:48

nancy I think thats a little uncalled for! I worked in a ridiculously macho office, I don't work there now and the comments above were about my DHs school. We went to school at different ends of the country??? And no I don't think I need to move in different circles; the vast majority of my friends and family and lovely and not perves. However, it is sad that perves are so common place, I'll give you that wink

delightfullyfragrant Fri 21-Sep-12 20:31:39

I think fundamentally people can set freedom of speech above all other rights which I think is wrong.

There has to be a limit to peoples rights.

For example, the right to tell the truth and invasion of privacy. What is in the public interest.

Where are the boundaries of freedom of speech? In my view freedom of speech should run until it runs right up to someone's right not to be discriminated against.

In this case no-one is asking to curb freedom of speech they are saying that use of freedom of speech run into the rights of women not to feel discriminated against.

delightfullyfragrant Fri 21-Sep-12 20:47:42

sorry last sentence doesn't make sense

No-one is asking for the publication of page three to be legally banned, the petition is asking for the editor to ask his discretion not to publish topless photo's of young women.

It's simply a protest against what the petitioners see as an offensive use of free speech. In the same way as people are legitimately entitled to demonstrate against political groups expressing far-right views.

Busyoldfool Fri 21-Sep-12 21:09:07

No - for all the reasons that have been stated by others. So many people want to ban so many things but all think that they themselves have the right to do want they want.

So why don't we ban great big four-wheel drive cars that are more likely to kill a child if they hit him than a "normal" car is. Or alcohol, (drunkeness and the effect on the family??), or "fashion" magazines with their pics of emaciated teenagers in, or video games or free speech in case someone says something that offends someone else. Can we just deal with it sensibly and not buy the paper?

DadDancer Fri 21-Sep-12 21:47:31

wowzers! emcwill74
<Who defines how long the male gaze lingers on it to be 'gawping'? Where does a glance that delightfullyfragrant just has to deal with as you've no sympathy, become a 'gawp' that you consider unreasonable? How about it just isn't there and said men can 'gawp' at boobs in private at home as they do with other porn?>

Who defines what is appropriate? it could be a nude photo in the Guardian ( and they do feature nudity from time to time under the guise of art) it could be a religous piece that someone could find offensive or a war hero that has been killed which could be upsetting to some people who have lost relative in similar circumstances. Under your logic we would have to ban all of the things just in case someone happens to inadvertently view it or find it offensive.

yeah you already know my thoughts on the whole objectification argument...

<As for getting rid of News in Briefs - you may think that more realistic. For myself I don't want a compromise, nor do the other near 30,000 that have signed so far.>

Well it's your choice on what you set as your goal, obviously compromise is not a concept you are willing to take on board. Also how do you know the 30,000 wouldn't consider a compromise like the one i proposed. Have you been and asked them all? of course you haven't.

I have question to you that no one has discussed yet,
Supposing your campaign was successfull and the editor ditches page 3, what do you think woud be the results and reactions to it? Are you really sure it would be a positive outcome? and are you definitely sure it wouldn't backfire in anyway?

emcwill74 Fri 21-Sep-12 22:49:52

Daddancer - Not quite sure what the 'wowzers' was for! You said yourself that it was wrong of men to 'gawp' at page 3 in front of delightfullyfragrant - I was quoting YOU on that. So given you said that was wrong, but it was OK by you if she saw a flash of it as someone was 'reading' it ('reading page 3?' ho ho ho) I was asking YOU who policed what was a flash and what was a gawp. And if people had reason to gawp and you thought that wrong, then what is making it wrong? And if the reason it is wrong is that it is horribly creepy when a woman has to sit next to a bloke on public transport perving over some tits when she has no choice in the matter (as you yourself suggest, may I add) then that suggests to me there is just reason we just get rid of it rather than saying the man should glance and not gawp, according to some vague criteria that you are unable to confirm who sets.

I have no idea whether all of the other 30,000 would consider your compromise but I know full well the vast majority wouldn't by reading the comments they post on signing which can be seen on the petition page and are also tweeted by @NoMorePage3. It is quite unambiguous that the people signing and leave comments feel exactly as I do!

Am I sure there would be a positive outcome: yes. Am I sure it wouldn't backfire: yes. Quite honestly I don't have a clue what you mean by 'backfire' but I've had some wine and don't give two hoots what you mean and am going to bed. Nighty night.

DadDancer Sat 22-Sep-12 00:51:50

princesschick

As i've said before in my first post i don't buy into the whole obectification argument one little bit. I see you have started using the word 'appreciate' now that's a bit more accurate term i feel.

Anyway to your questions:
Would you be happy for your daughter's picture to be put on walls across the UK for people to 'appreciate'? I think my Dad, DH and other male relatives would be mortified!!!

Actually you did say you didn't have a problem with people getting their kit off in other media forms, it's in the context of the paper that was your problem so how is