Guest Blog: Time to listen to young women - Page 3 is not 'innocuous'

(110 Posts)
KateMumsnet (MNHQ) Tue 30-Apr-13 11:11:51

In today's guest blog Stephanie Arai-Davies, who blogs over at Communicating With Kids, argues that The Sun's Page 3 primes girls to accept being sexually objectified.

What do you think? Is its influence innocuous in comparison to that of internet porn? Or are the two intrinsically linked, as Stephanie suggests? Let us have your thoughts on the thread - and if you blog on this issue don't forget to post your URL.

"Last week, the Girl Guides made an eloquently simple statement about why they support the No More Page 3 campaign. I think it's time we gave these young women our serious attention.

The objection I still hear from some parents is this: 'Why are you so bothered about Page 3? It's very innocent compared to online porn - why don't you campaign about that?'

But Page 3 is far from innocuous. Yes, our 'raunch culture' already contains endless images of sexualised women - but Page 3 is unique in its purpose of providing sexual titillation as an end in itself. The model's 'object-status' is reinforced by the juxtaposition with images of clothed men doing newsworthy things.

It's not 'female sexuality' which is being celebrated here, but a male fantasy version of a passive sexual commodity within a very narrow beauty 'ideal'.

Publicly available everyday images like Page 3 reinforce that fantasy - if you see this image every day you unconsciously internalise it. It's impossible not to do so without a conscious effort, because the resistance of the message takes up a lot more energy. That's why advertising works.

Girls are socialised in this way to understand two things about themselves: how they should look, and how they should behave sexually.

The main area of concern with the ubiquity of porn is that it will cause real harm to girls, who grow up believing that they must perform like, and resemble porn stars - and to boys, who believe that this is the normal way to treat women.

But for this 'internalisation' of porn-style sexuality to take hold, there needs to be some groundwork laid. For a girl to be influenced by porn, she needs already to have established herself as an object. Without that initial conditioning, porn would have far less effect on young women's sexual behaviour, and girls would be more able to view it objectively. Young men would also be more able to see it as 'fantasy' rather than reality.

Page 3 images lay that groundwork. Being in a national newspaper lends these images public presence and, more harmfully for young people, the perception of mainstream cultural approval. Our society, through Page 3, tells both girls and boys 'that's what women are'. Our culture confirms the message of pornography. Pornography simply extends the message of our culture further.

A girl looks to porn to find out what it means to be a sexual woman, and she finds that she must be forever sexually available and willing; she has no sexual needs of her own, but exists primarily to serve those of men. She looks back to her culture to check her perception, and finds that her society is in agreement with that message - reinforces it daily, in fact. Page 3 establishes the basic premise which today's, increasingly extreme, pornography carries to its logical conclusion: dehumanise, then abuse.

She doesn't have to actually see Page 3 every day for its message to be loud and clear. She knows that its presence is accepted, and she knows what happens to women who complain about it. She knows that society sees it as 'innocuous' - if she objects she must be over-sensitive, or a prude. She may legitimately shout about abusive porn, but Page 3 silences her: and it is this disempowerment which makes her more susceptible to the damaging influence of porn.

Of course we must think about the accessibility of online porn, and what we can do to help our teenagers deconstruct its messages. But if we are serious about protecting them, it's also time our society stopped providing the fertile soil necessary for its influence to grow. Our mainstream media needs to stop reflecting back to young people the basic values on which pornography is built.

The Girl Guides have just told us that Page 3 is not innocuous for them. We really should listen.

Stephanie Davies-Arai is a parenting consultant who specialises in communicating with children. She blogs over here.

chocoluvva Tue 30-Apr-13 12:01:04

What a sensible explanation of the effects of 'Page 3'.

Well done to the Girl Guides.

ChunkyChicken Tue 30-Apr-13 14:21:47

Great explanation, great statement from the Girl Guides and I agree, Page 3 is most definitely not innocuous, if the very generalised societal view that breasts are sexual and not for feeding an infant is anything to go by.

I really hate the fact that there are those "comments" from the girls on the news alongside too. That is sexist for so many reasons.

chocoluvva Tue 30-Apr-13 14:59:33

I like the way it doesn't accuse the men who look at page 3 of anything. Just explains why Page 3 is not 'harmless fun'.

clamping Tue 30-Apr-13 15:53:45

Is anyone asking what the page 3 models themselves think? Surely their opinions should be the ones that count.

HappySnail Tue 30-Apr-13 16:19:43

I have two pre-teen sons who I hope will follow their father's example of being very respectful towards women. We don't actually have newspapers in our house - they just become dust collectors - but I wouldn't want their natural adolescent curiosity to be 'turned' by blatant exploitation of women in photos like those on The Sun's page 3.

Banning it is even better than binning it!

emcwill74 Tue 30-Apr-13 17:42:49

Well the Sun certainly doesn't ask what the models think: it gets a sub-ed to write something backing up their editorial stance whilst patronising the model and taking the piss out of her by suggesting she is thick in the totally HILARIOUS News in Briefs. Oh no, sorry, it's not hilarious at all, it is vile.

But of course that doesn't mean the models are coerced, forced at gun point. Naturally they are choosing to do it, either for the money (though it doesn't pay well, certainly not enough to be a sole income without other work), or as a stepping stone to a broader modelling career, or because they crave the attention which they see as a positive thing. However, their choice is not made in a vacuum. It is made in a society that tells women that what we look like is more important than who they are/what they do. Whilst the models conspire with this culture for their own advantage in whatever form that takes (and I'm not saying this nastily), it reinforces the sexist culture where women exist largely for the visual entertainment of men. It makes all of our bodies public property, not just the models'. To use Caitlin Moran's test for sexism - ask yourself are the men doing this and is it polite? (Is the Sun full of images of naked men? No, the men are clothed participants in society, not naked, silent, things to look at; the quotes in speech bubbles from men are actually made by them.) If not, then the chances are you have just seen some sexism.

So to answer your question clamping, of course the models are not anti-page 3, but that doesn't invalidate the blogger's article.

Afrodizzywonders Tue 30-Apr-13 18:23:45

Everything emcwill74 says! Great post <<claps>>

debbietheduck Tue 30-Apr-13 19:03:06

Totally agree with this - especially the point about women's breasts being seen as purely sexual and therefore discouraging young women from breast feeding. Sounds highly likely and I'd be interested to know if anyone's researched it. Page 3 affects the whole of society not just people who choose to buy the paper.

What a great blog. As someone who is not interested in the world of sexuality, I find this sort of thing alarming. I know it's part of the fact that the world in general is hyper-sexualized (another point entirely!) but I've always found the idea of page 3 to be slightly creepy. Why would you want to look at a random woman's breasts?

Totally agree with debbietheduck, I heavily suspect that breastfeeding is more scarce among young women because they want to keep their breasts "intact" for their boyfriends sad That's not what they're for! Makes me super-angry.

BedHog Tue 30-Apr-13 20:14:40

I have a vague recollection of 'page 7 men' in newspapers decades ago - topless, oiled up men for the 'viewing pleasure' of female readers. Does anyone else remember them? Were they a regular feature?

emcwill74 Tue 30-Apr-13 20:26:08

They were dropped due to lack of interest. I can't say I'm surprised. When people say to me 'but what about Heat's torso of the week?! Are you prepared to see that go too then?!' in a triumphant I-am-the-first-person-to-think-of-this-great-rejoinder way I just think, yeah, totally. I don't buy Heat and if I did I wouldn't care if that went one bit. The thing is, no matter how much people try to make out that it is, seeing a bare-chested man in the media is not the same as a topless woman, it is a false equivalence. Men's chests do not contain secondary genitalia that we are expected to cover up for one thing, and men are not depicted across society as a whole (specifically reinforced by page 3) as merely things for women to look at. As I said, in the Sun the men do stuff (government, sport, crime, whatever), the women look sexy for them.

gritts1 Tue 30-Apr-13 20:33:30

Great writing.

We have been here before in 2010 and the Mumsnet Lads Mag campaign. www.mumsnet.com/campaigns/lads-mags
I'm still confused about what the difference is/was between the covers and content of mags like Loaded / Nuts and certain front pages and content of NEWSpapers like the Sun/Star/Sport?

Other than this page 3 70's 'throw back' newspaper content is 'normalised' so was not considered.

So kindly ask Mohan, Murdoch, etc to get rid of page 3, or if not do what itunes does and get them out of reach/sight of the kids.

You have to be 17+ to download the basic Sun newspaper app on to your phone. It has the same content as the newspaper.

Lets have a revisit of the Lads Mags (and now newspaper) campaign.

gritts1 Tue 30-Apr-13 20:34:32

Great post emcwill74

emcwill74 Tue 30-Apr-13 20:49:58

It's an important point gritts1 - the weird disparity between the regulation for different media. The Sun can be bought during the day and left open anywhere, yet page 3 cannot be shown uncensored on daytime TV. When Turn Your Back on Page 3 submitted evidence to the Leveson enquiry it had to be censored before the adult panel, yet it was entirely cut out of tabloids that can be sold to children. The material cannot be pinned to a wall in a work place as it would breach sexual harassment laws, yet...and on and on it goes...

DyeInTheEar Tue 30-Apr-13 21:02:37

Yes emcwill74

I really want to see this campaign succeed. A great guest blog - thank you.

As far as I'm concerned it's as offensive as seeing white men "black up" in the name of comedy. It belongs to a past era and we owe it to our DCs to stop this casual, pernicious sexism.

I agree about the covers of lads mags and the sport as well.

handsfullnow Tue 30-Apr-13 21:05:44

Brilliant piece, thanks for publishing. I really feel Mumsnet should get behind the No More Page 3 campaign and am surprised not to see MN publicly supporting it already.

It's terrible that our generation grew up with this kind of sexism being normalised and soft porn mainstreamed into newspapers but lets not put our kids through it as well. The damage to girls' self esteem and men's view of women is so well-documented now, there is no excuse for not getting rid. It's not 1970.

I don't want my sons growing up thinking it's normal to objectify women and I don't want my daughter to be made to feel insecure about her looks or think breasts are public property for men to ogle and grab - or that they are just for sex and not for breastfeeding (yuck).

I sat next to enough men reading Page 3 on buses etc as a teenager to know I don't want young girls to be made to feel like that.

Come on MN, do the right thing and ask Mohan and Murdoch to knock it off now, enough's enough.

DyeInTheEar Tue 30-Apr-13 21:07:48

Yes handsfullnow

it needs loads more support and signatures. Please can everyone sign?

Link

emcwill74 Tue 30-Apr-13 21:15:52

I have to say, I have been baffled as to why MN are not publicly supporting the petition since its inception last summer!

zoewriter Tue 30-Apr-13 21:22:08

This is something we really need to get on the case of. For far too long we've just accepted this, but at the end of the day newspapers make money and if they look like that'll be compromised, they'll change. Come on Mumsnet - let's change the world (again)!

DyeInTheEar Tue 30-Apr-13 21:25:57

It's so overdue. But am heartened the younger generation seem more determined. Well done Girl Guides and Scouts.

LCD100 Tue 30-Apr-13 21:29:08

Love the blog post. I completely back the No More Page 3 campaign. I would be so sad if my two sons saw Page 3 and thought it was OK that the biggest photograph of a woman in a newspaper was of a topless teenager. Boobs are not news :-(

clamping Tue 30-Apr-13 21:30:24

Does anyone even buy paper newspapers anymore? I thought most people by now read the news on their PC or their ipad.

I suppose it's only a matter of time until newspapers are history, all of them. Page 3 will be gone then.

Great blog and some great points made above. Come on MNHQ, do the right and obvious thing and come out in support! There really is no defence for this crap.

clamping Tue 30-Apr-13 21:37:06

"Is the Sun full of images of naked men? No, the men are clothed participants in society, not naked, silent"

Pics of boxers on the back pages have their boobs out. Shall we campaign to censor their nipples with black bars for equality?

clamping Tue 30-Apr-13 21:37:49

And anyone against it could always buy a different newspaper.

I'm surprised noone has ever thought of that before.

DyeInTheEar Tue 30-Apr-13 21:44:12

hmm

emcwill74 Tue 30-Apr-13 21:45:08

clamping I've already answered your point about topless men above, but it's about context. The 'topless' boxers (do you really, honestly, think a topless man boxing is the same as a woman on page 3?) are active participants in sport. It is not their nipples that are problematic. They are not standing there, passive, silent purely to be decorative for the arousal of the other half of the population. IN A NEWSPAPER!!

As to the 'don't like it don't buy it argument', oh for goodness sake! Of course you're not the first to say this! But it is a non-argument (page 3 affects society as a whole in how it presents our sex, whether we choose to buy the Sun or not), and covered in the blog post to which this thread refers!

Childeyes Tue 30-Apr-13 21:52:19

The issue is not about censorship, it is about ending the packaged female to be bought and sexually exploited and thrown away. This is what page 3 encourages. We campaign to protect children from sexual images in public. We find that sex sells media is drip fed into every youngster in the UK. It is accepted and has become a norm. We need to change this culture and begin to appreciate women. Page 3 encourages all types of sexual exploitation by its mere existence. If Page 3 was no more, would it really be missed. maybe for a few days by a few men but in a few years people would be saying, 'remember when topless women were ogled daily, fresh meat in the nation's favourite newspaper, can't believe it ever existed'. Get rid and then lets start working on the barrage of other sexually explicit images our children are forced to see.

clamping Tue 30-Apr-13 21:54:57

Are the page 3 models trafficked victims? I doubt it. There is no shortage of willing women wanting to be page 3 models (as evidenced by the 100s adn 100s of women that enter the sun's online "page 3 idol" contest each year).

Are the page 3 models underage? Nope. All 18 or over.

I've also heard arguments about wanting to move the sun out of sight to the top shelf, but it's not like page 3 is on the front cover is it?

clamping Tue 30-Apr-13 21:56:53

"We campaign to protect children from sexual images in public."

Do you have any idea what children of today get up to on the internet? Maybe it's best you didn't know. You might die of shock.

emcwill74 Tue 30-Apr-13 21:59:51

clamping I've already said that the models do it willingly. But that doesn't make it OK, and I have already explained why. As to it not being on the front page, right, and that makes a difference when the Sun is read in public on buses, trains, cafés, park benches etc etc etc, right? All places people go who don't want to see page 3, or to have their children do so.

emcwill74 Tue 30-Apr-13 22:00:59

clamping, can I just ask, and I do so politely, have you actually read the blog post at the top of this page? I get the impression from your posts you haven't?

clamping Tue 30-Apr-13 22:01:55

If an adult chooses to do something, is it ok for someone else to take their job away from them because they find it immoral?

BOF Tue 30-Apr-13 22:03:28

What has trafficking got to do with anything? I don't think you have read (or understood?) the points made above about the models' participation.

What do you think Page 3 contributes positively to our culture, clamping?

Clamping, you seem to think you are the first person to come up with all these counter arguments.
You aren't.

A brilliant blog post btw!

clamping Tue 30-Apr-13 22:07:16

"What do you think Page 3 contributes positively to our culture, clamping?"

I don't think anything The Sun prints contributes anything to society. But I'm not campaigning to ban the sun, I just don't buy it.

emcwill74 Tue 30-Apr-13 22:08:07

I don't want page 3 to stop because I find it 'immoral' - that is if by immoral you mean because I'm a prude who faints at nipples and think women should wear burqas. I have already outlined why I think it should end so won't repeat myself. But as to the take jobs away - as I have said, Page 3 alone will not earn a model enough to pay the rent on. So if she lost that contract she would have other work anyway.

If an adult chooses to do something that negatively affects society as a whole (and specifically, but not only, women), then yes, I have a right to a political point of view that it would be better if we sanctioned against that. The slave trade earned people money but we decided as a society to take that potential for income away because slavery was wrong. No I am not equating page 3 with slavery, just making point that making the world equal and better sometimes disadvantages a few.

clamping Tue 30-Apr-13 22:10:28

Best way to get rid of something is to campaign with your wallets and purses. If noone bought the sun it would disappear and take page 3 with it and no banning would be needed.

But millions of men and women still buy the sun and that's why it still exists.

AshtonL Tue 30-Apr-13 22:11:16

I think this is a wonderful blog. I have two young daughters and I worry a lot about the sexualisation of young women in our culture. I think page 3 is an iconic example of how engrained sexism is in society and it is time that it went.

reader12 Tue 30-Apr-13 22:12:04

Brilliant blog. Page 3 is horrible - porn very cleverly and successfully rebranded as simple family-friendly innocent fun. Its ubiquity makes young women worry about their developing bodies, enables and excuses sexual harassment and makes successful breast feeding really difficult. I am so looking forward to the day when it's all over.

LauraRedhead Tue 30-Apr-13 22:13:00

I really think Mumsnet should support NoMorePage3 because Page 3 shows women as nothing but boobs for the sexual enjoyment of men. It even mocks their intelligence. It really is gratuitous pornography in a newspaper which should be about news. Women should not be stripped and humiliated in a newspaper, even if they are willing to do so for money, it sends out all the wrong messages in the most popular newspaper in the country.

clamping Tue 30-Apr-13 22:15:48

I'd love to see some credible proof that page 3 is directly linked to sexual harrassment.

IMO it's like saying violent video games cause violence in real life.

emcwill74 Tue 30-Apr-13 22:16:49

The petition doesn't ask for a ban, it asks Mohan to voluntarily withdraw it.

And I'm afraid that there are no stats that I know of that correlate buying the Sun with liking Page 3. Yes, some people will buy it for page 3, some will buy it for its sport/politics/easy reading style and not care one way or the other about page 3, some of those will be a bit embarrassed about p3 and probably prefer it not to be there, and will some hate p3 but ignore it because they prefer that paper to others. Some people might buy the Sun who don't now if p3 were not there. The Sun exists because people buy it, but you cannot infer that people buy the Sun because of page 3. After all, people buy it at the weekends when the girls wear bikinis (though I wouldn't be happy if they simply bikini'd up the week-day girls TBH, it's not about nipples, it's about what it says about women in this country).

BOF Tue 30-Apr-13 22:16:49

Its circulation has never recovered in Liverpool, but obviously it is still popular. It can survive a pretty hefty boycott.

To change things, sometimes you have to take positive action.

The miners dropped page 3 in their union paper when their wives stood up and fought alongside them in the strike. Because that view of women was no longer compatible with seeing them as actual human beings worthy of respect. Sometimes people need educating. This is a debate we should be having.

clamping Tue 30-Apr-13 22:19:58

"It can survive a pretty hefty boycott."

No wonder it's doing so well with all the free advertising they are getting!

clamping Tue 30-Apr-13 22:20:52

Nothing like a little controversy to get attention and increase sales. I'm sure anyone in marketing can tell you that.

BOF Tue 30-Apr-13 22:21:44

That's a pretty facile argument. I hardly think that people promoting this campaign are rushing to buy The Sun.

LauraRedhead Tue 30-Apr-13 22:30:40

There is no defence for Page 3 - it is unashamedly sexist and nothing else but gratuitous pornography which is totally inappropriate in a paper which is supposed to be about the news.

Creeping Tue 30-Apr-13 22:33:47

Excellent blog! And yes, I think it would be great if Mumsnet could get behind the campaign! Remember what the I believe you campaign did, it was fantastic and educated us all. This for me, fits perfectly with Mumsnet. Making a difference to mums and children (and anybody else who is on our side).

I particularly liked the way she explains how mainstream soft porn is complicit in the damaging effects of hard porn. Dripfeeding to girls and women that it is normal and fine to see themselves as an object, which paves the way for all sorts of exploitation of women as objects.

It also makes very clear to me why the idea Page 3 is okay because it is a free choice on the part of the model, is faulty. The glamour models are not the only party that we need to consider. Soft porn appearing in mainstream culture affects us all, and not in a good way!

Hypnobirthingmum Tue 30-Apr-13 22:50:46

As the mother of a 5 year old boy, I totally support this campaign. Boys get their ideas of how women are "supposed" to behave and look from the media too. And if Page 3 continues he'll be totally unprepared for the reality!

clamping Tue 30-Apr-13 23:32:41

"And if Page 3 continues he'll be totally unprepared for the reality!"

Page 3 was around when I grew up. However I managed to survive and prepare for reality I will never know!

clamping Tue 30-Apr-13 23:33:30

I managed to grow up without being traumatised by the dreadful page 3. I'm sure your son will be fine.

BOF Tue 30-Apr-13 23:51:25

Really? You seem to have internalised a few strange ideas.

clamping Wed 01-May-13 02:26:09

"stange ideas"?

What? Like thinking adults should be able to make choices for themselves, and that we shouldn't ban things just because we don't like them?

clamping Wed 01-May-13 02:28:51

It is interesting how things like page 3 exist in the countries where women have the most rights.

Afghanistan won't allow anything like page 3 but look at how they treat women. Victorian-era UK wouldn't have allowed page 3 but they weren't too hot on women's rights either.

Dervel Wed 01-May-13 04:53:47

Well I'm swayed, having read the article and people's responses here I think at this stage we need it gone. I was all ready with an argument prepared as to how nudity is not necessarily a bad thing, and an appreciation of the female form is not an inherent evil, but I am afraid not even I can muster an argument that page 3 accomplishes anything other than a base reduction of half the population down to mere sexual objects.

It is a shame, as I am usually pretty liberal, but I cannot help but be disheartened with how human sexuality as a whole seems to always get dragged down to the lowest common denominator. It should be something that liberates us, and we enjoy together. The sheer fact we are sat here discussing how we should (rightly) protect our children from picking up our bad habits tells me something has gone horribly wrong somewhere.

Page 3 may be a symptom, but the question that remains is: how can we fix the cause?

SullenCrescent Wed 01-May-13 06:43:17

Great blog. MNHQ should definitely get behind NMP3.

caroline8899 Wed 01-May-13 07:20:04

It's time to go. It has made me feel uncomfortable and insecure about my body growing up. It's not possible to simply turn the page as David Cameron says. It is left everywhere and read everywhere so it is very likely you will come across it. In this society where girls are suffering from poor body images, we should be trying to help these girls not reinforcing that their looks is the most important thing about them. Getting rid if page 3 is a good starting point.

MsPitstop74 Wed 01-May-13 07:30:49

The example above about Boxers is not relevant. A man's naked chest has totally different connotations for a young white woman's bare breasts. The latter is used for titillation. The point the blogger is making is the relevance of context and the normalisation of women's bodies as a site of sexualisation. A topless MALE boxer is entirely normal - but when was the last time you saw a topless female boxer? Can't say i've ever seen one. Nicola Adams (the female Olympic champion) wears a vest - always. So, it's not the same. The other point is that the male boxers are seen in a context of a specific sport - their bodies are not being sexualised for the arousal of one section of society. The sad thing is - there are plenty of young female icons who could be used to inspire - but they're not. Lucy, who set up NMP3 did so (in part), because during the Olympics despite the amazing success of female athlete's the dominant images of women in the Sun remained as glamour models with their tits out. That is the point. I think this campaign is great. It's not radical -it's not calling for a ban, it's just saying if you want porn - get it somewhere other than a family newspaper. Mumsnet should definitely get behind it!!!!

MsPitstop74 Wed 01-May-13 07:32:34

The example above about Boxers is not relevant. A man's naked chest has totally different connotations compared to a young white woman's bare breasts. The latter is used for titillation. The point the blogger is making is the relevance of context and the normalisation of women's bodies as a site of sexualisation. A topless MALE boxer is entirely normal - but when was the last time you saw a topless female boxer? Can't say i've ever seen one. Nicola Adams (the female Olympic champion) wears a vest - always. So, it's not the same. The other point is that the male boxers are seen in a context of a specific sport - their bodies are not being sexualised for the arousal of one section of society. The sad thing is - there are plenty of young female icons who could be used to inspire - but they're not. Lucy, who set up NMP3 did so (in part), because during the Olympics despite the amazing success of female athlete's the dominant images of women in the Sun remained as glamour models with their tits out. That is the point. I think this campaign is great. It's not radical -it's not calling for a ban, it's just saying if you want porn - get it somewhere other than a family newspaper. Mumsnet should definitely get behind it!!!!

MsPitstop74 Wed 01-May-13 07:53:26

The whole point of the blog CLAMPING is that you can't escape the message it sends - even if you don't buy the paper. That's the essence of the argument - P3 normalises the sexualisation of women in the context of news and sport. For example you seem to think a male boxer can be judged the same as a topless glamour model. No. The comparison would be does Nicola Adams (female boxing champion) do so topless. No.

Dervel Wed 01-May-13 08:15:54

Maybe the visual representations the media agenda should be pushing for both genders should be one of athleticism rather than sexualisation. We are facing an obesity crisis in this country after all, and perhaps we could kill two birds with one stone. Also it doesn't hurt to celebrate human excellence when it includes more than just looks.

matthewturnbull Wed 01-May-13 09:15:09

Page 3 is sexist and anachronistic. It is high time it went.

persephone22 Wed 01-May-13 09:32:22

Page 3 HAS to go! The messages it send to children are really negative and even though it's one small step, maybe then we would see the changing cultural attitudes that would mean an end to rape culture, lads mags and the rest. Dropping page 3 would be the first move towards a really important cultural shift in the direction of a kinder more respectful society. Who wouldn't agree? I think most reasonable people would say this.

emcwill74 Wed 01-May-13 09:38:36

It is interesting how things like page 3 exist in the countries where women have the most rights.

Is it clamping? I am wondering if you are zaraa who seems to have been banned (or at least had a lot of comments deleted by MN and then resurfaced as zaraa1 so I am assuming was banned), as that poster used very similar wording to this post about the far east not being too hot on women's rights in another Page 3 thread.

Forgive me for repeating what I have said in other threads on MN on this topic, but the whole comparison with Afghanistan is a complete red herring. The logical extension of not having Page 3 is not women with no rights clad in burqas. In fact, that is simply a manifestation of exactly the same issue: at one end of the spectrum a woman's body naked in the mainstream tabloid press (disconnected from any news) simply because it arouses men; at the other the same body covered up because it is sinful for arousing men. What about men's bodies? Why can they just 'be' without a doctrine of either get it out or cover it up, prescribed entirely by the other half of the population? Why am I not free to live in a society that doesn't judge me largely on my physical appearance when the same does not apply to men?

Again, I have said this before, but when I have argued against page 3 on the internet, be it twitter, facebook, Huff Post article comments, wherever, I have had complete strangers tell me I am jealous, insecure, ugly, my body is clearly not good enough for page 3. Why is it acceptable to shout women's political views down using insults that go straight to her physical appearance? How often do you read comments about men's political views along the lines of 'yeah Cameron would say that because he's fat and ugly and hates sex'? Of course there is a connection to this culture and the way the media, but particularly page 3, depicts women as decorative items whose sole concern is their appearance and what men think of it.

Creeping Wed 01-May-13 09:51:12

Don't be sorry for repeating it emcwill74, it is worth saying it again and again for those who are a bit slow on the uptake, or think they have come up with a new argument for page 3. All the arguments in favour of Page 3 that I've seen have been very clearly and logically and intelligently answered, so that now I don't see any valid argument in favour anymore.

An attitude change is what we need, and that takes a lot of repeating. I'm glad there are lots of us who don't mind doing it!

persephone22 Wed 01-May-13 10:00:43

emcwill74 and creeping I totally agree! This needs to be shouted from the rooftops because attitudes in society need to change. There is no valid argument for the existence of the demeaning page 3.
Mumsnet - please back this campaign! As a mum, I can't think of anything worse than trying to breastfeed next to a man ogling a page 3 image in a public space. Or being leered at from building sites because you look like todays 'stunna'.
Horrible, demeaning and tacky. Show you really support mums Mumsnet and back No More Page 3!

Childeyes Wed 01-May-13 10:37:20

Mumsnet, will you please put your power behind No More Page 3 and the Child Eyes campaign. We need to work together to change sex sells culture and to protect children. Your lad mags campaign was great but it has not had a lasting effect, we need you to jump back on board to help parents. Parents cannot even leave the house now without children seeing sexual media. Help us.

funfun Wed 01-May-13 11:03:02

Very well written. I walk into my local news agents and look at the other people in there and think 'who's it for?!?'. All those half naked girls on the front of the 'newspapers' at eye level to toddlers. Even though they have their bottoms in the air or crotch shots it's deemed ok because you can't see any nipple! I'm so sick of it.
And I think it impacts breast feeding in this country too. Breasts are considered to be for the men not the babies.
Women are there to be judged on their looks. And this goes for all those awful women's mags on who's gained weight and who's lost weight too.

HumphreyCobbler Wed 01-May-13 12:18:04

I have personal experience that page 3 contributes to sexual harassment Clamping. When I was younger I was told on at least five or six occasions by random blokes in the street that I would make a great page 3 model hmm, whilst they eyed me up suggestively and revoltingly. It was NOT what I wanted or needed to hear as a teenage girl. It silenced and humiliated me.

If you read the excellent "Dear Clare" book consisting of letters to Clare Short detailing women's responses to the existence of page 3 in our society you will read many more incidents like those I have related. And sadly many much more serious.

YoniMatopoeia Wed 01-May-13 12:19:05

Brilliant blog post.

Dervel Wed 01-May-13 14:54:35

A sad anecdote from many years ago, I had occasion to visit my then partner's sister in hospital. She had just given birth to her first child, and the nurses helped establish breastfeeding, Mum and baby were thriving and happy. After I left apparently the father turned up and pitched a fit that the Nurses had "assumed" breastfeeding would be chosen, told the poor girl that her breasts were for his gratification primarily, and they had no right.

Personally it's lucky for me I wasn't there at the time or I'd be typing this at Her Majesty's pleasure...

CharlieB73 Wed 01-May-13 18:25:23

I really support this campaign. Growing up in the late 70's and 80's I remember as a young girl being very embarrassed and uncomfortable when around men who were reading this and opening page 3 in my presence (also to be fair often whizzing past it because they were embarrassed too). It has no place in a 'newspaper' and just serves to encourage this type of objectifying behaviour. I hope my daughter grows up in a world where she is valued for who she is and that some worthy role models emerge and are made accessible for her in the media. Here's hoping. As some others have already mentioned I am surprised Mumsnet isn't already supporting this. Let's help give our sons and daughters a healthier view of the opposite sex and keep highly sexualised imagery away from the easy access of young children.

Asagrandmother Wed 01-May-13 18:30:37

I am so glad to have read this blog. As a grandmother I have become increasingly worried for my four grandchildren, 2 girls and 2 boys and the use of porn by children as young as 10. The normalisation of porn and its hijacking of sexuality needs to be halted. This anachronistic patriarchal model has no place in a modern society. Please support the request for Page 3 to be removed.

mcgruder Wed 01-May-13 19:07:00

Completely behind this campaign

YTK1 Wed 01-May-13 19:55:45

Thanks No More Page 3 and Stephanie to introducing me to Mumsnet and some great blogging.

Oh, isn't Page 3 so last century. Hope Mumsnet are supporting ;-)

ellispaghetti Wed 01-May-13 21:18:05

Time's up on Page Three. Enough now. And time for Mumsnet to be part of the triumphant moment. Can't wait. The end is nigh!

mumblemum Wed 01-May-13 22:39:19

Commenting on mumsnet for the first time in ages, I think this is really important and we should get behind this campaign.

My daughter first noticed the bare boobs on a packed train when she was three and asked me why the lady had no top on and where was the baby she was presumably about to feed. I explained that some grownup men like to look at pictures of large breasts, and added in a loud voice, "which is funny, really, cos they're for feeding babies". The page was turned, but now that my daughter is nearly six, the sleazy side of it is becoming more obvious to her, and I can see more questions coming up, but this time directed at herself: when will I have those? Will men stare at them? How will I cover them up?

It's pretty appalling really that in 2013 it still sounds contentious to argue women shouldn't be defined by their bodies.

And on the male boxers point, they're there because they're boxers, not because they're topless. I can only dream of a day when women can engage in sport topless without taboo, but removing page 3 and instead having pictures of clothed women DOING anything noteworthy is the first rung in the ladder to that level of cultural change.

libertarianj Thu 02-May-13 06:26:47

at least the women on page 3 look healthy, have curvy figures and don't have silicone enhancements or plastic surgery. Like Lucy Collett for example: (link contains nudity obviously!)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4634793/page-3-idol-enter-competition-lucy-collett-lacey-banghard-keeley-hazell.html

I'd be more concerned with the images in the fashion pages of the Guardian which feature anorexic looking catwalk models and then there's the Daily Mail side bar of shame, which features copious amounts of celeb nudity. I mean just look at these, which are featured today for example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2318050/Long-hair-dont-care-Now-Amanda-Bynes-tweets-TOPLESS-pictures-wearing-just-torn-stockings.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2317807/Miley-Cyrus-strips-cups-bare-breast-flashes-eye-popping-new-images.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2318028/Helen-Flanagan-shows-best-assets-lingerie-shoot-Britains-sexiest-woman.html

So why just single out the Sun?
I believe there could be an element of middle class snobbery to this campaign. hmm

ChunkyChicken Thu 02-May-13 08:13:16

At least catwalk models, whilst poor role models for a healthy body (at times - some people are naturally very thin although I'm not one of them, just slim ) , are both male and female. There is am equivalency there, & the male models are often just as skinny/underweight looking as the females.

Creeping Thu 02-May-13 09:48:42

libertarianj
Why would another example of objectification of women make the NMP3 not worth fighting for? This is obviously something that won't change overnight, and we have to start somewhere. To start with the most iconic instance of objectification and sexualisation of women is probably a good strategy. It may not be the worst (although that is arguable, because of its status) but its removal would be a huge signal that attitudes are and should change. The side bar of shame may well be the next in line (and I expect your support there!)

Creeping Thu 02-May-13 09:49:22

*are changing and should change

emcwill74 Thu 02-May-13 10:03:55

Oh goodness, stop with the 'healthy' page 3 'girls' thing! You'll be telling us it's all OK because they represent youth and freshness next! <barf> You know what, I loathe the Mail, I loathe it's sidebar of shame and I'd be willing to sign as many petitions as you can chuck at me to tell them to stop hating women quite so much as they clearly do. And yes, catwalk models shouldn't have to be skinny. But to change the culture so that it isn't totally normal to present women like that in the DM you have to start somewhere and Page 3 is one of the most iconographic images of embedded sexism in our society. Get rid of that and from small acorns... Obviously it would be nice to say at this juncture, brilliant! We both of agree! But of course that would be naive. Because your final comment shows you don't agree at all. You are waving the 'middle class' card to beat us silly, wheat-germ eating, hysterical, shrill, educated wimmin with. Trying to turn this into a class war that isn't and invalidate the campaign on that basis. Well, you know what? It isn't middle-class snobbery because a diverse range of people have signed the petition. When it was discussed on Loose Women last year over 80% of those who rang in to vote did so for Page 3 to go, and that programme has a firmly C2DE audience if you want to put it in such terms. Of course you aren't the first to try to silence the campaign by waving the middle-class card, but it has already been shown to be a silly argument:

vagendamag.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/no-more-page-3-and-class-war.html

Going back to your 'curvy' women assertion, don't tell me the Sun represent a diverse range of the female form anyway! How many plus-size women do they have? How many A-cup women? How many women over 40? How many women of colour? (Yes, a token few, and hence fetishised.) Sorry but using non-anorexic models hardly makes the underlying sexism acceptable.

emcwill74 Thu 02-May-13 10:54:03

By the way creeping, I wouldn't expect any support regarding the Mail from libertarianj. He's well known to MN in another guise. As a Dad, who likes dancing. But only when the dancers are naked ladies. He's been banned for trolling and resurfaced.

He posted this last night on the lapdancing blog he was forever linking to regarding another MN blog thread on lap dancing:

John RidgelyMay 1, 2013 at 10:49 PM
yeah at least the mumsnetters have remained civilized this time around. Although they haven't had any blokes on their admitting they go to strip clubs. That's when they really lose the plot and the man hating and insults ensue!(hehe)

I notice there's another guest blog on there regarding that 'no more page 3 campaign' if you fancy a laugh?:
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/bloggers/1744704-Guest-Blog-Time-to-listen-to-young-women-Page-3-is-not-innocuous?pg=1

chocoluvva Thu 02-May-13 11:00:57

The petition is not asking for a ban - it's asking for the owners of The Sun to stop doing the Page 3 'girl'.

libertarianj Thu 02-May-13 12:58:44

emcwill74. Sorry but i ain't this John Ridgely geezer or dancing dad.

The petition is not asking for a ban - it's asking for the owners of The Sun to stop doing the Page 3 'girl'.

so may i ask when they plan on kindly asking the editor of the sun to remove page 3? As this petition has been going on for ages.

I also still believe that this campaign would gain more credibility if it was consistent across the board, including all media not just the Sun. Also if they did remove it from the physical paper, I'd imagine it would still be on-line as a stand alone site and people would still be viewing it on smart phones, tablets etc?

I'd be interested to know if anyone with adult content filtering on their internet can confirm if that sun link i posted above containing topless nudity is still viewable? This is regarding the issue of persons who are concerned about their children viewing it?

emcwill74 Thu 02-May-13 13:17:55

Really. So just a huge coincidence that someone who shares your moniker of 'libertarianj' also posts on This is Cornwall, This is Bristol, and the Conventry Telegraph all about lap dancing clubs, saying very similar things to that which John Ridgely posts all over the internet on lap dancing clubs, and who has admitted was Daddancer (a libertarian) here on MN. The same John Ridgely who seems to have a bit of a MN obsession and posted about this thread on a lap dancing blog last night? Right.

If you want people to read your links may I politely suggest you learn how to link properly? this is why they don't work. It explains how to under 'Links' below.

libertarianj Thu 02-May-13 13:32:11

well he ain't me. Sorry I'll try again with those links:

at least the women on page 3 look healthy, have curvy figures and don't have silicone enhancements or plastic surgery. Like Lucy Collett for example: (link contains nudity obviously!)

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4634793/page-3-idol-enter-competition-lucy-collett-lacey-banghard-keeley-hazell.html

I'd be more concerned with the images in the fashion pages of the Guardian which feature anorexic looking catwalk models and then there's the Daily Mail side bar of shame, which features copious amounts of celeb nudity. I mean just look at these, which are featured today for example:

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2318050/Long-hair-dont-care-Now-Amanda-Bynes-tweets-TOPLESS-pictures-wearing-just-torn-stockings.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2317807/Miley-Cyrus-strips-cups-bare-breast-flashes-eye-popping-new-images.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2318028/Helen-Flanagan-shows-best-assets-lingerie-shoot-Britains-sexiest-woman.html

chocoluvva Thu 02-May-13 14:14:35

The existence of on-line "stand-alone" sites is all the more reason to take the Page 3 girls out of the paper. Some people are offended and/or feel that page 3 is harmful. The readers who would miss it have access to plenty of similar material so take it out. It's not asking for much.

libertarianj Thu 02-May-13 17:58:04

Chocoluvva

Ok that is a fair point. So what you are asking for is the reduction of involuntary exposure to page 3, by removing it from the printed media format? I guess that viewing it on a hand held device is more discrete than having it on a big full page spread and less 'in yer face', such as in situations where people read it on public transport. With filtering and putting blocks on certain sites, parents will also have greater control on their kids seeing it too (although some techsavvy kids will probably get around it!)

However there would have to be a general consensus by the population that topless nudity is not acceptable for non-age restricted printed media and would have to be consistent across the board. (Maybe something similar to the facebook nudity rules?)

I personally would prefer to keep the status quo but if society as a whole want more controls/restrictions or if it is voluntarily removed by the Sun’s editor then I would accept that.

Creeping Thu 02-May-13 23:20:08

There is this general consensus when it comes to television. I can't remember a debate about the watershed, with people arguing that the watershed restricted their choice to watch what they want. or freedom of the press/speech, or that people who don't like it just need to switch the channel.

It really is not dangerous/restricting to say as a society that the objectification and sexualisation of women should not be in mainstream culture where children will consume it and internalise the messages as supporters of Page 3 make it out to be. Those who have a need to see bare breasts still have plenty of options, but it would protect children growing up receiving harmful sexist messages about what women are supposed to be.

libertarianj Fri 03-May-13 01:57:52

There is this general consensus when it comes to television. I can't remember a debate about the watershed, with people arguing that the watershed restricted their choice to watch what they want. or freedom of the press/speech, or that people who don't like it just need to switch the channel.

Ok but if say a group of activists were to come along with a campaign 'No more 9pm watershed' and they created a petition with 99k signatures to kindly ask the TV regulators to drop the watershed. Would you expect it to be passed through without some kind of debate/ consultation with the general public?

Also topless nudity is allowed before the watershed, like the Kate Winslet scene in Titanic for example which i would put on par with Page 3. If you take a look at those photos on the link i posted of Lucy Collett for example i really struggle to see how they could be described as sexual? and i certainly wouldn't call them 'harmful' to children. However that is my opinion and as i said before if society were to come to a general consensus that they were unacceptable then i would have to accept that.

chocoluvva Fri 03-May-13 09:35:34

No more page 3 girls is such a small thing to ask for.

emcwill74 Fri 03-May-13 10:16:06

Was there any debate/consultation with the public when a tabloid editor decided it was time to depict women as decorative objects to look at, surrounded by pages of clothed men doing stuff? Or when they decided, that's not enough, let's make up some words she didn't say, put them in a caption box next to her and pretend she did, in which we take the piss out of her for being thick?

If the pictures are not sexual, then why do very similar on the Daily Star page 3 web page elicit comments like this (The Sun disabled the ability to leave comments, the Star has since followed suit, wonder why) [taken from www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lisa-clarke/page-three-mostly-harmless-i-beg-to-differ_b_3034030.html?]:

"I'd love to spray my load over those juicy titties"

"Come on Jodie you little Teaser....we wanna see you whippin' your tits out for the Lads this week!!! We demand it you piece of Fodder! GET YOUR TITS OUT NOW!!!"

"Just wanked over this picture"

"Good set of tits on this dollop of fodder"

"Stacey is bleedin gorgeous!!!! So why has she only been given one chance to get her cracking tits out for the lads!!!????She loves unleashing that juicy rack when we demand it!!!!AND WE DEMAND IT NOW!!!! GET YER TITS OUT STACEY!!!!! XXXX"

"Now you are a babe. I bet you have a gorgeous pu**y if it's anything like your lovely tits which I would very much like to nuzzle into. I'd love to look down on you lovely lips wrapped around my **. If your dirty, I'll give you anything you want, who wouldn't?!!!"

"Look at the wobbly knockers on that!! and todays slut is....emma frain with her pear shaped dark textured nipples out.

I love you, For you there is nothing I would not do. Your smile is so pretty, Not to mention your titties. They're gorgeous and cute, They make me wanna shove my up your chute, Because your practically perfect, Emma I love you now can we have some sex!"

"a wonderful beauty with a very shapely body just the right size tits to enjoy sucking on and have fun with would enjoy getting u as a present"

Here are some comments by those who didn't like that day's 'girl', they are lovely, really show how aspirational and glamourous the job is:

"Not impressed by this piece of Essex Fodder...crap tits...fake sun tan and that jet black dyed hair. Nothing attractive about Geena facially either."

"These tits just aren't good enough....it's embarrassing."

"Yes you have nice boobs but your face is not the best"

"This Girl has no tits! Why for sake is she on Page 3!!"

"And what a saggy pair of tits this Welsh wannabe has...you could park a bus between that cleavage."

libertarianj Fri 03-May-13 12:49:52

Some childish comments which unfortunately we get everywhere on the net (like youtube for example) are hardly conclusive proof that page 3 is sexual or sexist.

There is no knowing who wrote them or their gender/ sexuality. They could could have even been written by the anti page 3 lobby for all we know.

emcwill74 Fri 03-May-13 13:31:54

Oh yes, of course they were written by the ant-page 3 lobby! That MUST be it! Are the comments I've had directed at me when I've posted about page 3 on the internet telling me I'm a prude minger whose body [that they haven't seen] was turned down for page 3 and how they have a right to melons, written by those pesky anti-page-3ers too? Of course they show page 3 is sexual/sexist! I don't see what youtube has to do with it. So there are objectified women on YT too. What of it? Of course there are. This is how women are treated. This is why you don't think there's anything wrong with it, because it's the norm.

What is page 3 for exactly? (Assuming you don't think it's for men, as I am certain they are, like those above to judge as to whether they want to shag the models or not and get a semi.) Your comparison with seeing an actress topless in a film doesn't really make sense. A film has a narrative and plot, people are [usually] naked when having sex, and in the course of a standard film (I'm not talking porn) there is a context for characters being undressed. There is no context at all for page 3, and that is what is so obviously wrong with it: here's some news, here's some weather, here's some more news, and here's a naked lady. WHY??!!

I simply don't believe most (straight) women want to look at other topless women. I'm not saying we necessarily hate seeing other women's bodies, just that for most part it's all a bit, so what? I have a body, I see that naked (I actually really like my body), but I'm not particularly interested in seeing other women's. In the same way I doubt many men want to study other men's naked bodies. Do you feel it would improve a daily paper you chose to read if you got to see more naked men? So I can only conclude that page 3 is for men, who do like seeing women's bodies, as evidenced by those comments. And by extension it frames our bodies as public property, something to be judged and commented on by strangers.

You can say those comments don't prove the image is sexual or sexist (or <pauses to clutch aching sides> were written by anti-page 3 campaigners) all you like, but you must know full well how hollow that sounds! We all know what page 3 is for and there is no longer any reason for it to be there.

Do you like UKIP by the way? Just wondering.

fcknits Fri 03-May-13 13:42:35

Tbh, I'm on libertarianj's side.

Quoting from The Sun article: "Researchers compared the BMI of fashion models, celebrities and Page 3 girls and found that The Sun’s beauties have an average BMI of 20.04 — putting them in the normal category. But the average BMI of fashion models was a dangerously low 16.3, according to the US National Eating Disorders Association."

The models look normal and healthy and don't show any more than you'd see on some beaches. They aren't doing anything bad. They allow girls to see what normal* bodies look like (increasingly difficult during this modern obesity epidemic) and what normal boobs look like (which helps people to realise that all boobs and nipples are different but equally functional). [*If look at the photos of Lucy Collett, you'll see that she actually has a healthy defined waist despite being a size 14!! That is a positive message that should be put out in the public.]

I'm far more concerned by stories about breastfeeding moms being asked to "cover up" or feed their babies and toddlers in toilets. Or being told that full-term breastfeeding is somehow "unnatural".

If there were no more Page3 girls... Would Facebook stop banning photos of breast cancer scars or breastfeeding moms? Would we suddenly stop thinking of boobs as an embarrassing body part? Would people stop being interested in porn? Would naturism be banned? What exactly would it do... and where would it stop?

fcknits Fri 03-May-13 13:50:04

Btw, regarding emcwill74's Huffington Post article, you cannot compare The Daily Star's readership to that of The Sun.

The Sun is the nation's best selling newspaper i.e. the majority of newspaper-reading Brits actually buy it (and, presumably, read it).

The Daily Star is a junk tabloid. I personally don't know anyone who reads it or believes that it contains anything approaching good journalism.

Creeping Fri 03-May-13 13:53:57

Calling these gross, sexist, misogynistic, aggressive comments "childish", shows how ignorant you really are.

emcwill74 Fri 03-May-13 14:03:33

'Normal boobs'? On page 3??!! Oh sure because they regularly feature women with, say, A-cup boobs don't they? Or boobs that aren't generally big and bouncy? Or boobs that are obviously bigger one side than the other. Or the saggy low-hangers that most of us get left with after BFing babies! Oh yes page 3 shows the whole darn range. Not.

fcknits I'm totally with you on being concerned about BFing women being asked to cover up. When I was BFing my DD 10 yrs ago my uncle told me he thought seeing women BF in public was 'disgusting'. I wonder if he thought men staring at page 3 in public was disgusting. That same summer a woman visiting Hampton Court Palace (just near where I lived at the time) was asked by an employee to stop BFing because 'it might offend'. Would he have asked someone to put the Sun away because page 3 might offend? I don't believe for one single moment that page 3 encourages BFing. In fact I think it does completely the opposite. I've had friends of mine who had babies later than me tell me when pg they weren't sure whether they should BF in case it left their boobs not looking nice. See the post above where a father made it clear his partner's boobs were there to look nice for him, not feed a baby! Yes it is terrible to give out a message that BFing is unnatural, completely agree, but as far as I can see all page 3 does is reinforce the message that our boobs are all about looking nice, and looking nice for men. If BFing is going to compromise that, well...

And as for the beaches thing! Again, it's all about context. Of course women should be free to sunbathe topless, but the majority are not doing so because they want strange men staring at them, wanking over them, scoring them out of 10 etc. They are just sunbathing. Nothing wrong with that. But not remotely the same thing as a model posed and lit to show her breasts to advantage, stuck in a 'news'paper next to a patronising comment she didn't make, for the the gratuitous pleasure of male readers.

chocoluvva Fri 03-May-13 16:08:17

Arguing in favour of page 3 on the grounds that images of topless women are everywhere, so it's pointless to take pictures of women out of newspapers doesn't work. It's all the more reason to stop having Page 3 girls. There are so many sexualised images of women (and girls) that taking them out of a newspaper would be a small step towards correcting the excesses of our oversexualised culture.

Page 3 is not necessary, no-one is being harmed by not having it, many people think that Page 3 is harmful therefore just stop having it.

newfashionedmum Thu 09-May-13 14:10:38

PLEASE get behind this campaign mumsnet, you could make such a difference...

gedhession Sun 18-Aug-13 14:46:07

I recall well the time Samantha Fox was immensely popular. In fact I do recall many Page 3 girls, Linda Lusardi, Maria Whittaker, Jo Guest, Katie Price, Melinda Messenger and Keeley Hazell being very popular as Page 3 girls and go on to become popular media personalities. I find it interesting that Clare Short tried to ban Page 3 at the time Samantha Fox was at the height of her popularity. Of course, just because something is popular is not a defense to some...

TheLondonMum Tue 10-Sep-13 12:59:52

As an ex glamour model (and I hate using that term because people pre judge your abilities and intelligence) and now giving it all up as I'm about to become a mother, I do find it funny that people have an opinion on this kind of work when they've never worked in it themselves.

I made a fortune working as a topless model. I never once felt exploited. If anything all the girls I worked with felt the same in the fact we are actually using men's visual needs to exploit men from their cash. It sounds horrible but it's a job. Our job was to make our money.

The world itself is a visual place, women go on diets, get hair done, wear push up bras. Why bother if you don't care about appearance. Working as a model doesn't stereotype you into what men want to see. Men will look at anything that's semi clad if it's in front of them. (Again not being harsh but men are visual creatures and are genetically programmed to look).

I don't agree with girls at school aspiring to become page3 girls. And I'd hope if I had a daughter she wouldn't want to become a page3 girl. I never sought out the job but actually it sought out me. I was unhappy with having such large breasts and wanted a breast reduction at 17 (I was refused treatment as I hadn't fully developed), and going down the topless route after graduating at university did actually provide me with reassurance that perhaps I was perceiving myself too harshly.

As for the debate over breast feeding, I have never once considered anything other then breast feeding my child (if I'm able to). So no I don't objectify my breasts as an income revenue.

Breasts are breasts they really aren't a big deal. Every woman has them in varying sizes. I remember my dad buying The Sun when I was a little girl and I'd draw bras on the page3 women. It only becomes an issue when it's targeted like this.

Ps don't all scream at me at once! This is just an opinion of someone who has worked on the other side. An opinion of the girls.

gedhession Sat 21-Sep-13 11:30:25

TheLondonMum As far as I've been concerned glamour modelling is a job, a job with the purpose of selling newspapers and magazines. I actually recall a Page 3 girl back in the 80s who took up modelling to pay for her studies to be a barrister and another Page 3 girl who was a schoolteacher! I find it interesting that a third of lap dancers have degrees and us it to finance their studies. As for a daughter wanting to be a Page 3 girl? I could tell her about Samantha Fox or Maria Whittaker, who despite enjoying great success and fame on Page 3 ended up with immense personal and financial hardships. On the other hand, we have Melinda Messenger, Gail McKenna and Linda Lusardi who have enjoyed some media success.

gedhession Sun 10-Nov-13 16:17:51

Did anybody see the Daily Politics today? Did you see that feature on Page 3 where they went to Bedford (where Lacey Banghard, the CBB contestant, happens to come from) to ask for peoples opinions. Most people seem to be marginally in favour and even the women had a broad range of opinions. Andrew Neil then spoke to Harriet Harman but I was too bored to take any notice.

gritts1 Sat 23-Nov-13 14:12:44

I never understood why Mumsnet has not supported No More Page 3 with its history of the Lads Mags campaign. The Sun had this headline recently on it's front page with a picture of Abigail Clancy in her bikini, it read: 'Have you seen Abby's pussy?' What is the difference between that and a Lads Mag cover, knowing that on page 3 is soft porn imagery?

David Dinsmore the editor states it is a family newspaper. As a bloke, I have issues with titty pics in so called family publications.

So lets move the paper to the top shelf, stop advertising at children (Lego / The Sun adverts on kids TV http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOoQxDOxPho) and/or simply ask the Sun editor nicely to end page 3 and the general sexism. NMP3 do not want a ban.

gedhession Sat 23-Nov-13 16:46:07

Abi Clancy is a popular model, no doubt thanks to the fact that she's the partner of the popular footballer Peter Crouch. I'm sure the Sun has subjected many popular celebrities , such as popular actresses and sportswomen, to inuendous headlines and I'm sure it's not the only tabloid to do it. I recall it being no big secret that Samantha Fox was popular amongst youngsters and the media treated as such. I was 15 when I kept pictures of her. She appeared on childrens' TV quite a few times and had a column in Smash Hits. My favourite story was in an interview given by Lads' Mag star Keeley Hazell who claimed that Nuts got an email from a mother protesting that she'd bought Keeley's calendar for her 14 year old son only to be dismayed that the pictures were topless. She only allowed her son to post non-topless pictures of Keeley oh his bedroom wall. In haste Nuts released the Keeley Hazell bikini calendar.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now