Page 3

(56 Posts)
thefinerthingsinlife Tue 11-Jan-11 16:46:48

"Page 3: a daily reminder of our status in society and what women exist for. To be ogled, scrutinised, mocked, put down, humiliated, harassed, beaten and killed. Every day we hear of heinous (sexual) crimes and injustices against women but every day Page 3 remains a celebrated iconic image in our culture. Is this some sort of joke? No, it's just patriarchy"

I've just seen this and thought it summed it up rather well

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FlamingoBingo Tue 11-Jan-11 16:54:50

I hate that 'page 3' exists, but as a libertarian-leaning feminist, I would hate to see it banned...waht is the answer?

Keep plugging away at destorying hte patriarchy so men no longer have any interest in something like 'page 3'?

thefinerthingsinlife Tue 11-Jan-11 16:57:26!/pages/Turn-Your-Back-On -Page-3/154011691309895

That's exactly it; if you dislike page 3 it's because you're jealous, and like you said it is everywhere

FlamingoBingo Tue 11-Jan-11 17:00:33

But is it page 3 you (we) object to? Or the culture that makes it relevant? SHould it be 'turn your back on a culture that thinks that page 3 is appropriate'?

sethstarkaddersmum Tue 11-Jan-11 17:02:04

the trouble with the libertarian argument that page 3 shouldn't be banned is that by exercising their right to look at it in a public place men are undermining our right to have it in our faces.

what came out for me on previous page 3 threads on MN (the one about the man looking at it in the school playground at pick-up time was an eye-opener) was that by having it in a newspaper you are redefining it as acceptable so blokes feel they can openly display it in playgrounds or on buses because it's only a newspaper.

I would not try to stop the Sun from printing page 3 but I would put pressure on newsagents to display it with lads' mags rather than newspapers and while we're at it ban soft porn including the Sun from public transport, until the editors saw sense and dropped it and the Sun could go back to being socially acceptable again.

FlamingoBingo Tue 11-Jan-11 17:02:43

I can't work out whether or not the group wants to have page 3 banned? It just says it wants the gov to 'deal with it'. Do they want a similar picture of naked men in the same paper?

thefinerthingsinlife Tue 11-Jan-11 17:04:02

Both Flamingo.

JessinAvalon Tue 11-Jan-11 21:20:02

I wound ban it. Guess I'm not very liberal! The owner of the paper wouldn't get away with it on his own country. I go to Australia regularly to visit family and people I speak to over there cannot believe that we allow a photo of a topless woman in our 'newspapers'.

Dave80 Tue 11-Jan-11 22:01:17

It's a picture of a human body. Big deal.

In countries where women casually go topless noone (including kids) seems to care or be bothered. Proof the human body is only offensive if you want it to be.

btw since you want equality, by your own logic should we make it illegal to show a photo of a topless man? Lots of men have breasts.

What do you want anyway? Turn the country into a dictatorship country like China where it's illegal to have a little fun? Lighten up.

JessinAvalon Tue 11-Jan-11 22:09:09

Absolutely Dave! Yeah lighten up everyone! So it's a barely legal girl with her tits out that's become so mainstream that men read it in the school playground when they're picking their daughters up.

Whilst we're at it, why we don't make it legal to pay a girl half your age to grind naked on your lap in a club on the high street whilst your missus sits at home watching X Factor...oh wait, we already have....

In the interests of equality, we could keep the Sun but also The Stun which we could read in front of our sons and on the train and the bus and in work. It's just a human body. No one will mind!

The Stun

sethstarkaddersmum Tue 11-Jan-11 22:10:48

have another biscuit Dave

now go back to your holt or your basket or wherever you live.

JessinAvalon Tue 11-Jan-11 22:13:52

Do you think that Dave realised that this is the feminism section and not the misogynist section? I know people do wander here by mistake sometimes!

I'm sure that Dave can teach us a thing or two about misogyny feminism.

Starting with: just because he has a different opinion, it doesn't make him wrong.

Dave80 Tue 11-Jan-11 22:15:07

What are tits? oh yeah they're fat with milk glands for feeding babies. Women have them and some men have them without the milk. Practically everyone has seen a pair whilst a baby. So what's so offensive about them?

sethstarkaddersmum Tue 11-Jan-11 22:16:45

I don't know Jess, I've already hit the ignore button.

Dave80 Tue 11-Jan-11 22:17:33

"Do you think that Dave realised that this is the feminism section and not the misogynist section"

I hate all 3 billion women in the world just because I don't agree with you? Yeah that makes a lot of sense...

I'm sure you are better than to resort to name calling.

Dave80 Tue 11-Jan-11 22:18:50

"I don't know Jess, I've already hit the ignore button."

All you are doing is showing you can't accept some people have different opinions to yourself. I would respect you more if you weren't so close-minded.

thefinerthingsinlife Tue 11-Jan-11 22:19:13

damm if only us women lightened up and had a sense of hummour.

I imagine we should be grateful that men want to ogle us/glamour models/ porn stars etc, they are only appreciating the human body after all.

Guessing if you had a daughter you'd be happy for her to be a page 3 girl Dave?

<rolls eyes>

Dave80 Tue 11-Jan-11 22:24:36

Feminism IMO should be about choice. If a woman wants to take her top off for money she should be able to do so without others telling her "no you can't do that because we don't like it".

Dave80 Tue 11-Jan-11 22:26:59

You want equality right? Doesn't that mean wherever it's legal and acceptable for a man to remove his top it should also be ok for a woman to remove her top?

thefinerthingsinlife Tue 11-Jan-11 22:28:48

So would you support your daughter if she chose to take her top off for the sole purpose of men ogling her?

JessinAvalon Tue 11-Jan-11 22:30:43

Oh god, do we have to go back to basics for this one?

Dave - have you heard of the concept of objectification? And that it's a bad thing.

Dave80 Tue 11-Jan-11 22:33:54

I would support whatever she chose to do.

And if a woman can make loads of money from men simply by removing her top then she is more likely expoliting the men not the other way round.

HerBeatitude Tue 11-Jan-11 22:35:16

Oh Dave, you're really not very sophisticated are you?

<Pats kindly on head>

<Wipes hand with disinfectant>

<Decides not to be drawn into a pointless late night trolling session and goes to bed>

Dave80 Tue 11-Jan-11 22:35:22

"have you heard of the concept of objectification?"

I disagree. A woman who poses topless isn't any less of a woman than a female author. It's just a job.

Dave80 Tue 11-Jan-11 22:36:12

Just once.. try and look at things from another perspective.

HerBeatitude Tue 11-Jan-11 22:36:17

And er Jess, I hate to tell you, but with a troll of Dave's calibre, I'm afraid it is back to basics.

It's going to be a LONG night for some of you... grin

HerBeatitude Tue 11-Jan-11 22:37:14

oh yes, that other perspective... the one we never ever ever hear in real life, the one our culture isn't saturated in... oh, hang on...

fuckit I'm off to bed. grin

JessinAvalon Tue 11-Jan-11 22:37:23

Absolutely Dave. You're quite right.

@The FinerThings - Francine, who set the group up, is amazing. You could befriend her on Facebook (I'm friends with her). She's a feminist powerhouse!

JessinAvalon Tue 11-Jan-11 22:48:31

Nope, I can't even be bothered to be sarcastic anymore.

I don't know if this thread will get many hits. But in answer to the question earlier about whether it should be banned, I think it will never go away if there isn't some legislation around the display of it at least. It's too ingrained now as good old British culture (to morons) for it to ever go of its own accord. Even a female editor didn't dare tackle the owner on this one.

Dave80 Tue 11-Jan-11 22:49:35

I don't look at a stripper or a topless woman as a sex object. I look at her as a woman and understand she is just working and deserves respect like anyone else.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JessinAvalon Tue 11-Jan-11 22:58:55

I've just found it, TBE! smile

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

RRocks Tue 11-Jan-11 23:06:49

This is the second time in the short time I've been on Mumsnet that I've seen someone say 'Don't they realise that this is the feminism section?' Don't you realise that people can come across your threads in other parts of the site, find the issue interesting and want to respond or find out more. And that if your thread is being picked up in that way that it's probably being read by loads of other people who haven't responded and who wouldn't think of going to the feminism section. That's an opportunity missed.

Why don't you get off your high horses and explain to silly Dave without jargon exactly what the problem is with the objectification of women?

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

RRocks Tue 11-Jan-11 23:11:47

What are tits? oh yeah they're fat with milk glands for feeding babies. Women have them and some men have them without the milk. Practically everyone has seen a pair whilst a baby. So what's so offensive about them?

Dave, if that were all they were they wouldn't be on page three now, would they? And you surely understand that it's not the bodies that are offensive?

RRocks Tue 11-Jan-11 23:12:41


I'm here to find out.

JessinAvalon Tue 11-Jan-11 23:16:49

Rrocks - I have no problem with engaging on someone on any subject if they are genuinely interested and want to know more. However, I have wasted a lot of time - and I mean a lot of time - over the past few years trying to be well meaning and trying to engage with people who weren't there for positive reasons. I spent about an hour last night discussing pornography with some of TheFinerThings 'friends' on facebook, people who were very defensive of porn initially but who gradually came around just a tiny bit towards the end of the conversation.

However, someone who comes onto a feminism section to say that Page 3 is fine because it's just "tits"...well, I somehow think that person isn't particularly interested in engaging with the subject from a feminist perspective.

Fair play to you for trying though. I will watch with interest!

JessinAvalon Tue 11-Jan-11 23:23:32

"engaging with someone..."

One of the arguments trotted out last night re: porn was that liking porn just means that someone has a different opinion. And it was a democracy so that person is entitled to that opinion. Which is fine but it doesn't make that opinion right.

Here are some links that you might find interesting and that may help with the discussion with Dave (of course, he is welcome to read them but I somehow think that he won't): s -on-the-sexualisation-of-young-people/

Unfortunately the above review doesn't seem to be available on the DH website anymore.

I need to get to bed but there's plenty more out there to read.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

RRocks Tue 11-Jan-11 23:45:29

TheButterlyEffect and JessinAvalon,

Thanks for the posts and links, which I will read. Your greater experience of these things means that you might be right about Dave trollling. My criticism arose because I don't like to see feminism being misrepresented to the general public; it was, of course, in complete ignorance of the amount of time you generally spend explaining the issues to people. So, my apologies, ladies.

thefinerthingsinlife Wed 12-Jan-11 18:32:21

Jess, hope you are well.

I've just sent a friend request to her. Sounds like she's someone else I can learn from

HollieMcNishPoetry Wed 26-Sep-12 00:09:11

Love boobs. Hate Page 3. Newspapers are for news. Put it up on the shelf or take out page 3. No one will lose jobs. People can still get thrills from mags magazines. Catch up UK. Here's my thoughts more deeply if anyone fancies!:

punterpride Wed 26-Sep-12 00:21:23

the labour govt could have banned page 3 but were too scared to upset rupert murdoch, when in opposition, clare short wanted to bring in a bill to ban page 3 but it failed, funny how she went quiet when in govt, perhaps she was silenced by tony blair?

Kashmiracle Wed 26-Sep-12 11:59:43

I wish they'd get rid of page 3.

What people who support it fail to realise is that it's got massive connotations for the wider social context of objectifying women. Page 3 girls aren't there for anything other than men to look at, pure and simple.

In a country when you get gawped at or tutted at (or asked to go to a bathroom in some cases) for breastfeeding in public, having page 3 seems so much more of a contradiction.

I know this because I'm a woman. I've been repeatedly made to feel extremely uncomfortable breastfeeding in public with both my children, and I'm not flopping out my DD-cups in the middle of a busy cafe, I'm finding a quiet corner and covering as much as I can.

If we were more 'european' in our thinking, and women could walk along beaches here with their tits out without fear of being whistled at by teenage boys or ogled by men, then it might be a different story.

The furore that Kate's topless photos caused only serves to support this idea that in the UK women going topless seems like a big deal.

Until we can all walk around topless in the summer (like men do) with our stretch marks, lopsided, sagging, uneven, un-enhanced breasts for all the world to see without feeling self conscious, then page 3 needs to go.

I feel very strongly that by having page 3 it's upholding the idea that women have to look and behave in a certain way just to be attractive to a man. And that's fundamentally wrong.

I don't want my son thinking it's ok, and my daughter feeling objectified.

(Rant over grin)

WidowWadman Wed 26-Sep-12 13:47:18

I'm with Flamingo Bingo and wouldn't support a ban, in the same way as I wouldn't support a ban of prostitution or pornography - I think banning and censorship rarely has the positive effect those in favour of it are hoping for.

Now I would love to see the market of all 3 diminishing, and page 3 disappearing because people are aware that it's shite, but that's a very different thing to a ban imposed through legislation.

OneMoreChap Wed 26-Sep-12 15:54:07

Gosh, another thread from the dead...

Page 3 is awful - not so much because it's <gosh> naked boobies, but because it is yet another way of pushing a synthetic body image down people's throats. You're only attractive if you're...


no-one cares what you're interested in, think like, talk like...

It makes men have unrealistic ideas of what real women look like, makes women feel they have to adapt to some woman hating picture editor's ideals [Oh, just like fashion magazines]

[Oh, thats besides any specific feminist moral issues about objectification and status]

Kashmiracle Thu 27-Sep-12 13:22:25

Couldn't agree with you more OneMoreChap.

I really worry for my daughter's future when I see young women wearing so little in a desperate attempt at trying to prove something.

As you say, I don't have an issue with nudity per se, it's the intent behind it that makes me feel so uncomfortable. It's sort of creepy and pervy rather than celebratory.

Extrospektiv Thu 27-Sep-12 17:32:49

It's not showing breasts that's the problem or I would be with the anti-public breastfeeding camp, fuck no to their misogyny.

That's only people and especially hypocritical men who claim it's "wrong" to use the mammary gland for its primary function without ducking out of sight, not for women whose personal boundaries around their bodies include keeping it private- no one has a right to disrespect that, especially in a sexist culture where the non-consensual touching of them figures strongly in violence against women.

It's the fact that page 3 is purely there for men to gawp at breasts and a body that conforms to patriarchy's standards.

I'm convinced a lot of the women who mansplaining page 3/lads' mag/porn defenders call "prudes" would be more comfortable at a nudist beach than either the women in the sex industry, who have internalised the attitude that their bodies should only be exposed to another person's view when they are "sexy", or (by far grin ) the status-obsessed males who run the show.

Frans1980 Mon 01-Oct-12 11:45:54

I have no issue with page 3, and I have no prob either with women breastfeeding or women walking topless at a beach (because I'm not prudish in the slightest). We were born naked anyway.


All current page 3 models are 18+ years of age (used to be 16+ but that changed). Do you think 18 is still too young to pose topless and the age should be increased again? IMO 18 is an adult age and not a child.

All the page 3 models I have seen are slim yes but a healthy slim. I don't think I've seen any anorexic or overweight models on page 3- and I don't think showing models of an unhealthy weight is a good idea. So what's the issue here?

As for half-naked if a man was shown with no top on then noone would be shocked and noone would complain. So why is it ok for a man to take his top off but a woman can't?

StewieGriffinsMom Mon 01-Oct-12 11:49:33

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Frans1980 Mon 01-Oct-12 11:52:19

I agree with WidowWadman, regardless of whether you love or hate things like porn or prostitution banning them with laws isn't the right step IMO. If you want someone to stop doing something then passing a law is probably the worst thing you can do- it makes something into a forbidden fruit and more desirable and people will want it even more. A lot of people like feeling "naughty" when they do something they aren't supposed to be doing.

For example sex outdoors is a major taboo in the UK but that's exactly why a lot of couples do it because it is taboo and they get extra adrenaline from the fact they know they are doing wrong.

If we were more 'european' in our thinking, and women could walk along beaches here with their tits out without fear of being whistled at by teenage boys or ogled by men

Exactly. Men in Europe see plenty of bare boobs so why aren't feminists there demanding women on beaches cover up? Where is the evidence women topless at the beach contributes to domestic violence? (I saw a news article couple days ago that claimed page 3 "caused domestic violence"- sorry but I find that too hard to believe).

Frans1980 Mon 01-Oct-12 11:53:55

Why are there no page 3 equivalents for men?

Porn magazines/websites/male strippers/sex workers for women/gay men do exist.

Frans1980 Mon 01-Oct-12 11:56:08

Its acceptable for 50 year old men to wank off at 18 year olds

A 50 year old man could legally walk off with a 16 year old because 16 is the legal age. I'm not sure I get your point do you want to increase the legal age of consent? Or is it just a moral thing you don't like seeing young women with older men?

OneMoreChap Mon 01-Oct-12 12:25:19

Frans1980 I defer to your expertise on Page 3; it's many years since I read a red-top.

Basically, I dislike Page 3 because it objectifies women and highlights them as object for lust rather than "artisitic appreciation".

I'd frankly be amazed if models were bell curve central on size distribution...

FWIW, I detest adverts that portray men as unable to cook or clean either...

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