How can any woman NOT support the No More Page 3 campaign?!

yes segregation is a rubbish comparison. Separate but equal. it's nothing like the parallel lives men and women in our society lead. It's ridiculous to imply that women were not allowed in male spaces or that they were actively discouraged from applying for certain jobs or are still held back by society. yeah ridiculous.

potato I'm interested in how you know your sons have healthy relationships? are you in their bedrooms? would they tell you if they hit their girlfriend or pressure them for sex? or would they tell you sexist jokes they tell share their friends,show you the pics on their phones? No they wouldn't. you've not got a fucking clue. No one does. All you can do is try and make your self feel better about the fact that your teens were allowed to look at women they didn't know as a series of body parts. Have you got daughters would you have sought out naked pics for them to enjoy?

How can any woman NOT support the No More Page 3 campaign?!(

I guess its called another point of view.

I have never read the sun newspaper, but I do object to a few people trying to stop others from doing something they want to.
It is not up to you or anybody else what people do with their time, I know my ds x2 both looked at page 3 with their mates as young teens. They are both healthy grown men now who have good relationships with women.
I just think many of you are scared or too lazy to talk to your dc and bring them up to respect women.
Oh and I am neither ill educated, nor was I brought up with The Sun, or topless women. My parents were methodist and very respected in the community, they didn't take a newspaper.

'easy to read'

I really dislike the 'if you don't like it, don't buy it' argument. Millions don't have that choice, for whatever reason, poor education, family influence etc. their parents read the Sun and so do they. I imagine it's the paper of choice for many young people, easy to ready, full of celebs etc. (when I was 18, I enjoyed reading it - without being aware of the wider implications of its general attitude to women)

I knew that someone was going to say that. Fine. Sure, segretation was much worse than how women are portrayed in the media. I just wanted to make the point that even standing up to a seemingly small thing can be worth doing. But of course you choose to miss that point.

It is not about banning or censorship, but I guess it is easier to pretend that is is, foolhardy.

Creeping

what a ridiculous comparison.
If you don't like the paper, don't buy it.

What worries me more than anything is the attitude of some people, that just because they don't like it, they want censorship.
Who the hell do you think you are?
There's lots of things I don't like, but I don't go around trying to bann it and spoil other peoples fun.

Rosa Parks wouldn't get up from her bus seat. Some people at the time probably thought she was making a fuss about nothing. After all, she could go to the black section and be transported home perfectly. And millions of black people did that, seemingly unfussed.

Segregation of bus seats was just a symptom of a racist society, how can this tiny symptom of a huge problem possibly make a difference?

But it did.

Page 3 is perhaps a tiny but iconic symptom of sexism in the media. I want it to go because I don't want to have to put up with that anymore. Attitudes in society don't change overnight. We need small steps in the right direction. Getting rid of Page 3 is one such small step. I really can't see how anybody could be against that.

And once again, the petition is not asking for a ban, censorship or restrictive legislation at all. It isn't even about naked breasts or the models. It is about the context Page 3 appears in and the connotations and accessibility that come with that.

your arguments are weak. Throughout history the majority have frequently got it wrong.The fact that the majority think it's ok to abuse women doesn't make it ok. If the majority thought it was ok to make racist or homophobic jokes in the media would you say they shouldn't have to stop? what about overtly violent? because women are frequently perceived as bits of meat by the media and violently portrayed because of the casual use of our bodies to amuse men.

you won't make any effort to learn anything or listen because you're so scared someone might say you cant stare at tits in public. God forfuckingbid do you realize how pathetic it is,how desperate you sound that you're arguing for boobs to stay in your fucking newspaper?

The tragedy is that nearly 17 and a half million people a month want to read a paper with topless women in. I believe it is this want that needs to change. Change and not be diverted by banning.

But why should they change? why should 17 and half million people be dictated to by a very small minority of a 100,000 people who want rid of page 3?

The tragedy is not that a tiny tiny percentage of women in Great Britain want to pose topless for money, or that some girls might see a man reading The Sun on the bus.

The tragedy is that nearly 17 and a half million people a month want to read a paper with topless women in. I believe it is this want that needs to change. Change and not be diverted by banning.

'Are you the women who issue law suits against builders wolf whistles too!'

Has this ever actually happened?

I dunno though.

When I was young it was standard to have topless calendars in all sorts of businesses, and in the pub you got the peanuts where the more got bought the more of the woman's body was revealed.

Do people on here who support page 3 want to see these things back? They have been generally removed as people realised that, guess what, women didn't want to have these things in their faces while they were in shops / having a drink.

Would people be OK with men looking at softcore gay porn on the tube?

The whole thing is a bit baffling to me.

The point of page 3 is to illicit a sexual response in males. Why is that necessary in mixed groups of strangers, on the tube/bus, first thing in the morning?

I've come across women who probably wouldn't support this campaign. Really.

Had an interesting incident at work when I told my boss that I thought we should get rid of the Sun in our common area as our office was run by a woman and it may be offensive to her and others. She got very angry, said I was coming across as arrogant and that she didn't condone censorship. Her PA sitting beside get said the Sun is an institution and very popular and asked what I thought the problem was. It was inferred that I was being classist as the Sun is a working class paper. Probably would have had more luck if I said I was religious or a Muslim and it offended my religion.

I wasn't brought up with tits in my daily newspaper - but it's amazing how many who have been are not only nonplussed by it but see it as an institution to be preserved.

men get protecting. they aren't exposed to daily media objectification. I don't think society sees men as delicate flowers I think society sees men as people

Moxie - the argument put forward in that post is one of the most irritatingly More-Feminist-Then-Thou-But-Achieving-Bugger-All arguments I have encountered.

Bonus points go for stating that we need more nudity in the media without mentioning how coercive nude scenes often are for actresses.

"sex-positive" feminism gets right on my tits. A ban on Page 3 would be a huge step forward.

stavvers.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/why-i-never-signed-the-no-more-page-3-petition/ this is how I feel (not my blog-I read this on twitter a while back).

I think children do need protecting though.

There seems to be an idea that if you don't want to see page 3 then don't buy the sun. That's not how it works though is it. People read it on public transport - everyone sees it. And I don't understand how some people can't see that for lots of pubescent / young teen girls, having men around looking at pictures of breasts is an uncomfortable experience. And indeed for older girls and women as well.

Also, I think that many young girls are sensitive creatures, and what's wrong with that? So are lots of young boys. It's a normal part of growing up. To tell them that they mustn't get upset over stuff like this is part and parcel of the whole "don't make a fuss" thing that girls are taught around things that other do that make them feel uncomfortable and are related to sex.

I'm a person first, not a woman or a man, a person. I don't want censorship to protect me.

Equal rights and equal pay, yes. Reasonable maternity rights that accept that only women get PG yes, but banning page 3, no. It makes women look like delicate sensative creatures who can't see another womans breasts eithout feeling judged and inadequate.

It makes us out to need molycodling and protecting.

That's just the opposite of my take on life - I'm just as good as any man and cleverer than most.

this campaign is just the thin end of the wedge...

...to women being treated by the media in the same way men are, rather than just as nice things for men to look at.

Indeed.

uh huh

so you really wish that when you were 12 yo boy a random bloke made it obvious he wanted to fuck you.

Ah yes, happy days wanker

Being a sexual object is not fun. you twat.

Read the thread.

w1tsend would you think it was OK for big men to look at softcore gay porn, with men in provocative poses stroking erections through their pants, while sitting next to schoolboys on the bus?

Yes or no? and reasons please

No one is forcing these women to take their clothes off and be photographed, in fact my sister is a p3 model and does it because she earns a better wage doing this than doing what she has qualifications to do - her feeling is that it is she that is exploiting men and not the other way round, and if you as a women don't personally like it no one is forcing you to buy any of the publications with topless on p3 - now easy internet access to hardcore porn is another matter but that's what parental restrictions and supervised internet access for children is for!