Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Dad ogling pg 3 girls in playground

406 replies

anotherglass · 21/09/2010 15:02

Strolled into school this morning with DS1 (6) to find a dad "reading" pg 3 of the Sun ( norks were in full view of the Year 2 line up ).

I thought this a tad inappropriate and asked him to turn the page, but he was really put out and huffed and puffed at me.

Tell me I was not being unreasonable.

OP posts:
boogiewoogie · 21/09/2010 21:56

No, not being unreasonable for thinking it inappropriate though I wouldn't have thought it to be my place to demand that he put it away.

Even if nobody else noticed what he was "reading", it is antisocial in this context. There are other parents to chat with if he'd rather do something else other than wait for his child to line up.

This reminds of something I saw in a playgroup a while back. 3 childminders sitting in a row, flicking through an Anne Summers catalogue and discussing the products. Mindees and other children running around the room so it's not as if they notice.I didn't think it was the right place to discuss Anne Summers party to be honest.

sethstarkaddersmum · 21/09/2010 21:58

you can squeal 'Ooh, Godwin's law!' to your heart's content if it makes you happy ScottishMummy.

everyone knows what it is.

NotanOtter · 21/09/2010 21:58

well said herbeatitude

HerBeatitude · 21/09/2010 21:58

Perfumedlife, sorry I thought you said you were a member of staff. My mistake.

But tbh I wouldn't openly read graphic stuff with corpses / nudity in a school playground and I'm not a member of staff. Anymore than I would swear (however pre-menstrual I was feeling).

scottishmummy · 21/09/2010 21:59

the sun is not soft porn,that is a poor comparison.dont like sun but certainly not going to demand people refrain from buying/reading it

sethstarkaddersmum · 21/09/2010 22:01

I am amazed that we have moved from discussion in the 70s and 80s about whether men had a right to look at page 3 at all to discussion about whether there are any situations in which they are not allowed to look at it Hmm

talk about the Overton window shifting....

ChippingIn · 21/09/2010 22:02

It is a picture of a woman naked from the waist up - you know, the kind of thing most kids see most mornings - not some woman legs akimbo fingering herself...

HerBeatitude · 21/09/2010 22:02

WTF is the matter with people?

Discussing ann summers products at a playgroup?

Shock Grin Shock [baffled]

Fuck me the world is full of morons, isn't it? And ofsted is obviously not very good at spotting them... Grin

Do you

a) sing wheels on the bus
b) look through pictures of vibrators
c) play with lego

when looking after your mindees.

I am sometimes nonplussed by the world, really I am.

scottishmummy · 21/09/2010 22:03

conversation can move any ole way on a discursive forum.thats the pleasure of it.the range and depth of views

HerBeatitude · 21/09/2010 22:05

Chippingin, most people don't women every morning looking gormless with their breasts taped back and stretching into quite difficult sometimes and uncomfortable positions.

They might see their mothers wandering around naked, but their mothers aren't trying to titillate them (unelss they live in seriously dysfunctioal families).

NotanOtter · 21/09/2010 22:09

chippingin - are you for real

because of course page three is actually a feminist icon

sethstarkaddersmum · 21/09/2010 22:09

of course it's soft porn.

a quote from Wiki
'The term "soft porn" is sometimes used for pictures that show people who may or may not be naked, but who are posed in a sexy manner.'

are page 3 girls not posed in a sexy manner then?

I'll c&p my earlier post:
Just because hardcore porn has got harder and softcore porn has got more ubiquitous doesn't mean that soft porn has magically become not-porn-any more. It is still soft porn and there is more of it.

StayFrosty · 21/09/2010 22:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jenny60 · 21/09/2010 22:11

YANBU

scottishmummy · 21/09/2010 22:11

C&p your own posts as you wish.sun is shitty paper but i dont regard it as soft porn.is gratuitous and unnecessary

perfumedlife · 21/09/2010 22:25

No problem Herbeattitude. I could never teach, no patience.

The corpes and nudity I see is in the Telegraph, usually murders or famine. Its graphic but not gratuitous if you get my meaning. My ds is 6 and helps me with the crossword, so he sometimes sees this. And if he asks, I tell him, in limited detail.

I really don't like the idea of kids seeing porn, soft or hard. I also don't agree with the young age schools teach sex eduacation. It has been getting younger and younger, and yet the promiscuity is increasing with ever decreasing ages, so to me it doesn't work. There is far too much sexualisation in the mainstream press, kids mags and tv and fashion. I will teach my child the facts of life, just as my parents did. I don't think its the job of the school.

But, saying all that, and I do mean it, I still feel the op should not have asked the man to close the page. Wish I could agree with her but it seems a step too far for me, encroaching on people who are, whatever you feel, going about their lawful business.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 21/09/2010 22:44

Godwins law just says that if you talk about something online for long enough someone will eventually mention the Nazi's btw.

scottishmummy · 21/09/2010 22:58

godwins law et al notes the inevitability and banality of nazi refernce.intellectual dead end.imo,thread gone tits up if nazi analogy made

petisa · 21/09/2010 23:30

YANBU OP, it is not appropriate behaviour in a children's playground. A playground is for children and looking at soft porn, like drinking alcohol or smoking, should not happen in playgrounds. What is so hard to understand about that?

petisa · 21/09/2010 23:36

Of course it's soft porn. Women with tits on show to turn male readers on. Objectification of women for the titillation of men. Not the same message at ALL as that we shouldn't be ashamed of our naked bodies and we should see them as natural and normal. And it's not at all prudish to object to it in a children's playground.

ChippingIn · 21/09/2010 23:51

HerBeatitude Tue 21-Sep-10 22:05:22
Chippingin, most people don't women every morning looking gormless with their breasts taped back and stretching into quite difficult sometimes and uncomfortable positions

When was the last time you saw a Page 3 Sun girl picture in the paper? Because your description is nothing like the reality. Other than the 'gormless' that I'll give you Grin.

He was reading the paper not Playboy! It's one photo of a woman without a top on.

We should ban parents bringing newspapers on to school premises - there are plenty of parents who don't want their children to see photos of the wardomestic violence.

While we're about it - better check their wallets/handbags for condoms as well... just in case.

sethstarkaddersmum · 22/09/2010 00:02

If a parent was looking at graphic photos in a newspaper somewhere the children might see them then I think a lot of people would quite reasonably object.
Similarly if I was getting out condoms in the playground and someone asked me to put them away that would not be unreasonable of them. Nothing wrong with condoms, or with me having them in my handbag; most parents are going to want to have a conversation about them with their children some time before the child grows up, but it is not for me to decide when they should do that and hence put them in a position where they are going to have to have it.
Just like one parent doesn't have the right to expose other people's kids to page 3. It's quite a good analogy really.

and btw the OP did not tell the dad he shouldn't be reading the Sun, or even ask him to put it away - she asked him to turn the page so he was not actually ogling the picture on page 3.
Most of it is just a normal newspaper - why did he have to choose that place to look at that particular page??

NotanOtter · 22/09/2010 00:13

it's degrading and offensive
I don't want to see it
put it away

ChippingIn · 22/09/2010 00:17

seth probably because he'd just bought it, sat down and turn over the first page, he was probably just reading the paper - it's the OP deciding he was oggling at the picture

Emotive wording (graphic photos) is an attempt to make it sound far worse than it was (single photo, girl with no top on).

I don't think anyone is arguing that if he was unfolding a Playboy centrefold it would be inappropriate - but he was reading the paper with one grainy photo in it...

Not mention the fact that unless you stop your DC going into petrol stations/newsagents/WHSmith etc they are going to see far 'worse' quite frequently!

tinky19 · 22/09/2010 00:22

Oh FFS it's not porn. Like ChippingIn said it's in every petrol station.
Please let's not completely forget freedom of speech/ expression!