....to want to ban page 3???

[DianaVreeland]

I remember seeing a page 3 girl for the first time when I was about 6 as my neighbour bought the Sun. I cringed inwardly, and haven't stopped feeling the same since. I have 5 nieces 3 nephews and my own 2 sons.....I hope they could grow up without seeing images of women objectified like this. Clearly I am not showing this to them but at some point I know they will. Does anyone else feel the same?

Yesterday I nicked some of my neighbours newspapers to be recycled as needed to wray some stuff up

I came across topless page 3 and I must say I did think jesus this is a bit.......................I dont know

I remember well the venom towards Clair Short (?) when she originally complained a few years ago

lol! I don't buy it so I can't leave it lying around!

Boobs are part of a women's genitalia - they are sexual body parts (with no male equivalent). That is not, of course, a bad thing. But asking for them not to be in a NEWSPAPER and not just that but BRITAIN'S BIGGEST-SELLING newspaper is hardly stigmatising a body part! Does the news at ten have a short break for some tits? No other paper does this so why is it so terrible of me to ask that this one doesn't? Yes boobs are there to feed a child, absolutely, but page 3 is nothing to do with 'aren't boobs great! They feed babies!' It is all about hasn't this babe got a nice pair? Wouldn't you like to shag that? If girls grow up seeing that and see 'Page 3 Idol' [pause to vomit] in the Sun, when they like X-Factor type stuff then they will be more likely to grow up thinking this is an ace way to celebrity fame and fortune. And if BF makes your tits look saggy well then best avoid that! After all we want men panting over our tits. Our tits must be tip top! This is The Most Important Thing and the Sun says so!

My calling for the only paper (yes the Sport does it too, yes I don't like that either, but it hardly counts as a newspaper) that seems to think it important to have a break from all that taxing news for some tits (poor men, got to think of their needs) to not to do this is hardly negatively affecting you (unless you wanted to model for Page 3 I guess) as there are boobs all over the internet (shall I google that for you?) I have no problem at all with what sexy pics you like looking at! And I am not putting a stop to that!

If women want to get their tits out and be photographed then fine. There are loads of mags/internet sites for that. I just don't see why it has to be in a newspaper.

IMO YANBU. There is a petition here about this which I came across the other day and have signed.

Re the comment by Ithinkitsjustme Tbh, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's not a newspaper (and I use the words loosely!) that I or anyone I know read

The Sun newspaper has the biggest circulation in Britain = the largest readership of any British newspaper, average daily readership of 7.6 million people per day. It is, sadly, highly influential. For example, from 'only backing the winner' when it comes to Prime Ministers and general elections, to socio-economic - and feminist - attitudes among readers.

I was a tabloid journalist once, and I used to know the people who worked on the 'Page 3' desk. Interestingly Page 3 glamour models were not well paid, at least 5 years ago. The going rate then was no more than £300. While being a Page 3 model the models had to be exclusive to The Sun, and could not appear in any other newspaper (the monthly men's magazines were allowed). Although Page 3 has a strict 'no implants' rule, the models' bodies and faces were photo-shopped to within an inch of their lives.

I think the prevailing attitude among staff at The Sun is that Page 3 is outdated, tacky and naff, but to get rid of it would be conceding to the liberals and 'hairy feminists' to too much of an extent for them, and readers, to swallow. I think they just couldn't bear the humiliation of the nation celebrating the end of Page 3.

I think a good angle that would help get rid of Page 3 is to target the many A-list celebrities who appear in the newspaper, give it exclusive interviews and exclusive downloads, trailers and photo-shoots, to promote their music and films. Lots of women artists, actors and so on who are seen as empowered women sign up to work with The Sun on promotional matters (because it has such a huge readership = they sell more records; their record companies, film and PR companies put The Sun at the top of their press-campaign lists).

If those celebrities boycotted The Sun until it got rid of Page 3, I think that would put strong pressure on the newspaper's editorial staff to act.

YANBU.
Imagine pictures of an 18 year old boy posing to the camera with his todger hanging out in a national newspaper?

YANBU. Breasts are tremendously useful things and no doubt pleasant for some to look at, but they are not news and have no place in a newspaper. There is nothing wrong with nudity at all in itself, but when women are presented in these unnatural poses and photoshopped to some idea of 'perfection', it is not normal nudity, it is objectification pure and simple. Young people are not going to learn to be comfortable with their real naked bodies looking at this, quite the opposite.

emcwill74 - signed.

I have seen many stories over the years in the Sun supporting breastfeeding, and naming and shaming places who don't accept breastfeeding mothers. So they do support breastfeeding.

I think that as no other paper does it, and, as you say, the news doesn't have a short break for some tits, is it really that big an issue that one paper does choose to have a topless girl on one page.

Also do you not think by telling people they can go online to look at pictures of boobs then that is going to encourage people (probably a lot of teenaged boys) to then start looking at porn as those would be the type of sites that would come up in a search engine, would you prefer that?

Fair enough, I get you don't like it, I even get why, but I don't know why should your opinion count more than the opinions of the people who do like it, and as its the biggest selling paper I assume the majority of people don't see anything wrong with it.

There is no doubt that page 3 is vile and degrading, but instead of ranting-

WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT??

Maybe Mumsnet could start a campaign? That would be amazing if successful, plus we would all share in the glory of helping to bring down the disgusting thing. What does everyone think?

ineedteanow: YES WE NEED A CAMPAIGN!!!!

Missymoomoomee: I do accept you are entitled to your opinion and I'm sorry for being a bit snarky. It just gets to me as I feel very passionately about it. I don't think I need to suggest to teenage boys they can find porn online... And yes that isn't good but looking at tits on page 3 won't stop them doing that as well. But actually I'm afraid that I do believe that Page 3 is harmful to society, and that is why the opinions of those that want it banned are more important basically - because it won't harm anyone not to have Page 3! Of course you will disagree and we must agree to differ.

LarkinSky: fab post that I have copied and emailed to Lucy who has created this petition www.change.org/nomorepage3

YANBU

I had an Australian work colleague who told me he almost fell of his chair the first time he saw p.3 here. He couldn't believe that it was a national paper.

I'm sure the UK cant be the only country who publishes pics like this in a national paper but it can't be common either, can it?

I'll agree to differ certainly, but I shall continue to be baffled about a pair of boobs in one paper being harmful to society, slight over reaction imo.

What is the fascination with boobs anyway? My friend went away with her husband recently, and seemingly he did a 'tit count' on the beach. They're just breasts! I suppose The Sun is catering to those people who are easily titilated (pardon the pun) and have a 'Carry on...' attitude to women's bodies.

I personally am not offended by Page 3 and as I don't read the sun I don't give it much thought. However, if my son or daughter were to see it and ask me why there was a naked girl in the paper...I'm not sure I'd have an answer for that.

soverylucky: Does the 'don't like it, don't buy it' argument really hold? If broadcasting imagery into homes via national media doesn't have an effect then why advertise products in newspapers and on TV? In the 70s sit coms were aired that broadcast racism into homes. They aren't any more. But when they trot out clips on those C4 celeb-fronted compilation shows of awful TV that go on for about 3 hours those clips are pretty shocking and dated. If the biggest-selling and highly influential newspaper puts women in a certain negative light then that has an effect on how women are perceived, never mind whether I buy it or not. It's like saying it would be OK for the Sun to have a page where it slated people for being gay, and if I didn't like that I shouldn't buy it. But is publishing anti-gay hatred OK then? If you think it degrading and causing terrible influence then shouldn't you trust your instincts to want society to be rid of it?

So, where do we ask MN if a Campaign is in order?

Ummm, here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_campaigns? Ot Tweet @MumsnetTowers where they asked 2 days ago what MNers thought of this campaign?

I bet a MN campaign would get more than 1337 supporters!

Like many, I don't tweet or get involve din FB campaigns. Whilst they have their place, obvs, I think political campaigns to risk being ignored on such social media as the majority of users haven't reached the age where they care much about the bigger issues! That generally comes with age and maturity, I'd say!

I'm not suggesting that users of Twitter or FB are necessarily young, immature or politically unaware, just that the majority of users are likely to fall within that demographic!

I think Mumsnet could find more than 1337 supporters too! Which is why I wish they would get on it

I never buy the Sun, but it's been doing this for years.
TBH it's no different to me than saucy seaside postcards.
There have been many campaigns but they don't make a blind bit of difference. I think the whole page 3 phenomenom is totally dated, and will probably die a natural death anyway.

i find it disgusting the way these girls really are objectified in 2012
as if it normal

it should have been banned years about

its very creepy how its often 17/18 year olds

i wonder how many of these girls goon to deeply regret it, too young to make such a big irreversible descion

I don't like the sun newspaper or page 3 and therefore I choose not to buy it. My ideal scenario would involve the newspaper buying public turning away from the sun but if hacking a phone belonging to a dead schoolgirl isn't enough then a pair of nipples won't put anybody off.

I'm also wondering about theform a hypothetical ban would take? No boobs? No nipples? If no nipples are allowed then would it be just newspapers or also magazines?

All in all I would prefer the British public be trusted in most cases to censor itself.

I always find it creepy when you're on the tube/bus or something, and a middle aged man is sat next to you staring at a 17 year old's breasts.

An interesting question. Although I do not like the Sun or page 3, I support a free press and a right to publish what you like within the law (unfortunately that includes pictures of young girls with their boobs out). There is a saying that the public get the press they deserve and want.....after all it is the public who buy the papers and therefore one must assume that more Sun readers are for and not against. Are we going to round up all Sun readers and "teach"
then the correct way to view women.

As for the impact on society, IMHO I think "gossip" websites and magazines, such as the Daily Mail, OK, Grazi etc do more to denegrate women than Page 3. These websites/magazine take pleasure in following the lowest common "celebrity" and then enjoying when something terrible happens to them, or they have an affair, gain/lose weight, dress badly etc and then trashing them. They contain nothing of substance and portray women as witless clothes hangers who lurch from one torrid affair to the next AND the Daily Mail is now the most read webpage in the world. Sigh

But as I said before, if people did not read this rubbish or buy the Sun then this would not be an issue. I do not think it is the governments place to decide what is and is not published (subject to incitement to commit criminal offences and prevention of the publication of racist/homophobic literature etc).

Sorry for the essay and inevitable typos

YABU.

What harm can it do? In fact giving blokes the opportunity to buy this and other images might stop a rape. As for dcs seeing the images, that is the responsibility of adults and clearly their fault not the existance of the image itself.
I have 2 lads and dh who whilst don't look at the sun see other images of scantilly dressed women or topless. There were several on the beach during our holiday.
Maybe the fact that so many women are against their men seeing this stuff is one of the reasons men have affairs as they are looking for titilation elsewhere.
Personally, I would be more worried if my lads and dh weren't normal.

morethanpotatoprints: I think it does a lot of harm because it condones judging women on their bodies, and presents us nothing but entertainment, whilst potentially making young girls feel insecure about their own development, which prevents us from being men's equals. Apologies but I think the stopping rape argument is pretty bizarre! I would suggest that being shown these pretty young girls in a 'here you are boys, have a good cop at my boobs' smiley-smile pose invites men to think we all love a bit of 'appreciation' and are 'well up for it' and that route is far more likely to lead to rape. Besides, we are discussing page 3, not all porn. so it's not like no more booby pics forever.

I've heard the 'what about boobs on the beach' argument so many times but it really has nothing whatsoever to do with page 3! If a woman wants an all-over sun tan then fine. It's not a flash of nipple that is the problem. It is the paper making money by posing women, making their nipples erect, lighting them to show boobs and bum to advantage, vacant smile in place, then photoshopping her, selling her as a 'normal' girl (as opposed to one of a very narrow definition of beauty that is unattainable for many) all for men's pleasure, as though this is some sort of 'right', that is the problem. Like men should be provided tits daily because their sexual 'needs' are more important than our equality or us being viewed as anything more than tits for men.