....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?

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean that they don't understand.

Men have eroticised (is that a word?) womens breasts since the dawn of civilization. It's laughable to suggest that banning page 3 would change that.

"Men have eroticised (is that a word?) womens breasts since the dawn of civilization. It's laughable to suggest that banning page 3 would change that. "

Breats are erotic. Page 3 has nothing to do with eroticism. Page 3 is about commercialising sexuality and demeaning girls/putting women in their place. As long as Page 3 exists girls grow up with the message they are not human but just " a pair of tits".

Besides, just because a state of affairs has existed since the dawn of civilzation doesn't make it right. Slavery, anyone?

Well said Farlo.

"I believe that topless modelling is the choice of the adult individual. "

Choices are not made in a vacume, but all of us are influenced by messages that society feeds us. Unfortunately our society tells young women that their bodies matter more than their brains, ideals or abilities.

SkaterGrrrrl You see that wall behind you? Go and bang your head on it. Some people just aren't capable of understanding that.

Yes men find breasts erotic, yes they like them, no of course getting rid of page 3 won't change that. But this isn't about any horror of sexuality or nudity. Look at the comments below any article on the net where this is discussed and a huge number of comments from men are along the lines of 'you are ugly/jealous/insecure' etc etc. When male politicians debate do you hear one stand up after another and say 'is that because my right honourable friend is fat and ugly'? Why is this apparently central to my beliefs then just because I'm female?

We're quite a nudie family around each other and I am perfectly happy with my body, comfortable with no clothes on and the last thing I want is for my kids to find their bodies shameful. But neither should my daughter grow up to be defined by her appearance and what her boobs are like. Her breasts are just starting to bud and if she sees page 3 how are we to explain that to her? What is she supposed to think of her body then? That men are looking at her now because they like looking at women's boobs? That she must look like the woman in the picture in order to be pretty? That if her body doesn't grow to be like that woman's she is second rate? That if men like her body like they do that woman's she has succeeded? That this is really important?

One of the arguments the Sun trotted out for page 3 a couple of years ago by 'a Twitter user' was along the lines of in these tough economic times men need some entertainment. Is that what you all get out of bed for? Tough day ahead dealing with kids/work/house/relationship stresses etc but never mind, at least I might be able to cheer some stranger up just by being pretty. It's so insulting! Read a few comments at @EverydaySexism on Twitter and it's so terribly depressing how many women couldn't even get from A to B on a train recently without being groped, fondled or sat opposite a man masturbating/stroking an erection whilst looking at her. I am not exaggerating, it is completely shocking. And at a lower level many other women are reporting routinely being told to cheer up and smile, and having comments made about their looks and bodies, as though, again, that is our job, to look nice for men. I am not saying violence and harassment of women will stop if we don't have page 3, but all it does is exacerbate that culture. Yes there is much harder porn on the internet but the point is that the Sun normalises this objectification because it is a newspaper with massive circulation. It is not the appropriate place for a random piece of soft porn, and how soft/hard it is is besides the point.

FolkGirl's comments about turkeys and Christmas is so true. Every woman that defends page 3 is colluding in a culture that makes us second-class citizens.

I don't care about page 3 one way or another, but there is one point I would like to make:

We should ban things that might harm people, provided the value of that protection outweighs the loss of personal freedom.

We shouldn't ban things purely because we disapprove culturally. IMO the whole culture of Judeo-Christian shame attached to anything they deem to be 'rude' is behind a lot of the talk here. But that culture is no more correct than any of the much more liberal cultures humanity has seen.

There's something wrong with our culture when we are more relaxed about depicting violent crime and murder on TV, than we are about depicting the human body.

It is sad that in this day and age, page3 is still thought to pull in the punters (men) to buy these types of newspaper. I am sure that most have access to the hard porn on the Internet so seem a waste of good advertising space and a good way to keep women in there place, as objects not individuals.

I am deeply suspicious of young women who want to be Page 3 girls and try to persuade (themselves) and everyone around them they are consenting freely. Because quite frankly anyone who is braindamaged enough to think that getting their tits out for Page 3 is a wise move, is not capable of comprehending what consent actually means.

"IMO the whole culture of Judeo-Christian shame attached to anything they deem to be 'rude' is behind a lot of the talk here."

Sorry I think you are wrong. The women objecting here are feminists. Feminists for example have no issue with women's breasts being seen in public when breastfeeding. It is not because it is about semi nudity. It is because the women's breasts are being displayed to sexually titillate men. It is porn.

What a lovely non judgemental post from dysfunctional.

I am not brain dead. And I know what consent is. Thankyou

And the 'choices aren't made in a vacuumed' debate. We know we are influenced. There's a reason and an influence behind every single choice.

And I know my brains are far more important, but why should that stop me from using my looks too?

Oh I forget, because feminists don't like it.

GoldShip - why do you think we 'don't like it'? (Even though this is not actually a debate about women using their looks, or topless modelling, or porn, it is about a very narrow focus - the third page of Britain's biggest-selling paper that has a random picture of a topless woman for no reason but to appeal to men.) Do you think we don't like it because we are fat/ugly/jealous/insecure? Even though there are nearly 2,200 signatories to this petition, none of whom you know the appearance of, and many of whom are men? Even though you don't know me or what I look like do you assume I must either be aesthetically unpleasing to look at, or at least think I am? And if so do you think that is really important? Do you think it is fair game for others to assume this of me too? And do you think that by encouraging men to believe they have a right to look at a stranger's tits every morning and judge whether they want to sleep with her or not, this might have an affect on how they, you and others perceive me as a woman who dares have a contrary opinion?

As I have said, if newspapers don't affect how people view things, then why do advertisers spend hundreds of thousands putting their products in them? Is it really so awful to ask can you and others be allowed to pursue a topless modelling career in publications more suited to that?

I think it probably will be faded out over the next few years - doesn't seem a huge appetite for it. Page 3 girls aren't celebrities like they were in the 80s and they don't always appear every day.

Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.

My glamour model friend (babestationer - not yet page 3) LOVES her job, as I said. She's never been clever, and has had loads of bar/shop/un-employment. She's now making extremely good money, paying taxes and feels good about herself.

I'm afraid it's not as simple as don't like it, don't buy it as many many posts on this now very long thread have tried to point out. It negatively affects women who don't go near it by normalising in Britain's biggest-selling newspaper the treating of women like vacant objects whose main role is to fit a very narrow definition of attractiveness (thin, big boobs, young, white [mainly]) and appear sexually available for men.

I agree with Nancy, it certainly doesn't have the same impact it used to, there's far more images out there on the internet these days.
If it was dropped I don't think it would affect the sales of the Sun at all.

Emc - I think you don't like it because you believe that it has this negative effect on womankind. One that I fail to see, because I don't believe banning women from showing of their bodies is going to do any good. Not at all.

I can understand someone wanting to ban Page 3. Because they don't want to see it in a national newspaper, fair enough.

But all the talk of us being prostitutes and damaging other women is a load of crap I'm afraid.

It's bordering on what a Muslim preacher said: 'we make our women wear burkas to remove temptation from men'.

Men's attitudes should change. Not women hiding their bodies.

Why aren't you mad at the girls first?

GoldShip - you are right, this is, personally, what I stand for: to get page 3 out of the Sun, not banning women showing their bodies. I'm really glad you appreciate the difference, thank you! (Not being patronising here, but clearly some people on this thread have misunderstood this.) I think there is a broader problem at work but right now this is what I should like to see happen, this is what that petition would like to see happen, and what I presume the OP is posting about. I'm afraid I can't see men's attitudes towards women changing as long as a national newspaper tells them we love being 'appreciated' (or why are these girls getting them out?), so where's the harm in telling a young girl you don't know on her own on a train that she has a nice pair/pretty face/you wouldn't mind giving her one...?

I'm not remotely in favour of women being expected to wear burqas etc but there is middle ground here! And it seems reasonable to me to suggest that the middle ground might be not to have a random page of soft porn [the degree of hard/soft is irrelevant] in a family paper in which it has no place.

Why not! They are nice looking girls (mostly) with nice bodies. Why is it ok to be proud of the godgiven gift of good brains , but not good boobs.
I don't think the girls are being demeaned or 'used'.they are adults who know exactly waht they are doing. Some go on to have lucrative careers in non-sex related roles.

dranksinatra - I'm not at all mad at the girls. GoldShip may not agree with me but I think a lot of them have probably not had the education/support to see how they could achieve in other areas and obtain self-worth not just in relation to how their bodies are perceived by men. I read an interview with Lucy Collett after she won page 3 idol who talked about the pain she felt at her parents break up and then how at 15 she realised she had big boobs and men were looking at her and thought 'this could be good' (at an age when she could instead have been thinking about the opportunities she had ahead of her in relation to school work etc). In her pics you can see scars all the way up her arms from self-harming. My heart genuinely went out to her. Whilst I may be way off track I don't think it unreasonable to suggest that if her parents break up did cause a lot of anguish, or even if totally unrelated issues caused the degree of self-loathing that leads you to punish your own body like that, it must be easy to confuse the unfocused lust of strangers who don't even know anything about you, with love, appreciation, self-worth, and to crave that. I find it genuinely saddening thinking what if this were my DD?

So no, I can't blame the girls for making money whilst the opportunity is there, I would just prefer it weren't an opportunity available in a newspaper and my hatred is reserved for the Sun for selling these lies to 15 y.o. girls like Collett.

Personally, I don't have a problem with page 3 or the woman who want to model for it, I cringe more at the terrible photoshopping and airbrushing that goes on. (Especially how that impacts on womens' body image - a whole other debate.) However, though my own views are pretty liberal, I am very aware of social etiquette and decency, and if for example I saw The Sun left on a train seat open on that page, I would discreetly remove it. My DP was reading The Sun on the beach once and when he got to page 3 I realised there were kids playing behind us so I placed a couple of pebbles over her boobs for censorship! Don't have a problem with DP reading The Sun either, it's mostly full of pap but he has a stressful job and would rather browse through it and be entertained, than have to concentrate over a heavy going broadsheet article.

"Why not! They are nice looking girls (mostly) with nice bodies. Why is it ok to be proud of the godgiven gift of good brains , but not good boobs."

It's perfectly fine to be proud of your boobs, and even show them to people who you want to admire them (though frankly wanting to show them to thousands of people who you don't know is about as sad as walking around with your degree certificate stapled to your t-shirt, or 'I'm a doctor/lawyer/teacher/writer" written across your forehead).

But the issue at stake her isn't really the self-esteem of women who take their clothes off for money, but the ethics of a culturally prominent, mainstream newspaper normalising soft porn.