Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

736 replies

DianaVreeland · 20/07/2012 16:07

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?

OP posts:
NigellasGuest · 11/09/2012 13:23

quite, Shagmund.
Why can't people on this thread understand the actual issue? it's been repeated so much and the page 3 apologists just dont' seem able to take it on board, and get sidetracked with personal anecdotes Sad

GoldShip · 11/09/2012 13:56

I think a lot of you have been extremely patronising and condescending towards us 'page 3 apologists' because we don't agree with you.

Either that or resort to personal insults.

It's no way to have a debate. I've accepted your views yet I'm a brain dead prostitute for sticking by mine.

Think I shall hide now

PretzelTime · 11/09/2012 14:00

I don't want to ban page 3
I just want it to be full of interesting articles instead of teenage breasts.
Can't hetero men read the news without wanking to noods at the same time?

Sparrowp · 11/09/2012 14:01

I wouldn't ban it, but it is porn, and should be treated in the same way as other porn.

Got to be fair about it!

Nancy66 · 11/09/2012 14:12

It's not pornography.

tastless, tacky, outdated, sexist, offenstive to some, certainly. But it's not porn.

emcwill74 · 11/09/2012 14:17

It is porn, OED online has: 'printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement'. It is certainly very soft porn compared to what is available elsewhere but that doesn't take away its aim - to give a bit of a thrill to men by showing a sexual area of a woman's body that is normally covered up in daily life.

I'm not passing moral judgement on porn per se, but it is porn and it doesn't belong in a family newspaper.

Nancy66 · 11/09/2012 14:42

page 3 isn't explicit and doesn't show sexual activity.

i don't like it but I don't accept that it's porn.

PretzelTime · 11/09/2012 14:48

I thought the point of it is to be "sexy"
So it's soft porn. And either you make a porn mag or you make a real newspaper. Can't have both at the same time and pretend it's all fine and serious.

emcwill74 · 11/09/2012 14:52

I do agree Pretzel - a lot of people have tried telling me all my opinions are invalid because it's a 'comic' not a 'newspaper', well fine, let's have it on the same shelf as Loaded and keep the tits and general mockery of womankind then. But it's not there, it's on the newsstands next to the broadsheets and all the other papers that don't have random porn in them. (And yes, yes, the Star and Sport are not OK either, but let's just start with the biggest-selling 'newspaper' shall we...!)

Consuelaa · 11/09/2012 16:28

I'm not saying I "support" page 3 I just mean why is it such a big issue? tbh until I saw this thread I actually forgot page 3 existed.

And remember the Sun is a tabloid newspaper. Tabloids in general tend to be comics that post total crap. If you want a decent newspaper why not buy a broadsheet? Or read online news?

And the models themselves are doing it by choice. And the people who buy this comic do so by choice. Isn't feminism supposed to be about choice?

emcwill74 · 11/09/2012 16:54

Consuelaa - But then where is my choice to live in a society that views me as the equal of men, rather than something that is there to be judged on her looks? If people want to buy comics with tits in then, as I say, fine, but put it on the lads mag shelf and stop pretending it's a newspaper.

Obviously I don't buy tabloids, but as many posts on this thread have outlined, it is not as simple as don't like it, don't buy it when it's not just 'a tabloid', it's Britain's biggest-selling newspaper and by selling women as stupid bimbos (look! they've put a quote about particle physics next to her tits! as if she can speak in words of more than two syllables! HILARIOUS!!) or fat, ugly, jealous mingers, it negatively affects me whether I buy or not, without giving me any choice.

GreenD · 11/09/2012 17:46

If it's Britains best selling newspaper, what good will banning it do? The reasons why it is best selling newspaper will still be there.

SkaterGrrrrl · 11/09/2012 18:28

"And the models themselves are doing it by choice. And the people who buy this comic do so by choice. Isn't feminism supposed to be about choice? "

Because our society is so unequal that its not a real choice. In a society where men and women were equal (and a young women could get as much positive attention by teaching or founding a charity as she could by being a glamour model), then stripping for page 3 would be a real choice.

But we are so twisted, so skewed, so deeply UNEQUAL that a young woman is valued more for displaying her breasts than doing scientific research say, or caring for old folk - so of course young women are going to be drawn to stripping.

Consuelaa · 11/09/2012 18:38

If it's Britains best selling newspaper, what good will banning it do? The reasons why it is best selling newspaper will still be there.

Exactly. And page 3 is still available online anyway. I don't know if there's a page 3 app for phones as well but it wouldn't surprise me.

The fact remains so many people continue to buy the Sun. Whatever your opinon of the Sun is it's popular and it makes money. If most people hated the Sun then it would go out of business by itself and we wouldn't need to do any banning.

Consuelaa · 11/09/2012 18:42

Don't you think it's good for equality that woman have the choice to be a stripper or a topless model if they wanted? There are plenty of countries in Africa and the middle east who would never allow Page 3 and look at how they treat women there.

Victorian Britain would never have allowed page 3 either but they weren't exactly hot on women's rights either.

My point is women have choice. And that includes the choice to do things that might seem controversial to some.

PretzelTime · 11/09/2012 19:12

Having objectified boobs on Page 3 is a true sign of Equality

Except there are never any nood manboobs there :(

emcwill74 · 11/09/2012 19:26

Consuealaa - its like you're saying 'we have two choices here: a) page 3; b) every woman in Britain wears a burqa, walks 5 paces behind her husband and doesn't speak till spoken to'. Are you aware that that are other places women can do this sort of 'modelling'? No one is trying to take this right away, we are saying it is inappropriate in a newspaper! I'm blatantly copying this from someone's fb post, but try this: take the phrase, 'if you don't like page 3, don't buy the Sun'. Now replace 'page 3' with 'looking at random women with their tits out' and replace 'the Sun' with 'a newspaper'. Just try that. Doesn't that sound absolutely crazy?

But as I have already put to you, what about my choice to live in a world where I am not constantly depicted, as a woman, as nothing more than a sexual object for men to judge on her looks/tits? If my husband leaves his socks on the floor again I don't have the choice to punch him in the gob. There can't always be total freedom for freedom's sake if that freedome harms others. I believe page 3 does a lot of harm, but, crucially, taking it out of a family newspaper erodes no woman's right to do this elsewhere.

GreenD · 11/09/2012 19:29

"In a society where men and women were equal (and a young women could get as much positive attention by teaching or founding a charity as she could by being a glamour model"
How many men get as much positive attention for teaching or founding a charity as they could by playing football?

Should we ban football?

PretzelTime · 11/09/2012 19:43

yeah let's ban football!!!
Wait it's not the same thing as being objectified in a mag

thebeesnees79 · 11/09/2012 19:49

mrsbethal you are wrong! I am very anti religion & would define myself as atheist. It's as someone else pointed out, a woman's job is not to look good for men end of. we should be able to go about daily life without being harassed, oggled whatever.
Thankfully I have a rather large bump at the minute which means I can walk past builders with out the usual barrage of wolf whistles and "hey love" etc. Society is so sexist & page 3 is a very old fashioned builder/rugby lad/pub stereo type and it needs to go. not saying all nudity bare breast etc needs to go, it just needs reserving for lads mags top shelf etc rather than a tabloid paper.

JamieandOscarSittinginATree · 11/09/2012 19:56
KarlosKKrinkelbeim · 11/09/2012 20:25

It is a trite but nonetheless true observation that the concealment of womens' bodies in conservative societies and their exposure for commercial and sexual purposes in so-called liberal ones are merely 2 sides of the same coin, namely the commodification and fetishisation of the female body. Why can;t the female body just be, like the male one can, without it having to be either "don't lokk! don't look! cover it in a tent so no-one can see!" or "phwoar have a gawp at these"? There is an alternative to these 2 positions, you know.
I also have to say that I find the notion of being proud of one's breasts very odd. i like my breasts, they have fed 2 children and given me no end of pleasure, I would go so far as to say they are 2 of my closest friends in a very literal sense. but proud of them? One's life would have to be very short on concrete achievement to be driven to that extreme, i think.

SomersetONeil · 11/09/2012 20:36

"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"

Grin

There have been some mahoosive threads on here where people have been utterly derided for wanting to use Dr as their title instead of Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs when they have a PhD. And yet those people choosing to use their earnt title impacts on absolutely no-one other than themselves.

Women choose to get their tits out for the lads does impact on other women.

The Page 3 apologists have to do some serious head-sticking-in-the-sand on this topic because if they concede for one second that their choice impacts on other women, then they're on highly questionable ground. So they have to deny this, in the face of all the contrary evidence. It make them looks incredibly clouded and blinkered, at best.

And I can't believe that aftter all these posts we STILL have people coming on saying 'don't like it, don't buy it'...! OK. Obviously all the zillions of other people explaining why hat argument is null and void it hasn't made any sense to you.

Look at it this way. Whatever the circulation of the Sun is - the number of people who don't buy it, far far outweighs that number. So most people aren't buying it. Hasn't solved the problem, has it?

Again, this is about tits being in a daily national newspaper, and the message that sends out.

PretzelTime · 11/09/2012 20:36

Good post Karlos (and nickname)

messyisthenewtidy · 11/09/2012 21:48

"Why can;t the female body just be, like the male one can"

If only!

Swipe left for the next trending thread