....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?

i don't think page 3 girls are being mocked by the 'readers' are they? I don't know what minority group you think they belong to.They are women 51% of the population.Do men look at women as objects of their lust sexual.Yes sometimes.If they didn't the human race would have died out

They are mocked by the Sun itself! Have you ever seen News in Briefs?! As I've said before it's a case of 'ha ha, look! they've put a caption about socio-economic theory next to her tits as though she's said it! Hilarious! She's obviously thick as a brush cos she's a girl with her baps out!' So the 'joke' is that women are either stunnas with tits and no brains, or mingers who you don't want to see with their tits out (obviously if you disagree with page 3 you automatically join the later camp)? Great!

As for your point that women make up 51% of the population - well quite! So why are we allowing ourselves to be depicted like this which just tells men we are all about our tits and to treat us accordingly? I don't see why it matters that we are not a minority group - it doesn't make it OK if we're not.

And yes of course men might lust after us. But actually when I'm going about my day that s irrelevant, and when women are having to operate in professional environments where they want to be respected as the equal of their male colleagues without question, how does being reduced to a pair or tits help that? Getting rid of page 3 is hardly about saying, hey stop fancying women and trying to have consensual sex with them!

Oh and by the way, you appear to have forgotten to answer my question as whether a 'gay of the day' in the Sun would be OK and we all have to just live and let live. Whilst preaching rampant homophobia.

I wonder how many of the people here who want page 3 banned are page 3 or topless models themselves? Probably none (correct me if I am wrong).

oh and have you all heard of the page 3 idol contest (I think it's only shown on the internet)? It's a contest where non-professional everyday women are invited to send in their own topless pics. If women were so against page 3 then surely the contests (there is one every year) would fall flat from the lack of entries? But no- each contest gets hundreds of applicants from women who submit a topless pic of themselves.

If women in general were so against page 3 then why are so many willing to become a page 3 model themselves?

My point is not clearly not all women find it "objectification". Women have differing opinions to page 3 and feminists therefore cannot speak on behalf of all women.

No Consuelaa every single one of us on MN are topless models. I mean otherwise we couldn't possibly be allowed to have an opinion on The Sun, right?

If women in general were so against page 3 then why are so many willing to become a page 3 model themselves?

Errr, I doubt women in general are willing to become a page 3 model themselves.

What a bizarre thing to wonder - of course women who currently choose to 'pose topless' probably don't want to ban it.

More interesting to wonder would be not about those women who are doing it now, but who may have done it in the past and since changed their stance. There have been a few of those on is thread, even.

As for objectification - it is objectification; I don't think there can be any debate about that. The difference in opinion is that some women don't mind being objectified and even actively invite it, via the medium of exposing their breasts to the Sun-reading public. The issue other women have with that is the impact it has on all of us in terms of being taken seriously.

You know, sort of how gay men dislike the stereotypical depiction of the limp-wristed, mincer. Some gay men (or, worse, straight men acting 'gay' on TV or film) may not mind perpetuating that stereotype, but you can't blame the rest for getting a bit fed up with it.

Keep getting your tits out by all means, but keep being prepared to defend it to those of us who don't agree.

of course women who currently choose to 'pose topless' probably don't want to ban it.

So why do you think you have a right to speak on their behalf? If page 3 was so damaging to page 3 models then why do so many choose to be page 3 models (and judging by the page 3 idol contests hundreds upon hundreds more want to be page 3 models). Page 3 models are consenting adults, well paid and can leave their job anytime they want.

Arrrggghhhhhhh! For the trillionth time Consuelaa, as has been explained countless times on this thread, nobody is aiming to be an advocate for page 3 women, or 'speak for them'. Those of us who oppose page 3 are perturbed by the casual sexism that page 3 helps to embed within our culture - we are concerned for ourselves, our daughters, sisters and friends not especially the glamour models themselves

no one said page three was damaging to page three models. its damaging to women as a species full stop!
Its degrading and gives the impression that a woman's body is there for the purpose of pleasing men only. there is more to a woman that her tits and looks yet page three does not allow people to see past that.
I bloody hate the quotes part next to the page three model too, where they say something intelligent. it just screams "this woman is dumb so if we say e=mc2 then its ok because she is clever and has her boobs out. grrrr

consuela - 9,000 people (and still fast growing)have now signed this. Imagine NINE THOUSAND people! Not all are women, there are loads of blokes signing, parents and non-parents alike, just people who think this is outdated and causing a lot of harm to women and girls everywhere. It isn't just a small handful of feminists as you seem to think, who oppose it, it is a massive group of people who all think that boobs are not news and shouldn't be in a newspaper. Lads mags and top-shelf mags are one thing, a NEWSPAPER is another.

"So why do you think you have a right to speak on their behalf?"

Um, I don't. Which is why I haven't....?

I'm speaking on behalf of me. And all the people who agree with me by default, but mostly me. Page 3 is damaging to women. As has been reiterated time and time again in this 700+ post thread.

"Page 3 models are consenting adults, well paid and can leave their job anytime they want."

They may have consented, but the rest of us certainly haven't consented to our gender being objectified, mocked, leered at, laughed at, derided, etc. We're not being paid for that privilege! And unfortunately we can't 'leave' the situation any time we want. Which is why we're doing the next best thing and asking the Sun not to show women's breasts in their newspaper.

To be honest, we're just going round in circles here. The points keep continually getting (wilfully?) missed. Or, I suspect, just not fully understood.

only 9,000 in more than 25 days, i think your kidding yourself, it is a small bunch, weather or not they are all feminists, who knows.
when youv got nine million you may be on to something.
maybe most of the female population dont feel objectified, even if you think they should.

It's not a small bunch; it's a rapidly growing voice that has been stifled for years by the Sun and its defenders shouting us down telling us we are fat, ugly, jealous, insecure, crazy, spoilsport mingers, to belittle us and shut us up, instead of actually engaging with the arguments in any meaningful way. You only have to read the comments that people add on the @NoMorePage3 twitter feed when they sign to see it's not 'just' feminists - it is a diverse cross section of people with many different reasons for signing, reflecting the many reasons page 3 is so wrong. If any woman doesn't think they are being objectified it is simply because they are so used to this happening that it hasn't even occurred to them to realise that it is. Because as one signatory wrote: the treatment of women starts with their depiction.

9,000 doesn't sound much considering over 62,000,000 live in the UK. It's a splash in the sea.

How many people do you think buy the sun? Wikipedia says "Between July and December 2010 it had an average daily readership of approximately 7.6 million".

7.6 million outnumbers 9,000.

When the number of people who want page 3 banned at least outnumber the number who buy the sun then you might have a point.

Well, the number of people who don't buy the Sun far, far outweighs the number of people who do, so that speaks volumes, surely?

Maybe they're not actively signing petitions to stop it, but they are doing what you all suggest on this thread: 'don't buy it if you don't like it'.

Simply not liking something doesn't mean you want it banned.

Plenty of things I don't like but that doesn't mean I want them banned.

Can I just point out that not necessarily everyone who buys the Sun does so for page 3? They are buying a paper that happens to have a pic of some tits in it, not a pic of some tits! Saying x million people buy the Sun so x million people must be pro-page 3 doesn't hold up. A lot of people who buy the Sun probably wouldn't care if it went anyway. It doesn't make sense to say the number of people signing to say they are anti-page 3 has to equal the number of Sun readers to have any credibility.

And also, whilst I personally would be happy for page 3 to be 'banned' constitutionally, as I believe it would be if it were racist or homophobic or anti-semitic instead of sexist, the petition I am referring to isn't actually a call to parliament for its ban, as you would see if you so much as clicked the link: it is asking Mohan himself to stop it.

That 9,000 is growing very rapidly. On one day last week it gained 3,000 sigs in one day (it will be 10k by the end of today - not equal to Sun readership no, but my point is it is growing, rapidly). And bear in mind, not everyone who would agree it should go will necessarily know about this particular petition, or even has internet access. I'm not saying it will ever reach the same number of sigs as Sun buyers but so what? It shows that a large number of people feel very strongly that this is very wrong. Which it is.

I don't remember anyone saying 'they won't get rid of smoking in public places until there is a petition with more sigs for that instead of smokers'. The petition reflects the fact that more and more people are happy to speak out and say actually this isn't harmless fun and OK because it's a British institution; it is sexist, outdated, harmful and makes us ashamed to be British. It is not intended as a parliamentary democratic vehicle. But it does very clearly show that all these years whilst the Sun treated Claire Short and anyone else who stood up to speak out in a shamefully despicable bullying way (and it's high time Mohan apologised on behalf of previous editors rather than merely saying he probably wouldn't do that now) as being just some crazy ugly jealous feminist, in fact people from all walks of life and both genders feel the same.

I have simply no understanding whatsoever of why anyone, but particularly a woman, would stand up for this. As I have repeatedly asked those that do, and received no answer as yet, were it instead a 'gay of the day' pic, showing men in stereotypically camp poses/clothes, with a caption taking the piss out of them for being gay, would you be championing that as well? Of is homophobia bad but sexism fine?

If Page 3 offends so many people, why should it continue? There is no actual need to have a picture of a young girl wearing nothing but necklace and knickers at the family breakfast table.

It functions more as a recruitment campaign for the glamour industry. The only reason the Sun continues with this is because it CAN.

Agreed. I have seen posts in fb discussions etc by male Sun readers who might love looking at page 3 but are pretty surprised they've been getting away for this long. The attitude was that of, of course I'm going to look if it's there, great, but I don't really know why it still is. This is what I mean about not all Sun readers being necessarily pro-page 3.

I see no one shouting at the Mirror or Daily Mail or Guardian, moaning how terrible it is that there is no woman with her tits out in them. It is fine for those papers to exist without it. It doesn't need to be in a newspaper, its existence angers and upsets a lot of people, it needs to go.

Can I just point out that not necessarily everyone who buys the Sun does so for page 3?

If page 3 is so bad then why don't they buy another newspaper? It's not like The Sun is the only newspaper to choose from.

it is asking Mohan himself to stop it.

Has he said anything in response to all this?

I have no idea why they don't buy another paper - you might guess I am hardly a fan of the Sun! But just because they do buy it doesn't mean it's because every single one of them is doing so for Page 3 (I understand its sports coverage is supposed to be good, my step mum used to buy it for the bingo, perhaps some people like tory policy dressed up as news in words of fewer than 2 syllables). It doesn't mean that a large proportion of them won't miss page 3. And as I have said repeatedly now, just because women are so used to being treated like rubbish and therefore don't notice it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I'm not aware that Mohan has made any public statement. Doesn't mean that he isn't feeling any pressure. It doesn't mean the now 10,000 sigs won't go on doubling until he does.

I note you still haven't answered my question however.

Signed.

Emcwill

You are a trooper