Active discussions

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

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

....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:
EclecticShock · 20/07/2012 21:13

Why can't older men look at a picture of an adult girl. When I'm 70, I really hope I won't be villified for admiring a young man.

yellowraincoat · 20/07/2012 21:14

It's not just breasts, is it though Eclectic? If it was just breasts, they'd have women of 40 or 50 on there. They wouldn't have the little comments beside them saying "I think the economy is in a real state". The women wouldn't all be posed and made up in the same way. The women would be referred to as women and not as girls. And so on.

yellowraincoat · 20/07/2012 21:14

What's an "adult girl"?

MorrisZapp · 20/07/2012 21:16

Yanbu

So outdated, naff and frankly vile. Hope its gone by the time my wee lad can ask questions about it.

EclecticShock · 20/07/2012 21:16

Yes, it's attractive breasts? I don't understand your point? I enjoy looking at men with nice bodies, I would not enjoy looking at Bruce Forsyth topless? Human nature?

EclecticShock · 20/07/2012 21:17

Over 16, although I do think it should be changed to over 21 for p3 purposes.

yellowraincoat · 20/07/2012 21:17

If you really think men are just looking at that and going "what a lovely looking girl" or even just wanking over her, you're sadly mistaken at the frankly awful way a lot of men talk about women.

DontmindifIdo · 20/07/2012 21:18

EclecticShock - that's perfectly fine for an adult man to look at a photo of an adult woman - however there's many, many ways to access porn these days, most people have access to the internet on their phone - but that is the limited to just them - it's not like most porn companies sell themselves as 'family friendly'.

And as others have said, most people wouldn't consider it acceptable to leave other forms of porn on the bus/tube and would keep it private, but newspapers are seen differently - it's harder to avoid.

DontmindifIdo · 20/07/2012 21:19

BTW - unlike a lot of people on here, I do'nt have a problem with porn itself, I do have a problem with porn in a daily 'family' newspaper.

EclecticShock · 20/07/2012 21:22

My opinion is that newspapers shouldn't be seen differently. If you are too young to read, seeing page 3 is not going to harm you. If your are old enough to read, you shouldn't have access to newspapers unless you are emotionally developed to deal with the horrors in them.

orangeandlemons · 20/07/2012 21:22

I am a trained art teacher, and actualy I would find a painting of a women pleasuring herself similar to soft porn. I don't know the picture but I do find some paintings of some nudes(usually painted by men) well..offensive in a Page 3 way.

I don't mean classical stuff like Reubens, I means stuff which has a pornographic edge to it, often painted by a man. Porn masquerading as Art

yellowraincoat · 20/07/2012 21:24

My problem isn't so much that children see it, although I think that is a problem too.

It's that women are presented as a body to be looked at. That would be fine if there were equal numbers of men's bodies to look at.

And also if men didn't talk about the women who pose in that sort of thing as "slags" and "sluts". They're happy to wank over them and then they denigrate them.

And the fact that it is so...so...I don't even know the word. The women are so non-threatening. There's no personality coming through, no idea what she's like, never any variety between the poses or styling.

EclecticShock · 20/07/2012 21:24

There is nothing immoral about women's bodies... It becomes immoral when they are treated with disrespect. Looking at them with the consent of the person being viewed is not immoral IMO.

squeakytoy · 20/07/2012 21:24

I dont class topless women as porn. There are plenty of perfume and jewellery adverts that feature naked women.. are they porn too?

My grandparents always read The Sun, and I grew up reading it because it was the only newspaper in their house to read when I was a kid. I didnt even notice page 3.. I knew it was there, but it didnt upset,offend or concern me in the slightest.. I was more interested in getting to Dear Deirdre.

There is also the assumption on here that only men look at page 3. What about gay women?

yellowraincoat · 20/07/2012 21:25

EclecticShock, how on earth do you deem people emotionally ready to deal with page 3? Judging by the way women are spoken about in the media, in the pub and so on, I'd say a huge number of men should have their licence to view page 3 taken off them.

EclecticShock · 20/07/2012 21:26

I'm it sure I'm that bothered about what Tom hardy is like in real life when I swoon over him... What's the difference? It's fantasy.

yellowraincoat · 20/07/2012 21:26

What has morality to do with anything, considering it is entirely subjective?

yellowraincoat · 20/07/2012 21:27

I don't know, is Tom Hardy regularly pictured with his finger in his mouth and his thumbs pulling down his pants? Could that be the difference?

EclecticShock · 20/07/2012 21:28

I meant emotionally ready to deal with atrocities like the Denver massacre and other horrors reported in papers either in sensationalist non factual ways or not. Papers are not for children, they are manipulative and mostly propaganda IMO.

DaPrincessBride · 20/07/2012 21:29

YANBU. It's odd, tbh.

MrMeaner · 20/07/2012 21:31

No man, as far as I'm aware, has ever wanked over page 3. And I grew up in the halcyon days of Sam Fox...

Honestly, we might semi notice from an aesthetic perspective, but I think we probably pay far less attention than women may believe we do... I would notice a picture of David Beckham in his underpants to the same extent as the girl on Page 3 - ie hardly at all.

Having said that, I don't live in the UK anymore, so maybe things have stepped up a notch since I was there...

EclecticShock · 20/07/2012 21:31

If he was, I still wouldnt be bothered, I'd see it as his choice. The issue here is that women in general need to stop being discouraged against. Banning their sexuality will not do that. If you ban p3 where do we end up? Covering our entire bodies to leave the house. Sexuality can not be eradicated. It's human nature, however it can be repressed and from other countries where it is repressed, women's rights do not look so good.

yellowraincoat · 20/07/2012 21:32

I think papers are very much for children. They're not perfect, but how else are they supposed to learn about the world?

The Sun probably wouldn't be the first thing I would give a child, but I grew up reading the Daily Record and it got me interested in the media in general.

This is sort of off topic any, isn't it?

EclecticShock · 20/07/2012 21:33

Discrimated against not discouraged...

DontmindifIdo · 20/07/2012 21:34

ElectricShock - the reading age required to read the Sun is the same as the average 9 year old. Very few parents would ban their DCs from reading a paper, most teachers would encourage DCs to read newspapers.

As a principle, I don't think children should be kept from reading newspapers or understanding what's going on in the world, I really think it would be sad if you got to 16 without seeing the news or reading newspapers - but I do think porn isn't something that young children should be exposed to.