Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To ask you all to sign the "No More Page 3" petition?

466 replies

UnrequitedSkink · 17/09/2012 21:18

It's a bit of a no-brainer really. How are we ever supposed to show our kids that women are more than just sex objects when Page 3 exists? It's archaic and totally unnecessary. It's also an anachronism and offensive. Please sign if you believe that pictures of topless girls don't belong in a so-called family newspaper.

More info here and a facebook page here

Fantastically, the petition has gone from 2,000 signatures yesterday morning to over 16,000 today!

OP posts:
minipie · 19/09/2012 14:36

Trying to sign but getting an error message Sad will try again later.

DadDancer I don't object at all to a daily paper including daily light entertainment as well as news. I do object to pictures of breasts being used as a form of daily light entertainment.

StrawberrytallCAKE · 19/09/2012 14:39

Dad but The Sun isn't a lads mag, it is a paper. My fil buys it daily and I would be furious if my dd had to ask me why there was a lady naked on page 3.

No I would not be ok if the girls posed with their tops on unless they were selling the tops. They are not selling anything other than their bodies.

emcwill74 · 19/09/2012 14:41

minipie - I noticed on twitter people were reporting probs yesterday. Maybe try again in a bit. The numbers are going up when I refresh it so people are obviously signing it but there may be a technical difficulty and I've alerted Lucy. Don't give up!

delightfullyfragrant · 19/09/2012 14:44

daddancer

I remember squirming with embarrassment when I was around 16 and sitting on the tube next middle aged men 'reading' the sun with the full page spreads of tits next to my elbow. Yes, I'd look away but soft porn images of girls around my age at that time are not something I was comfortable inadvertently having to share with men old enough to be my grand father. It made me feel really queasy.

I honestly think that if male genitalia or a full page oiled male bum shot was on page three many men would feel embarrassed to buy the paper. Sitting on the tube with huge male butt checks staring at them. I can't see it happening can you? And that is why it's wrong.

princesschick · 19/09/2012 14:49

Hi DadDancer

Now I come at this with the utmost of respect for you and your views. We live in a free society and open discussion is always really important. That's why I find people like you really interesting.

I am a feminist, I am also an attractive women who loves my husband. I am not jealous of page 3 models. Let's get that out there first because a lot of people seem to think that being anti-page 3 or being feminist goes hand in hand with being jealous of page 3 types. Right that's that out of the way!!

So, on the one hand, you can argue that we live in a free society and we are free to express ourselves as we see fit and that page 3 models are just filling a role and being paid to get their boobs out for The Sun. Eveything is commercialised these days: men will always want to look at hot young ladies. Their brains are programmed to like looking at hot young ladies. So there is a business opportunity to exploit this. People like looking at porn, so there is a business opportunity to exploit this. People like eating chocolate, buying stuff, looking nice...we live in a capitatalist society where all of our needs can be sated commercially. So page 3 is just exploiting a business opportunity. If you believe in a free market or if indeed you are a libertarian perhaps you believe that this is acceptable simply because there are so many people that want to consume these images.

I thought I would fill you in about how I feel, I appreciate that you will probably never change your views on this but here we go anyway.

The issue I have about page 3 is not about hot naked young women having fun and doing as they please. But I don't think they are doing women kind any good and as other eminent feminists have written, these girls are female chauvinist pigs. They are letting other women, like me, down. I'm sorry but it's true. I didn't ask to live in a world where it's ok for women to be subjugated and viewed as sex objects. They are not doing this for themselves, they are doing this for men to fulfill a male 'want'. This industry was invented by men, for men. I work in a male dominated industry and I have been privy to enough conversations about so and so on page 3, so and so in Zoo or Nuts, what happened at that strip club over the weekend, who they would 'do' from the admin department, how female directors must have got there by chowing down on some big wig cock - charming. As a women, it's intimidating and makes you want to be swallowed up. I just want to work hard, earn a decent living and be respected by my peers. I don't think I'm superior (I have better qualifications but that's another matter) I would just like to be respected and not viewed as a piece of meat. In these environments I find it very difficult to interact with colleagues who view women this way. I've walked into an all male office where you are looked up and down and called 'poppet' or 'sweetheart' by your colleges. Male collegues do not call each other poppet or sweetheart or darling, so they shouldn't refer to me as that either. My name is fine. Over time I've learnt to ignore and sometimes challenge this kind of behavior, which is typically met with eye rolling and 'calm down dear' or 'she must be on the blob' kind of attitude. I don't find this acceptable behaviour. But the media normalises this sort of behavior and the way women are portrayed in the media especially Page 3 continues to fuel this. It doesn't help us to be respected as intelligent individuals. Now I appreciate that not all men think like this. My husband for one doesn't. And neither do my friends. But I feel they are sadly in the minority. So this is why I don't like page 3. But that's not the issue we're really discussing.

The biggest problem I have is the context in which page 3 is printed. And that's what this campaign is driving at. It wouldn't be appropriate to put page 3 type images in children's films or on telly before the water shed so why is it ok to put them in a family newspaper? If it's not appropriate for children, then it shouldn't be readily available for children to see. Papers that want to print sexually charged images such as the Sun and the Star should be on a different shelf.

But then DadDancer maybe you thinks it's ok for children to privy to these images? Maybe you want your boys to grow up to be blokey blokes who love page 3 and strip clubs and do man things and your girls to be page 3 models / strippers who have no other purpose in life other than to be a sex toy for their man and to one day pop out some kids oh and wash and iron his shirts? If that's your view, and I'm not insulting you if it it is, I may have a better understanding of your stance. For me, I'm merely trying to understand where you are coming from?

So, in summary, for me I don't think sexy posed ladies is appropriate for kids. Or for a newspaper.

My final point, again for me , pictures of 16 and 17 year old girls for older men to assess, leer at, joke about, put up on their wall or wank over is just creepy. Simple as.

I have signed the petition because this is something I feel strongly about. I appreciate that you have your views. I would be interested to learn why you feel the way you do about this and I hope I have explained my feelings for you to deliberate.

Quodlibet · 19/09/2012 15:11

threeOrangesocks I'm not saying people can't disagree. I think what I wrote said precisely the opposite. People can and do disagree. What I was doing was pointing out the flaw in the absolutist argument that there should not be any 'dictating of what people see'. Follow that line to its conclusion and it's totally nonsensical. Unless you believe that there should be no restriction whatsoever on what sexual/pornographic imagery is displayed or where?

MrJudgeyPants · 19/09/2012 15:45

I think it's a sign of how fucked up our society is that we are worried about traumatising children should they happen to catch a glance of the very thing that evolution provided for the purpose of feeding them! That is inevitably another discussion about social norms and conventions but the day I have a funny turn whilst looking at Mrs Pants' new dinner service will be the day I will accept that I need psychiatric help.

If a woman chooses to exchange a photo of her fun bags in return for a bag of money then who am I to condemn her? As far as I am concerned, the Sun can print whatever it likes - the chances of me buying it will remain as close to zero as can be mathematically modelled - and, as no one is compelling me to buy the rag, it is of no concern to me whatsoever what its contents are.

In many ways there is a parallel between this campaign and the carnage in the Middle East caused by the spoof anti-Islam video. If you look for it, you can find offence and take offence wherever you choose. But for freedom of speech to be worth anything at all, one person?s right to speak MUST be considered to be of greater importance than another person?s right to not be offended. Without this basic premise, freedom of speech is nullified. Any commentary is gainsaid and drowned out in a sea of mock outrage. As things stand with our system, the Sun can print what it likes and I can continue to ignore it. If you are right and page 3 has no place in a modern 'newspaper', readers will desert it until it reforms - unfortunately for your argument, the Sun is the bestselling newspaper in the country which, if one is daft enough to confuse causation with effect, would suggest that the Guardian had better start a page 3 pretty pronto just to survive! Simply put, most people (i.e. the UK population minus the 3 million or so who actually read the Sun?s page 3) have already registered their disproval by not buying the bloody rag - those that have signed this petition merely seek to enforce their prejudices on the rest of the population and that is something I could never support.

In many ways these sorts of campaigns remind me of the well intentioned do-gooders from the 19th century. Those middle class puritanicals who preached temperance, morality and chastity and who have morphed into latter day anti-smoking campaigners, drug-prohibitionists or anti-obesity campaigners and have historically looked down their nose at anyone whose idea of enjoyment differs even a hairs breadth from their own. These people claim to act in the interests of those they consider below them in society, yet every solution is the same; ban, tax or prosecute.

In the words of C.S. Lewis, author of the Chronicles of Narnia, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

On that note, I won?t be signing.

GoldShip · 19/09/2012 15:52

Wow, awesome post mrjudgeypants

emcwill74 · 19/09/2012 16:05

Not remotely as awesome as the one by princesschick a few above. All of whose points it ignores.

GoldShip · 19/09/2012 16:06

I haven't ignored it, I just don't agree with it

princesschick · 19/09/2012 16:16

MrJudgeyPants I'm not a moral judgey pants or busybody over all of this. I think it's quite amusing that your name is MrJudgeyPants and that you are being judgey about other people being supposedly judgey Grin which I for one am not Wink

I take your points about business and freedom of expression. I think I made a similar point above. But I don't agree with your sentiment or your calling the people who sign the petition moral crusaders. Do you think it would be ok to put porn on mainstream day time telly? I expect it would be very popular and therefore bring in lots of advertising revue and lots of people would like it, so it might be a good thing to do? Obviously page 3 isn't porn in a puritanical sense but I just wonder how far you take this free market, libertarian argument?

I just don't like women being treated as sex objects and for sexy pictures to be deemed appropriate for a family newspaper. I have no objections to nudity. I think the nude reclaim streets bike ride in Brighton is brilliant because it's a protest and people are making a case for freedom by being confident and happy and are not doing it to be sexually provocative. Lots of different body shapes and sizes and a much healthier display of the human form than homogenized page 3 fodder. I don't mind nude beaches or topless sun bathing. I even get my boobs out on the beach from time to time myself, because I don't want tan lines and not because I want to excite men on the beach next to me. I don't put my finger in my mouth and pout or wiggle my thumbs in the top of my bikini bottoms as I run to the sea and look at them in the eye as the wind blows my hair out. I spent time in France where they have naked women boobs out and everything advertising shower gel at 5pm in between family cartoons. They're washing. Not standing there soaping there breasts whilst pouting in the camera to get male attention. I don't like the titillation aspect of page 3, or lads mags or strip clubs. I really dislike the way we our culture dictates to girls that they have to be slim, big boobed, pretty and pouty to be attractive and get ahead in life. I don't like feeding this sentiment to men in a family paper every day so that they think it's ok to leer young girls in the street or to put colleagues down in the work place etc etc . That's all.

I don't think society is "fucked up" (as you eloquently put it) for thinking that children will be traumatised by seeing pictures of boobs! That's ridiculous! I do think society is "fucked up" for grooming girls to have to be a certain way to get male attention, be attractive and earn money. Come on we all know it's sleazy and undermines women! The same way that we know smoking causes cancer and obese people are more prone to life threatening diseases. That's not be judgy, that's exercising common sense!

MrJudgeyPants · 19/09/2012 16:16

emcwill74 Firstly, my post wasn't a retort to princesschick's post, it was my own opinion. With regard to her post, her assumption is that the Sun is a 'family newspaper'. If it has a page 3 it isn't really suitable for families and using the term 'newspaper' to describe the Sun is stretching credulity to say the least.

GoldShip Thanks.

emcwill74 · 19/09/2012 16:17

I mean MrJudgeyPants had ignored it, not you GoldShip, and gone back to the incorrect assumption that those of us that would like to page 3 gone do so because are all so terribly offended (by our own choice) and reaching for smelling salts at the thought of seeing (or a child seeing) a nipple, when it has been stated over and over and over again that this is not the driver behind this campaign at all.

It is nothing to do with children catching a glance of that used to feed them - how many pics does the Sun show of nursing mothers on page 3? It is about context (lack of) and the wider effect on society, not personal 'offence'. None of which the poster engages with. Of course. Instead we're back to being puritans.

What freedom of speech is being compromised by the editor withdrawing a picture of some random tits, unconnected with any news or opinion? The freedom of speech of the sub eds to make the model look thick in News in Briefs?

emcwill74 · 19/09/2012 16:18

If it's not a family newspaper then why does it sell itself with free Lego giveaways? Articles about helping kids with their homework?

GoldShip · 19/09/2012 16:21

Emcwill - I mean this in the kindest way, I think you should just step back for your own sanity. I did, I had my say in the other topic. I don't agree with you, you dont agree with me and neither side is sver going to step down!

princesschick · 19/09/2012 16:22

MrJudgeyPants then they should put an age limit on it and put it on a top shelf. Or in plain paper bag. I think you're ignoring the obviously about the wider impact. And no I don't read The Sun either. However, it is a newspaper, it contains news and tits and crosswords. I choose to read a different kind of newspaper with a different kind of journalism and more challenging crossword but The Sun Newspaper, is still strictly speaking a newspaper, no?

MrJudgeyPants · 19/09/2012 16:22

emcwill74 "What freedom of speech is being compromised by the editor withdrawing a picture of some random tits, unconnected with any news or opinion?"

You cannot say that a self-appointed elite compelling an editor to change what his paper prints doesn't constitute a removal of freedom of speech. As I said in my post, if it offends you so much, don't buy it.

emcwill74 · 19/09/2012 16:25

Goldship this means a lot to me. My sanity is doing as OK as ever! It really frustrates me when I am reduced by pro-page 3 people to a prude (which I am not) despite the fact that I and lots of women and men feel strongly about this for other reasons! I appreciate I can't change everyone's mind but I can't bear for this campaign and my support of it to be misinterpreted so badly!

emcwill74 · 19/09/2012 16:26

Oh no, back to the don't buy it argument. Sigh... This really has been answered to death.

'elite'? What on earth do you mean?

GoldShip · 19/09/2012 16:27

Fair does emc. In all fairness I will say that despite me disagreeing, you are one of the few who argued the case well.

bemybebe · 19/09/2012 16:27

I am entitled to judge as I see fit people viewing page 3 alongside Holocaust deniers and other undesirables but I am totally against going down the route of censorship and bans. It is a very slippery slop and a very dangerous one.

princesschick · 19/09/2012 16:30

emc there's lots of support out there for this and a lot of feminists who think like you do. And not because they are prude, judgy, middle class, looking down on others type people. I think people are purposefully missing the point to get their point across IYSWIM. I like to consider arguments from all angles and have in the past changed my mind when I have been well enough convinced that my thinking was flawed. This is called being open minded. So far, no-one from the pro-page 3 movement has made a dent on my opinions. So I wouldn't take it personally :)

emcwill74 · 19/09/2012 16:32

Thank you Goldship and princesschick!

CakeExpectations · 19/09/2012 16:32

Have signed, and made my feelings very clear on the form to boot.

Dana1981 · 19/09/2012 16:32

threeOrangesocksmorgan I do have to lol at all these women signing a petition to stop other women from choosing to do something!!

Me too. I thought feminism was about choice for women- the choice to do things (including things that might seem a little controversial). But guess not, it seems feminists only want women to make choices that they agree with.

And not all women are feminists so feminists can't speak on behalf of all women.