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

[UnrequitedSkink]

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!

Princesschick and Emcwill74 - you are fighting the good fight, and my husband and I salute you. If you have children, they must or (if young or unborn) certainly will be proud of you. What fabulous and reasoned arguments you both give...I look forward to sharing your excellent and strongly demonstrated points with my four daughters and son, whom are all at impressionable ages. What they see and hear in everyday society is frankly quite disturbing. A number of the teenage boys in school with our daughters tease them and call them 'frigid' because they won't send them naked photographs of themselves like some of the other girls. Our society has become so pornographised that my 12 year old daughter has friends who fight for the attention of a certain boy who will only speak to the girls who've sent him said photo's! When my daughter asked her friend what her father would say after she's sent the lad her naked photo, her friend replied that "dad couldn't say anything...he looks at the page 3 girl's and had photo's of girls with their tits out at his garage". What an very sad example of parenthood. Keep up the good work Princesschick and Emcwill74...you have my complete admiration and respect.

Signed!

Done.

I have a young son and do not wish him to grow up in a country where the objectification of women is so commonplace that pictures like this appear daily in a 'family' newspaper. It is archaic and insulting.

Matthew Wright show now on Channel 5, they're just about to discuss this if anyone's interested.

"Empusa my point was that there are nob-heads spouting nonsense everywhere you look and that you can't silence them all."

No, but you could refuse to condone their behaviour rather than normalise it in a national newspaper

MrJP - I disagree with all that you say about 'elite'. Using this you are turning the argument into one of snobbery just as Brendan O'Neill did when he totally failed to understand the arguments involved and yet still spouted his usual load of bile on the Torygraph blog. (Are you actually Brendan O'Neill by the way?) I am not 'not engaging' with Sun readers because I think I am 'better' than them, I am asking their editor that he rethink a...ermm...what the hell does one call page 3...a feature?...it's not a feature is it?...that his paper includes, but didn't used to do so, and goes back to not doing so. For the trillionth time (please actually read the wording of the petition if you intend to debate it or you just appear ill-informed) this is not about a group of people trying to 'ban' anything, again, it is asking the editor to consider whether this 'feature' [hate using that word in this instance] is appropriate to 2012 where we have a more enlightened view of women than we did in 1970.

You bring up this whole canard of the models being unemployed again yet admit yourself that porn in all its spectrum, from a woman posing in her knickers to hardcore, is readily available in so many other media. The Sun is hardly the only contract available to would-be topless models you know! Of course they won't be unemployed! That argument just really isn't a god one. You also say they earn good money but we have so far had 2 posters on this thread and the other one say say that actually it doesn't pay as well as you might think. One poster who used to be a tabloid journalist said that 5 yrs ago it was £300 a photo. GoldShip denied this was the case (having done page 3 herself) but did not offer any other figure until quite a few posts later when she mentioned the figure of £300 herself (not having a go at GoldShip in any way, just pointing this out). Given that no model is on the page every day (I've no idea how often they rotate - does one appear every couple of weeks?) I doubt that page 3 alone will make any of its models rich - they would need to back it up with other modelling work and spin-off work on the back of it. So, no, I'm afraid I don't think the view of the models does count given this petition is not seeking to prohibit all topless modelling, just request it is not in a newspaper. As for the exploting/empowerment argument - it may feel 'empowering' to the models but it doesn't do anything to empower women at large. (Have you ever seen the vile Sun ad for 'the woman you'd like your woman to be'? Doesn't feel very empowering to me to have the Sun reach out to the nation's men and say 'next time you look at your partner, just consider that she's not as good as this 'stunna'.) And how empowered are the models anyway when he Sun tells its readers they can view her in 360º on their iPads and she can 'pirouette at their command'?

And why does my 'offence' (I dislike that word as I have already explained. I am 'objecting' to Sun portraying my entire sex as mere entertainment for men, not because I faint with disgust at the sight of nipples, if you don't get that then you simply haven't understood the issues involved in any way at all) trump your freedom to cause it? Because by taking page 3 out of the Sun your freedom is reduced in a minimal way. The Sun continues to satisfy all its readers that buy its for its sport, political slant, easy read, celeb gossip, bingo, horoscopes, free Lego etc etc. Those that want to look at tits can easily do so, and even for free, elsewhere. Right now that 'freedom' is hindering women from ever really achieving equality with men. And no pair of tits trumps that.

I agree with all you say about women's mags also eroding self-worth. But that angle is one part of the reason why 25,000 and continually increasing are asking for the Sun to end this now. My main objection is that by daily depicting women as decorative items our best-selling paper is perpetuating the idea that his is how they should be treated. I would like to see the women's mags stop obsessing over women's bodies, but that is for another thread.

Response to DancerDad coming up.

Daddancer
"delightfullyfragrant i take your point about 'passive' reading of the sun but surely that's more a question of etiquette for the blokes concerned rather than the literature they were reading?

Etiquette? What do you mean by this? If they are reading the paper on a tube shoulder to shoulder how can they use etiquette to not offend me or make feel uncomfortable. It's the very fact that it's in a main stream newspaper that this happens and is why I don't think it should be in there.

Also in regard to FHM, I don't see this mag littered all over the tube and streets and it certainly isn't being brought into the classroom in the guise of news.

DancerDad - you say to princesschick that you haven't personally encountered the kind of sexism she regularly does. Perhaps that is a simple fact. I think it more likely (not a personal attack, just my opinion) that this is because it is so deeply embedded in our society and so normal that you haven't even noticed it. If you are twitter I really suggest you take a look at @EverydaySexism. It paints a shocking picture of the millions of constant incidences of sexism that women face of sexism as they go about their day - by which I mean situations that men simply don't. Women going to buy cars, taking their partner along, and the salesmen talking solely to him. Women who have worked in IT for years and years being told by a male client they want to see a man as the problem is 'a bit technical'. Women being told to 'smile' as though they exist solely for men's amusement. Women told if they wore a dress/high heels they could look nice. Women being told asked walking home from work 'who let you out the kennel?' Women who have their bottom patted/waist grabbed by complete strangers. It goes on and on and on. Most women will recognise things from princesschick's post: whether it's by being told she is on her period if she ever gets annoyed at something, being called something patronising like 'poppet' in a situation where a man never would, being told she must have slept with someone to have achieved something (I can tick every single one of those!) No we can't make page 3 the single scapegoat for any of this, but whether it is a symptom or a cause it necessarily perpetuates this culture. The reason you don't notice an of this is because you don't need to.

I'm not sure I agree that topless nudity is fine for anytime viewing on TV but at least on TV it normally has a context - i.e. people going to bed/getting up etc. Page 3 is totally devoid of context other than 'here are some tits to look at'. This is why it is objectification: it is not about the woman as a person, it is about her body being served up like meat.

I never said any woman taking her top off tarnishes the reputation of all women. It is not that simple and I do not 'dislike' topless models on any personal level.

Seenenough - thank you so much for your lovely post, it means a lot to me. For too long now the Sun has belittled and used personal attacks to shame anyone who speaks out against page 3 into silence. Its treatment of Clare Short was monstrous and Mohan's spineless 'I probably wouldn't run that now' was laughable. He should officially apologise on behalf of previous editors. For too long the voices of those who object have been stifled like this as it was 'embarrassing' to admit you were uncomfortable with page 3. Not any more - this petition shows that people - men and women - of all backgrounds and all attitudes to porn - can say, actually we'd like this out the paper thanks.

MrJP - I forgot to reply about it being a family paper. Of course it is! I grew up in a house that had the Sun delivered. It was used as the TV guide. It was left lying around. I totally understand adults liking Lego but if that were on the front of the paper and I had it my kids would leaf though to look at Lego. On the Sun's website they mock up front pages of historical events etc to help kids with their homework and the print edition has articles on this. A newspaper differs from a magazine in that it is read in public and in a family setting. Either it's on the news stand as a paper, with no random [soft] porn, or the lads mag shelf. You can't have it both ways.

Empusa I could never gag another person or prevent them from expressing whatever opinion they hold.

Once expressed, I am happy to challenge it though.

emcwill74 OK, you ask Dominic Mohan to drop page 3 (I don't know why the Daily Star is exempted but there you go). You ask him very nicely. He says no. Where do you go from there? You have to either drop the whole thing or escalate it by seeking a ban. My money is on the later course of action at which point you would be changing what can and can't be legally printed in a law abiding newspaper. This crosses a big line to me.

Your second paragraph, about the economics of topless modelling, is irrelevant. If a woman wakes up one morning with the intention of getting her boobs seen by millions on page 3 that is her prerogative. Your third paragraph effectively states that her right as a woman to get her boobs out is trumped by your right as a woman to believe that page 3 hinders women from achieving equality - I disagree with both your premise and your conclusion.

"I agree with all you say about women's mags also eroding self-worth. But that angle is one part of the reason why 25,000 and continually increasing are asking for the Sun to end this now."

Let me get this right - because Closer and Heat erode self-worth amongst women by obsessing about the blemishes of the famous with a schadenfreudeic forensic detail, page 3, which by contrast is nowhere near so judgemental, must be banned?

Thanks op - I've signed.

Mr JP- it has been repeated pointed out to you that the petition is not asking for a ban. Nobody's gagging anybody. Lucy's petition is asking for consideration as to whether p3 is appropriate in a daily newspaper in 2012.

*repeatedly

The reason the Star is 'exempted' is that the Sun has a massive circulation and normalises the presentation of women this way. I don't like the Star either, I don't agree it should carry on doing what it does, but my feeling is to start with the Sun and go from there. I should point out for the sake of clarity this is not my petition, I didn't create it, but I 100% support it. I don't need to think about where we go from a point of it failing because I don't believe it will. This thread is dedicated to discussing the petition in question.

If my 2nd para is irrelevant, well I was directly answering your points, so your points must have likewise been irrelevant. You also, again, fail to take into account that I am not trying to stop a woman 'getting her boobs out', I am asking the editor of the Sun that she does not do so there. As I have repeatedly said, many many other places for her to exercise that right.

Again, you use the word 'ban' in relation to this petition in your last para, when I have repeatedly put it to you there is no such call for a ban under discussion on this thread. The two issues (those mags and page 3) have a large overlap but are distinct. If anyone wants to draw up petitions relating to those magazines I would happily read them and consider signing and we could discuss them on another thread. Page 3 is to me by its nature judgemental - it offers women's breasts up for judgement whilst mocking their owner in News in Briefs.

I am happy to respond to questions you put to me but see no point in either of us wasting each other's time discussing the broader issues of libertarianism. We see the world differently and will continue to do so, this is not the place for such a debate simply because it is off topic.

Signed.

"Empusa I could never gag another person or prevent them from expressing whatever opinion they hold. "

It's not about gagging them, it's about not making it appear acceptable.

[thinks] hmmm, no reply to 'are you Brendan O'Neill question...' Can I ask MrJP - do you have kids? Not that it matters, just curious as to why you are posting here and whether you are doing so as a father or just to engage in this specific debate? I fully accept I haven't posted very widely on MN (a thread about ironing!) but I do post here as a parent. Not any criticism - just wondering.

"OK, you ask Dominic Mohan to drop page 3 (I don't know why the Daily Star is exempted but there you go)."

The Sun aims itself at the family market more than the Daily Star.

Also being against page 3 doesn't mean you aren't also against shite like Closer and Heat. But this thread is about page 3, not Closer and Heat.

emcwill74 Fair enough, this seems like a good enough point to end our discussion.

For the record though, the petition seeks the names of one million supporters. I think that this is an unfeasibly large number to gather, especially when considering that the governments e-petitions require just a tenth of that number to trigger a discussion in parliament and to date, only 12 petitions have even managed to reach that figure.

I agree we can probably leave it there, I think we've both put our points across and I certainly have other things to get on with. Actually I agree with your points about the million figure and suspect it was just an arbitrary large number that is essentially meaningless.

I'm pleased to end on a note of agreement. Thank you.

One more point, I am not Brendan O'Neill, I have a daughter and have posted extensively on this site - mostly within the Politics or In The News boards. I am a small state libertarian, as you correctly identified, and generally post about such weighty matters(!) as the tyranny of the majority, the madness of the tax system and how you can rely on governments of any hue to fuck up something as simple as making a cup of tea!

Thanks for clarifying. Bye for now!

Signed

Tits are not news. That's my final word and my own opinion on this matter. I've said everything I've wanted to say

MrJP and DadDancer I have a better understanding of your views now I have read your responses. However, I will not be budging on my beliefs and opinions on this matter, because you haven't convinced me otherwise. Men like tits, some women are happy to sell the image of their tits for money, and for those consenting adults involved it's a win-win situation. Although I could argue against that - but it would be a waste of breath on you two . There is a place for tits presented in a titillating and overtly sexual manner and that's not in the most widely read paper in the UK. The petition isn't asking for a ban. But I appreciate that you are both libertarians and that your opinion o this is very different to mine. I wish you well.

On a separate note, I was saddened to hear that the 5 page news story about the two policewomen killed in Manchester was interrupted in the sun yesterday by tits. One of those women was a friend of mine and I find it wholly distasteful.

Emc you write very well and I'm really impressed by your tenacity.

Seenenough thank you for your kind words. Sadly I'm not a mum yet but hope that it may work out for me and hubby soon.

It would seem Matthew Wright and Chris Evans have both expressed support for this campaign to remove page 3 images from a newspaper and I'm quite (pleasantly) surprised. Didn't see that coming at all. I think there's an awful lot of support out there to remove this outdated feature from a national newspaper from people who are not judging or trying to infringe civil liberties / freedom of the press.

If this campaign isn't successful then at least those who don't agree with page 3 made their voices heard together. That shouldn't be underestimated in a free democracy.

Finally, I read this morning that Lucy and the campaign are contacting companies who advertise in The Sun to withdraw their adverts to help back up this campaign. I'm not sure where this will lead but hopefully they'll get the support they need.

princesschick - you write very well too! Your comments on your workplace hit a nerve and it's always good for women to be reminded that we all suffer that crap to varying degrees and it's not OK, on whatever thread/discussion etc! I also saw that Matthew Wright had expressed support and was knocked sideways! As you rightly say, even if this campaign has no effect on Mohan/the Sun it has, and is, very important for 'allowing' people to find a voice on this subject. Debate is always good! Bullying by a media superpower is never good!

delightfullyfragrant They can skip past page 3 rather than stand there gawping at it. Basic manners i would have thought.