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!

YABU - Nothing wrong with Page 3. Let the women earn some money. I will not be signing.

Yep DadDancer I think we've gone enough rounds in the ring now. I need some sleep and am not around so much tomorrow so there will be less banging on from me on here generally! Thanks for the debate.

Daddancer

I would really like your comments regarding my post at 12.53.

I said "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."

you said it was "bad etiquette" and "They can skip past page 3 rather than stand there gawping at it. Basic manners"

so you agree it can be offensive to women? In which case why are you against a petition to "politely ask" it to stop.

Why should I and lots of other women feel like this, it's vile?

Signed!

Unless you have a pair of tits (as in the kind that require a bra), I don't see how you can judge how page 3 makes those of us with a pair feel...

the BBC radio 5 phone in which is called Your Call is discussing getting rid of Page 3 any moment now - they are referencing the petition that has been linked to from the top of this thread -

it will be full of people saying it's harmless -

is anyone able to phone in to say the issue is about the normalisation of this sort of image, rather than the fact that you can find a lot stronger stuff elsewhere anyway so why focus on P.3? which is probably what they will be saying?? call 0800 909 693

or if you just want to listen to the debate, BBC radio 5 is on 909 or 693 medium wave and digital channel 705 on Freeview, (TV)
and on digital radio

sorry got number wrong!

it is 03700 100 500

Hello,

I'm a man (currently guardian to a new baby for complex reasons). I hope my presence on 'Mumsnet' will be tolerated.

Most people who post on topics are naturally those who feel strongly about it either way. I was just browsing vaguely on the topic of the Page 3 campaign when I read this thread and became interested.

I'm a very ordinary kind of man and my thought processes are doubtless shared my millions of others, so I thought I'd just I'd give you an honest insight, for what its worth.

Firstly, I think women, including their breasts, are just wonderful. They are one of my very favourite things about being alive. The urge to look at them seems so basic to my nature it doesn't seem very far from my the urge to eat and sleep. So I think it is fair to say that I am 'hardwired' to be this way rather than have it as conditioned behaviour. I must admit to checking women out constantly whilst I am out and about, though hopefully never in an aggressive and leering way. If I thought I was being offensive or making a woman unhappy I would be mortified. I just love the way women look. They're fantastic.

I have lots of female friends and prefer their company to men. They are less aggressive, less competitive and more caring. I can't stand laddish, loudmouth ed blokes and would always rather go out socialising with women than men.

Finally getting to the point, I think Page 3 is a fairly horrible institution. I actually feel quite exploited that an odious rag like The Sun is trying to get me to buy it by appealing to my very basic desires. It also offends many women for reasons that are obvious - I'm not traditionally 'handsome' and the constant valuing of a person by their looks alone would irritate me intensely if men were the on the receiving end. However, I am also a libertarian -but a libertarian also believes that people should not only be allowed to access this material, but also to avoid it. Therefore I support the campaign. There is something just too public and invasive about raw sexuality in a newspaper. We live in an age where nudity and sexuality can be everywhere for those who want to access it, and we should live in age where it is nowhere for those who don't. There is no need for it in a shared space any more. Don't ban Page 3 but stick it on the top shelf with the lads' mags so it is there for those who want it, and everyone should be happy.

As one last point,I should also point out most men are nowhere near as secure as some women think they are - we also are under tremendous pressure to conform in certain ways, and our objectification and abuse is becoming more widespread. I followed a link from Lucy's petition and immediately found the following discussion topic - 'Why do so many women shag old, ugly men?' Nice. Reverse the sexes in that sentence and see if it still seems a reasonable question.

Hope my presence on this thread isn't too intrusive. Peace and love to all.

I said yesterday I wouldn't be on here so much today (and I shouldn't be, I have 101 more urgent things to do!) but wanted to say hi Twibble and thanks for your comments. I'm fascinated that you are a professed libertarian as coincidentally we have had 2 men posting recently who are (what is it with libertarian men on MN?!) but their POV was that as libertarians page 3 should exist as part of a free, totally uncensored press. I don't agree with that argument personally, I think there are lines to be drawn on what a newspaper should contain where it promotes racism/sexism/homophobia etc, but I'm therefore really interested that you find the 'put it on the top shelf' argument that this campaign petitions for sits with your libertarian world view (though I don't think the Sun could be just put there as it is to be honest, it is too strong a brand, which is why I'd prefer page 3 removed and then people have lads mags on that shelf should they want them). And also, I agree that reverse sexism is not OK, I don't think putting an objectified man on page 4 makes page 3 OK, but I think men face it a lot less and to much less of a detrimental effect than women do.

And that's all really, no criticism, no argument, no banging on, just a muse and a hello

Hi ecmwill74, (can I call you ecm?),

Thank you for your nice response.

I think liberty is a frequently abused term - one person's liberty is very frequently detrimental to the next person's liberty. So, there will always have to be compromise. Where you draw the line is always down to a matter of consensus, social conditioning and so on.

If someone reads a lads' mag, or uses pornography, or looks at Page 3 of the Sun in their own personal space, I cannot see why that is anybody's business. If they show it to someone who is disgusted by it on the bus then it is an infringement of the other person's liberty. Liberty should be to avoid as well as to indulge. I love breasts so don't get negative feelings from their portrayal, but I know how it feels to be offended in a newsagent's. I hate shooting magazines and I don't see why I should have to see them on the shelves. But shooting is legal, so have the magazines on the top shelf acknowledging their divisive quality, there for those who want them and out of eyeline of those who don't, and the world keeps spinning without anyone's day being ruined.

how is freedom of expression being eroded by having P.3 removed from a mainstream newspaper and relocated to the top shelf where it won't be forced on to people who don't want to see it, and more importantly, children?

that source of revenue would NOT be closed off.
The images would be in other places, that's all.
i.e. places where people who choose not to see this, and especially children, will not be looking.

Signed petition and liked the FB page. Yanbu. Boobs don't belong on a newspaper.

yes Harpy i see what you are saying, but children do still get to see it.
Some people buy The Sun and leave it lying around the place.

I remember as a child back in the 70s , old newspaper was used at primary school to cover the tables during painting lessons. Quite a few pairs of tits were very often slapped over the table tops. Would HATE that to happen to my DDs, and in front of boys in their class too. Just horrible.

And I know my DDs have seen these images as for just one example, The Sun was displayed on a garage forecourt I went to recently, with all the other papers, and the wind was gaily blowing it open so P.3 was freely visible to everybody as they went into the shop to pay for their petrol.
It just DOES NOT BELONG IN A NEWSPAPER. That's the whole point.

twibble its great to get a mans perspective on it and one who can see past the "women are just jealous" argument or "its censorship" bull crap.
No one is asking for naked breasts to be banned altogether however (bangs head against brick wall repeatedly) it has no place in a national family newspaper that is the reason it needs removing!
I don't want my daughter to think that if her body does not match up to that of a page three girl she is doomed. I want her to ooze confidence in who she is as a whole person, not just her body! Its so wrong on so many levels.
Men are visual creatures I totally understand that its nature, magazines are there to provide such stimulus and I would hope that nuts & loaded etc are out of reach of young eyes.
My two kids are fascinated by my pregnant body (I am 36+6 weeks) & I don't hide away from them, I want them to see bodies as none sexualised and appreciate the human body and how amazing it is.

Sorry delightfullyfragrant for not replying back. Basically I was implying that it is the behaviour not the literature that was at fault in the case you mentioned, as you said there were a load of old men all gawping at page 3 in your presence. If they had just viewed the paper as in reading it and you caught a glimpse of page 3 then that is a different matter which I don?t have as much sympathy for. Either way I still feel it is no grounds to restrict it, just because a few people get offended or that they may accidently get a glimpse of something they don't like. We would have to ban everything if we took that logic everytime.

Just to add emcwill74 I would go for the reverse sexism argument and if the petition had been for an alternate male model one day and female another or a page 4 dedicated to topless blokes. I would have definitely have signed it. To me that fulfils both the equality argument and preserves freedom of expression.
I still think my suggestion to the editor would be a good one to ask to remove the dodgy text bit and make the photos more arty and tasteful whilst keeping the nudity element. Why not aim for something like that first, which is a more realistic target and is at least a compromise?

Signed. Page 3 belongs to a bygone era - along with racist sitcoms, Benny Hill, single mothers being shut away in mum and baby homes and so on. Some things have to be consigned to the past. It's not about curtailing freedom of speech - it's about progress. The pictures also don't belong in a "newspaper". I stopped using newsagents where my 4yo DS was confronted by women in thongs bending over on the front of The Daily Star / Sunday Sport. I complained to Tescos and was told in not so many words that I was against freedom of speech so I stopped going there as well. I'm absolutely not against freedom of speech. I'm not even against porn. I just don't think a mainstream newspaper should be full of sexualised images of women.

DadDancer - no time to reply at length but if there is a problem with men 'gawping' at page 3 (rather than what? You can't 'read' a picture: turning the page hurriedly in an embarrassed fashion?) and you feel that isn't appropriate in public, then why is it appropriate to have it at all? Who defines how long the male gaze lingers on it to be 'gawping'? Where does a glance that delightfullyfragrant just has to deal with as you've no sympathy, become a 'gawp' that you consider unreasonable? How about it just isn't there and said men can 'gawp' at boobs in private at home as they do with other porn?

As for having men in there too - doesn't cut it for me. You can't have equality of sexism because men do not and have not suffered the same sort of sexism that women have faced and do face daily. I can't be bothered to go on at length about this because I know you disagree that we do. But even if you put that aside adding more objectification (i.e. of men) into the equation doesn't resolve, for me, the problems associated with objectification.

As for getting rid of News in Briefs - you may think that more realistic. For myself I don't want a compromise, nor do the other near 30,000 that have signed so far. I think it realistic to ask for random pics of tits in newspapers to be consigned to the dustbin of history and people to get a titfix in private elsewhere.

Gotta run!

DadDancer

I would go for the reverse sexism argument and if the petition had been for an alternate male model one day and female another or a page 4 dedicated to topless blokes

Two wrongs don't make a right. This is about objectification of a person and it's effect on wider society. It's demeaning to see men as sex objects too. Although as emc points out it doesn't happen very often.

Can I remind you:

Tits are not news

Taking tits out of the newspaper is not removing freedom of speech. Other countries have free press without sprinkling tits through their other 'features'. Germany got rid of their page 3 equivalent this year, perhaps because they realise it's old fashioned, unnecessary and creepy.

Would you be ok with your daughter modelling for page 3? Would it make you proud? If so, I think that's sad. I also wonder what happens to these girls when they grow up and perhaps are no longer able to model. Not everyone is Melinda Messanger or Katie Price. I can't imagine being taken seriously in my current career if someone found out that I'd been a page 3 model in the past. And I'm sure with the internet the way it is, it isn't easy to hide your past.

On another note, DH went to school with a page 3 model (The Sun waited for her to turn 16 and she did it just after her 16th birthday) and the teachers had taken the page out and put it up in their staff room with the following title... "This is what our students achieve" I don't think that they were proud. I think that this was said with a raised eyebrow. Although I expect a number of the make teachers 'appreciated' her talents. I obviously don't blame the Sun for the actions of teachers in the mid-90s, but these actions are not against the law, and perhaps they thought it was ok because this sort of material is freely available to all regardless of age. Also, a couple of teachers at that school were prosecuted for having inappropriate relationships with under age girls. This makes my skin crawl. That they may have been 'appreciating' a young former student who set a president for other young girls still at the school to be 'appreciated'. shudder I'm not putting any of this together in a "pedophile teachers slap picture of 16 year old to wank over in the staff room" sort of way. But because it's available, without restriction, it's ok to make a joke of. But then they're just expressing themselves and we live in a free society.

Would you be happy for your daughter's picture to be put on walls across the UK for people to 'appreciate'? I think my Dad, DH and other male relatives would be mortified!!!

Anyway, I digress. I don't get how taking page 3 out of a newspaper is infringing on freedom of speech?

And if I choose to go out topless, or naked, I could be arrested for indecency. How is it that it's ok to put these sorts of pictures in the Newspaper if I can't walk down the road with my breasts out?

Can I ask you how you feel about public breast feeding. Merely because I'm interested :)

You know a hell of a lot of perverts Princess...have you ever thought of moving in slightly different circles?