To think you should probably remove all page three material from newspaper headed for a primary art class?

[LiegeAndLief]

Ds (7) has just confessed to me with much giggling that the newspaper he was using in art today had a "proper photo of a proper naked lady with no clothes on".

I guess it's an easy thing to miss in a pile of papers, but if you were handing a copy of the Sun in to a primary school you'd think you'd remove p3 first....

From some of the responses I'm starting to wonder whether I should have been more bothered! I have honestly got more worked up over misuse of an apostrophe by a teacher

Definitely won't be making a formal complaint, but maybe I should mention it in a light sort of way. They have a specific art teacher so it would have had nothing to do with ds's class teacher (I assume), so if I mentioned it to him it wouldn't be like I was accusing him or anything.

I completely agree about the soft porn in newspapers, but fortunately I don't think ds is old enough to understand the context, he just thought it was funny seeing naked breasts (he sees mine often enough, but these were probably a little different!). Agree with pp who said it would actually be worse if he was older.

Oh, and I didn't make a big deal of it with ds - he told me and I expressed mild surprise and we moved on.

I accidentally did this once with my Guide group - had collected newspapers from everywhere and thrown them into a sack. It was only when I saw a newspaper model with a pair of boobs staring at me that I realised my faux pas. I remember being mortified and really worried that one of the parents was going to put in a complain. To be honest, there are far worse things in a newspaper than a pair of boobs

Teachers are only human and sometimes don't think of everything - I've done it once by mistake, it won't happen again!

No More Page 3. We should see ourselves as others see us, like the United Nations Commissioner reviewing how countries are with regard to equalities, who called us Boys Club Britain. So true. Page 3 and pink princess thinking is the road to more young women who think their route to adult happiness is a Prince, since there are no strong independent women shown them. Just tits.

I am a secondary teacher and often use newspapers for challenge activities. If its a last minute decision the cheapest paper to buy is the sun. I love it when I give them out and the boys all moan at me as its missing something! To be honest its a passing disappointment as the challenge normally includes food!

YABU - if you don't like Page 3, don't buy it.

Oh, I see, you didn't, your son didn't, but he still saw it.

(NB: being sarcastic).

Absolutely, Auntyhen! I am somewhat appalled that it is thought to be the responsibility of teachers to remove page 3 from papers, when the real problem is the fact that soft porn is in a "family" newspaper, in the first place.

Just had to google as I don't know if we ever had page 3 girls here (I've never seen it).

The sun used to feature nude girls on their 16th birthday - that would fall into child pornography charges here as the photos are taken before the child turns 16. Revolting!

Nothing wrong with seeing a naked person but kids don't need to be exposed to the idea of pornography, people buying an image for sexual gratification etc. how do you explain that to an 8 year old girl???

This isn"t really about seeing a naked woman it is about seeing a naked, passive, young woman sexually posed in a newspaper full of fully clothed men who are all linked to news stories. For one reason only. To tittilate.

Objecting to page three isn't about objecting to nudity it is about objecting to women being presented in a certain way in the wrong context. Why didn't the child also see a naked man or a man in his pants? Why was the woman there? Why was there no newsworthy story to justify her being there?

Those that think page three is harmless should come work in a secondary school and try and inspire girls to aim for the careers they are more than capable of following rather than aspiring to be silicone enhanced porn stars. Should come in and see the subtle shifts in the attitudes of boys to girls roles in society. Should see the girls being encouraged to sext pictures of themselves which the boys then circulate and discuss. Page three isn't the worse offender but it is the spark that helped soft porn down into the mainstream.

Childhood is a time for seeing people as people of all shapes and sizes, as curiosities. Adolescence is the time to become sexually interested in them as sexual beings. Presenting the image of women as passive sexual objects, particularly when presented alongside clothed men doing things, to young children is just wrong.

Our sex education booklets used to be about safe sex. Now they start by telling the kids sex should be fun and they have the right to say no to anything that makes them feel uncomfortable, humiliated or hurts. That is not really a symptom of a healthy society. Page three blazed a trail for saturation image of women as objects.

I suspect there would have been an outcry if a sexualised image of a male with bulging pants had been presented to the kids. But presenting that sort of image alongside page three would at least have sent some kind of message of equality. It is not the nudity, it is the context and age appropriateness that are the issues. The little boy is lucky. He doesn't come fro a home where that unequal image of women is presented every day. I'd have complained.

I've told this before. But i have a distinct memory of a boy when we were in year 4 (so about 8 or 9) saying "bet you wish your boobies looked like hers" at a craft table. I was just starting puberty, and wearing a bra, not some innocent child who didnt know anything (i started my periods at 10), and I was embarrassed, and upset at my just-starting-to-grow boobs for not being big enough.

Noodle do you ever wonder how the girls feel to be reminded every time you pass out newspapers that the boys in the class want soft porn images? I think that's harassment. Of a mild sort but as an ongoing thing it really build up. If I managed a team at work I would instigate disciplinary proceedings for that sort of behaviour. It contributes to a terrible atmosphere for women, so I can only imagine it's at least as bad for girls.

I wouldn't be in the least bothered by naked breasts in the Sun. Some of the images in the daily sport are probably a different matter.

Trying to use Cosmopolitan adverts to make collages with Brownies was a nightmare. I spent hours cutting them up and rejecting ones with dodgy articles on the back. My older Brownies were really good readers!

I wished I'd asked their parents for magazines, they might have been rather more decent (I was a 22y, newly married student, I did have good house keeping or the times supplement).

I didn't have

I honestly think 7 is old enough to start learning all women have breasts and that breasts are for sex and for feeding babies and both are perfectly natural, normal parts of human life.

But I strongly believe no child should be brought up not knowing the facts of life from their first toddler question and that all children should see their parents nude.

This thread has been shared by the nomorep3 campaign on Fb :)

Nocomet - They don't learn that from page 3. Instead they learn that breasts are to sexually titillate men in a newspaper.

I've never understood why Page 3 is singled out, is it really any worse than the other raunchy pictures of female "celebs" that the papers print, just because it shows uncovered nipples? Children should not be brought up to think that nudity is shameful or embarassing.

Hopeclearwater I hope all my ds's teachers are like you. about the story concerning your pupil's parents. I applaud your consideration.

The s*n, star etc are simply not suitable for use in a classroom. Page 3 should be banned. at why people buy this shite; lowest common denominator of trash. I'm parents think its OK to send this into school.

Yanbu!

Look up the petition 'No more page 3' on change.org. It has nearly 200k supporters. Please sign & share via email & social media.

Parents don't, it's why I either provide my own papers or sort through and recycle inappropriate ones. It's where free papers are useful.
That includes my Guardians, Observers and Times BTW. Some of the arty pages are also not reasonable for 7 year olds. Lucian Freud for one, and some of the more intimate articles on sexuality and the like.
It's not a disaster, but it does make some children lose focus on the LO.

I don't buy newspapers and may be a bit out of touch but I thought the sun was the most popular newspaper? So wonder how many of the kids have it in their homes anyway.

Prob best for page 3 to be removed but my 8yo would just have thought it very funny if naked boobs appeared on some newspaper in the classroom. My 6yo girl would also though it funny but would definitely ask why.

So it is ok for children to see bare breasted bf women, but not an attractive one in a newspaper I am baffled.

You don't see the difference, windchime?
My mate was feeding her baby in the park when a couple of lads walked past and one had a good gawk at her.
The other one clipped him over the back of the head and said 'Don't be a wanker, them's feeding tits, not looking-at tits.'

I saw 5mad :)