Page 7 | To ask how I can explain to DH why page 3 was wrong?

Ifyourawizardwhydouwearglasses · 2015-01-20T23:03:03+00:00

He just thinks it was harmless. 'If you don't like it, don't look.' I'd like to educate him but I can't seem to find the words. He's intelligent but can't seem to get this one.

forago · 22/01/2015 10:33

does seem odd doesn't it for a print newspaper? they're basically putting all their eggs in one basket - readership demographics will be male white van man/builders only. Not sure alienating virtually all women and young people will help circulation figures in the long run. as others have said, young people don't buy newspapers, they look at sky news or BBC news on their phones. Don't think the lure of a cheesy soft porn pair of boobs on the Sun site will be enough to lure them over will it? (not with the myriad of other options available on the internet...)

OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse · 22/01/2015 10:35

From my perspective, I feel much as a couple of posters on the thread have said.

Ever since I was young I felt really uncomfortable when men looked at page 3 near me on public transport. When I was a young teen I just felt embarrassed and uncomfortable and then as I got older I realised that it's because it's just a reminder of what as a young woman some men think you are "for". Of course it's not helped that quite a few men IME use it to deliberately upset / illicit a reaction from women and girls as they know they don't like it. It doesn't take a genius to realise that sitting staring at a young topless woman on the bus while sitting next to a 14 yo girl, and pressing your leg up against her, is likely going to make her uncomfortable. Men would also sometimes look at page 3 and then at my chest which was just horrible. This was all when I was young.

Thing is that if men are having lecherous thoughts about the girls and women around them, the girls and women probably won't realise unless he does something. Page 3 is a mechanism for some men to make women and girls around them realise that. They like to use it in that way, plenty of men enjoy the discomfort they can cause with it.

For me it's just not appropriate to look at soft porn in public really. I think that people would realise this is it was any other type of soft porn. If a man sat on a tube next to a schoolboy looking at sexually provocative pictures of scantily clad 18yo boys, most people would say that was not right. But because it's a "newspaper" they say putting girls in that position is just fine.

It's not just fine, I have always hated it. To me it is a clear message that it's more important for a man to do something that he wants, even if he doesn't need to, than for lots of girls to go about their day without being made to feel uncomfortable and sometimes intimidated, and reminded that in our society to lots of people the only thing of interest about them is whether they have nice tits.

I agree with poster upthread who said "they really hate women" - although maybe more women sigh and feel pissed off rather than a stronger reaction so it should be "they really hate women and girls". And they do - they don't care one fuck that their publication is regularly used to be creepy at often underage girls - it's much more important that their reader gets his sexual frisson in the middle of a bus (wtf frankly).

TooOldForGlitter · 22/01/2015 10:36

It might not be the paper YOU read OfaFrenchMind but it is clearly a newspaper.

SirChenjin · 22/01/2015 10:39

It's a paper. Whether it deserves the prefix 'news' is debatable.

OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse · 22/01/2015 10:40

Men in tehir 20s still read the Sun on my commute I would say that is the most obvious demographic where I am travelling.

the otehr day a man sat next to me and he had it, we were in a block of seat with otehr women and girls and a bloke. Then he turned to page 3 and stared at it for a good 5 mins with his arms holding it wide open so it was sort of across me a bit (you know how people with newspapers can be) and he held it sort of flattish so everyone could see it. All teh women sitting around looked uncomfortable as did the man TBH. I felt uncomfortable. I don't think it is unreasonable for women and girls to feel this way.

If men want to look at soft porn, situations where they are surrounded by other people is surely not the place for it. Why is this deemed by so many people to be AOK? The only thing I can think of is that they literally don't give a shit about the daily comfort of women and girls as they go about their business. I guess this shows as well with street harrassment being so common.

forago · 22/01/2015 10:41

I suspect the aging males who control news and journalism at the moment think its just a minority of militant feminists who object to page 3 and that those opinions don't really matter and won't sent circulation figures at all. I suspect they're wrong. Most men my age downwards that I have spoken to concede there is no longer a place for it in our society. The next generation are being bought up in a world of equality and diversity campaigning, its all they know, can't imagine them buying the Sun.

OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse · 22/01/2015 10:42

Oh and the man to feel that way also

Sorry edited that and didn't correct it.

SirChenjin · 22/01/2015 10:43

Because it's 'just the Sun innit' - that pair of tits who is happy getting them out (I paraphrase obviously) has become so normalised that it doesn't even register with some blokes.

OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse · 22/01/2015 10:47

I think that most men realise that it has the potential to make women and girls around them uncomfortable (possibly to a very high level) and their thought process is I don't give a fuck.

It probably doesn't cross their minds that some men and boys dislike it as well.

peggyundercrackers · 22/01/2015 11:04

the norks are back today! seems it was all a bit of a joke that they stopped them.

SirChenjin · 22/01/2015 11:11

Or is it "I don't give a fuck because a)it's just a pair of tits and if anyone has a problem with that then that's their problem and b)the model is happy to get them out and is being well paid"

Yep, saw that the norks were back. The last few days have got people talking about the Sun, which can only be good for them I suppose. The glamour models remain in jobs, hurrah!

Willferrellisactuallykindahot · 22/01/2015 11:45

I don't know, I feel like this move from the Sun just shows the haven't got a leg to stand on. The know that there is no legitimate reasoning for having bare breasts in a newspaper, they have no argument in favour of keeping it, so all they have got left to try and silence those who object is to play this 'joke' to try and make it look like they have won.

It sort of reminds me of when a child is losing an arguement so they just turn around and say 'yeah.....well.....you smell of poo '

Nancy66 · 22/01/2015 12:32

Well, they do have an argument for keeping it....They might lose business if they didn't

peggyundercrackers · 22/01/2015 12:37

think of all free advertising for them given the amount of coverage the removal of page 3 and no doubt the renewal of it - they couldn't have paid for more coverage if they tried and its all free... clever marketing team that's for sure!

Willferrellisactuallykindahot · 22/01/2015 12:40

Not according to all of the people I have spoken to in real life about it, who all insist that everyone knows that page 3 is a bit of tongue in cheek fun and no one is actually leering over the women, so what's the problem?

Anyway, 'we might lose business' is not a legitimate answer to the question 'do women's bare breasts have a place on the third page of a national family newspaper?'

Willferrellisactuallykindahot · 22/01/2015 12:41

Sorry, my post was in reply to nancy

Nancy66 · 22/01/2015 12:48

no, I don't think bare breasts should be in a newspaper.

But in business it doesn't make a lot of sense to pay heed to people who don't buy your product and never would in a million years.

OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse · 22/01/2015 13:05

But why are this publication past the point of saying "it's business" and into it being "personal" and that they have a point to prove that they know it causes embarrassment and upset for girls and women in their daily lives and they don't give a fuck, they are not quietly saying well our readership likes it so it stays, they are sending out loud, provocative and upsetting messages to people who find it intrusive and upsetting in their daily lives that they couldn't give a flying fuck. This is teenage girls they are saying this to, we don't care that our publication is used frequently to facilitate your sexual harrassment. Tweeting images to people who object show this for what it is very clearly. They want to upset people, it is not about business it is about proving a "point" that what (some) men want is more important than what (lots of) women and girls want.

How far will they go in this two-fingers up I wonder?

Inkanta · 22/01/2015 13:20

OMG - the bear breasts are back on page 3!!

What was all that about then??

Inkanta · 22/01/2015 13:20

bare

ChocLover2015 · 22/01/2015 13:29

they know it causes embarrassment and upset for girls and women in their daily lives and they don't give a fuck
No because businesses don't have emotions, they are about making money and page 3 is their USP.The people who don't like it won't buy their paper

OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse · 22/01/2015 13:36

This is clearly not about money, at least any more. The impact on their readership would be minimal I imagine, some people might start buying the paper if they took them out.

This has become about showing women and girls "who's boss" and the tweeting shows this up really clearly. They want to upset people who don't like page 3, they find it amusing to put the boot in. Before I could have believed that it was about business but it is not about that any more, it's quite obvious.

OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse · 22/01/2015 13:39

Have the Sun ever responded on the point that their publication is frequently used to facilitate the sexual harassment of women and often underage girls??

I mean that's my point. It's really sad that they know this goes on and it doesn't bother them - I guess they might well approve? It's all a bit 70s and Jimmy Saville and of course young girls are fair game it's just a bit of fun what do they expect type attitude.

Things have moved on a bit but seemingly not with this organisation.

OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse · 22/01/2015 13:40

Well actually the fact that they have used these images to harass people who don't agree with it via twitter says I suppose that yes they know that some men use page 3 this way and yes they wholly approve. Maybe that's part of it's raison d'etre? Dunno. Doubt they would say so publicly.

BriarRainbowshimmer · 22/01/2015 13:42

This has become about showing women and girls "who's boss" and the tweeting shows this up really clearly. They want to upset people who don't like page 3, they find it amusing to put the boot in. Before I could have believed that it was about business but it is not about that any more, it's quite obvious.

I agree. They have shown their true nature.