Page three

[clemetteattlee]

So, I have signed the petition to lobby the Sun into finally getting rid of page 3 girls and posted a link to the petition on my Facebook page. Given that I post links to various different political and women's rights sites you'd think they wouldn't be surprised, but I have had someone accuse me of "being like the Taliban!"
For me this is a no-brainer and should be a small and obvious skirmish in the wider campaign for equality and respect yet I am amazed at how many people are keen to defend page three in the name of "freedom of speech."
Does anyone have any thoughts?

And once again, this campaign is not calling for a BAN, it is asking the Sun to re-evaluate the message page 3 sends in a modern society.
It is simple really, my seven year old daughter does not see pornography so why should it be acceptable for her to try and understand that the newspapers put pictures of women with no bras on to get men "feeling sexy?"

I think the availability of similar images online actually makes the message of the campaign against p3 more pertinent. There are plenty of methods for the sordid wanker section of our population to get its kicks privately; there is not a need for a national newspaper to be broadcasting the message that young women are essentially sexual playthings for men, no matter how grotesquely unattractive or inadequate they may be.
Except that's the real point of p3 of course. Not to provide erotic entertainment but to make sure we know our place. it is female refusal to do that that makes the p3 supportes so very uncomfortable.

"If people think most men read page 3 and newspapers are not on their way out they are wrong."

What relevance is this? Printed copies of the Sun and other tabloids with porn are in every newsagent in the country. Millions of copies are made and this ubiquity affects people whether they buy them or not.

"Most people, male and female, look at sexual things on line so page 3 is a bit of a non issue."

What non-argument is this? All sorts of dubious things go on online: al qaida organise violence online, so would it also be a 'non-issue' if the Sun had a 'Terrorists Connect' section in their paper?

"I don't see any point in banning breasts in newspapers"

From what I have seen in this thread, you are unable to 'see any point in' or 'make any point about' anything.

Exactly AbigailAdams totally agree!

How many new readers from the feminist world would the sun get if they banned page 3..... I am guessing the number to be remarkably small. So unless the law changes nothing will happen because there is no leverage on the paper to change. Comes down to the bottom line, would getting rid of page 3 increase or decrease circulation? Over 3 million women read the paper daily and 4 million men. Anything to change the paper would need over 750k of the readership to want it, realistically, for the paper to change. And after the bashing feminist MPs got last time round trying to ban P3 can't see any of them running forward and getting involved.

Most people do not want page 3 banned so it is not likely to get anywhere.
It's pretty harmless. The day men don't want to look at breasts will be a rather sad day.

"Most people do not want page 3 banned so it is not likely to get anywhere."

Most people generally support the status quo whatever that might be and find any change threatening, but soon adapt and support the status quo again after the change has occurred. Its only a minority of people who are politically conscious, however changes still do happen for the better because of the political activities of the conscious few.

"It's pretty harmless."
Again harm can be psychological and indirect. You never back this assertion up even though there are many who claimed to be harmed by it.

"The day men don't want to look at breasts will be a rather sad day."

Again you reiterate another unrelated point. What is printed in page 3 has no bearing on what men want to look at... And sad for who? Many women find men's breast-fixation annoying, immature and a turn-off. I'm sure such women wouldn't find it a sad day.

I recall page 3 sending some pretty powerful messages to me as a child and a young woman about how I was regarded in society. That's not harmless. Against that, of course, we had a powerful female as PM (whatever you thought of her politically, Mrs T was no simpering sex doll). Young girls today are less fortunate.
As for the "most people" argument, I hate to break it to you Xenia, but there's quite a lot of people who have significant problems with women like you - successful, independent, strong-minded. People think some stupid shit sometimes.

But why should women who aren't page 3 models have any say? Surely it should be up to the models themselves?

Isn't feminism about choice? Or is it about making choices on behalf of other women?

"Girl Shot by Taliban Becomes Hero in Pakistan. Student, 14, who stood up for girls' right to attend school ... "

Thousands of young Muslim women protest. MN Feminism and Women's Rights, not managed to find a post on what I'd presume to be a feminist issue but plenty to say and action to take on banning Page 3 breasts.

Nothing wrong with page 3 imo, if these women didn't like doing it they wouldn't be in it!
But on the other hand, a page 4 with a hunk on would be nice

Is it worth pointing out the USA doesn't allow breasts in newspapers? The US in general is extremely prudish and is afraid of the female body. Does this prudishness mean the US has low rape and sexual assaults?

Compare Japan for example- Japan has low rape and crime and is thought to be one of the safest developed countries in the world for women. Yet Japan is the opposite of prudish they have a thriving sex industry and they make lots of weird and extreme porn.

zeus4.cms.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/DIAM/japan.htm

Banning things is not the answer.

But why should women who aren't page 3 models have any say?

Because a person's choices have a wider societal impact - in this case it results in women everywhere having to put up with being surrounded by soft porn in public spaces.

Not every choice a woman makes is necessarily a feminist one. Women make loads of choices which are bad for them, bad for other women or both. Feminism, being political, will critique those choices. To do otherwise, to say something is beyond criticism because a women chose to do it, is silencing and gets us nowhere.

Is it worth pointing out that Japan is languishing near the bottom of the tables for gender equality on all sorts of measures? I see no reason why we should be emulating their society.

MsAnnTeak, why don't you start a thread?

PlentyOfPube
Whilst men enjoy it & some women and where there is woman wanting and choosing to do it, it will never be stopped.
It's not soft porn, it is a picture of a topless lady and done in a tasteful manner.
There is nothing more beautiful than the figure of a woman and if that woman wants to flaunt what she was blessed with, why not?

I'm a hetrosexual woman but i do not see a problem with it at all.

Well, I think "tastefully done" and "not soft porn" are rather ambiguous terms. Page 3 does not usually feature small-breasted women or breasts in non-sexy poses. The nipples are always erect and the women are generally wearing knickers which are considered the type of lingerie likely to arouse men.

For that reason, by arguing that it is OK to have such sexy images in a national newspaper because that it is the choice of the models who do it and the people who buy it and, also, because we must promote liberalism by not banning things, then it must also be OK to argue that pictures of men in states of arousal likely to arouse women are also OK. So would it be all right to have pictures of very young, handsome men with erections (preferably large erections) in a national newspaper? As long as the models are happy to do it and I am happy to buy it, would that be OK?

Presumably, according to the "it's harmless fun rather than porn and we mustn't ban things" argument, my pictures of erect penises would be just as OK as erect nipples in a daily newspaper.

I'm looking........I'm reading.........nope, no erect penises out there........

Kim147, thanks for pointing the link out. I'd managed to find it after I'd posted.

PlentyOfPubeGardens, as Kim147 pointed out, already a topic posted and very little response.

Not soft porn? I think it absolutely is pornographic. No, it's not in the same class as the sadistic violent end of pornography, and I'd guess that the women in the images aren't enslaved or trafficked (or could they be?) but on the other hand, it's evil on account of how ubiquitous it is. Truly "mainstreamed pornography" which gets shoved at you on the Piccadilly Line while the purchaser reads Page 2.

It's a sign of how low we've sunk to see people calling newspaper porn "a picture of a topless lady done in a tasteful manner".

rosebud yes it would be nice to see some sexy men naked in the paper, why not

@PlentyofPube

Regardless of places on some table the fact remains Japan has less crime than the UK or the USA (taking population difference into consideration).

The Japanese murder rate is about 1.1 per 100,000 people; West German has a rate of 3.9, Britain a rate of 9.1, and the U.S. 8.7 per 100,000 people.

www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/crime.html

Funny that, given the epidemic of extreme and violent porn Japan produces and watches I would have thought their murder rate would be through the roof.

@TeiTetua
and I'd guess that the women in the images aren't enslaved or trafficked (or could they be?)

Are you seriously suggesting that the women on page 3 aren't consenting and are in fact trafficked? Thousands of page 3 models have appeared in The Sun since Nov 1970 and if just 1 was proven to be trafficked I think that would be the end not just of page 3 but The Sun completely.

Anyway they have no shortage of willing models anyway (every year they hold a "page 3 idol" competition and hundreds of non-professional women send in topless pics of themselves).

Not every choice a woman makes is necessarily a feminist one. Women make loads of choices which are bad for them, bad for other women or both. Feminism, being political, will critique those choices.

Here's a better idea- why doesn't feminism keeps its nose out when adult women makes choices feminists don't like? Isn't feminism supposed to be about choice, or only choices that feminists approve of??

PUMPKIN SWEETIE

I agree with all of your posts, but a male page 4, I would find a bit boring, unless he had a gorgeous face and expression in his eyes- I do not think of men as looking sexy. The only time was watching the original CHIPPENDALES, seductively but tastefully gyrating in dance moves. WOW. Even my 70+ mum at that time, looked a bit flushed.

it would be nice to see some sexy men naked in the paper, why not

We don't see naked women in the newspaper, because they are only topless. Nakedness is a completely different thing.

Having said before that the page 3 girls do not pose provocatively, this morning, I felt her eyes were a bit too smouldering?? And the reason their nipples are upright, is that they are all young and have not yet - I bet- had children . I had a real shock and both of us had a laugh, when I first saw my sister-in laws nipples , recently- she has always had big bazookas as I call them, but her nipples were tiny petit pois size. Having had 2 10lb babies years ago, I found that astounding. At least they are all natural and not enhanced by silicone, which gives them a completely different look.

Well, we have the highest murder rate then - just as i thought.

Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world at 91.6 per 100k, and Greenland has the highest in Europe, at 19.2. The UK's is actually only 1.2.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate