Page 3 David Cameron's response

[Mumraathenoisylion]

Apologies if this story has been posted before.

d-cam response to page 3 ban

I feel helpless with this one. It's not just the children, it's the violence on women, the way it makes women into animals to look at, the self confidence issues of teenagers, the expectation of men, the acceptance of young women and men that this is ok.

It's not ok. I want to do something about it, I actually feel like screaming reading this. What can be done?

Freedom and democracy? - For women to be treated as a bit of sexual titillation amongst the proper news? Great!

'You can control your children's access to newspapers and books and magazines. The problem with the internet is that our children are all online and they're using YouTube and they're searching for videos and the rest of it and there's a danger that they can stumble across really quite, sometimes hard-core legal pornography.'

I'm sure for DC - and for many of us - the internet problem is more important than the Sun - and I'm glad that he's pushing workable controls. However, it's not an 'either or' - and while for him and many of us controlling our kids access to print is easier (I doubt my DD or DCs kids have ever seen P3 of the Sun) it really isn't that easy for everyone.

Buffy - yes - its the normalising of objectification which makes it so unacceptable. Its in a mainstream 'newspaper' - not some seedy website. Young women unimportant enough to wrap chips in.

^Freedom and democracy? - For women to be treated as a bit of sexual titillation amongst the proper news? Great!^

The 'proper' news in The Sun? come now, surely you jest!

Don't like it, don't buy it.

Simple, that's the way the free market works.

Who are posing as models, men or women?

I believe they are women, so why not have a pop at them for letting the side down?

Oh FGS another one who knows fuck all about how markets work here to pontificate about society. News flash: there is no such thing as a "free" market.

Not literally free, agreed, but most certainly free to trade in the consensual arrangement.

So, why don't you have a go at the models themselves?

Page 3 is a ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous, notion. I don't think it should be banned.

I do however think the paper should be classified as "soft" porn and not so readily available. I remember seeing it as a child. Seeing boobs were not the problem, but the idea of staring at a woman's breasts in such a casual manner is for me.

For me, it's accepting that it's ok to openly look at a woman as an object.

If people want to look at a lady like that, then they shouldn't be buying a newspaper. It's disrespectful in the very least.

I've not articulated this well - but I can see our society is all about treating women as objects. It starts with page 3 and goes right through to hardcore porn.

So would you like to see the 'Page 7 fella' banned as well?

(not sure if this still exists, but one paper used to have a topless male hunk on page 7)

How about adverts that use attractive male models, Calvin Klein ad for example, should that be banned too?

I didn't say it should be banned.

However, and you know full well, that having a woman's breasts on show is not the same as having a man's chest on show.

Why not have the page 3 ladies with tops on?

Because then newspaper sales would go down.

High sales and profits is the nature of capitalism.

Now, if you were talking about destroying the very fabric of capitalism itself, I may jump on board, but until then, exploitation in all its forms is the name of the game.

my heart bleeds.

Why not move the sun to the top shelf where it belongs then? Why normalise staring at a woman's breasts?

Capitalism in its purest sense means paying workers 1p an hour to make cheap clothes (for example) - doesn't make it right and certainly doesn't make it fair game.

Except capitalism and economic rights, are separate from sexual morality and entitlement.

exploitation in all its forms is the name of the game.

Well then, let's have small children back up chimneys, working in factories, cleaning the roads. Unless the little fuckers can pay for schooling, fuck em, it's all their good for. Men can't get a job to feed their family, get em into a workhouse, leeching bastards. Women too poor to feed their children, get them on their backs, it's all they deserve.

That kind of exploitation, you mean??? Except of course, the only bits that apply seem to be those attached to women.

Boobs are NOT news.

Where is the giant cock?

I don't want my son's growing up to think women are ornaments & have no other worth except for their physical/sexual appeal.

Furthermore, Page 3 normalises misogynism. It assumes all readers take pleasure from exhibitionism. It also assumes (in order to brainwash the masses) beauty & a woman's character comes in one package - slim, tanned, bi sexual, submissive, long hair, Caucasian, etc - thereby subliminally enforcing sexist (and racist) garbage 'tradition' on future generations.

Lastly, how do you explain to your 7yo dd why they're are random, naked ladies in the newspaper, used in art class? Or explain to your 5yo ds, when he innocently flicks the front page of a newspaper, in the supermarket, that a girl the same age as his babysitter is flashing her baps at him?

There have been plenty of the public, men & women, who have stepped forward & laid testimony to the negative impact/influence page 3 has marked on their upbringing, body image, sexual self-awareness, etc. One girl (am sure they are more) came forward to say her relative used it as a means to sexually abuse her. It goes on...

I'm no prude. Don't ban nudity, but make it inaccessible to under 18's. Don't ridicule the female form and undermine the importance of the female role in society. Don't flog a pair of tits off as being news. If it's a 'tradition' to see a pair of breasts with one's news, why is there not a giant cock or lovely, muscled dude on alternate days to boobs, telling us how they feel about World peace, global warming, etc?

I believe in no more page 3. I believe in a world where the sexes are equal. I believe that boobs are NOT news.

No one is asking DC to ban anything. Simply to support the No More Page 3 Petition to take boobs out of the news.

www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/david-dinsmore-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3

Except capitalism and economic rights, are separate from sexual morality and entitlements

No they are not. You can pretend they are in a theoretical economic model. However we're human beings and don't quite work that way. Which is why there's no such thing a perfect market and why economic theory is woolly.

The 'proper' news in The Sun? come now, surely you jest!

The Sun is a newspaper - regardless of whether you or I like the style/quality of journalism involved. The Sun itself goes even further, by calling itself a "family" newspaper. Because "family" and "news" is all about the naked ladies, innit?

It's called Freedom and Democracy.

It is really the great civil rights struggle de nos jours, isn't it, keeping women in their place. Their place, of course, being a special naked area where women are corralled for the amusement of men.

Thankfully, once the page is turned, women barely exist in the clothes-on world.