• The Sun and Page 3

    1421786777
    Young and fun95 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2748
    • Joined: 6 Jun 2014

    Nothing to do with feminists. It's about throwing sex and sexual thoughts in children's faces from the day they're born then wondering why there's so much teen pregnancy.

    1421786932
    Miss Stripes [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 155
    • Joined: 23 Aug 2008

    JJohnson wrote:

    There seems to be a lot of confusion over what the issues really are. It's not just about indecency it's about equality. The details of the campaign that stopped it is here with a list of reasons half way down the page: http://nomorepage3.org/

    It's also worth reading the page with testimonials from ex-glamour models.

    A lot of friends/ and models I have worked with started modelling to boost their own lack of self confidence in themselves. It made them feel better.

    I don't know any glamour or ex-glamour models who are for this change. It's our freedom of choice if we want to model glamour, and if people start making it taboo and taking that away well surely that is wrong.

    I don't think page 3 says anything about female equality and it's just an excuse for the people that don't like it. It's this whole 'equality' thing I find irritating. No I don't agree that because of page 3 men view women as sex objects. The men who think that way, will view any woman that way anyway.

    1421788011
    j&lxxxx [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Brigadier
    • Posts: 201
    • Joined: 13 May 2012

    I just think of it as a bit of fun. I believe the girls earn more in a week than I do in a year, so they don't see it as degrading. This is just another victory for the PC brigade, if they have their way we will all be boring and misserable.

    1421791383
    Marriedscot [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
    • Posts: 289
    • Joined: 23 Jul 2014

    It has everything to do with feminism. They want to control all women and not allow them any voice except one that they approve of, they are no better than facists.

    1421795264
    Skitty [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 679
    • Joined: 8 Jan 2012

    Young and fun95 wrote:

    i dontthink it should "normal" to see women naked in sexy positions, kids grow up thinking men should be attracted to that but not all are and not all girls lok like that. porn is different, its not on tv or shoved in kids faces

    I think this is a really interesting point, because to me I think that so long as there isn't one "normal", that's the most important thing. Sexuality according to page 3 should be just as valid as sexuality according to porn, or erotica, or any other form of sexual expression. I think that educating young people about sexuality needs to be about them understanding more forms of expression, not less. I think it's also about teaching young people to exert critical thinking about what they see in the media in general, and allowing different perspectives to be valued rather than removing the material just in case they think 'wrongly' about it.

    Of course not all women look like glamour models, but, photoshop notwithstanding, there are girls that look like glamour models, and they shouldn't be disregarded just beause they're the minority. It's kind of like how some things verbally attack thin women for their natural shape to try to promote 'healthy body image', and it becomes all about how plus size models should be shown or whatever, when that just takes things to the opposite extreme.

    From a personal perspecitve about page 3, as a child, I saw page 3 because it was sometimes on tables at my nan's house. I found it exciting to see women's bodies, and I think that the only affect that it may have had on me is realising that I was attracted to women sooner than I would have done if I hadn't had access to pictures like this. There's no way I would have seen it on the internet, so it was good for me to be exposed to it. So it's not just a thing propping up heteronormative sexuality in my experience. To me, it wasn't about all men being attracted to women like that, and I think that the biggest point that my experience makes is that people can interpret things in different, unexpected ways to something that is perhaps seen as having quite a standard response and when we remove the stimulus, we also take away peoples' abilities to make their own choices and responses.

    Apologies for the long response. I love discussions like this because it's one of my favourite debate topics, although I am liable to get a bit fiery, so I am sorry if I come across as a bit wound up ever :P

    1421795999
    stesilc [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
    • Posts: 88
    • Joined: 26 Jun 2014

    just ban that paper justice 96

    1421802723
    kittencub [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 1538
    • Joined: 11 May 2013

    stesilc wrote:

    just ban that paper justice 96

    Agreed.

    1421807563
    BF&GF [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Colonel
    • Posts: 35
    • Joined: 1 Aug 2014

    I couldn't care less about page 3 or the sun.

    The sun newspaper is a joke anyway (no truth to it at all, just a load of bias articles with no substance), so page 3 just amplified how bad the newspaper was.

    I think people have been over reacting about it though, it doesn't hurt anyone and if you think that looking like a page 3 model is realistic then you should probably be told it's all done by photoshop/airbrush.

    Also, getting part of page 3 makes no difference, there's this thing called the Internet and it has lots of sites with pictures of boobs on it.

    Either way, getting rid of page 3 doesn't affect me and I don't think it should affect anyone else, people were just having a whine about it because they could. Having said that, it'll probably decrease the sun's sales, which will help bring an end to the awful excuse of a newspaper.

    1421831413
    Stuburns [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 1782
    • Joined: 23 Nov 2011

    Such a moral standing on such an insignificant image. Well today's page 3 is a full spread of Tesco advertising. I know what I would rather see.

    1421832471
    Don_Don [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 415
    • Joined: 9 Oct 2012

    I think it's a little sad, I don't read the paper anymore but when I did, I never bought it for page 3.

    I think it's another tradition as such that the world is loosing, as everyone become over sensitive about everything and tries to please everyone.

    Next I hear that there will be no more topless hunky men in their boxers in Cosmo........

    1421834760
    Young and fun95 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2748
    • Joined: 6 Jun 2014

    Skitty wrote:

    Young and fun95 wrote:

    i dontthink it should "normal" to see women naked in sexy positions, kids grow up thinking men should be attracted to that but not all are and not all girls lok like that. porn is different, its not on tv or shoved in kids faces

    I think this is a really interesting point, because to me I think that so long as there isn't one "normal", that's the most important thing. Sexuality according to page 3 should be just as valid as sexuality according to porn, or erotica, or any other form of sexual expression. I think that educating young people about sexuality needs to be about them understanding more forms of expression, not less. I think it's also about teaching young people to exert critical thinking about what they see in the media in general, and allowing different perspectives to be valued rather than removing the material just in case they think 'wrongly' about it.

    Of course not all women look like glamour models, but, photoshop notwithstanding, there are girls that look like glamour models, and they shouldn't be disregarded just beause they're the minority. It's kind of like how some things verbally attack thin women for their natural shape to try to promote 'healthy body image', and it becomes all about how plus size models should be shown or whatever, when that just takes things to the opposite extreme.

    From a personal perspecitve about page 3, as a child, I saw page 3 because it was sometimes on tables at my nan's house. I found it exciting to see women's bodies, and I think that the only affect that it may have had on me is realising that I was attracted to women sooner than I would have done if I hadn't had access to pictures like this. There's no way I would have seen it on the internet, so it was good for me to be exposed to it. So it's not just a thing propping up heteronormative sexuality in my experience. To me, it wasn't about all men being attracted to women like that, and I think that the biggest point that my experience makes is that people can interpret things in different, unexpected ways to something that is perhaps seen as having quite a standard response and when we remove the stimulus, we also take away peoples' abilities to make their own choices and responses.

    Apologies for the long response. I love discussions like this because it's one of my favourite debate topics, although I am liable to get a bit fiery, so I am sorry if I come across as a bit wound up ever :P

    I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing naked people, but sexualising the naked body is the reason women get judged for breast feeding in public. Making it normal to see sex in every day situations is the reason young children are becoming sexual way too early. It's not just page 3, it's our entire media, music videos made to appeal to children are incredibly sexual as are the lyrics. I'm not saying one type of sexualy is wrong and another right, but I think it's healthier for children to see relationships and love rather than sex. I do believe our culture thinks that men have the right to look at a woman's body. But I also think that women trying to empower them selves by taking about the same way is wrong. Being naked should not be sexual, and sexual material shouldn't be just lying around on the kitchen table. If it was a porn mag it wouldn't be Ok so why in a newspaper? Yes some women look like that, but Young girls who look like that believe it's the best part of them and that they should show it off, and girls who don't look like that think that no one is attracted to them because they're not sexy. removing page 3 won't fix everything but it's a start, society is sexualy corrupt and it's shoved in kids faces 24/7 no one can say it's healthy for a 9 year old girl to be dancing like a stripper because she's copying her favourite singer. Yes I think it should be the parents responsibility to teach kids about that stuff and protect them from things that aren't appropriate but when it's in your news paper and on billboards and on the radio, the kids have no choice but to believe it
    1421836164
    JJohnson [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Colonel
    • Posts: 22
    • Joined: 15 Nov 2014

    Marriedscot wrote:

    I hate feminists!!

    So you hate the idea of men and women being equal?

    1421838415
    Skitty [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 679
    • Joined: 8 Jan 2012

    I can understand Marriedscot reacting so strongly about feminism. Sometimes the ideals seem to get a bit murky, particularly with thirdwave, and it can feel as though ideas are really being pushed down your throat.

    When I was at university, I had a lecturer tell me that I was stupid because I wouldn't identify as being a feminist. His view of feminism was that anyone who watches porn should be ashamed of themselves, and other views to do with guilt and shame that I just found abhorrent and totally at odds with what I believe as a human being. He hated that I wouldn't bow to his view of the world, and tried to shame me into it infront of a whole class of my peers, berating me for not having any 'female solidarity'. That was an experience that made me very aware that I was being seen according to my gender and very little else! I've found his interpretation of feminism to be one of the most misogynist views I'd ever encountered, and so much more belittling and offensive to me and my belief systems than being oggled in the street or even touched without my permission.

    While obviously you can't take one person's view of feminism to be feminism as a whole, that was truly how he interpreted feminism. While the core principle of equality is obviously a really important thing, personally I feel it wrong to associate myself with feminism or see myself as a feminist because there are so many competing ideologies within it now that it's not such a clear label as to be able to really get behind it as a general concept.

    1421839664
    Young and fun95 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2748
    • Joined: 6 Jun 2014

    I do think feminists are more interested in female superiority rather than gender equality. I'm not interested in either, just a safe environment for children to grow up without distorted views on sex

    1421855252
    JJohnson [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Colonel
    • Posts: 22
    • Joined: 15 Nov 2014

    Skitty wrote:

    While the core principle of equality is obviously a really important thing, personally I feel it wrong to associate myself with feminism or see myself as a feminist because there are so many competing ideologies within it now that it's not such a clear label as to be able to really get behind it as a general concept.

    You are representative of how feminism has become a dirty word for some, I respect your negative experience and appreciate you sharing you them. There are indeed many men who use feminism in a creepy way to gain the acceptance of women and there's far too many overly militant sociopathic psuedo-feminists out there who leverage the concept in a bid to find windmills to blow against.

    I believe very strongly in equality but would hold back on stating I'm a feminist in certain situations as it comes loaded with a bunch of negative perceptions that would see my point of view stonewalled from the beginning.

    But ultimately I'm confident we all share the same admiration for the fundemental concept :)

    1421855483
    Skitty [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 679
    • Joined: 8 Jan 2012

    I just read an article about the page 3 issue, and felt the need to add this information... I don't know if it's true, but there seems to be a lot of stuff suggesting that page 3 hasn't been completely abandonned - there will still be women on page 3, but instead of topless, they'll be in bikinis, lingerie, etc. to cover their breasts.

    I think this is actually worse than shelving the page altogether, because it's the sort of token action that hasn't really done anything for anyone. Presumably the people who campaigned to end it will still be unhappy that provocative pictures of women are going to continue, and I'm not sure that taking away a topless photo and replacing it with photos that are essentially the same but not showing breasts does anything in terms of addressing any of the issues people seemed concerned about anyway. I'd also say that it props up societal norms even more - that breasts are the problem, that they're the part of the image that makes it sexual, and that female nudity requires covering.

    1421855769
    Young and fun95 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2748
    • Joined: 6 Jun 2014

    If that's true skitty I totally agree that it's worse, implying that breasts are the problem when in actual fact it's the normalisation of sexualisation of women that's the problem

    1421855959
    JJohnson [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Colonel
    • Posts: 22
    • Joined: 15 Nov 2014

    Skitty wrote:

    I just read an article about the page 3 issue, and felt the need to add this information... I don't know if it's true, but there seems to be a lot of stuff suggesting that page 3 hasn't been completely abandonned - there will still be women on page 3, but instead of topless, they'll be in bikinis, lingerie, etc. to cover their breasts.

    I think this is actually worse than shelving the page altogether, because it's the sort of token action that hasn't really done anything for anyone. Presumably the people who campaigned to end it will still be unhappy that provocative pictures of women are going to continue, and I'm not sure that taking away a topless photo and replacing it with photos that are essentially the same but not showing breasts does anything in terms of addressing any of the issues people seemed concerned about anyway. I'd also say that it props up societal norms even more - that breasts are the problem, that they're the part of the image that makes it sexual, and that female nudity requires covering.

    Let's face it, there will still be skantily clad women throughout the paper regardless, be it posed or candid.

    The effectiveness really comes down to how you look at it. You make a good point that, to a fresh pair of eyes, hiding a pair of nipples doesn't really solve any problems. The other angle to look at it is that the change itself is what's significant given the popularity of the publication, its influence, and how long Page 3 has been around in our culture. So really it only has impact when you consider the context.

    1421855999
    Skitty [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 679
    • Joined: 8 Jan 2012

    It does appear to be confirmed: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/11356186/Has-The-Sun-quietly-dropped-Page-3.html

    That article has a picture of what the new page looks like.

    I think I'm even more shocked than I was about it before when I thought it'd just gone away :S

    1421856441
    Young and fun95 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2748
    • Joined: 6 Jun 2014

    Rediculous. This culture is stupid.

    Post a reply to this thread

    Please sign in to post messages to the forum.