• The Sun and Page 3

    1421856807
    Skitty [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 679
    • Joined: 8 Jan 2012

    Sorry to be posting so much in this thread, I've just found it quite thought-provoking.

    I was discussing this whole thread with my OH last night, and we thought that perhaps the solution to if sexualisation of the body is seen as a problem... show more nudity in more different contexts.

    Normalise nudity and it's not taboo, people can't see it as exclusively sexual if they're used to it and it's a normal everyday part of living. Bit idealistic, but still. Instead of just glamour model breasts, more breasts, all different shapes, sizes, ages. I live in a seaside town, and personally I love it when people far 'too' large or old or whatever, according to general societal standards, wear ridiculously tiny bikinis, because it's nice to see real bodies and to know that those people are happy with themselves.

    Obviously newspapers like the Sun wouldn't want to deviate from their standard of beauty, but I think it makes it harder for anyone to get used to nudity if it's hidden all the time, and by censoring the nudity from page 3, it's kind of a step backwards in my opinion because it means it's propping up the idea that nudity is wrong. I wish public nudity was a bit more acceptable, not because I'd necessarily want to be naked, but because I think it would solve a lot of these problems if people could just accept that it's just a human body, everyone has one, and clothes aren't really that important in shielding us from something that there's nothing wrong with in the first place.

    1421857307
    Young and fun95 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2748
    • Joined: 6 Jun 2014

    In a way I agree with you, but it'd have to be a culture wide thing to stop sexualising nakedness, that doesn't just come from having sexy women naked and no others, but the poses they're in and the comments that are made. The human body has become so over sexualised that a woman can't breast feed in public. I do think it's the female body more than the male body, a man can walk around the street topless but a woman can't becuase her breasts have a natural function which somehow makes them sexual and wrong.

    Our society is messed up and if we're being honest, we're too far in to change anything. American apparel had young girls in school uniforms showing their nickers and sitting in positions you'd see in a porno as an advert for school uniforms for Christ sake!

    1421863209
    Marriedscot [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
    • Posts: 289
    • Joined: 23 Jul 2014

    That's not what I said!!
    Men an women are equal why do you need feminism?
    It is a group of women trying to make every other woman conform to their ideology, they are no better than facists.

    1421869228
    CutieCurious [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 298
    • Joined: 4 Nov 2011

    Marriedscot wrote:

    That's not what I said!!
    Men an women are equal why do you need feminism?
    It is a group of women trying to make every other woman conform to their ideology, they are no better than facists.

    Men and women are not equal, and the assumption that they are is naive. Some very basic research would make the continuing inequality of the genders very clear.

    I believe you have a very narrow view of feminism based on a few feminist causes that you didn't or don't agree with. Feminism, like any other political movement, has a myriad of different branches with different approaches and beliefs (e.g. Intersectional Feminism, Radical Feminism). To judge all feminists as one fell group, to declare hatred for all of us, and to use a provocative slur like fascist, is extremely offensive to me.

    1421888898
    Lovebirds_x [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2076
    • Joined: 24 Oct 2012

    Young and fun95 wrote:

    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

    This, so much this. Men and woman are not equal. But that doesn't mean women are the only ones who suffer! We need less feminazis and more people promoting gender equality. Sure it's all irrelevant now anyway. They never banned them in the first place. They've promised tits on page 3 tomorrow. For whoever actually cares...
    1421905166
    Badcc67 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
    • Posts: 69
    • Joined: 4 Jan 2013

    Much ado about nothing. I often buy the sun and both my wife and I read it. Banning page 3 has just closed a relatively well regulated career pathway for those young girls who want to glamour model and will push them to the sleazier alternatives. I viewed page 3 as light- hearted fun, particularly the "news" commentary from models and most of the poses were not particularly sexualised in my view. To me it was just a girl with no clothes on top. Even my wife realised that the images are non threatening. For those of you who are worried about the children seeing a naked body I do wonder if they never see you getting dressed.

    I think the new images of women in skimpy bikinis are actually worse. Anyway like most changes, good or bad we will get used to it and it will cease to be an issue.

    For the "feminists" they have only succeeded in depriving women of a career choice. Big deal. A better move would have been to create more opportunities for men to model their physiques. I would not have refused the opportunity if it was there.

    1421905906
    Badcc67 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
    • Posts: 69
    • Joined: 4 Jan 2013

    Skitty wrote:

    Sorry to be posting so much in this thread, I've just found it quite thought-provoking.

    I was discussing this whole thread with my OH last night, and we thought that perhaps the solution to if sexualisation of the body is seen as a problem... show more nudity in more different contexts.

    Normalise nudity and it's not taboo, people can't see it as exclusively sexual if they're used to it and it's a normal everyday part of living. Bit idealistic, but still. Instead of just glamour model breasts, more breasts, all different shapes, sizes, ages. I live in a seaside town, and personally I love it when people far 'too' large or old or whatever, according to general societal standards, wear ridiculously tiny bikinis, because it's nice to see real bodies and to know that those people are happy with themselves.

    Obviously newspapers like the Sun wouldn't want to deviate from their standard of beauty, but I think it makes it harder for anyone to get used to nudity if it's hidden all the time, and by censoring the nudity from page 3, it's kind of a step backwards in my opinion because it means it's propping up the idea that nudity is wrong. I wish public nudity was a bit more acceptable, not because I'd necessarily want to be naked, but because I think it would solve a lot of these problems if people could just accept that it's just a human body, everyone has one, and clothes aren't really that important in shielding us from something that there's nothing wrong with in the first place.

    Skitty wrote:

    Sorry to be posting so much in this thread, I've just found it quite thought-provoking.

    I was discussing this whole thread with my OH last night, and we thought that perhaps the solution to if sexualisation of the body is seen as a problem... show more nudity in more different contexts.

    Normalise nudity and it's not taboo, people can't see it as exclusively sexual if they're used to it and it's a normal everyday part of living. Bit idealistic, but still. Instead of just glamour model breasts, more breasts, all different shapes, sizes, ages. I live in a seaside town, and personally I love it when people far 'too' large or old or whatever, according to general societal standards, wear ridiculously tiny bikinis, because it's nice to see real bodies and to know that those people are happy with themselves.

    Obviously newspapers like the Sun wouldn't want to deviate from their standard of beauty, but I think it makes it harder for anyone to get used to nudity if it's hidden all the time, and by censoring the nudity from page 3, it's kind of a step backwards in my opinion because it means it's propping up the idea that nudity is wrong. I wish public nudity was a bit more acceptable, not because I'd necessarily want to be naked, but because I think it would solve a lot of these problems if people could just accept that it's just a human body, everyone has one, and clothes aren't really that important in shielding us from something that there's nothing wrong with in the first place.

    I agree with Skittys post a lot and have even quoted it twice- accidentally!

    At the end of the day a static nude body is just that. These bodies may be on the higher scale of physical perfection but as far as I know they are real women.

    Making something normal like the body a taboo can cause more problems. The "prudish" Victorians with their obsession on covering up probably had more hang-ups than anybody else. The body should not be something to be ashamed of.

    1421906375
    Badcc67 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
    • Posts: 69
    • Joined: 4 Jan 2013

    Young and fun95 wrote:

    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.

    I do not think Page 3 "throws sex at kids". Its just a woman's body. I'd be much more worried letting my kids see an average music video. The Sun pictures are fairly tame.

    Those who would ban Page 3 are probably the same people who would ban breastfeeding in public because they are offended by the sight of a woman's breast.

    1421906757
    Badcc67 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
    • Posts: 69
    • Joined: 4 Jan 2013

    j&lxxxx wrote:

    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.

    I have to say that you have a point. Girls competed to become Page 3 models and it had a certain prestige. I did not find it demeaned the girls as they were merely showing their natural attributes and took pride in their status. Rather than ban it I would have advocated a Page for men too e.g page 4.

    Maybe there is an element of jealousy in those who were so vociferous about banning it.

    1421917885
    Lovebirds_x [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2076
    • Joined: 24 Oct 2012

    But seriously...THEY DIDN'T BAN THEM. The sun have denied it and printed one today. Just a publicity thing as usual...

    1421919277
    Stuburns [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 1782
    • Joined: 23 Nov 2011

    Boobs are back 👍

    1421935265
    JJohnson [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Colonel
    • Posts: 22
    • Joined: 15 Nov 2014

    Skitty wrote:

    Sorry to be posting so much in this thread, I've just found it quite thought-provoking.

    I was discussing this whole thread with my OH last night, and we thought that perhaps the solution to if sexualisation of the body is seen as a problem... show more nudity in more different contexts.

    Normalise nudity and it's not taboo, people can't see it as exclusively sexual if they're used to it and it's a normal everyday part of living. Bit idealistic, but still. Instead of just glamour model breasts, more breasts, all different shapes, sizes, ages. I live in a seaside town, and personally I love it when people far 'too' large or old or whatever, according to general societal standards, wear ridiculously tiny bikinis, because it's nice to see real bodies and to know that those people are happy with themselves.

    Obviously newspapers like the Sun wouldn't want to deviate from their standard of beauty, but I think it makes it harder for anyone to get used to nudity if it's hidden all the time, and by censoring the nudity from page 3, it's kind of a step backwards in my opinion because it means it's propping up the idea that nudity is wrong. I wish public nudity was a bit more acceptable, not because I'd necessarily want to be naked, but because I think it would solve a lot of these problems if people could just accept that it's just a human body, everyone has one, and clothes aren't really that important in shielding us from something that there's nothing wrong with in the first place.

    I think you make a great and thought provoking point here. We do have an oddly repressed culture that paradoxically shames publically displays of nudity for ordinary people while glorifying it for those who've won the genetic lottery.

    What you're saying sort of reminds me of the recent ThisGirlCan campaign encouraging women not to feel self concious about exercising.

    1421935483
    JJohnson [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Colonel
    • Posts: 22
    • Joined: 15 Nov 2014

    Marriedscot wrote:

    That's not what I said!!
    Men an women are equal why do you need feminism?
    It is a group of women trying to make every other woman conform to their ideology, they are no better than facists.

    I think you're representative of either how distorted the image of feminism has become or how short sighted we can be. I hope for your sake it's the former and not the latter.

    1421938277
    capricorn13 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2913
    • Joined: 25 Aug 2013

    JJohnson wrote:

    I'm glad to see it gone and it's a start. But sadly it pales into insignifance as long as the paper continues to objectify the female subjects of its reporting and promotes a misogynistic view of the world.

    +1

    Another Murdoch paper. I wish it would go the way of The News of the World

    1421938575
    Stuburns [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 1782
    • Joined: 23 Nov 2011

    Murdoch does have too much media power.

    1421942495
    Subdom27 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 1478
    • Joined: 27 May 2012

    Stuburns wrote:

    Murdoch does have too much media power.

    Agreed.
    1421945481
    Stuburns [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 1782
    • Joined: 23 Nov 2011

    Murdoch gets a mention in Russell Brands 'revolution'. He certainly has too much power.

    1421955960
    Badcc67 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
    • Posts: 69
    • Joined: 4 Jan 2013

    Stuburns wrote:

    Murdoch gets a mention in Russell Brands 'revolution'. He certainly has too much power.

    And so does Russell Brand. I wonder why people pay attention to the upstart nonentity.

    1421956059
    Badcc67 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
    • Posts: 69
    • Joined: 4 Jan 2013

    Stuburns wrote:

    Boobs are back 👍

    Hooray!!!

    1421956839
    LittleSwitchBitch [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2397
    • Joined: 21 Mar 2013

    I've only barely skimmed this thread as tbh it makes no odds to me either way if there is or isn't boobies in the paper... Only part of this thread that I didn't involved no men in cosmo... How come?!

    Anyway, with one click of a button I can look a big small thick or long so Meh!

    Post a reply to this thread

    Please sign in to post messages to the forum.