This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Page 3 booobies ;D

Scroll to see replies

Yeah, not going to respond til you answer the question I posed you in the other thread. Since you're just going to ignore it, and start trying to validate your anti-feminist ideas on this thread too, I'll leave it til then.

Stroppy feminist, I'll answer your questions later, I have exams at the moment and only get distracted when threads of debate come up, when I feel like debating pure feminism, I'll return to the other thread

Reply 41

meenu89

If you don't like don't buy it.

Reply 42

Plainview

Let's ban all nasty things ever, that way everyone would be really nice and we'd have no problems. These women are voluntarily doing this work, so they clearly aren't offended by it, and as long as it's out of the reach of young children neither should you be.

Reply 43

hollywoodbudgie

It's more of a matter of, we have the internet, nobody needs it anymore.

Reply 44

bottled

Original post by Swanbow

It creates an environment where kids growing up see a girl with their tits out in the paper everyday and as they get older they think that it is normal and acceptable to judge a person simply due to their appearance. It might be a personal choice whether that woman wants to get her knackers out and objectify herself, but it has a knock on effect on objectifying women in geneal.

But anyway I don't really think the effect is that hard hitting in reality, its more the principle. Simply put the main reason I hate page 3 is because I don't like seeing boobs when I'm reading the news

Yeah... That's quite the slippery slope there, 'if kids see
Tits in a page 3 sun they'll start to judge people (everyone is judgemental anyway).when they're older. ' Everyone is judgemental, and if you take off page 3 for that reason, then you ought to remove the lads mags on from newsagents (yknow what I mean, like there are lots of nude womenon lads mags on the top shelf where newspapers are??) moreover, porn is more graphic and easily accessable than the sun. If anythijg following such logic, that leads to more objectification than the sun. Sorry if that's not so eloquent, on a blackberry.

Hell if you hate seeing boobs, fair dos man, and I realise you don't want it banned , hell I hate the sun too.

Reply 45

TheMagicRat

Disagree. They ain't taking my daily dose of intellectual stimulation courtesy of these beautiful and thoughtful girls.

Reply 46

Jordan-James

Lmao, i remember as a kid my mum would open the Sun newspaper for me, on page 4.

Reply 47

danielnkwocha

Original post by Vikki1805

So long as they're kept on top shelf so children can't get to them, I see no issue.

Nobody is forcing them to do this, it's their choice, therefore not exactly degrading.

I don't think putting the nation's best selling newspaper on the top shelf is gonna help anybody. Just saying, I don't even read The Sun but it is popular.

Reply 48

Prandtl

Disagree. It's easy to avoid and relatively harmless.

Reply 49

tomj45

Original post by PostgradMatt

Stop being so sensitive about it. There's loads of pictures of shirtless guys everywhere to. It doesn't mean either are 'objects to be ogled at', there's nothing wrong with admiring physical form. The human body does looks good after all.

This is my view point exactly. There was a post about sexism against men in advertising recently, notably adverts that portray men shirtless fot adverts aimed at women. I know many women that would not find this offensive but would at the prospect of a topless female. In my opinion, there isn't anything wrong with page three models, like everyone has said: their choice!

Now what I find more offensive is the poorly written literature that can be found beyond page three of The Sun newspaper...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 50

Slothzilla

Original post by PostgradMatt

I think that's part of the problem though, there isn't a topless male alternative to page 3 girls, so it does feel a bit like it's ok for men to ogle at women but women are assumed to be all innocent and not like to look at men in the same way. Obviously, there's places women can look at topless men but it's not so ingrained into our culture that they even feature in newspapers...

Not everyone assumes this obviously, but I was reading a discussion recently about whether women watch porn and whether there should be more porn aimed at women as well as men and the amount of ignorance with people claiming things like "women are biologically different and aren't interested in porn" was pretty shocking and branding girls who like to watch porn as sluts, but saying it's ok for men because they're different...

It's the same situation with things like Nuts and Zoo, the only female-audience alternative I can think of is Playgirl, and Filament which isn't able to print any particularly explicit images due to it's printers being afraid to upset "the women's/religious sectors" (source). Some women on the discussion I mentioned said they just turned to looking at gay magazines, where it seems fine to print explicit images of men, it seems it's only when women are the intended audience that people are shocked. But then again, I guess it's just supply and demand. 50 shades of Grey proved that a lot of women are interested in erotica, but I think some women would be embarrassed to walk into a shop and buy an erotic magazine because this public attitude still exists to some extent, whereas for guys it's seen as the norm, "what a lad".

Obviously things are improving, and this isn't some crazy feminist rant. I'm in no way against page three girls, it's not something I'd do personally but fair play to them if they enjoy it and can make a living from it, I just wish there was an equality with something similar being aimed at women. I know generally men are accepting of women looking at erotic magazines, etc, and they outnumber those who aren't. But those who do take issue with it seem to be very vocal and create this stigma about women looking at porn/erotica. I completely agree with you that men are ogled at too, some of the aftershave adverts on tv are just :sexface:

I guess I just wanted to point out that there are still a displeasing amount of people who consider it shocking/controversial for women to look at erotica.

Reply 51

username677182

Original post by danielnkwocha

I don't think putting the nation's best selling newspaper on the top shelf is gonna help anybody. Just saying, I don't even read The Sun but it is popular.

Why, surely you're tall enough to reach it if you do want it? :sly:

Reply 52

tu_es_jolie_x

Why would anybody interested in reading the news buy the sun anyway?

Reply 53

danielnkwocha

Original post by Vikki1805

Why, surely you're tall enough to reach it if you do want it? :sly:

I'm actually only 5'8, but that's beside the point :colondollar:

Reply 54

silverbolt

Original post by mcgoohan

Its completely ridiculous to have topless pictures in a newspaper. It suggests women are objects to be ogled at for their shape. Just meaningless degradation of women which is so epidemic that drones cant even think about it critically. Its like the air that they breathe, so taken for granted that women should get their tits out for the lads.
And the women that do it are part of this crazy brainwashed culture. Are the people reading the paper sitting around naked?
Is the person who sells the paper topless?
No.
It isnt a shared culture of nudity, its just brain dead ogling
Of young flesh. The same kind of mindset that denigrates older women and sugggests they keep themselves covered up.
Consumerist in its most ultimate form.

i take it then that you (and the woman instigating this campaign) will want pictures of half naked men removed from media publications then?

Original post by Voltozonic

Using women or men as objects to sell a product is wrong.

One would argue that if women/men want do this kind of thing then its their own choice and hence it is fine. That's simply not true. From the individuals perspective - great - they get money and attention. But for the simple minded in society all this form of advertising does is reinforce the common stereotypes that women should be admired for their bodies.

That stereotype causes a lot of women to go to uncomfortable lengths to keep themselves attractive where it's gotten to a point where a lot of women believe they are a lot uglier than they actually are.

With your reasoning I assume you see no issue with the selection of women which are portrayed in the media too ? After all they are their to be admired.

The situation is the same for males too of course. Using supposedly ideological human bodies to advertise products in society is a bad idea and it does more harm than good.

I like how you add the man part almost as a foot note - or a "wait im not just an internet white knight whos only attracted to womens intellect" People admire looks all the time everywhere you look (and if you say you dont then your a damn liar or asexual) men and women do it every day.

And in regards to body issues the rate of male body issues is on the increase - so thats it then, lets get rid of all six pack laden photos - after all its only fair.

Sex sells - you dont have to like it - but you cant deny its a fact. And page 3 is hardly sex its just a mostly naked female figure.

Original post by AeneasBK

Page 3 is a symbol of our male-dominated society. Whether or not you like it is immaterial it objectifies women. In a very "accepted" manner. It would be nice to say our culture has moved into a more accepting and gender-equal state. We're not quite there yet, but removing things like this is probably a step in the right direction. Whilst the models used are probably very comfortable with their role in all this (whores do it for the money after all) the message it sends to less understanding individuals (i.e. kids) is less likely to lead to mutual respect between the genders :smile:

And you only have to read this thread to see what I mean by that :biggrin:

Then lets get rid of its female equivalents then.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 55

Swanbow

Original post by bottled

Yeah in the information age the internet has just made very thing so accessible that kids can just find anything on the internet. I get what you mean with lads mags but at least they have age restrictions and what not. Nah, no worries I get what you meant.

Haha, I love looking at boobs but there is a time and place and it distracts too much well reading the paper. I think that if we could just get rid of the Sun that would be a better scenario haha

Reply 56

FrogInABog

Original post by edithwashere

Article with the woman who is running the petition: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/mar/10/anti-page-3-the-sun-campaigner

I agree with it. If you want to see softcore pornography, then buy nuts or zoo or one of the many other publications who provide it. A newspaper should contain news.

[video="youtube;iLYOdm1_gik"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iLYOdm1_gik[/video]

That video raises two criticisms, both of which are nonsensical.

1) "People might want to read it at the breakfast table with their children." If someone wants to read a newspaper that their children can see, it is up to them to buy an appropriate one. If they take offence at the images that a particular newspaper publishes, they can refrain from buying it, and go for a different one.

2) "It might put off half the population from buying it." Which explains why the Sun has the highest circulation of any daily newspaper (about ten times that of the Guardian), I suppose. I'm not entirely sure why this video is attempting to give business advice to what is probably the most successful media group in the world, but there we go... Besides, refer to my last point; if you don't like it, don't buy it!

Reply 57

takingtime

Original post by Rybee

Don't like it?

Don't buy it. Don't read it.

Live and let live.

This. Plus you don't seem to have a problem with completely naked men in cosmo with just a rugby ball to cover their body etc. Which is available for purchase in the exact same manner.

Reply 58

takingtime

Original post by edithwashere

Yeah cosmo has naked guys in already...

Typical extreme feminist with massive double standards.

Reply 59

pandabird

Original post by rcummins1

Disagree. I don't see it as degrading due to the fact that no ones forcing them to do it. If they want to use their assets to make a living, more power to them.