Should 'Page 3' be banned?

Fair enough. But the idea of reducing coverage of X attractive/successful person because people get upset when comparing themselves to X is still a nonsense.



We could have a long discussion on exactly how much of appearance is biologically premeditated and the extent to which these premeditations are distorted by society from what they would be with no external influence at all . . .

But for the sake of brevity, I will bring up the more practical issue of the fact that even if conventional media were to cease to exist tomorrow, the proliferation of social networks - i.e. Facebook/Instagram/Tinder envy - would result in pretty much the same consensus on appearance.

Basically, it's not actually all that important what the 'ideal' form a society converges on is; there will still always be people who don't match that ideal form, and they will still feel the effects of low self-esteem. And there is simply no way around that. And this is not, in my opinion, a problem that needs 'fixing'.

Main difference with social media being that you choose what to see, whereas the Sun is in your face whether you like it or not. An ideal form is one thing - having it be so ever-present with the absence of any alternative, is quite another.

What? If anything it's the other way round. You can choose not to buy the Sun, but you can't stop your Facebook feed showing you your attractive friend in her great new bikini, or LinkedIn updates about your friend from university who's just been promoted to a six figure position while you're still unemployed . . .

I have never, ever bought the Sun. Unforunately I've seen it all over the place - at the football, the cafe, the pub, public transport. I cannot delete the Sun from my life. However, I can like Facebook pages that don't show that, or that show more balanced views of human bodies and sexuality, or stop receiving updates from that annoying girl I haven't spoken to in three years who seems to think we need 500 holiday snaps each and every time she stepts outside her front door in nothing but a bikini.

Right. And I can't escape the fact that there are footballers my age and even younger who have a net worth multiples and multiples of mine. But I don't moan about it being shoved in my face on the back page of every newspaper in the country. I don't call for its coverage to be reduced because I'm too delicate a flower to keep my envy under check.

We can disagree on whether removing Page 3 would really make any difference to the extent of the 'problem' of body envy (I think you're massively playing up the ubiquity of seeing Page 3 on a habitual basis, vs all the Facebook envy stuff which streams in every day), but I maintain that the only logical conclusion of what you're saying is to minimise coverage of pretty much anything that could depress anyone at all.

What the ****, why not? neither are exposing their genitalia.

Should having women posing topless in newspapers like The Sun be banned?

They shouldn't be banned. However, that's only because it's more productive to campaign on it, and get the Sun to recognise the sexism of Page 3, how inappropriate and anachronistic it is and remove it voluntarily than for the state to enforce such a decision.

(That being said, I would not be opposed to the paper being banned on public property especially where children may well be present such as parks, schools or transport at the discretion of the appropriate local authority and with private businesses encouraged to follow suit).