Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Who reads The Sun expecting quality news coverage and enlightening articles? Page 3 is part of its identity and they shouldn't have been pressurised by the mob (although I'm inclined to believe they've done this to boost their online subscriptions).

    This isn't what feminism should stand for at all. They have actually damaged the livelihoods of some young females by stigmatising this industry.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by datpiff)
    Completely disagree with that. I do not like your mentality at all tbh. "The authorities are doing stuff to stop it so all is good". From my experience not enough is being done.

    Also women can't discuss an issue in which effects a lot of women around the globe? It wouldn't be a waste of time. Sex trafficking is very hidden in British society and it would be great to have discussion about it.
    I wasn't talking about hypothetical discussions. Discuss it by all means, increase awareness of the problem tenfold, and make everyone keep a watchful eye on potential sex traffickers as well as up-to-date information about local paedophiles. That can only be a good thing as far as the safety of future generations is concerned.
    I was talking about the practical implications of feminists getting involved in it, because it wouldn't be long at all before the hardliners starting shouting the loudest about how all porn is evil, etc. And so the issue gets side-tracked, people starting losing faith in the feminist movement because "dey wantz all are pr0n" based on the vocalities of a few, and the whole thing quietly goes away. It would be counter-productive and divide the movement up even more.

    You show me a campaign whose goal is to end the sex trafficking of underage girls and I'll be there at the protests to say that the government should be doing more about it, you show me a petition that people are writing to send to parliament so that they can make the police do more about it and I'll sign it, but like **** will I let the above all go to waste just because a few jumped up idiots started getting people on the "porn is exploitation" bandwagon because that's a different ballpark in the same area of what we're talking about.

    I agree with the basis of what you're trying to say, I just think that the way we go about it needs to be handled tactfully so that the rad-fems and anti-porn lot are kept out of it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by datpiff)
    What year do you live in? This isn't 1985. The internet has made page 3 irrelevant and a relic of the past. I can just type in boobs in Google now and you'll have an endless supply of tits. You even have tits on Tumblr.


    Again I stand by my view held that TSR is full of kiddies in their 1st and 2nd years of uni who haven't even bothered to look at any feminist material and haven't a clue about feminism. I'm no expert myself, but I do know a lot of people in here have no business telling people that they're the main authority on what feminism is about. Of course the movement like any movement has problems, but a lot of people simply haven't a clue. Get to your university library and do some research kids. You're paying for the use of your library. Might as well use it.
    Thank you for thinking I am young
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Do women not look at photos of "desirable" women and want to be like that? I mean, that's what I do when I see images of guys built like Adonis. I understand that a woman can't magically get bigger breasts while a man can grind away at the gym to get nice abs, but in terms of general physique and stuff, do most women see any images as aspirational? Or is most of it disregarded as "muh patriarchy"?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Page three is going to stop showing topless models

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...pless-pictures

    As someone who can't for the life of them get a girlfriend this is the only way I can possibly see them.

    But I hear there is this thing called Google images. Apparently there is a huge supply of boobs on there.

    I will report my findings.


    Edit: Disclaimer, I feel the need to point out that I have never bought a copy of the Sun. I'm not actually personally upset there is no more page 3.
    You a Physics graduate. TSRians will love/stalk/date anyone who studies a STEM. If you studied at a RG, your inbox will soon overflow with the emails of your suitors
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blazar)
    Well, as a woman I'm quite happy about this. Hopefully men will stop objectifying us so much in future.
    Yes hopefully we will all forget women have breasts
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midnightice)
    Who reads The Sun expecting quality news coverage and enlightening articles? Page 3 is part of its identity and they shouldn't have been pressurised by the mob (although I'm inclined to believe they've done this to boost their online subscriptions).

    This isn't what feminism should stand for at all. They have actually damaged the livelihoods of some young females by stigmatising this industry.
    "damaged the livelihoods of some young females". You can't be serious. Lol I guess they won't be putting their career as a page 3 model in their CVs then.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Page three is going to stop showing topless models

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...pless-pictures

    As someone who can't for the life of them get a girlfriend this is the only way I can possibly see them.

    But I hear there is this thing called Google images. Apparently there is a huge supply of boobs on there.

    I will report my findings.


    Edit: Disclaimer, I feel the need to point out that I have never bought a copy of the Sun. I'm not actually personally upset there is no more page 3.

    Honestly, i think its a good thing that they are stopping it. Why? because its wrong to objectify women in such a way, just like its wrong to objectify men. I always get objectified.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The only time I ever read the sun is at the barbers, I can never read what's on page two because there are always kids there and I don't want them to have to see naked women.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    Thank goodness for that - about time! :happy2: :woo: :happy2:

    I never used to even be able to read the first two pages of the sun because I had to flick past (I am not the type of person who wants to see Page 3 material!)

    Now I can actually read the sun newspaper if I wanted to !!!!!! :happy2:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by awkwardshortguy)
    Yes hopefully we will all forget women have breasts
    ...the knack for completely missing the point is strong in this one.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    You've completely missed the point of what they were saying, which was that feminism is about empowering women to make their own choices in life. The Page 3 models chose to sell their bodies for cash and people like you who are vocally supportive of removing that opportunity for them are going against the very ideals you claim to support. The truth is that intolerant 'feminists' like you want women to have the freedom and opportunities to make their own choices in life except when you don't like those choices.
    Pfft. I'm not talking about removing opportunities for anyone. I'm talking about the fact that there needs to be a change in attitude towards women's bodies. As I've said earlier, it's great that these people are comfortable having themselves photographed in a publication. What's not okay is the way those pictures are then presented by the media.

    You probably think I'm into "slut-shaming" and all that. Actually, I don't care what people do with their bodies, as long as there is always consent. However, I do care when people are portrayed as little more than their bodies.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    For some strange reason I actually have a copy of Friday's Sun! Reckon I may keep it and in 100 years time it could get me something. Lol!

    Seriously though, even though I don't usually read it, I think literally Britain has lost a major asset to free speech and an iconic symbol through the demise of Page 3.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    *BREAKING NEWS*

    Page 3 has NOT been abolished.

    Here is the proof, today is the 20th January.

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...m-Warwick.html
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    What you don't seem to understand is that these women know how they're being presented and choose to take that path of being paid to be sexually objectified. Page 3 girls didn't think they were being paid to model for nude paintings, they were fully aware of where there breasts would be printed and for what purposes - and they had every right to choose, of their own free will, to sexually objectify themselves. By opposing women being 'portrayed as little more than their bodies', you are opposing the freedom and opportunity of women to choose to take that path which fundamentally undermines your self-description as a feminist.
    Page 3 has NOT been abolished.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blazar)
    Pfft. I'm not talking about removing opportunities for anyone. I'm talking about the fact that there needs to be a change in attitude towards women's bodies. As I've said earlier, it's great that these people are comfortable having themselves photographed in a publication. What's not okay is the way those pictures are then presented by the media.

    You probably think I'm into "slut-shaming" and all that. Actually, I don't care what people do with their bodies, as long as there is always consent. However, I do care when people are portrayed as little more than their bodies.
    What you don't seem to understand is that these women know how they're being presented and choose to take that path of being paid to be sexually objectified. Page 3 girls didn't think they were being paid to model for nude paintings, they were fully aware of where their breasts would be printed and for what purposes - and they had every right to choose, of their own free will, to sexually objectify themselves. By opposing women being 'portrayed as little more than their bodies', you are opposing the freedom and opportunity of women to choose to take that path which fundamentally undermines your self-description as a feminist.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by datpiff)
    I'm seeing many male arguments but not many female arguments. It would be good if the men on this board would get lost for a few hours so we can have an equal number of females have a say on the subject. TBH the male perspective isn't what i'm interested in. I rarely can see what women have to say on these boards about issues like this because it's usually guys who shout the most.
    I've heard Lucy Holmes speak on two occasions; she came to my school and I went to a conference where she spoke. The main arguments presented were:

    1. She was brought up around men who bought the Sun to look at page 3 girls, who would pass comments on these women such as "look at the tits on that". This negatively impacted the way that she saw herself. From a young age, she saw women being objectified and this was destructive to her own self confidence. This perhaps was not the main reason that she saw herself in a bad light, but was a contributing factor. Holmes said that she wants to stop this negative objectification and prevent other young girls from being affected by it.

    2. Page 3 has no place in a national newspaper. It's sexualising the news. Boobs have a place in men's mag, but not a newspaper that reports on serious events. The way that it is out of place emphasises objectification in our culture. It seemed as though everything requires sex to sell. I saw an interview earlier on the BBC and a man said that he will no longer by the Sun because a page 3 girl no longer features in it. It is "boring now, innit".

    Nevertheless, it isn't like the Sun have entirely got rid of page 3. It's just moved online, similarly to many other things. As well as this, there are still bikini-clad women, who are presented as ditzy (that awful Dubai pun) and so the objectification still exists. I would argue that whilst the nipples have gone, the No More Page 3 campaign hasn't really fulfilled its goal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Flipping feminists :shakecane:
    Whiny brat.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Meh, not a big loss for me, I like other kind of boobies :mmm:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm glad at the decision. Maybe some of the women who dreamed of being on page 3 will pursue more worthwhile ambitions instead.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.