How sad is it that some people think it's not possible to get rid of either porn or page 3. Of course we can. Life existed before them and life will exist after they're history.
Exactly, it's time people realised that we don't have to be submissive to these things. Women didn't get their rights by sitting passively on the fence, and we'll never get equality until people start standing up for themselves.
Are you against a topless woman appearing near the front of a family-oriented newspaper or are you against topless modelling and porn altogether? They're separate debates. I'm with you on the first one but, whether you or anyone likes it or not, there are men and women who enjoy that sort of work, there is obviously an audience for it, and I think it's unfair to take the moral high ground and say it's because you're speaking For The Good Of All Women just because it's not something you yourself have the slightest interest in.
I'm not suggesting that I'm like some Victorian Upper Class woman who steps down into the drudges of the working class world to help 'fallen women'. What I'm saying is that things like 'No More Page 3' are important because it shows women (and men) actively seeking social change, in that we no longer find it acceptable to promote female objectification in a family orientated newspaper. Porn is a big issue, from a personal stand point I understand that SOME women enjoy it but whether the majority of women in the porn industry honestly enjoy their work is questionable. I've watched quite a few documentaries on porn, and most of the people there seem to do it for the money, but then again I also read Slutever, a blog that promotes the enjoyment of porn - Hence why porn is a big issue. Personally, do I like porn? No. Not even from a feminist stand point, I just find it boring. There's no passion, no desire, in the sex. It's like watching two fleshy robots go through the movements and pull the right faces and make the right noises. Give me Atonement's library scene anyday...
Brilliant! Signed it after Women's Hour today
Excellent! So glad to have more and more people getting behind the campaign.
So, would the supporters of this campaign also like to ban the "diet coke break", levi jeans ads where some young guy gets his kit off in a launderette? Where was the protesting at the "page 7 guy", who bared his chest for the ladies? Some people like to show off their bodies (on tv, in newspapers, in nightclubs), others like to look at them. I don't see a problem. The vast majority of us enjoy sex and sexuality, and protesting against that is futile - you may have the right to protest, and to speak your mind, but be prepared to accept the verdict if the majority think otherwise...
Are you thick or just plain ignorant? It's not a case of whether or not you enjoy it, it's about whether it belongs in a family(!!!) newspaper which 7 million Brits buy daily. And the answer is: it's not. And if showing a topless female and topless male is of the same standard then I suggest that all men start wearing bikini tops when on the beach or on a hot summers day...
didnt notice his balls were on show !!!! when that happens come back and moan !!
I'm sorry, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but the majority of women do not find that a mans balls are one of his attracting features. So comparing them to a womens breasts is a nonsensical argument. I'm not commenting one whether or not there should be a page 3, but please don't go saying that topless men and topless women aren't at all the same thing. The majority of females are attracted to the upper half of a man. His build, his muscles, his six pack, his chiseled jaw line. Similarly, the majority of men are attracted to a womens upper body. The breasts being large and accentuated is simply a preference for some, like women who prefer muscled men over average Joe. I have never heard a man say 'wow, that girls labia is fantastic'. From a commercial standpoint, and what sells, it's topless men AND women.
In the sense of anatomy, no balls and breasts aren't the same thing. But what I'm trying to say, is that both are sexual organs. Both represent a persons sexuality. And lets not forget, years and years ago a woman's ankle on show was considered explicit, and now we have tits in a newspaper as acceptable? It just shows that women's bodies, their sexuality, is being exploited. That it's somehow worth less. Whereas a man's sexuality, his penis, his balls, those things are private for man. Personally I just find it a massive contradiction. If that makes sense.
Surely a woman being more free and happy about her body is a good thing? No longer does a woman have to worry about getting stoned for having her legs out. Isn't that part of what femenism was all about? Giving a woman the right to be free with herself without persecution?For the record, breasts are not reproductive organs.
Heather, I have to disagree with you. Breast are not a sexual organ. They cannot be compared to a mans penis or testicles. That argument is illogical.
I've never bought a copy of the Sun, I have of course flicked though a copy - The Sun news paper isn't exactly the type of paper I would want to be associated with. However, people here are harping on about it being a "family" paper, yet the families that are buying this paper surely know there's a page 3, so it obviously doesn't bother them. There's plenty of other option of News paper out there. If families were that bothered, they'd buy a different one. And what kid reads a paper these days any way!Crusades like this really get my goat. You assume that people instantly generalise a whole sex just because a chosen few choose a profession that uses there body over there brains. Saying that a page 3 girl degrades the integrity of all woman kind is just ridiculous. It degrades the person doing it, sure - be them male or female. There are plenty of female news readers, all of which as just as respected as their male counterparts. Look at it this way - In a world which is pretty evenly split 50/50 men and women, the majority of murders comment in the world are men. I don't have the actual figure, but you can be sure it's pretty high, and even if it isn't, it's certainly perceived to be. Yet when you meet a guy at work, or in a business meeting, is the first thing that goes though your head - A guy sh*t he might kill me! No, that would be observed. And if you truly believe that in the same scenario a guy meeting a woman in the work place for the first time is thinking - I wonder what her tit's look like. Then you're a pretty sad individual, and I'm quite offended that you think we (men) would all think in that way.
*takes deep breaths* For God sake... I know breasts don't MAKE FUCKING BABIES! But they have connotations with sex. And yes they can mean other things, womanhood, maternity, fertility, ect. BUT THAT ALL DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT! And the context of Page three is SEX! These women are portrayed as a sexual fantasy, which is damaging because of all the reasons stated above and in a lot of other comments on here. You all know damn well that Page 3 is not one woman exposing herself to say 'I do pilates, I'm an example of a healthy lifestyle' - SO STOP GRASPING AT STRAWS AND TELLING ME THAT! Because if it's a case of pride in one's body, why is only one type of body shown? Why is it always girls with big breasts and a flat stomach? Why are they always 16? Because I'm proud of my body, I live a healthy lifestyle, but would they let my small boobs and big hips on Page three? No because I don't conform to the sexualised image that has been standardized in the media because of Page three. Here is an article with the person who started the campaign explaining it all, without the Jon Snow metaphor, which everyone seems to take so bloody literally. My brain hurts from trying to get my points across. Very sorry for losing my temper, I understand many of you are just expressing your opinion, and I'm for that. But as a woman, Page three represents just another inequality that women have to deal with and it GETS MY GOAT. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/exclusive-weve-seen-enough-breasts--why-i-started-the-no-more-page-3-campaign-8159600.html
The bit about Jon Snow was pretty funny. Now onto my serious point:The Sun isn't exactly the most reputable paper in the world, I think that getting rid of page 3 would be a good thing but it'd be just the tip of the iceberg. I for one would like to see that scummy rag go out of business completely. The phone hacking scandal brought to light the paper's true colours (well it was the NOTW but they're pretty much the same).However, there is such thing as the freedom of press. Page 3 pictures were not obtained through ill-gotten means, unlike some of the so-called "stories" that have been printed in this excuse of a paper. The women featured are there through choice. A ban would not change anything; if page 3 were banned, it'd be the same "lads" who would tell women to "get your tits out" etc. just for "banter". This mindset is the thing that needs addressing. Once this has been eradicated, page 3 will be obsolete.I feel sorry for the women who choose to be in page 3 but I feel more sorry for the "lads" that cannot find true beauty in a woman's thoughts and ideas than in her breasts.I hope that made sense :-)
Putting the Sun out of business is a silly idea. It would put huge numbers of people out of jobs in a time of economic crisis. I don't agree with page three but 'banning the newspaper' is stupid. It's like saying Bob Diamond is an idiot therefore we shut down Barclays. Most of the people who work there just do it for a job, they don't have overall editorial control. Fair enough if you want to do an entire media overhaul, but that's the only way things are going to change. Otherwise they'll just find new ways to objectify women. "Look at her fat thighs" etc... Page three is just the tip of the iceberg and it's not just the Sun at fault. Every tabloid newspaper, gossip mag and lad's magazine is just as bad.
Why do people insist on banning things they don't like? What is the difference between that an Islamists who want to ban books and cartoons. If you don't like something don't subscribe to it. You have the choice.
The No More Page 3 campaign is not the same as Islamists banning books - not even a little bit.
I think the great difference between Islam rules and Western society rules are really much alike. Muslims ban stuff because God tell them too, Western governments ban stuff because they are contrary to public interest or economic reasons. For example certain book are not available in Europe because of the European censor. We just change the name and call it lobby today but it is clearly the same. For example some artist because they have a different speech, we forbid them to play, for example Dieudonne the french humorist. So European country feel no problem to ban some stuff but not all. the hypersexualisation of our society is not perceive as a problem by the governement, in my country prostitute pay tax but they don t get a proper healthcare insurance for examples which is one of numerous biggest injustice. Finally the point is gov are runned by money that s all. I would say that agree or disagree with the no more page three debate. those are people fighting for something they believe in and I like it very much.
I'm not saying banning. I mean people need to be educated at how crap these papers are and then vote with their wallets.
The point is that by having this in a family newspaper, you are saying its acceptable for kids to look at the naked female body, presented as decoration, as normal (with no equivalent balancing image of men). This gives the younger generation an idea of female perfection that the girls screw themselves up trying to attain, and the boys start to believe that all women should look like. The porn debate is obviously a completely separate issue, thats people choice to enjoy what they want in private - not on show in a family environment.
YES YES YES! The porn thing I brought up as a seperate issue. This isn't an article about banning porn, but don't use porn as an excuse for Page 3.
But if you object mainly due to there being no balance then why not argue for a balance.
there is no way to balance it because men and women are different when boobs are shown what can be shown for a man? his torso? but it is acceptable for a man in our actual society to show his torso so there is no equivalent. we should first force men to hide their torso for two generation. then create clothes to show a little bit of torso for three generations and make ads for torso enhancement and finally make ads about women selling themselves showing their torso naked. OMG... I think we are going to have a lot of fun for the next 40 or 50 years that are coming
The only way the above story can make any sense is if you change what the story is saying to a woman and ask does that happen. I don't think there is a news channel in the world where either male or female anchors expose themselves on live television. This is just another story using shock tactics to try and win people over. Nothing like that happens in real life.If they were suggesting that a similar paper was released but with a man on page 3 then this story immediately seems less shocking. The male form is already exposed a lot in mass media. It just seems a lot less of a big deal when a man is barely wearing anything because men don't have boobs.If a man is in good shape and wants to flaunt it then everyone seems to enjoy it. When a woman does the same she is criticised and looked down upon. Usually by other women. I find it Ironic that many women treat other women differently from the way they treat men when they are the ones that want women to be treated equally
OH MY GOD IT'S A LITERARY DEVICE! Of course everyone knows that it doesn't happen, but really, how much of difference is there? Both are mediums used to get the news out, they're just different medias. And the male form is not exposed in the way the female form is. Breasts are more sexual than a six-pack, they represent a woman's sexuality. The same way a balls represents a man's sexuality. And you know damn well that Page 3 isn't about women showing off how well their work out has gone that week. It's about sex, it's about a sexual fantasy and a sexual ideal for women. I'm not looking down on the women who go on page 3, I'm questioning their motivation. Why should they feel like they have to validate their worth by exposing themselves in such a manner?
Why are breasts more sexual than a six-pack? Because that is the way society is told to think. Were nudity a social norm there would not be this problem. It is the fixation with covering something up in case it offends someone is the very thing that leads something to become offensive.Is it? What is the motivation the woman behind page 3 feels? Maybe she is proud of her body, much like a man walking down the street with his shirt off is proud of his. They are not all shots of nudity, as you have shown in the picture above. They are shots appreciating the female form. Perhaps there should be more showing the male form. Sure, there are those who use it as some kind of fantasy, and yes it is generally men. But when they have to resort to something such as this do you not instead pity them? They have to resort to these cheap thrills, perhaps because something else is lacking. Why deprive that poor minority?If you choose to percieve it as highly sexualised and derogatory then of course you'll feel offended. If you changed your perspective to see it as an appreciation of the human body and something for people to aspire to then it becomes less offensive. The women are in very good physical health and, while everyone is beautiful, they show how anyone can look with some hard work. It is unfortunate that some women strive so hard to be somebody else and feel the need for enhancements they don't need but not all the girls on page 3 are like that. I'm sure most are just proud of who they are and how they look.
I can't understand why this is even a debate.1. We have age ratings for things that we deem inappropriate for children to view on television, films, video games etc.2. Most people agree that sexualised images of topless women are inappropriate for children to view (hence them raising the age ratings on television, films, video games etc.).3. If the Sun and other publications (Nuts, Zoo, FHM to name but a few) wish to publish images that are inappropriate for children, they either need to be age restricted or stopped.Surely the argument is as simple as that!To point out a few things about this:1. No one is saying that an overall ban on sexualised imagery will solve any problem or that there is no market for it. All that is being said, is that if women want to pose for pictures like these and people want to buy them, then there should be some sort of safeguard against children buying them. We recognise this in almost every other medium - why not print?2. No one is saying that sexualised images of men aren't as bad for children. I would have the same problem with any sexualised image presented as a family publication. It's stupid to think that because it's women it's worse. It's simply the case that women are more objectified in the media.3. Stop talking about Jon Snow's balls. It was a good analogy to point out the ridiculousness of how women are only valued for their looks in the media and how we have reduced women to products in our consumer society but it is only an analogy.4. As an article, this supports the removal of page 3 girls from the Sun newspaper because it's part of a huge system of oppression of women. It's pointing out that porn, page 3, sexualised advertising and media in general are making women look ridiculous to people. It is symptomatic in our news media where women are not valued purely for their journalistic ability but for the size of their mammary glands. It is saying that if we get people to recognise that there needs to be an understanding, that is only usually acquired in adulthood, to appreciate that these images are ridiculous caricatures, then they shouldn't be shown to children or they will start them down a path to seeing women as objects of no worth.Let's at least try to discuss this sensibly. Let's attempt to support our children's freedom to grow in their understanding and respect for women as well as our freedom of speech.It's high time page 3 died a death in this so called "family" publication.
YES YES YES! The person who wrote this comment wins the internet. Thank you! For a moment there I thought I had just wrote an article about whether or not breasts and the same as balls BECAUSE THAT'S ALL ANYONE SEEMS TO CARE ABOUT!
What an idiotic metaphor this starts out with, which then leads to an idiotic article. Breasts have more than one use in society, yes they can be sexualised, by they also symbolise maternity, life-giving, female beauty and womanhood. A ball sack, simply has one function, to create sperm - giving it an incredibly sexualised focus. Your metaphor would be more apt say, if male celebrities were giving interviews and had their naked torsos splayed about the magazine pages - which happens in most female orientated magazines such as Cosmo, Hello, Heat etc - Torso of the week for example. These magazines are far more damaging than Page 3, they are the magazines that women look to and judge themselves by. The same magazines which tell them to lose 5 stone in one article, and then derides them for being too skinny in the next, while telling them 'what men want' like men are one single organism who all want the same thing. If you want a worthwhile campaign which will make a positive impact on society, ban these magazines rather than one page of a paper which is read by a small minority of mostly working class men
Read the comment above, he/she gets it.
According to the Sun, it is read by more than 3 million women. In a country of 60million that's about 5% of the population. Include the men reading it, and there's no way you can class Sun readership as a "minority".As Heather says, read the comment above. Let's try again:1. This isn't about whether or not men's balls are as sexual as women's breasts. It is an analogy to show that sexualising women in the media reduces them to merely sexual objects, not valued for anything but their looks. Also, let's be honest, it's hardly a picture of a woman breast feeding on page 3 - that might do some actual good! No these are sexualised images.2. It's not only women who are hurt by these images. As men look at them it creates a culture (already far too prevalent) of seeing women only as sex objects their to gratify men. If young boys continue to be exposed to this then they will start to view women as media executives do - a pair of tits and everything else an unimportant bonus.3. I can't state this loud enough - THIS ISN'T ABOUT BANNING ANYTHING!Most of what this is suggesting is that things like the Sun, FHM, Nuts, Zoo etc. become age restricted, just like movies, video games etc. It's saying that if we need to protect children from looking at inappropriate images in everything else, why don't we do it in newspapers and magazines?4. Of course Cosmo, Hello, Heat etc are as damaging. Let's stop debating what to work on and start working on something at least. Page 3 is a representative of this entire culture. If we agree it should be restricted from children then let's restrict it.
This is amazing. You are my hero.
Sexual favors for those that comment on this blog - maybe.