The No More Page 3 campaign

[scareyt]

Hi all, there is a serious campaign underway to convince the Sun to drop the topless pictures on page 3. A petition on Change.org has just reached 100,000 signatures and over 100 MPs as well as several charities have added their support.

The campaign website is here: http://nomorepage3.org/

And you can sign the petition here: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/dominic-mohan-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3

Please add your name to it if you agree that these photos don't belong in a family newspaper. Every signature counts!

[Jeremy]

I don't agree with including soft porn in a newspaper either - but who said it's a "family" paper?

[scareyt]

It's how they pitch themselves. The recent promotions they did with Lego were a really quite sinister example of introducing sexualised images to kids - with the Lego insert in one issue appearing between pages with stills from all the films featured in the "We saw your boobs" Oscars song. Nice. Lego have since announced they are ending their partnership with the Sun.

[Loz]

I really couldn't feel at all less strongly about this. There are far worse things to be found in the pages of the Sun than a pair of breasts.

[scareyt]

It's true there is a lot of unpleasant rubbish written in the Sun. But Page 3 is basically a very powerful brand in its own right - soft porn that is positioned as something that its ok to look at in public and in front of children.

[silverfox]

scareyt Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's true there is a lot of unpleasant rubbish

> written in the Sun. But Page 3 is basically a very

> powerful brand in its own right - soft porn that

> is positioned as something that its ok to look at

> in public and in front of children.

I don't know any children who read The Sun. Do you?

If you're worried about children seeing soft porn in The Sun then surely the parents are to blame by leaving the paper accessible.

Also, you'll find fewer spelling mistakes in The Sun than the Guardian or, dare I say it, The Times

[Loz]

OK, so these people want the end of Page 3. Today in the Gruin, they report that some feminist is starting a campaign for more women on bank notes.

I think I have an idea that should keep both groups happy...

[DaveR]

I'm essentially sympathetic to the argument that Page 3 is a relic from a bygone age and has no place in a modern newspaper. But that's as far as it goes, and stuff like this:

"The recent promotions they did with Lego were a really quite sinister example of introducing sexualised images to kids"

is rubbish and can only undermine the campaign.

There are undoubtedly more important targets if you are concerned about either the objectification of women or sexualisation of kids.

[Jeremy]

Likewise... porn has its place, and that place isn't in a newspaper.

But the Lego example doesn't make sense to me, either. Every adult who buys the paper knows what's in it, if they have a copy in their home then it's their responsibility to make sure that children don't "read" it.

[StraferJack]

what do you do with people who openly read it on the bus?

[Loz]

But is it porn? I mean, they are just standing there, not in poses you would consider overtly sexual. You can get into lots of arguments about body image, etc, but are naked breasts in themselves porn?

In Germany and Austria they have magazine programmes on TV at about 6pm in the evening that occasionally have naked breasts and I have even seen the occasional ad involving a breast on TV on at a similar time. And, of course, Germany has the Freik?rperkultur - the Free Body Movement.

Maybe they just have a healthier approach and have less hang-ups about such things.

[LondonMix]

I don't think naked breasts are automatically porn but Page 3 is definitely intentionally sexual.

[Jeremy]

Loz - depends on the context. If it's a medical journal or a fly-on-the-wall TV show about Magaluf, then no. If it's there specifically for men to stare at, then yes.

[Loz]

Generally it was a section that had people sitting in saunas. Or showering. Really, given the context it seemed entirely gratuitous. It would have every paper in the UK form the Daily Mail to the Guardian exploding in moral rage. Except the Sun, of course, which would go with a big headline saying 'Phwoar!'. Over there, though, no one seemed to think it was any worse than someone in a bikini.

[david_carnell]

I think it is possible to have a liberal attitude to nudity whilst still thinking that Page 3 is a relic of a bygone age.

It's not prudishness that stops me finding Katya, 21, from Essex and her views on fiscal policy rather unpleasant. It's recognising that the image actively mocks women. Whilst it may not be porn I don't think it has a place in the national press. But my issue with how tabloid papers cover women in general is one of constant sexualisation coupled with derogatory comments about both celebs and others in the public eye (eg politicians or commentators).

The hypocrisy from the Sun and the Mail on pedophilia whilst simultaneously commenting on the physiques of teen (and sometimes pre-teen) girls is shocking.

[*Bob*]

What says 'it's 2013' better than a picture of a girl with an asinine facial expression and her knockers* out?

* ?circa 1978

[Loz]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it is possible to have a liberal attitude to nudity whilst still thinking that Page 3 is a relic of a bygone age.

> It's not prudishness that stops me finding Katya, 21, from Essex and her views on fiscal policy rather unpleasant.

> It's recognising that the image actively mocks women. Whilst it may not be porn I don't think it has a place in the

> national press. But my issue with how tabloid papers cover women in general is one of constant sexualisation

> coupled with derogatory comments about both celebs and others in the public eye (eg politicians or commentators).

But British prudishness is still a powerful force behind the campaign. Otherwise, the other issues you (rightly) raise would the major issue. But, no, it's just all about the nudity. If Kayla (21) was wearing a bikini top she would still be equally mocking, but would there be no campaign to get rid of page 3.

> The hypocrisy from the Sun and the Mail on pedophilia whilst simultaneously commenting on the

> physiques of teen (and sometimes pre-teen) girls is shocking.

I wouldn't really conflate what are two very separate issues.

But since we've moved to that that subject, here's the classic Sun Charlotte Church (15 at the time)/Brass Eye Paedogeddon hypocrisy.

http://screenagers.me/2010/07/21/tabloid-hypocrisy-charlotte-church-looking-chest-swell/

[david_carnell]

But I don't think it is prudishness behind the campaign - it's a woman's right not to be objectified as a sexual object whilst her "views" on matters of the day are ironically posted above her head.

That would seem both an obvious and stark divide.

There is a really simple way to work this out....is a nude picture essential to the reporting of a story? If yes, feel free to print it. If not, don't put them in to simply titilate your male readers.

And it is only men who are targeted....

[DaveR]

I don't think this is a prudishness thing, although that is the explanation for why we don't have loads of topless women on TV, like in Germany (that's why the one TV show that did was called Eurotrash, I guess).

I did read the petition linked in the OP and I think the way it is put is bang on:

"George Alagiah doesn?t say, ?And now let?s look at Courtney, 21, from Warrington?s bare breasts,? in the middle of the 6 O? Clock News, does he, Dominic?"

Also, it's good to see that they are not petitioning for a ban, but rather to persuade the Sun that Page 3's time has passed. If the campaigners can resist the temptation to resort to "will nobody think of the children?" they have my full support.

[scareyt]

Wow I'm really pleased this post has sparked so much thoughtful debate. I can see where a few comments are coming from re bringing children into it, but its true that children absorb everything they see and that they look for meaning everywhere. My little boy has just turned three and I often read a newspaper in front of him while we eat breakfast. When he's finished eating he climbs into my lap and interrogates me in detail about all the photos on a few pages, we talk about them for a bit, or if they're grim I quickly change the subject, and then I give up trying to read and we go do something else. All kids are curious and the messages absorbed as children about our place in the world run very deep.

It's also true that page 3 is a problem for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with children and that many kids are happily oblivious to it until they hit puberty.

[stacey-lyn]

Click for Girl Guides

No 'wannabe glamour model' badge then.

Currently on a surgical waiting list and what irks me is the NHS funded boob job for a page 3 model and the bozo GP who signed that one off. The Sun should have bankrolled it - adding a tattoo of their logo over one and a Legoland one over the other. A missed opportunity, imho.

[scareyt]

DaveR, I'm really interested in why you find references to protecting children from page 3 irritating. I'm not trying to pick a fight but really want to understand exactly what you find offputting about it, since if the campaign is alienating potential supporters we need to know why. Was it the language I used about the Lego promotion? (Maybe "sinister" was a bit OTT) Or is it that you feel children seeing it is not the main problem? Or that there is an element of busybodyness about focusing on that aspect of it? I think a lot of campaigners have started focusing on their feelings about page 3 as parents since often when we just say from the heart "I'm a woman and I hate page 3" the response from page 3 supporters is loads of personal abuse about how you're just ugly, jealous, etc. And the response tends to be less obnoxious if you approach it as a parent. I'm not saying that's what I was expecting on here as I have a much higher opinion of EDFers than that. Just that that's where the temptation comes from to focus on it from a children's point of view.

Loz, I can't speak for everyone who has signed the petition, but for me at least it's not about nudity. It's about us as a country tolerating this blatant presentation of women as sexual objects, in the context of our biggest newspaper which gives people the permission to look at these sexual images, and to discuss them, in public.

In campaigning terms, there are indeed lots of horrible things written about women in the media. The thing about page 3 is that it's a clear target and, I believe at least, a figurehead, flag-bearer and usherer-in of a lot of the other rubbish that gets written about and shouted at women. The fact that it exists at all suggests that "nobody else minds" young women being seen and treated as sexual objects, which is a very nasty and frightening thing for a teenage girl to discover about the country she is growing up in.

[KidKruger]

I agree with page 3 calling it a day, it's a page I skip if I ever look at a copy.

Another thing which I don't appreciate and is embarrassing esp. when on say public transport, an example being boxing interest websites which I look at a fair bit on my phone, is there's always adverts on the discussion pages for 'grow muscles', 'meet arab girls', 'date asian women', 'mature woman are looking for YOU' etc etc.

Don't want that either I don't want women product-ised for my 'benefit' thanks.

[KidKruger]

Having said that, a couple of years ago I'd mentioned on an EDF thread that a woman at my workplace was displaying so much bosom that it was making guy sin the team uncomfortable and pissing-off a lot of them, they were individually mentioning it to their seniors - but there was an impasse where none of the seniors wanted to say anything for fear of being interpreted as discriminatory.

Someone on EDF said that I was 'sexualising' womens' breasts, so does that mean I'm sexualising women's breasts by wanting page 3 to stop ?!

Heaven knows, I just don't overly appreciate either scenario. Put them away, please.

Or I'll unbutton my chest in the interests of equality and hirsute struttiness.

[LondonMix]

Someone showing cleavage at work is just inappropriate. Breasts are sexual. They have other purposes as well but they are sexual!