If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I don't think pictures of shirtless women would make someone a sexist out of someone who wasn't, and there's nothing to protect the kids against as, unless the act is sexual, any kind of nudity on its own doesn't have to be. After all, bare feet are very sexual to a foot fetishist.
In short, of course there's no need for that page to be there but I don't think there's any reason to ban it.
Nudity in itself isn't adult.
Nudity for the purpose of sexual oogling is adult. The sun at the very very least skates the line of its images being for the purpose of oogling.
Page three girls are generally aged 18 to 30.
Page 3 girls tend to be quite varied - certainly not all along the barbie format. Big boobs, small boobs, and they certainly aren't all skinny. Fat girls don't tend to appear for the same reasons skinny girls don't appear - most men find a healthy weight attractive
Page 3 is to please men, what's wrong with that?
It pleases me to look at sexy ladies, at bums, tits, and arses. Doesn't mean I treat women as lesser people so what the fuck do I need to change?
None of which I believe. None of which has anything to do with the fact that I think boobs are nice to look at.
Any adult buying The Sun is only looking for news in the loosest possible sense. I'd imagine they're looking for a bit of celebrity gossip, a few silly stories and the one-big-overarching-appeal-to-emotion story.
There's a difference between the body types of Page 3 model and that of those standardly found on the catwalk. But you know this, I suspect.
Also, by this argument should we not be taking chocolate and booze off the shelves because some people cause themselves damage with them? It feels like we're keeping the whole class behind because some people have imperfect attitudes to women.
I suspect I'm stretching things a bit. I just baulk at censorship, largely because it's trying to treat symptoms rather than causes most of the time.
The problem lies in people who think that they have the same right to touch as they do to look. The kind of people who would probably say that porn stars can't be raped and that girls walking around in shorts and dresses in summer deserve to be leered at and groped because of what they were wearing. The kind of people that litter the comments on EverydaySexism.
There are also the ones who make derogatory, misogynistic comments about people like Julia Gillard or Anita Sarkeesian because they're women who are succeeding in predominantly male environments. And the ones who make comments like "shut your mouth and know your role" to their fellow panelists on national news channels.
But that's a different argument to the No to Page 3 campaign. Just one I wanted to point out - just because YOU know (or rather, are respectful of) that it's look-don't-touch doesn't mean everybody does.
I think you've got to be careful quoting EverydaySexism (the Twitter feed). From my experience there are a lot of shrill offence-seekers on there mixed in an amongst the genuine examples.
I'm not sure we should organise society around the lowest common denominator.
I'm not saying that we should "organise society around the lowest common denominator"; only that there's obviously a line to be drawn. But I wonder where exactly that line is.
EDIT: On second thought, this matter is also very different than what the topic is about, so maybe we should discuss it elsewhere.
I was a lot less bothered about this whole thing until I came up against the wonderful concept of having to get my older, male, colleague to restate my points in a meeting, because i'd been ignored - mainly because I was a girl. One of the people who'd failed to listen to a word I had said, did later comment to my nice male colleague that I actually had quite an impressive pair of tits that he'd not noticed before today.
Apparently he got short shrift and informed that he should have been listening to what came out of my mouth rather than oogling, and the meeting would have finished sooner. Now that's not directly related to the sun - but I can't help but think that the 'here's a woman, have your daily gawp' can't help but reinforce the women are for gawping at mindset.
I'm not sure which feed you're reading but 90% of what I see rings far too true to me.
As an example: when I first moved to Essex (so I was 11) there was a lot of building work still going on around where my estate was. The catcalling I got happened daily. To a girl who would have looked no older than about 14 (I looked older than I was for most of my teenage years because giant) and was in school uniform.
I think you'd be surprised at how pervasive and ingrained it is. Because you're a man and it's almost never directed at you. If you heard it and saw it and experienced it with the kind of regularity that most girls do then I suspect 99% of men wouldn't be so quick to pass it off as being from a minority or try telling us how we shouldn't be feeling the way we do about it because it's a COMPLIMENT.
I don't kid myself that I'm hot, but I have been heckled and cat-called in all parts of the country (and elsewhere for that matter) about my body. Sometimes the speakers are complimentary, more often they're criticisms for not "making enough effort" to look like a page 3 model.
Shrill offence seekers? Care to give an example?
I've seen plenty of examples that I might have brushed off, but none that aren't legitimate. Are you saying that women should get used to it? That we deserve it?
Frankly, all I can see is a lot of men not really understanding what's wrong. Try to imagine, if you can what it is like to have your entire life filled with, at the very least, subtle and subversive suggestions, and too often to count the open and oppressive idea that women simply don't and can't measure up.
Women can't drive trains (from children), women can't pay bills and make decisions about home improvements, women can't do maths or science, if a woman is raped then it matters what she was wearing, what she'd had to drink, what she does for a living. Women are defined in the majority of cases by their marital status (mrs, miss). That the women in my office just said "ha, yeah, that's guys in engineering for you" is as worrying as having been on the receiving end of office sexism. Even more concerning for me is that I worried that it was my fault.
Every day of my life, and since BEFORE I was born there has been the insidious undertone of "you are not good enough, because you are a woman."
I also think describing it as 'just nudity' is short-sighted at best. I have a daughter the same age as AR's and I agree totally with him. I am breastfeeding her little brother and have no problem with her watching me. I would have no problem with her, for example, seeing a topless woman on a beach or in a changing room. I would happily answer any and all of her questions about both. But I would feel very uncomfortable about her seeing a page 3 shot. It is not the what, it is the where and the why.
I make an effort to teach my daughter about her body. I teach her to love it and not to be ashamed of it. But I also teach her about when it is appropriate to be naked and when it is appropriate to cover up, and randomly stumbling across a half-naked woman in a carelessly discarded paper kind of flies in the face of that.
And YES to everything posted about the casual and insidious sexism that the majority of women experience all the time.
My view is that we start at the benevolent worldview that people aren't intending to cause harm and/or acting against our interests. Indrid for example, has posted in this thread with his views and we can take it two ways - that he is acting as a man against the female interest because "shut up you stupid woman you dont deserve a vote and go make me a sandwich and while you're at it go make yourself look pretty" - or that he is acting as a poster, perhaps not even 100% decided on his view yet, and throwing his 2p into the pot.
I think there is definitely an issue with sexism in general, and I don't think anyone has denied that it's a problem. It's a common theme - especially in online discussions - to feel we need to go on that tangent of how bad the world is, to get our point across.
So onto Page 3. I think that, obviously, it's about objectifying women, which in my view is a bad thing in general. I don't think its a positive thing to reduce women to objects. Page 3 doesnt set out to demean women, but purely for the fact that someone will look at the page and see what a 'sex object' the model is, it is objectification. But we don't ban objectification when it comes to pornography - so maybe we can just limit it to children, as impressionable young people?
But then the problem comes - where is the line. As Scary Monster has said, Page 3 skirts that line. They are basically - as a strategy - sailing as close to the wind as possible. Have they done anything wrong in doing that?
Do we ban boobs from everything that children could see? What about art? Does Page 3 count as art? What if the photos became more artistic? What about if we let educational use through? What if Page 3 then becomes themed on education?
As for AR, my only suggestion would be to be honest when he feels its age appropriate. Why is the woman naked? Because many people think human bodies are very beautiful things, and like to look at them. These questions are part of everyday life whether page 3 is there or not, part of growing up is about seeing the good and bad parts of the world. There is no garden of eden where children are insulated from anything potentially troublesome, and there never will be.
I don't think I have the right to tell women who want to show their bodies off that they can't and that men (or women?!) can't enjoy looking at them. I do think putting pressure on the Sun to get with the times and realise that women aren't simply sex objects is the right course of action though - and that simply pandering to their target demographic with as much as they can get away with is not going to assure long term success for the paper.
On age restriction I don't feel it's necessary, but that's because I generally prefer 'light touch' restrictions to focus on where the harm is proven or evident. On men who like page 3, do I think they're scum? No, they just like looking at boobs.
I'm sure I've mentioned this before but when viewing a house one time a particularly excitable estate agent remarked that I should see the kitchen because 'women love kitchens!!'. Now he definitely wasn't a 'bad' person because of this inappropriate remark but like Franki has pointed out sexism is so ingrained in society that people make comments, cat call, 'slut' shame, sexually harass all the time. Female posters on here can back me up on the frequency of sexism in our lives.
(Shrill sounding?) Men and women recognising sexist behaviour and attitudes and then taking to a website to share experiences is not a bad thing or mean that people are miserable- it's a unified front and I think it rocks.
You haven't personally advocated it, but there is a connection.
I'm pretty sure you're including me in here and, if that's the case, you're wrong. Sexism is everywhere, I may not see it as much as you do but I do see it and I don't like it.
I don't see however how the banning of that page, and anything like it, -while keeping everything else as it is- will do anything at all. I can't imagine anyone who's sexist saying "Oh, that page is gone, maybe women are people after all". I can't imagine any father thinking "Shoot, I wanted to let my son know that women are only there for sex but without that page I can't do it". I can't imagine any woman or girl being less concerned about her figure simply because all the topless photos are gone, when there's many places with clothed women promoting skinniness as beauty. Ban those and you'll do something good for humankind. What they're wearing is irrelevant, one might even argue that it's better if they're not wearing anything, if they're of "healthy figures", because that way others will see more parts as normal.
(Note: I've not even looked at the Sun myself, but if what others here have said about "healthy figures" is correct then that's not a problem with that page anyway).
I seriously don't think it matters, because its absence would change nothing other than the fact that some people who only or mainly get the paper for page 3 will stop getting it (and, in the age of the internet, I can't imagine them being a big percentage).
We don't have to make people stop thinking of other people as sexual objects, because we all are sexual objects. We have to make people stop thinking that others are only sexual objects (or only other things -not everyone who's sexist is focusing on sex (different meanings of the word "sex" here).
For example, there's "celebrities" that I'm only interested in because of their bodies. If I find a sexy photo of them, I'll want to see it. I don't give a crap about how sad they are about their recent breakup or how much money they lost gambling. That's not because I don't think of them as people, it's because I don't know them. Does that mean I objectify them? Yes, the way I see it, it does. Does it mean that if I came across one of them I'd demand that she undress because I've already seen her undress? Hell no. Do you think that makes me sexist?
I said it above, but maybe it needs to be reiterated: I know that some people do think that way, but my example (and one example is enough to prove the falseness of "everyone") proves that objectifying someone doesn't mean you don't think of them as a person with feelings who deserves as much respect as anyone else. While page 3 and other similar things may be promoting objectification, I can't see how they promote viewing women as less-than-people. And the problem is with that view.
I haven't advocated it personally or otherwise. I don't want to have to state my credentials as a believer in equality of opportunity and an opponent of sexism because it lends credence to this rhetorical tactic of poisoning the well. I believe that I can look at a picture of naked women, appreciate it and go about my day without having my beliefs on the personhood of women tempered or tampered with. I can also appreciate the female form without advocating a chauvinistic caricature.
What is sad is ultimately men like myself and Indrid Cold (among the other male posters) are the comrades you'd be looking for in furthering the cause for equality. Both of us have clearly been feeling out this issue and testing our immediate reservations about this particular example, and Indrid, for his trouble, was dismissed as an 'idiot' while my interest is waning because I don't want to have to pull myself out from under insinuations to positions I don't hold.
I think the twitter feed does have plenty of examples of its namesake, but I think if you're trying to be objective about a matter then you accept the rags of victimhood are warm and comfortable enough for some people to put on. Moreover, as ShyBoy points out, it can also give you a skewed view on the world. And just to rebuff the accusation before it comes up: yes, I believe that the feed makes a pertinent point about an issue that need addressing.
That's what I was going for. I never said anybody here advocated catcalling. What I meant was that it's very difficult for men to judge the severity of a situation when they aren't affected by it to anywhere near the same extent.
EverydaySexism is about showing how pervasive this kind of thing is. Whether it's just the odd whistle or having hands shoved between your legs while you're walking. Whether it's calling Julia Gillard a bitch or telling Mary Beard or Anita Sarkeesian that they wish someone would rape them (or even that they're going to). It happens. Daily. And it's not a compliment and it's not just harmless fun.
Can someone post a link to the #shoutingback video that Laura Bates made? Phone makes life difficult.
Like feeling out racism, or homophobia. I am at a loss.
This?
[video]http://www.upworthy.com/if-you-know-someone-who-doesnt-believe-sexism-exists-show-them-this?g=4[/video]