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
To it and the other examples prevalent in other publications.
Which publications in particular?
I (and the people behind the campaign) feel that a national paper is an inappropriate place for images of that nature and that it should be restricted to the top shelf lads' mags.
I do see your point, incidentally, regarding the Torso of the Week rubbish, but imo it is a slightly different issue than the one at hand. Heat, Cosmo, Nuts etc are directed at a specific audience and aren't publishing anything outside of their remit. The Sun claims to be a family newspaper, yet publishes soft porn within a turn of the front page. I wouldn't even like my sister (who is 11 and just becoming curious about such sexual things) seeing that inadvertently, let alone a child as young as Sodbaby or Kaff's (ridiculously intelligent) little girl. And kids that age are the ones who are likely to pick up a discarded paper and start pretending to read through it.
I can't disagree that my post was clumsy and very possibly over the top. And very definitely provoked by more than just this thread, but I stand by the general sentiment. I would paint a more eloquent argument if I'd had more than an hour of sleep at a time for the last 3 weeks, but I have not.
It's also possible that I have been riled this week by being told by my (dinosaur) employers that they will need to 'try and find a use' for me when I return to work after my maternity leave, and that any additional low-level sexism has left me wanting to poke someone in the eyes.
In addition, it is not a comparison to cite 'torso of the week' in women's mags as being the same thing. It isn't ok either, but it is not set against a backdrop of historical inequality, and the kind of everyday sexism that pretty much every woman experiences. Also I think the 'well women do it too' argument is as clumsy as mine! And women's magazines are largely hateful shite anyway.
Erm. Because she's 11? And that's not the way I want her learning about sex. I will tell her anything she wants to know but in a realistic and appropriate way. Not from her unexpectedly coming across some random girl's knockers in the daily paper.
There's myriad of those trashy women's magazines as well as all the Nuts spin-offs and women posing in everything from motorbike magazines to PC Gamer.
See my previous post about the objectification ghetto. And I suspect most people don't lock away Heat et al. from their kids.
You will find that it's often the same Sun readers who like to leer at page 3 tits who become suddenly aghast when a pair of tits are used for their intended purpose!
And regardless of that, how will seeing a pair of breasts show her anything about sex?
Of course she does. But only because me and her mother had to tell her (using a cucumber, no less). What I object to is her seeing something like that and thinking that it's normal. I want her to learn about sex in a responsible way. Not in a "get your norks out and all the boys will want you" way that is the kind of message page 3 gives off.
My point was not that men can't have an opinion on how page three (or sexism in general) affects women. It was that is every single woman felt affected, then maybe that was quite a clear indication that it DOES affect us.
I don't need to have experienced homophobia or racism to have an opinion on it. So would it be ok for me to say to someone who has, 'yeah, homophobia is quite bad, but are you sure you're not just going a bit far - getting offended for the sake of it?'
b) letching is perfectly acceptable
Neither of which are messages I want to encourage.
Yes, there are plenty of other things that aren't perfect - but that's not an excuse not to work on improving this one.
What she said.
What if the woman wears a bikini? Or a bra? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm really just trying to explore this issue of lowering the threshold of censorship from full, explicit sexual content (e.g. pornographic magazines) to anything that features nipples.
I am fully behind persuading the Sun's editors and owners to modernise their portrayal of women. Especially if you consider that a great deal of the Sun's readership are women themselves - it's not a hard case to sell that we aren't living in the 70s anymore. But I'm against, as a matter of principal, the government or anyone stepping in and saying 'we don't like this, its offensive and demeaning to us' and censoring a news publication. If we need to do that, there has to be a rigorous and justified cause.
But then that's me living up to the stereotype - typically young people these days apparently are fairly libertarian and don't trust the government to meddle in their lives. Live and let live, and all that. As Nick Clegg says; "If you don't like it, don't buy it ? you don't want to have a moral policeman or woman in Whitehall telling people what they can and cannot see."
There was actually an article on how there might be a bit of snobbery going on with this. The presumption being of course that it's dirty, unwashed and simple-minded labourers who enjoy the ogling because of their monkey brains, and that the main opponents seem to be fairly well educated liberal elite types. I'm not sure it holds that much water with me (there are just causes for disliking page three other than who the readership is) - especially considering I am probably in the educated liberal bleeding heart bucket - but your comment just reminded me about it.
I'm sure nobody is surprised that it tends to be your pensioners and older readers who prefer it would stay the same and the younger you are - the more people think it should be different.
Interesting you say this. I certainly ascribe to one day have a nice aesthetic and I'm sure adverts like the diet coke adverts have something to do with that. But then the same thing is across every channel, so its hard to say if it's the responsibility of publishers to be responsible in having a true reflection of society rather than a sexed up version - or whether it's what the people want and publishers of media across all channels (I mean come on even cartoons are in on it) just deliver that.
On the flip side, I do suspect the damage done to children is overstated a bit. I'm sure most parents have had their kids walk in on them having sex at least once - there's an uncomfortable conversation in a can! But, having those conversations and dealing with the uncomfortable bits - page three, street walkers, etc. - is nothing new. I may be missing the point but I just can't envision a world where there is no questionable material at all.
We focus on the worst bits and parts most likely to cause harm, we do the best we can - and we muddle through with the rest. In the same way we give kids booster shots and make sure we look after their primary health needs (doctors, food, sleep, etc.) - we don't expect them to never catch a cold at school. And I'm sure most parents know what page three is as well and take steps to deal with that if they're uncomfortable having their kids see it as best they can.
I actually hate booth babe culture, though it's a slight tangent. I've been to several expos and these fairly pretty ladies wearing fishnets and pants handing out flyers (this includes business expos as well as gamer expos!) does make me cringe a little. I think there was a bit of backlash against it recently but nothing tangible came of it. Apparently sex sells?
Page 3 of the sun should not exist in its current format because:
Firstly, objectification. By which I mean viewing someone as an object for use is not ok. The models in The Sun are objectified in a way that should not be a social norm. This list of the top ten is an example of the way these models are viewed. Only as things to be approved of. In particular I quote part of the blurb for Number 10 "has made an impressive 79 Page 3 appearances". The reason this is unpleasant and unsettling is that it makes out to a wide readership, that these women have nothing but their bodies to offer.
On this subject of objectification, I would like to make the distinction that it is separate and different from finding someone sexually attractive in an every day context. I know that I look at women, some of them are lovely, mostly from behind, I'm very into bums. However I do consider it wildly different to catch myself looking at a colleague or another woman, than having another woman (or person) to exist solely for my gratification (more on this later when I chat about porn). I recognise that women are attractive, I like that there are attractive women, but I have no more or less respect for them as people. It speaks volumes that all of the women so far in this thread agree that page 3 has only on purpose, to put a woman on display for approval and sexual gratification.
Secondly, it is in an inappropriate context. I consider it different in context to Heat, Cosmo and Nuts etc (refered to hearafter as "other mags), because of it's availability and it's general position. My understanding of other mags is that while they do have sexual content, it's is either in the form of text, the position of the other mags in the shops is different, and the pictures are often slightly censored. They are also marketed differently and are less likely to be picked up by children having been discarded. I have seen gossip magazines in GP waiting rooms, but I don't think I've seen Cosmo or Nuts. Whereas The Sun is often in the newspaper rack at places like McDonalds or Wetherspoons, freely available. In addition, to address Torso of the Week, I am to understand that the men featured are athletes, actors, muscians and so on, that is to say, famous for something other than their muscular build and crotch bulges. If pg3 was a glamour pose of Jessica Ennis, Kate Beckinsale or Adele, we might be having a slightly different discussion. However, it remains to say Page 3 is what it is.
Thirdly, it's pornographic. It's pornographic because as I've said it's there so that primarily men can give approval over someone's body, it's sexually provocative. And seeing as I was asked, as a lesbian, I have never seen something I like there. Probably because I find the content incongruous.
So, this is not to say that pornography is wrong in and of itself. Though it is difficult personally to always be able to reconcile what I enjoy pornographically, and how I feel about the way women are often degraded in pornography. By and large society considered pornography to be a relatively private thing, and it is my opinion that as long as those who produce pornography are consenting adults, enjoying what they do, properly paid and protected I don't care what comes out, with the final requirement that it is also understood that it's not real. Pornography is fantasy, it's there for pleasure, and I think that's fine. It's important that it's understood as such.
The last thing is that in the grand scheme of things, it's not page 3 that is the problem. It's the way that society still views women. I don't think anyone can realistically deny that there are still some real and serious problems with the way women are viewed and treated. I've given examples, but I'll give them again.
Page 3 is built on that, but you can't take it all down at once. You need to start somewhere, and I think that page 3 is as good a place as any to start the reinvention of the media towards sex being healthy, porn being entertainment, and women being respected in all sizes & shapes.
My 11 year old sister is now regularly telling me how fat she is.
Please do not try and tell me the damage is overstated.
If objectification is one of your concerns then it can be found (about both men and women) in more numerous and more egregious examples in other publications. I think it's also a bit disingenuous to attempt to dodge the issue by claiming that Heat will have an topless actor or a singer in it; from what I recall it could be someone famous person's boyfriend or some z-list actor, so they may have little-to-no celebrity. But this is besides the point. They're there for the viewing pleasure of the readership and it's made more interesting because you may recognise them from the telly. It's titillation plain and simple. Objectification, if you will. And this doesn't begin to touch on the cyclical too fat/skinny content.
There's also the issue of these magazines placement. All the magazines mentioned aren't top shelf items. The myriad of women's magazines aren't; Nuts spin-offs aren't; PC Gamer isn't; Motorcycle News isn't. They're there in the same place the newspapers are and are often found with scantily clad women on the covers and in the edition. If you're a consumer of these products I doubt they're hidden away from children, if you're honest.
There's a lack of consistency at work here. I don't like The Sun but if you take issue with the nature of its content then apply the proposed censorship universally.
While you are right there are some occasional examples of attempts to objectify men in the media, they in no way compare to in content or measure up to in volume the objectification of women. I don't want there to be a role reversal. I don't want it to be only men objectified in the media. I want objectification to be held in an appropriate place, as fantasy, and that images in mainstream media should be normalised. Guys are hairy with smelly bums and willies are just not pretty, women have belly rolls and saggy boobs and sometimes we don't shave.
But like I said
Oh you...
I don't want to shelter my daughter from the likes of page three because she might see breasts. She sees breasts all the time.
I want to shelter her from it because I do not want her to think for even one second that her breasts are the sum total of her worth, and that she is any less than the strong, smart, rounded person I am raising her to be.
Also, everything Fiend just said.
Of course, I also can't figure out things like how kids end up thinking things are their fault when there's no reason to assume that, so I guess I need a course on thinking in general.