The Sun puts a stop to page 3

[moodygirl86]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media ... 88831.html

 

What's everyone's thoughts on this? I read this with interest as a "well endowed" lady myself who's been told I could make a fortune from doing this sort of job, but I'd personally starve to death before I'd take money off sad pervs for letting them see my bits. I also know that no one's forced to pose for the Sun or any other publication. And anyone who enjoys this sort of posing is free to do so for countless other lads' mags etc. But to me, it is a patriarchial tradition in that I don't remember any guys getting his dick out for mainstream papers read by women. However, I was chatting to a mate about this; and he thinks nude/semi-nude modelling is actually a feminist thing to do because the woman doing it is using her powers of sexuality to attract the opposite sex? I can sort of see both sides - I wouldn't expose my own breasts in a national newspaper, but I also support other women's right to if they're comfortable doing so.

 

So what do you all reckon - a victory for feminism, a symptom of the Nanny State, or on the fence?

 

(By the way mods, I was unsure if this debate should be in Misogyny or Wide World of Snark, so feel free to move it if I've posted in the wrong forum.)

[BrownieMomma]

I think I need to understand more about British culture before being able to form an intelligent opinion.

It seems to me that, in general, Europe is a lot more relaxed about nudity than US. One of my friends lived in Germany for a few years, she said that if you went to the beach and wore a top then you stuck out like a sore thumb. I don't remember if she was in Germany or somewhere else, she also told me about her visit to the Red Light District in Amsterdam.

If this has been going on for 40 years, why the hue and cry about it now?

[moodygirl86]

I get the impression that's exactly the gist of the protests - their point is the whole page 3 thing started in 1970, and has no place in 2015.

I agree Europe are generally quite relaxed about nudity and sex, but in my opinion there's a difference between stripping on a beach to get the most out of your suntan (men and women alike); and having an industry where members of one gender (women) are paid to get their private parts out for the titillation (scuse the pun) of the opposite sex, when there's no equivalent get-your-dick-out-for-the-girls type occupation for men. There might well be if one were to go into one of the top shelf hardcore porn magazines/websites, but it certainly wouldn't be featured in the mainstream press! To me, that screams patriarchy.

[SnazzyNazzy]

My nana was from England, and she left behind A LOT of family. She got a box of Christmas presents from everyone over there every year, and there was always an insane amount of newpapers in there, including lots of Page 3 Girl pages. I remember seeing the pages when I was about 4yo or so, and it wasn't made into a huge deal, that I as a 4yo, saw a pair of naked boobs. When i asked why there was a naked girl in the newspaper, I got the standard answer from my nana "it's a British thing".

The Page 3 Girls, also turned me into a "purveyor of porn" when I was about 9. I would sneak and cut out all of the Page 3 girls, and sell them to the boys in the neighborhood for $5 a pic.

[spud]

I think it more than that. As well as the topless photo, they include an inane one-liner from the model on for example, the impact of quantitative easing on the Eurozone.

IMO it's meant to show that women are dumb and useful only for the entertainment of men.

[moodygirl86]

I think it more than that. As well as the topless photo, they include an inane one-liner from the model on for example, the impact of quantitative easing on the Eurozone.

IMO it's meant to show that women are dumb and useful only for the entertainment of men.

Precisely why you'd never catch me glamour-modelling for a million pounds!

[roddma]

I dont think America is prudish. We just think thats what Playboy is made for. Not the 3rd page of a national newspaper with stories on crime and war.

[morri]

the Bild still has it. on page 1 . The little descriptions were really the most stupid. I am not for it . What I liked however was the naked couple in the teen magazine.

I dont think America is prudish. We just think thats what Playboy is made for. Not the 3rd page of a national newspaper with stories on crime and war.

they rarely do that either lol. as the band "die aertzte " sang the tabloid is only about :" Fear, Hate, Tits and the weather forecast."

I do have to say that they are quite progressive these days in voicing their opinion against the pope's remarks on hitting children.

[polecat]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/topless-models-on-page-three-dropped-9988831.html

What's everyone's thoughts on this? I read this with interest as a "well endowed" lady myself who's been told I could make a fortune from doing this sort of job, but I'd personally starve to death before I'd take money off sad pervs for letting them see my bits. I also know that no one's forced to pose for the Sun or any other publication. And anyone who enjoys this sort of posing is free to do so for countless other lads' mags etc. But to me, it is a patriarchial tradition in that I don't remember any guys getting his dick out for mainstream papers read by women. However, I was chatting to a mate about this; and he thinks nude/semi-nude modelling is actually a feminist thing to do because the woman doing it is using her powers of sexuality to attract the opposite sex? I can sort of see both sides - I wouldn't expose my own breasts in a national newspaper, but I also support other women's right to if they're comfortable doing so.

So what do you all reckon - a victory for feminism, a symptom of the Nanny State, or on the fence?

(By the way mods, I was unsure if this debate should be in Misogyny or Wide World of Snark, so feel free to move it if I've posted in the wrong forum.)

Meh ... no.

I do agree that being free to enjoy your sexuality is most definitely a feminist thing to do. But the average "nudie" pic has little or nothing to do with a woman enjoying her OWN sexuality but is rather about her being pruned, posed and prettified strictly for the male gaze. Women are free to do it, of course, and if it makes them feel good, awesome. But I'd struggle to call it any kind of victory for feminism. Just seems like a repackaging of the same-old same-old objectification of a woman's body to get men off.

[OkToBeTakei]

I have nothing against the girls who choose topless modelling as a career or glamour modelling in general. I like to think they are more aware in 2015 of being manipulated than they were in the 70's. Maybe they were aware then also.

As for it being empowering to women? I would have to disagree (Not using the term feminist as it is frequently misused and that's annoying.) you need to look at the page 3 issue historically and in context.

The Sun newspaper has always been a strong labour (political) paper with a solid working class target and readership. It has thrived on left wing politics, sensationalising and expose journalism for years. For my US wee pals it may be of interest to note one of it's most famous editors was Piers Morgan? Enough said :lol:

The Sun stereotypically if you like was brought out with a cup of builders tea morning break to be discussed and page 3 to be....fill in the blanks. I recall overhearing many a discourse on the assts of any given page 3 girl on the train over the years.

Cynically I believe that just as online journalism is wiping out paper readership, page 3 is no longer unique or even worthy of note compared what is available as mainstream glamour modelling.

In short I doubt The Sun took this decision for any other reason than it was probably not financially profitable.