Page 3-Harmless fun or sexist?

scholar007

smash wrote: »

They're appealing to their audience, target marketing etc. Go to any shop and you'll see a variety of top shelf material if you want choice.

You wont hear people complain about the lack of younger models in a 40+ magazine, but that's not the audience they appeal to and market towards!

To be honest, I don't find the "younger models" appealing at all, I would much prefer if they had more mature ladies on page 3 and maybe a few stout ladies too would be good also.

catthinkin

smash wrote: »

catthinkin wrote: »

The only problem I have with it is that it shows a very narrow view of what is supposed to be attractive . As do most of these type of images . The world of boobs isn't just pert nubile ones they come in all shapes and sizes .
But maybe am in the minority I like diversity not just the benchmarked standard of so called beauty .

They're appealing to their audience, target marketing etc. Go to any shop and you'll see a variety of top shelf material if you want choice.

You wont hear people complain about the lack of younger models in a 40+ magazine, but that's not the audience they appeal to and market towards!

Not just an age thing ? Seen enough page three to know that they all look pretty much the same pretty dull and old fashioned as far as I'm concerned .

smash

scholar007 wrote: »

To be honest, I don't find the "younger models" appealing at all, I would much prefer if they had more mature ladies on page 3 and maybe a few stout ladies too would be good also.

I'm pretty sure that 95% of their readers that pay attention to page 3 would not like to see this.

catthinkin wrote: »

Not just an age thing ? Seen enough page three to know that they all look pretty much the same pretty dull and old fashioned as far as I'm concerned .

It's what sells for them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

scholar007

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I take your point - but the models on page 3 all look the same. You could cut and paste a different face onto the same body eveyday and no one would know the difference - I prefer the "lived in" look myself.

catthinkin

Yup in the 70s and 80s page three girls were household names guarantee none of them are now . They maybe should add different types of girls not necessarily older just different from the norm .

Ickle Magoo

Inanity deleted.

Folks, need I remind you, this is the LADIES LOUNGE - a forum aimed at female posters to have discussion of issues from a female perspective.

scholar007 & Smash, please read the forum charter before posting in this forum again.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

catthinkin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You could say the same thing about the entire modeling industry, though.

I'm not necessarily endorsing Page 3 girls, but at least they have natural breasts and have not starved themselves away to skeletons, like many fashion models.

If a girl can look at someone like Samantha Fox and think, "It's okay to be five foot one, have big boobs and a curvy body, and that can be perfectly attractive too," then that's a good thing, IMO. Far preferable to destructive dieting in an effort to reach a size zero.[/Quote]
Have you looked at page three recently ? Sam fox posed eons ago her natural big boobs wouldn't be allowed on page three now they would be considered too saggy

All the girls on page three are skinny and most have fake boobs which is my problem with it .

smash

catthinkin wrote: »

All the girls on page three are skinny and most have fake boobs which is my problem with it .

Page 3 do not hire women with breast implants.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

catthinkin

smash wrote: »

catthinkin wrote: »

All the girls on page three are skinny and most have fake boobs which is my problem with it .

Page 3 do not hire women with breast implants.

Ok but it dosnt in any way dissuade me from my point of view they all look the same they don't celebrate the diversity and in my opinion beauty of the female form . That's my problem with it I applaud other images naked semi or otherwise which celebrate this and represent us all in a more positive light.

smash

catthinkin wrote: »

Ok but it dosnt in any way dissuade me from my point of view they all look the same they don't celebrate the diversity and in my opinion beauty of the female form . That's my problem with it I applaud other images naked semi or otherwise which celebrate this and represent us all in a more positive light.

But it's not about diversity or celebrating the female form, it's about an aesthetically pleasing female body. It works both ways for both sexes in advertising or product sales when the product is aimed at the opposite sex.

Women wanted regular women for advertising and they got it with dove, m&s, boots... But those products are aimed at women. The sun is aimed at men, majority vote decides that the girls selected are what men want to see.

The underlying fact is that this is what most men want to see, and it's success is reflected in its sales and popularity figures.

Eve_Dublin

catthinkin wrote: »

Ok but it dosnt in any way dissuade me from my point of view they all look the same they don't celebrate the diversity and in my opinion beauty of the female form . That's my problem with it I applaud other images naked semi or otherwise which celebrate this and represent us all in a more positive light.

With all due respect, you're expecting an awful lot of The Sun there. When has The Sun celebrate diversity of any kind?


I don't find it offensive. Plenty more in that rag to find get offended by if you wanted to.

catthinkin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

catthinkin wrote: »

Ok but it dosnt in any way dissuade me from my point of view they all look the same they don't celebrate the diversity and in my opinion beauty of the female form . That's my problem with it I applaud other images naked semi or otherwise which celebrate this and represent us all in a more positive light.

With all due respect, you're expecting an awful lot of The Sun there. When has The Sun celebrate diversity of any kind?


I don't find it offensive. Plenty more in that rag to find get offended by if you wanted to.

The question was did I find it sexist or harmless fun well nethier tbh I find it old fashioned and rather dull
.but your right it is a rag and as I have never brought it I am hardly there target Market

Teyla Emmagan

I frickin HATE page 3. I find it absolutely bizarre that women's breasts (private sexual organs, exclude my prudishness) have been so 'normalised' by this stupid and crass tradition that you can find a pair of naked boobs staring at you on the train, or in the dentist's waiting room or round the pub.

I worked in an office a while back where someone bought the Sun on the way into work every morning and would then leave it in the kitchen. All day long you'd be going in and out making tea looking at a photograph of girl naked except for a thong on the kitchen table. It absolutely DID MY HEAD IN. I do not consider an office to be the place for soft porn, or nudity. It was so inappropriate.

I really think page 3 degrades women, and the women who appear in it. I don't get at all how being naked for a bunch of strangers to ogle is supposed to be in anyway empowering or liberating. And I think it's a pretty pathetic way to make a statement about yourself as a young woman. You would never have a regular feature in a national newspaper showing a young lad with his c*ck out, that would be considered completely unacceptable. And I think this should too.

Giselle

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

I don't get at all how being naked for a bunch of strangers to ogle is supposed to be in anyway empowering or liberating.

I don't understand how it's described as fun (harmless or otherwise).

I think its outdated, stupid, and demeaning. Fun is a word I'd never associate with it.

Puzzling.

py2006

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Obviously! :rolleyes:

(by the way, not all men buy those papers)

To be fair 'Stacy, 21' isn't sitting in a cafe in front of people with her breasts out and posing.

A mother breastfeeding in a cafe, does make for uncomfortable viewing. I recall being most disturbed by this when I was a child and out with my mother in a cafe. It didn't help that I had a glass of milk at the time!! *shudder*



EDITED AFTER WARNING BELOW: To be clear, that is my personal opinion and not that of all men.

py2006

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

You would never have a regular feature in a national newspaper showing a young lad with his c*ck out, that would be considered completely unacceptable. And I think this should too.

Totally incomparable and an unfair statement at that.

These women, are well paid for it. They are confident in themselves and their bodies and CHOOSE to make money from it. Fair play to them if thats what they want to do.

I'm a man, I don't buy the Sun.

Ickle Magoo

py2006, respect that you are posting in the Ladies Lounge and refrain from making inflammatory statements about women, especially in trying to pass off your personal opinion as fact. You have had more than enough warnings in this regard.

If posters cannot add to the discussion while respecting the charter and ethos of this forum, then kindly refrain from posting here.

As per site rules - any issue with moderator instruction should be addressed via PM

Rosedust84

I think it should be done away with, its rediculous for a so called 'family paper'. My OH buys it and the amount of times my daughter has looked over his shoulder and questioned it..I think its objectifying women, especially to younger boys see it and dont know any better

im not prudish in the slightest, I look at porn meself, but theres a time and a place

krudler

just don't buy the Sun, its a rag written by racists for morons.

Teyla Emmagan

krudler wrote: »

just don't buy the Sun, its a rag written by racists for morons.

It's not as simple as that. You can choose not to buy it yourself, but that doesn't mean other people will. And will leave boobs lying around in front of kids or on the bus.

And I don't think it's a good thing for children of either gender to grow up thinking that topless young girls in provocative poses are in anyway 'normal'. It desentisizes them to female sexual nudity, which I don't think is a good thing.

shopaholic01

As a woman I don't see the big deal with this - they're breasts!

These women are being paid, not exploited - some even make a lot of money from doing so. Katie Price has become a millionaire, she may not be everyone's cup (pardon the pun) of tea, but she is laughing all the way to the bank. She may not be the most educated but she sure is shrewd! She started a one woman industry and has already earned most people do in a lifetime.

Yes, page 3 is cliched but it sells papers. If I was one of these women I would laugh at men's fixation with breasts, rather than feel exploited.

As for men who are offended by a nursing mother - it's time to accept that is their intended purpose.

If women don't want their breasts sexualised why are push-up wonder bras so popular?

Teyla Emmagan

shopaholic01 wrote: »

As a woman I don't see the big deal with this - they're breasts!

These women are being paid, not exploited - some even make a lot of money from doing so. Katie Price has become a millionaire, she may not be everyone's cup (pardon the pun) of tea, but she is laughing all the way to the bank. She may not be the most educated but she sure is shrewd! She started a one woman industry and has already earned most people do in a lifetime.

Yes, page 3 is cliched but it sells papers. If I was one of these women I would laugh at men's fixation with breasts, rather than feel exploited.

As for men who are offended by a nursing mother - it's time to accept that is their intended purpose.

If women don't want their breasts sexualised why are push-up wonder bras so popular?

But that's it, so many people can't draw the line between breasts being sexual things and breasts just being designed for feeding. You always gets this with the horror people go on about in the breast feeding threads, because they can't get over women getting their boobs out to feed and imagining any instant of a women's boobs are there solely for tittilation.

And of course breasts are sexual, that's why these papers, and push up breasts sell. I just don't see that it's a good thing to have half nude young women in a national news paper. This is not a good message to be sending young girls or boys. It can only lead to women not being respected.

I am having typing problems, the letter between 'j' and 'l' in the alphabet won't push for me if anyone is wondering why the wording in this post is a bit odd.

mooeygooey

I must say I find it all a bit brainless. I'm not particularly offended by the nakedness but the whole titillation factor just seems so 'Benny Hill' era. I have a lot more respect for a woman who can make a living by other means than selling her body - which is basically what is happening here. It can be sugar-coated any way you want but I think the excuse that 'the money is good' is lazy. Unfortunately there is a market for this kind of thing - the same market that buys those kind of tabloid newspapers - Saddos in my opinion.

shopaholic01

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

But that's it, so many people can't draw the line between breasts being sexual things and breasts just being designed for feeding. You always gets this with the horror people go on about in the breast feeding threads, because they can't get over women getting their boobs out to feed and imagining any instant of a women's boobs are there solely for tittilation.

And of course breasts are sexual, that's why these papers, and push up breasts sell. I just don't see that it's a good thing to have half nude young women in a national news paper. This is not a good message to be sending young girls or boys. It can only lead to women not being respected.

I am having typing problems, the letter between 'j' and 'l' in the alphabet won't push for me if anyone is wondering why the wording in this post is a bit odd.

On the contrary, I think being open about our bodies and sexuality would be beneficial to children. They might not have the repression/hang-ups so many adults have now.

There is nothing wrong or shameful about the human body - or admiring it for that matter.

shopaholic01

mooeygooey wrote: »

I must say I find it all a bit brainless. I'm not particularly offended by the nakedness but the whole titillation factor just seems so 'Benny Hill' era. I have a lot more respect for a woman who can make a living by other means than selling her body - which is basically what is happening here. It can be sugar-coated any way you want but I think the excuse that 'the money is good' is lazy. Unfortunately there is a market for this kind of thing - the same market that buys those kind of tabloid newspapers - Saddos in my opinion.

What is the problem if a woman chooses to do it? It's her body.

Many do it because the money is good - that's not sugar coating it.

A lot of people are exhibitionists and enjoy the attention. Some people like tabloids. You having a different opinion does make them 'saddos',

Galwayguy35

krudler wrote: »

just don't buy the Sun, its a rag written by racists for morons.

Really? I always buy the Sun.

Vinta81

Doesn't really bother me to be quite honest.