Page 3-Harmless fun or sexist?

P_1

Apologies for any offence caused folks, wasn't my intention. I need to learn how to articulate myself better sometimes

Morag

Thanks to the internet men can look at breasts with out page 3 being their only daily thrill.
So really at this stage pg3 was hurting circulation numbers and more and newsagents were under pressure to put it up on a higher shelf instead of with the rest of the newspapers
that is why it's being dropped and not for the paper suddenly be coming progressive.

If it was it wouldn't be still printing pics of women who did not consent to be photographed.
with a high powered lense while on holildays.

Still I am glad to see it go, as it was used to try intimidate me and make me feel uncomfortable when I was younger.

southsiderosie

clairefontaine wrote: »

Because there is pressure on men not to appear as whining. That's what girls do. They have to be strong oaks. Otherwise they may as well be a woman.

P_1

clairefontaine wrote: »

Because there is pressure on men not to appear as whining. That's what girls do. They have to be strong oaks. Otherwise they may as well be a woman.

And therein possibly lies one of the key underlining thoughts behind gender discrimination. But that's certainly a whole different day's argument.

clairefontaine

southsiderosie wrote: »

Men are socialised from boyhood NOT to be girls, its via negation, and to suck things up, be a strong soldier. NOT to do this, is to be like a girl, and god forbid you resemble one of those!

Ectoplasm

nokia69 wrote: »

I do admit that plenty women don't like page 3 for all kinds of different reasons, I just think for most its their own hang ups that are the roots of their problem with page 3

I have to admit, this kind of thinking bugs me. It seems be the kneejerk response the moment a woman criticizes something related to sexual representation or even just another woman sometimes. Oh, she is jealous / has her own issues / whatever. Why?? I'd really love to know. I suspect it is often used simply to dismiss potentially valid points or arguments.

Personally I never gave a whole lot of thought to page three. Thinking about it now I don't like it much and here is why: It is not news...it is not even gossip, its just a picture designed to titillate and as such, has no place in a newspaper.

Being honest though I just don't care that much. My dislike is mild at most, but it is in no way related to any kind of bodily hang ups (my boobs are lovely thanks) or jealousy as I have no desire now, nor have I ever desired, to have any kind of modelling career.

Neyite

nokia69 wrote: »

so I think most of the women who let things like page 3 wind them up have hang ups about their own bodies

Not me. I dont have hang ups about my body. Do you know why I hate page 3 then?

What annoys me is that because breasts are so sexualised (thanks in part to page 3) me breastfeeding of my son is so restricted. People get disgusted with it, equating it to peeing or defecating, or masturbating, and that I should go into a toilet to feed my child. Or not leave the house, or practically smother my child with a blanket so as to not offend anyone with a fleeting glimpse of nipple.

Because the primary function of my breasts according to society is not to feed my child, but rather to sexually stimulate others. That annoys the hell out of me. And I cant feed my child in front of people who deem breasts to be sexual, only those who like me, feel that their purpose first and foremost are as a food source. Its a strange situation where I can breastfeed in front of my brother and he does not bat an eyelid, yet my mother gets all embarrassed.

nokia69

Fizzlesque wrote: »

I'll admit, a lot of the reason I had so much difficulty with my changing body was because I grew up with no female role model, in a house of boys, so I was quite put out when the 'rules' suddenly changed, and all of a sudden being a woman meant being at a disadvantage. However, the message I got (and am getting today, from your posts) is that I am the one with the problem. Basically, seeing an old geezer on the bus scratch his balls as he flicks through the paper and linger longer on page three is just one of those things a teenage girl should learn to live with. Seeing my male work colleagues snigger and discuss which girl's breasts are better, when page three do a 'special' is just something a 23 year old girl should learn to live with.

but the problem here is your hang ups, the old geezer on the bus is doing no harm to any one, leave him alone and as long as he does the same to you, who cares, its his paper he can linger on any page he wants, and he has a right to scratch his itchy balls

yes, you are the one with the problem, your body issues belong to you alone, the world won't change to suit you

Fizzlesque wrote: »

I don't care so much any more, though, today I went for a walk in my local park and misjudged the temperature so I was wearing a tight top under my jacket that I'd never have worn if I'd known I'd get too warm to wear the jacket, so, when I got too warm and had to take off my jacket I found myself 'rearranging' scarf in such a way (although I'd rather have removed it because I was too warm) so as not to be conscious of my breasts looming large in front of me. These are the small but noticeable leftovers of my discomfort about being a woman, a woman with breasts that are hard to hide.

the discomfort is all in your own head, only you can deal with it, the fact that its less of a problem today is a good sign

Fizzlesque wrote: »

I said all I said because I don't know if many men know how uncomfortable some women are about breasts being turned into a side show. Almost a freak show, and then to be told you're causing your own distress by allowing page three to bother you. Page three existed long before I became a woman, so I really don't think I was the chicken that came before that particular egg.

having breasts does not make you a freak show, I don't understand the chicken and egg bit

Fizzlesque

nokia69 wrote: »

having brests does not make you a freak show, I don't understand the chicken and egg bit

Clue: Which came first? The chicken or the egg.

I suspect we won't make good this discussion, at least not succinctly enough for us to make more headway than obstacles. Already it's been one of those 'miss and miss' conversations with not enough 'hit' to warrant continuance.

It is for that reason I wish you farewell in this thread. I don't have enough interest to continue, or the patience to redirect your misunderstandings (you spectacularly misdirected my 'freak show' reference) and I don't really care to explain myself to you any further.

All the best. Good night.

nokia69

Neyite wrote: »

Not me. I dont have hang ups about my body. Do you know why I hate page 3 then?

What annoys me is that because breasts are so sexualised (thanks in part to page 3) me breastfeeding of my son is so restricted. People get disgusted with it, equating it to peeing or defecating, or masturbating, and that I should go into a toilet to feed my child. Or not leave the house, or practically smother my child with a blanket so as to not offend anyone with a fleeting glimpse of nipple.

Because the primary function of my breasts according to society is not to feed my child, but rather to sexually stimulate others. That annoys the hell out of me. And I cant feed my child in front of people who deem breasts to be sexual, only those who like me, feel that their purpose first and foremost are as a food source. Its a strange situation where I can breastfeed in front of my brother and he does not bat an eyelid, yet my mother gets all embarrassed.

is breast feeding in public still really a problem

I have seen plenty of women feeding their children in public and nobody cares, as far as i could see, do people react badly ?

breasts do have two functions, but it all depends on the context, I can't see anything sexual about a women feeding her baby, but who knows some people are strange, and have all kinds of body issues

coffee_cake

Go into AH and search for breastfeeding threads there, you'll see plenty of "it's not right in public" "I'm so disgusted" "go do it in a toilet cubicle"
I was happy to note when I was in a museum in germany that a woman was breastfeeding in there and nobody gave a damn

The Corinthian

I remember flicking through the TV channels in Italy, a good few years ago, and finding myself watching one of those dreadful variety shows that are so commonplace throughout continental Europe. I stopped flicking channels, because they had panned to one of those attractive girls they tend to stick in the audience, and this 'hooked' me for a minute. She had a fairly low cut top, but was otherwise fully dressed and certainly not wearing anything that you'd not see on a Friday night out. Eventually, I went back to flicking the channels.

Men are wired to do this I'm afraid, and we only avoid doing so through a combination of discipline and experience. We'll stop and look, regardless of whether the woman is topless or naked or fully clothed; she just has to be attractive. Sex sells.

Of page 3, it's dying a death. Bild, in Germany, abandoned it recently and slowly but slowly and surely so are all the other papers. This is probably because, especially in continental Europe, we've become desensitised to the idea of bare breasts that it's lost its attraction. You see them in adverts during the day (advertising shower gel or mineral water) to the point that you just flick the channel without thinking anymore. Boobs. So what.

In the Anglophone World, this process is a bit behind everywhere else. Page 3 came about back when a bare breast was a taboo concept, and it still is to an extent in Anglophone nations, just not as much as once upon a time. A century ago, a bare leg or ankle would have caused a scandal and today, in many Muslim countries, a woman with bare arms will cause a riot, because men are not even desensitised to the idea of bare arms.

So on one level, I dislike page 3 in that it objectifies women (just as guys with six-packs in adverts are), and it seeks to exploit the aforementioned evolutionary weaknesses of the men it targets.

However, playing Devil's Advocate, Page 3 has played a part in desensitising us from the idea of bare breasts in public, and ironically may well have played a small part in making it possible for women to go topless on beaches or parks, just as men could, and perhaps in time, anywhere.

marbless

I remember a clip from "Ally McBeal" that sums up how shallow many guys (including me) can be. Richard Fish, the senior partner in the law firm, was being criticized for his attitude towards women.

"Do you treat all women as sex-objects?" he was asked.
"No," he replied, sounding hurt. "Only the good-looking ones."

Many a true word spoken in jest, they say.

Eve_Dublin

It's the comments beside the girls that bug me - the attempt to make them out to be idiots. The idea that you're not sexually liberated or have issues with your body or a bit of a square for not liking page 3 but the hypocrisy that when someone does pose, it's implied so shamelessly that the girl in question is essentially a bimbo for doing so.

P_1

Going to wade in again here, hopefully my argument is a bit more coherent this time

Page 3 photos (or the photos of the topless male models for that matter) have no place in a Newspaper (now whether or not the Sun can be classed as a Newspaper is another day's argument). They're not news, really they're a waste of ink that supposedly titillates some and rile others up.

Believe it or not though, I would have an ethical issue about getting rid of it. For better or worse an industry seems to have sprung up from it. This industry keeps the models, photographers etc in a job. Is it our right to deprive these models, photographers etc of their jobs based on the fact that the product of their industry offends our sensitivities? I could make parallels with other industries and interest groups (fishing and environmentalists anybody?) to further illustrate this ethical issue.

Just some food for thought, I don't think this aspect to the debate has been brought up yet.

Eve_Dublin

P_1 wrote: »

Going to wade in again here, hopefully my argument is a bit more coherent this time

Page 3 photos (or the photos of the topless male models for that matter) have no place in a Newspaper (now whether or not the Sun can be classed as a Newspaper is another day's argument). They're not news, really they're a waste of ink that supposedly titillates some and rile others up.

Believe it or not though, I would have an ethical issue about getting rid of it. For better or worse an industry seems to have sprung up from it. This industry keeps the models, photographers etc in a job. Is it our right to deprive these models, photographers etc of their jobs based on the fact that the product of their industry offends our sensitivities? I could make parallels with other industries and interest groups (fishing and environmentalists anybody?) to further illustrate this ethical issue.

Just some food for thought, I don't think this aspect to the debate has been brought up yet.

I'm sure the photographers would have plenty of work besides and the models are usually just normal women who do it as a one off. It's not their job.

P_1

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I'm sure the photographers would have plenty of work besides and the models are usually just normal women who do it as a one off. It's not their job.

I'm not too sure on that, I'm fairly sure that some women list their career/job as being 'exotic models'.

coffee_cake

P_1 wrote: »

Believe it or not though, I would have an ethical issue about getting rid of it. .

I think as a private business, it's up to them to decide - and they will make a decision based on what sells and what is likely to put off business. So it's no harm for a lot of people to say "I have a problem with that" and the result is that they decide: yeah, maybe this won't sell as well anymore, we'll get rid of it.

P_1 wrote: »

I'm not too sure on that, I'm fairly sure that some women list their career/job as being 'exotic models'.

Glamour models exist yes, but in the Sun it sounds like they're not - just mostly once-offs

Eve_Dublin

P_1 wrote: »

I'm not too sure on that, I'm fairly sure that some women list their career/job as being 'exotic models'.

The Sun pride themselves on using "real women" for it. The vast majority are one-offs. I'm guessing the exotic models only do it as a one-off gig as well hence not getting fired or losing their jobs. It's a pretty weak excuse to keep it imo.

P_1

bluewolf wrote: »

I think as a private business, it's up to them to decide - and they will make a decision based on what sells and what is likely to put off business. So it's no harm for a lot of people to say "I have a problem with that" and the result is that they decide: yeah, maybe this won't sell as well anymore, we'll get rid of it.

Yeah fair point, it's strange I would have no problem with products being discontinued due to market forces and reduced demand but I would have a big problem with interest groups lobbying for products being discontinued.

I guess it could be an anti-authority streak I have, I don't like people telling me what to do

coffee_cake

If they lobby the paper to stop doing it - grand, that is pretty much market forces
If they lobby to make it illegal or something - not ok

P_1

bluewolf wrote: »

If they lobby the paper to stop doing it - grand, that is pretty much market forces
If they lobby to make it illegal or something - not ok

I would disagree with you there but that's an area riddled with shades of gray

Sonics2k

Neyite wrote: »

What annoys me is that because breasts are so sexualised (thanks in part to page 3)

Sorry to bump myself in here, but this is the one real part of your post I'd heavily disagree with.

Women's breasts have always been sexualised, from Ancient Rome, across the old Dynasties of China and throughout European history. Page 3 is just a modern media used to show them, and it is honestly foolish to believe it's a recent situation.

As a man, I openly admit breasts attract me sexually, and I am aroused by them, in just the same way many women are attracted to big arms and abs. It is, to a point, down to a point, down to our very genetic makeup.

With that said, it always annoyed me that women here, especially, get hassle for breastfeeding a child, when it is literally one of the most natural things a human can do. I'd go so far as to compare it to breathing and eating.

Apologies if my post isn't the best written one ever, but I haven't slept yet.

The Corinthian

Sonics2k wrote: »

Women's breasts have always been sexualised, from Ancient Rome, across the old Dynasties of China and throughout European history. Page 3 is just a modern media used to show them, and it is honestly foolish to believe it's a recent situation.

Well yes; there's a reason that we're the only mammal who develop permanent breasts before pregnancy or giving birth and, from an anthropological perspective, they feature prominently in even pre-Neolithic art.

Neyite

Sonics2k wrote: »

Sorry to bump myself in here, but this is the one real part of your post I'd heavily disagree with.

Women's breasts have always been sexualised, from Ancient Rome, across the old Dynasties of China and throughout European history. Page 3 is just a modern media used to show them, and it is honestly foolish to believe it's a recent situation.

As a man, I openly admit breasts attract me sexually, and I am aroused by them, in just the same way many women are attracted to big arms and abs. It is, to a point, down to a point, down to our very genetic makeup.

With that said, it always annoyed me that women here, especially, get hassle for breastfeeding a child, when it is literally one of the most natural things a human can do. I'd go so far as to compare it to breathing and eating.

Apologies if my post isn't the best written one ever, but I haven't slept yet.

Well allow me to clarify. I'll change my statement to : What annoys me is that because breasts continue to be so sexualised (thanks in part to page 3)

You totally missed my point. My point is that because breasts are sexualised, some people have a real problem with a nursing mother even discreetly exposing them. Some people think that when they drip milk its disgusting, and compare it to semen, or urine. Some people think that because a woman is breastfeeding that salivating males who get aroused by breasts will be unable to control themselves. Some people consider it exhibitionist, some, like my mother, were brought up to believe even looking at your body was sinful, and was far too modest to even contemplate breastfeeding because she had been so indoctrinated by men that breasts were dirty disgusting things that nice women dont expose.

So, answer me this then. You say you are aroused by breasts. Are you aroused by breastfeeding? Do these people then have a point, irrespective of whether breastfeeding is natural or not? Do /can men get aroused by breasts in a breastfeeding capacity? If not, why not?

krudler

bluewolf wrote: »

Go into AH and search for breastfeeding threads there, you'll see plenty of "it's not right in public" "I'm so disgusted" "go do it in a toilet cubicle"
I was happy to note when I was in a museum in germany that a woman was breastfeeding in there and nobody gave a damn

Those threads would make you lose faith in humanity, "oh I'm not comfortable with it" thats your fcuking problem then not the mothers, you'd swear woman walk around with both boobs out with a child dangling off one the way people act. And equating it to going to the toilet in public is just moronic.

Sonics2k

Neyite wrote: »

Well allow me to clarify. I'll change my statement to : What annoys me is that because breasts continue to be so sexualised (thanks in part to page 3)

You totally missed my point. My point is that because breasts are sexualised, some people have a real problem with a nursing mother even discreetly exposing them. Some people think that when they drip milk its disgusting, and compare it to semen, or urine. Some people think that because a woman is breastfeeding that salivating males who get aroused by breasts will be unable to control themselves. Some people consider it exhibitionist, some, like my mother, were brought up to believe even looking at your body was sinful, and was far too modest to even contemplate breastfeeding because she had been so indoctrinated by men that breasts were dirty disgusting things that nice women dont expose.

So, answer me this then. You say you are aroused by breasts. Are you aroused by breastfeeding? Do these people then have a point, irrespective of whether breastfeeding is natural or not? Do /can men get aroused by breasts in a breastfeeding capacity? If not, why not?

Typing on a phone, but I'll do my best to give you the best answer I can.

Firstly, let me just say I do totally agree with you. I made it clear I hate how people treat breastfeeding, especially after watching the mother of my children get numerous looks of disapproval, and myself even getting in arguments with people who gave out to her loudly and aggressively. Usually the people giving out were much older, so I can only hope that the people who do disapprove are a dying out breed from a past era.

As for your question, no I am not aroused by breastfeeding. Its a contextual and scenario based thing I guess. Add a baby to the mix and my mind simply states that it's a child feeding.
Without said child, say in bed or during sex, breasts do change to a thing of desire.

I can only say it's possible that - some- men would be aroused by the sight of breastfeeding, who knows the mind of everyone though. There are also people aroused by people smoking and knees, it's a tough one to call.

But like I said, I have no issue with breastfeeding, and see no reason why I would.

P_1

Neyite wrote: »

Well allow me to clarify. I'll change my statement to : What annoys me is that because breasts continue to be so sexualised (thanks in part to page 3)

You totally missed my point. My point is that because breasts are sexualised, some people have a real problem with a nursing mother even discreetly exposing them. Some people think that when they drip milk its disgusting, and compare it to semen, or urine. Some people think that because a woman is breastfeeding that salivating males who get aroused by breasts will be unable to control themselves. Some people consider it exhibitionist, some, like my mother, were brought up to believe even looking at your body was sinful, and was far too modest to even contemplate breastfeeding because she had been so indoctrinated by men that breasts were dirty disgusting things that nice women dont expose.

So, answer me this then. You say you are aroused by breasts. Are you aroused by breastfeeding? Do these people then have a point, irrespective of whether breastfeeding is natural or not? Do /can men get aroused by breasts in a breastfeeding capacity? If not, why not?

To be fair its all about context. Breasts can serve two main functions feeding offspring and attracting mates to go all David Attenborough for a moment.

Now I can differenciate between the two as I'm sure most others can. The problem is with those who can't or won't (this can apply to both males and females).

The Corinthian

Neyite wrote: »

Well allow me to clarify. I'll change my statement to : What annoys me is that because breasts continue to be so sexualised (thanks in part to page 3)

Oddly, I would have said, the greater visibility of breasts in popular culture in the last 40 years, has desensitised us to them and made the idea of being topless in public far less of a taboo. The reaction that a woman taking her top off, on a beach, today would be far, far less than 40 years ago - many (including me) would pay it very little attention today.

meeeeh

Neyite wrote: »

Not me. I dont have hang ups about my body. Do you know why I hate page 3 then?

What annoys me is that because breasts are so sexualised (thanks in part to page 3) me breastfeeding of my son is so restricted. People get disgusted with it, equating it to peeing or defecating, or masturbating, and that I should go into a toilet to feed my child. Or not leave the house, or practically smother my child with a blanket so as to not offend anyone with a fleeting glimpse of nipple.

Because the primary function of my breasts according to society is not to feed my child, but rather to sexually stimulate others. That annoys the hell out of me. And I cant feed my child in front of people who deem breasts to be sexual, only those who like me, feel that their purpose first and foremost are as a food source. Its a strange situation where I can breastfeed in front of my brother and he does not bat an eyelid, yet my mother gets all embarrassed.

You can't blame that only on page three. Blame religion and society with ridiculous norms. I have no problems breastfeeding in front of my irish and non irish family and friends. I've done it in cafes, restaurants and on public transport. I never had any negative reaction. Those things are as uncomfortable as you want them to be. The more fus you make with hiding and blankets more uncomfortable it is. Besides breast full of milk is anything but sexually attractive.

I think page 3 is cheap and tacky but then so is the rest of the Sun. I'm all for canceling tabloids but this war against page 3 is silly and pointless. Everybody can have their own pair of nipples on computer screen in seconds. Should we ban Internet too?