Page 3-Harmless fun or sexist?

Neyite

I think attitudes are dying out Sonic. My (and other women's) experience was that due to any combination of factors -whether religious/formula marketing/ trends, there is a generational gap of knowledge in breastfeeding, where, for the majority, our mothers and grandmothers exclusivly forumla fed.

I'm proud to say that I have slowly debunked my mothers aversion to it over the last 9 months, and by giving her little interesting facts about breastfeeding, or milk composition as well as seeing her grandchild thrive has helped very much. For a long time she knew that it was better nutritionally for a child, and now she is a big supporter of breastfeeding. While she does go a tad pink when I feed in front of my partner, her admiration overrides it and she freely admits its HER hang ups from the influences of the church and her own background, and commends me for breastfeeding for so long.


P_1, Strangely enough, men have been a lot better than women. I was actually surprised at the AH thread in that there was a fair number of female posters who disagreed with breastfeeding in public or voiced disgust at the whole process. From what I could tell, they were quite young and had no children. Which means that their veiw might change if they do in a few years.

Thanks to both of you for clarifying the whole breastfeeding/arousal question, its nice to know that most men can separate the two.

Sonics2k

Also, Page3 is awful. More so the Sun is awful and anyone who buys it and likes it is a terrible person.

I do not, however, believe they should be forced to stop doing the Page 3 layouts.

P_1

Neyite wrote: »

P_1, Strangely enough, men have been a lot better than women. I was actually surprised at the AH thread in that there was a fair number of female posters who disagreed with breastfeeding in public or voiced disgust at the whole process. From what I could tell, they were quite young and had no children. Which means that their veiw might change if they do in a few years.

Thanks to both of you for clarifying the whole breastfeeding/arousal question, its nice to know that most men can separate the two.

To be honest I would say that a lot of people go around looking for things that somehow offend them, be that breastfeeding in public, blowing your nose or wearing a particular t-shirt. I find it best to just ignore them but I am fairly thick skinned.

Grimebox

I have no problem with it, but that said, I think that any paper that has to include something like this in it just to sell is utter trash and I automatically assume somebody buying it is a fcuking idiot

shoos

Morag wrote: »

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.

This.

God I remember so well those feelings of dread, embarrassment and confusion.

I think it's a horrible thing to have up in a shop or on the kitchen table where there's young boys and girls wondering about. Especially for young girls. When you're only learning about your own body, its changes, and figuring out what it means to be a woman and the body that comes with it - having images of hyper-sexualised female body parts constantly blasted at you is very confusing and definitely influenced my own bodily perceptions - i.e. my breasts are sexual, for someone else's viewing pleasure, my legs are sexual, for someone else's viewing pleasure, my bum is sexual, for someone else's viewing pleasure.

For years I felt like my body wasn't my own. It was something sexual to titillate others. Not powerful, not strong, not capable... just sexual. And as such, the only way I saw of working on or improving my body was by making it even more sexually titillating - waxing, plucking, tanning, moisturising, etc.

I'm 22 now, and starting to work out how ridiculous this is. By no means am I suggesting that page 3 girls are to blame, and by no means am I suggesting that all girls went through this same mind-f*ck as I did! (At least God I hope they didn't). But I do think (or at least I think I think.... still getting my head around this ) these images and magazines are part of an overall culture that's depicting girls and women as sex objects and little else. Maybe if we make it to the day extremely powerful woman like Hiliary Clinton aren't picked apart for looking haggard, then I wouldn't have such a problem with page 3.... At least then there would be some balance.

Getting rid of page 3 or playboy isn't going to change that overall culture, but I think it's a good step forwards regardless. I'd still be damn happy to see it go as it's doing nothing but perpetuation a pretty damaging and confusing image to young girls. At least get it off the damn kitchen table.

For people who suggested that showing the body is a positive thing, and it's healthy to us to learn about our bodies - I completely agree. But the body displayed sexually, and the body displayed non-sexually are such dramatically different things. I'm all for anatomy exploration and understanding, even the "naughty bits", but not when it's done by an 18 year old in a school girls uniform sucking a lolipop.

Galwayguy35

Sonics2k wrote: »

Also, Page3 is awful. More so the Sun is awful and anyone who buys it and likes it is a terrible person.

I do not, however, believe they should be forced to stop doing the Page 3 layouts.

I buy it an I am not a terrible person, that's a ridiculous thing to come out with , fair enough if you don't agree with the Page 3 part but character assassination of everyone who reads the paper is going a bit far IMO.

Morag

shoos wrote: »

This.

- having images of hyper-sexualised female body parts constantly blasted at you is very confusing and definitely influenced my own bodily perceptions - i.e. my breasts are sexual, for someone else's viewing pleasure, my legs are sexual, for someone else's viewing pleasure, my bum is sexual, for someone else's viewing pleasure.

For years I felt like my body wasn't my own. It was something sexual to titillate others. Not powerful, not strong, not capable... just sexual. And as such, the only way I saw of working on or improving my body was by making
it even more sexually titillating - waxing, plucking, tanning, moisturising, etc.

But I do think (or at least I think I think.... still getting my head around this ) these images and magazines are part of an overall culture that's depicting girls and women as sex objects and little else.

That also sends the message that when our bodies attracts the interest of men or makes them aroused it's some how our fault and what they do which invades our personal space and the comments they make are our fault too.

When it's not.

But it's enough that so many girls and young women feel guilty when they are harassed and sexually assaulted or even raped when it's not.

shoos wrote: »

Maybe if we make it to the day extremely powerful woman like Hiliary Clinton aren't picked apart for looking haggard, then I wouldn't have such a problem with page 3.... At least then there would be some balance.

Getting rid of page 3 or playboy isn't going to change that overall culture, but I think it's a good step forwards regardless. I'd still be damn happy to see it go as it's doing nothing but perpetuation a pretty damaging and confusing image to young girls. At least get it off the damn kitchen table.

And out of the workplace, it's not permissible to bring playboy into the work place but it's often the case the the daily sport and the sun are in the workplace.

shoos wrote: »

For people who suggested that showing the body is a positive thing, and it's healthy to us to learn about our bodies - I completely agree. But the body displayed sexually, and the body displayed non-sexually are such dramatically different things. I'm all for anatomy exploration and understanding, even the "naughty bits", but not when it's done by an 18 year old in a school girls uniform sucking a lolipop.

Or that it's not even a range of bodies, it's a specific type of of bodies which sends the signal that if you don't' fit that type you are some how 'wrong'.

I'm not a prude but there is a difference in nudity in art or those sort of 'glamour' shots.

Grimebox

shoos wrote: »

Maybe if we make it to the day extremely powerful woman like Hiliary Clinton aren't picked apart for looking haggard, then I wouldn't have such a problem with page 3.... At least then there would be some balance.

This is news to me to be honest

Fizzlesque

shoos wrote: »

God I remember so well those feelings of dread, embarrassment and confusion.

I think it's a horrible thing to have up in a shop or on the kitchen table where there's young boys and girls wondering about. Especially for young girls. When you're only learning about your own body, its changes, and figuring out what it means to be a woman and the body that comes with it - having images of hyper-sexualised female body parts constantly blasted at you is very confusing and definitely influenced my own bodily perceptions - i.e. my breasts are sexual, for someone else's viewing pleasure, my legs are sexual, for someone else's viewing pleasure, my bum is sexual, for someone else's viewing pleasure.

For years I felt like my body wasn't my own. It was something sexual to titillate others. Not powerful, not strong, not capable... just sexual.

Getting rid of page 3 or playboy isn't going to change that overall culture, but I think it's a good step forwards regardless. I'd still be damn happy to see it go as it's doing nothing but perpetuation a pretty damaging and confusing image to young girls. At least get it off the damn kitchen table

I can relate to every word you've written, shoos, and since this thread was resurrected, at the weekend, I've been slowly remembering more and more feelings from my younger years, with regard to how page three and top shelf magazines made me feel; all of which you've articulated perfectly.

I agree a thousand times with your 'at least get it off the damn kitchen table' comment. I'm stunned it ever became 'normal' for topless pictures to be part of everyday situations. I'm glad nobody in my family ever bought it; the thoughts of sitting with my dad or grandad, having a cup of tea, knowing they were ogling a woman's breasts would have been a step too far.

Morag wrote: »

That also sends the message that when our bodies attracts the interest of men or makes them aroused it's some how our fault and what they do which invades our personal space and the comments they make are our fault too.

When it's not.

I've been giving this subject a lot of thought for the last few days, and, with the wonderful benefit of hindsight, have been able to look at a clearer picture of my own personal journey from teenage girl to young woman to the woman I am today, in terms of the mixed messages that surround a woman's sexuality. On one hand we're bombarded with images of women in sexy/sultry poses which tell us what men find attractive in women and that we should aspire to be as sultry/sexy as these women, that we're prudes if we object to page three/top shelf magazines, and then we're fed the idea that women are (in true Victorian-values style) the 'keepers of morality' and shouldn't be promiscuous, shouldn't sleep with a man too soon, (far too often I've read that women are designed to be/should be more selective while men are designed to be/allowed to be as undiscerning as they wish with no offensive names being attached to them), not have random one night stands (or, at least, not admit to it if we do), and any other restricting rules that we're supposed to adhere to if we don't want to be labelled with an assortment of unsavoury name-tags.

I was so confused by the mixed messages, in the end (the 'end' being when my long term relationship ended) I decided to opt for the 'yes, women are sexual beings' version, threw caution to the wind and allowed myself to enjoy many sexual experiences. I went a little wild, partly because I was a bit angry inside (for lots of reasons), but also because I was curious and determined to shake off the 'good girls don't' bullsh!t I'd heard for too long from a society that allowed women to be objectified while telling them their sexiness and their sexuality wasn't theirs to enjoy. At least, not theirs to enjoy in the same way men enjoyed theirs.

Makes me laugh to think of it now, I imagine there are some men who think nothing of looking at page three or top shelf magazines who would find the level of sexual freedom I chose to allow myself enjoy somewhat unsavoury. I don't know for sure but from stuff I've read, online, over the years, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.

[Gawd, I really have to stop replying to threads like these, I can't stop typing once I start. Apologies for rant, I didn't know I had so much buried in my mind wanting to find a way out :eek:].

mackg

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.



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

Like anything people have to get into the business somewhere and page 3 in the Sun gives people looking to get into glamour modelling national exposure and some professional shots for their portfolio or whatever. Geri Haliwell and Katie Price were both on page 3 in the infancy of their careers.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I buy it an I am not a terrible person, that's a ridiculous thing to come out with , fair enough if you don't agree with the Page 3 part but character assassination of everyone who reads the paper is going a bit far IMO.

In fairness you're probably right, there is definitely a fairly broad spectrum of people who buy the paper varying from people who go along with it's world view to people who buy it purely to have hypothetical football transfers to discuss at break time to people who just want to do the crossword.

Sonics2k

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I buy it an I am not a terrible person, that's a ridiculous thing to come out with , fair enough if you don't agree with the Page 3 part but character assassination of everyone who reads the paper is going a bit far IMO.

Apologies. My comment was a bit tongue in cheek, obviously that doesn't always come across fully online.

But The Sun is still a rag

shoos

Fizzlesque wrote: »

I've been giving this subject a lot of thought for the last few days, and, with the wonderful benefit of hindsight, have been able to look at a clearer picture of my own personal journey from teenage girl to young woman to the woman I am today, in terms of the mixed messages that surround a woman's sexuality. On one hand we're bombarded with images of women in sexy/sultry poses which tell us what men find attractive in women and that we should aspire to be as sultry/sexy as these women, that we're prudes if we object to page three/top shelf magazines, and then we're fed the idea that women are (in true Victorian-values style) the 'keepers of morality' and shouldn't be promiscuous, shouldn't sleep with a man too soon, (far too often I've read that women are designed to be/should be more selective while men are designed to be/allowed to be as undiscerning as they wish with no offensive names being attached to them), not have random one night stands (or, at least, not admit to it if we do), and any other restricting rules that we're supposed to adhere to if we don't want to be labelled with an assortment of unsavoury name-tags.

I imagine there are some men who think nothing of looking at page three or top shelf magazines who would find the level of sexual freedom I chose to allow myself enjoy somewhat unsavoury. I don't know for sure but from stuff I've read, online, over the years, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. It is just so completely and utterly confusing.

I've had experiences where my boyfriend has loved that I had a "wild side" (which I always found bizarre, as if some men are still surprised women actually enjoy sex - who knew?) yet at the same time if he asked me about one-night stands I would lie because I know, in that context, I'm supposed to behave in an entirely different way. And even on the number I lied about, he was still disappointed and I got that dissatisfactory "aw, really?". How was I ever supposed to find my "wild side" in the first place if I've barely had any sex? Total paradox, and one of countless that women are pressurised to conform to every-day.

Also with the page three girls... I actually stumbled upon an issue of Playboy in my boyfriend's living room the other day, his roommates would take it out as a joke. I made a throwaway comment on how I didn't like those magazines, to which he made the same kind of comment as many posters here have made - "ah it's only a bit of fun", "they're happy to do it, they're getting well paid"...... OK, that's fine. But then I asked him what if I wanted to do it then, would it still be a bit of fun and he'd be happy I was making good money? Absolutely not! Be safe to say, if I started to be a page 3 girl, he would hate that. And if it was before we met, there is no way he'd be my boyfriend today. Paradox #2.

I'm glad that you had your "throwing caution to the wind" time and really enjoyed it. I had that time when I was around 19, and I really didn't. At the time, I figured it was because I just wasn't a casual sex kind of girl. But now I'm realising, if I enjoy sex, why wouldn't I enjoy casual sex? It's exactly the same. The reason I didn't enjoy it was because I wasn't having casual sex for me, I was having it for whoever I was with. I was a bit of an actor in the whole thing where I would be playing out this role where my focus was on what he thought of my body, what he thought of this and that, and all about using my body as a tool to please him. No wonder I didn't like it, I was getting f*ck all out of it. And from reading this thread actually, I think I've realised it all boils down to how I viewed my body as not my own - it's not for me, it's for men. It's for their eyes, their viewing pleasure and their overall pleasure.

God that's messed up. I hope when my time comes to "throw caution to the wind" I'll have completely eradicated all these bull**** mixed messages and paradoxes I've been told I need to live up to, and just do what I want to do. Is changing your brain that easy?

Grimebox wrote: »

This is news to me to be honest

We're quite guilty of it ourselves with our own female politicians and media people, but with regards to Hillary I mostly read that in American media. They also discuss it in this documentary, and make a really good point on what kind of message are you sending young girls when even the most powerful women out there still have to get slated on their appearance. No woman is safe from ridicule. Start and end wars all you want, but you better make sure you're looking well while you do it.

It's mentioned in the trailer here:

http://vimeo.com/18985647#

Grimebox

shoos wrote: »

We're quite guilty of it ourselves with our own female politicians and media people, but with regards to Hillary I mostly read that in American media. They also discuss it in this documentary, and make a really good point on what kind of message are you sending young girls when even the most powerful women out there still have to get slated on their appearance. No woman is safe from ridicule. Start and end wars all you want, but you better make sure you're looking well while you do it.

It's mentioned in the trailer here:

http://vimeo.com/18985647#

And no woman in politics should be safe from ridicule. It comes with the territory. This isn't unique to women. I doubt a man with an eye-patch wouldn't be voted into office. Image is incredibly important in politics. Of course it shoudn't be like this, but it is. What kind of message is this sending to our youth in general, male or female. We as humans can't help but slander those who disagree with us it seems.

shoos

Grimebox wrote: »

And no woman in politics should be safe from ridicule. It comes with the territory. This isn't unique to women. I doubt a man with an eye-patch wouldn't be voted into office. Image is incredibly important in politics. Of course it shoudn't be like this, but it is. What kind of message is this sending to our youth in general, male or female. We as humans can't help but slander those who disagree with us it seems.

But the ridicule facing a male politician versus a female politician is completely unequal.

If a politician's appearance is going to be judged, it should be judged along the lines of - do they look professional, are they representing their country well.... which reminds me of Bertie going to America and showing up like this:



That comes down to professionalism, it's expected in a job and it's expected in government. Fine.

But in the case of female politicians, they're lambasted for looking tired, or showing too much leg or cleavage, or never showing any leg or cleavage and looking frumpy, wrinkled, haggard etc. etc. etc.

As for the man with an eye-patch... that's quite ridiculous, who wouldn't vote for a man just cause he has an eye-patch. It has nothing to do with his politics. Likewise, Hillary Clinton's dress-that-one-time-she-spoke-and-jaysus-didnt-she-look-awful-heavy also has nothing to do with her politics.

This is definitely derailing the thread, sorry about this!

meeeeh

Just for balance I saw a lot of nude female photos. I didn't seek them out but I also wouldn't avoid them. I had never any problems with my sexuality or my body image in that regard. I never considered myself to be there just to pleasure men.

I dislike how world is becoming more and more pc and everybody should conform to one way of life. If you don't like those type of images don't buy the newspapers and magazines. I don't. Still who am I to tell someone that she is letting the sisterhood down because she is posing nude.

Grimebox

shoos wrote: »

But the ridicule facing a male politician versus a female politician is completely unequal.

If a politician's appearance is going to be judged, it should be judged along the lines of - do they look professional, are they representing their country well.... which reminds me of Bertie going to America and showing up like this:



That comes down to professionalism, it's expected in a job and it's expected in government. Fine.

I don't remember that pic. I assume he was ridiculed for what he wore?

But in the case of female politicians, they're lambasted for looking tired, or showing too much leg or cleavage, or never showing any leg or cleavage and looking frumpy, wrinkled, haggard etc. etc. etc.

As for the man with an eye-patch... that's quite ridiculous, who wouldn't vote for a man just cause he has an eye-patch. It has nothing to do with his politics. Likewise, Hillary Clinton's dress-that-one-time-she-spoke-and-jaysus-didnt-she-look-awful-heavy also has nothing to do with her politics.

This is definitely derailing the thread, sorry about this!

That's my point. It has nothing to do with politics yet everything to do with winning elections. Oppositions will use anything to tarnish someone's reputation. This is not exclusive to women


Stop giving attention to people/media outlets that say these horrible things about female politicians. It will only perpetuate. Don't buy The Sun for christ's sake

GalwayGuy2

That's my point. It has nothing to do with politics yet everything to do with winning elections. Oppositions will use anything to tarnish someone's reputation. This is not exclusive to women

Tbf, Ming's and Mike's clothes are regularly mentioned to discredit them.

The Corinthian

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Tbf, Ming's and Mike's clothes are regularly mentioned to discredit them.

Appearance is used to discredit politicians of both genders, although it appears to be done differently. Men tend to be discredited for looking scruffy and lacking gravitas in their appearance, while women's physical appearance tends to be commented upon more.

I suspect that this reflects how we, both men and women, judge people, both men and women, in real life. Unfortunately we do judge books by their covers and has, for example of this, long been argued that Kennedy's more photogenic nature, in particular in the first ever televised hustings against Nixon, was a crucial factor in his winning the presidency.

Idbatterim

cheers for the link OP, better functionality and user interface than I was expecting, the archive is a nice touch too...

panda100

shoos wrote: »

This.

God I remember so well those feelings of dread, embarrassment and confusion.

I think it's a horrible thing to have up in a shop or on the kitchen table where there's young boys and girls wondering about. Especially for young girls. When you're only learning about your own body, its changes, and figuring out what it means to be a woman and the body that comes with it - having images of hyper-sexualised female body parts constantly blasted at you is very confusing and definitely influenced my own bodily perceptions - i.e. my breasts are sexual, for someone else's viewing pleasure, my legs are sexual, for someone else's viewing pleasure, my bum is sexual, for someone else's viewing pleasure.

For years I felt like my body wasn't my own. It was something sexual to titillate others. Not powerful, not strong, not capable... just sexual. And as such, the only way I saw of working on or improving my body was by making it even more sexually titillating - waxing, plucking, tanning, moisturising, etc.

I'm 22 now, and starting to work out how ridiculous this is. By no means am I suggesting that page 3 girls are to blame, and by no means am I suggesting that all girls went through this same mind-f*ck as I did! (At least God I hope they didn't). But I do think (or at least I think I think.... still getting my head around this ) these images and magazines are part of an overall culture that's depicting girls and women as sex objects and little else. Maybe if we make it to the day extremely powerful woman like Hiliary Clinton aren't picked apart for looking haggard, then I wouldn't have such a problem with page 3.... At least then there would be some balance.

Getting rid of page 3 or playboy isn't going to change that overall culture, but I think it's a good step forwards regardless. I'd still be damn happy to see it go as it's doing nothing but perpetuation a pretty damaging and confusing image to young girls. At least get it off the damn kitchen table.

+1 to this.

I said something similar earlier in the thread on how I felt uncomfortble eating my breakfast on holiday when Page 3 was opened on the table in front of me. The responses I got were if I was uncomfotable with Page 3 then these were my own issues that I had to deal with. I have no problem wth nuditity, but page 3 isn't nudity, it's sexualised images of women meant to titillate men.

shoos wrote: »

I think you've hit the nail on the head. It is just so completely and utterly confusing.

I've had experiences where my boyfriend has loved that I had a "wild side" (which I always found bizarre, as if some men are still surprised women actually enjoy sex - who knew?) yet at the same time if he asked me about one-night stands I would lie because I know, in that context, I'm supposed to behave in an entirely different way. And even on the number I lied about, he was still disappointed and I got that dissatisfactory "aw, really?". How was I ever supposed to find my "wild side" in the first place if I've barely had any sex? Total paradox, and one of countless that women are pressurised to conform to every-day.


God that's messed up. I hope when my time comes to "throw caution to the wind" I'll have completely eradicated all these bull**** mixed messages and paradoxes I've been told I need to live up to, and just do what I want to do. Is changing your brain that easy?

On the whole confusion thing , it looks like glamour models experience the same thing. Quote from former glamour model, Alex Sim-Wise:
‘There are definitely negatives from working in glamour. A classic example is that you’d get a message from a fan and they’d be like “Oh, you’re amazing, I want to **** over you.” But if you turn around and say anything negative, they’ll be like, “You’re a bitch, you’re a whore, you only got what you have because you got your tits out.’