Page 3-Harmless fun or sexist?

Just because they can get models to pose topless it doesn't mean that "so many young women aspire to be part of the page 3 'tradition". If you get 20 girls in a room and ask them how many would pose topless I'm guessing a vast majority would say no. Then again there are others that would say €500 to show my boobs? sure why not...

It's not sexist at all in my opinion. And I don't buy the whole argument that it objectifies women either because they're putting themselves in the position for profit. While some don't agree with it, it's only skin and it's only business.

Neyite

I dont think I have every met a girl in my life that aspired to be a page 3 model.

Piste

I think the objectification of women is only a problem if that's the only role women are seen to occupy. If women are represented in all their forms- successful politician, cheating wife, loving mother, cat-loving spinster, caring sister, hilarious best friend, aspirational business woman, welfare scrounger, life-saving doctor, then women become used to seeing many women occupy many different roles. When your main experience of the role of women is of sex object, then it becomes problematic as impressionable girls see that as the natural role women should occupy.

So is it sexist? No, I don't think so. We objectify people all the time, Cosmo constantly has good looking half-naked men in their issues. Advertisers use sexually-appealing men and women to appeal to women and men all the time. We like looking at attractive people, and that's ok.

Is it harmful? Only if "sex-object" becomes the de facto role of a woman as portrayed by the media, which I don't think it really is. The representation of women doesn't have the same plurality as men, but at the same time I don't think women are regarded solely as object by the majority of men.

Dudess

I find the concept really crass - it must have been some dirty auld perv who dreamed up the idea of "Ooh yeah, tits wiv yer cornflakes innit?! Get 'em out princess!" But it's there, and the girls who do it want to, and get paid - so more power to them.
I'm glad it raised the age profile though - not least for the breathtaking hypocrisy of the legit. age being 17 (or was it 16? I think Sam Fox may have been 16) yet two pages beforehand, outrage over "sick paedo derpa derp!!!"

Dudess wrote: »

age being 17 (or was it 16? I think Sam Fox may have been 16) yet two pages beforehand, outrage over "sick paedo derpa derp!!!"

Didn't think it was ever under 18 considering that's illegal.

actuallylike

Dudess wrote: »

I'm glad it raised the age profile though - not least for the breathtaking hypocrisy of the legit. age being 17 (or was it 16? I think Sam Fox may have been 16) yet two pages beforehand, outrage over "sick paedo derpa derp!!!"

Sorry, pedantic hat on, paedophilia is to do with prepubescent children, not 16 year olds. A world of difference that needs to be recognised by society. Also, the Sun is rampant with double standards, remember the front page headline of RACIST NUT and the back page a racist comment about the French football manager? (or is that xenophobic?

)

iguana

smash wrote: »

Didn't think it was ever under 18 considering that's illegal.

Samantha Fox was 16 when she began her page 3 career. Her parents had to sign consent forms to allow it and her age was well publicised in The Sun when they signed her.

This post has been deleted.

Dudess

actuallylike wrote: »

Sorry, pedantic hat on, paedophilia is to do with prepubescent children, not 16 year olds. A world of difference that needs to be recognised by society. Also, the Sun is rampant with double standards, remember the front page headline of RACIST NUT and the back page a racist comment about the French football manager? (or is that xenophobic? )

But the Sun would be the very rag that would brand a man in a relationship with a teenage girl a paedo, even though he's not. I mean "paedo" in the insult, mud-slinging sense, not the correct sense.

actuallylike

Dudess wrote: »

But the Sun would be the very rag that would brand a man in a relationship with a teenage girl a paedo, even though he's not. I mean "paedo" in the insult, mud-slinging sense, not the correct sense.

I know, The sun would do whatever it takes to get their agenda of hatred across. An example springs to mind when every time Louise Woodward was mentioned it was Baby Killer Louise Woodward. Every. Single. Time. But the word paedo gets flung about too much for my liking, labelling some poor bastard who thought he was hooking up with an 18 year old, with a name associated with baby rapists.

Dudess

actuallylike wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

But the Sun would be the very rag that would brand a man in a relationship with a teenage girl a paedo, even though he's not. I mean "paedo" in the insult, mud-slinging sense, not the correct sense.

I know, The sun would do whatever it takes to get their agenda of hatred across. An example springs to mind when every time Louise Woodward was mentioned it was Baby Killer Louise Woodward. Every. Single. Time. But the word paedo gets flung about too much for my liking, labelling some poor bastard who thought he was hooking up with an 18 year old, with a name associated with baby rapists.

And people who are so quick to use it incorrectly seem to be the same people who'd describe in detail obscene things they'd do to teenage girls. Even if legal, it's still hypocrisy IMO.

dr.bollocko

I don't know if you've ever flicked through to the third page but they always proffer dubious opinions about the day's events as well as boobs. Which I feel is a nice touch.

Stacey 19 from Walsall thinks that the dip back into recession was inevitable as George Osborne has failed to expedite the reform of the financial sector.

[Deleted User]

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I don't know if you've ever flicked through to the third page but they always proffer dubious opinions about the day's events as well as boobs. Which I feel is a nice touch.

Stacey 19 from Walsall thinks that the dip back into recession was inevitable as George Osborne has failed to expedite the reform of the financial sector.

News in Briefs? The stuff they came out with when CERN was in the headlines was most enlightening.

panda100

Piste wrote: »

We objectify people all the time, Cosmo constantly has good looking half-naked men in their issues.

Hmm they don't have their d*cks out though. A guy on the front of cosmo is the same as you would see a man on any hot day in Dublin. Women wouldn't be able to walk around with their breasts hanging out because the like of The Sun, have made our mammary glands into something purely sexual. It is soft porn ,and is constantly targeted at one gender. I think its is bound to have some type of affect on how women are viewed in society.

I'd have no problem with page3 If It actually celebrated breasts, but it doesn't. It only 'celebrates' perk,big (plastic) breasts of women in their teens,which is actually very disturbing. At the end of the day Breasts are just two big glands stuck to our chests that are their for when we want to feed our kids,and for female sexual pleasure. Yet thanks to the likes of page three, society views them as ornaments to turn men on. God forbid, If a women shows a bit of her cleavage in real life, and she will be deemed 'unprofessional' or 'up for it'.

I was on holiday recently with four guy friends. We went to a very British resort where they only had The Sun on sale. On of the guys got The Sun to read one day at the Breakfast table. Their was a strong wind and the paper blew open on page three. We all laughed, but it was a sort of uncomfortable laugh. I was very conscious of the fact that I was sitting around a table with four guys and I was the only one with breasts.It made me feel a bit embarrassed about not only my body, but my breasts being seen as sexual objects.

This post has been deleted.

Breasts are sexual and functional. Marvellous pieces of kit, I'm delighted to have been born with a set.

I've no problem with page three. If someone wants to ogle a nice pair of boobs it's fine with me, even better if the owner of the boobs has given her consent.

The only thing that bothers me is that page-three is so widely accepted, yet if a woman whips out a breast to give a baby a meal eyebrows get raised. Even looking at the reaction to each thing on boards threads will show a gulf in opinon. Even breastfeeding mothers feel that they have to include an addendum about "being discreet about it."

It would be really great if popular opinion was equally positive about both instances of breasts in public IMO.

panda100 wrote: »

Hmm they don't have their d*cks out though.

Breasts are not genitalia, you can't compare.

panda100 wrote: »

A guy on the front of cosmo is the same as you would see a man on any hot day in Dublin. Women wouldn't be able to walk around with their breasts hanging out because the like of The Sun, have made our mammary glands into something purely sexual.

Literally for centuries, breasts have been seen as somewhat sexual.

panda100 wrote: »

It is soft porn ,and is constantly targeted at one gender. I think its is bound to have some type of affect on how women are viewed in society.

It's not soft porn, playboy is soft porn.

panda100 wrote: »

I'd have no problem with page3 If It actually celebrated breasts, but it doesn't.

In what way would you like or envisage breasts to be celebrated?

panda100 wrote: »

It only 'celebrates' perk,big (plastic) breasts of women in their teens,which is actually very disturbing.

100% not true.

panda100 wrote: »

Yet thanks to the likes of page three, society views them as ornaments to turn men on.

nothing to do with page 3 to be honest.

panda100 wrote: »

Their was a strong wind and the paper blew open on page three. We all laughed, but it was a sort of uncomfortable laugh. I was very conscious of the fact that I was sitting around a table with four guys and I was the only one with breasts.It made me feel a bit embarrassed about not only my body, but my breasts being seen as sexual objects.

These are personal issues regarding sex/sexuality/your body etc that you need to deal with.

Das Kitty wrote: »

The only thing that bothers me is that page-three is so widely accepted, yet if a woman whips out a breast to give a baby a meal eyebrows get raised.

You say it's accepted as if EVERYONE looks at page 3. They don't.

smash wrote: »

You say it's accepted as if EVERYONE looks at page 3. They don't.

No I don't, you're interpreting what I said, and incorrectly at that.

I say it like hardly anyone complains about it. Lots of people complain about breastfeeding mothers.

Das Kitty wrote: »

I say it like hardly anyone complains about it. Lots of people complain about breastfeeding mothers.

But there's no need to complain about page 3. You don't see it unless you open the paper. With breast feeding mothers you can turn a corner and see it even if you didn't want to. I don't agree with people that object though, I think it's just an Irish prudish thing to be honest.

This post has been deleted.

smash wrote: »

But there's no need to complain about page 3. You don't see it unless you open the paper. With breast feeding mothers you can turn a corner and see it even if you didn't want to. I don't agree with people that object though, I think it's just an Irish prudish thing to be honest.

I've seen page three without opening a paper. People read the paper in public. I've seen many people with it open on the table on front of them as they tuck into their brekkie in a cafe.

The prudishness is not necessarily just an Irish thing either, I've seen it in the UK and have a friend living in Brooklyn who gets quite a bit of grief over breastfeeding in the park.

This post has been deleted.

iguana

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Did you read Das Kitty's posts at all? She isn't saying "I can't believe they're still printing pictures of bare breasts on Page 3! This is soft porn, it's objectifying women, and it shouldn't be allowed. I don't want to see it, especially not when I'm in a public café" and is in fact saying the exact opposite. So there is nothing even remotely inconsistent about her point.

And even if she was making the point you erroneously attribute to her, there is something of a difference between feeding your young in public and openly enjoying even mild sexual gratification, so that wouldn't have been inconsistent either.

This post has been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I understood permabear.

I'm in agreement.

merlie

I just think these girls just like showing off, flaunting or whatever you call it! Some see it as an art form, porn or someone just making a living! Others see it as a drop in a very large ocean!
I see it as just stupid/silly/attention seeking! I think that there is way to much of this stuff out there! I am a bit old fashioned in my thinking somewhat, but I do think a lot of these girls are not happy as it does show in their eyes, its just them making a living or attention seeking! The 'if you got it flaunt it' types.
Boring stuff I see it as! *Yawns*

tatabubbly

As a lady, meh, don't really give a damn about page 3 but Why oh why does it have to be on the 3rd page.. as a woman its embarrassing to open up a newspaper and have a nearly naked person looking at you.. i dont really apprechiate that aspect of it.

but hey, see one pair of boobs, you've seen them all!

merlie wrote: »

I do think a lot of these girls are not happy as it does show in their eyes

Must look at their eyes next time :pac:

[Deleted User]

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 .