Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Page 3-Harmless fun or sexist?

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    desolate sun
    Registered Users Posts: 347 ✭✭desolate sun


    You know I would have started off this thread by saying harmless (not fun though) but actually I am so conditioned to the whole page 3 thing that it's like white noise.

    If I actually step back, it is a bit off-putting. Is not the whole page 3 thing meant as a turn on for men, so men all over the country are relieving themselves at the sight of them? I have no problem with anyone relieving themselves but in a daily paper? At breakfast, in work, etc

    Or do men just go, 'phwoar, look at the tits on that!' and that's it?
    I'm really not being naive. Are they meant to turn men on to that point?

    Although TBH the page 3 pics are so tame and how any man can be turned on by such inane pictures is a wonder to me.


  • Options
    #63
    Eve_Dublin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,884 ✭✭✭Eve_Dublin


    Arawn wrote: »
    just out of curiosity is the what makes you drool thread harmless fun or sexist??

    If I adorn my PC hat, probably quite sexist. Saying that, I'm not bothered by the thread in TGC and I'm not bothered by the thread here. Double standards with the title though - I think there'd be a bit of a kerfuffle if a similar title was used in TGC.

    The fact that I'm not bothered by the topless models in The Sun (we have similar stuff here in Spain) or bothered by the threads of hot people here on Boards doesn't mean it's not sexist. It doesn't do me any harm personally but I'm only one person. If it makes people feel uncomfortable, they're entitled to feel that way. I wouldn't shout them down and tell them they're wrong. I suppose I've lived long enough now to be shocked by very little but as I said, that's just me.


  • Options
    #64
    Eve_Dublin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,884 ✭✭✭Eve_Dublin


    desolate sun wrote: »
    You know I would have started off this thread by saying harmless (not fun though) but actually I am so conditioned to the whole page 3 thing that it's like white noise.

    If I actually step back, it is a bit off-putting. Is not the whole page 3 thing meant as a turn on for men, so men all over the country are relieving themselves at the sight of them? I have no problem with anyone relieving themselves but in a daily paper? At breakfast, in work, etc

    Or do men just go, 'phwoar, look at the tits on that!' and that's it?
    I'm really not being naive. Are they meant to turn men on to that point?

    Although TBH the page 3 pics are so tame and how any man can be turned on by such inane pictures is a wonder to me.

    Hard to get into the mind-frame of men when it comes to that. I look at a photo of a topless man and yeah, I might appreciate he's handsome but I wouldn't have a twiddle over it. I don't get turned in that way and most women I know are the same. Men are different in that sense and whether it's down to conditioning or just nature, I don't know.

    I'm sure many, many men over the years have wanked (masturbated sounds riidculous...sorry) over the page 3 girl. It might seem pretty tame by modern standards but if you've nothing else, well it might do the job if you'll excuse the crudeness.

    Let's face it, it's there for titilation. It's not there as some kind of work of art. It's a young woman with her boobs out posing sexily. If it wasn't titilating, many men wouldn't buy The Sun. Sex sells. I suppose that's what makes many women uncomfortable. That it's the most popular selling paper in the UK and it can be found anywhere, even in a professional environment and many men are getting off on what's on the 3rd page. It's a strange scenario when you put it like that, I suppose.


  • Options
    #65
    Arawn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,158 ✭✭✭Arawn


    desolate sun wrote: »
    You know I would have started off this thread by saying harmless (not fun though) but actually I am so conditioned to the whole page 3 thing that it's like white noise.

    If I actually step back, it is a bit off-putting. Is not the whole page 3 thing meant as a turn on for men, so men all over the country are relieving themselves at the sight of them? I have no problem with anyone relieving themselves but in a daily paper? At breakfast, in work, etc

    Or do men just go, 'phwoar, look at the tits on that!' and that's it?
    I'm really not being naive. Are they meant to turn men on to that point?

    Although TBH the page 3 pics are so tame and how any man can be turned on by such inane pictures is a wonder to me.
    They're not a turn on, they're boobs and us men love boobs thats all, just cos we see some doesn mean we get turned on and have to go have a tug, Boobs are something i like seeing, just like Ireland winning a match


  • Options
    #66
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,387 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    desolate sun wrote: »
    You know I would have started off this thread by saying harmless (not fun though) but actually I am so conditioned to the whole page 3 thing that it's like white noise.

    If I actually step back, it is a bit off-putting. Is not the whole page 3 thing meant as a turn on for men, so men all over the country are relieving themselves at the sight of them? I have no problem with anyone relieving themselves but in a daily paper? At breakfast, in work, etc

    Or do men just go, 'phwoar, look at the tits on that!' and that's it?
    I'm really not being naive. Are they meant to turn men on to that point?

    Although TBH the page 3 pics are so tame and how any man can be turned on by such inane pictures is a wonder to me.

    That would be a no and a no to both points. When we see page 3 we don't all run off to crack one off and we don't all go around shouting to everyone about the girl in the paper either.
    bit of a generalization there of men in fairness.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Eve_Dublin wrote: »
    Let's face it, it's there for titilation. It's not there as some kind of work of art. It's a young woman with her boobs out posing sexily. If it wasn't titilating, many men wouldn't buy The Sun. Sex sells. I suppose that's what makes many women uncomfortable. That it's the most popular selling paper in the UK and it can be found anywhere, even in a professional environment and many men are getting off on what's on the 3rd page. It's a strange scenario when you put it like that, I suppose.

    I reckon The Sun would see a much sharper drop in readership if they dropped the football section at the back than the page 3 section I have to say.

    You can see boobs pretty much anywhere now. I'd say when Page 3 started it was quite controversial and racey, I'd say at this point it is only done as some sort of tradition at the paper.

    There seems to be a dramatic simplification of male sexuality with regards to page 3 going on in this thread but then again, that is the point of Page 3 in general.


  • Options
    #68
    PrincessLola
    Registered Users Posts: 851 ✭✭✭PrincessLola


    Its fine, legal, whatever (Although I weep at the notion that this is any young girls 'dream') Parents: if your little girl dreams of being a page 3 model when shes grown-up then you have failed as parents (same if she wants to be a footballer's wife). :(

    I will say this however: there can be no even flip side to the objectification of women. In this sense there is no simple 'reverse sexism' just like their can be no 'reverse racism'. They are two different experiences and not opposite sides of the same coin.
    The two genders have not had the same experiences so when people say objectifying men is just the same thing, they need to consider the concept of privilige.

    Therefore, the malteser's man is not the equvilant of hunky dory women (not that I object to either) but you have to consider privilige and context.


  • Options
    #69
    shopaholic01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,916 ✭✭✭shopaholic01


    Eve_Dublin wrote: »
    Hard to get into the mind-frame of men when it comes to that. I look at a photo of a topless man and yeah, I might appreciate he's handsome but I wouldn't have a twiddle over it. I don't get turned in that way and most women I know are the same. Men are different in that sense and whether it's down to conditioning or just nature, I don't know.

    I'm sure many, many men over the years have wanked (masturbated sounds riidculous...sorry) over the page 3 girl. It might seem pretty tame by modern standards but if you've nothing else, well it might do the job if you'll excuse the crudeness.

    Let's face it, it's there for titilation. It's not there as some kind of work of art. It's a young woman with her boobs out posing sexily. If it wasn't titilating, many men wouldn't buy The Sun. Sex sells. I suppose that's what makes many women uncomfortable. That it's the most popular selling paper in the UK and it can be found anywhere, even in a professional environment and many men are getting off on what's on the 3rd page. It's a strange scenario when you put it like that, I suppose.

    As a female I'm pretty sure men would **** without the sun, and were **** before the sun was published. TBH, it seems to be a bigger deal to women than it is to men.


  • Options
    #70
    Dubhlinner
    Registered Users Posts: 456 ✭✭Dubhlinner


    desolate sun wrote: »
    You know I would have started off this thread by saying harmless (not fun though) but actually I am so conditioned to the whole page 3 thing that it's like white noise.

    If I actually step back, it is a bit off-putting. Is not the whole page 3 thing meant as a turn on for men, so men all over the country are relieving themselves at the sight of them? I have no problem with anyone relieving themselves but in a daily paper? At breakfast, in work, etc

    Or do men just go, 'phwoar, look at the tits on that!' and that's it?
    I'm really not being naive. Are they meant to turn men on to that point?

    Although TBH the page 3 pics are so tame and how any man can be turned on by such inane pictures is a wonder to me.
    Eve_Dublin wrote: »
    Hard to get into the mind-frame of men when it comes to that. I look at a photo of a topless man and yeah, I might appreciate he's handsome but I wouldn't have a twiddle over it. I don't get turned in that way and most women I know are the same. Men are different in that sense and whether it's down to conditioning or just nature, I don't know.

    I'm sure many, many men over the years have wanked (masturbated sounds riidculous...sorry) over the page 3 girl. It might seem pretty tame by modern standards but if you've nothing else, well it might do the job if you'll excuse the crudeness.

    Let's face it, it's there for titilation. It's not there as some kind of work of art. It's a young woman with her boobs out posing sexily. If it wasn't titilating, many men wouldn't buy The Sun. Sex sells. I suppose that's what makes many women uncomfortable. That it's the most popular selling paper in the UK and it can be found anywhere, even in a professional environment and many men are getting off on what's on the 3rd page. It's a strange scenario when you put it like that, I suppose.


    do be honest eve I think desolate sun had it a lot more accurately with "Or do men just go, 'phwoar, look at the tits on that!' and that's it?" I actually think your post had quite a sexist tone to it.

    If you're at the point where you need a fap on your lunchbreak you're not gonna need a page 3 girl (or anything else) to "do the job"

    I don't think men buy it particularly for page 3. Its bought mostly by men who are into the sports coverage. next its an easy read for those who don't like all the big words in the irish times.

    Perhaps the page three contributes to some people buying it instead of the star or other similar rags. however I think if they did away with page three it would still be the most popular paper (as utterly depressing a thought as that is)

    I wouldn't buy it because I'm not much into sports but say in the summer when Ireland are playing in the euros I will choose a different tabloid. I don't like that these women are presented as something to aspire to for young girls. I also dislike that it appears to make people dehumanise men as fools who will be controlled by a pair of tits


  • Options
    #71
    Eve_Dublin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,884 ✭✭✭Eve_Dublin


    Sexist? How so?

    Sorry you saw my post as sexist. I wasn't generalising about all men, just some. I know most men look at boobs and simply think, "Great tits!" and don't feel the need to jack off on them. I suppose my post was more of a reflection on how I view Sun readers more than your average guy. I don't think much of people who buy the paper, tbh. Maybe that's a bit of snobbery on my part. I've an image of some pervy auld fella in the toilets of his office **** off to a photo of some sexy young girl. That's not how I view men generally but I have that image in my head of Sun reading types.

    In fairness, I don't know anyone who buys the paper so I can't speak with any kind of authority on what kind of person buys it but I have a type in my head and it'd fit the description above.

    Also, I don't know just how much flesh a woman needs to show before a guy could use that image to **** to. I know it's fairly tame. I'm not a man and don't get turned on by topless photos of guys (as I said), so it's hard to get into that frame of mind.

    I understand now it's bought for the sports pages mainly. I didn't think of that to be honest.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    Eve_Dublin wrote: »
    Also, I don't know just how much flesh a woman needs to show before a guy could use that image to **** to. I know it's fairly tame. I'm not a man and don't get turned on by topless photos of guys (as I said), so it's hard to get into that frame of mind.

    .

    serious answer here, just in case you actually wanted to know

    anything more revealing than a burka. It really doesn't take much, actual pictures of breasts are just nice to look at they're not neccesary in the slightest.


  • Options
    #73
    Eve_Dublin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,884 ✭✭✭Eve_Dublin


    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »
    serious answer here, just in case you actually wanted to know

    anything more revealing than a burka. It really doesn't take much, actual pictures of breasts are just nice to look at they're not neccesary in the slightest.

    "Get your wrists out for the lads!" kinda thing?

    Wish it was that simple for women sometimes...


  • Options
    #74
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Eve_Dublin wrote: »
    Also, I don't know just how much flesh a woman needs to show before a guy could use that image to **** to. I know it's fairly tame. I'm not a man and don't get turned on by topless photos of guys (as I said), so it's hard to get into that frame of mind.

    None.

    Blokes can possess pretty good imaginations. Sometimes we can fill in the blanks, as it were.


  • Options
    #75
    scholar007
    Closed Accounts Posts: 902 ✭✭✭scholar007


    Teyla Emmagan wrote: »
    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.


    Did you complain to management about this? You should not have to look at boobs in the paper while you are making the tea all day long if you are not comfortable with them.


  • Options
    #76
    MJOR
    Registered Users Posts: 1,796 ✭✭✭MJOR


    Harmless fun i think.


  • Options
    #77
    analucija
    Closed Accounts Posts: 363 ✭✭analucija


    Page 3 is tasteless but personally I'd love to own a Pirelli calendar. I don't know where you draw the line. Artistic nudity is ok and page 3 is not? You can't really, so I'd rather live with both than also loose artistic nude photography or art in general.


  • Options
    #78
    py2006
    Registered Users Posts: 9,847 ✭✭✭py2006


    I have to say, I was never taken with page 3 and I have never met a man who has/does look at it or even talk about it.

    Similar to a previous poster I do associate that kind of paper with a certain element of society. Probably snobbery on my part too.

    However, I think the excessive focus on men masturbating in this thread is a bit unpleasant to say the least.


  • Options
    #79
    Panthro
    Registered Users Posts: 14,769 ✭✭✭✭Panthro


    It's not a newspaper I'd buy, but in the very odd situation (on a bus/train etc) where someone leaves behind the paper and you pick it up to have a read, Its the one page I don't bother reading.
    I don't really see the point in it, it may have had a controversial element to it a few years back, but these days its a tad...silly* I think.

    *I can't think of a better word.


  • Options
    #80
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,387 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    The Sun is a popular newspaper and I always read it, everyone is entitled to their views and if they don't like Page 3 then fair enough but looking down on people who buy the paper and calling us morons is a bit much TBH.


  • Options
    #81
    Hillmanhunter1
    Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭Hillmanhunter1


    I hate it when a questioner frames a question in a way that attempts to restrict the answer, so, for example Page 3 does not have to be either harmless fun or sexist, it could be both (which is my view) or neither.
    Wikipedia defines sexism as "prejudice or discrimination based on sex; or conditions or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex". Thats a good enough definition for me. Every human being (male or female) uses prejudice, discrimination and stereotypes in their thinking processes every day, all the time. They are vital tools in our cognitive processes.
    Of course page 3 is sexist, the question is whether or not it is harmless or harmful. This is a question on which there is in my view no single answer. page 3 is not much different to the thousand other ways in which sexuality (both male and female, but overwhelmingly female) is used to sell, promote and publicise, and it was ever thus.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Rabidlamb
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,202 ✭✭✭Rabidlamb


    In an age when you can be one click away from an amputee pile driving a dwarf's anus with his stump I think the whole discussion is futile.
    Link to follow.


  • Options
    #83
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


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

    If you can't add to the discussion without indulging in inflammatory sweeping statements, kindly refrain from posting.
    Rabidlamb wrote:
    Link to follow.

    Don't bother.

    If anyone hasn't already done so can they ensure they are acquainted with the purpose, ethos and charter of this forum.


  • Options
    #84
    mooeygooey
    Registered Users Posts: 20 ✭mooeygooey


    shopaholic01 wrote: »
    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',

    Of course it's her body and of course she can do what she likes with it. Don't expect me to respect her for it though. As I said, that's my opinion. My or anyones elses opinion doesn't make them saddos. Their actions do. All the same, just as people are allowed to do what they like with their own bodies, people are allowed to have opinions.


  • Options
    #85
    Acacia
    Registered Users Posts: 2,816 ✭✭✭Acacia


    Page 3 irks me in a way that the likes of Nuts/Zoo etc, don't, and they're about on the same level of soft-porn/ eroticism (actually 'porn' is probably too strong a word here.)

    It's all about context- the likes of Nuts are on the top shelf, they're for 'lads', the booby pics are just part of the magazine, along with with football, jokes, weird stories, etc. They are generally just a bit of fun and not to be taken too seriously.

    Page 3 is different , though. It presents female objectification as just part of everyday news - and it's only ever one kind of female (young, slim, big boobs.) It's so ingrained into our culture we don't even think about it. I always find it amusing that a lot of those who try to condone or justify Page 3's existence say ''It's the girl' choice- she just want's to express herself/ her sexuality!" Fair enough, but what about the overweight girl or the one with A-cup boobs? The straight-out ugly girls? Why can't they have a chance to ''express'' themselves? Because Page 3 is not about the girl's choice- it's about the male viewer's desires. So saying it's empowering to women is really a bit of a cop-out.

    The ''News in Briefs'' thing really is a bit sexist though. Imagine, a young, pretty girl being able to intelligently articulate her views on current events- isn't that hilarious? :rolleyes:

    Don't get me wrong, I have the odd look at the bewbs myself (:p), I don't want to see Page 3 ''banned'' or anything... I'd just think it's quite old-fashioned really and rather redundant.


  • Options
    #86
    panda100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭panda100


    Women on here who think page 3 is 'fun',can you elaborate on this? I am trying to understand your viewpoint at what can be remotely fun about this concept?


  • Options
    #87
    Truley
    Registered Users Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭Truley


    panda100 wrote: »
    Women on here who think page 3 is 'fun',can you elaborate on this? I am trying to understand your viewpoint at what can be remotely fun about this concept?

    Funny like 'ha ha' at how tacky and tasteless it is. Also 'fun' in the sense that it's not trying to take itself seriously, make a political statement etc it's just a feature for the readers like a jokes section or crossword.

    To be honest although I don't really read it, I notice the Sunday Independent always has a silly column on it's front page featuring a really attractive 'power woman' with a little write up about her really successful business or whatever. For some reason I find that more condescending than a page 3 girl which is at least honest about what it's doing.


  • Options
    #88
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,387 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Men and women seem to have very different views on this. Ask any man what he thinks of the men who pose naked in magazines like Playgirl and he will tell you that he couldn't care less.
    But some women seem to have a problem with other women making their living posing for page 3.


  • Options
    #89
    shopaholic01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,916 ✭✭✭shopaholic01


    panda100 wrote: »
    Women on here who think page 3 is 'fun',can you elaborate on this? I am trying to understand your viewpoint at what can be remotely fun about this concept?

    I don't see it as fun - boobs don't have that effect on me, I just don't see what the big deal is. I also doubt it's a big deal to men. It's a pic of a topless girl, these have been in the paper for years now so it's surprising that they are still a talking point.

    There's a lot of more graphic and violent images out there so I can't understand why this is so offensive.


  • Options
    #90
    MissFlitworth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,057 ✭✭✭MissFlitworth


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    Ask any man what he thinks of the men who pose naked in magazines like Playgirl and he will tell you that he couldn't care less.

    It's a bit different in fairness, most men have probably never even *seen* a copy of Playgirl. That kind of soft porn for women (the print kind) is so rare that it might as well be imaginary, I've never come across a copy of Playgirl, bar in an airport newsagents, whereas print imagery featuring women making 'come fcuk me' faces and tugging at their pants is so prevalent that they're pretty hard to get away from.

    I just find page 3 sort of tacky & unpleasant


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,387 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    MissFlitworth wrote: »
    It's a bit different in fairness, most men have probably never even *seen* a copy of Playgirl. That kind of soft porn for women (the print kind) is so rare that it might as well be imaginary, I've never come across a copy of Playgirl, bar in an airport newsagents, whereas print imagery featuring women making 'come fcuk me' faces and tugging at their pants is so prevalent that they're pretty hard to get away from.

    I just find page 3 sort of tacky & unpleasant

    Ok but that wasn't really the point I was making. I was saying that women seem to get very worked up about what other women choose to do to earn a living, e.g. Page 3 photos where as men don't care what other men do. I see posts like " I wouldn't respect her for doing page 3". Well so what it's not really anything to do with anyone else.


Advertisement