Should Page 3 discontinue?

Millicent · 16-09-2012 10:29PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Yes, the world is being deprived or all these great doctors and top level researchers. We'd have no cancer or aids if these girls stayed on to further education.

I get the very subtle sarcasm in your post but who's to say that they aren't capable girls? Are you assuming because they get their top off that they're inherently unintelligent? Because that just proves one of my problems with Page 3.

wilkie2006 · 16-09-2012 10:31PM

say_who_now? wrote: »

You also confuse yourself in the last paragraph there when you say "aren't women a bit more than totty?" and then you go on to question her intellect yourself! :pac:

I think you'll find that was a quote from Andrew Rawnsley. I was drawing attention to how tabloids patronise the women by attributing statements to them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/16/andrew-rawnsley-poice-reform?INTCMP=SRCH

16-09-2012 10:32PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Yes, the world is being deprived or all these great doctors and top level researchers. We'd have no cancer or aids if these girls stayed on to further education.

I'm pretty sure that you're still allowed go to college if you've gotten your tits out in the Sun.

I don't think it's at all damaging for the girls in question, in fact I think it's a great opportunity for them, but I still think page 3 should be dedicated to a different subject matter. Even if the girls were fully clothed, I see no reason for a newspaper to have a page dedicated to checking out women.

Guy:Incognito · 16-09-2012 10:32PM

Millicent wrote: »

I get the very subtle sarcasm in your post but who's to say that they aren't capable girls? Are you assuming because they get their top off that they're inherently unintelligent? Because that just proves one of my problems with Page 3.

Do highly intelligent women aspire to take their clothes off on page 3?
Ether way, it's boobs. No laws are broken. If thats what they want to have on page 3 of their paper thats their choice. Trying to brow beat them with petitions to stop it isnt the way, just dont buy it. It's not like it's going to be the Guardian if they get rid of it.

Millicent · 16-09-2012 10:34PM

say_who_now? wrote: »

As soon as I read that, all I could think was "Jedward" for some reason!

Why does everything have to be construed as offensive though, is a more pertinent question? Seriously, as another poster said- you're not forced to buy the paper, these girls model willingly, some have made good careers from it, some haven't, the same as any other chosen career. Some girls choose to do it just the once for a bit of a giggle.

Next thing you know if certain quarters get their way, the world really WILL be fifty shades of grey- the dull, boring, colorless, lifeless kind of grey. I don't want to live in that world!

It may be their ages; it may be that it's so normalised because it's in a national newspaper. I'm not necessarily saying I find it offensive. "Sad" is what I described it as earlier. The fact that little girls a few years ago were growing up wanting to be like Jordan; the horrible old fuckers who sit drooling over the pictures in a workplace canteen and making comments like it's the most normal behaviour in the world (have seen that many times); the fact that kids are exposed to papers like this that are left lying around the house... All of that is just a bit sad and depressing to me and a hangover of a different, less progressive time. I don't see the need for it any more.

hatrickpatrick · 16-09-2012 10:39PM

Millicent wrote: »

I get the very subtle sarcasm in your post but who's to say that they aren't capable girls? Are you assuming because they get their top off that they're inherently unintelligent? Because that just proves one of my problems with Page 3.

I wouldn't in the least say that, but it's their own free will to partake. Nobody forced them to do it at gunpoint, if they did then obviously that would be different.
You can call it 'sad', but people can choose to do sad things if they want to, none of us has a right to tell them otherwise.

16-09-2012 10:39PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Do highly intelligent women aspire to take their clothes off on page 3?

I heard once that those girls get a payment in the tens of thousands of pounds to do page three. If you're struggling to afford college, or hell, even if you've plenty of money, it's a pretty smart choice. All you have to do is invest in your look and get the opportunity, and for one or two days work you'll get more than most students make in a year.

I'm reasonably intelligent, just finished my third year of college with a first, and if I had the chance to do page three I would. It would be stupid to turn it down.

Millicent · 16-09-2012 10:39PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Do highly intelligent women aspire to take their clothes off on page 3?
Ether way, it's boobs. No laws are broken. If thats what they want to have on page 3 of their paper thats their choice. Trying to brow beat them with petitions to stop it isnt the way, just dont buy it. It's not like it's going to be the Guardian if they get rid of it.

What's the name of that girl, the Irish one, who got 600 points in the Leaving? The girls aren't necessarily stupid, it's that they aren't always the girls who see any future for themselves. It's not too long ago that Katie Price was loved in this country and the UK and held up as some icon for women. Glamour modelling has become so normalised in the past few years and it's often girls from poorer backgrounds who see it as a good way to make some money for themselves.

I know no laws are broken but just because something is legal, doesn't make it any less seedy or depressing.

What is your argument for keeping it, to turn the argument on its head? What purpose can it be argued to serve?

hatrickpatrick · 16-09-2012 10:41PM

Millicent wrote: »

I know no laws are broken but just because something is legal, doesn't make it any less seedy or depressing.

Depressing to you. Not everyone might share your viewpoint.

What is your argument for keeping it, to turn the argument on its head? What purpose can it be argued to serve?

Freedom of speech. If something in the media offends you, you have the choice not to consume it. You do not have the right to prevent others consuming it.

say_who_now? · 16-09-2012 10:41PM

wilkie2006 wrote: »

say_who_now? wrote: »

You also confuse yourself in the last paragraph there when you say "aren't women a bit more than totty?" and then you go on to question her intellect yourself! :pac:

I think you'll find that was a quote from Andrew Rawnsley. I was drawing attention to how tabloids patronise the women by attributing statements to them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/16/andrew-rawnsley-poice-reform?INTCMP=SRCH

Opinions are regurgitated by posters here ALL the time ffs, come on, you really are being picky now. I read the Sun newspaper to give me a bit of a laugh in the morning, then I'd dispose of it in the nearest wastepaper bin, it's not something that I'll ever draw my opinions from, so the Sun can attribute whatever it likes to whomever it likes, the majority of it's readership couldn't care less, and neither could the girls that model for them. Whatever happened to live and let live? Would anyone like to tell the girls they aren't having fun and that they are being taken advantage of, they are no role model for young women, etc.

I think you'd be given very short shrift tbh.

Millicent · 16-09-2012 10:42PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I wouldn't in the least say that, but it's their own free will to partake. Nobody forced them to do it at gunpoint, if they did then obviously that would be different.
You can call it 'sad', but people can choose to do sad things if they want to, none of us has a right to tell them otherwise.

That's fair enough and I'm not even sure I'm trying to force anything, tbh. My concern would be about the social conditioning that leads someone to that point. I also fail to see its relevance and what benefit it has to anyone, either model or reader, in this day and age?

GLaDOS · 16-09-2012 10:42PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Do highly intelligent women aspire to take their clothes off on page 3?

It's not inconceivable that some of them see it as a quick and easy way to make money while going through college.

Millicent · 16-09-2012 10:44PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Depressing to you. Not everyone might share your viewpoint.

Agreed and that's fair enough.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Freedom of speech. If something in the media offends you, you have the choice not to consume it. You do not have the right to prevent others consuming it.

This one I definitely don't agree with. Showing tits on Page 3 is freedom of speech?! You're having a laugh! Living in a country that still has blasphemy laws on its books and guarantees no freedom of speech, I think you'd be hard pushed to find sympathy for that position either.

omega666 · 16-09-2012 10:52PM

Millicent wrote: »

It may be their ages; it may be that it's so normalised because it's in a national newspaper. I'm not necessarily saying I find it offensive. "Sad" is what I described it as earlier. The fact that little girls a few years ago were growing up wanting to be like Jordan; the horrible old fuckers who sit drooling over the pictures in a workplace canteen and making comments like it's the most normal behaviour in the world (have seen that many times); the fact that kids are exposed to papers like this that are left lying around the house... All of that is just a bit sad and depressing to me and a hangover of a different, less progressive time. I don't see the need for it any more.

some people would say durty auld irish women flocking in their droves to buy a book detailing graphic sex acts with bondage and submission is a bit sad. Each to thier own i guess.

Guy:Incognito · 16-09-2012 11:01PM

Millicent wrote: »

What is your argument for keeping it, to turn the argument on its head? What purpose can it be argued to serve?

They own the paper and they want it? Thats about the only arguement thats needed. If you owned it youd be free to do as you please with it.

It doesnt need to have a purpose. Even if the editer says he only puts it in so he can have a **** over it every day, thats his choice.

Millicent wrote: »

Glamour modelling has become so normalised in the past few years and it's often girls from poorer backgrounds who see it as a good way to make some money for themselves.

Would you rather keep them poor? It's their choice to follow any career they want. If they want to fly to Holland or Germany and become prostitutes they can.

asherbassad · 16-09-2012 11:04PM

wilkie2006 wrote: »

http://www.change.org/nomorepage3

So what do boards users reckon? Is this a load of PC bo11ocks or does the petition make sense?

I'm inclined to agree with it, really. Do people really need to see a pair of tits with their cornflakes? Aren't women a bit more than totty? And - perhaps most importantly - does Dani, 19, from Norwich really feel that, "Hillsborough emphasises that the government must be bold in dealing with the last unreformed public service"?

Would you suggest the publishers of a porno mag stop showing girls/guys fcuking? There are many other publications to read over one's porridge if one doesn't wish to view Desiree, 22, from Bristol, with all her charms.

say_who_now? · 16-09-2012 11:04PM

Millicent wrote:

It may be their ages; it may be that it's so normalised because it's in a national newspaper. I'm not necessarily saying I find it offensive. "Sad" is what I described it as earlier. The fact that little girls a few years ago were growing up wanting to be like Jordan; the horrible old f[COLOR="Black"]uc[/COLOR]kers who sit drooling over the pictures in a workplace canteen and making comments like it's the most normal behaviour in the world (have seen that many times); the fact that kids are exposed to papers like this that are left lying around the house... All of that is just a bit sad and depressing to me and a hangover of a different, less progressive time. I don't see the need for it any more.

Ahh right, ok I can see why you think it's sad. But these little girls as you put it growing up and wanting to be like jordan, hell there were the girls who became Scientists and mathematicians that wanted to be spice girls when they were kids! If you think you have a fight on your hands with page3, perhaps it'd be best you don't consider the amount of pre-pubescent girls that want to become hardcore porn stars!

There's always going to be horrible creepy fùckers too, in every walk of life, the one's that stare at page3 are just harmless, unsightly but harmless, and creepy, nothing more. There's a hell of a lot worse you could encounter.

As for what kids are exposed to, perhaps you should skip my post in the "awkward situations" thread then! :pac: Or avoid taking the kids on continental holidays where young women walk topless on the beaches showing their ample assets! We don't have the weather for it here is the only reason that stops many women going topless on the beaches, otherwise we too would have been normalised to it decades ago and not had it hidden away and buried like old "Mickey Masturbator" over there who you'd swear he never saw a tit in his life!

wilkie2006 · 16-09-2012 11:06PM

say_who_now? wrote: »

Opinions are regurgitated by posters here ALL the time ffs, come on, you really are being picky now. I read the Sun newspaper to give me a bit of a laugh in the morning, then I'd dispose of it in the nearest wastepaper bin, it's not something that I'll ever draw my opinions from, so the Sun can attribute whatever it likes to whomever it likes, the majority of it's readership couldn't care less, and neither could the girls that model for them. Whatever happened to live and let live? Would anyone like to tell the girls they aren't having fun and that they are being taken advantage of, they are no role model for young women, etc.

I think you'd be given very short shrift tbh.

Not really the point I was making. I'm just saying why don't tabloid editors call a spade a spade - why is there any need to put words in these girls' mouths? We all know they're not being featured for their opinions.

Lord TSC · 16-09-2012 11:08PM

wilkie2006 wrote: »

I'm just saying why don't tabloid editors call a spade a spade - why is there any need to put words in these girls' mouths? We all know they're not being featured for their opinions.

*Insert Rainier Wolfcastle "That's the joke" image here.*

say_who_now? · 16-09-2012 11:11PM

wilkie wrote:

Not really the point I was making. I'm just saying why don't tabloid editors call a spade a spade - why is there any need to put words in these girls' mouths? We all know they're not being featured for their opinions.

The innuendo is going to kill me saying this, but it's a bit hard to get their personality across on paper, so they give them a soundbite is all, I don't really think it's meant to patronise the girls or make like they're idiots, and clearly if you read her opinion then at least one person has taken notice of her opinion!

wilkie2006 · 16-09-2012 11:16PM

say_who_now? wrote: »

The innuendo is going to kill me saying this, but it's a bit hard to get their personality across on paper, so they give them a soundbite is all, I don't really think it's meant to patronise the girls or make like they're idiots, and clearly if you read her opinion then at least one person has taken notice of her opinion!

Are they supposed to have a personality? I thought they were just there for their tits?

Timfy · 16-09-2012 11:24PM

If an attractive girl wants to show off her dirty pillows in a newspaper and get paid reasonably well for it I have no problem.

I do have an issue with the creepy paparazzi who hide in bushes miles from their unsuspecting prey and take pictures using military grade telephoto equipment and then use the "Sure, they're public property" excuse. I also do not understand the mentality of anyone who wants to see a grainy, barely visible pair of lady bumps taken from near earth orbit... be it the future queen of blighty or Jedwards mum! :eek:

The interwebs are awash with porn, if you want to shake it around a bit, google is surely your first port of call

say_who_now? · 16-09-2012 11:28PM

wilkie2006 wrote: »

Are they supposed to have a personality? I thought they were just there for their tits?

A little bit from column "a", a little bit from column "b"!

FouxDaFaFa · 16-09-2012 11:29PM

I've always found page 3 so weird and out of place. It's kind of alienating to be reading a paper (when someone puts a gun to my head and makes me read the red tops) and for there suddenly to be this naked girl with the most bizarre blurb beside her.

"Jenny, 21, from Newcastle, supports the people of Syria in their struggle to overcome brutal oppression". It's just weird.

Rayne Wooney · 16-09-2012 11:30PM

They should get rid of the stupid quotes obviously not said by the "models"

Candy, 20 Newcastle
"I agree with Albert Einstein when he said "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." and try to live by this every day"

say_who_now? · 16-09-2012 11:35PM

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

I've always found page 3 so weird and out of place. It's kind of alienating to be reading a paper (when someone puts a gun to my head and makes me read the red tops) and for there suddenly to be this naked girl with the most bizarre blurb beside her.

"Jenny, 21, from Newcastle, supports the people of Syria in their struggle to overcome brutal oppression". It's just weird.

I'd find it more alienating quite frankly if someone were putting a gun to my head! Do you often get people putting a gun to your head? You might want to report that to the Gardai!

And I'd hardly call it "suddenly" either when the feature itself is called "PAGE 3", clue is in the title!

Millicent · 16-09-2012 11:35PM

omega666 wrote: »

some people would say durty auld irish women flocking in their droves to buy a book detailing graphic sex acts with bondage and submission is a bit sad. Each to thier own i guess.

I would be one of those people. It's shite. :pac:

Madam_X · 16-09-2012 11:37PM

I don't think it should be banned. Not a big fan or anything but it's not doing any great harm IMO.

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

funny that women want page 3 removed yet all their crap magazines like take a break, pick me up, love it ect.... have pages in them dedicated to pictures of naked men

No they don't. And even if they did, what makes you so sure the women who like them are the same women who want page 3 discontinued?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Freedom of speech, he should be allowed to print whatever he wants on page 3.

No he shouldn't. There are plenty of things that are legally and ethically not suitable for being published in a newspaper.

Millicent · 16-09-2012 11:39PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

They own the paper and they want it? Thats about the only arguement thats needed. If you owned it youd be free to do as you please with it.

It doesnt need to have a purpose. Even if the editer says he only puts it in so he can have a **** over it every day, thats his choice.

That's a crap argument, tbh (on the side of the hypothetical editor). Why bother having press standards at all if we're going to debase young ones in a newspaper for some cheap and pointless titillation?

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Would you rather keep them poor? It's their choice to follow any career they want. If they want to fly to Holland or Germany and become prostitutes they can.

No, I'd rather they see more options for themselves and focus on a career with longevity that doesn't depend on something as fleeting as their looks.

16-09-2012 11:39PM

If it would decrease sales significantly, then there's no point discontinuing

on principle should they be made to? hell no
private paper, if you don't like it don't read it

s/read/ogle/

Should Page 3 discontinue?

Comments