The end of the Sun's page 3

[Easy 10]

Who the hell needs a newspaper to look at a pair of tits anyway? It's a ridiculous concept from a bygone age.

Who needs a temperature gauge on a phone ? Who needs a bottle-opener on a barbecue ? Who needs a clock on an oven ? None of it could be regarded as important or essential...but the fact its there doesn't really do any harm. Just a bit of a bonus.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Will the peanut holders behind bars that gradually reveal some dolly bird with her wobblers out as more packets are purchased be banned too?

I think I read yesterday that in some sixth form college the nipple exposing peanuts were the snack bars best seller

 

[Chicken Runner61]

The diet coke advert is the Godwin's Law of online debates about sexism. Congratulations.

Yeah but surely Godwins Law is now in the Godwins Law of online debates also?

 

[Peter Grummit]

It never added much to the world in the great scheme of things, neither will its removal bring about some kind of sweeping equality utopia. Its just another little erosion of choice, something thats been removed because some yoghurt-knitting, tofu-munching sandal-wearing Guardian readers got their undercrackers in a twist over it.

Quite what tangible harm it ever caused I'm at something of a loss - could you be specific ? The girls were doing it out of free choice, and some went on to have lucrative modelling careers out of it. Who's losing out ?

This extract from an article about one of the campaigners sets out who is losing out better than I can. And yes, it's from The Guardian:

"If you don't like it, don't buy it: that's the response which has irritated Lucy-Anne Holmes the most since she started her campaign to end Page 3. It annoys her partly because it's so patronising (as if she'd never thought of that argument), but mainly because of the way it misrepresents the reach of those images. They began to affect her well before she'd ever bought a paper, she says, when she was 11, and her older brother brought the Sun home regularly. He'd sit around talking with friends "about the tits on Page 3", she recalls. "It was the Sam Fox era, and the girls were 16. I just assumed, from that age, that my breasts were there to look at, and that they fell short."

Her conviction that Page 3 was a problem deepened when she read Clare Short's account of campaigning on the issue in the 1980s. Short's battle led to her receiving scores of letters from women – including some who said Page 3 had been mentioned to them while they were being raped.
"Those women didn't buy the Sun either," says Holmes. "We're hearing about 15-year-old girls who have been walking down the school corridor and their boobs are being graded out of 10 compared with the model on the page. They're not buying it. The mother who walks into a cafe and has to explain to her six-year-old daughter why there's a naked woman in the Sun? She's not buying it. The paper isn't bought and read in isolation, and we all have to live in a society that says 'shut up and get your tits out'."
The argument that she must be jealous of the models has been levelled at Holmes too. "I've started actually saying, OK, let's reverse it. Imagine if on Page 3, for 42 years, we'd seen scrotums – young, big, hairless scrotums, and now a man was standing up and saying 'I've got sons, and they're walking down the street, and people are grabbing their balls and saying show us your balls, and they hate this. They've got self-esteem issues, and could we just stop the scrotum pictures?' Imagine if a woman then turned around and said 'you're just jealous'. It would be ridiculous."

PG

 

[spring hall convert]

Yeah but surely Godwins Law is now in the Godwins Law of online debates also?

You may have a point.

 

[Soulman]

I presume the natural progression of this campaign group is to ban tits on the internet

I could name a few tits that it would be nice to see banned from the internet, and a lot more deserved than this petty campaign. Here's an idea, don't buy the Sun or skip page 3. Plenty of people that are not in to sport will not read the sports section in a tabloid.

 

[banjo]

What ever happened to page 7 fella

 

[Scampi]

I'm not sure this decision means what either side think it does. Page three appears to have fallen victim to the same thing as nuts and the top shelf magazines. Who needs printed smut when the internet can provide you with a quantity and diversity of sexual images that could send you blind a hundred times over. Doubt it has anything to do with militant feminists or religious extremism and everything to do with cold commercial reality.

 

[Soulman]

It never added much to the world in the great scheme of things, neither will its removal bring about some kind of sweeping equality utopia. Its just another little erosion of choice, something thats been removed because some yoghurt-knitting, tofu-munching sandal-wearing Guardian readers got their undercrackers in a twist over it.

Quite what tangible harm it ever caused I'm at something of a loss - could you be specific ? The girls were doing it out of free choice, and some went on to have lucrative modelling careers out of it. Who's losing out ?

Spot on. Some like to keep abreast of the news.

 

[BadFish]

I'm not sure this decision means what either side think it does. Page three appears to have fallen victim to the same thing as nuts and the top shelf magazines. Who needsprinted smut when the internet can provide you with a quantity and divesity of sexual images that could send you blind a hundred times over. Doubt it has enything to do with militant feminists or religious extremism and everything to do with cold commercial reality.

I suspect you are right

 

[Easy 10]

This extract from an article about one of the campaigners sets out who is losing out better than I can. And yes, it's from The Guardian:

"If you don't like it, don't buy it: that's the response which has irritated Lucy-Anne Holmes the most since she started her campaign to end Page 3. It annoys her partly because it's so patronising (as if she'd never thought of that argument), but mainly because of the way it misrepresents the reach of those images. They began to affect her well before she'd ever bought a paper, she says, when she was 11, and her older brother brought the Sun home regularly. He'd sit around talking with friends "about the tits on Page 3", she recalls. "It was the Sam Fox era, and the girls were 16. I just assumed, from that age, that my breasts were there to look at, and that they fell short."

Her conviction that Page 3 was a problem deepened when she read Clare Short's account of campaigning on the issue in the 1980s. Short's battle led to her receiving scores of letters from women – including some who said Page 3 had been mentioned to them while they were being raped.
"Those women didn't buy the Sun either," says Holmes. "We're hearing about 15-year-old girls who have been walking down the school corridor and their boobs are being graded out of 10 compared with the model on the page. They're not buying it. The mother who walks into a cafe and has to explain to her six-year-old daughter why there's a naked woman in the Sun? She's not buying it. The paper isn't bought and read in isolation, and we all have to live in a society that says 'shut up and get your tits out'."
The argument that she must be jealous of the models has been levelled at Holmes too. "I've started actually saying, OK, let's reverse it. Imagine if on Page 3, for 42 years, we'd seen scrotums – young, big, hairless scrotums, and now a man was standing up and saying 'I've got sons, and they're walking down the street, and people are grabbing their balls and saying show us your balls, and they hate this. They've got self-esteem issues, and could we just stop the scrotum pictures?' Imagine if a woman then turned around and said 'you're just jealous'. It would be ridiculous."

PG

So according to Clare Short, Page 3 has been directly responsible for pre-pubescent hormonal schoolboys being obsessed with boobs, as well as several rapes. Blimey. She could probably link it to the Ebola outbreak and the death of Princess Diana as well, if she tried hard enough.

 

[spring hall convert]

Here's an idea, don't buy the Sun or skip page 3.

That's really easy to say as (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong) a straight male.

Have a read of [MENTION=3545]Peter Gummits[/MENTION] post above for the other side of the story.

 

[spring hall convert]

So according to Clare Short, Page 3 has been directly responsible for pre-pubescent hormonal schoolboys being obsessed with boobs, as well as several rapes. Blimey. She could probably link it to the Ebola outbreak and the death of Princess Diana as well, if she tried hard enough.

It interesting you focus on that bit, perhaps it is a little far fetched. I'm not sure this bit was though.

"Those women didn't buy the Sun either," says Holmes. "We're hearing about 15-year-old girls who have been walking down the school corridor and their boobs are being graded out of 10 compared with the model on the page. They're not buying it. The mother who walks into a cafe and has to explain to her six-year-old daughter why there's a naked woman in the Sun? She's not buying it. The paper isn't bought and read in isolation, and we all have to live in a society that says 'shut up and get your tits out'."
The argument that she must be jealous of the models has been levelled at Holmes too. "I've started actually saying, OK, let's reverse it. Imagine if on Page 3, for 42 years, we'd seen scrotums – young, big, hairless scrotums, and now a man was standing up and saying 'I've got sons, and they're walking down the street, and people are grabbing their balls and saying show us your balls, and they hate this. They've got self-esteem issues, and could we just stop the scrotum pictures?' Imagine if a woman then turned around and said 'you're just jealous'. It would be ridiculous."

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I must admit I do enjoy a sweeping generalisation every now and then.

I suspect the view of the vast majority of the general populations view of Page 3 is very much a "meh". I've never found it worrying, or considered it one of the great ills of our society here in 2015. But a small, shrill minority has seen fit to get it removed for a largely unworried majority, and no doubt a fair few who rather liked it (but are now castigated as drooling perverts if they ever dare admit to it). They could have simply ignored it, but that was never going to be enough for them.

I just find it a bit irritating when people like this win the day.

A shrill minority might have been vociferous about it, but I think that Murdoch and co removed it more because it was past its "sell-by date". So last century!!

 

[Easy 10]

It interesting you focus on that bit, perhaps it is a little far fetched. I'm not sure this bit was though.

"Those women didn't buy the Sun either," says Holmes. "We're hearing about 15-year-old girls who have been walking down the school corridor and their boobs are being graded out of 10 compared with the model on the page. They're not buying it. The mother who walks into a cafe and has to explain to her six-year-old daughter why there's a naked woman in the Sun? She's not buying it. The paper isn't bought and read in isolation, and we all have to live in a society that says 'shut up and get your tits out'."
The argument that she must be jealous of the models has been levelled at Holmes too. "I've started actually saying, OK, let's reverse it. Imagine if on Page 3, for 42 years, we'd seen scrotums – young, big, hairless scrotums, and now a man was standing up and saying 'I've got sons, and they're walking down the street, and people are grabbing their balls and saying show us your balls, and they hate this. They've got self-esteem issues, and could we just stop the scrotum pictures?' Imagine if a woman then turned around and said 'you're just jealous'. It would be ridiculous."

People shouting out "show us yer tits" in the street, or grabbing boobs, or holding up Page 3 and publically grading them, or who would go around grabbing (theoretical) balls if balls were on Page 3, are either immature sub-literate cretins or just genuinely obnoxious oafs. These people will continue to exist in our world whether there is a Page 3 or not.

And I'm sorry, but if the worse thing a mum has to do is explain to a 6 year old why theres a woman (not naked woman mind) with her boobs out, if her precious child happens to suffer the trauma of a glimpse of Page 3 in a cafe somewhere ?? Blimey, she's hardly going to be scarred for life is she.

'Get a grip' springs to mind.

 

[Easy 10]

A shrill minority might have been vociferous about it, but I think that Murdoch and co removed it more because it was past its "sell-by date". So last century!!

Yes, I think you're probably right on that. But the minority groups are still calling it as their victory to celebrate.

 

[Peter Grummit]

Yes, I think you're probably right on that. But the minority groups are still calling it as their victory to celebrate.

Yes, minority groups like women, message board warriors with empathy and Guardian readers. OK, I'll give you the last two.

I suspect we can all agree that this classic sums things up...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M&feature=player_embedded

PG

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

Yes, I think you're probably right on that. But the minority groups are still calling it as their victory to celebrate.

So your beef isn't about the tits it's about the minority groups?

 

[spring hall convert]

People shouting out "show us yer tits" in the street, or grabbing boobs, or holding up Page 3 and publically grading them, or who would go around grabbing (theoretical) balls if balls were on Page 3, are either immature sub-literate cretins or just genuinely obnoxious oafs. These people will continue to exist in our world whether there is a Page 3 or not.

And I'm sorry, but if the worse thing a mum has to do is explain to a 6 year old why theres a woman (not naked woman mind) with her boobs out, if her precious child happens to suffer the trauma of a glimpse of Page 3 in a cafe somewhere ?? Blimey, she's hardly going to be scarred for life is she.

'Get a grip' springs to mind.

The point I'm trying to make is that in my opinion, it's not really up to straight males to judge the effects of page 3 on general objectification and self-esteem of women.

I find it hard to argue that it is in any way a force for the good. The vociferous disapproval of it in some quarters may be more around what it represents than what it actually is, granted.

 

[El Presidente]

I can think of at least a dozen good reasons not to buy The Sun, but page 3 isn't one of them.