Should page 3 be banned ?

12357

Comments

  • Glawster2002Glawster2002 Posts: 15,189
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    They were incredibly prudish, nitpick how you like... But that just drove the pR0n further underground. I see Page 3 as almost a last survival of prudery - as even seaside postcards have died out but Page 3 remains.

    The victorians didn't see themselves as prudish at all, however they were very moral.

    If you compare society today to even 20 years ago many people are fatr more prudish today than they were then, and even more so when compared to the 60s, 70s and 80s.

    I lived in Cormwall for several years in the early 1980s and it was common to see a lot of ladies sunbathing topless on the beaches then, I doubt very much the same would be true today.
  • Andrew1954Andrew1954 Posts: 5,448
    Forum Member
    Do people who want it banned understand what "banned" means? I suppose there must be some who want to live in a repressive state.

    How could it be banned I wonder? Act of Parliament? Using the obscenity laws? Both would face legal challenge under the right to freedom of expression amongst other things I would have thought.
  • Will_BennettsWill_Bennetts Posts: 3,054
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jra wrote: »
    A man showing his willy (if that's what you mean by being nude) is not the equivalent of a woman showing her breasts. Look a bit further down on a woman for the equivalent.
    Well I'm guessing what most get from page 3 is a bit of cheeky fun so I dunno on this page 5 maybe have a rugby player covering his modesty with a rugby ball or something ?
  • TrollHunterTrollHunter Posts: 12,496
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't consider myself prudish and I think nudity has it's place. I just don't think it's in a newspaper for the reasons explained in my previous post. It's a weird combination - like someone adding a free cherry to a pint of beer. Cherries are great, but not combined with beer and it's beer I was after when I bought beer.

    Are you saying that people specifically but The Sun for the news? As well as news articles, The Sun prints adverts, editorials, cartoon strips, TV guides, competitions, reviews, as well as breasts on page 3, so people purchase the paper for a multitude of reasons.

    For some, the fact that there's nudity in there is a bonus, for others it's the reason they buy it.
  • Cg_EvansCg_Evans Posts: 2,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think the SUN as a whole should be banned :)
  • AOTBAOTB Posts: 9,708
    Forum Member
    Cg_Evans wrote: »
    I think the SUN as a whole should be banned :)

    Without it, all life as we know it would perish.

    Seems a little extreme.
  • Cg_EvansCg_Evans Posts: 2,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AOTB wrote: »
    Without it, all life as we know it would perish.

    Seems a little extreme.

    I knew somene might say that lol
  • AOTBAOTB Posts: 9,708
    Forum Member
    Cg_Evans wrote: »
    I knew somene might say that lol

    I am nothing, if not predictable. ;-)
  • Jim_McIntoshJim_McIntosh Posts: 5,866
    Forum Member
    Are you saying that people specifically but The Sun for the news? As well as news articles, The Sun prints adverts, editorials, cartoon strips, TV guides, competitions, reviews, as well as breasts on page 3, so people purchase the paper for a multitude of reasons.

    For some, the fact that there's nudity in there is a bonus, for others it's the reason they buy it.

    I'm saying if I bought The Sun (which is a big if) then the reason I would do so is to read news since it is a newspaper. I'm not a tittering 12 year old school boy who gets his kicks on semi-naked women and need this ingredient added to things which are totally seperate. If I wanted to see semi-naked women I wouldn't be buying a newspaper, I'd go look at pictures on the internet or (more productively) get in a relationship. I just think it's an odd combination.

    You're right though. I'd never buy The Sun as it isn't aimed at me.
  • DadDancerDadDancer Posts: 3,920
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    PrincessTT wrote: »
    I'm not sure if you're referring to the No More Page 3 campaign, but that isn't campaigning to ban anything - it's asking the editor to choose to drop page 3 but it isn't asking for government to legislate on page 3. Maybe I'm being pedantic but to me there's a big difference between the two.

    I do agree with your other points though. People who think if page 3 ends then that will change society's towards women are very naive at best.

    it's all a charade, they want want it banned really but wan't want to conceal the fact they are a bunch of authoritarians, so they pretend they are asking the editor nicely to drop it . This petition has being going for 2 years now, it's probably the same people who have signed it multiple times. There is a good reason why petitions should have an expiry dates.

    Also they have already asked the editor nicely and he has said no, so it's time for them to move on and get a new hobby.
  • DaisyBillDaisyBill Posts: 4,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No it shouldn't be banned.
    Though, IMO, topless photographs (both male and female) are out of place in so-called newspapers.
  • 1fab1fab Posts: 20,052
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DaisyBill wrote: »
    No it shouldn't be banned.
    Though, IMO, topless photographs (both male and female) are out of place in so-called newspapers.

    I'm surprised it still exists, when higher-quality images are available online. It seems to be very outdated, a bit like those "saucy" seaside postcards that used to be around back in the 70s.
  • DaisyBillDaisyBill Posts: 4,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    1fab wrote: »
    I'm surprised it still exists, when higher-quality images are available online. It seems to be very outdated, a bit like those "saucy" seaside postcards that used to be around back in the 70s.

    I agree with that .It used to be seen as very daring in the 70's and 80's, plus some of the models were seen as very glamorous, minor celebrities in the same way as beauty queens were.
    As a female I've never had a problem with page 3 but at the same time it seems rather pointless now.
    I also have no problem with people starting/signing petitions on the subject, even though I wouldn't sign it myself. Everyone is entitled to express their opinion.
  • stoatiestoatie Posts: 78,106
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    sodavlac wrote: »
    What?

    People enjoy looking at images of other people who they find attractive and that's an expression of hatred to an entire gender? What bizarre logic could make someone arrive at that conclusion? :confused:

    Seriously, wtf?

    Do people who like looking at semi-naked pictures of David Beckham hate men?

    Does it only apply to looking at people and not other images and the groups and classifications they may fall into? If so why? Do people who like looking at images of Snowdonia hate mountains?

    Nope, but then they're not in the context of a newspaper whose entire journalistic outlook towards women is one of total reductivity. I don't think pictures of topless women are necessarily misogynistic- but I do think pictures of topless women in the Sun are misogynistic, because they are part and parcel of that entire thing, and are the acceptable face (and tits) of it. Women are, even in its reportage, primarily defined by age, attractiveness and number of kids. Though I don't reaslly get why it's alway the Sun and page 3 that gets the shit for it- the Star is far, far worse.
  • foonkfoonk Posts: 4,012
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I used to love reading the text that went with the photo. They went from "Naomi loves to run, especially naked...", to " Ashlee works in security. and can kill with one blow", and so on.

    I view Page 3 as a retro-whimsy.
  • DaisyBillDaisyBill Posts: 4,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    stoatie wrote: »
    Though I don't reaslly get why it's alway the Sun and page 3 that gets the shit for it- the Star is far, far worse.

    No one reads the star? :D
  • Miss XYZMiss XYZ Posts: 14,023
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Well I'm guessing what most get from page 3 is a bit of cheeky fun so I dunno on this page 5 maybe have a rugby player covering his modesty with a rugby ball or something ?

    Pictures of men used to feature on page 7 many moons ago.

    http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4922/1159/1600/page%207%20fella.jpg

    I'm sure there were 'Page 7' calendars too.
  • sodavlacsodavlac Posts: 10,607
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    stoatie wrote: »
    Nope, but then they're not in the context of a newspaper whose entire journalistic outlook towards women is one of total reductivity. I don't think pictures of topless women are necessarily misogynistic- but I do think pictures of topless women in the Sun are misogynistic, because they are part and parcel of that entire thing, and are the acceptable face (and tits) of it. Women are, even in its reportage, primarily defined by age, attractiveness and number of kids. Though I don't reaslly get why it's alway the Sun and page 3 that gets the shit for it- the Star is far, far worse.

    I don't understand why women being defined by age, attractiveness and number of kids within a particular publication shows any hatred for women or womanhood. It just means that at the time of reading, it's readership might be interested in those things.

    In Shoot magazine men are defined by how good they are at football. They don't look at the whole person either. It doesn't mean that the readership will then go on to only judge men by how good they are at football. Even if some nutty reader did then it wouldn't mean that they hated men, just that they only value certain things about them. They'd be thick, but it doesn't equate to hatred.

    Do you think readers of The Sun base their entire viewpoint of women on it? If so, it's readership must think every other woman is a pop star, actress or model.
  • DaisyBillDaisyBill Posts: 4,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    sodavlac wrote: »
    I don't understand why women being defined by age, attractiveness and number of kids within a particular publication shows any hatred for women or womanhood. It just means that at the time of reading, it's readership might be interested in those things.

    In Shoot magazine men are defined by how good they are at football. They don't look at the whole person either. It doesn't mean that the readership will then go on to only judge men by how good they are at football. Even if some nutty reader did then it wouldn't mean that they hated men, just that they only value certain things about them. They'd be thick, but it doesn't equate to hatred.

    Do you think readers of The Sun base their entire viewpoint of women on it? If so, it's readership must think every other woman is a pop star, actress or model.

    It's a good point, but Shoot is a magazine specifically about football. The Sun is meant to be a newspaper covering news in general, rather than just being good at one particular thing (posing topless, being sexy/glamarous). It's difrerent in a magazine such as Nuts or Playboy, which is devoted to that specific thing.
    Some people get offended when men are portrayed in a certain sexist way in adverts ,eg the coke advert, Mr Muscle (I'm sure there are many other examples) and really it's a similar situation.
  • ChipDouglas82ChipDouglas82 Posts: 6,700
    Forum Member
    Tas_Has wrote: »
    Yes, I believe it needs to stay off ALL newspaper/tabloid, and not just the Sun. What sort of message is this sending to our younger generation who can easily access a copy of this rag. If you want to continue to view your page 3 trash, move it online, or maybe to porn mags or somewhere where it's harder for children to get hands on these kind of filth.

    Ohh! Won't somebody please think of the children!!! :p

    Personally I don't think it should be banned, It's hurting no one unless you go out of your way to be offended by it.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 53
    Forum Member
    No. I do believe The Sun should drop Page 3 though. The Irish edition has already done so.
  • sodavlacsodavlac Posts: 10,607
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DaisyBill wrote: »
    It's a good point, but Shoot is a magazine specifically about football. The Sun is meant to be a newspaper covering news in general, rather than just being good at one particular thing (posing topless, being sexy/glamarous). It's difrerent in a magazine such as Nuts or Playboy, which is devoted to that specific thing.
    Some people get offended when men are portrayed in a certain sexist way in adverts ,eg the coke advert, Mr Muscle (I'm sure there are many other examples) and really it's a similar situation.

    Well I'd be interested to hear if Stoatie does think it's different with magazines like Nuts. I've never read Nuts, but I did 'read' Playboy once or twice in the past. I was actually surprised at how little of the content was pictures of naked women.

    I wonder if people's expectations of what a newspaper should be are anything to do with it. Obviously, the word 'newspaper' itself means it's paper with news on it and I believe The Sun itself uses that word. Newspapers have generally been somewhat formal over the years, although the modern-day tabloid could be said to have changed the definition. If it re-branded itself as a magazine, but was still a daily publication, was still low-cost and printed on cheap paper would people have different expectation of what The Sun was supposed to be doing? People who don't approve of it are not going to suddenly think it was a worthwhile publication if that happened, but less people might say it's meant to be this, or meant to be that.
  • DadDancerDadDancer Posts: 3,920
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DaisyBill wrote: »
    It's a good point, but Shoot is a magazine specifically about football. The Sun is meant to be a newspaper covering news in general, rather than just being good at one particular thing (posing topless, being sexy/glamarous). It's difrerent in a magazine such as Nuts or Playboy, which is devoted to that specific thing.
    Some people get offended when men are portrayed in a certain sexist way in adverts ,eg the coke advert, Mr Muscle (I'm sure there are many other examples) and really it's a similar situation.

    but the sun is now really a light entertainment daily, to call it a 'newspaper' is going some. And what about all the other none news stuff featured in the sun, like dear Deidrie, the cartoons, horoscopes, crosswords, TV guide, etc? How come no one is complaining about them, if the issue is that 'it's supposed to be a newspaper' :confused:
  • Poppy99Poppy99 Posts: 271
    Forum Member
    It's past its sell by date.
    Spot on. It is in the same vein as On the Buses, Love thy Neighbour and Benny Hill and they are long gone, and rightly so.

    I don't think Pg 3 would make someone go out and rape someone but it objectifies women in a really old fashioned way and has no place in a so called newspaper. Womens bodies are not offensive, it is not about that, it is just the general principle that a half naked woman should not be in a newspaper as a piece of visual wallpaper.
  • 1fab1fab Posts: 20,052
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Poppy99 wrote: »
    Spot on. It is in the same vein as On the Buses, Love thy Neighbour and Benny Hill and they are long gone, and rightly so.

    I don't think Pg 3 would make someone go out and rape someone but it objectifies women in a really old fashioned way and has no place in a so called newspaper. Womens bodies are not offensive, it is not about that, it is just the general principle that a half naked woman should not be in a newspaper as a piece of visual wallpaper.

    I think it's embarrassing for male and female newspaper readers, based on most of the people I know.
Sign In or Register to comment.