Page 3 -Smut Or A British Institution?

Discussion in 'Discussions on Language, History & Culture' started by Mangosteen, Jan 20, 2015.

  1. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen Hold strong not

    What are everyone's thoughts on page 3?

    EDIT:

    I've heard arguments for page 3 from "why are women telling each other what jobs they can do? Page 3 is empowering", "it's innocent and old fashioned", "it cheers me up" and "it's sensoring freedom of the press to stop it"

    Arguments against I've heard are "it shows women in sexualised contexts displaying a value of women that is based on their sexual Appeal only." "because it shows women only ever modelling and shows men in a variety of roles which sends a unequal message of success to young girls In a national large news paper"

    Personally I wouldn't have a problem with page 3... As long as the sun showed pictures of women politicians and athletes in professional roles on other pages and if page 4 showed sexualised men (I'm talking topless David beckham wearing tight boxers that hug his trouser meat)
    That's equality.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2015
  2. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    What's on page 3?
     
  3. FunnyBadger

    FunnyBadger I love food :)

    My initial response was that if they ban page 3 then they need to bad showing picture of topless men in the paper. Either way doesn't realy bother me but yoy can't ban topless women and still show topless men. Nipples are nipples just because ours (mens) are useless shouldn't change that.

    I thought about its bit more and and actualy I don't think that even solves the real issue. They don't appear to have gotten rid of page 3 but are instead showing women in bikinis. Showing women in a bikini is pointless it's still objectifying women surely that's the issue not the boobs per say. Either scrap the whole idea (and stop showing topless men) or just carry on regardless but half measures are not the solution. That's my thinkings anyway.
     
  4. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen Hold strong not

    Up until today - photos of a topless girl in sexualised poses in a national news paper.
    Up till about 20 years ago, the girls were as young as 16.

    They're still gonna have girls in sexualised poses and clothing but not topless.
     
  5. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    Well past its sell-by date. I've got nothing against viewing women as sexually attractive beings but there is a time and a place.
     
  6. Moi

    Moi Warriors live forever x

    I think it's outdated for the modern World? Kind of scary that it's still worth the newspapers printing them? At least the girls have something topical to say :)
     
  7. Bozza Bostik

    Bozza Bostik Antichrist on Button Moon

    In this day and age Page 3 is totally ridiculous...they should just have full nudity and hardcore porn.

    (doesn't bother me at all...as long as there's one of men too).
     
  8. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen Hold strong not

    I think the issue is that page 3 doesn't have a regular series of sexualised men. I'm not for banning sexualised images of women, just discouraging media company using it in a news paper as a regular feature.

    Plus they're missing 50% of the market by not having topless sexualised men in the Sun. Women but "newspapers" too.
     
  9. Pretty In Pink

    Pretty In Pink Valued Member MAP 2017 Gold Award

    If I can't post it here, it's not acceptable where kids can see it.
     
  10. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    Sexualised pictures of men just aren't as comparable to sexualised pictures of women I think.
    Women aren't as 'visual' in that regard.
     
  11. Moi

    Moi Warriors live forever x

    Unless it's a handbag full of cake next to it's matching shoes
     
  12. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    I'd be more suspicious about social context than biological differences, but yeah.
     
  13. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    Bingo.

    I don't really have a problem with it, but there is a time and a place for viewing virtually naked people in a sexually suggestive light. Nothing wrong with seeing whatever crap the tabloid is trolling us with while waiting to pick up some food, but not when my kids or some other kids could see it.

    Besides, there's so much more nudity and what-not on t'internet. Makes Page 3 seem a bit redundant.
     
  14. Moi

    Moi Warriors live forever x

    I miss nightclubs :( sucks being old :(
     
  15. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    Lol :p.

    Well, there's one experience I'm glad I never had.
     
  16. Brigid

    Brigid Kung Fu Mother

    Never liked Page 3, happy that pictures of topless women are not going to be printed anymore. But then again, I find it really difficult to allow my sons to watch almost any short film accompanying things which are allegedly songs. I have a much bigger issue with what appears to be an involuntary impulse in the industry to constantly link "music" and women's behinds.

    In the context of a paper that is courted for its favour and viewed as pivotal in helping parties to get elected in the UK, it has always struck me as a depressing metaphor for women's influence on national politics.
     
  17. Moi

    Moi Warriors live forever x

    It's only because you didn't that you're glad?
     
  18. LemonSloth

    LemonSloth Laugh and grow fat!

    Yep. I was living the highlife!*

    *Playing D&D, eating Haribo :p
     
  19. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    I'm with Abeille on the music videos too. Can't casually flick across music channels during the day just in case my kids see something I don't think they should.
     
  20. Pretty In Pink

    Pretty In Pink Valued Member MAP 2017 Gold Award

    It's actually alright if you're handsome and have good chat. If not, don't go.
     

Share This Page