For those of you who don't know The Sun used to have boobies on page 3 of every "family" newspaper. Today they got rid of the boobs but replaced it with pictures of women in bikinis. So the porn is gone, but the objectification is still there.
There are conflicting interests here. It is objectification, but at the same time, if a woman wants to plaster her naked self all over a national newspaper, then that's entirely within her right as a human being and a woman, is it not? I found it to be in poor taste in any case, and just goes to show that The Sun is not a serious newspaper (not that I was ever under that illusion in the first place).
Good. It's a newspaper that anyone of any age can buy and I always disagreed with the naked page 3 thing. It should have been age restricted.
My opinion is that if a person wants to do this, they should be able to, just not in a mainstream paper like the Sun. Oh and no rape/assualt porn but the rest is fine.
Iv never brought the Sun before but if no one likes it then dont buy it, simple. Its not like the women are forced to do it or its against the law. Political correctness strikes again.
Are we thinking of the same paper? I thought the Sun was another tabloid that's only created for entertainment value.
Sorry, that came out wrong. What I meant was "some pieces of paper with nothing of worth in it that is bought by millions of people in the UK." ---------- Post added 20th Jan 2015 at 06:02 PM ---------- It is not about political correctness. I have no problem with porn as a medium. It's the fact that in things like page 3 Women are treated as decoration, as subordinate to men, as objects there to appease (pressumed) Male desires. A significant number of assualt/rape victims have had Page 3 mentioned by their attackers and this, combined with the fact that in the media, most women are there to have an effect on a male character proves that this is, at the very least part of the drip drip of society saying that women are less than men, less capable and there for decoration. This harms trans women as well as it sends the message that you aren't true women without boobs.
And yet in most soaps (shown well before watershed) there is treatment of men as eyecandy in scenes which have nothing to do with the plot so is obviously just there to titillate the majority female audience. On the likes of even drab shows like Emmerdale you frequently see hunky men walking around shirtless (and apparently baby-oiled) for no apparent reason. Now you could try to argue thats to add realism to the plot (as men might walk around naked) but the female characters are rarely shown walking around candidly in bra and knickers on a programme at that time of day. No equivalent outrage there. Perhaps its a non-issue. Perhaps feminists feel the men deserve objectifying or it somehow counters the balance. Who knows?
Yes, objectification of men is a problem. It's just that the objectification of men does not reflect existing attitudes in our culture that men only exist for another person, unlike women who do. And there is FAR FAR more objectification of women than of men. Also while there will be "female gaze" shots of men (like scenes), there will very very rarely be male charcters that only exist for female gaze, or just to get captured/killed to offend someone else. However the portrayal of men (for example) as always eager harms victims of male rape by helping the denial of the thing that's happened to them. In short while male objectification is a problem, female objectification is a bigger issue as it happens more frequantly, and with increased potency.
If you want boobs in a newspaper, that newspaper should then be classified as soft porn and moved to a top shelf, not easily accessible by children of all ages.
I don't necessarily buy into the idea that just because a man gets off on the sight of a naked woman he will be more prone to sexualising them in other environments and committing violence against them. Hell, most gay men watch gay porn or read gay mags, is that creating a massive problem of gay rapists? Similarly why are we not concerned about lesbians being influenced by this very same media and harming other women? It just seems to be an attack focussed squarely on straight men - it does come across as rather heterosexist and misandrist I must say. Now lets play fair though, say you were right and this sexualisation does contribute to violence. Then even still, this campaign is absolutely utterly 100% futile. Why? They were targeting one newspaper when this sort of thing is accessible anywhere these days. Its not going to stop rape, if anything it will mean the sort of perverts NMP3 are worried about will switch there "interest" online to get their kinky fix likely stumbling upon even more explicit and arguably misogynistic material. Question? Would you rather have our typical male Sun reader get off on a simple picture of a naked woman...or some rough/kinky porn (lets face it, most easily accessible hetero porn is these days). Neither is not an option I'm afraid as porn isn't going anywhere (much to the Conservative party's disappointment!). Soft porn or hard porn? Which would you rather? Its a bit like banning soft drugs which pushes people onto dangerous alternatives. Now this I agree on. I think the more sensible thing to do would be to move this away from children's reach and stick an age label on it. However if we are going to be restricting media based on the potential harm it may cause we would have to take similar action with pretty much all women's magazines which are in all likelihood damaging to women's esteem, body image and finances. I highly doubt we'd see them on the top shelf or age-restricted though. Hell throw in gay mags too! Lets ban them! My point is that it is very hypocritical of us to be pushing to ban "lads mags" without questioning other media.
The likes of wh smiths and most of the motorway service stations here actually do put lads mags on the top shelf with the front covers obscured. I'd be more than happy if magazines that had images in them of a sexual nature were indeed given there own section - lads mags, gay mags, etc etc
Ah, yes. The infamous page 3. You see, boobies turn a gossip rag into a mainstream newspaper. Because the inquirer would be a lot more popular with boobies.
If the models want to do it, then it's fine by me. Personally, I'm glad for the change, because newspapers are so visible and easy to get hold of for children. I do not have a particularly fond opinion of page 3 girls, but it is no business of mine to tell them they shouldn't continue to pose for the paper. My only real issue with page 3 is this: Why do they have pics of women in bikinis, but not of men in speedos? Why not both? If they're gonna show half-naked people, they might as well make it appeal to everyone :/
This is fantastic! I am only a teenager, but when taking part in things like art class or english I notice that several newspapers have had to be checked by teachers before they can be shown to the class. I know there is still a long way to go, but this kind of thing needs to be banned, it is not suitable to have this sort of thing displayed in a newspaper, if people want to see it they have other means, not buying a newspaper meant for people age 10 a (or younger ) and up :smilewave
A fair point. Probably a marketing decision made on the knowledge that the men going to buy the paper for the purpose of looking at Page 3 might in all likelihood be put off doing so if it turned into a "bisexual" publication due to homophobia. On this theme though there are non-age restricted female magazines available at height level with regular features of male objectification for titillation (Heat magazine's "Torso of the Week"). You know if anything thats just as bad, the title explicitly states its objectifying the man; dehumanizing them and reducing them down to their bodies or torsos.
Pleased as I am to hear about this, I'd rather see The Sun clean up it's shabby standards of journalism. It's a bloody awful rag.
It seems rumours of the death of page 3 have been exaggerated... The Sun has just tweeted tomorrow's p3.