Following
the success of the Q&A debate on Abortion we have decided to pick
another topic currently hot on the Twittersphere, page 3.
So now may I hand you over to @LadyFeckless (answers in green) and @TurnerInk (answers in red)
1) First of all, tell us a bit about yourselves.
I'm a freelance writer living and working in London.
I am a 31 year old accountant from Manchester, with a 9 year old son.
2) What daily paper do you read, if any and why?
2) What daily paper do you read, if any and why?
I don't read a daily newspaper. But I read the Sunday Times.
I read The Sun, The Daily Mail and The Financial Times. The latter is for work, obviously. The tabloids provide some light relief and also have similar political views to mine.
4) Why do you support/oppose the ban?
Page 3 needs to dropped. Today. By having women represented in this way sends a very dangerous message to young people. It says to girls 'this is all you're good for, this is what men want from you, this is what you need to look like.' At a time when the Police have released figures this week showing boys as young as 10 being arrested for rape and sexual assault, why fuel the perceptions of women/girls as being ready and available?
This is very difficult to answer briefly, as there are several arguments as to why Page 3 should not be banned. However, my main concern is the banning of things in general. As a society, we are far too quick to ban something for fear of offending someone. In a free society it is inevitable that some people will do things that we do not like. It’s the trade-off we make to lead lives that we choose for ourselves. If we ban Page 3, I would question of where do we draw the line? Do we ban everything that offends someone? No, of course we don't. If Page 3 is abolished, I feel it would be adding to the 'nanny state' that is already so prevalent.
5) Would you want the Page 7 Fella banned if it was still around?
No, of course not. They should bring it back. There are similar items in women's magazines still, yet no one ever makes a complaint about these. Topless man, or topless woman. Makes no difference. Feminists campaigned for years for equality, yet they are trying to take this equality away by banning Page 3.
6) These women choose to do this, is this not feminism? Women who have been quoted as saying they enjoy what they do, earn well and feel empowered.
Please, let's not go down the feminism route. It's not about the women. If they want to feel 'empowered' (yeah, right) stripping their clothes off, go and work in a strip club. Being anti page 3 is not being anti strippers or anti women's choice. It's about being anti strippers in a national newspaper.
Exactly. It is all about freedom of choice. I have no desire to be, nor have I ever had any desire, to be a Page 3 girl. However, this is my choice, no one else's. By the same token, if a woman chooses to become a glamour model, that is also her choice and no one has the right to tell her otherwise.
7) Has the phone hacking scandal and the links to The Sun, with the most well known page 3 ladies, played a part in the recent surge in the no campaign?
No, I don't think so. I think intelligent, developed people are realising that images of half naked, sexualised and provocative women in a readily available national newspaper has no place in a modern progressive society; much like smoking in cinemas, the use of the N word on national TV and putting homosexuals in prison for being gay. I think in a few years time our children will look at us aghast and say "there were topless women? In a national newspaper?" And we'll have to explain why it took so long to get rid of it. It's something out of the Benny Hill/Carry On era. It's archaic. It needs to go.
I can see people using this as an argument, however I can't see how it has any relevance at all.
8) People have choice, what do you say to those who suggest that if you don't like it, don't buy it?
I agree with this completely. There are very few things that offend me. In fact, there is nothing that comes to mind that offends me. However, to illustrate the point, I don't like One Direction, so I don't buy their albums. By the same token, I can't stand TOWIE, so I don't watch it. The same should apply to newspapers.
9) What damage can Page 3 do?
Remember when The Sun had a countdown to the day Samantha Fox was 16 so they could show pictures of her topless? I mean how disgusting is that? These Sun readers are the first to be outraged if a paedophile moves to their town. But think leering over a 16 year old's naked breasts is perfectly acceptable; harmless fun even. What's also particularly excruciating is the copy that now accompanies Chantelle, 17, from Birmingham where she gives her 'opinion' on a current event. "What's happening in Israel right now is awful" she opines. "There needs to be a ceasefire immediately". It's hard to take anyone seriously when they're standing in a Primark thong, looking alluringly into the camera, layered in lipgloss with their nips standing to attention. It's all about context. Pornography - and these images are pornographic which ever way you want to wrap it up - should be something that only adults should be able to get their hands on. Not children.
I don't see that Page 3 can do any harm at all. There have been arguments that Page 3 is linked to cases of rape and sexual assault. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim and I just cannot believe there is any causal link between men viewing pictures of topless women, and specific acts of violence against women. It should also be pointed out that, to submit to the idea that Page 3 causes rape and sexual assault, is to remove some of the blame from the people who perpetrate these abhorrent crimes. Completely wrong in my opinion.
10) Please summarise your thoughts.
Get rid of Page 3 now.
If anything, Page 3 shows women that they can become independent women with fabulous careers, who have no need to be financially dependent on a man. I do not see how this can be a bad thing.
My summary
I have to admit that I had a very one sided opinion coming in to this debate. Firmly in the yes to page three camp. I had the view that this was another case of banning something that offends someone and I am fed up with that. However @TurnerInk has made me think a little (wipe that smug look off your face please). Good news page three lovers, I still think banning it is the wrong thing to do. However, this is partial nudity distributed in the media.
My solution would be simple, allow them to run page three or as in other papers topless pictures wherever they want but have age restriction laws associated with the content. Have a think, would you want that level of nudity on a TV show at 8am? Not that there is because they aren't allowed to. With the guidelines in place they can be circulated to the print media to follow. This may have the added benefit of protecting famous people from being "exposed" for topless bathing on a private beach.
So everyone could be happy, children protected from exposure to unsuitable images and the models can carry on with their career choice. What do you think?
Robert
For more from I Like Being Right follow us on twitter, @ilikebeingright or join our Facebook page
"If anything, Page 3 shows women that they can become independent women with fabulous careers, who have no need to be financially dependent on a man. I do not see how this can be a bad thing." I actually find this statement beyond depressing. Let's hope you never have a daughter. I might suggest that young women are encouraged to take up careers (and as this is 2012 I thought a career would be a given) where they can find purpose and fulfilment (rather than cash). Something like a lawyer, teacher, social worker or doctor would be better. And why we're at it we might want to teach our young men to be respectful of women. (And vice versa). That might, just might, lead to less sexual assaults where a guy thinks he can help himself to whatever he wants. But that's hard to do when a national newspaper thinks its acceptable to peddle soft porn on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteI agree. How is being a page 3 model not being dependent on a man? You are having your photos taken for the pleasure of men! You are dependent on men!
DeleteWell, I know plenty of women who like the pictures as well. Modern times and all.
DeleteYeah, I'd assume the majority are men though. But I suppose if the woman feels empowered and independent by modeling, then good for her.
DeleteBig fan of Lady Feckless' knees, love to see 'em on Page 3.
ReplyDeletePutting an age limit on newspapers would have no effect. As @TurnerInk said "People still see it whether they buy the paper or not. It's left on the train, on the kitchen table, in the school playground".
ReplyDeleteSchool playground? If age restricted it shouldn't be there. In terms of kitchen table ect that is down to the parents. You can't legislate for parental choices like that. I watched the terminator films at 12 for example.
ReplyDeleteInteresting points on both sides, although I think it is worth pointing out
ReplyDelete1) The most recent No More Page 3 campaign isn't actually calling for a ban, but is asking the current editor of The Sun to revisit an editorial decision made 42 years ago. He can obviously choose to ignore it.
2) I think the validity of the other points depend on whether you see newspapers as just another consumer product, or whether you believe they fulfill a higher social function as an important part of a representative democracy.
"I don't see that Page 3 can do any harm at all. There have been arguments that Page 3 is linked to cases of rape and sexual assault. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim and I just cannot believe there is any causal link between men viewing pictures of topless women, and specific acts of violence against women."
ReplyDeleteI'd like to counter this point. The Page 3 campaign, as I understand it, is not trying to specifically combat these awful acts of violence - it is, instead, combating ideas and attitudes towards women which perpetuate problems such as violence against women. For example, as you rightfully say, page 3 doesn't cause somebody to rape somebody. But it reflects the underlying sexist attitudes that still exist in modern britain - attitudes such as blaming victims of rape, labelling women as 'slags' while men who sleep around are glorified as 'lads', generally glorifying 'lad' behaviour and 'banter' where humour is based on misogyny. Attitudes where it's okay to leer at a topless woman, in public. I'd say the overwhelming majority of people who call a girl - who wears a short skirt, or sleeps with lots of boys - a slag, are not rapists! However how can we ever legitimately, and truly effectively, combat these problems while these widespread attitudes and opinions not only exist all over the country - from building sites to the house of lords to classrooms to police stations - but are acceptable, glorified and fiercely protected as being a 'national institution' or an example of 'free speech'. Yes, we should have free speech, but just because a newspaper CAN say what it likes, CAN print whatever photos it likes, I just don't think it should. I don't have to buy the paper, I wouldn't because I don't agree with it! But by stopping page three, the Sun would be making a stand and saying to the world: sexism and sexual objectification is NOT okay and has no place in our society.
There's no way we could plausibly ban Page 3, apart from, as you say, instilling guidelines with regards to age-appropriate media. The campaign is asking for the Sun to decide to remove it, as a stance against sexism and as a symbol that we have moved on from a bygone era where these attitudes and ideas were acceptable.
Wholeheartedly agree.
DeleteAs regards it being harmless I will add some personal notes -
ReplyDeleteI grew up with page 3. I have no idea at what age it started coming into our home but I remember it as always there. I remember my Dad being a big fan of Linda Lusardi too. My mum had tiny boobs and they were a lttle worse for wear (She felt) after feeding my brother. She was never happy with her appearance and I know there will be a multitude of reasons for that, but imagine if as a man you felt somewhat unhappy with the size of your penis and your wife was coming home everyday with a newspaper containing pictures of sizeable ones?? My Mum and Dad divorced when i was 14 and my Mum had surgery, breast augmentation, within the year with some of the proceeds from the sale of the house. I wonder why?!
I remember, as young as 11 being really worried that my breasts wouldn't grow to look like the "normal" ones in the paper and it stayed with me. Now added too by my Mum's surgical enhancement. I had my babies in my 20s and breastfed both for ages after which my small but perfectly formed boobs were really rather sad in my eyes. I grew so self conscious of them (and I am a confident, educated high achiever I will add and not at all unattractive otherwise) that I would keep my bra on during sex with my husband and wore gels bra's constantly. At 34 I too had breast surgery. I have never regreted it, I am very happy with my breasts, but I am now realising the social conditioning that lead me to that decision. To go under the knife purely for cosmetic reasons.
I worked in Neonatal intensive care for 11 years and did lots of breastfeeding support and teaching. Some women in the country have such a messed up relationship with their breasts. They are convinced that they are for and about sex and its then not difficult to see why they struggle so much with the idea of feeding their child with them in this country, where boobs are news but put them in a babies mouth and you will be asked to leave a cafe immediately!
In the last few weeks I have encountered page 3 of the Sun in the hairdressers whilst waiting for my partner folded open on page 3. In an NHS clinic and in the daycase where I have sat trying to put a drip in a patient who looked mortified whilst the man next to him read page 3 of his Sun wide open and pointed straight at him. I felt wrong straight away, like checking if I was dressed, suddenly unprofessional and not taken seriously not to mention the other patients discomfort.
Anyway, enough of my own stories. i hope you will appreciate that I am not trying to make everyone think like me, simply illustrating for those who are sceptical, the affect the images on Page 3 can have. My daughter is now 11. I want better for her. I don't want anything banned but please lets just be sensible and take some responsibility for what we are putting out into the world now. No more page 3 please.
'independent women with fabulous careers' - in fact the Page 3 girls are paid only £200 - £300 for the shoot, and the evidence is that their options for future careers are then severely limited, except in the sex industry. Apart from a lucky few, the path is generally towards more hard-core work, alcohol and drug abuse - not surprising when your sense of self-worth is based on de-humanising yourself for the entertainment of men. I don't mean to be patronising towards these women, but they are too young to realise the impact on their lives of one act which will forever define them. I know, because I did it in my early twenties - I was flattered and maybe insecure. And my insecurity was created 100% by seeing topless women in the newspaper in my own home when I was entering puberty and just beginning to develop as a woman. I had no idea how degraded I would subsequently feel after doing it myself. All I can say is thank god it wasn't for a national newspaper, and it was before the internet, so I can keep it a secret. A national newspaper should not be exploiting young women's insecurities or need for male sexual attention, we are shamed as a society by giving our young women this 'choice'. And just because it's 'a bit of fun' for the lads.
ReplyDeleteYou know this for a fact do you? I take it you have hard evidence to back this up? Face facts, some women want to do this. The issue is exposure to minors not what they are doing.
Delete