Following
the success of the Q&A debate on Abortion we have decided to pick
another topic currently hot on the Twittersphere, page 3.
Like
before the purpose of this
is to allow people to express their opinions without the usual rubbish
that often gets thrown around. With that in mind please do not abuse any
of the participants, feel free to make a comment but any nasty ones
will be removed.
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?
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?
Yes,
it's ridiculous. It was introduced to try and provide balance. 'Oooh
look we're representing women in a demeaning and sexualised way; let's
do the same with men.' Like that makes it ok.
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?
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. It's all around us.
What does it do to a young boy's sexual and emotional development do you
think when the first time he sees boobs, other than his mother's,
they're strapped to a 17 year old in a national newspaper, wedged
between stories about the X Factor, dodgy MPs and cheating footballers?
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
