• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

keeping a breast of history

B

BigT

TS Member
So it is with great sadness that it's been reported that the great institution of page 3 in the UK's largest paper The Sun has come to an end.

Yes it was old fashioned and largely irrelevant now with all the porn on the Internet but I always liked the way it stuck two fingers up the feminists and the Frankfurt school establishment that have been putting pressure on it for years.
Anything that gets up the nose of Harriet Harperson has to be a good thing.

Let's not forget the famous faces it has given us Linda Lucardi, Sam Fox, Melinda Messenger and of course Jordan.

So RIP to yet another freedom of speech and expression, soon we will all obey master.
 
I definitely hate the s*n and it's so called "journalism", but I do think the movement to ban page three was a bad thing for free speech and would've (shockingly if you know anything about my views on the paper :tearsofjoy:) morally backed the paper had they decided not to give into pressure, even if it was something as trashy as page three was.

I don't understand the ideals of so called progressives who believe that banning something is the way forward, the concept of free speech being an important aspect of humanity seems to have been lost to the majority of this countries soft left faux "liberals" that at times make me ashamed to be considered left wing. Freedom of expression should be for all people worldwide. Even if it is something as trashy, cringey and outdated as page three was.
 
I've kept largely on the fence about Page 3 and the campaign because I've wanted to understand it from every angle possible.

Firstly, as a feminist, I firmly believe that the women featured in Page 3 have the right to bodily autonomy and integrity, having that right to do what they want with their body and giving their firm consent to being photographed and filmed in media such as Page 3, something I shall never judge them over. That's something the campaign and many other critics failed to understand alongside that men and women are able to look at a naked woman, maintain their respect and not immediately objectify the person; it's their choice, one that isn't necessarily and automatically sexist, to enjoy looking at a woman's body just as it is the women's choice to be featured and that's just impossible to regulate.

And whilst I may have felt uncomfortable from time to time casually seeing the spreads in everyday places, that didn't (and still doesn't) impact upon my beliefs as it's my own problem, not theirs.

On the flip side for me, however, I don't believe newspapers are the right place to show topless models when they're discussing inter/national stories on whatever scale of serious or farce, and it can be considered exploitation to use a woman's body to sell papers, which is something The Sun's editor David Dinsmore continued to do. Men's magazines already fulfil and are dedicated to the topless/scantily clad glamour model content for example. The newspaper is available for purchase by people of all ages too, including children, and has had the power to negatively impact on how a woman is aesthetically perceived by vulnerable and impressionable younger people. There's also the fact that, up until recently in women's tabloid magazines that I personally don't condone, men were never shown topless in the UK tabloid papers in a sexual manner like women were.

So whilst Page 3 is truly problematic on how it can be perceived by the public as both a positive and negative institution, I consider it mostly harmless in the grand scheme of things* and a freedom of expression form for women. It's just a shame that it's featured in a newspaper which still expresses outdated, sexist and judgemental beliefs about a woman's looks and role more than expressing interest in her own agency and purposes (work, etc) in this current day and age.

*Grand scheme of things being modern society's still scary attitudes to sexism, objectification and sexualisation.

 
Last edited:
Thing is with this, yes showing uncovered reasts "sticks two fingers up at feminism", as @BigT says, yet now they're just going to show pretty/attractive women in bikinis... Which basically does the same thing if you ask me. It seems to me like it conveys the same message, just within a less explicit way.
 
How is a business CHOOSING to change its product to try to save its declining sales an attack on free speech? They've not been banned from doing it, their offices haven't been attacked with machine guns, and anyway, the internet has all the nipples you could ever care to look at and more, for free.

On the other hand, the "there's no place for porn in the news" argument gives the rag far too much credit. Page 3 was/is used purely and simply as a way to make the paper's views palatable. It's much easier to swallow their fascist bile when it's presented with a topless female. It gives it a friendly face to appeal to people with.

It's not something to celebrate over though, media objectification still exists, and if anything, now the paper won't use topless photos, their particular brand of objectification is more insidious and less obviously 'wrong'. They, like other papers and the 'lads mags' they've more in common with than actual newspapers still use the female body as simply a way to catch the eye and present opinions that otherwise would not be accepted. Page 3 may be dead but there's a lot of other pages. It'll be time to celebrate when Murdoch finally pulls the plug on the evil rag completely.

The "kids can buy it" argument is a bit weak considering the internet is a thing that exists, I suppose a good idea would be to do what they do with lads mags, only sell them to over 18s. You could say this would be keeping the young away from news, but let's remember what rag we're talking about. A rag so toxic that many in Merseyside still refuse to even type without censoring its name, lest it be seen as promoting it.

I've also got problems with people celebrating it as if they're freeing women. On one hand, it might make a small net benefit towards creating a society in which women are actually valued for more than their breasts, but on the other, it's a job for (mostly) working class women, and the models usually are happy with the job, saying it boosts their confidence, and who wouldn't want to be paid for just being attractive and standing in front of a camera? The problem isn't with the photographs themselves, it's how they're used, and who cares about them. Because personally I've always found men salivating over girls young enough to be their grandchildren to be creepy. The hijacking of the free the nipple campaign is embarrassing, but unsurprising (see last paragraph).

Interesting how the original post mentions the 'Frankfurt school establishment' (cultural Marxism klaxon (funnily enough The Guardian have a great piece about how stupid this on their website) and how no more page 3 means we'll soon all be conforming and obeying 'master'. Rupert Murdoch owns a frightening amount of our media, the idea that a school of left wing academics has more sway than him and the other huge conglomerates that own pretty much everything we buy is hilarious. But exactly what he wants people to think. "Come buy my paper, stick two fingers up to the establishment by making me richer and more powerful, and by swallowing my views". Sometimes things have to go in order for society to evolve, we're moving on from the 50s and realising women are people too. If it's time for page 3 to die, it's not because the 'do-gooders' (bloody do gooders, eh, trying to end objectification of half of society) and feminists have won. It's because society as a whole has realised it's stupid.

We live in a weird society that exploits women sexually, then when it's criticised for doing so defends it as free expression and as a celebration of women's beauty. Then shames women who express their body or sexuality publicly (and even in private) when they're not selling a product or doing a photoshoot, unless it's for porn, which these hypocrites are always against. It's built in to our society from the bottom to the top, ingrained at every level, it's a long way to go, but if losing page 3 helps in any sall way us get past this, good.
 
It'll come back if enough people stop buying it. The Sun is the one of the worst newspapers in the world, but it has always largely chased what is popular.
 
Yeah! Bloody establishment, censoring those brave pornographers and shutting down free speech!

...oh wait, the owner of the actual newspaper himself tweeted: "Aren't beautiful young women more attractive in at least some fashionable clothes?" and also "I think [it's] old fashioned".

Err...
 
I find it laughable people are up in arms about this, to the point of considering boycotting it. This of all things, compared to everything else they've done. Turns out you can make up any nonsense you want, no matter how evil , false or damaging, and it's ok, but take away a teenager's nipples and it's a step too far.
 
Only the second best trolling by scum this year, what with Dapperlaughs already announcing retirement was a joke.
 
It's true, nipples have returned.

We don't have the sun lol, just caught the last bit of an article about it on the news.
 
Wonder what else they're bringing back. Entrapping g-list 'celebrities' in dug scandals? Hiding cameras in people's bathrooms? Cheering on war crimes and 'sponsoring' missiles? Telling 'the truth' about the Hillsborough disaster? Endangering society by claiming straight people can't get AIDS and anything saying otherwise is 'homosexual propaganda'?
 
Posted by the ever-astute Graham Linehan on Twitter.

B79jBTSIcAAjJsC.jpg:large


Just look at his cheeky face! Like The Sun, he knows what young women are for!
 
If the Sun was that bad it wouldn't be the UK'S most popular newspaper.
You might not agree with the content but I feel the same reading the guardian or independent.
It and the Daily Mails readership tends to suggest that a lot of people agree with their viewpoint.
Personally I take everything I read in print with a pinch of salt as your normally just reading a one sided view point of the author.

I'm glad to hear The Sun backtracked if that ever was the decision to drop it, unfortunately it does look a bit like a publicity stunt which is sad they are using something as controversial as page 3 to do that.
Long gone are the days when I was actually interested in looking at page 3 and I total get the argument whether it should be in a newspaper at all but I have to say some of the reaction from the bra burners has been hysterical since Monday.
To me it's a bit anti establishment and politically incorrect which is why the reference was made to the Frankfurt School.
Interesting to Google that one if you have a spare hour and read a few different takes on it, not just the completely signed up to it Guardians.
 
BigT said:
Interesting to Google that one if you have a spare hour and read a few different takes on it, not just the completely signed up to it Guardians.
Click to expand...

Nah, I was convinced when I saw that Britain's most prolific-ever sex offender was a fan. What more virtuous recommendation do you need?
 
The Sun is popularity-chasing, side-changing falseness. It is not unusual for such a paper to have many fans.
 
After all the free publicity they got for not having topless women in it, they restart the topless photos again, extending the media coverage. great idea marketing department.
 
Clever marketing.

1) get your sister paper the times to run a story on no more page 3.
2) watch twitter/facebook explode with conversation about.
3)all the other papers and tele talk about the story and most importantly THE SCUM. Sorry
4) Continue as normal.


This paper will never change.

To say its the leading newspaper in Britain. Newspapers in their current form have been dying for 20/30 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top