Only just caught back up on this thread (too busy being frivolous on other threads!)
Thank you all for the reasoned, intelligent, rancour-free debate. I am NOT on any soap box here, because although I deplore page 3, (and Choccie, I didn't seriously WANT naked men either - I was just merely making a point that it is ONLY women that are objectified, in this way, in these papers!) I can understand the opposing arguments.
However, if you are interested, there are T-shirts available, with proceeds going to breast cancer clinical research trials - otherwise I wouldn't be promoting them. (I'm not buying - or gaining in any other way from the campaign!)
An interesting debate to stumble on! All I can say is during the 20 years I lived in London I felt deeply uncomfortable travelling to work on the ube next to any guy who was ogling P3. At one point I lived opposite an estate of very expensive houses in Essex whose residents included West Ham FC players and their P3 girlfriends. Maria Whittaker also lived there at one point if anyone remembers her - she was around on P3 at the same time as Samantha Fox, but I think her career took a dive and she ended up with no money.
Also I don't get what the "glamour" is in getting it all out in papers and magazines and I am sure for some girls the P3 industry has been the gateway to harder things like porn. Every time they screen a TV documentary on this a lot of the girls say they did topless modelling first, then they were asked it they'd be interested in doing hardcore as they could earn more money.
Crikey..what interesting reading..all these different opinions..including my own..just goes to show what a diverse..and intelligent bunch of ladies we all are...and how different we all are but with the one thing in common...
"What an interesting debate! Some very different views expressed (thank you all), and without any personal rancour, thank you again."
Yes, thanks from me too... it has been interesting to read diverse views which inform my own reflecting on what is actually quite a complex topic (even if I remain an old fuddy duddy!). Thanks too for the humour.
haha, Choccie, just as well i aint in Finland id be telling em all to put it away hehe, ahhh but look , whether its sexual. titilisation, or just plain nudeisum for the hell of it, because lets face it some people do just like to be exebitionists, it just aint pretty is it ?!! who the heck wants to see wrinkly old men with their dangley bits hanging out, and likewise wrinkley old women with there rolls of flabby bits and strech marks lol, i cant think of anything more gross, BUT thats just me lol Perhaps i am a prude !!
Nah, id just be having nightmares!!! (honest!)
I have no probs with body images, just most are better off covered haha!
Interesting views by everyone though!
Some very different views expressed (thank you all), and without any personal rancour, thank you again.
For the record, I have sunbathed topless, and if I were ever on a beach warm enough to take off my thermals, I probably would again, despite having a lot more scars than I used to (just a WLE for me) and, much more obviously, an awful lot more cellulite and wrinkles everywhere else! But only if I weren't the only person doing it, I wouldn't want to upset the status quo on whatever beach I happened to be on.
I do not believe that you can equate topless models (what are they supposed to be modelling anyhow?) with normal people with normal bumps, lumps and imperfections. I am not and never have been any sort of 'model' physique. I wouldn't be in the least bit concerned (perhaps a little jealous mixed with a little proud of my babies) if any of my daughters decided to sunbathe topless, but I WOULD be bothered if they decided to 'model' topless in a smut-rag like The Sun. Similarly I'd be rather upset if they took up stripping, topless waitressing, prostitution or pornographic films.
I agree that page 3 is not just about showing off a female body, it is about objectification of women. And please don't suggest that there should be lots of pictures of young, nearly naked men in the papers to even things out, that is also objectification, and does nothing for me, personally. I much prefer to see sportsmen and women, fine specimens of humanity, looking fit and healthy - a lot more pleasing to the eye and soul, and a much more positive image for both sexes to portray.
There is no place in this day and age for the very out-dated practice of displaying nubile young women specifically for the purpose of men to ogle at them. As said above (sorry, forgotten who by), the ideal would be for body acceptance.
I went to Finland a few years ago and visited the local municipal swimming pool. Attached to that and every other public pool was a public sauna - mixed, of course. Signs outside clearly forbad the wearing of swimming costumes in the sauna "for hygiene reasons" - I kid you not! - but you were expected to bring in a towel for sitting on, again for hygiene reasons. Everybody did, but said towels were the size of a small hanky. It was not a sexual or titillating experience at all, and there were all ages and both sexes, skinny, fat, young, old, smooth, wrinkled, and it was great that nobody was bothered. THAT is the sort of reaction the human body should generate, not silly giggling or tittilation. Except, of course, when an individual is engaged in sexual activity - privately - with a chosen partner.
Sorry, rambling a bit. Now to find that petition and sign it.
I find it very difficult to believe that any woman would resort to unnecessary breast surgery simply to conform. I had a double mx in 2011 and insisted that I wanted immediate reconstruction. Not for sexual purposes or to conform and it was not an unnecessary procedure as had been diagnosed with bc for a second time. It was for ME, to make ME feel like a woman.
Don't get me wrong I don't like the sexualisation of women through topless photos but we make our own choices.
By the way before you judge me my recon went wrong and now I live breast free with no option to have reconstruction but I am still here, still fighting and if I turned the clocks back I would still want reconstruction.
Angelfalls I do agree that breasts are part of womens sexuality and of course women derive sexual pleasure from them. I was really talking about how breasts have become sexual objects in western culture. For those who are interested, there is an interesting book about the cultural history of the breast, called History of the Breast, by Marilyn Yalom. She suggests that breasts only took on sexual significance during the renaissance. Prior to that they were regarded as sacred, and purely for the purpose of nurturing babies.. It is also interesting that other cultures do not regard the breast as sexual, and in victorian society, the ankle and calf were objectified.
I feel this objectification is relevant to those of us with BC, because we do not fit the definition. I also think it is harmful to women who are made to feel inadequate, and then resort to unnecessary breast surgery simply to conform.
Good God, i have enough trouble getting my boobs out for the obligitory poke and prod every few mths at the breast clinic lol , so i certainly wouldnt be bounceing them willingly in any poor souls face, (wouldnt have pre BC either!!). and would def prefer if other people would not to bounce theirs in mine !! (Perhaps im a prude?)
Not realy , just fed up of not being able to turn on the tele,watch a movie, open a mag, or go to a club (not that i do thesedays ) without someone getting ther tits out, even to the poor ole bouncers !! ughhhhh, put em away people it aint relevent to any of the above, and to be honest what happened to the good ole days? when women were ladylike, femine ,and didnt feel the need to be posers ,or flaunt their assets, believe it or not MEN prefer the mystery and imagination of it all more than having it forceably shoved in their faces . They may google women who bare there boobs, BUT still today they realy dont like it when their wives and girlfriends do it!
Tolliebelle, youd def would be in the minority if you bared your boobs on a beach down here in Cornwall, and thats the way we like it! As for P3 , well its prob bottom of the pile in the grand scheme of things today , newspapers thank goodness are a dying medium ,does anyone buy them anyore? i read the news online so aviod the smut and rubbish.
Wow! I certainly opened a can of worms there! Sorry. Didn't expect such diverse opinions. I just wanted to let you know the campaign was 'out there' if you wanted to take part!
I do think it's wrong for page three to be just about topless women. if you want women to be able to "show off their (natural or surgically enhanced - whoops there's another can of worms!!) assets" why do they have to be topless? Why not dressed in lovely clothes (in HUMAN sizes!). Why are page 3 models never men? (though, of course, topless men are not revealing any of their sexual attributes!)
I've always been a bit ambivalent about page 3, until I read some of the arguments in the 'bare boobs out of the Sun' campaign. I'm mostly upset about the message we give our children about what women are 'for' that worries me. I wouldn't call myself a tub-thumping feminist, but this has made me think about women's pubilc image. After all, they've stopped the advertising assumption that it's always the women doing the housework (though the men finding it so easy is probably just as annoying - but that's another issue entirely!) so why always the women posing provocatively?
As someone who works in a primary school, it would be nice not to have to 'vet' the newspapers I put on the painting table, to remove the un-necessary boob shots. Art, Paintings, pictures of African ladies with no tops on etc are fine - there is nothing shameful about the naked form in appropriate context. But do we need busty girls posing provocatively in, and I stress this part: a NEWSpaper?
"Certainly dont think it causes anymore eating related issues than the stick insects that are paraded all over the fashion mags as they are really trying to make an impression of what the "perfect" body shape should be."
Don't mean to pick on you, but your comment about the eating issues leaves me questioning, are you saying you accept they may be responsible in at least some part for eating issues? If so, then how can we let them continue? Yes, it's one big fight, because we have a whole fashion industry to fight, along side media involvement, but do we sit there and just hope that our nearest and dearest don't have eating disorders? Or assume that it's only easily influenced people? Or that nothing can ever be done? Do we simply say, well, it's what people want to see? I personally don't think people walking around topless on a beach and a photo of a page 3 model are remotely related. I walk around my house naked, not because I'm a show off, but because I have the minimal body confidence and don't want it rubbing off on my kids. I want them to be able to accept every body. So I have worked very hard on not letting my children see that body angst. I'd go to a naturist beach if my husband, would be happy with it, because I really think it is where everyone is accepted. Topless sunbathing on a beach, i applaud, just never been to a beach where it's happened.
There are vast chasms between a topless model who has been placed in a paper, and a woman who's on a beach, not air brushed, not posing a certain way, because even sunbathers can only hold a pose for so long
Di, By your definition, then, it's ok to look, but not touch. But pornography is only "hands on" for the models/actors, not for the viewer/reader... So would that be ok in a newspaper? And would you be happy for minors to wander into a lap dancing club without being stopped? Because the fact is, minors can and do see page 3, as The Sun is supposed to be a newspaper and not an adult publication.
Nude scenes are only shown on TV after the watershed and are generally in an appropriate context, even if they may not be necessary to the development of the plot. As I've already said, topless pictures in a newspaper are the equivalent to female newsreaders appearing topless on TV news programmes. What's the difference? So if you accept one, you'd have to accept the other.
As the original poster said, this is all about topless pictures being inappropriate in a NEWSpaper...
Lemongrove, I absolutely agree with the majority of what you say. However, I would argue that breasts are very much part of a woman's sexuality and not just for men: breasts are erogenous zones and I know I certainly got a great deal of sexual pleasure from my breasts before BC (sorry if that's too much information!). But of course I understand that a woman's sexuality and the sexualisation of women are two very different things.
(Edited because, for some reason, most of my last paragraph disappeared...!)
I have to agree with dib I do not think the page 3 pictures are offensive either. I certainly do not think they belittle people who have BC never would have entered my head even if I hadn't had it and certainly doesn't because I have had BC. Children are subjected to topless women on beaches and it is not a big thing anymore to see topless women. 30 years ago it was more taboo to get your boobs out in public but not in this day and age in fact you are usually in the minority if you have a top on on the beach for whatever reason that may be. Obviously my opinion but do feel that setting up petitions brings more attention to these things. Personally I dont read the papers that have page 3 girls but have flicked through ones left in the canteen at work and really didnt notice the picture just passed it by without thinking about it. Certainly dont think it causes anymore eating related issues than the stick insects that are paraded all over the fashion mags as they are really trying to make an impression of what the "perfect" body shape should be.
Well I do think this issue is relevant to those of us with BC, and page 3 shouldn't be dismissed as a bit of harmless fun. I think one of the reasons that BC remains a taboo subject/something we keep to ourselves (and I was interested to read a post by someone on another thread recently, who said they do not like to discuss BC with acquaintances, lest they avoid her), is because our society have sexualised breasts. Instead of breasts being regarded as mammary glands designed to feed babies and infants, they have become first and foremost items for the entertainment of men. As a result, when a woman loses a breast, it is often difficult for others and often the woman herself, to still regard themselves as a sexual being. We should not allow ourselves to be defined as sexual beings/non sexual beings by men - that is a matter for ourselves.
pornography and prostitution are hands on,posing topless is for eyes only,massive difference.If you vote to ban page 3 are you also going to try to ban nude scenes on tele,programmes and films often have topless shots,often irrelevant to the plot.I would be happy without page 3 but i dont see why its offensive,just one opinion amongst many
dont like page 3... dont think there is any need for it in this day and age and OH is banned from bringing any so called 'news' paper with page 3 into my house.
the whole thing makes me cringe.... in not a prude and sunbathed topless for years but just think its a bit out dated and tacky to have page 3.
i know a numebr of papers done away with it many years ago and are still succesful so dont know why the remaining ones cant follow suit as there are many lads mags where the girls can show off their assets.... i have no objection to glamour modellling just dont see the need to have it in a newpaper.... wonder what we would say if the BBC posted a pic of naked boobies during the 10 oclock news every day!
Di, I don't agree that "pornography and prostitution are a world away from page 3": they are all elements of a sex industry which deals in the objectification of women and is controlled in the main by men, primarily for the sexual gratification of men. What do you feel the difference is?
Funmum3, I think the points you make about the harm which this type of picture can cause to a youngster's body image are really interesting. I hadn't even considered that angle. Now I'm even more convinced I did the right thing by signing the petition!
Body acceptance is something we should all strive for, I really believe that, and items like the P.3 picture are obstacles in body acceptance. It may seem like harmless fun, but to the girl in school who's a late developer, it's hurtful, when the lad who's dad let him look at p.3 all the time comes in and tells the girl how she's a boy because she's got nothing up top, how she's less than the girls with boobs, how she's less of a woman because she isn't well endowed.
"Girls" can also make a very good living out of pornography and high-end prostitution. Would you be happy for your daughter to be involved in either of these businesses, as long as she was making good money?
Would you be happy to see naked women on page 3?
If 15 year old boys are looking at page 3 at break time in school, should a teacher walk away because it's "just a bit of fun", or challenge them and take the newspaper off them? On what grounds?
The Sun purports to be a newspaper and not an adult magazine, so what is the rationale and justification for publishing these images? If you want to ogle women's breasts, buy Big and Bouncy or whatever soft porn publication caters for the needs of certain adult males, but let's not blur the boundaries here. That is the point of this petition.
In my opinion, there is very definitely a bigger picture here and none of the arguments I hear from those who support page 3 stand up. Which I imagine is why not one of the posters who is all for page 3 has responded to any of the relevant questions - because they just don't have any credible answers.
Page three is about young women with usually big boobs getting paid for their bodies whilst they can. Yes those who buy the sun ogle them, but the girls know what they are doing. Surely the best way to 'fight' any of this is to make it the norm for the human body ito be accepted in all states of undress and then there would be complete acceptance, similar to what goes on in nudust / naturalist camps and beaches. It is us as parents who install in children the belief that the naked human body is a no-no. Maybe this is what you should be petioning about.
By the way I never went topless on a holiday beach even before my mx, but I have seen ladies who have had one who do and in my mind that is how we should all be. Proud of our bodies with no hang ups.
Why not petition for the things that matter like NICE not allowing drugs that exist to be used because they deem the extra few months of life they give to a patient as not worth the expense - who the hell gave NICE the right to play GOD.
Ladybird, I agree there is a far bigger agenda and that is exactly what we're trying to discuss here.
Just because something has been around for years, that doesn't make it right. History is full of examples of this. Getting rid of out-moded and unacceptable practices is how a society develops, evolves and moves forward. Accepting them keeps that society firmly stuck in the past.
There are many reasons why I have never bought and will never buy The Sun; page 3 is just 1 of them.
If you want to go topless, why don't you? I don't mean to be provocative by asking this, but would like to hear your views as to why you can't. People with scars from appendicitis, e.g. don't have to feel ashamed, embarrassed or uneasy about showing their scars on the beach, so why is it different for someone who's had breast surgery? I find that very interesting and quite telling.
Ha ha ha whats the fuss? Don't we all have a bigger agenda to discuss here?
Page three models have been around for years! Decades, the last millenium!
Let the girls use their assets while they can. Good luck to them!
Don't buy the newspaper if you are offended. My opinion.
I'm jealous, wish I could go topless. Don't you?
Right lets get helping each other to overcome our breast cancer treatments.
Di, I don't think a page 3 girl dying of BC is really relevant to the discussion, unless The Sun showed her post-op with scars, or post-chemo with a bald head and steroid bloating, or post-rads with red, burnt breast/s. And I don't imagine for a second that that happened.
We're talking about whether page 3 is appropriate or not, empowering or sexist, tradition or antiquated, celebration or objectification.
Your comment, "at least they aren't stick thin", speaks volumes: in the majority of cases, women's images are only used in the press if they are a) stick thin, so get to keep their (or the fashion houses') clothes on, or b) curvy, voluptuous and inviting, but willing to "get their tits out"... Oh, and they must all be prepared to be air-brushed to within an inch of their lives, setting up and promoting an ideal which is impossible to achieve, even for them. Not offensive, unhealthy or insidious at all!
I agree with applestreet,its not offensive and at least they arent stick thin,theyre a decent size and weight,And a few years ago,a page three girl,i think her name was Angie,actually died from bc.
I'm just hopping on here because this has situation has interested me for a long time, the objectification of both women and now men.
The page 3 thing, for me, is old news. The Sun is a dispicable paper, and should be shut down, it's not news, it's tabloid trash, and always has been.
But in the bigger picture, yes, parents are allowing their children to look at and gawp at the page 3 models, and this does create from an early age some objectification. Unfortunately now, and I say unfortunately, because cases of anorexia and body dismorphia are happening in both boys and girls as a result of the pressure from media, young men are being objectified in a far more subtle way. Topless male scenes in afternoon viewing like the Merlin programme are permeating through. It's not just men being encouraged to ogle a woman's boobs, it's women being encouraged to gawp at a mans torso.
There is so much pressure in this century to look at certain way, and instead of becoming more educated and sensible, we're witnessing image related illness such as anorexia rise at a rapid rate for both young men and women.
So personally, the page 3 campaign is too small, and not hitting the right places. We need more campaigning for Body Beautiful for everyone, for there to be body acceptance, not eliteism. For every person, big small, short tall, muscular or not so muscular to feel acceptable and accepted(I shall now step. down from my soap box )
JCJ I agree with you, as I take a political view. Women are supposed to be equal to men, and yet here we are in the 21st century, and women are still getting their tits out for their gratification of men. Why are there no newspapers showing men with their tackle out? Answer: because the newspapers that objectify women, are owned by men, and men are therefore able to determne what is acceptable. No doubt someone will say, that these models are the ones with power because they are paid, but the only reason they can earn a living displaying their breasts, is because men have created and are able to maintain a market.
The argument that women models have power because they are being paid just doesn't hold up, I'm a woman prepared to get my tits out for money but would I get paid? The answer is nom because men control the market, and because I have a mastectomy it would be a turn off for the poor darlings.
Just my four penneth, to me they are sexualising young women, it is outdated and not appropriate for a 'news' paper. Now if there was a BC awareness campaign which celebrated and highlighted imagery of both men and women who have had an mx on page three in a positive manner, then that could be classed as news and make more sense..... Just my view;)
I'm not offended by your post, Applestreet, and I respect your right to express your own opinion. I just don't understand it.
Page 3 "girls" (I think they have to be women, or it would be child pornography), don't walk down the street topless because they would be arrested - why is that? My point is that if The Sun claims to be a newspaper and not a "lads mag", there should be no place for images which objectify and sexualise women; that is not news. Would it be acceptable for Fiona Bruce to appear topless on BBC news? Children can and do see page 3 because The Sun is a "news"paper, not a top shelf, soft porn publication.
The "tradition" argument is a thin one; bear baiting and foxhunting were traditions - that didn't make either of them any more palatable. It is also an argument used by those who continue the practice of forced marriages, honour killings and genital mutilation, extreme practices which are all about the degradation and control of women. Though obviously nowhere near as serious, I personally consider page 3 to be about the degradation and control of women, normalising everyday sexism so that it is seen as "just a bit of fun", "light" and entertaining. What exactly is so amusing about a photograph of a young woman showing her breasts?
As you say, I don't mean to offend anyone. That's just my opinion.
Hiya..Angelfalls..like I said in my post..no offence to anyone who doesn't approve of page 3...we are all entitled to an opinion...JCJ doesn't like page 3 and I think it's OK..this is an excellent topic to discuss..but page 3 girls don't walk down the front street with their boobs out!!!!..children do not see page 3..not in my house anyway..I agree with what you say..it's all about what's appropriate for any given environment..boobs on page 3 are a kind of tradition..it's just a bit of fun and with all the sh**e we have to put up with in life..especially ladies in our position...we need all the light things in life we can get...once again..no offence to anyone..just my opinion...
JCJ, I totally agree with you and signed the petition weeks ago. I can't really understand why anyone would think it's appropriate or acceptable for this kind of sexist image to be published in a "news"paper. I have no problem with topless women on the beach, but wouldn't expect to see a topless woman walking down the street - it's all about what's appropriate for any given environment.
Sorry original poster but I too agreee with Applestreet - in fact anything that raises breast awareness is no bad thing to me!
Now maybe if they could swap occasionally with David Hay's derrierre (Celebrity get me Out...) I'd not mind that!!
It's not the nude boobs per se. I've no objection whatsoever to people being topless or nude if they so wish, in appropriate circumstances. It is the fact that it's ONLY EVER topless women. All the men in those newspapers are clothed and doing stuff, not standing looking gormless in their underpants. What message does that send to young girls? The models in question are also not a true representation of 'normal' and therefore add another thing for young ladies (and older ones!) with body image issues to worry about.
The campaign isn't trying to stop men's mags or nudist beaches. It is just pointing out that, in this day and age, this is no longer appropriate for what claims to be a 'news'paper. (And I personally never buy them - because they aren't 'news' - but the majority of the population do buy them!!)
"Remember, we don’t mean any disrespect to women who choose to be glamour models, and we don’t think that all pictures of this type should be banned. But we keep wondering; what do children think when the pictures in Britain’s biggest selling daily newspaper show men, fully dressed, doing things in the world, and women just standing there in their knickers, looking sexy? If you want to illustrate how influential Page Three is in our society ask people these questions?
Can you name three female footballers?
Can you name three female company chief executives?
Now...no offence to anyone and apologies in advance to anyone offended by page 3 pictures..but..these are pretty girls showing off their assets...and good luck to them I say...you only live once and if they want to show off their bodies then fair enough..if anyone doesn't want to see page 3 then don't buy the newspaper showing it...what's it going to be next...no topless sunbathing..no nude beaches...we live in a nanny state as it is for goodness sake....remember..this is only my opinion..and as I've said apologies to anyone offended by page 3!!!!!!!!
Just in case anyone wants to join in the campaign to stop topless page 3 models. I have signed a petition. There are demos happening Today. Somehow, it seems even more relevant now I have had a BC dx!