Poll: Should Page 3 be banned?
Poll Options
View poll results: Should Page 3 be banned?
yeah for the banter
24 27%
no fck that shit
66 73%
Voters: 90.
Page 1 of 11
#1
Page 3 is the third page of a gross newspaper in the UK called The Sun. Traditionally it will have a photo of a topless glamour model on it and her opinion of a current day piece of news.

Shoould this be banned though?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/after-44-years-it-is-time-that-the-suns-page-3-went-the-same-way-as-dapper-laughs-9864098.html


Apparently it's sexist and promotes violence against women. I'm torn on this issue because whilst I don't particularly like Page 3, or The Sun, the women are not being forced into posing topless at knife point. It's a career for these ladies and they can make some decent money as a glamour model. Whilst it does sexualise the female body, sexualisation isn't automatically a bad thing especially when the women involved are voluntarily getting their kit off in able to make money. Or could this issue be solved by selling the sun less openly...like not selling it to kids under 16 and keeping it on a high shelf?

Banning it outright could lead to a very frugal and Victorian society where attitudes about sex are very negative and stuff doesn't get talked about, and I think we should be moving towards a more open and free society.
Last edited by EndTheRapture51 at Nov 17, 2014,
#2
I don;t read the Sun, therefore I am already boycotting it.

EDIT: Even though I support the concept of boobs, and for a reasonable rate, am willing to work as a handbra for any women who could cope with having me follow them around holding their boobs all day.

This would be 0 women
Last edited by slapsymcdougal at Nov 17, 2014,
#6
I think so. The issue isn't so much the boobs as much as it is the boobs being there pretty much only for the titillation of men. Sexuality isn't a bad thing, but when sexuality is presented as something there for the entertainment of men, like page 3 is, then we have a problem.
#7
Quote by BelowTheSun
I think so. The issue isn't so much the boobs as much as it is the boobs being there pretty much only for the titillation of men. Sexuality isn't a bad thing, but when sexuality is presented as something there for the entertainment of men, like page 3 is, then we have a problem.


I'm friends with a couple of lesbians who love page 3...how does that factor into it?
#9
i think the toronto sun has a shittier version of that but i dont know because the only use i can see the sun having is toilet paper/bedding for the homeless.
#10
I boycott the Sun mainly over Hillsborough (I'm a Scouser in origin/birthplace) but yeah, I support the ban of Page 3.
#11
I always thought the Sun was created as a way to distinguish people not worth caring about from people worth caring about.

So yeah I genuinely don't care about it.

But I support the ban.
#12
Quote by ultimate-slash
The best solution would obviously be to include dick pics in the papers.

No vag, no dick pics.

Nipple equality, you fascist.
#14
Nah I don't think so. It's gross and definitely not about "representing her sexuality" or some shit like that, but y'know, free expression and all that.
#15
i legit had no idea this was a thing

why am i not even surprised its a thing?
#16
Quote by EndTheRapture51
I'm friends with a couple of lesbians who love page 3...how does that factor into it?

oh my god you're clueless. Or were you doing a character or something? Cuz the fact that I would think you're serious says something about you and that's still not good.
#18
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
oh my god you're clueless. Or were you doing a character or something? Cuz the fact that I would think you're serious says something about you and that's still not good.


Well no...I do have lesbian friends in my social circles, and I've been with them on occasions and she'll pick up a copy of The Sun or Nuts or whatever and have a gander at it. Obviously it is still made primarily for British builders and lads but it doesn't mean people of other genders and sexualities cannot appreciate and look at it, does it?
#23
They should carry on doing it but involve the whole family by having a contest everyday where you can design a bikini top that will be crudely photo shopped over the woman's chest.
#24
There's this awful columnist in the Mail, Amanda Plattel, whose entire column is based around belittling and ripping into the lives of celebrities and politicians, and then occasionally she'll have a go at a "vicious internet troll" without realising the irony of the situation that she's basically getting paid to troll the rich and famous as her job.
#25
The Sun is a piece of shit newspaper anyway. I don't buy it so I wouldn't notice either way. But I personally don't think it should be banned.
#26
Quote by EndTheRapture51
Well no...I do have lesbian friends in my social circles, and I've been with them on occasions and she'll pick up a copy of The Sun or Nuts or whatever and have a gander at it. Obviously it is still made primarily for British builders and lads but it doesn't mean people of other genders and sexualities cannot appreciate and look at it, does it?

Nah, posing it in this light doesn't make you any less clueless. First off, just cuz you're friends with uncle ruckus, that don't make it okay to be a white supremacist. Second, just cuz you can understand the concept of homosexuality (to our surprise), doesn't mean that a sexual object will suddenly turn into a representation of female sexuality. It's still a page that exists for the entertainment of our cultural concept of 'masculine', first and foremost. You turning this into some sort of "but women do it too! Men are objectified too!" is very, very clueless.
#28
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
Nah, posing it in this light doesn't make you any less clueless. First off, just cuz you're friends with uncle ruckus, that don't make it okay to be a white supremacist. Second, just cuz you can understand the concept of homosexuality (to our surprise), doesn't mean that a sexual object will suddenly turn into a representation of female sexuality. It's still a page that exists for the entertainment of our cultural concept of 'masculine', first and foremost. You turning this into some sort of "but women do it too! Men are objectified too!" is very, very clueless.


1. I'm not a white supremacist...what?
2. Stop being patronising.
3. Read the article that that slapsy posted.
4. Some women do feel empowered by posing naked. Don't see why it's your decision to take that away from them. It's a service to be provided. It's primarily for males yes, but doesn't mean females can't enjoy it. It's not particularly tasteful but it's not rape either, and people of all sexualities and genders can enjoy a naked man, or a naked woman, or a naked otherkin. Some people make their living and careers out of it. By banning this you'll be taking away the livelihood from a proportion of women who are happy to be paid to pose naked. But that's your personal opinion as you seem very sex-negative.
#29
Quote by EndTheRapture51
1. I'm not a white supremacist...what?
2. Stop being patronising.
3. Read the article that that slapsy posted.
4. Some women do feel empowered by posing naked. Don't see why it's your decision to take that away from them. It's a service to be provided. It's primarily for males yes, but doesn't mean females can't enjoy it. It's not particularly tasteful but it's not rape either, and people of all sexualities and genders can enjoy a naked man, or a naked woman, or a naked otherkin. Some people make their living and careers out of it. By banning this you'll be taking away the livelihood from a proportion of women who are happy to be paid to pose naked. But that's your personal opinion as you seem very sex-negative.

1. He's not calling you one. It's an extended example applied to another context.
2. He's not.
4. Yes, some women do, but page 3 isn't about that. It's not some kind of vehicle for female empowerment, it never has been and it still isn't. It's purely about titillation for men. It's aimed at men. It's presenting women's bodies as objects for male enjoyment.
#30
Quote by EndTheRapture51
1. I'm not a white supremacist...what?
2. Stop being patronising.
3. Read the article that that slapsy posted.
4. Some women do feel empowered by posing naked. Don't see why it's your decision to take that away from them. It's a service to be provided. It's primarily for males yes, but doesn't mean females can't enjoy it. It's not particularly tasteful but it's not rape either, and people of all sexualities and genders can enjoy a naked man, or a naked woman, or a naked otherkin. Some people make their living and careers out of it. By banning this you'll be taking away the livelihood from a proportion of women who are happy to be paid to pose naked. But that's your personal opinion as you seem very sex-negative.

1- Good god the cluelessness
2- Nah, too easy with you
3- I did. Good read. Opinion hasn't changed.
4- Still clueless. Read my first post in this thread. Also, not all nudity and sexual depictions are created equal. It depends on where and why the figurative lens is pointed. I'm not sex negative, you're being clueless again. I actually think there should be loads more porn and loads less stigma associated with it... just not in its current format, cuz its current format is awful. So you painting me as some Victorian raising his eyebrows at a little ankle and cleavage is, well, as has been pointed to you previously, clueless.

Quote by BelowTheSun
2. He's not.

Actually you're right, I'm being condescending. There's a marginal but important difference
Last edited by ali.guitarkid7 at Nov 17, 2014,
#32
Quote by ultimate-slash
Just out of curiosity, would banning page 3 mean the Sun will have one page less?

It would have 100% fewer pages, because people only buy it for tits, and it would go... bust.

*rimshot*
#33
It objectifies women for sure, and that alone is a big issue in this society (inb4 men, yes, I know, Google power dynamics), but it'd be better just to make it a top shelf paper so it's not accessible to younger viewers. Banning is unnecessary and wrong. Better to have it changed to an adult publication.

And that "victorian" thing is really just a screaming slippery slope fallacy.
#34
Quote by slapsymcdougal
It would have 100% fewer pages, because people only buy it for tits, and it would go... bust.

*rimshot*

But then how would all the paper's readers keep abreast of the latest developments?
#35
Quote by ultimate-slash
But then how would all the paper's readers keep abreast of the latest developments?

It would be difficult, there could be many boobie-traps for the unwary.
#38
Quote by ultimate-slash
Perhaps we should stop with the puns before their quality starts sagging.

True. I have a set of dirty pillows that need tending to anyway.
#40
Thread about sexist issues. Start making puns about tits.

this is men


Hopefully you'll have milked them puns dry soon.