Page Three Girls

[kadie]

This has kind of been sparked off by a thread in the debates section called "art vs pornography".

I was wondering what people opinions are about having topless models in the front page of out national newspapers.

I have been struggling with my opinion on the matter for quite some time. On the one hand I think that the human body is beautiful and it shouldn't be a taboo thing to see. It's completely natural. On the other hand the women shown in newspapers like the sun are hardly what one would describe as natural. Everything from their bodies to their poses is constructed simply to get the "sexist" look.

So anyway, I was just curious as to the pogotibes thoughts on the matter???

[stephen5000]

Can you provide a link to a news story about this? I'd like to hear more about it.

[chelseeyuh]

I think it's pretty ironic.. On the one hand, it's SOCIETY that tells us that nudity is wrong and we need to cover ourselves, and society is the reason people are so ashamed and disgusted by their own natural selves. Yet now that society is at least accepting enough of it to allow it in a newspaper, people are against it because they have been taught that it's wrong.

I haven't seen the pictures, so I can't say for sure, but it seems like they're just going with the "sex sells" approach and using the pictures to make people want to buy the newspaper (even if the photos aren't sexually explicit).

[RabbitWho]

If they have page 3 girls in them they're terrible newspapers and I won't be reading them. I've yet to find one of these newspapers that wasn't filled with sensationalism, celebrity gossip, and blatant lies and manipulations of the truth.

But if the Times or the Guardian decide tomorrow they want to do it, fine. I don''t mind.

[kadie]

Okay, so here are some links to pictures of page three models. These are sexually explict

img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/MarcForrest/Page3.jpg

thehivedublin.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/page31.jpg

www.page3.com/feature/2009/090414_page3idol_first_20/2009_04_14_191931_page_3_idol_first_20_347x509_9.jpg

The link to the wiki page about page three girls

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Three

and an article about a campagin to stop page three girls being shown in newspapers such as The Sun

www.thefword.org.uk/features/2009/08/dear_clare_i_ha

[TheIslander]

Page 3 girls doesn't mean they are on the front page though right?

Just as long as there is an age rating on the front, they can publish anything inside.

ps. magazine porn is so 90s. I doubt people buy it for that page.

[RabbitWho]

How are they sexually explicit? It's just boobs. Who gives a a shite?

I suppose you think this is sexually explicit too:

www.amazon-tribes.com/Tribal-Women.jpg www.spraguephoto.com/stock/images/5500_5999/5930%20Tribal%20Sudan%20Women%20dancing%20at%20a%20community%20celebration%20at%20Toposa%20tribal%20village%20of%20Naboliyatom%20near%20Nanyangacor%20South%20Sudan.jpg
( Tribal women. )


I do know someone who bought the sun every morning just for the page 3 girls, but he didn't rub himself to the pictures he just commented on the top quality breasts and stuck pictures of them on his wall. You can get away with this kind of thing when you're an artist.

[kadie]

TheIslander I'm not sure if the newspapers which feature page three girls do have any warning or age rating on the front. I cannot recall ever seeing one.
The main problem, I feel, is that these images are available to very young children and they feature girls who are not representative of most women. If people want to 'jack-off' to it that's their personal choice and the girls featured know that they are going to be objectified when they go into model.

I feel that the accessibility of these images and the ideas they will give young people are the problem - not the images themselves.

[brumagem]

I have a few points:

1. Like it or not, the US is a nation of prudes. Parents (for the most part) want to protect they're children from anything that might incite inappropriate behavior (like whoring yourself to photographers) and we have no right to 'endanger' them, no matter what our opinion may be.

2. Those pictures of the Page3 girls are...porn. Yeah. Artful expression (and I quote someone else I'm too lazy to cite) is "...using the female body as a means to achieve an end. Porn is using the female body as an end itself." The women in those pictures are directly allowing themselves to be objectified as sex symbols.

3. If a newspaper is reduced to this kind of marketing strategy, I lose all faith in said papers integrity as a news source.

[stephen5000]

Well this seems to just be sexual exploitation. That being said, I wouldn't suggest making laws about it or anything. I'll just not buy these newspapers myself.

Frankly, topless women is really tame and I think our society shouldn't have a stigma against it in the first place (and also shouldn't be obsessed with seeing it).

[RabbitWho]

Apr 28, 2010 5:00:32 GMT -5 kadie said:

TheIslander I'm not sure if the newspapers which feature page three girls do have any warning or age rating on the front. I cannot recall ever seeing one.
The main problem, I feel, is that these images are available to very young children and they feature girls who are not representative of most women. If people want to 'jack-off' to it that's their personal choice and the girls featured know that they are going to be objectified when they go into model.

I feel that the accessibility of these images and the ideas they will give young people are the problem - not the images themselves.

Why do we need to protect children from boobs? they drink from boobs. If they have little brothers and sisters they have probably seen breastfeeding. If they ever go to the beach they'll probably see someone get changed at some point.

In the Czech Republic there are naked women on TV all the time, during the day, there was a special program about a restaurant you could go to where instead of eating from plates you could eat off a naked woman, and that was on about 4 o clock. Her genitally bits were covered by an edible flower arrangement.

Okay i'll admit after drawing so many nakie people i'm completely immune to the sight of all bits, but boobs aren't remotely gross like the other bits or remotely interesting or disgusting or anything.

Are you really gonna stop kids watching national geographic just because they show African woman without shirts?

And how many kids do you know that read the sun?
How many adults do you know that even read it?

If I were you I'd be far more worried about the lies and filth and propaganda they print than the boobs.

I agree kids shouldn't be exposed to the knowledge of actual sex till they're like.. i dunno.. 7... 8... 9... 9 at the latest because girls need to know when their periods are coming so they don't panic, or think that there is something wrong with them when discharge starts. And boys need to know about balls and erections and all that, it's the fact that we're so embarrassed about all this that leaves kids mentally scared, even psychologists say.. when you explain.. so no signs of embarrassment or shame or the kids will be messed up and hate themselves and everyone they're attracted to as dirty shameful creatures.

But anyway that's a WHOLE other debate, the point is.. boobs are nothing. Just a bit of fun/ an annoyance / a way of feeding babies /a way of making money.

[kadie]

RabbitWho I actually pretty much agree with everything you've said here. I don't think kids should be stopped from seeing boobs. My problem is not with boobs. It's with the whole image of page three girls. It's not a realistic ideal and if kids are exposed to these images of "perfect" women it can seriously affect their confidence, self esteem and body image.
I think we shouldn't shy away from talking with kids about sex or the natural body or sheild their eyes when they see artwork with naked women (or men) on, I certainly don't when my younger sister (age 7) asks questions about these areas, but I think kids should not be presented with just this one image of the "perfect" women. I think we should present them with a range of bodies and show more natural women.

(I'm not sure if all that made sense but yeah) x

[RabbitWho]

Hmmm.. I guess you're right about that! But my solution would not be to have less pictures of perfect people but to have more pictures of ordinary people.
And it is all very shallow and superficial, but no more so than anything else on TV or in magazines or music videos.

[kadie]

Yeah, Personally I think the media as a whole needs to stop portraying women the way they do and start to show more variety of women (and men for that matter). The reason I started this thread mainly about page three girls was cause it came to mind whilst reading the art vs porn thread.

[Jake]

If I read the newspaper, it's for news - not Page Three Girls. While I'm not one of the people who thinks anything sexual is bad, I don't think they have a place in newspapers. However, I wouldn't read the Sun regardless of what was on page three.

[GojuRyuKarateWolf]

I never noticed page 3 girls o.o I go straight for the sports section and the jokes lol. Maybe it's not the same newspa--ok there's page 3 girls..

[Johncoyne]

I don't think this is really exposing children to anything they don't have access to. There's this thing called the internet. google.com/trends?q=porn