| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| How do you feel about this news? |
| Happy |
|
18% |
[ 2 ] |
| Sad |
|
18% |
[ 2 ] |
| Even more sexually frustrated than before |
|
27% |
[ 3 ] |
| Bored |
|
36% |
[ 4 ] |
| "It's political correctness gone mad!" |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 11 |
|
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: An end of an era: no more nipples on page 3 |  |
|
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-20/the-sun-strips-page-three-of-topless-girls/6028872
| Quote: | British tabloid The Sun will no longer feature topless women on page three, ending a controversial tradition that has lasted decades.
...
The No More Page 3 campaign group welcomed the change, calling it "truly historic news and a great day for people power".
The campaign's website, which has not been updated since the article appeared in The Times, argued the feature represented "soft porn". |
Is this really so significant? I struggle to see this as either a great victory for women's rights or a serious assault on freedom of expression (or even a win for wowserism).
The thing is, I get where the campaigners were coming from. It did seem a little grating, having this sort of stuff on page 3 of a newspaper, as opposed to, say, Nuts Magazine where it would seem to belong. But then, who ever said The Sun was a serious newspaper? Its journalism was about on par with the aforementioned lad mag anyway, and it made no secret of its lowbrow aspirations. Nobody complains if Playboy runs serious interviews and current affairs coverage, so why would anybody complain about a dumb tabloid slipping into "Phwoar lads, get a load of those tits" territory? And is the new company prohibition against nipples on page 3 really going to make The Sun's treatment of women (in word and photograph) any less boorish?
As much as I hate censorship, I sort of feel like the campaign (which, let's be honest, was almost certainly wholly comprised of people who would never have read the newspaper to begin with) would have been a success if they had gotten the UK government passing a law to ban these sorts of salacious depictions in all newspapers (and by that I mean kinds of depictions, not mere covering up of body parts). It would have been a statement. As it is, the fact that a lowbrow pseudo-newspaper like The Sun has elected to eschew nipples for the sake of commercial gain or the placation of sponsors, or something, makes me wonder what all the fuss was about.
What do you think? Did Murdoch do the right thing and make a stand for respectful, non-sexualised depiction of women? Was his decision a pathetic capitulation to the demands of censorious wowsers? Or does it really, truly, not matter in the slightest?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It's all alright.
"Fans of the feature, however, will be pleased to know the girls will still be available at page3.com, a move which has been criticized by Channel 4s Jon Snow for possibly increasing exposure."
http://rt.com/uk/224375-sun-axes-topless-models/
Seriously though, shit commercial decision made pandering to online activists who never bought the paper anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I agree with David.
(^ But David can't make up his mind, and probably doesn't care about it too much anyway.)
^^ Didn't you read my post? I agree with David.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
About time.
It was tacky and I can't believe it even ever existed in the first place.
Porn or nudity is fine but in it's place and that shouldn't be page 3 of what I assume is a major newspaper.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^           
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The main reason it has died, I suspect, is the fact that the lads who like that sort of thing can get infinitely more destructive and misogynistic images on their iphones. Getting upset about page 3 is like someone worried about obesity campaigning passionately against honey.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | About time.
It was tacky and I can't believe it even ever existed in the first place.
Porn or nudity is fine but in it's place and that shouldn't be page 3 of what I assume is a major newspaper. |
Well FMD
I understand that page 3 will always be after page 2 but before page 4.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | swoop42 wrote: | About time.
It was tacky and I can't believe it even ever existed in the first place.
Porn or nudity is fine but in it's place and that shouldn't be page 3 of what I assume is a major newspaper. |
Well FMD
I understand that page 3 will always be after page 2 but before page 4. |
So seeing another female person's chest is now regarded as porn?
OMG, the world really IS going crazy with OTT political correctness.
I had better shut my eyes to porn the next time I visit my favourite beach.....
_________________
Don't confuse your current path with your final destination. Just because it's dark and stormy now doesn't meant that you aren't headed for glorious sunshine! |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So you'd be happy to see the Age have a topless girl on page 3 in order to boost sales?
Wow what a message that sends to the young girls of this country.
I'd love to see the reaction by male newsreaders if instead of a young woman getting her norgs out we replaced her with some fit young bloke with his cock hanging out.
The world is sexualised enough without needing to see it on page 3 of a mainstream newspaper.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
But it's not something new. "The feature first appeared in the newspaper on 17 November 1970." I don't think that there's been 45 years of horrendous damage done to British girls because The Sun has had a topless girl in it. Those who want it taken out wouldn't be buying The Sun anyway.
Sure it's a bit anachronistic, but why do we have to get rid of everything fun and carefree? We're seriously more prohibitionist and prudish than conservative christians or the Temperance movement, only now it's the 'progressive' side that are wanting everything banned, taxed or boycotted. |
|
|
|
|
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | But it's not something new. "The feature first appeared in the newspaper on 17 November 1970." I don't think that there's been 45 years of horrendous damage done to British girls because The Sun has had a topless girl in it. Those who want it taken out wouldn't be buying The Sun anyway.
Sure it's a bit anachronistic, but why do we have to get rid of everything fun and carefree? We're seriously more prohibitionist and prudish than conservative christians or the Temperance movement, only now it's the 'progressive' side that are wanting everything banned, taxed or boycotted. |
I work among its restrictions every bloody day mate and its simply called political correctness in NOT offending anybody anywhere in anyway. Soon, it will be an offence to call a Carlton supporter a half witted dumbarsed scumbag because the poor buggers will be all offended!!!
Unless people challenge and confront this PC wave, it will take us over completely while we sit on our arses doing absolutely bloody nothing about it 
_________________
Don't confuse your current path with your final destination. Just because it's dark and stormy now doesn't meant that you aren't headed for glorious sunshine! |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Someone should start a rumour that Rupert did it to appease the muslims. Paper will be shut in a month.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Then for the sake of equality I wait for the day that men are pictured and displayed near naked on page 3 of a mainstream newspaper like the Sun.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD!
Last edited by swoop42 on Wed Jan 21, 2015 3:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | But it's not something new. "The feature first appeared in the newspaper on 17 November 1970." I don't think that there's been 45 years of horrendous damage done to British girls because The Sun has had a topless girl in it. Those who want it taken out wouldn't be buying The Sun anyway.
Sure it's a bit anachronistic, but why do we have to get rid of everything fun and carefree? We're seriously more prohibitionist and prudish than conservative christians or the Temperance movement, only now it's the 'progressive' side that are wanting everything banned, taxed or boycotted. |
I think girls have been harmed by this sort of thingsexualised, homogenised depictions of women in popular media and advertisingbut it has nothing to do with page 3 or toplessness per se, and that's why I think this campaign won't achieve much.
Even if this were effective in any way, I'd still oppose this kind of censorship. The answer doesn't lie in banning content (or using sponsors to get it banned by proxy), it lies in creating and funding better alternatives: respectful, diverse depictions of women, naked or not. And yes, depictions of men, too.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Wed Jan 21, 2015 3:54 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | Then for the sake of equality I wait for the day that men are pictured and displayed near naked on page 3 of a mainstream newspaper like the Sun.
|
Oops. Too much data. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
