Sun page 3 girls.

[alchemist]

Ignoring what "irony and hypocrisy"?

 

Wasnt Je Suis Charlie all about the right to publish what they want and no censorship? Yet here are the feminists pushing the censorship agenda and the right to publish what a only a small group agrees to

 

Or did I misunderstand the Je Suis Charlie?

[Zamo]

Wasnt Je Suis Charlie all about the right to publish what they want and no censorship? Yet here are the feminists pushing the censorship agenda and the right to publish what a only a small group agrees to

 

Or did I misunderstand the Je Suis Charlie?

 

Free speech is about being able to say whatever we want within the constraints of what is legal e.g. doesn't involve abuse or exploitation of a minor, doesn't involve threat, doesn't incite a crime etc. That means the Sun is free to print pictures of topless, consenting, women (a picture paints a thousand words) and others are free to judge, comment and debate.

 

I personally think mass-debation over page 3 is healthy.

[Joe Totale]

.........................

 

I personally think mass-debation over page 3 is healthy.

 

Also good for the old prostate, maybe we should get it on the NHS

[Nem88]

Should women welcome or lament the passing of the ‘Page 3 Girl, type photos in daily papers?

 

 

I am reflecting on a couple of observations here that seem connected.

I am neither defending or opposing Page 3 girls, pin-up girls in general or photography of topless or even nude models. I would like you read all of what I put before you have some kind of knee jerk reaction.

 

In the early 70s the topless or scantily clad model in some daily papers was already an established thing. Then it really took off the girls became 'celebrities' in their own right, some became household names and the wealth they able to accumulate awarded them in the eyes of some a greater degree of respectability. Not that I ever considered any them not respectable.

 

There were a number of very big names back then Linda Lusadi, Sam Fox Jordan etc who were very sensible and both made and kept a fortune for their efforts. Whilst some people, not all of which were feminists, complained the girls were being exploited, at the top end of the pay scale it could be argued was the girls that were exploiting men.

 

The models made money some a lot, some of the models whose popularity was fading or never attained went into soft or even hard porn. The availability of images of naked women, whether in a sex act or not became increasingly more readily available and acceptable andas they did so the price dropped.

 

At one stage there were pictures on the front cover of national newspapers some of these pictures very left little to the imagination. Only a few years earlier publications with less explicit pictures were only available from under the counter in brown paper bags.

 

On the same time line.

 

Back in the early 70s, it was generally accepted that women earned less than men. Later when it was more acceptable that they were ‘allowed’ to do the same jobs as men they were paid less. I recall many wage negotiations where agreements that were not maintaining pay differentials between both skilled and unskilled and male and females would not be accepted by the unions or their local conveners.

 

It was pretty much the norm for all men to be condescending and patronising towards women and it was generally accepted as ok.

 

Slowly over the years women’s rights to equal pay and equal employment opportunities have become closer to those of their male counterparts. There is legislation in place to enforce these things. Speaking to or treating women in a patronising or condescending way is now for the most part unacceptable and social convention does not allow it.

 

What I’m saying is that;

 

Depictions of the nude female body have become more and more widespread cheaply available, if not free and have become over time more and more unrestricted in terms of what they show. In the 1st world countries it’s not 100% but on the whole most people male or female are now on an equal footing (or should be) in regard to earning potential most other aspects of their lives.

 

As we can and do see more female flesh has this increased the status of women in our society in general?

 

Is this coincidence?

 

Are the two things related or not?

 

If it is no coincidence and if the two are really related and tied together then I refer you back to my original question;

 

Should women welcome or lament the passing of the ‘Page 3 Girl, type photos in daily papers?

.

.

 

 

 

A fair few other things have changed also;

 

Selling of sex has become a lot more acceptable

 

Women get paid a lot less for selling sex these days than they used to - It used to be more risky, came with more stigma etc. Now, the porn industry is over saturated with women (there are a lot more women in porn than men), ironically this means women both in general will find it harder, and get paid less than the men in the porn industry.

 

Women have been taken more seriously as citizens, and by extension their rights.

 

Womens pay has increased, but currently women in jobs which add the same value womens pay is still nationally somewhat behind men (For probably many reasons)

 

People don''t start careers from page 3 anymore. Not with the internet.

 

 

 

Really, I would say womens voices and femanist organizations have lead to those legalization rather than their boobs. Yes, one thing is that there has been more freedom, but also more people listening and acting upon them. All of this is a product of a more liberal mindset which goes hand in hand with more liberal photography also, but I don't think in this instance one was the cause to another so directly .

 

Women probably wont lament the passing, I don't think they should, I don't think men are going to respect women less because they can't see boobs in a newspaper. Most against page 3 are also pro womens liberties, including their right to be naked, just not in a casual environment like a newspaper which can be seen as devaluing our 'assets'.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Nem88

[Chelle-82]

Tut tut lass, let's hope the painter and decorator doesn't turn up with one tucked under his snap box

 

Oh no!!

 

I'll have to back track

Edited January 22, 2015 by Chelle-82

[alchresearch]

Seems like it was all a big marketing stunt.

[ronthenekred]

Wasnt Je Suis Charlie all about the right to publish what they want and no censorship? Yet here are the feminists pushing the censorship agenda and the right to publish what a only a small group agrees to

 

Or did I misunderstand the Je Suis Charlie?

 

I think you misunderstood a lot..I mean quite a lot.

 

Feminists campaigned, the Sun withdrew (tabloid only) allegedly...they didn't have to especially in the face of being murdered.

 

Hebdo published, the nutters murdered.

 

How you've applied "irony and Hypocrisy" to that is dim.

Edited January 22, 2015 by ronthenekred

[Plain Talker]

Seems like it was all a big marketing stunt.

 

Yes, and something that sounds very similar to the last word there...

[byeo]

Women get paid a lot less for selling sex these days than they used to - It used to be more risky, came with more stigma etc. Now, the porn industry is over saturated with women (there are a lot more women in porn than men), ironically this means women both in general will find it harder, and get paid less than the men in the porn industry.

 

Do you have anything to back this up, as I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Correct there are way more women in porn than men due to the fact the porn industry needs men who can do certain things on command and be up and ready to go (pun intended).

 

Still, woman get paid way more than men in that industry, men get paid hardly anything, why ? Becuase the majority or people who watch porn don't give two hoots about the guy and want the woman on screen/in shot as much as possible.

[Stoatwobbler]

http://newsthump.com/2015/01/22/anger-as-the-sun-continues-to-publish-itself-as-newspaper/

 

The Sun has today left many people angry after sustained speculation that it would stop referring to itself as a ‘newspaper’ proved to be false.

 

The Times newspaper wrote earlier this week that The Sun would stop publishing as a ‘newspaper’ and instead be known as a ‘tawdry comic’. However today’s edition of The Sun clearly contains the words ‘newspaper’.

 

Genuine newspaper reader Simon Williams told us, “I saw it right there in the newsagent, it had the word ‘newspaper’ in the masthead. It’s shocking.”

 

“It’s almost like one Murdoch paper told lies about another Murdoch paper in order to drum interest in a Murdoch paper, all for the benefit of Murdoch papers everywhere. Not like that would actually happen, obviously.”