FAQs

No More Page Three – Frequently Asked Questions

What we’d like to do is persuade you that it is totally reasonable to ask David Dinsmore to take the bare boobs out of the Sun.

As a growing campaign we get asked a lot of the same questions, which is absolutely fine, but as we’re all volunteers we don’t always have lots of time to give to answer as thoroughly as we’d like.

This document answers some of the most frequently asked questions, but if you feel you would like more clarity please feel free to email us at nomorepage3@gmail.com where we can answer more thoroughly than we can on Twitter or Facebook

 

Q. Who is behind No More Page Three?

A. The founder of the campaign is writer and actor Lucy Anne Holmes, who started it because she became sad that the most prominent photograph of a woman in the widest circulation British newspaper is of a young woman in just her pants. The campaign has been very popular and soon became busy, and so a team was formed. The team is forever growing and changing but you can read more about its current members and find out who is closest to you here.

Collectively we call ourselves No More Page 3 HQ (NMP3HQ)

 

Q. So why are you trying to get Page Three banned?

A. Actually we aren’t. NMP3 isn’t asking for censorship, or for an Act of Parliament to force the editor of The Sun to scrap Page 3.

NMP3 is asking, politely that Page 3 be removed voluntarily.

A better question would be – why do you want to see an end to Page 3?

 

Q. Why do you want to see an end to page 3?

A. We thought you’d never ask…

There are a number of reasons why we think page 3 should go:

1. It is very sexist – The biggest picture of a woman in any paper most days is one of a very young woman in just her pants. In a newspaper this appears next to lots of pictures with news of men in suits or sports clothes doing things. The Page 3 picture isn’t about any news story and the model doesn’t speak at all.

This picture is just inside the front cover of the biggest selling newspaper. The front pages is where all the most important news gets put. By putting a picture here of a woman in just her pants the newspaper is telling its readers that what is really most important about women is the way they look and their sexual allure. It doesn’t care what they have to say, what their achievements or talents are.

In a country where we want men and women to be treated equally, having pictures like this in our biggest selling papers makes it much more difficult for women to be taken seriously and when young boys or girls see this, what does it teach them about women’s place in society? Perhaps that men make the news through their actions whilst women stand around looking sexy.

2. Children can see Page 3 at any time - Lots of people take newspapers into public places and also into their family homes where they would be far less likely to take magazines containing similar images such as porn or lads mags.

When children watch TV we have a watershed so that we know that things shown after 9pm may contain sex, nudity and swearing. When we watch a movie with children there are certificates to help us decide if the content is appropriate. When buying newspapers there is no age at which you can’t buy, whilst porn mags have to be placed on the top shelf. The Page 3 pictures are therefore placed on bottom shelves next to other papers and children’s comics etc. Not only this but the Sun actively markets itself as a family newspaper. It advertises on children’s television and includes holiday and toy promotions as well as features and competitions about boy bands etc.

Studies show that seeing these type of pictures is not good for children. We don’t think there is anything wrong with children seeing nudity, such as seeing parents or family naked, or people on the beach or in changing rooms for example. Images like Page 3 are different. Children know what newspapers are and what they are for, they aren’t expecting a sexual image. These pictures are sexual. The models are posed in a way to make the reader think they want to have sex with them and children can tell the difference. Young girls who see these pictures are more likely to grow up thinking they should get their clothes off for men. They are more likely to accept and take on the image of being a sex object. 

Young boys who see these pictures are less likely to treat women and girls with respect. They are more likely to think of women and girls as less than human and as a result to treat women and girls in a derogatory way and not worry about hurting them.

3.  It is sooooo… outdated!  – The Daily Mirror used to feature topless Page 3 girls in the 1970s. It dropped the feature in the 1980s because it realised that, culturally, the rest of Britain had moved on, and to keep on featuring bare breasts in a family newspaper would make it look like a dinosaur.

Page 3 comes from an era of Jimmy Savile, the Benny Hill show and On the Buses. It mocks and disrespects women just like racist features like the Black and White Minstrel Show and golliwogs used to mock people of colour. The world and its moral perspective have moved on and we think it’s time the Sun did the same and brought its readers with it. 

 

Q. What right do you have to tell a commercial business how it should run? Surely if Sun readers were so disgusted by Page 3 they would stop buying it?

A. Well, the Human Rights Act allows us the right to free speech and peaceful protest; the people who support No More Page 3 are merely exercising that right.

All we are doing is asking The Sun to stop showing the bare breasts of young women in a family newspaper.

Perhaps another question could be ‘what right did the Sun have in 1970 to start showing pictures of naked 16-year-old girls?’ (it was only in 2003 that the models had to be 18).

We think a lot of people buy the Sun for lots of different reasons and many readers we have asked have said they would continue to buy it without page 3. The Sun is considered by many a light hearted easy read with good sports coverage. Perhaps it could use page 3 to showcase women’s sport, as at present that only makes up 5% of sports coverage overall.

 

Q. Is this campaign prudish/Are you anti-sex/Are you offended by bare breasts?

A. Nooooo to all of those :)

None of us are offended by breasts, after all many of us are women so that would make life awfully difficult for us wouldn’t it?! We are not anti-sex or against expressing sexuality.

What is offensive about page 3 is the message it sends about women. 

We know that one way in which societies have, in the past, kept any section subjugated and in their place has been by presenting them as less than human, as a tool to be used, as inert and passive, as interchangeable, as vulnerable to violence and defenceless against violation, as something to be owned and lacking any autonomy. Page 3 fits most of these criteria.

Overwhelmingly, Page 3 shows us only one limited type of beauty too - usually very slim, mostly white and with very large rounded breasts. If this feature was there to celebrate the naked human form then we feel it should include a far more diverse group of people – male, female, black, white, able-bodied and disabled with far more varied sizes, shapes and dimensions of everything including breasts. We’ve spoken to so many people who have said that they don’t even want to get naked in front of their partners because they feel apologetic they don’t look like Page 3 models, and teenagers who haven’t even finishing developing but want breast enhancement because they feel they should look like the models on Page 3. The Sun has even printed articles about ‘Perfect Breasts’ where a plastic surgeon explains what the perfect breast is like.

We think page 3 in its current form doesn’t help us celebrate our own bodies or our own nudity. For some it makes it more difficult to do so because we are made to feel that we don’t measure up.

 

Q. Is there any political or religious affiliation behind No More Page Three?

A. No. We are a feminist campaign and are lucky enough have the backing of religious and none-religious people, men and women from all backgrounds. We also have the backing of cross-party MPs and many groups and organisations but there is no particular guiding philosophy, other than respect for women and the desire for equal representation for women in the media.

 

Q. So… if you don’t like it, don’t buy it…

A. The Sun, unlike ‘Lads’ Mags’ and other magazines, has a circulation of about two million copies a day, and our supporters tell us they regularly see copies in restaurants, takeaways, pubs, on buses and trains, in workplace canteens and common rooms.

Our society has for over 40 years accepted the sexism of Page 3 as a normal part of life. In so doing it has accepted as normal the belittling of women. We feel this may have encouraged an attitude in society that women are,  first and foremost, sexual objects; that women’s appearance should be judged and their breasts or other body parts may be seen as public property or open to comment. Page 3′s inclusion in a publication which seeks to inform society might be encouraging behaviours such as street harassment and comments such as “Look at the tits on that”. Readers are being conditioned to view women as objects, as “that” rather than a person. Evidence shows that this objectification may also make violence against women more common.

We believe that newspapers shouldn’t reinforce sexism any more than they should reinforce racism or homophobia. Us not buying the Sun will not stop us seeing Page 3 in public and it will not stop the reinforcement of these sexist attitudes in society. By raising awareness of these problems we have a greater chance of making people think twice about buying and reading the Sun and forcing the much-needed and long overdue change.

 

Q. You are just jealous because you don’t look like the women on Page 3!

A. Not many women do, and the men we know don’t have perfect bodies either.  Images like Page 3 promote unrealistic ideals of perfection that are unattainable by most. The models are professionally made up, highly groomed, posed and lit just like magazines and the image is very likely to be airbrushed (although we cannot say for definite as they do not have to reveal this information) so not even the model looks quite like the picture.

To be frank what we look like and what any woman looks like isn’t relevant to this argument. Appearance isn’t the most important thing about women, and Page 3 (amongst other influences) teaches society that a woman’s worth is all about the way she looks and her sexual availability to men. We like to think that actually a woman’s worth is about her achievements, aspirations, values, and relationships, just the same as a man’s. It would be nice if these other values could be celebrated in newspapers more.

 

Q. Do you want to get rid of all pornography?

A.  Pornography is a huge subject and often the way most of it portrays women is not good. We have backed a campaign against “rape porn” as we feel very strongly that this should not be freely available online. NMP3 are not however, as a campaign, getting into a larger debate against pornography as a whole.  

We do feel strongly that any pornography should be age restricted and that adults should have to make a conscious choice to look at it rather than falling upon it in The Sun or similar by accident. In a newspaper lots of people who don’t want to see it at all may be exposed to it and may be made to feel uncomfortable.

This is not an anti-porn campaign, it’s a campaign against sexualized images of women being acceptable daily content for a family newspaper. 

Boobs aren’t news!

 

Q. Surely Page 3 is not important. Why don’t you concentrate on getting rid of online/hardcore pornography?

A. Some studies show that 88% of porn shows acts of physical aggression towards women and many of the teachers who have signed the No More Page 3 petition have mentioned their fear at how widely available online porn is impacting on boys’ behaviour towards young girls.

But Page 3 is connected to all of this.

When we show a passive, naked available woman in a family newspaper, what are we teaching young boys about how to respect women? What are we teaching little girls about where their value lies?

A young girl being coerced into sexting a picture of her breasts, for example, will look about at the society she lives in and say ‘should I do this?’ Page 3 being in a newspaper tells her that this is ultimately what she’s here for.

Page 3 disempowers women and girls, and makes them more susceptible to the impact of online porn and its pressures. If we want to stop the online and harder porn being normalised we have to first address the way women are portrayed in the mainstream. If we portray women as equals the hardcore porn that treats them as less than that will seem less acceptable.

 

Q. Nobody is forcing these women to model for Page Three. Aren’t you going to put glamour models out of a job when they are only trying to make a living?

A. There are generally very few page 3 models at one time and most of them do other work as well as Page 3, working free-lance in the industry for many publications and websites.

This campaign is not about the models on the page, but society as a whole. The editorial decision to place these pictures out of context in a newspaper lies with the Sun and its editorial team. We don’t aim to dissuade any glamour models from pursuing their career but we do think sexualized images should be in adult publications. Perhaps “Page 3″ would be more appropriate as an age restricted website or a top shelf publication?

The feature of Page 3 has succeeded in promoting glamour modelling as an aspirational career choice for young women in the UK over many years, reaching lots of young girls in their family homes. We think that it might be nice to promote some other career choices that showcase women’s talents and abilities.

We have a number of current and ex models who have supported the campaign and there are some quotes and accounts  from glamour models here

 

Q. Haven’t you got bigger problems to think about? World hunger, war, climate change… by comparison, this is trivial, you should stop wasting time on it.

A. We think the way that the UK media portrays women is an important issue. We believe the media doesn’t just mirror society but confirms and reinforces certain attitudes in it. The media plays a big part in shaping men’s attitudes to women, and women’s attitudes to themselves and that is very important to the way we all behave towards ourselves and each other.

As for other causes – well,  just because you support this one doesn’t mean you can’t support many others. Some of our supporters are very active in other important campaigns. Everybody has different priorities, we wouldn’t dream of asking other campaigns to stop because we think this is more important and we ask you to afford us the same respect.

 

Q. I bet if it was half-naked, sexy men on Page 3 you wouldn’t complain. What about torso of the week/the diet coke advert/David Beckham ads?

A. Sometimes people mention features like  ‘Torso of the Week’ as though that makes the situation somehow equal but there is no male equivalent to Page 3. A topless man pictured in a weekly magazine with a relatively low circulation doesn’t come close to a daily topless woman in a newspaper that reaches millions every day. These images are also not placed amongst serious news.

A topless man is very different in our society, we see topless men on the TV before the watershed or going about their business in the summer. But we don’t see topless women in the same way. A child looking at Torso of the Week in Heat magazine wouldn’t find it nearly as odd as seeing a picture of a woman in her knickers, amidst page after page of pictures of men in clothes doing things like running the country and achieving in sport in a newspaper. Men are also not posed as passive and sexually available and willing as the Page 3 models are. Breasts are secondary sexual characteristics which a male torso is not, so there is nothing sexually revealing about a topless man.

That being said many people who support No More Page 3 don’t like Torso of the Week either.

We are seeing more and more objectification of men nowadays, so it is hardly surprising that we also are seeing a rise in eating disorders and body dysmorphia amongst young men.

We’d like both women and men to be treated with respect, so “getting our own back” by ogling photos of men is not a great idea. Two wrongs don’t make a right! 

In addition it is important to consider that women have been treated in a derogatory way and had less rights in our society for centuries. They are also far more likely to be the victim of rape, sexual assault and violence from a male partner. There is evidence that sexually charged photos of women are likely to lead men towards thinking of women as permanently sexually available, and to more harassment of women. Unwanted sexual attention directed at a woman always has overtones of physical threat. It’s difficult to think of pictures of half-naked men taking on that threatening aspect.

 

Q. Is Page 3 really harming anybody/Surely it’s just a bit of fun?

A.  We don’t think it is. Publishing soft porn in a daily newspaper, along with the TV guide and the footie scores, makes it ‘normal’ to see porn in everyday life, and it shouldn’t be. This is the place where young girls’ body image anxiety begins if they don’t look like the Page 3 girls and where they start to develop an idea of their value and place in society. It’s the place young boys get the ideas that women’s bodies should be instantly available as a resource for men‘s sexual gratification, because that’s what these pictures are used for, and yet we have happily accepted them in a mainstream news publication.

We’d love to see more positive pictures of successful women (with clothes on) achieving things. In our newspapers we tend to see scantily clad women, looking sexy, and fully dressed men doing stuff. Is that what our world is like? Is that the way it should be? How do those pictures shape our attitudes?

There are 80,000 rapes reported in England and Wales each year and 300,000 sexual assaults.* We know that the majority of these crimes go unreported. The Everyday Sexism Project collect accounts of the discrimination, threats, abuse and violence women are exposed to at work, in class, on public transport, in clubs and bars, and in our streets. How much does the misrepresentation of women in our media feed into the attitudes that allow such behaviour?

Page 3 cannot be blamed for all sexism but it does reinforce sexist and derogatory attitudes to women. Laura Bates of Everyday Sexism writes here on some experiences women have shared that directly involve Page 3 and there are many more shared on the Page 3 Stories website .

 

Q. I hear you’re sponsoring women’s football teams now. What’s that got to do with Page 3?

A. Yes!! We sponsor Cheltenham Town Ladies FC and Nottingham Forest Ladies FC and also the incredible Scottish mountain bike champion Lee Craigie!!! We would also be interested in any other ideas for sponsorship. The money raised to do this was all donated by our generous supporters!

Statistics show that 95% of sexualised images in advertising are of women, whereas 95% of sports coverage in the media is of men. Part of the harm of Page 3 is that it doesn’t happen in a vacuum: it is a misrepresentation of women that exists alongside the marginalisation of women’s other achievements. So – a perfect combination for the NMP3 campaign! When Cheltenham Town Ladies FC and Nottingham Forest Ladies FC play in their new kit with our logo on it we kill two birds with one stone – the campaign gets more publicity in its aim to reduce sexualised imagery and women’s football gets some extra publicity which it doesn’t get from the mainstream.

It is a particularly suitable collaboration for this campaign because the Sun newspaper prides itself on its sports coverage, and many readers state that it is the sport they buy it for; and yet the largest image of a woman every day is one of a Page 3 model standing in just her pants. It doesn’t seem to matter what else a woman achieves: even the recent female success for Team GB in the Winter Olympics and Paralympics did not appear to warrant as big a picture as the Page 3 image, and this is a skewed message to send to our young girls. Sportswomen show another aspect of what the female body can achieve, and one that could be inspiring our young girls if it was given the publicity it deserves. The NMP3 campaign was inspired originally by the Olympics, so it seems to us that this is a fantastic way to start to redress the balance, and a very relevant subject to be involved in.

 

Teammate, Stephanie, has collated 2 research documents looking at studies and reports that have been conducted regarding the impact these sorts of sexualized images have on men and women.

Research doc I Effects of _Page 3_ type images on men-1

Research doc II Effect and Impact of Page 3 on Women-1

46 Responses to “FAQs”

  1. Sandy February 11, 2013 at 5:14 pm Permalink

    The link http://www.homeoffice.gov.ukviolence-against-women-girls/strategic-vision is broken. Even with an extra / after gov it’s still broken.

  2. christina February 13, 2013 at 12:10 am Permalink

    Sorry I can’t support this because I like to look at hot guys topless and doing that while supporting this would make me a hypocrite.

    • christie April 20, 2013 at 4:54 pm Permalink

      But where do you find these images of topless men? i’m pretty sure you set out to find them, rather than have them forced upon you in a newspaper, surely…

      And thats what no more page three is saying; porn is fine if you set out to find it, but when its unavoidable in a hugely popular national newspaper it seems wrong.

      • Sarah April 27, 2013 at 9:43 am Permalink

        That, and pictures of topless men aren’t classed as soft porn. It’s perfectly acceptable for a man to walk down the street with no shirt on; a woman would be arrested! It would only be hypocritical if you managed to find and buy a so-called “family-friendly” newspaper (not a magazine) that had a huge image of a nearly-naked man on p3 every day, surrounded by articles about fully-dressed women doing important things. You can still argue that pictures of topless women in a newspaper are wrong, whilst enjoying looking at pictures of topless men or women elsewhere. It’s about the context, that’s all. :)

    • annette November 2, 2013 at 8:12 am Permalink

      Is it really about what we each enjoy, as to whether something is acceptable or not? In that case why not have nude photos of children because some people enjoy that? Why should children be exposed to stranger nudity in a newspaper that you wouldn’t allow in real life? Some people (men & women) are conditioned to think that women are primarily things to look at, objects of beauty, and that’s dangerous. I wish we were educated in school and in society in general about misogyny and sex discrimination, in the same way we learned about racism and civil rights movement.

    • Brian Wiseman December 11, 2013 at 7:06 am Permalink

      I would support the campaign if it included a ban on raunchy male nudity in the down-market female weeklies, and called for the end of the pervy bias of showing male genitalia in tv dramas while female genitalia is misogynistly classed as porn and censored (merkins, etc) – let’s have equality, not hypocrisy.

  3. Trish Auciello February 26, 2013 at 10:51 pm Permalink

    How about contacting those cafes, shops etc who buy newspapers for customers to read? I’m not sure if these people actually buy the Sun but some names I’ve thought of: Costa, Starbucks, Caffe Nero, MacDonalds, Burgerking, KFC. Also local libraries where children could easily access the paper.

  4. Andy Brice March 8, 2013 at 12:59 pm Permalink

    I was quite concerned that this campaign was a veiled attack on pornography and sexuality in general. But this FAQ eloquently and emphatically reassured me that it isn’t.

    • Alec June 15, 2013 at 9:41 pm Permalink

      Yep, me too. Following as of now!

  5. Russ Brown April 1, 2013 at 11:26 pm Permalink

    Whilst I agree with your sentiments that page three girls are an outmoded institution, I wonder if your campaign is helping to keep it alive by resurrecting a flagging notoriety. However well-intentioned and admirable, is your challenge actually keeping page three girls in the realms of public interest?

    Page three is from the era of topless PR girls at motor shows, over-sexed Bond girls and rugby match streakers. All have pretty much devolved through natural social evolution and it looked likely the subject of your campaign was following suit.

    When a snake is slithering away, is it prudent to poke it with a stick.

    • Stuart May 4, 2013 at 4:07 pm Permalink

      Best to say nothing then Russ? How long would we have had to wait for women to get the vote if there had been no suffragette movement? Change happens when people make it happen. This campaign is giving unity and a voice to all those people who believe Page 3 in the The Sun is not the place for boobs.

  6. Dan F April 6, 2013 at 11:31 pm Permalink

    “Unwanted sexual attention directed at a woman always has overtones of physical threat. It’s difficult to think of pictures of half-naked men taking on that threatening aspect.”

    I’ve heard this argument before and it’s a way of saying that male sexual desire is threatening and dangerous where women’s sexual desire is harmless fun.

    • annette November 2, 2013 at 8:20 am Permalink

      Isn’t it more to do with the fact that the average male would be able to physically overpower a woman and rape her, whereas your average female wouldn’t have the strength to do that to a man. It’s not a coincidence that most rapes are committed by men against women. Hence this campaign is trying to stop the next generation being exposed to ‘women are primarily sexual objects’, so that when they fully develop sexual desires as adolescents and adults, they have respect for woman because they don’t see them as sex toys.

  7. FOXY Steph April 13, 2013 at 1:11 pm Permalink

    Knowing the financial importance of female customers, I’m amazed at how many businesses ‘cock a snook’ (pun intended) at getting service levels right for us. I am fully in favour of outing those businesses that are disrespectful to women in this way. Let’s see less female flesh on show at motoring events and exhibitions for example, let’s ostracise ‘offensive’ petrol stations and let’s vote with our feet and financial choices when businesses upset us here. Happy to help here.

  8. philippa May 1, 2013 at 10:54 pm Permalink

    hey

    i would like to know how to get one of your no more page three t-shrits?

    thanks

    Philippa

  9. Becky May 14, 2013 at 8:19 pm Permalink

    While I support the idea that naked women aren’t news, part of me can’t help but think of Foucault’s concept as sex as a discourse that is overly discussed, monitored, analysed and given morals. Should women appear naked in a publication that calls itself news? No. But is giving it this platform really going to change the overall discourse or just add to it?

  10. Ellie Percival May 30, 2013 at 4:45 pm Permalink

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVldzwPIYa0

    Short documentary film asks the public what they think of Page 3!

  11. Joe June 9, 2013 at 2:29 pm Permalink

    No one is forced to buy, read or open The Sun. The people who are against page 3 clearly know what’s going to be inside that front cover. How often do you see children reading the newspaper? If parents are so worried about their children seeing Page 3 then I suggest they do the logical thing, and buy a different newspaper. I don’t buy The Sun, but you’re creating problems that are easily avoided and are just plain silly. Stop being so stubborn.

    • Frances October 12, 2013 at 10:45 pm Permalink

      The real truth unfortunately about (what I’ve read is) the most bought newspaper in the UK- even if you don’t buy it it is so often “in your face” as it were. Because it is a newspaper without an age limit or any thing to limit its sale; even if you’re not buying it you can still be surrounded by people reading it, I’ve read stories from people who can’t use the train without their children seeing other people looking at it, and horrible stories about girls at school being tormented by boys using the Sun as a weapon. Even if you don’t buy it (which I’m sure NO parent who is concerned about it does) your children are still going to be exposed to it and affected by it. One of the main problems I have with it is that it isn’t fair that so often people ARE forced to see it because it is so easily available and unrestricted. There is no need for pornography in a national “family friendly” newspaper, and does that idea not give you a sick feeling in your stomach? The Sun has included Lego for kids with the newspaper in the past! Pornography is for people who are old enough to understand it and not be confused or upset by it. It can be easily found in other places, where it is not readily available for any child to see, so how come it’s still in the newspaper?
      And also; if you find something that seems really wrong, something that you think should really be changed; would you call yourself “stubborn” and tell yourself to “stop”? I hope if you think about this whole thing again, maybe you can see why we think it’s such an issue :)

  12. Adam June 12, 2013 at 4:19 pm Permalink

    I suggest you drop even the hint that there may be a link between Page 3 and rape or other violence towards women. Rape may be a serious and weighty subject, but it does not add any seriousness or weight to your argument, because a link will always be unprovable. If anything, it makes your campaign weaker for that very reason.

    Your central message that ‘boobs’ are not ‘news’ however, is indisputable. And whether it is indisputable I don’t know, but I certainly agree with you, that people growing up in a society where they can regularly see naked women in the context of something that claims to be ‘news’ are likely to get a distorted, and unhelpful, view of women’s roles in that society.

    That is strong enough ground for your campaign, don’t weaken it with hyperbole.

  13. julie July 31, 2013 at 5:02 pm Permalink

    it’s great to see that someone still cares about this subject. what concerns me possibly more, is the sport newspaper, its on the bottom shelf, uncovered, and i think we will soon be seeing pubic hairs, never mind boobs! its disgusting. we will probably never get rid of porn but this paper ought to be treated as such and hidden away.
    I’m told that the newsagent is under contract to menzies to display this stuff, but i havent been able to get a contact to check this. any thoughts?

  14. Joanna Burnett August 5, 2013 at 12:43 pm Permalink

    Keep up the good work – but why just the Sun? Please target all tabloids with pornographic content!!

  15. Keely August 23, 2013 at 4:33 pm Permalink

    This is campaign is awesome. AwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesome.AwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesome

    • Lucy
      Lucy August 23, 2013 at 4:53 pm Permalink

      probably our favourite comment EVER!

  16. Vanessa September 3, 2013 at 10:26 am Permalink

    I agree with some of the other comments about tackling other papers such as The Sport and The Daily Star as well. I’m fed up of walking into newsagents and local shops with my children and trying to shield them from the front page picture of a young woman bent over wearing only the tiniest of thongs and nothing else. There is absolutely no attempt to cover up these publications whatsoever. I’m fed up with it as a woman and as a mother.

  17. Tiffani October 3, 2013 at 11:03 pm Permalink

    Hi there,

    My pupils wrote letters persuading the Sun to get rid of Page Three. I would like to send them to you to support your movement. Could I please have a contact address?

    Thanks
    Tiffani Scerbo

  18. Lauren November 1, 2013 at 2:50 pm Permalink

    Thanks to this campaign I was comfortable talking to the manager at my local Shell station about the placement of the nude mags in the shop. Pleased with his response. Sorry I had to stop following the campaign on Twitter – just too many tweets!

    • Lucy
      Lucy November 2, 2013 at 11:54 am Permalink

      No worries Lauren! Pop in here or Facebook sometimes to keep up to date with the campaign (and listen out for next time we’re on the News of course…).
      That’s a brilliant story – did he move the mags? It’s amazing when you point things out, people are often in total agreement and we love hearing successful stories like this. It does take a bit of courage to speak up though – well done!!

  19. Rachel November 14, 2013 at 1:43 pm Permalink

    Thought I’d let you know that this weeks Sunday Sport (14/11/13) has a FULLY NAKED woman on their FRONT COVER!!! I was appalled to be confronted by it just outside the doors to a local Esso garage. I wanted to say something to the chap behind the counter, but he didn’t give the impression that he would care what I thought, so I’m going to email Esso themselves. I wish I’d taken a photo as proof, will definitely do so next time.

  20. Jo December 2, 2013 at 2:48 pm Permalink

    Hi there, I want to get one of the T-shirts for Christmas but am a little confused as to the best place to buy it as want the money to go to your campaign!

  21. Laura December 16, 2013 at 10:11 pm Permalink

    Hi!
    I love this campaign! I had started to think I was the only person who thought Page 3 was inappropriate, it’s good to know I’m not so odd!
    I don’t have a website to add a badge to, but is there a ribbon or badge people can add to their facebook cover or profile photos? Or a Twibbon on Twitter? I’d like to show my support some way!

  22. Daniel Factor January 21, 2014 at 4:32 pm Permalink

    If Page 3 causes bad self esteem and poor body image amongst women what about the glossy women’s celebrities magazines that make fun of women who put on weight?

  23. James January 31, 2014 at 12:05 am Permalink

    I do not know why there is an assumption that if I see a picture of a topless woman, I lose respect for her, and I do not see why anyone else should lose respect for her either.
    I think that the main reason for opposition to a topless photograph comes from those who are embarrassed about nudity and sex, and want it covered up. This is rather sinister, as it may lead to the idea that sex is dirty or wrong, and leads to sexual repression, and that is not good.
    It is remarkable that in some TV series, they will not show nudity at all, but are quite happy to show someone being decapitated, slashed or shot in the head.
    Then there are of course show’s such as Coronation Street, Eastenders and Emmerdale, with storylines full of violence and confrontation.
    That’s what should be voluntarily removed form the media, not topless photographs.
    The objectification of women in regard to topless photographs is in the mind of those who think that way whether they be male or female, and because they for some reason do not respect a woman simply because she appears topless it does not mean that everybody else does too.

    • Stuart February 2, 2014 at 8:48 pm Permalink

      Hi James. I like nudity and sex. But the fact that you associate a picture of a topless woman with sex just proves the need for NMP3. Page 3 suggests that while men are there to make rules and win medals, women are there to be enjoyed by men.

    • Kirsten February 7, 2014 at 10:57 am Permalink

      James – if there was a guy showing off his naked bum cheeks stood alongside the woman with no top on I would wholeheartedly agree with you. Funnily enough though, it seems like we only need naked women to prove to ourselves that sex ain’t dirty or wrong.

    • Mike (MALE) March 9, 2014 at 1:01 am Permalink

      HERE HERE !

  24. Stuart February 2, 2014 at 9:36 am Permalink

    Hi James. I like nudity and sex. But the fact that you associate a picture of a topless woman with sex just proves the need for NMP3. Page 3 suggests that while men are there to make rules and win medals, women are there to be enjoyed by men.

  25. cathy February 9, 2014 at 7:34 pm Permalink

    Hi James, If you think sex is looking at a picture of a naked, passive, grinning woman than I think you need some education. There is usually at least one other person involved in most peoples definition of sex. If there was a gorgeous, airbrushed, semi naked man stood next to the page 3 model than maybe you would be right. But then that would suggest we were living in far more equal different society, this campaign wouldn’t be necessary and I wouldn’t be part of it. That would be sex and I wouldn’t object.

    Plus I’m interested that you think looking at such images is ok in places like cafes where young children can observe you looking. I bet that isn’t something you would feel ok about when viewing internet porn?

    Page 3 is not about sex it is pure sexism. Women as passive objects for the gratification of males in a newspaper where the men are featured as politicians, sportsmen and workers. If that is your view of women than maybe you are the one with issues about sex.

  26. Callum February 13, 2014 at 3:42 pm Permalink

    Hi – how can we add to your supportive organisations list? We are the Scottish White Ribbon Campaign and work with campaign groups to support movements like NMP3.

  27. Ged Hession March 15, 2014 at 11:56 pm Permalink

    I feel that I must take issue with the way you represent the Sun newspaper. In the Sun I have seen pictures of popular models such as Elle Mcpherson and Noami Campbell in swimware and lingerie. These pictures usually have a strong commercial motive, using the popular model to provide publicity for the brand. I have also seen in the Sun glamourised images of popular actresses such as Angelina Jolie and Scarlett Johannsen. There are also highly sexualised and glamourised images of popular actresses, especially soap stars and popular actresses such as Keeley Dawes. I once saw in the Sunday Mirror a picture of the Downtown Abbey actress Michell Dockery walking down the street with her shopping. Is that news? Of course, I have seen the pictures of popular female pop stars such as Rhianna, Beyonce and Miley Cyrus with their highly sexualised personas which, needless to say, is popular with youngsters. I must confess, I have yet to see Justin Bieber pictured in the Sun wearing a suit. I will also comment that these points do not just apply to the Sun but to the media and popular culture
    in general.

  28. Bloke March 23, 2014 at 3:41 pm Permalink

    Dear all,

    As a self-identifying ‘ordinary bloke’ I struggle to form an opinion which entirely agrees with this campaign.

    I agree that we have a problem of sexism in society in which normalised soft-porn images of women like page 3 contributes to.

    I agree that children and minors who are still forming their sexuality should not be exposed to content which promotes the idea of woman merely as sexual objects.

    It is also not right that people are exposed to such images against their will in public or the work place.

    The sale of such papers and magazines should therefore be regulated to prevent harm. Perhaps the Sun and such publications should be put out of the easy reach of children in shops and banned in offices and cafes etc.

    Given this, should the campaign not be aimed specifically at forcing a change in legislation?

    Should the campaign not call for it to be illegal for the Sun to advertise as a ‘family paper’ whilst containing soft porn, as a breach of trading standards?

    Should the campaign not call for shops to be legally forced to sell the Sun off the top shelf, along with lads-mags and full-blown pornography?

    To single out The Sun, and demand the voluntary removal of page 3 seems to me to be disingenuous campaign.

    It is obvious that society has a problem of sexualisation and body image, from red tops, lads mags, female glossies, to music videos and extreme internet pornography. Children are exposed to all of this in varying forms.

    Surely, between MTV, Cosmo and Heat magazines just as much harm is being done to the perceptions of children? Why in this campaign is there little mention of the entire media industry as a whole? Children might be exposed to a discarded copy of the Sun on the train, or “use it as a weapon” at school, but these same children are mimicking Rhiana’s dance moves and sharing porn videos on their phones. The Sun is the least of your worries in the school playground.

    So as an ‘ordinary bloke’, I am suspicious of both the aims of this campaign and what it is focusing on.

    The people who buy The Sun tend to be normal, working, heterosexual men who like to briefly look at a beautiful woman before skimming over politics to scrutinise the sport. The demand for such publications is high so an attempt to boycott The Sun and lads mags would probably fail.

    As the campaign clearly notes, page three is not important to the readership. As a guess I would say people spend no longer than three seconds ogling the page three girl. Everyone knows where to go to get real porn.

    So my complaint is given that Page 3 is of little actual significance to the readers, or in terms of the wider issue of pornography or the sexualisation of society, and is not a major contribution to the corruption of children, is this campaign then not entirely symbolic?

    As such it appears that this feminist campaign movement, along with similar efforts to censor lads mags, appears as a narrow attack on the readers of these publications.

    It is an insult to suggest that men cannot look at an air-brushed imaged of a bimbo without it distorting their attitudes towards women to the levels claimed in this campaign. By all means attempt to protect impressionable children from being subjected to pornographic images, but this campaign appears to go much further than that with a confused logic.

    There is the suggestion that men are potential rapists who may not be able to exercise self control if they look at images of naked women.

    If this is the line of argument then the campaign should be concerned with computer games, films, television, theatre, literature and all forms of media which portray not just sex but also violence.

    This campaign claims it does not want to ban page three, but carries on exactly as though it does. This is a movement towards censorship, demonising working class men and ‘lads’ whilst paying little attention to to broader influences on gender inequality and sexualisation of wider society.

    Banning The Sun from university campuses, banning pop songs, attempting to ban lads mags, and focusing efforts to combat ‘lad culture’ is all a move towards censorship which should be opposed as a puritanical assault on freedom of expression and the individual responsibility of adults.

    So is the goal to prevent children from being corrupted? To prevent the sale of pictures of naked women? Or to prevent men from becoming women abusers after exposure to pornography?

    Or is the goal the thoroughly worthy cause of increasing the self esteem, image and standing of woman in society, as the campaign also states? If so why not focus on the publications which manipulate female insecurities such as the fashion industry and cosmetic surgery?

    Is Page 3 just an easy target that gets one over on the white van man and picks a fight with an easily identifiable ‘enemy’?

    From the interviews and research published with this campaign it appears that the male readers of the Sun are in fact indifferent to Page 3. Would are less confrontational, more inclusive campaign not have more of a chance of success by bringing people like me over to your side?

    I could support a feminist campaign with clearly defined aims and reasonable targets, but No More Page 3 seems to articulate neither.

  29. Ged Hession March 23, 2014 at 5:05 pm Permalink

    Bloke, on the issue of children and Page 3 I recall that Samantha Fox was popular amongst youngsters. She openly admitted to getting letters from boys as young as 13. Indeed, the fact that she appeared in magazines such as Smash Hits and Just 17 and her appearance on peak time TV shows implies that the media were happy to acknowledge her general popularity , especially amongst children. I also recall a story the Page 3 and Lads’ Mag star Keeley Hazell. She said that a mum got Keeley’s Nuts calendar as a Christmas present for her 14 year old son. She did email Nuts however about the topless pics, claiming she was happy to have her son put pics of Keeley on his bedroom wall as long as they were not topless. As a result Nuts released the Keeley bikini calendar.

  30. Duncan April 6, 2014 at 11:05 am Permalink

    I sometimes buy The Sun, more to be ironic than anything else, plus it’s easy to read and requires a lot less brain function. With a penchant for online porn, I’ve become so used to tits that I barely even notice them on Page 3 anymore. I’ve got to say that I find this whole campaign unbelievably pathetic and pointless. The Sun/NI is a business, they can do whatever the hell they want in a free society!

    I don’t particularly like looking at Gardens, so I don’t buy gardening magazines, I don’t give a toss about golf, so I don’t buy golf magazines. See where I’m coming from? I couldn’t care less about Page 3, but I do care about people telling other people what they can and can’t do just because others don’t agree with it. I don’t like Fox Hunting, but if people are really so morally sick that they consider that fun, do it. I don’t understand how a man and another man can shag, but if that’s what you’re into, fine!

    Get off your pathetic little high horses and focus your efforts on something worthwhile. And stop trying to claim that this campaign is to protect children, what a load of shite. You think with tablets, smartphones and computers kids have access to now that Page 3 is the main threat to their upbringing? When I was 12/13 I couldn’t see videos on Youtube of jihadists being executed, I couldn’t Google ‘Suicide headshot photos’ and be scarred for life!

    Page 3 is pathetic, you’re right, it’s stupid, juvenile and moronic. But choose your battles, try and ban something worthwhile like, I dunno, Cous Cous, hate that stuff.

Leave a Reply