The Sun to drop Page 3, reports Times

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Just because something might be morally wrong, doesn't mean it should be prevented. If the Sun's kind of news is causing a downturn in readership, then let that happen. That just means the Sun is not fit in today's economy.

Indeed- but it's also arguably a legal and percptional issue. We're talking about the sexualization of 15 year old girls through countdowns to their 16 birthday...not 20th, or you know a 16 year old to 17- but 15-16 because that's the legal age they can have sex in the UK. It's purporting these girls (Who again didn't ask to be in the paper in that way) as 15 year old sex objects. I really can't see how there can be a valid reason to run such a thing?

[General Retreat]

Just because something might be morally wrong, doesn't mean it should be prevented. If the Sun's kind of news is causing a downturn in readership, then let that happen. That just means the Sun is not fit in today's economy.

At no point have they been prevented. This is what confuses me when people (not you personally) scream 'censorship' in response to anti-whatever campaign groups. Censorship is conducted by the state, and the state in this case has repeatedly clarified that they've got no interest in stepping in to decide what The Sun should do about page 3.

Although I agree that they should be allowed to lie in the bed they've made. Making a U Turn on page 3 will have won them points with a few demographics, but I fully expect they'll continue to work on a silent pivot to online and mobile media.

[Cope]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...sive-reporting

http://www.channel4.com/news/report-...eveson-inquiry

Some quotes-





Incredibly disgusting and very much sexist don't you think? Why should a paper be able to run this? It's not news...there's nothing remotely valuable to it, it's not even a freedom of speech issue... counting down to underage girls 16th Birthday (And specifically girls in case you want to use the 'it's only a birthday countdown!' excuse) Please defend that?

So your jumping to conclusions here mate. That is what i meant by disgraceful. No where did i mention the pictures. My position has always been that people should be free to do as they choose when it comes to nudity- male or female. Both should be represented as they personally like in media.

The quality of reporting, the incredibly sexist and racist attitudes prevalent in the journalism- that's the reason why the Sun is dying out. People want news- they go to a real newspaper. People want porn- they go online.

With the Sun going back on their Page 3 thing, i guess though that they realized they could never make it as an actual newspaper- it would require a costly and nigh impossible re-branding process to be taken seriously. Thus better to eke out what cash you can and let it slowly die as Page 3 loses out to the internet.

I agree that the birthday countdowns are classless and perverted, but I was making the point that page three isn't sexist. Some people might consider it sleazy and distasteful, and that's fine.

What I find kind of funny - and to refer to the articles you linked - are all these arm chair physiologists trying to point score over "sexual objectification". People just will not accept that modern western culture is regularly incompatible with human biology. Both men and women sexualize each other constantly, it is part of what makes us human and no amount of leftist rhetoric is going to change that. Moreover, you simply cannot have a sexually liberated society and then complain about the way people choose to express themselves in a sexual manner.

[Derpy Hooves]

At no point have they been prevented. This is what confuses me when people (not you personally) scream 'censorship' in response to anti-whatever campaign groups. Censorship is conducted by the state, and the state in this case has repeatedly clarified that they've got no interest in stepping in to decide what The Sun should do about page 3.

Please show me where I said that they have been prevented?
Please show me where I screamed censorship?
My post implied none of those things.
@Dante
Of course it can be a perceptional issue. Everything can be turned into a perceptional issue. Now as for there being a valid reason for it in the paper, if the editors and management saw a reason for it to be there, then I guess there was a valid reason. The clock would certainly take up precious space on a paper. Now what the reason is, I cannot fathom.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I agree that the birthday countdowns are classless and perverted, but I was making the point that page three isn't sexist. Some people might consider it sleazy and distasteful, and that's fine.

I think we have an agreement there then. I don't think the page itself is inately sexist- the way the entire paper presents itself in terms of the countdowns and attitudes towards men and women (Running those famous opinion pieces and the articles labeling two women as '' because they were annoyed they'd been cheated on- while in another story sympathizing with a man who's been cheated on and who also had been extremely childish in dealing with it. An issue of double standards here.

What I find kind of funny - and to refer to the articles you linked - are all these arm chair physiologists trying to point score over "sexual objectification". People just will not accept that modern western culture is regularly incompatible with human biology. Both men and women sexualize each other constantly, it is part of what makes us human and no amount of leftist rhetoric is going to change that. Moreover, you simply cannot have a sexually liberated society and then complain about the way people choose to express themselves in a sexual manner.

I agree here actually, in that modern society is a strange mix of sexual liberation (rightly so) and at the same time- with so much freedom, many aren't sure which version to go with. You can see this in feminism and it's various factions- some of who wholly support women wearing whatever they damn well please- as risky as they personally wish when clubbing etc (and quite right indeed)...while other groups of feminists would then try and attempt to outlaw that as for them- instead of a strong woman who's rightfully wearing whatever makes her feel happiest, they see a woman oppressed by men and who is dressing to a mans whim for his enjoyment.

Two hugely contrasting views- something has to give.

@Dante
Of course it can be a perceptional issue. Everything can be turned into a perceptional issue. Now as for there being a valid reason for it in the paper, if the editors and management saw a reason for it to be there, then I guess there was a valid reason. The clock would certainly take up precious space on a paper. Now what the reason is, I cannot fathom.

The big issue though mate is that it's actively encouraging and promoting people to think about 15 year olds in a sexualized manner. It's basically saying 'I would if she was already 16'. Which lets face it despite freedom of expression we still have laws to protect minors- they were minors, and this is definitely borderline and while not entirely illegal per say (though the leveson inquiry i believe has made it so).

This also naturally will affect attitudes of people- it's purporting the 'it's ok to perv on young girls' vibe, which in terms of social change has never been ok, nor should it. And finally of course we get to the fact that whose freedom trumps whose? Surely the girls in question have a right to not be exploited publicly in that manner and made sex objects without their consent?

If it was an actual news issue, it would arguably be different, but this isn't even an invasion of privacy. It's the exposing of 15 year olds to being objectified before they have even been legally allowed to experience that world- it's taken away their freedom to act and decide in a way.

In terms of the Sun- it's because quite frankly the paper doesn't really do 'news'- so space is never at a premium Most of it is fabricated stories, made up opinion pieces, or just inane headlines and big font- with lots of pics. It's never attempted to be a serious newspaper- but jumped on the 'Nuts' bandwagon...but was superseded by 'Nut's and currently attempts to avoid being a complete anarchism by masquerading and creating its own lineage as some kind of self proclaimed 'national institution'. I dont' know either mate!

[Butan]

At no point have they been prevented. This is what confuses me when people (not you personally) scream 'censorship' in response to anti-whatever campaign groups. Censorship is conducted by the state, and the state in this case has repeatedly clarified that they've got no interest in stepping in to decide what The Sun should do about page 3.

Although I agree that they should be allowed to lie in the bed they've made. Making a U Turn on page 3 will have won them points with a few demographics, but I fully expect they'll continue to work on a silent pivot to online and mobile media.

In french there is the word "auto-censure" which means not allowing oneself to do X things for Y reasons. I though censorship wasnt strictly state-related personally.

[Condottiere 40K]

Spoon feeding has a seductiveness all on it's own.

They could replace page three with Chucky Hepcat cartoons.

[Derpy Hooves]

The big issue though mate is that it's actively encouraging and promoting people to think about 15 year olds in a sexualized manner. It's basically saying 'I would if she was already 16'. Which lets face it despite freedom of expression we still have laws to protect minors- they were minors, and this is definitely borderline and while not entirely illegal per say (though the leveson inquiry i believe has made it so).

I think the law did more to sexualize 16 year olds than a simple birthday clock does. How was the clock depicted anyway? Was it just written as a normal clock with no decorations that said "This girl will be 16 years old in eleven days hence." or something like that? If that is true, how does it sexualize a 15 year old at all? Does celebrating one's 16th birthday an act of sexualization? In the US, at least, when you turn 16, it is a bigger event than when you turn 15. It's usually called a Sweet Sixteen.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I think the law did more to sexualize 16 year olds than a simple birthday clock does. How was the clock depicted anyway? Was it just written as a normal clock with no decorations that said "This girl will be 16 years old in eleven days hence." or something like that? If that is true, how does it sexualize a 15 year old at all? Does celebrating one's 16th birthday an act of sexualization? In the US, at least, when you turn 16, it is a bigger event than when you turn 15. It's usually called a Sweet Sixteen.

I think your missing the connotations my friend. 16 being the age your legal in the UK for sex- it's not a countdown to 'adult hood' (18), or driving (17) or even a nice 'birthday countdown' - otherwise it would be girls from all ages 16-17 for instance- but in essence it was very implied it was till they were legally sexually active/available. Usually the countdown was accompanied by a pic of them with associated text.

The fact again that everyone knew it was for sexually objectification is well known (the girls themselves were creeped out no end)- especially as said it wasn't for any other age. 16 in the UK isn't so much a big deal as in the US, it's literally only a big deal because it's the legal age we can get busy with it so to speak. And in this way your sexually objectifying 15 year olds through basically implying the countdown is waiting for them to be 'legal' to sleep with- i.e. if it wasn't for that they'd be attempting to, but instead we're going to count down anyway the time until your 'fair game'- it's as i said quite disgusting actually.

[Derpy Hooves]

but in essence it was very implied it was till they were legally sexually active/available. Usually the countdown was accompanied by a pic of them with associated text.

​Do you have an image of it?

[Dante Von Hespburg]

​Do you have an image of it?

http://www.anorak.co.uk/304564/news/...e-church.html/

There's one mate. I don't think it's really out there anymore on searching since in the case of Church her lawyers took it down- there was also two very creepy websites- one drawing inspiration and one run by the Sun which had pics of the 15 year old over it.

If you cant' see the writing it's referring to her as a 'big girl now' who 'showed off' 'looking chest swell'- referring of course to her breasts. Don't think you can get more objectifying than that having a whole page dedicated to one in this case just turned 16 year olds breasts.

[Abdülmecid I]

Why all this fuss about pg3? As everybody said, Internet is much better for anyone who enjoys topless, young ladies, so who really cares about a newspaper that's not really supposed to inform you about the news? After all, I bet all this thing was just a marketing trick, with the Times "accidentally" giving some publicity to their failing counterparts.

[Captain Jin]

I'm curious, I thought you Brits were a lot more relaxed about being topless. Like I used to see women at the park do it when I was living in the UK (not in any of the major parks in London but outside it), and I thought it was normal to see on tv outside of major cable channels like HBO like we have in the US. Not to mention the attitudes of some British female soldiers about it that I heard from their male counterparts in Afghan. So if so, what's the big deal with it in Page 3? Or is it not as relaxed as I thought it was? I always found it funny how puritanical the US is about showing breasts even though we make like the most (high) quality porn in the world. In fact you can witness a brutally staged murder on tv in the US but you can't see a woman's nipple. Always such a laughable thing.

[Condottiere 40K]

It's sexual politics; complaints about political correctness and post modern feminism aren't that far off the mark, in an attempt to control social and cultural development.

Rather like the attempts to make gay marriage illegal, on the other side of the Pond.

[Cope]

I'm curious, I thought you Brits were a lot more relaxed about being topless. Like I used to see women at the park do it when I was living in the UK (not in any of the major parks in London but outside it), and I thought it was normal to see on tv outside of major cable channels like HBO like we have in the US. Not to mention the attitudes of some British female soldiers about it that I heard from their male counterparts in Afghan. So if so, what's the big deal with it in Page 3? Or is it not as relaxed as I thought it was? I always found it funny how puritanical the US is about showing breasts even though we make like the most (high) quality porn in the world. In fact you can witness a brutally staged murder on tv in the US but you can't see a woman's nipple. Always such a laughable thing.

People aren't uptight about it in the traditional conservative Christian context like they are in the USA. It's not about casting the topless women as loose whores, instead its about casting the publishers and their male viewership as sexually uncontrollable animals who are hell bent on demeaning all women by "perpetually" valuing them based on their sexual marketability - because you know, enjoying the female form is in no way natural and makes you an automatic misogynist.

I also agree that societal priorities and sexual etiquette are in complete disarray thanks to 21st century feminists being incapable of realizing that sexual the sexual dynamics that exist between men and women are, nor ever will be, "equal". I think in the UK it is illegal to produce anything other than soft porn, not that it makes an ounce of difference thanks to the internet. I do find it hilarious that the state is keen to the press the acceptability of homosexual preferences but at the same time think it's fine to ban people from making even mild fetish videos. We live in a sexually liberated society where the state is pushing for all British ISP's to filter all "mature" content on the internet by the default, so its really not surprising that page 3 should be a target for leftist groups.

[Navajo Joe]

Sadly, its a symptom here in the UK of political correctness, in that we have to be protected from ourselves. Ordinary people cannot have ordinary beliefs and ideals, unless they get branded racists, sexists, bigots, etc, there are far more important female concerns to be dealt with such as genital mutilation.


Its really very simple, if you have a problem don't buy the newspaper, if they cannot sell their paper, they will change their position on what they print.

[Phier]

In fact you can witness a brutally staged murder on tv in the US but you can't see a woman's nipple. Always such a laughable thing.

I've always found it kinda odd that people link sex and violence as some sort of barometer of acceptability. My 10 year old watches plenty of WWII documentaries, real people die in those, but I'm not showing him a youporn link.

[Cope]

I've always found it kinda odd that people link sex and violence as some sort of barometer of acceptability. My 10 year old watches plenty of WWII documentaries, real people die in those, but I'm not showing him a youporn link.

That's because morality and acceptability is hypocritical and often illogical. When I used to play Call of Duty 2, for example, I routinely went on multiplayer servers that were "family oriented" and banned swearing - this being despite the fact the server owners often allowed their kids to play a game violent game which was rated 18+ for that precise reason.

In any event, the violence depicted in documentaries is not really graphic, unlike the images on porn sites. I imagine that you wouldn't let your 10 year old watch SAW for instance, but you wouldn't mind him/her watching animated characters out of Disney films kiss or seeing Sims "tumble" under the duvet covers in the video game.

[Phier]

That's because morality and acceptability is hypocritical and often illogical. When I used to play Call of Duty 2, for example, I routinely went on multiplayer servers that were "family oriented" and banned swearing - this being despite the fact the server owners often allowed their kids to play a game violent game which was rated 18+ for that precise reason.

In any event, the violence depicted in documentaries is not really graphic, unlike the images on porn sites. I imagine that you wouldn't let your 10 year old watch SAW for instance, but you wouldn't mind him/her watching animated characters out of Disney films kiss or seeing Sims "tumble" under the duvet covers in the video game.

My point being that sex and violence are not somehow paired. Different responses and different issues. Kids understand violence long before sex (hopefully). We had fights at school before we had any pubic hair.

Added most violance on US TV is not very graphic, I saw more gore witnessing a "minor" motorcycle accident then I ever did on network style TV.

The US is quite prudish about sex, but its a separate issue from violence, I don't see it as anything that can be equated.

[Cope]

My point being that sex and violence are not somehow paired. Different responses and different issues. Kids understand violence long before sex (hopefully). We had fights at school before we had any pubic hair.

Added most violance on US TV is not very graphic, I saw more gore witnessing a "minor" motorcycle accident then I ever did on network style TV.

The US is quite prudish about sex, but its a separate issue from violence, I don't see it as anything that can be equated.

That's a fair point.