So Page 3 has gone and this is apparently a victory for feminist campaigners around the globe. To that I would say “I don’t care.” There, I said it. I don’t care that women are on Page 3 with no tops on. They’ve been there since 1970 and in fact, I remember, when I was young, drawing bras and bikinis on the model of the day – not because I was prudish, but it was more of a game when you had nothing better to do. It’s never bothered me one way or another. In fact, there were times, where the beauty (or otherwise) of the breasts were discussed and rated, i.e., too saggy, too big, weird shapes, etc. [Yes, I've always been a bit judgy]
When I’ve mentioned Page 3 to my American co-workers, the usual response is a kind of flabbergasted, shocked and repulsed look. Most of them are disgusted at having ‘porn’ in a newspaper. Which to me proves the American archaic attitude towards sex and the female form. I know people who would rather have their kids play Call to Duty than see a pair of boobs. They will cover their children’s eyes at the hint of a nipple on the television, but let them sit and watch death and dismemberment all day long. What’s wrong with that picture? It’s only the human body and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Its not as if these girls/women are being forced into taking their kit off to be photographed. They are choosing to do this in what, I presume, is an attempt for fame and fortune. I’m sure everyone remembers Linda Lusardi, who’s claim to fame was posing topless, was then voted best Page 3 girl of all time and eventually became an actress. Of course, there was also Samantha Fox who for some reason, I absolutely detested with a vengeance. [it’s a long story]
|Samantha Fox and Linda Lusardi (with clothes on)|
Many of the models have gone on to other jobs and many have made an absolute bloody fortune doing what they do. It's no wonder some of the recent models are a bit upset at basically becoming unemployed. One current model, Rhian Sugden has been quoted as saying "Its only a matter of time before everything we do will be dictated by comfy shoe-wearing, no-bra wearing, man-haters." A bit extreme!
It’s really nothing different to Kim Kardashian getting her massive arse out, greasing it up and posing all over the internet, but you don’t see feminist campaigners trying to ban her (oh, but we can only hope).
Rupert Murdoch has said it’s old fashioned to have a topless girl on Page 3 and that’s why he will stop publishing the pictures, while campaigners like “No More Page 3” have said “Whilst sexy pictures may have a place, the accessibility of the Page 3 picture, in the front of the paper, makes access to sexualized women’s bodies as much of a given as the TV Listings…” which is all very well, but if it’s the accessibility they're worried about, presumably they’ve never typed “Boobs” into Google. I just did that (in the name of research) and got this:
‘About 120,000,000 results”
So, not much accessibility there, is there? – and that was only “Boobs” – I could have typed any other name in there and got much the same result. So it probably is time to stop Page 3 because if you really, really need to see boobs at breakfast, you have the internet now.
Maybe I’m too broadminded on this issue and I’m sure someone will object to my opinion. But what’s next? We’ve already got people objecting to mothers breastfeeding in public, saying it’s offensive. Again, another natural thing. Are the campaigners going to try and close all topless beaches now because people don’t want to see breasts?
They may think they have scored a victory against a newspaper whom they say believe "women are here for decoration," but when you have people like the aforementioned Kardashian who takes and makes public her own naked photographs, its going to be a long battle because for every step forward the feminists take, someone like her comes along and makes them take a couple of steps back.
I just think there are more important things to fight about. (Sorry)