Boobs Aren't News - Comments

@ Queue-Tea-Pi
I don't see how that courage is any different, If a woman is proud of having triumphed over breast camcer, that is a beautiful think and I see nothing wrong with that woman wanting to show people her breasts, personally, as someone attracted to women and men alike, I find wimen with flat chests and large chests both attractive and there are other people out there like me. Perhaps the problem is not that the Sun is not showing women who have gone through breast cancer but that these women are not submitting their photos. Women with breast cancer may have a different way or promoting how they feel about that courage than women with the large breasted women published on page three. From my experience, women with small breasts have a more unfounded shame towards their body than large breasted women. That is not the Sun's fault and it is up to a woman personally to love herself and have confisence toward her body. If large breastedvwomen have to be the treadsetters in this aspect, then so be it.

Like I said, a child who sees naked women as sex objects has to be taught to see women that way. Children grow up seeing their parents naked quite often but ut usn't until schooling age that they are taught to be ashamed of nudity and sexuality. Perhaps we should redefine these laws that society has created telling us nudity is only meant for sex and sex only meant to be hidden. Seeing a naked woman doesn't make her a sex object, treating her beautiful, naked body like a sex object makes her a sex object. There is also a difference between treating a person like a sex object and being attracted to someone. You're allowed to be attracted to people. It's not offensive. It's only when you see something as merely an object meant to satisfy you that it is considered treating someone like a "sex object." I cannot stress enough how perfectly okay and normal it is to find an attractive person attractive.

I feel like there is this big hype lately that girls can only look at a woman comfortable in her sexuality and think that is the only way they can feel attractive. I don't understand who made this rule. Who says a girl can't look at a woman and admire that woman but still ve comfortable with herself? I am perfectly comfortable with myself but I do admire the women with the confidence to expose themselves in a society that says she should be ashamed of her body. I'm not ashamed of myself because I don't sexualize myself for other peeople's benefit. I don't have low self-esteem because I'm not a sex symbol. There are plenty of girls out there like me, and I frankly find it a little silly that there are girls out there with such thin skin that they cannot be comfortable with themselves because they don't look like some woman from a magazine. Rather than take all these beautiful women out of magazines, we teach girls to accept that not everyonrle looks the same and that's okat- infact, that's wonderful!

I don't see it as the Sun as teaching children anything, actually. Tge Sun will post what it finds attractive. No one has to agree with them and not every will. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, from the youngest child to a large publication such as the Sun. It isn't anybody's fault that people think the Sun is making them believe a certain thing about women. If a child looks at page three and sees a barely clothed woman, they don't have to be ashamed of themself because they are not like those women, and it's our job as a society to teach them that. You can look at a person who is different than you and beautiful and still feel beautiful yoyrself. I feel like people there is only allowed to be one kind of beautiful and if we don't axknowledge anything as beautiful then we won't have to call someone out as ugly, because god forbid we offend anyone, but that is ridiculous! There are a million kinds of beautiful and every one is going to be attracted to a different kind of it, and that is OKAY. So why not acknowledge the people who find themselves beautiful and appreciate that and work on helping those who don't have the same self-confidence rather than bury every one in hopes of making no one better than any one else. It's all subjective so it's ignorant to treat everyone the same because we aren't all the same, even if we are all equal.

@ njet
Thankyou for your positive comments, firstly:) And steps in the right direction are what the campaign is all about. As amazing as it would be for change to occur over night, it's not going to happen, so baby steps are the way forward!

@ addesin
Firstly, thankyou for feedback. I appreciate it, and I do take in the fact that this article is more from one viewpoint than the other, however in my defence, when the other side of an article refuse to give little more than a sentence, there's not much to go on.

I didn't criticise the bravery of the women, because I appreciate that exposing your body in such a way is a courageous thing to do. However, why not consider the bravery of a woman who has won a battle with breast cancer? The courage and determination she has shown is unlimited, but page 3 teaches her that her breasts aren't what men want generally, because they're not a C or D cup, which is typically what The Sun uses.

Personally, I feel that it would do a lot of good for women's rights. If children grow up seeing women in their underwear, as the biggest female picture within a newspaper, they are going to think that the focal place for women in society is as sex objects, and evidently this is false. Not only false, but damaging. If a young girl sees this in the newspaper, what is she supposed to think? 'This lady's picture is the biggest, therefore she must be important. To be important, I have to take my clothes off.' And yes, a child should be correctly informed of the purpose of the body, and page 3 is completely going against that.

I once read somewhere, and I'll try and find the link once I'm not on my phone, that typically a man will subconsciously have decided the 'type' of woman he is attracted to, by the age of 21. There could be many contributing factors to this, and whilst there is nothing wrong with a man having a type, why not show from a young age that there is more than one type of woman,(Typically, The Sun uses women of the same body shape.) and that she doesn't have to be scantily-clad to be attractive. We should be the generation that doesn't preach about natural beauty but then scorn somebody who we don't define as naturally beautiful.

I don't know why the reference to 'prudish conservatives' was relevant, but feel that I should state that I'm not conservative anyway. Yes, the human body is beautiful, but each body is different, and The Sun doesn't show that. Additionally, children should know their bodies are beautiful, and how are girls going to do that if they grow up in a world where the 'nation's favourite newspaper' teaches that natural beauty only comes in a certain form?

I know this is extremely late but I just figure I'll add my two cents as well. Fist of all, like every one else, I did notice that there was a lot of effort and research put into this and I appreciate that part. But I do wish there wasn't so much of an obvious bias in the article.

I think it's unfair to claim that page three is not an appreciation of natural beauty. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say and as long as someone finds those women beautiful, they always will be, as far as I'm concerned. If those women have the courage to show their chest to the world, how is that not beautiful? It isn't their fault certain people can't respect and appreciate that bravery, and it is not the Sun's fault any more than it is the women's.

Second of all, I feel like taking the page woukd do more harm than good for women's rights. We seem to have this idea that woman are allowed to be equal only if they mute their sexuality and put it on the back burner. Why can't a woman be comfortable with her body and have the joy of being able to flaunt it? I would love to be able to bear all so to speak and expose my chest despite the fact that yes, I have small breasts. Who cares if you have big breasts or small breasts or no breasts for that matter? If you want to show your breasts, you should have the right to without people saying your immoral or slutty. Guys walk around topless all the time. Why can't women?

Also, why shouldn't children be expose to a naked woman? They won't be permanently scarred by it! Every one is naked beneath their clothing after all and eventually every kid grows up into an adult who has sex or knows what it is. It's only adults who teach children to treat other people as sex objects. A child if correctly informed of the purpose of any person's body (men as well as women), they will learn to respect it as they are supposed to.

When women fight the appreciation of the female form, it does more to encourage sexism than letting things falls as they may and giving those who are attracted to women the ability to look at it and show it appreciation. Why not just accept the fact that people will be attracted to you and want to have sex with you? Or maybe they won't, because you're not their type. Who knows. And who cares? It's not those people's fault that they are attracted to a certain type of person. It's okay to like big breasted woman or thin women or white women. Women come in all shapes and sizes and there is a person out there that is attracted to each type. You wouldn't tell a man attracted to black women or a man attracted to transwomen or a man attracted to thick women not to want to look at and adore women that fit his fancy so why can't men who are simply attracted to the women on page three be allowed to like them?

I really want to know why people shouldn't be allowed to look at something they find beautiful without being accused of objectifying it, though? And why a someone can't flaunt a body part they are proud of, even if people don't agree. It should be the same with all parts of the body. I find human genetalia extemely beautiful, yet we are taight this part of the body is dirty and should be kept hidden. Why are people allowed to expose everything except for this part of the body? I find it as offensive as this nonesense about men being allowed to walk around topless whenever they please but as soon as someone trys to break down the barrier preventing women from doing the same, an army of prudish conservatives appear throw a towel over the girl's chest. I know my views on human genetalia probably aren't shared by all but it's obvious people feel similarly to me in the case of the female chest so why shouldn't we be allowed to expose ourselves if we so choose, as long as we aren't being obscene and distasteful about it? And in my opinion, flaunting your assets is not being obscene.

I can only assume that this article wasn’t put on Mibba’s homepage (unless it was and I just missed it) because of the subject. It’s a very informative and entertaining piece, and it’s obvious you have researched and followed the campaign. I like how you’ve asked questions throughout, (hopefully) making people think about the issue rather than just accept/reject your opinion automatically. The informal style is very refreshing too. The only criticism I would give is to include more from the other side of the argument, but I suppose that’s difficult if they’re unwilling to make their case known.

I’ve been following the campaign somewhat – just reading the emails from change.org and taking actions when needed. It doesn’t seem likely to succeed – at least not in the near future – but from what I’ve heard, it’s had some effect. One email I received a few weeks ago encouraged the supporters to lobby Lego to end their promotion with the Sun. As far as I know, it was successful, so maybe this is a move in the right direction.

Whilst I haven’t seen much of page three, I really don’t think it’s “a celebration of natural beauty”. Firstly, because the featured women, no matter how naturally beautiful they are, seem to always wear make up and be subject to airbrushing. Secondly, as you pointed out in the comments, there isn’t much variety – all the women have similar breast sizes, and I expect that most of them are slim, young, white, conventionally beautiful, etc. I think those who support the campaign wouldn’t oppose page three so much if it featured a variety of women and truly promoted “natural beauty”, however I doubt that suggestion would be popular with the Sun and it’s supporters.

@ Queen Obscene
I agree to an extent with nudity in media. But only in the right places. Namely, not in the place where a young child can grow up with it, and be affected because of that. Though, if I'm taking in your message correctly, perhaps the idea of more imaginative photography could help with the issue- not showing but more suggesting at how a woman's body looks?

@ castiel's vessel
I suppose that yes, with women with cancer, the idea of getting their breasts out isn't too appealing, however, what about the girls with the smaller breasts? The girls with the bigger breasts? Despite the winner of the sun's last page 3 idol competition being above a D, the cup sizes of the girls usually fluctuate between C and D. What if you're a smaller cupsize and want to celebrate your natural beauty? Natural beauty is surely not just beauty that men appreciate. By having the largest picture in the newspaper as a half naked woman, you illustrate to the public that the most important position of a woman in society, is as a sexual object. And surely that's not right.

I don't even object to the idea of nudity being in newspapers, but Page 3 is just so badly done.
It's mostly some girl topless girl going "Look at my tits"
If you're going to do something at least be good at it.

Also I contest the idea of the Sun being a newspaper. I've never read it, but I'm convinced it's an elaborate lie.

@ Queue-Tea-Pi
Well the Page 3 girls have to be willing to have their photo up, and I'd guess that most women who have lost a breast wouldn't be that keen on the whole nation seeing their chest. I know that it's a sign that they fought and beat breast cancer, but something like that many women wouldn't want to show the world. The alienation wouldn't just come from the page, though. If you watch the breaks during a programme and they're selling underwear, a lot of those women have fairly large breasts while some have smaller ones to show the sizes available. The only difference between underwear adverts and the page is the lack of bra, which to be honest with you, hides does anything as they raise the breasts up and emphasise them more than no bra does. I do get what you're on about, but in the end it comes down to the girls who are willing to pose for the page. It's their choice to pose for the page, just like it's other women's choice not to pose for the page.

@ castiel's vessel
I appreciate the beauty of bodies, and all of which it stands for. One thing which I regretfully didn't include within my article, however, is the alienation it creates for other women. What about a woman who has smaller breasts? Or larger breasts? Or who has won a fight with breast cancer, but lost a breast as a result? If the newspaper truly want to show the 'natural beauty' of women, surely they shouldn't limit themselves to one type of woman.

This article is nicely written and informative.

However, I do believe that Page 3 shouldn't be stopped just because some people think it's demoralising to women. Bearing your chest is a brave thing to do, but bearing your chest to a newspaper with thousands of readers daily is a really courageous thing to do, in my opinion. The removal of the page would give the message to other women that it's not okay to show your body, that it should be hidden away like we're a society that frowns upon any sort of display. Although I would never show my body like that, I can't fathom why so many people would be eager to stop us from progressing into the mindset that the body isn't something to be embarrassed about. And the whole 'celebration of natural beauty' thing is true. The body is the most natural bit of beauty that can be found, and although we cover it up because it's the morally correct thing to do, why can't we reveal it every once in a while? I can't see how seeing the page would make a girl think that the only way they can celebrate natural beauty is to uncover their body - but that'd be their way of thinking and not the page's fault.

I honestly think removing the page from the newspaper would be a terrible thing for women because it'd send the message that it's not okay to show your body because society says that it's not accepted. And honestly, that'd be progressing back to the old days and women don't deserve that.