Turn Your Back On Page 3

How do you feel about Page 3?

Is it harmless fun or harmful?

Do you think there is any place for it in the 21st century?

When MP Clare Short first introduced her Private Members Bill in the House of Commons in 1986 to ban Page 3, her postbag the following Monday was overflowing with heartfelt letters from women and men, children & pensioners from all walks of life and of all nationalities and political persuasions from all over the country. This was clearly a topic that moved the people, however, it failed to move the old school male dominated parliament types so the debate was kicked out. (For further reading go to: Dear Clare … this is what women feel about Page 3).

Well it’s time to put this back on the agenda.

According to the organization End Violence Against Women as many as 3 million women a year are victim to violence.  In the UK alone this includes domestic violence, rape and sexual violence, sexual harassment, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, crimes in the name of honour, trafficking and sexual exploitation.  You could say it is practically legal to rape a woman in this country when you consider that the conviction rate in rape cases is only 6.1 percent.  30 years ago it was more than 33%.  Children’s charity NSPCC claim that 1/3 of teenage girls in a relationship suffer unwanted sexual acts and a quarter physical violence.

Does Page 3 – and its ilk – have anything to do with violence against women on any level?  Specifically sexual violence?  Is the saturation of soft-core pornography into the mainstream press and media having any impact on society at all, however mild or extreme?  Is it purely coincidence that as pornographic imagery within society has increased, conviction rates for rape have decreased?

The Sun is the UK’s most popular newspaper and is read by a broad spectrum of people from all walks of life.  With this in mind, do you think Page 3 it may play any part in shaping attitudes towards girls and women at all?

Is a young girl or woman staring provocatively at the reader, with her breasts exposed for public consumption, served up amongst our daily news having any effect whatsoever on our psyche?  So prevalent is the ‘female as submissive sex object’ in the British press and media, might society have been brainwashed into believing that girls and women exist purely for men’s sexual gratification and titillation?  If society does believe this then it certainly could explain these shockingly low rape convictions.

Sexual harassment in the workplace and on the streets is an everyday occurrence for most women. Could The Sun and Page 3 culture be fuelling this? Does it program men into thinking we are all ‘up for it’? Most girls and women would say they feel uncomfortable when they are sat or stood next to a male who is looking at Page 3 – particularly when that male is old enough to be the model’s father, or even grandfather. If the eradication of Page 3 meant girls and women felt less threatened or intimidated when going about their day to day life, would men care if it didn’t exist?

Is it not a bit sickening that these images sit amongst stories on war, terror, murder … rape? Furthermore, isn’t it incredibly troubling to see The Sun run a front page story on rape only for you to turn the page and find a young girl photographed with her breasts out staring provocatively at the reader? What message is this giving out?

Some argue “well, if the girls choose to do it and they earn money out of it then who are we to argue?” but since when has money been any sort of moral justification? And, say the girls did ‘choose’ to do this, freely, why should the rest of us suffer? Why should we have this ‘thrust’ in our face on a daily basis? In a country that has only just legalised the right for a woman to BREASTFEED in a public place, why should having young girls’ naked breasts on public display be ok? The answer is a fairly dark one; that women’s breasts are only socially acceptable if they exist for men’s sexual consumption. The most natural role a woman can fulfill, the most natural of female instincts and female functions is seen as wholly offensive. WELL, WHY? Is this an indication of women’s true status in society?

How can Page 3 have any place in modern Britain when we are supposed to be a multi-cultured society? How can we really have true equality whilst Page 3 (and other forms of soft pornography) is in mass circulation and pushed in the public’s face whenever we walk into a newsagent’s or turn on the TV? Is this really being respectful of others’ faith?

Human Rights organisation Object campaign specifically and tirelessly on challenging the sexual objectification of women in the media and popular culture.  Even though my project also raises awareness about the proliferation of pornographic images in our press, I am campaigning and calling for the eradication of Page 3.  We cannot move forward as a society whilst this celebrated ‘iconic’ image is still in existence and lauded in our most popular newspaper.  It really is as simple as that.

I believe if Page 3 was eradicated it would be so significant – because of its popularity – that the rest of its ilk would have to stand up and take notice.  SOCIETY would then too stand up and take notice and we would witness the birth of a revolution.  We would witness the first major step in recent years in women’s fight for true gender equality. 

I often ask young girls what they think about Page 3. Thankfully and surprisingly many aren’t entirely comfortable with it. One 19 year old summed it up perfectly when I asked her how she felt, she replied “it makes it socially acceptable to perv over women and treat them as sex objects”. Exactly.

Men & boys, if you suspected that Page 3 played a part, however small in anything mentioned here, would you mind living without it? Ask yourself … could you live without it?

Shouldn’t we be spending time proving that it DOESN’T have an effect on society rather than it having an effect on society?

Rupert Murdoch first introduced Page 3 to The Sun in 1970. A few years later, in 1975 Britain would see the introduction of the Racial Discrimination Act. Part of this act prohibits offensive behaviour based on racial hatred. We are still waiting for a law which prohibits sexism.  The UN’s Convention To End Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has repeatedly identified the links between the portrayal of women as sexual objects by the media and commercial sex industry with attitudes that underpin violence and discrimination against women, yet our government has still not enacted on any relevant policies.

It’s time for change. We are becoming an increasingly tolerant and morally conscious nation. We take steps to protect our environment. We strive to end world poverty and go out in our millions to march on the streets and protest against wars. We have, in our lifetime, witnessed our first black president and hopefully understand the significance of that.  (For further reading read The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. edited by Clayborne Carson). Women too have come a long way but we still have far to go and we won’t know, recognize or fulfill our true potential unless we are seen as truly equal and while we are being viewed as mere sex objects we are not being seen as human. We need to move on. It’s time to say enough is enough. This is Great Britain. We should be leading the way. This archaic symbol of sexism has no place in the 21st century.

So, whoever you are, whatever you are, wherever you are …

It’s time to GET YOUR BACKS UP!!!

This is what inspired this campaign. If you agree on any level about anything written here, then join the ‘TURN YOUR BACK ON PAGE 3 campaign. Take a picture of your back with the campaign slogan ‘TURN YOUR BACK ON PAGE 3′ and upload them onto this page or email them (and your opinions) to turnyourbackonpage3@hotmail.com.

Make the point that you too are turning your back.

Backers!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

DON’T TURN YOUR BACK ON PAGE 3

This photo was submitted to my “Turn Your Back On Page 3” Facebook group – a group I started which calls for the eradication of Page 3.  I thought it was common sense that having a half naked young girl (sometimes only two years out of school), alongside our daily news wasn’t progressive in a world where women are still fighting to be seen as equal.  I ask people to show their support by sending in pictures of their bare backs (a play on words) in protest – hence the reason behind this picture.

This is a controversial subject and has brought out a vitriolic reaction from many members of the public, but this is what I expected.  What I find hard to get used to, however, is the response from some women, especially some glamour models. 

Why do the women in this picture stand with such a defiant look in their eyes?  Do they think that campaigns such as this exist to take away their right to choose?  They don’t.  (As Rebecca Whisnant beautifully puts it: – “Feminism isn’t about what choice you make but the freedom to make that choice”).  Or, do they think that these campaigns aim to stamp out pornography altogether – which would ultimately render them jobless?  They don’t.   Campaigns such as “Turn Your Back On Page 3” are about getting pornography out of our press.  A notion that doesn’t seem too absurd once presented with the facts.

Human rights organisation Object recently issued a comprehensive study entitled “Joining The Dots”, outlining important evidence linking the sexual objectification of women and girls in the media and popular culture to a negative effect on individual health and well-being, dissatisfaction over body image and self-esteem – which in turn leads to eating disorders and plastic surgery, sexual bullying, the damaging of sexual relations between young people, the promotion and reinforcement of sexist and racist attitudes, and violence against women. 

The press and media play one of the key roles in perpetuating and reinforcing this ideal but despite this being recognized as harmful by the United Nation’s (UN) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Women’s National Commission (WNC) and the Beijing Platform for Action (BPfA), and being validated by our own government, nothing has been done about it.

When will these young women realize they are playing a part in their own oppression?  Or that they are being ridiculed too?  Anne Robinson recently declared: – “If there was a lovely blonde with huge breasts and long legs who had my experience and wit, I’d be out of a job”.  The Sun ran this story with the headline “Weakest Link Oldie Raps Bimbos”.  Ms Robinson didn’t even mention the word “bimbo”, yet that’s clearly what The Sun thinks – “a lovely blonde with huge breasts and long legs” (very much like the type of girl that frequents its very own Page 3) is exactly that.  By definition, this isn’t an empowering description.  When Heather Mills was exposed by The Sun for appearing in something of a similar nature, they labeled her “depraved”.  Bimbo and depraved – that is what The Sun thinks of its Page 3 girls.

My hope is that equipped with this knowledge and regarding the issues outlined in Object’s report, women such as these in this photo will come to their own conclusion and “turn their backs on Page 3”.  However, if in spite of this they still choose objectification over emancipation; at the very least might we all come to a mutual agreement that these images shouldn’t permeate our daily press.

The Sun & Page 3 Bashing

The Sun & Page 3 was the topic of conversation on both TV & radio last week.

First up was the Simon Mayo BBC Radio 5 Live show.  After a general debate questioning how powerful The Sun is when it comes to swaying the public vote in general elections, the conversation moved on to Page 3.  Simon asked his guests if they could imagine The Sun without it?  Political writer & broadcaster Lance Price insisted he could.  He went on to say “I’m not a reader of The Sun, but nor am I interested in half-naked women to be honest, and I’m sure a lot of readers aren’t and some of the women aren’t.  You can laugh it off but I find it dated and I think The Sun would be a better newspaper without it.”

Lance makes a brilliant point here.  Why does The Sun insist on peddling sexism:- the most obvious example being Page 3?  It remains the UK’s most popular newspaper, so why does a newspaper that holds so much clout care so little about being taken seriously? 

Journalist & former Political Editor of The Sun, Trevor Kavanagh, opposed Lance and went on to say that he couldn’t imagine The Sun without it: “We’ve thought about (getting rid of) it many times and tried briefly to run it without it.  We pushed it back in the paper to Page 7 but the reader response was enormous and they were disappointed and it’s not just the men, women like Page 3 too.  We have 44% of our readers who are women and sometimes we have a competition for the next Page 3 girl and we are absolutely swamped with offers & applications from women.”

I cannot imagine a woman writing in and expressing her disappointment that she doesn’t get to see young girls’ breasts every day however, if there are any ladies that did write in, please do get in touch.  I would love to hear from you.  With regards to Trevor’s Page 3 competition post, please read my previous Page 3 Idol post.

Simon Mayo finished by asking the BBC’s Senior Political Correspondent, John Pienaar’s opinion regarding Page 3’s trademark status over the last 40 years.  Here’s what he said:

 “Yes, it’s certainly a trademark.  There is a controversy about Page 3, I’m not going to engage in that for obvious reasons, it’s not my business as a BBC correspondent but I will say this, I do love the boxes that go with it, you get a little nugget of the model’s point of view on a particular subject of the day, I find that always rich & well worth reading.”

Jon is clearly being sarcastic but he is also being flippant as these little ‘nuggets’ are far more cynical than you would probably imagine.  I personally think The Sun includes these little ‘nuggets’ to remind women of their status in society i.e. that basically no one’s paying attention to the frivolous things that come out of our mouths when the only thing that matters is what is attached to our chest.  Other arguments are that it could be to make the model in question look like she not only has nice boobs but a brain too which in turn maybe makes her more sexually desirable to  men, or, as brilliantly quoted by my good friend Jonny Stevens:  “The Sun wants the general public to believe that these ‘girls’ have a mind of their own and aren’t being objectified at all – after all, if they have views on current affairs then they are more than capable of making their mind up on whether to get their breasts out for The Sun”.

Next up was the comedy quiz ‘Have I Got News For You’.  Presenter Jack Dee was joined by panelist Mark Burton who had an important point to make regarding The Sun’s coverage of serious stories and its juxtaposition with Page 3.  In this instance they were discussing the misspelled letter Gordon Brown sent to the mother of a soldier killed in Afghanistan.

 “It’s always interesting with The Sun when they think a story’s really important like this ‘cause it still only makes Page 1 and then Page 4, so you get “outrage!” “what a disgrace!”, ‘the shame of grieving mother!’, some tits to cheer everyone up, then how much The Sun really cares about it, once you’ve seen the tits.”

This is exactly why it’s so offensive that Page 3 is placed amongst our daily news and one of the main reasons why it should no longer have any place there.  Where does this soft-porn image of a young girl fit in amongst daily stories of war, grief, murder, tragedy, RAPE.  Quoting Mark, you’ll have Page 1, “rapist!”, “outrage!”, then you turn over and have a half-naked girl, breasts exposed, staring provocatively at the reader , then “rapist!”, “young girl!”, “disgrace!”

Isn’t this a conflict of interests? 

How did this become Britain’s most popular newspaper?  Just because Rupert Murdoch has no conscience, what gives him the right to shove his lack of morals and disregard for human life down our throats? 

Now it’s time to ask ourselves, what makes us so quick to swallow it?

Page 3 Idol

The Sun recently launched its annual ‘Page 3 Idol’ contest and girls in their thousands entered submitting photos of themselves all in hope of winning a Page 3 modelling contract and becoming the next Jordan or Keeley.  But what is it that lures girls into this industry and should we be worried that they find this profession more appealing than having ambitions to become a writer, entrepreneur, doctor or musician etc?  And, why didn’t I grow up wanting to be a glamour model? 

A child of the 80’s, my generation escaped the pornified culture that permeates society today.   Yes, we had Page 3 at the breakfast table, but that was the only soft-core porn image we were really subjected to.  I knew who Sam Fox was as a little girl but I didn’t understand what she was and arguably this image was not pervasive enough to have any real effect on a young mind.  Pornography was generally kept on the top shelves in your local newsagents and lads mags didn’t exist.  It was a time when women actually wore clothes in music videos with rarely a bottom or cleavage in sight.  Don’t get me wrong, sexuality wasn’t suppressed, it just wasn’t pornified.

Fast forward 20 years and enter pornography into the mainstream.  You cannot escape the ubiquitous ‘woman as stripper-esque sex object’ image wherever you go.  She will be found in advertising (selling everything from toothpaste to shampoo).  She will be spinning round the obligatory pole in an MTV video or performing dance moves typically seen in your average strip club.  And, of course, she will be saturating the press.  But this isn’t a natural sexuality resonating from these mediums; this is a learnt and constructed sexuality – straight out the pages of a stripper’s hand book. 

So, why has this particular type of sexuality become so dominant, one has to ask?  Is it pure coincidence that this image, which is associated with prostitution, is demanded of women in modern society just as women have become increasingly sexually liberated and empowered?  Could it be patriarchy’s way of making sure he is never emasculated?  If so, he is making sure there is no room for error as females are now being groomed from the cradle.  Whether it’s Tesco marketing its ‘Peek-a-boo’ pole dancing kit (equipped with garter and dollar bill) to young girls by placing it in its toy section (you can still find this in Amazon’s Toys & Games section) or Hugh Hefner promoting his Playboy brand to schoolgirls, it would appear the sexualisation of young girls is the main objective.

Taught from birth that her self-worth lies within their sexual prowess, it is no wonder that young women might want to grow up to earn money within the sex industry, whatever form that may take.  The glamour model/stripper ideal has become so normalized and so glamorized, it would seem like the perfect and most natural career choice to make (especially coupled with the rise of celebrity culture).  Not only will girls be getting their self-esteem from achieving this particular sexualized ideal – because this is what we are brainwashed to believe is ‘sexy’ and ‘beautiful’ - they could be earning money from it too.  Surely that’s true self-empowerment, right?

Wrong.

Money cannot be the justification in which to disregard and ignore the industry in which this image plays a part.  That old adage “sex sells” validation is not ok.  Scratch the surface and it’s not difficult to recognise that pornography, whether soft or hard, actually isn’t very empowering for women at all.  The soft-core Page 3 girl image may appear to be relatively harmless, but if you stop to take a look at the bigger picture for a moment then you might become to appreciate where Page 3 et al. fits in.  Yes, it’s the most vanilla but it’s still part of the same industry – an industry which systematically degrades women both in a literal sense and a physical one.  The soft-core glamour model is part of the same industry that overtly mocks rape.  The soft-core glamour model is part of the same industry that regularly calls women ‘bitches’, ‘sluts’ and ‘whores’.  The soft-core glamour model is part of the same industry which panders to paedophilia (women dressed up in school uniform/‘Barely Legal titles etc.’). The soft-core glamour model is part of the same industry which films women getting raped, severed or killed – all in the name of ‘entertainment’.  And this is just at first glance.  Delve a little deeper and things get even darker.  Does this sound like an aspirational world for young girls to be entering into?  Is this something parents should stop and think about before buying breast enlargements for their daughter’s 18^th birthday?  After all, the rise in breast enlargements is a direct response to the mainstreaming of pornography.

Lest not forget when Heather Mills McCartney was exposed in 2006 for performing in something of a similar nature, she was labeled ‘depraved’ by the very own newspaper which holds competitions to find its next Page 3 ‘idol’!  The press and society demands this of women yet holds us in contempt at the same time.  The language used in the press relating to women who take their clothes off in these publications is as equally degrading as the language used in the press relating to women in power.  Women are not being taken seriously and sadly, whilst the representation of ‘woman as sex object image’ remains the most dominant, we are only ever going to be viewed as frivolous play things and things are never going to progress.

The Jordan & Keeley’s of this world come along once every decade and fortunately for them they will accumulate enough wealth to buy themselves out of the pornified society in which they were able to flourish, but unfortunately for us, unless we all start becoming more conscious of the implications of our actions and start taking notice of the world around us and women’s place within it, we’ll be left with generation after generation of oppressed females left to pick up the pieces.

SHOULD YOU EVER FORGET …

… who The Sun and the News Of The World exist for, let this advertisement remind you.

I wonder why anyone other than white, heterosexual men buy this paper?

Object – Women NOT Sex Objects

For those of you who aren’t familiar with human rights organisation Object, you can find them here www.object.org.uk.

Object work tirelessly in challenging the sexual objectification of women in the media and popular culture and raise awareness of the links between sex object culture and sexism ‘because of the need to tackle the attitudes underpinning inequality and violence against women’.

They claim ’sex object culture has been driven by the mainstreaming of the porn and sex industries and has been highlighted as a ‘conducive context’ for violence against women’ (End Violence Against Women Coalition 2008).

Their latest report ‘Joining Up The Dots’ (http://www.object.org.uk/files/Joining%20up%20the%20dots(2).pdf) is  a comprehensive study which provides evidence supporting these arguments.   Not only does it link the sexual objectifcation of women to violence, it also links it to low self-esteem, eating disorders, plastic surgery, sexual bullying, sexual relations, sexist attitudes, gender stereotyping, the perception of women and racism.

However, despite the UK having international and domestic human rights obligations to tackle the sexualisation of women and gender stereotyping in the media and popular culture, still nothing is being done about it.  It’s still big business and still being allowed to thrive.

It’s a must-read for all but especially for the doubters out there.

Ministry Of Defence & Apple Turn Their Backs On Page 3!

Apparently, the MOD’s HQ have put internet filters on the Page 3 section of The Sun and Apple has also rejected an application called ‘Newspapers’ for the iPhone, which would allow users to browse papers such as The Sun, on the grounds that its topless girls were deemed too ‘obscene’.

This is brilliant news. 

This proves that the MOD isn’t treating pornography in the workplace lightly.  This could be because they want to stop male employees being distracted from the job in hand or more than likely it’s because they link pornography to sexual harassment in the workplace.  Whatever the reason, it’s good news. 

The Sun however wasted no time and in ignorant defiance sent its own ‘troop of beauties’ straight to the MOD’s HQ to protest.  Clearly the potential link between pornography and sexual harassment in the workplace isn’t a serious enough matter for The Sun and their right to portray women as sexual objects that exist purely for men’s debased sexual gratification is.  I can hardly believe sometimes that the editor of The Sun is a woman.

Maybe one day though, through raising awareness about the harms of the mainstreaming of pornography in society, the girls that happily trotted off to the MOD to fight for their rights to get their breasts out for the boys change their minds and instead find themselves protesting against issues that are of real importance – like the weapon of rape that women suffer at the hands of men of war across the globe, for one.

As for Apple, well it is a pleasant surprise that an American multinational corporation of this nature wants to distance itself from pornography, because after all pornography generates billions both here and in the States, but what’s really exciting is, with products such as the iPod & the aforementioned iPhone, Apple proves to be a cool and innovative brand associated with youth culture and therefore has the potential to have incredible influence on younger generations.

I shall write to the MOD & Apple to discuss this further.  It would be helpful if they offered a formal explanation detailing why they are now turning their backs on pornography as these are all important steps which help to validate campaigners’ arguments that suggest Page 3 – and its ilk – isn’t just harmless fun.  

You never know, they might even offer me their backs as well!

This House Believes That Page 3 Is Unacceptable In The 21st Century

The Sun’s Zoe McConnell thought differently as she took on her opposers at The Oxford Union – the world’s most prestigious debating society – to discuss whether Page 3 has any place in modern Britain. 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1093672.ece

In her article, Zoe McConnell boasts of ‘taking on the eggheads of Oxford University and beating them at their own game of debating’ and of ‘bringing the house crashing down’.  Debates here can be frivolous, which this one clearly was, but I would like to pick apart some of Zoe’s arguments anyway.

Speaker:  “I’d like to introduce you to Zoe McConnell”.  Zoe bows. (Rapturous round of applause)

“Hello everybody, I’m delighted to be here, thank you for having me.  I don’t have anything written down, I don’t have a speech prepared, all I can tell you is, I’m Zoe McConnell, I’ve been a Page 3 girl for The Sun for 9 years – and very proudly so.  I also now am a photographer for Page 3, so, you know, I’m looking at it from all angles and it’s all quite enjoyable (laughs and claps from the audience) and basically I’m here to answer any of your questions, you know, anyone that feels that Page 3 girls are being exploited or, you know, whatever you think, I’m here, you know, you can ask me whether I feel exploited, you can ask me anything you like.  Does anybody have a question?  Or I could do a dance for you? (Zoe does a dance to cheers and claps)  Come on, points of information, come on.”

Question 1.  What do you think about research that suggests that the institution of Page 3 encourages sexual harassment in the work place?

“Umm … now I don’t know any of those statistics, but I personally, I would find that a little bit sort of not true. (The house loudly claps and laughs but I’m not sure why this is funny?)  And I mean you have to look at, you know, from mine, the things that I do know about sort of anyone, sexual harassment and any sort of sexual assault and all the rest of it, usually seems to carried out by people that are actually, sort of, kept away from any sort of, sexual, you know, anything at all.  And they’re actually sort of quite … God this isn’t easy, is it this? (To which she gets a laugh) … Why am I doing this? (To bigger laughs) Erm … my answer is no”! (Laughs and rapturous applause again)

Firstly, why does she get clapped for this response?! 

Ok, so Zoe is very nervous and you gotta hand it to the woman for standing up on her own and debating her argument at the Oxford University, however, I feel that if you are going to have a debate defending Page 3, surely you should really be aware of some of the statistics which surround the sexual harassment of women in society – let alone in the workplace – before you could even begin to make an informed judgment?  Just to say “I think it’s sort of not true” and finish by saying “no” is not good enough. 

Had you done your homework, Zoe, you may have learnt that sexual harassment in the workplace affects approximately 15,000 women each year and they are cases which are officially brought to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  How many unreported cases are there?  Other statistics suggest it’s as much as 1 in 2 women who have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace.

In her follow up report in The Sun Zoe says what she was trying to say was that she personally has never been disrespected or harassed.  Well, lucky for her, however, these statistics suggest not everyone is quite so fortunate.

Let’s start with a simple analogy.  This may or may not be a valid analogy but it’s one that I feel touches on common sense when explaining how sexual harassment might be connected with the saturation and normalisation of pornography in our society because of the effect it could have on men.  It was a letter submitted for Clare Short’s book ‘How Women Feel About Page 3’ and it read: “food is advertised with mouth-watering pics to make people hungry so they go out and buy their food. Do men really get sexually stimulated then go out & forget about it?”  Well, do they?

If men are exposed to (and bombarded with in the UK’s case) pornographic images of women 24/7, do we think this may make any sort of impression on their minds about what a woman’s worth is?  Pornography is inherently degrading because it generally shows women in a submissive, subordinate role.  It portrays women as objects that exist purely for men’s sexual gratification.  Maybe, just maybe, at the very least, men might think we’re all ‘up for it’ which might in turn make them think they can comment on us or touch us because we enjoy it as that is what pornography teaches them. 

N.B. definition of pornography: sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

Do you think there is a distinction between full frontal and Page 3?

“I definitely do.  I never myself have ever done full frontal and, you know, I’ve made that decision not to do that and I do genuinely believe that Page 3 – otherwise I wouldn’t be doing it – is harmless fun and I don’t feel like I’m, you know, sort of doing myself any disservice by doing it. You know, if anything it’s actually just a novelty”.

What is the difference between full frontal and baring your breasts in the context of pornography?  How much flesh or whatever organs you’re displaying is irrelevant; selling sex is selling sex.  It reminds me of something I read before about how women in the sex industry sometimes justify their position to themselves by saying “well, I may bare my breasts but I wouldn’t do full frontal”, and the full frontal model will say “well I may do full frontal but I wouldn’t do pornos”, and the woman in a porno says “well, I may do pornos but I wouldn’t do lap dancing”, and the lap dancer will say, “well I may be a lap dancer but I wouldn’t do prostitution” but the fact is, it is ALL prostitution.  You are making an exchange of money purposely for the sexual gratification of men.

So, Zoe goes on to say it’s all ‘harmless fun’.  Where does she get her proof that this is just harmless fun?  The whole point to my campaign is to question whether or not this is the case and to debate it but if you’re going to categorically proclaim it is just harmless fun then present your proof.

You may not be doing a disservice to yourself here, Zoe, but if Page 3 does fuel any form of violence against the female population, what disservice could you be doing to thousands of girls and women out there who are victims of such abuse?

N.B. Definition of prostitution:  a person who engages in sexual activity for payment.

N.B. Definition of novelty:  a new or unfamiliar thing.

Do you think full frontal is harmful? 

“No, I don’t think it’s harmful but I think as soon as you move into kind of that whole area, (to which she gets a laugh and she makes a joke of ‘moving into the area’ to which she gets a bigger laugh) you know, then it can just be taken in a different way, and it’s not something The Sun would ever do and as a Page 3 girl it’s also considered not the best thing to do coz, you know, it’s all meant to be a bit wholesome and girl next door and girl next door isn’t meant to you know, flash those bits”.

What ‘different way’ do you talk of, Zoe?  Let’s say a man is more inclined to want to have sex with you if you’re photographed showing your vagina; if you’re showing just your breasts could he be more inclined to want to touch them?  Or at least comment on them?  Commenting on them is a form of harassment.

What do you think of a young child picking up The Sun on the tube and just opening up Page 3?

“Humm … I personally wouldn’t, I don’t have a child, but if I did, I wouldn’t mind my child looking at a Page 3 picture.  Erm, you know, I just don’t think that it’s offensive, I think, you know, if you take your child to the beach they will see some boobs lying around and you know, “Mummy what are they?” and I can’t help but think it would be the same question if a child gets on the tube and it’s something that we all see and learn about eventually”.

Zoe, if you take your child to the beach he or she will see a variety of females from a variety of races with their chests/breasts out ranging from babies to OAP’s.  Does Page 3 EVER have any girls over the age of 25, let alone 30, 35, 40, 75?  Does Page 3 ever really have anyone other than a white girl pictured as well?  So, Page 3 isn’t really anything like going to a beach at all is it?  And normally on a beach there isn’t an exchange of money going on either between the male sunbathers/spectators and the females who dare to relax on a beach without their top half covered i.e. enjoying the same privileges as a man.  This is not a valid argument.  The most exasperating thing, however, is that this is an argument bandied around by politicians.  This is what we’re up against.

And that is exactly the problem that children are ‘seeing and learning’ from pornographic images because a) porn is inherently degrading and b) porn tells lies.  In pornography women generally only exist as a masturbatory tool for men – which is exactly what Page 3 exists for.  Pornography rarely is about a woman’s pleasure.  Porn.Tells.Lies.  It tells lies about women’s (and men’s) bodies, their desires, their relationships, their emotions.  The fact that they will ‘see and learn’ from Page 3 is the damaging and dangerous thing, Zoe.  Wake up.

Do you think a male equivalent would be as successful?

“They tried it and it didn’t seem to be.  The whole point is, obviously, is that everyone is different but men are, it’s a simple fact that men are visually stimulated more than most women.  Not all women – but most women and it proves, you know, we had the Page 7 fella for a while and it didn’t up the ratings, you know, people weren’t bothered but what I do have to say, (looks to Carol McGiffin) Carol Mcgiffin, I bet if Danny Dyer was in the paper topless every day you’d buy it? (Few laughs) You know it just doesn’t seem to sell as much, you know”.

Can you prove this ‘simple fact’ that men are more visually stimulated than women or is that an argument that patriarchy enforces to keep pornography alive and kicking in society and in turn keep women oppressed?  Let’s say that men are more visually stimulated?  Why should that mean they have to have pornographic imagery thrust in their face on a daily basis?  They don’t.

You say that the Page 7 fella didn’t ‘up the ratings’.  Well, why should it have upped the ratings?  Surely it should exist for the 50% of women who ALREADY read The Sun?  Surely, that would be fair?  I think the important question here is – did the Page 7 fella lower the ratings?  That would be an interesting fact, wouldn’t it?  If it lowered the ratings that would be telling because it would mean that the male readership didn’t like seeing degrading images of boys and men in the newspaper.  Well, why should women put up with degrading images of girls and women?

 If you ever do have a child, would you show them your Page 3 pictures with pride?

“Definitely.  Yeah, you know, if I ever do have a child, I’m sure by the time, I won’t be one of those girls anymore that can go without a bra, you know, and I’m completely, you know, if I was ever ashamed of what I do then I wouldn’t be doing it and that includes showing it to my child and anybody else’s child”. (Big claps from the house)

Maybe Zoe could read up on the NFRN (National Federation of Retail Newsagents) regulations which encourage newsagents to keep this imagery out of a child’s eye-line before rushing to show her topless pictures to her child or anyone else’s.  There are reasons for these regulations, like there are reasons pornographic films are certified 18.

There is another question here about Zoe’s boobs but I can’t work it out, nor can I understand her response.  Again, the next question is not very clear however, I think this is basically what she’s saying:

The president introduced you as Zoe and you’re really only known as Zoe and even though you’re a professional photographer you’re still just seen as Zoe.  Does it bug you that you’re just addressed as Zoe rather than her full name? (Round of applause)

“It’s a fair point, it’s a fair point.  It’s a fair point and my name, my surname does get used a lot of the time, you know, in lots of my, in my work and stuff but, you know, I appear, I’m here sort of talking on behalf of Page 3 of The Sun and in The Sun I appear as Zoe and that is how sort of any fans of mine know me, God, help them, (laughs from Zoe & the house) but I don’t, honestly, whether my surname mentioned today doesn’t sort of point out the fact that I’m being exploited and, you know, indeed I’m quite happy just to be Zoe coz my surname’s too long anyway”.

The speaker expresses a point of information that “Madonna is known as Madonna”, Zoe is known as Zoe”, to which everyone claps.  She then goes on to say “I’m Zoe, 25 from London and I’ve been 25 for the last 10 years so it’s all good.  It’s all good”.

I don’t really have anything to say about any of the above apart from the speaker comparing Zoe to Madonna; one is, arguably, the master of her sexuality, the other a slave.

On the point of exploitation, the photographer from Page 3 may be a woman but do you accept that Page 3 is there for men? 

“Erm, it is predominately there for men I would say yes, obviously, men are the ones that like looking at boobies and things, but at the same time, you know, I know lots of women that also enjoy looking at Page 3 and, you know, whether it’s for the right reasons or the wrong reasons, you know, everyone has an opinion on it. You know, everyone likes to compare themselves … did you see that girl in the paper? Oh yeah I saw her, oh I could do that job, you know that whole thing, to me it’s no different than picking up Heat magazine and looking at celebrities on the beach and going, you know, oh look, she’s got flab there and, oh look her boobs aren’t very big, to me it’s the same thing and I know lots, I get recognised regularly by women and when I do it’s a really nice thing as well, you know, coz it’s not just sort of men on building sites, you know, it’s all sort of, yeah there’s a bit of that, you know, it’s also women and I get a lot of respect from all of them most of the time, so …”

Let’s not kid ourselves here, Zoe, Page 3 is solely for men and I think we could all live without looking at ‘boobies’, whether for the ‘right or wrong reasons’, don’t you?

So, Zoe says everyone likes to compare themselves to Page 3 girls?  Well, I don’t (I’d have to read The Sun in the first place, I guess) and I don’t know any of my friends that do either but what is apparent is that Zoe seems to believe that this is a positive thing to do; to be comparing yourself (or in this case, your assets) to other girls.  Zoe, this is a major problem for females.  This is the reason breast enlargement operations increase 150% every year.  This is the reason 2/3^rd’s of teenagers want breast implants.  This is the reason girls are having them for their 16^th birthday when their bodies aren’t even fully developed.  This is the reason why girls and women have such a lack of self-esteem because we are constantly bombarded with and comparing ourselves to these air-brushed (thus unobtainable), unrealistic ideals you see in these photos.  Do you see that comments like those which you make in your article such as “some breasts are like bollards – it’s the other ones that are sexy” is fuelling this?  It’s a vicious cycle.  You see Heat magazine as a valid reference however, research has proven that around 70% of adolescent girls say that images in these sorts of magazines influence their self-image and make them want to diet.  Young women’s self esteem drops dramatically after only a few minutes of reading these magazines and pornography has exactly the same effects on girls and women (and boys and men) – if not worse.  It’s no coincidence that as pornography becomes increasingly more mainstream so do breast implants.  That Zoe talks about this as if it’s so normal, or a positive thing, really shows you how blissfully oblivious she is to the war on women in society. This might explain her long standing position at The Sun and thus, the reason she stands at the Oxford University today arguing in favour of Page 3.

The debate ends and Zoe looks incredibly relieved!

And so despite Zoe’s arguments having little or no substance the house still voted 230 to 129 in favour of Page 3.  Thankfully, these kind of debates at the Oxford university aren’t meant to be taken too seriously and Zoe probably won because of popularity rather than winning the dubious minds of students, however, sadly enough, in the not so light-hearted political arena this vote would probably still reflect that of parliament and that is why the Turn Your Back On Page 3 campaign is so important because I, for one, do believe that Page 3 is unacceptable in the 21^st century.