PAGE THREE – is not innocent or harmless..

PAGE THREE – is not innocent or harmless..

I was amused, but mostly exasperated to see a double page spread in The Sun today expounding the virtues of Page Three girls as they raise so much money for charity as well as getting their kit off for the boys! – well so did Jimmy Saville, ( raise money for charity, he kept his clothes on I think?) so let’s not pretend putting a few coffers in the charity box washes away all our sins, indiscretions or moral turpitude eh?

The whispers about the need to dump page three are gathering momentum and starting to be heard, the latest petition lead by Lucy a writer and actor ‘NoMorePageThree’ now has over 52k signatures just from a simple facebook campaign started in August this year and many other people and groups are lobbying The Sun to stop, what is now seen as outdated and more than a little harmless titillation.

I cannot tell you how vexed I get when people say to me ‘oh, it’s only a bit of fun, no harm in looking at a pretty girl when she is a willing participant.’  Well, my response to that is if we did not have Page Three there would be no Jordan;  no multi billion dollar glamour model industry; few teenage girls obsessed with boob jobs and the rest;  No, The Only Way is Essex and all the other reality TV shows that glamorise loutish behaviour and promiscuity – shall I go on?  All actions have consequences and we are deluded if we do not see the obvious links here.

I am amazed that in 2012 women are having to shout loud to get this stopped and those that do, risk being ridiculed and branded as prudes or ugly, fat, jealous party poopers!  This is soft porn folks and The Sun is a family paper.  And do not be misled into thinking that this stops at a pretty picture in print.  In 1999 The Sun launched its website and now we get to see Page Three girls in 360 degree images and inevitably, soft porn turns hard core.

It is time to stop this and The Sun would be wise to symbolise their so called support of women by taking this dated, demeaning and downright offensive page out of their daily mock up.   If people want to ogle nude pictures of women they can find enough images online and in the privacy of their own home, why should we all be subjected to this and, more importantly, in a so called equal society why should we be OK with this?  Do we have any idea of the precedents we set and messages we project by accepting it?  We should not be surprised when becoming a glamour model is stated as a key aspiration for so many girls, yet we are??  Time to wake up and smell the coffee folks.




  1. Vanessa

    I couldn’t agree more with every word you’ve written. In the 21st Centry this is totally inappropriate just as we are now waking up to the atrocities carried out by the likes of Jimmy Saville et al

  2. wholesumdiane

    We are in essence the sum total of what we see, hear, read and are exposed to. Its our job to be more responsible for not just ourselves but think of what our actions (or passivity) are creating for the generations to come. Extremely well said Jane. Look forward to hearing more from you.

  3. Louis Cypher

    I have no personal opinion on page 3. I live in NYC & see news if I turn the first page of the NY Times. I so though feel the need to point out that hyperbole of the kind in your article does nothing for your cause.

    I can see why parents wouldn’t want their kids staring at boobs in a newspaper, though the Sun hardly counts as one. I grew up in London in a family with an older brother who brought it home every day. And yes I looked at Page 3. I also turned out to be a regular guy, successful enough to retire at 36 to look after my kids as my wife followed her career. Would I let my kids look at it? Probably not. Though they both have iPads and are tech savvy enough to find it if they want. I checked their search histories. They didn’t.

    Just a little research even at this distance, gives me the info that girls who appear on Page 3 do not promote breast surgery (no girl with enhanced breast is allowed the “accolade” Page 3 Girl) and a cursory glance at & the 360 spin you mention lets me know that the “added bonus” of seeing the side view or rear view of a topless woman in her knickers brings the site nowhere near softcore, so the accusation of “hardcore” is utterly offensive to anyone who fights that particular fight. The fight against pornography & it’s insidious side shows is a fight worth having.

    Yes Page 3 may lead young women into careers we don’t see for our kids. No, it probably shouldn’t exist. But to shout about it with side references to child molestation doesn’t give your argument any relevance.

    1. janekenyon

      Louis, thanks for reading and commenting on my blog. Considering you have no personal opinion on Page 3 you certainly had an opinion on this blog eh? I must correct a few misunderstanding here though – fake boobs were only banned on Page 3 in the mid 90’s so my reference to Jordan was correct. My ref to hardcore on was not really about 360 degree views it was the ads for porn all over the home page, although what I find very interesting is that when I just looked at this site again it has had a makeover and all porn site ads have been removed – a result I would say! I still believe page3 objectifies and demeans women and should be banned and I, like you am entitled to my opinion. And finally to accuse me of linking page three to child molestation is a bit rich and an unecessary insult – I was pretty clear in my opening paragraph that I was making reference to raising money for charity and no more.


Leave a Comment