The Sun scraps topless Page 3 after years of protest
The Sun has put his top on, Murdoch has offered some modesty to the titillating “institution”, objectifying women since 1970.
A spokesman for The Sun told The Times: “Page 3 of The Sun is where it’s always been, between pages two and four.” Despite clearing up that unfathomable confusion, this statement reflects accurately how little the modification is. Last Friday brandished the definitive boob and the replacement, a token piece of fabric to constitute as a progression in the newspaper’s old fashioned ways.
“Aren’t beautiful young women more attractive in at least some fashionable clothes?” Misogynistic Murdoch provides us with two clear observations: his lacking discernment of attire (that or “at least” holds the emphasis for his operative words) and that despite the change in policy, Page 3 will remain to bestow residence to a sexist platform that degrades women.
Bare breasts may have been given up, but cleavage will still reign in Murdoch’s house of fun – except now, nipples will be banned forever, replaced, by bras, bikinis and the like.
The Sun have not missed a beat in doing this: Monday’s edition showed an M&S lingerie line modelled by Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, whilst Tuesday’s print showed two bouncing – or four dependant on perception – bikini-clad beauties from Channel 4’s Hollyoak.
With campaigners No More Page 3 seeing the verdict as a step in the right direction, the change of content seems a little more like a gesticulation of two fingers. Labour MP and fellow objector Stella Creasy told Today: “It was having an impact on our society, the sexualisation, the objectification of women in this way was basically saying to all of us that what mattered frankly were our breasts not our brains.” In our opinion, removal of the bare boob in replacement of just-about-covering-the-nip-whilst-running-down-a-beach boob isn’t a pioneering move that will revolutionise the way women are perceived in the media.
Residing off of the paper but conveniently only a click away, “you can find Lucy from Warwick at Page3.com”, now it has its very own virtual home. Enabled now to get to know the Page 3 girl of the day, with behind the scenes coverage available, we seemingly encounter a one-step-forward and two-steps-back situation. The Sun’s photos were deemed sexist, offensive and anachronistic; 217,000 signatures were collated to remove them – hurrah we’ve done it, only now they are replaced with video links.
Subtly, The Sun’s sexism does not equate to a colossal feat, readers of the newspaper are still exposed to an image, larger than any other in their publication, that screams tits over intelligence. A front page swathed in chaps doing and achieving is met by sexualised female bodies doing well very little at the turn overleaf. Advocating itself as a family newspaper, the concept so readily available to children encourages little Billy to look and not listen and dear Susie to perceive “Lissy Cunningham aged 20 from Manchester” as a representation of how she should strive to look.
Some have claimed this to be yet another attack on freedom of speech and a further increase of censorship. Surely after four decades of progress in equality, its time to either celebrate another positive attribute of women or alternatively convert page two into a place to pay homage to (in the words of NMP3’s Lucy-Ann Holmes) “scrotums – young, big, hairless scrotums”.
If a noticeable decline in the sales of the publication is recorded, the nipple could be back. Holding the torch for the highest circulation of tabloid newspaper from some years, will this flame be snuffed by lack of Thrupenny Bits? As explained in BBC’s Yes, Prime Minister: “Sun readers don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits.”
Are you against the end of Page 3? Read Anais Merlin’s opposite position here.