This week, according to The Sun, the newspaper marks 40 years of Page 3. Across the course of the week the paper promises further celebrations, including a giveaway of a pack of playing cards and images of popular Page 3 girls such as Sam Fox, Jordan and Linda Lusardi.
Although Page Three seemed to have a heyday in the 1980s, it remains popular both within the paper and online. Indeed the newspaper can credit much of its revenue to the presence of bare boobs on Page Three.
However, it is not without controversy and certainly over the past 40 years debates have raged over the presence of the page and what it stands for.
Some (particularly The Sun itself) have presented the paper as harmless fun, a bit of a joke that celebrates the female form. It has been seen as a means of launching highly lucrative careers for a number of women, and for that reason beyond reproach.
Others view Page Three far more negatively. Views here range from seeing it as a representation of sexism in action – that its very presence devalues and dehumanises women. Or that it contributes directly to sexual harassment of women and girls – either in encouraging men to see women as sex objects, or by the display of Page 3 images in places of work that make women feel excluded.
A slightly different interpretation of Page 3 linked to this is that it isn’t the cause of abuse in women but it is a symptom of an unequal and sexist society. Or that it is racist, presenting mainly young white women as the norm, while fetishising on the basis of race the minority of Black or Asian models who feature.
Complaining about Page 3 has presented people with problems, however. For example critics of the Sun’s editorial policies, treatment of its workers, or wider political aims have seen those as more important issues than challenging Page 3. And advocates of free speech within media have remained unsure what to say about calls for banning pictures of bare breasts. Others have questioned whether Page 3 really is a big enough issue to get upset about given other problems around housing, pay, childcare women have to deal with.
In the 1980s there were some debates around the impact of Page 3 with some academics such as Guy Cumberbatch questioning what effect it might have on human behaviour. His argument was that while hard core porn existed, it was not as accessible to people as Page 3 which was mainstream, and available on a daily basis with no restrictions. Cumberbatch and other academics questioned whether having more access to less explicit materials could have more impact on sexual behaviour. Anti porn feminists, though coming from a different position, also questioned the mainstreaming of Page 3 as part of our daily lives as being a means of reproducing sexism as an every day event.
Critics of Page 3 complained the images of women were not always the problem and the photos had to be viewed in the wider context of the captions that appeared alongside them and the news stories on the same and preceding pages. The appearance of stories of rape, child abuse, or more recently discussions of sexualisation of young people appearing within the same paper (or particularly close to a Page 3 image) can be seen as hypocritical and inappropriate.
Page 3 has not gone without direct challenge. In the 1990s Clare Short attempted to have Page 3 removed. Her experience of resulting backlash towards her (which was vicious and sustained) and responses from women was published in a book Dear Clare, this is what women feel about Page 3 you can read the Introduction here.
Regardless of how you feel about Page 3 this book is worth reading. It is a couple of decades old now but it is a fascinating record of a point in history and tackling a contentious issue. It highlights in particular the problems that can be faced in questioning sexual images in the media – and how attempts to silence critics centre on devaluing their argument with accusations of their being prudish, ugly, boring or anti sex.
Unfortunately discussions around Page 3 have often resulted in women being judged or blamed. Whether it’s women who oppose Page 3 being dismissed as killjoys or Page 3 girls constructed as stupid or immoral. Sadly some of the debates around Page 3 often pitted women against each other with feminists called to attack Page 3 stunnas by the media eager to orchestrate a bitch fight.
This missed the many relevant criticisms of women (and men) of the presence of Page 3, while targeted hostile and aggressive responses towards Page 3 models rather than at the Sun, its editors, staff, advertisers and readership. Even now debates around Page 3, when they happen, tend to focus on discussions that quickly degenerate into girl blaming and rehearse female victimisation stories rather than looking at wider issues of commercialisation and the Sun’s editorial approaches.
Part of the problem within this area is that not everyone who dislikes Page 3 can agree on exactly why they have a problem with it – or what should be done about it. It is possible to be pro porn but still have questions about Page 3, although this can cause tensions when discussing with predominantly anti porn groups. Indeed many people who have issues with sexually explicit media also have issues with the politics and actions of anti porn groups – making it complicated to talk about issues in a calm way.
Aimed at straight men, the assumption is that Page 3 has nothing to say to women (or that women universally oppose it). While the voices of bi and lesbian women have been heard less in discussions of Page 3 certainly it would be wrong to say women have only one (negative) response to the images. In her 1983 essay ‘The Page Three Girl Speaks to Women Too’ Patricia Holland discusses how the images in Page 3 show other women how they should look, dress, pose and act in order to ‘be sexy’ for their ‘fella’. Rather than just being something women dislike and turn the page on, Holland explains how the presence of Page 3 plays a role in constructing what female desire looks like.
This leads to perhaps some of the less reported struggles women have with Page 3. That they may feel it is sexist but they also feel it excludes them from relationships with men or sets up a standard of femininity to which they cannot compete with. Page 3 girls are young and selected for particular body shapes (the fashions for which have changed over the past 40 years). They are photographed in flattering poses to accentuate breasts and bums. This can make women feel insecure in comparison, or imply the normal or preferable female form is that shown on Page 3.
It may be easier to dismiss such concerns if the paper itself did not play upon them. Even in the recent celebrations of Page 3 the launch of a video that focuses on ‘the woman you would secretly like your woman to be’
Despite the major opposition to Page 3 in the late 1980s and early 1990s cultural changes more widely perhaps explain why we appear less bothered about it now. Lads’ mags, wider accessibility to the internet, a more mediated and commercialised culture have all led to more access to sexualised imagery than we had in the recent past. With such changes you may question why Page 3 remains so apparently popular? After all the images of topless women are no longer unique to that paper.
Page 3 seems to have been archived along with Carry On films and Benny Hill as a bygone representation of gentle sexism that we know is there but we turn a blind eye to. Or perhaps can be rewritten as an ironic joke.
Have we resolved how we feel about Page 3? Is it just a joke? Are we no longer bothered by it? Or has its presence over 40 years simply meant we see it as part of our media fixtures and fittings?
What does seem certain is Page 3 is unlikely to disappear. It is a very lucrative part of The Sun. But it is undoubtedly presenting women, and sex and the female body in a specific way. Claims that it’s empowering to women may be questioned given the gimmick that goes with the 40th anniversary to see the Page 3 girls in 360 (also available for the iPad) where you can “make our model go full screen and she’ll pirouette at your command”
It may be easy to simply dismiss Page 3 as sexist or silly, ignoring how it has been a major part of a particular publication for 40 years. Over that time our attitudes to sex and relationships, to sexual politics and to sexuality have changed. The paper itself has both reported and constructed desirability and the female form with shifting fashions for poses, breast sizes, hair styles and clothing. Studying the history of Page 3 and what it’s had to say about women and men is worthy of consideration.
Page 3 hitting 40 is perhaps not as interesting as the history that hides behind the page, and the fact that as it reaches this milestone there has been relatively little public response. Certainly people don’t seem to be joining in the celebrations, but nor are many people speaking up about concerns over Page 3 or views on female imagery in the media more widely.
Perhaps people feel these debates no longer need to be had. I’m not so sure this is right. Page 3 presents us with a number of often uncomfortable issues for discussion, many of which we haven’t resolved. If The Sun is celebrating this is a good a time as any to debate the presence of Page 3 – and the politics of the paper more widely.
Page 3 at 40 – a cause for celebration?
This week, according to The Sun, the newspaper marks 40 years of Page 3. Across the course of the week the paper promises further celebrations, including a giveaway of a pack of playing cards and images of popular Page 3 girls such as Sam Fox, Jordan and Linda Lusardi.
Although Page Three seemed to have a heyday in the 1980s, it remains popular both within the paper and online. Indeed the newspaper can credit much of its revenue to the presence of bare boobs on Page Three.
However, it is not without controversy and certainly over the past 40 years debates have raged over the presence of the page and what it stands for.
Some (particularly The Sun itself) have presented the paper as harmless fun, a bit of a joke that celebrates the female form. It has been seen as a means of launching highly lucrative careers for a number of women, and for that reason beyond reproach.
Others view Page Three far more negatively. Views here range from seeing it as a representation of sexism in action – that its very presence devalues and dehumanises women. Or that it contributes directly to sexual harassment of women and girls – either in encouraging men to see women as sex objects, or by the display of Page 3 images in places of work that make women feel excluded.
A slightly different interpretation of Page 3 linked to this is that it isn’t the cause of abuse in women but it is a symptom of an unequal and sexist society. Or that it is racist, presenting mainly young white women as the norm, while fetishising on the basis of race the minority of Black or Asian models who feature.
Complaining about Page 3 has presented people with problems, however. For example critics of the Sun’s editorial policies, treatment of its workers, or wider political aims have seen those as more important issues than challenging Page 3. And advocates of free speech within media have remained unsure what to say about calls for banning pictures of bare breasts. Others have questioned whether Page 3 really is a big enough issue to get upset about given other problems around housing, pay, childcare women have to deal with.
In the 1980s there were some debates around the impact of Page 3 with some academics such as Guy Cumberbatch questioning what effect it might have on human behaviour. His argument was that while hard core porn existed, it was not as accessible to people as Page 3 which was mainstream, and available on a daily basis with no restrictions. Cumberbatch and other academics questioned whether having more access to less explicit materials could have more impact on sexual behaviour. Anti porn feminists, though coming from a different position, also questioned the mainstreaming of Page 3 as part of our daily lives as being a means of reproducing sexism as an every day event.
Critics of Page 3 complained the images of women were not always the problem and the photos had to be viewed in the wider context of the captions that appeared alongside them and the news stories on the same and preceding pages. The appearance of stories of rape, child abuse, or more recently discussions of sexualisation of young people appearing within the same paper (or particularly close to a Page 3 image) can be seen as hypocritical and inappropriate.
Page 3 has not gone without direct challenge. In the 1990s Clare Short attempted to have Page 3 removed. Her experience of resulting backlash towards her (which was vicious and sustained) and responses from women was published in a book Dear Clare, this is what women feel about Page 3 you can read the Introduction here.
Regardless of how you feel about Page 3 this book is worth reading. It is a couple of decades old now but it is a fascinating record of a point in history and tackling a contentious issue. It highlights in particular the problems that can be faced in questioning sexual images in the media – and how attempts to silence critics centre on devaluing their argument with accusations of their being prudish, ugly, boring or anti sex.
Unfortunately discussions around Page 3 have often resulted in women being judged or blamed. Whether it’s women who oppose Page 3 being dismissed as killjoys or Page 3 girls constructed as stupid or immoral. Sadly some of the debates around Page 3 often pitted women against each other with feminists called to attack Page 3 stunnas by the media eager to orchestrate a bitch fight.
This missed the many relevant criticisms of women (and men) of the presence of Page 3, while targeted hostile and aggressive responses towards Page 3 models rather than at the Sun, its editors, staff, advertisers and readership. Even now debates around Page 3, when they happen, tend to focus on discussions that quickly degenerate into girl blaming and rehearse female victimisation stories rather than looking at wider issues of commercialisation and the Sun’s editorial approaches.
Part of the problem within this area is that not everyone who dislikes Page 3 can agree on exactly why they have a problem with it – or what should be done about it. It is possible to be pro porn but still have questions about Page 3, although this can cause tensions when discussing with predominantly anti porn groups. Indeed many people who have issues with sexually explicit media also have issues with the politics and actions of anti porn groups – making it complicated to talk about issues in a calm way.
Aimed at straight men, the assumption is that Page 3 has nothing to say to women (or that women universally oppose it). While the voices of bi and lesbian women have been heard less in discussions of Page 3 certainly it would be wrong to say women have only one (negative) response to the images. In her 1983 essay ‘The Page Three Girl Speaks to Women Too’ Patricia Holland discusses how the images in Page 3 show other women how they should look, dress, pose and act in order to ‘be sexy’ for their ‘fella’. Rather than just being something women dislike and turn the page on, Holland explains how the presence of Page 3 plays a role in constructing what female desire looks like.
This leads to perhaps some of the less reported struggles women have with Page 3. That they may feel it is sexist but they also feel it excludes them from relationships with men or sets up a standard of femininity to which they cannot compete with. Page 3 girls are young and selected for particular body shapes (the fashions for which have changed over the past 40 years). They are photographed in flattering poses to accentuate breasts and bums. This can make women feel insecure in comparison, or imply the normal or preferable female form is that shown on Page 3.
It may be easier to dismiss such concerns if the paper itself did not play upon them. Even in the recent celebrations of Page 3 the launch of a video that focuses on ‘the woman you would secretly like your woman to be’
Despite the major opposition to Page 3 in the late 1980s and early 1990s cultural changes more widely perhaps explain why we appear less bothered about it now. Lads’ mags, wider accessibility to the internet, a more mediated and commercialised culture have all led to more access to sexualised imagery than we had in the recent past. With such changes you may question why Page 3 remains so apparently popular? After all the images of topless women are no longer unique to that paper.
Page 3 seems to have been archived along with Carry On films and Benny Hill as a bygone representation of gentle sexism that we know is there but we turn a blind eye to. Or perhaps can be rewritten as an ironic joke.
Have we resolved how we feel about Page 3? Is it just a joke? Are we no longer bothered by it? Or has its presence over 40 years simply meant we see it as part of our media fixtures and fittings?
What does seem certain is Page 3 is unlikely to disappear. It is a very lucrative part of The Sun. But it is undoubtedly presenting women, and sex and the female body in a specific way. Claims that it’s empowering to women may be questioned given the gimmick that goes with the 40th anniversary to see the Page 3 girls in 360 (also available for the iPad) where you can “make our model go full screen and she’ll pirouette at your command”
It may be easy to simply dismiss Page 3 as sexist or silly, ignoring how it has been a major part of a particular publication for 40 years. Over that time our attitudes to sex and relationships, to sexual politics and to sexuality have changed. The paper itself has both reported and constructed desirability and the female form with shifting fashions for poses, breast sizes, hair styles and clothing. Studying the history of Page 3 and what it’s had to say about women and men is worthy of consideration.
Page 3 hitting 40 is perhaps not as interesting as the history that hides behind the page, and the fact that as it reaches this milestone there has been relatively little public response. Certainly people don’t seem to be joining in the celebrations, but nor are many people speaking up about concerns over Page 3 or views on female imagery in the media more widely.
Perhaps people feel these debates no longer need to be had. I’m not so sure this is right. Page 3 presents us with a number of often uncomfortable issues for discussion, many of which we haven’t resolved. If The Sun is celebrating this is a good a time as any to debate the presence of Page 3 – and the politics of the paper more widely.
Tweet