Page 3: A Model’s Voice

The debates around censoring Page 3 and lads’ mags largely ignores the opinions, rights and careers of models. Model, pornstar and dominatrix Zara du Rose has a message for women who attack her choices in the name of feminism.

As most of you are aware, there’s a huge campaign running to abolish nudity in the tabloid papers.

But what really is the problem?

Is it that people think the page is sexist, that they are afraid of the naked body and how a pair of tits could ‘damage’ a child, or that they don’t agree with some women’s choice of career?

For me, this whole campaign seems to be coming from an extremist form of feminism, where these self-acclaimed feminists are telling the rest of us women how we are wrong to choose to bare all for a career.

They seem to have the loudest voice, with demonstrations outside The Sun headquarters & numerous articles written to explain why they think this should be banned, and why we should all ‘think of the children’.

But, who is speaking to the women who have featured on page 3? Why haven’t they had equal coverage on the situation?

Now, before anyone bangs on about how this may sound like an ‘anti-feminism’ rant – I do class myself as a feminist, one who believes in equal opportunities, and where women should have the right to choose a path, however non-conventional.

Theresa May is Watching You
Install a Secure VPN

What I have seen increasingly in the last 12 months is criticism and hate from other women, because I have chosen to get naked for all to see, and made a career out of it.

I’ve been told that I’m degrading myself, letting women down as a whole… these comments hurt a hell of a lot when they come from other women! But as soon as I start explaining myself, and why I feel empowered by what I do, I instantly get shot down. It seems some people aren’t willing to have a constructive debate about this.

Theresa May is Watching You
Install a Secure VPN

This women-on-women hate is going to have a huge impact on many sex workers, and push us all apart. We should be standing together, not fighting between ourselves!

Yes, it was my choice to become a sex worker, yes I feel that what I do empowers me and gives me the confidence to continue, so why is it so wrong!?

Funnily enough, I do agree with a couple of points from the No More Page 3 campaign: yes, women should be represented equally in the newspapers, and our achievements celebrated, but does a page with a topless photo really degrade all women?

I feel that this situation has got out of hand, and a big portion of the people campaigning against Page 3 have lost sight of what it’s really about.

Here’s one thought for you: David Beckham has been the star of numerous billboard campaigns across the UK and overseas in the last few years. More often than not, scantily clad in nothing but a very revealing pair of boxer shorts which leave very little to the imagination.

How is this form of nudity be allowed to appear in ads, in our streets, yet a women who has chosen to pose topless for Page 3 isn’t?

Seems a little sexist, no?

Sex is all around us; we all do it, so why does it feel like this country as a whole is terrified of it!? The new porn laws, the “porn filters” and now No More Page 3 & Lose The Lads’ Mags: porn is being attacked because the government say it’s damaging our children. But I say, instead of hiding away from it and damaging our livelihoods, why not EDUCATE the next generation about porn?!

The more restrictions that go into place, the more the industry (& the girls in it!) will go underground. We need to embrace the 21st century and accept that porn is something most of us look at, not hide away from it.

Donate by Paypal, card or Bitcoin
sexandcensorship.org/donate/

103 thoughts on “Page 3: A Model’s Voice”

  1. “I’ve been told that I’m degrading myself, letting women down as a whole… these comments hurt a hell of a lot when they come from other women”

    Indeed. Go onto Object’s Facebook page and you will see all sorts of hateful, nasty comments about models. Claims they have no self respect, that they are degrading themselves and other women and that are stupid. Nasty conservative feminism.

  2. The real issue I have with MNP3 is the misleading way they represent The Sun. They never mention the pictures of the world famous supermodels like Elle McPherson modelling designer swim ware and lingerie. Or the glamorous actresses like Angelina Jolie and Scarlett Johansenn in their designer evening gowns. Or the female popstars like Rihanna, Beyoncé, Miley Cyrus or Lady Gaga with their highly sexualised outfits and personas. All the men in The Sun wear suits? All of them? I’ve only seen One Direction wear suits once in The Sun. Ed Sheeran never wears a suit.
    One of the best books I’ve ever read on porn id Dirty Fan Male, written by Johnny Trunk, the sister of the porn model Eve Vorley (Emma Benton-Hughes) who is the partner of the porn baron and West Ham owner David Sullivan. His experience with porn is that it provides a service and fulfils a need. To me that is a good point about any form of sex work.

  3. There is some misunderstanding in this message. First of all, no one has ignored models choices, by saying this anyone would think Page 3 is the only place the models can work. There are hundreds of magazines and websites employing glamour models. No More Page 3 was about Page 3 in a family newspaper, not these mags or websites where models still have their choice to work.

    Personally I think if the women are happy to do this kind of work then they should. It maybe does make them feel empowered but it doesn’t make the majority of women feel empowered when they hear a group of men in the restroom at work or wherever make crude comments about the size of the models breasts or what they would like to do to the model. People don’t want to hear this while going about their daily business. While this titillation was in a widely read newspaper this kind of ‘banter’ was called ‘harmless fun’. It’s fine that people like to look at sexy pics but respect for others should come first. There’s no need for anyone to be sexually titilated on a public bus.

    As for David Beckham, a topless man is viewed completely differently to a topless woman. Why should pictures of topless women be allowed in public but real, live women are not? A real topless woman would not be accepted in public, she would cause chaos. Breasts are over sexualized and Page 3 encouraged this, presenting the models as ‘naughty’, ‘cheeky ‘ etc for showing their breasts off. It’s not the toplessness that makes it porn, its the open innuendo and naughty comments that go along with it. As long as this attitude continues women will never have the same topless freedom as men have.

    I agree that most people probably look at porn but I think anything sexual should be a choice and Page 3 took this choice away from so many people. Openly commented on, viewed in public places, some people have no respect for others. Young women don’t want their breasts commented on and compared to glamour models at school, work or traveling on public transport and Page 3 unfortunately encouraged this.

    1. “Young women don’t want their breasts commented on and compared to glamour models at school, work or traveling on public transport and Page 3 unfortunately encouraged this.”

      But if Page 3 encourages this then surely porn does too. Men who would make such comments to women in public would still have access to porn even if Page 3 was got rid of. Surely the only surefire way to prevent this would be to ban the lot.

      As for topless men and David Beckham, yes they are viewed very differently. There is no moral outrage whenever Beckham or any other male celebrity does a sexy topless photoshoot and there is no panic that sexual imagery of men causes violence. Why?

  4. “Young women don’t want their breasts commented on and compared to glamour models at school, work or traveling on public transport and Page 3 unfortunately encouraged this.” I wouldn’t blame Page 3 for this sort of behaviour. There just happens to be people who are like this and what women need to do is stand up to the people who do behave like this.

    1. I first had Page 3 shoved in my face at 13 year old, on a bus by a man old enough to be my grandad. I was in school uniform. He commented on my breasts and said in that in a couple of years I could show them like the Page 3 model and make money so I shouldn’t worry about going to school. M I hahorrified.My skin still crawls when I think about it. I’ve been harassed with it a good few more times over the years, by groups of boys in school and men in the work place. It’s also common behaviour, thousands of girls have been in similar situations. I don’t know of this happening to anyone in a public place with porn mags because porn mags are not accepted in public places the way newspapers are. Page 3 and the banter that goes along with it is ‘harmless fun’ right?

      Trust me I have stood up for myself. In return for voicing my disgust at this kind of behaviour I have been called frigid, a tease, a killjoy, a slut and had my breasts groped (it’s just a laugh apparently) all while Page 3 has been is shown to me and sexually titilating these boys and men in public places where no one should ever feel sexually intimidated. There is absolutely no reason why anyone needs to view sexual material in public and make others feel uncomfortable and even threatened. Anything to do with sexy material should be an opt in choice and Page 3 took the opt in choice away from thousands of girls and women away for 44+ years. There’s plenty of sexy websites and mags which are not accepted in public if you want to see such material and I have no problem with those because then we ALL have a choice of viewing or not.

      1. The thing is with argument is that men who would make rude comments about young girls could be looking at other stuff which is similar to Page 3. So if Page 3 is linked to this behaviour then surely that stuff is too.

        1. Similar material is not accepted in public. I have never been harrassed with a soft porn mag but I have been with Page 3 numerous times since puberty. Page 3 is/was for sexual titillation and some (quite a lot from past experience) boys and men get rowdy and/or crude when they are encouraged to think about sex. In public they call it ‘banter’ or ‘just a bit of fun’
          I have no issue with people enjoying sexy material in their own privacy, where it can be kept a fantasy without offending others. Yes there are always going to be sleazy men regardless of whether Page 3 exists or not but no one should be encouraged to think and comment about sex in a public place full of people and think that what they are doing is ‘harmless fun’ and that everyone who complains are ‘frigid prudes’

          Why does anyone need sexual titillation in public?

  5. We are surrounded by sexual images. Our mainstream media is full of images of women such as models, actresses and popstars (Elle McPherson, Scarlett Johannson, Beyoncé, Rihanna) in lingerie, swimware and highly suggestive costumes. There are images of women on public transport and shopping malls in lingerie and suggestive outfits (we know their names). Needles to say that there are quite a few men who find these images titillating.

    1. Page 3 pics only exist for sexual titillation. They are not advertising their latest movie, song or even underwear to buy. All they are selling is the fact they want to turn heterosexual men on. That’s fine but turn them on in privacy and have respect for the public. Anything to do with sex should be an opt in choice for everyone. I’m sure most men can handle not being titilated until they get home from work.

  6. Whilst I take on the board the testimony of Mysticarella regarding her experiences with males around Page 3, I cannot accept the notion that such images should not be in a “family newspaper”.

    A periodical, be it a “family newspaper”, lads mag, women’s journal, whatever, should be able to publish what it likes in a liberal democracy so long as the image or text in publishes does not incite hatred or violence.

    Leaving aside the reaction of some males, can you really say the way Page 3 was presented in The Sun, and is presented in the Daily Star and Sunday Sport, really incites hatred and violence towards women? I would say no. Is it there merely for titillation and entertainment? Of course it is. Should a “family newspaper” be allowed to feature such an item? Yes, they should if they so wish. Any consequences a woman feels because of this should be taken up with the male giving her the unwanted attention, or the male reported to the relevant authorities, be it a line manager at work, a supervisor in a public place, or if necessary the male reported to the police.

  7. Before we proceed, Mysticarella is the known NMP3 Troll, Hellzbelle on Twitter. https://twitter.com/Hellz_Belle. She is part of a wider group of NMP3 Trolls who have hassled Page 3 supporters from Twitter, by shaming their affiliation of Page 3 or The Sun newspaper, implying that they are sexual deviants, rapists, paedophiles amongst other slurs, which in normal circumstances would result in libel action. By no means the worst offender of that particular troll group by a long shot, she has rather unbalanced views and is incapable of basic debate with a Page 3 supporter, because of the incompatible standpoints. I suspected she was Hellzbelle, from previous intelligence, but when she called out Paul Evans on another Page 3 thread here, my suspicions were confirmed as she has made a target of Mr Evans for quite sometime on Twitter.

    I am not doubting that Mysticarella/Hellzbelle has suffered at the hands of sexist comments or behaviour that is offensive, inappropriate and downright disgusting. I have no doubt at all. As Ged Hession has stated, “I wouldn’t blame Page 3 for this sort of behaviour. There just happens to be people who are like this and what women need to do is stand up to the people who do behave like this.” Mysticarella/Hellzbelle would have sadly endured inappropriate behaviour regardless of whether Page 3 existed or not, that is true. It is easy and more convenient to blame the (pardon the pun), the low hanging fruit that is Page 3, rather than the actions of the offender in question. Most supporters of Page 3 would not even dream of engaging such things.Mysticarella/Hellzbelle, whether justified or not, has taken out these unsavoury actions that have happened to her, on every single other reader of Page 3, and have course formulated her opinions on what Page 3 actually is and has decided that every single man is titllated by Page 3.

    NMP3 have also picked on Page 3 models. Rhian Sugden, Lucy Collett and Holly Peers to name a few. Emma Glover, who is not a Page 3 model (but certainly should be!) is another who I have seen hassled by NMP3, who are more than adept of rounding up 5/6 NMP3 trolls to win by the old fashioned numbers game. Classic bullying tactics. They have also set up ‘parody’ twitter accounts in the name of Sun employees and Page 3 supporters, and contacted work places of Page 3 supporters. I have passed details to the police on three occasions, but sadly they are not particularly interested.

    1. Haha. Love it! Wanting EVERYONE to have a choice of being exposed to sexy material (in public) is an ‘unbalanced’ view. Yes of course I forgot, it’s only Page 3 supporters who deserve a choice. No one wants to stop you from seeing naked women if you want but loads of people don’t want to see it while going about their daily business. Those people must be ‘prudes’ right? Because we should all want to be sexually titilated on the bus otherwise we’re hairy man haters.
      You consider all NMP3 supporters to be the same.Of course we all make parody accounts and have the same views on everything else in the world. You are prejudiced and hypocritical. Thats no different to you saying I think all Page 3 supporters are the same, though I don’t, I just know from enough personal experience that a large number of Page 3 supporters are sleazy, or certainly behave that way in public.I don’t see why anyone should be encouraged to behave this way in public and I have seen for myself on many occasions that Page 3 HAS encouraged this vile behaviour.

      1. I have the choice to buy and read whatever newspaper I like without anyone calling me on it. You have the choice to go about your business whilst I am reading that paper and we will not interact with each other. Nobody is encroaching anyone else or making anyone else feel uncomfortable. It is not your place to judge me buy the paper I read. You want to remove my choice. .

        1. Many people would like the choice of whether they see sexual material or not. Why is your ‘choice’ to be sexually titilated in public more important than theirs? So you think only horny men should be entitled to choice? How is that fair? I don’t want to take their choice of looking at suggestive pictures away. I’m asking them to have respect for the people around them and everyones right to a choice of not being or being affected by soft porn being leered over in public. It is you who wants to restrict choice!

          1. Maybe there are people who think it’s not appropriate for La Senza, Ann Summers, Debenhams and H&M to show pictures of young women in lingerie, swimware and suggestive outfits. They do feel however there is little they can do about it. Choice is a very misused word these days. In certain circumstances it’s not very useful.

          2. Well they don’t have to shop in La Senza, Ann Summers or anywhere else if they don’t like their advertising. Ann Summers is clearly an adult shop, it doesn’t pretend to be anything else. And if something bothers people why can’t they do anything about it? They voice their opinions and they will find people who agree with their views online from all over the country. So yes they can do something about it. Choice means….well…choice funnily enough. Something everyone should definitely have when it comes to anything to do with sex. In this circumstance the word ‘choice’ is not useful to you because you don’t agree with everyone having it which is quite odd!

      2. I consider all NMP3 supporters the same. Yes. I do. They are all irrational, incapable of debate with anyone who challenges their position (I’m not the only one who says that), and I am aware of people who have left various social media platforms because of actions by NMP3 supporters. You have called me hypocritical and prejudiced but then blanketed all Page 3 supporters as sleazy. Page 3 has nothing to do with it, and you need to accept this.

        1. Maybe you should actually read before commenting? I said I don’t consider all Page 3 fans to be sleazy at all. I said a large number of them appear to be judging on behaviour I have personally seen over the years. I never blanked them all sleazy. I’m not that narrow minded. It appears you are though! Men like looking at women, women like looking at men. There’s nothing wrong with that. But no one needs to get titilated in the doctors surgery!

          1. I did read it. And you are narrow minded. I’m perfectly capable of reading The Sun in the surgery waiting room, without being bothered. I and most others, don’t read the Sun to be titillated. NMP3 steer it towards sex, every time.

          2. No if I was narrow minded I’d say ALL Page 3 supporters were sleazy. I know they are not. It is you who is narrow minded, so narrow minded you don’t even realise you are being a hypocrite.
            Are you trying to say that Page 3 was not there for sexual titillation? Maybe you should tell the Sun that? They sold it only for that purpose for over 44 years.

          3. Sticks and stones Hellzbelle. You are narrow minded, I am not. You tell the Sun, if you have a problem with it.

          4. I’m not the one who thinks that because someone supports something that they must have exactly the same beliefs as everyone else who supports it. You do though. Do you understand what narrow minded actually means? It appears not!
            I did let the Sun know I had a problem, so did thousands of others. Looks like they might have heard us.

    2. Yes, Mysticarrella and Hellzbelle are one and the same and I do not doubt her version of events in the slightest. However, to blame Page3 for what happened is missing the point somewhat. What happened was just unfortunate. I am not going to say what her true ID is, but she has also abused me on a number of Facebook threads where Page 3 was discussed. As a consequence, I have now blocked her from both my Facebook and Twitter accounts. Don’t get me wrong, I can take criticism but some of the things she was saying about me went beyond the bounds of rational debate.

      1. I deleted my Facebook account over a year ago so no, you don’t have me blocked. I’m not there! You equalize people who don’t want to see sexual images in public places to genocidal maniacs and other disgusting abuse! Then you wonder why you get attacked? Maybe if you treat people with respect you won’t get attacked? Ever thought about that Paul?

        1. I am going to have to throw my hand up at this point and acknowledge that that is fair criticism. I have behaved like a total jerk online and for that, I must apologise (at 43 years old, I should know better).

          Now that you have presented me with your reasons for supporting NMP3, I shall be more respectful of your views. Btw, I still think you are wrong, though. Now that I have acknowledged your right to support NMP3, it is only right that you should acknowledge my right to oppose it. In other words, the best we can do here is to agree to disagree.

          1. You can think I’m wrong all you like. I want people to have a choice, you don’t. I don’t want to stop you looking at sexy pics. Thousands don’t want to see them while going about their daily business and we certainly don’t want to be affected and intimidated by them because thousands of louts think it’s harmless fun. But if you think this attitude is ok then that’s up to you. There’s a word you should look up and learn – empathy.

  8. Most Page 3 supporters value women for the massive contribution they play in lives and society. Their view of womenkind is not dictated by a single topless harmless image in a newspaper (which you can chosoe to buy or not buy. Incidentally, I go on buses, cafe’s, parks etc and do not seem to have it thrown in my face like NMP3 supporters claim they do). We also know men are visual creatures and that we are going to look, especially if someone like Zara Du Rose, the author of the article walks into the room. We are programmed to do so. It does not give men licence to do anything, and most know that. Those who do not, would do it anyway.

    1. Ever thought that one of the reasons you have not been affected by Page 3 in public places might be because you’re a man? Maybe your tits are not good enough to be assessed or compared to Naughty Nicole’s from Bournemouth?

      1. Irrelevant. Nobody is affected by Page 3 in public places. And why have you shamed Nicole by singling her out ? Some men will display sexist behaviour regardless of Page 3 existing or not. That is at least the third time I have made this point, and you choose to ignore it every single time. Why is this ? It is a rhetorical question. It is because you have no argument and are incapable of rational debate with somebody who fundamentally disagrees with you.

        1. Because I know for a fact that I have been treated this way numerous times with Page 3. I have experienced sexism without Page 3 being involved but when I’m having my breasts assessed and compared to a Page 3 model, Page 3 obviously is a factor in that! Lol!

          1. Not sure why you find it amusing. Page 3 did not harass you. Some man did. And no doubt he had done so before Page 3.

          2. Yes many are affected by Page 3 in public whether you accept it or not. I guess thousands of us must be lying – we actually want our breasts rated out of 10, young 12 year old girls want the old man leering over Page 3 beside her to say to her “Cor, look at her, your tits will be like that in a few years”. We all love being compared to the “tart with her tits out” in the common room at college. Yes it’s all such harmless fun isn’t it?

          3. I’m unsure how I can be assessed and compared to a Page 3 model if Page 3 is not there to compare me to? Or hear men crudely commenting on the Page 3 model if there is no Page 3 model to comment on? Why give them encouragement to behave like this?

          4. Open your fucking eyes and realise its the percentage of perverted men being the issue and not Page 3.

          5. Try googling “Sussex University Should Page 3 be banned”. In that debate is a woman, Summer St. Claire, who actually models for Page 3 and Lads’ Mags. Though she didn’t claim to have her boobs compared by a dirty old man, she claims that the images she saw in celebrity magazines put so much pressure on her it drove her to anorexia. She defends Page 3 by claiming that the images on Page 3 are of normal, natural women.

          6. My eyes are open and I asked you why these men should be encouraged by Page 3 in public? Whether you like it or not it has been used as a tool to harrass girls and women. I can’t see why anyone can’t wait till they are in privacy to assess breasts.
            I don’t agree with celebrity magazines either. Sorry but I don’t think Summer had a good argument for Page 3.

  9. I find NMP3 abhorrent and offensive for suggesting that I am guilty of these behaviours. It is not their job to thought police for me, or judge the paper I read. I find it quite sad that some of the NMP3 number are parents, who will be inflicting their septic views on their offspring, especially teenage boys, who, like it or not, will be exploring their sexuality as nature intends them too (and I assure you now, that it will not be Page 3 that they will be going to for this).

    1. Please show evidence of where NMP3 suggested all men viewing Page 3 are guilty of this behaviour? They never did. Plenty of men do behave like this though. Why should anyone be made to feel sexually intimidated in public? Why should that behaviour be encouraged?

      1. Does MNP3 take issue with La Senza and Ann Summers displaying images of young women in lingerie? Or the fact that stores like H+M and Debenhams have posters of women in lingerie, swimware , miniskirts, shorts, skimpy tops and catsuits. Images that are fully displayed in public. Images that sexually titillate men and sexually intimidate women?

        1. Most people wear underwear. Those shops are selling underwear. Mannequins in the windows actually selling something is not the same as a young woman selling the fact she has breasts off in a daily newspaper for the entertainment of men. I can’t say I see La Send a leaflets lying around in waiting rooms. I have never seen a group of men standing around an H&M advertisement in the street saying things “Check the tits on THAT, I bet she takes it up the arse” I don’t see Ann Summers catalogues being read by old men on the bus. They don’t pretend they are news. They don’t contain horrific stories of rape on the front page then encourage the reader to think about sex on the next.

          1. Hellzbelle, you have just proven with that paragraph that there really is no cure for stupid. Get help. #NMP3 troll.

      2. I only have to refer you to the treatment of people who like Page 3 that you and your fellow trolls engage in. Your treatment of Paul Evans is an example. I actually said (not that you bothered to read what I said properly) that some men do behave inappropriately. But that is nothing to do with Page 3. What give you and other trolls the right to call Page 3 supporters ‘paedo’ or ‘rapist’ ? Why should anyone be made to feel intimidated online ?

        1. So Paul Evans is ok with you? Tweeting young women with abuse, told to “Eat shit and die” just because they want a bit of respect in public? Then he moans and wonders why he is called a misogynist, tries to fake innocence. I’d call anyone out on that.
          I personally have never called anyone a rapist. I did call one out once as a suspected paedophile as I read he had written on a website about underage girls, sex and innocence. It was all very creepy.
          I only speak for myself, I have no control over what other NMP3 supporters believe, do or say. I also have different views to different people on things. Because one NMP3 supporter says one thing it doesn’t automatically mean that we all agree with that particular point. It’s very narrow minded of you to think so.

          1. I don’t always subscribe to the actions of others. In Mr Evans defence, NMP3 did not attempt reasoned debate with him.

          1. It might be better if you knew what you were talking about. If you think NMP3 have not attempted reasoned debate with Evans clearly you have no idea! Did you see his posts on the NMP3 page a couple of years ago?
            I don’t want pics of naked women banned. I want adult material to be kept to ADULTS who CHOOSE to see it. Key word – CHOOSE

          2. Oh, I do know what I am talking about. I know I am banging my head against a wall debating with someone who does not.

          3. No clearly you dont. You must have missed the ‘reasoned’ debate Evans had with NMP3 on FB lol!
            Why do you have a problem with everyone having a choice when it comes to sexual material? Freak!

  10. I have boycotted the Sun since they removed Page 3. Ok, they have not made a statement as to why, and they have been mischievous in not saying anything. I have boycotted because I believe NMP3 (very few of which are Sun readers) have driven this decision. If The Sun withdrew because they wanted too, they would have said so. I can understand that it has got to a stage where after being bullied by NMP3 for two and a half years (it was never a polite campaign, lets face it), NMP3 would claim the so called ‘victory’. But still NMP3 sexualise and objectify women in a fashion far worse than most men ever would. (Apologies for splitting post up, couldnt post as one item)

  11. I actually tried to defend Page 3 on Mumsnet, simply as there was a thread related to the subject. I was called a rambling, confused, creepy, fantasist and apologist. Somebody attempted to stand by me, stating I had as much right to fantasize about Page 3 girls as people who fantasize about the other people who appear in The Sun; supermodels, film stars, TV and soap stars, pop stars and sports stars. They were ganged up upon as well and I was told to take consolation from the fact that some pro-porn feminists had the leave Mumsnet for being constantly branded as handmaidens.

  12. People need to realise that people just look at Page 3 and then get on with their day as normal. NMP3’s tiny little Victorian minds just will not get this, ever. The trouble is, what will they look to ban next.

    1. Doctor’s surgeries are full of magazines with images of models and actresses in lingerie and swimware , in various glamorous and sexualised clothing. The Sun is also full of such images of women and I wonder if NMP3 will attempt to make The Sun remove them as well on the basis that they are not news either.

    2. Maybe you should tell the hundreds of sleazy men who use Page 3 to harrass girls and women that? They seem to think it gives them reason to discuss all womens breasts because the pretty, smiling girl in the newspaper is making hers a conversation topic.
      There you go again….what makes you so sure that all NMP3 supporters will support their next cause? And you claim they are small minded? Hahaha!

  13. And calling Page 3 girls ‘Tarts with their tits out’ is Hellzbelle talking (and disapproving of model choice) vicariously through somebody else.

      1. It’s telling that you have to make things up. I’d have thought you were an adult commenting on this blog? I’m all for women doing the work they want to do whether it’s adult modelling or being a mechanic. I have nothing against models. I don’t think their work should be affecting the public though. It has a negative effect in public. That doesn’t mean I disapprove of their work. Thinking I do is narrow minded. You can’t see the forest for the trees!

  14. You do not come from the same world as normal people. Most men notice women’s breasts. Most know how to behave. It has nothing to do with Page 3.They will still do it.

      1. Well that’s funny because when I posted, “We are surrounded by sexual images. Our mainstream media is full of images of women such as models, actresses and popstars (Elle McPherson, Scarlett Johannson, Beyoncé, Rihanna) in lingerie, swimware and highly suggestive costumes” you simply implied, ” they are advertising their latest movie, song or even underwear to buy.” So you don’t seem to have that much of a problem with celebrities or celebrity mags.

  15. As I’ve stated previously, the way Page 3 is presented does not encourage a large number of males who view it to behave in a sleazy manner. It is the males themselves who are to blame for their behaviour – they cannot use Page 3 as an excuse or explanation for their behaviour.

    1. Sorry but thousands of us have experienced that it does encourage this behaviour. Yes the males are probably no doubt sleazy without Page 3. But when they are constantly fed the ‘harmless fun’ bullshit, have Page 3 open in front of them making crude comments about the pretty girl who appears happy to have these men think of her like that, their brains don’t seem to work properly. Because this girl wants to be a turn on anywhere, any time in the newspaper way too many of these males think it gives them licence to behave like that with any woman around them. If we complain about their behaviour we are called jealous, killjoys, man haters etc, it can be very intimidating.

      They are much more unlikely to behave like this if they are reading the sports pages or doing the crossword, so yes Page 3 does encourage them. Men like that shouldn’t be given any encouragement to behave like that in public. That’s why sexy material should be kept to adults who choose to see it in privacy.

  16. I repeat – the way that Page 3 is presented by newspapers does not encourage males to behave in a sleazy manner, or incite hatred or violence towards women. If a “family newspaper” wishes to publish such sexy material within its pages, to appeal to the “adults” within its readership, then in a liberal democracy, it should be allowed to do so. Why should it be private?

    If the adults buying the newspaper are parents, and are happy for any child of theirs under the age of eighteen to view such material, then so be it. That’s their choice. Just as it’s the choice of others not to buy/read such a newspaper.

    1. Another thing, if Page 3 is indeed misogynistic and incites hatred against women why do so many models become popular and major media figures. As a teen I was a huge fan of Samantha Fox and recall just how popular she was. She made no secret of the fact that she was popular with children. Linda Lusardi seems to have quite an enduring popularity. Katie Price has become quite a media figure though personally I do not like her. Melinda Messenger is another woman who started her media career as a Page 3 model. The era of the Lads’ Mag also created some popular Page 3 models, most notable being Keeley Hazell and Lucy Pinder.

      1. And I repeat – Page 3 gives those men encouragement I know this from plenty of experience. So you don’t think anything sexual should be a choice? Or private for that matter?That seems a bit creepy! The ‘if you don’t like it, don’t buy it’ argument has been ripped apart many times. I have never bought it but it’s affected me negatively many times.

        I assume that you are not aware that Linda Lusardi supports NMP3? Sam Fox from the 80’s – it’s 2015. I do wonder why she became a lesbian with so many ‘adoring’ male fans. May have been something to do with the fact she’s a human being with feelings, not an object remembered because she showed her breasts off? Katie Price? What a fabulous example, the woman is hugely disliked and she has so many issues with her looks! She made a career out of being a car wreck. I’d say celeb mags like Ok and have much more to do with her still being in the media than Page 3 ever did. So out of 1000’s of Page 3 girls, there’s a handful that are remembered and not always in a positive way.

          1. Where in the media does it say that Linda Lusardi supports NMP3? You clearly have a penchant for telling blatant lies and putting words into peoples’ mouths.

          2. What lie would that be? The truth always comes out in the wash, I learned as a child not to lie or make false accusations!
            You might like to be sure of what you say before you say it?
            m.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/linda-lusardi-on-page-3-panto-and-performing-1-5591417

  17. I repeat again – the way that Page 3 is presented by newspapers does not encourage males to behave in a sleazy manner, or incite hatred or violence towards women. The girls who model for it, the photographers who take the pictures, the editors who publish the photos, are not telling men to go out and behave badly to women once they have viewed the images.

    It’s a pity that the likes of Linda Lusardi and Melinda Messenger view Page 3 now the way that they do, but it’s good that the likes of Zara DuRose are prepared to stand up for Page 3. And why should readers of newspapers or Lads’ mags who feature similar images have to view such periodicals in private? They have nothing to be ashamed of.

    1. It seems you don’t understand what I’m saying. I never said Page 3 made these men sleazy, yes they are already sleazy. These men are not going to be discussing a models sexual appeal if there is no model though. They can’t compare the breasts of girls and women around them to the sport pages or crossword. They are much less likely to behave like sex starved maniacs if they are reading proper news in the restroom at work than if they are looking at a picture of a pretty girl suggestively showing her breasts off. That is a fact!

      I never said there was anything to be ashamed of, I said anything to do with sex should be a choice and a private thing. Respect is the key word. There is absolutely no reason why anyone needs to be sexually titilated on a bus.

    2. Oh and I n the think never said the models, photographers or publishers are telling men to behave like this towards women. I don’t think they really care though. It’s all about money at the end of the day, that’s all that matters to them.

      1. Some testimonies from a few of the thousands of ex glamour models. They don’t seem to feel ’empowered’ A ‘celebration’ of women? A cattle market of women more like!

        nomorepage3.org/glamour-models/

  18. Mysticarella, am I to assume that you don’t believe that men that act in a sleazy way as a result of viewing Page 3 were born that way? That somewhere along the line, a failure of parenting or teaching has meant that such men believe that once they catch sight of such an image, then they can behave badly towards women?

    So by removing Page 3, and restricting anything that in your opinion you believe is sexy material to a private thing, that would somehow mitigate and alleviate the consequences of bad parenting and teaching that has gone on in the past, and is no doubt still continuing in the present?

    1. Some people are born assholes, both men and women. That’s life. Removing Page 3 takes away something that these men use as a tool to harrass and sexually intimidate girls and women in public places. Why shouldn’t they get a choice if they want to be in an environment where sexy material can affect them? Anything to do with sex should be a choice.

      I really cannot understand why anyone needs sexual titillation in public places. If anyone needs people around them while they are being titilated go to a strip club where everyone around them has chosen to be in that environment.

  19. So, because a (hopefully) few men choose to use Page 3 as a tool to harass and sexually intimidate girls and women in public places, then that means we should take away the choice of the (hopefully) majority of viewers of Page 3 and such like material who can view such material and the periodicals they appear in public places whilst adhering to the principles of DRAW (dignity and respect at work)?

    Sorry, but that does not wash with me. You say anything to do with sex should be a choice and a private thing. I say I have no qualms with people viewing Page 3 and similar images in periodicals in public places so long as they don’t use it as a tool to harass and sexually intimidate girls and women.

    1. No removing Page 3 means people still have the choice of seeing sexy material but others also have the choice of not seeing or being affected by it. That way EVERYONE has a choice. When EVERYONE has a choice that is fair. No group should come before another, especially when there is anything of a sexual nature involved. Why should horny men be allowed to stamp out our CHOICE of not being in a sexually intimidating environment? Have you any idea at all of how frightening that can be? Clearly not or do you just not care? Yet they say Page 3 makes men ‘respect’ women?!!

      I’d have no problem with Page 3 if I and thousands of others had not been harrassed and intimidated with it. But we have been for as long as Page 3 has been around. We want choice and respect. Your choice of seeing sexy pics is still there, just not in public. Of course anything to do with sex should be a choice and a private thing. To suggest otherwise is deviant.

  20. I’m afraid what you’re advocating is a sexy material in public prohibition,and that is something I, and I should hazard a guess, quite a number of people, would never subscribe to.

    Penalise the few who use viewing periodicals with Page 3 and such similar images as an excuse to harass and intimidate women when need be – do not penalise the many who can view/read such periodicals in public without harassing and intimidating women.

    If you believe that it is deviant of people to view/read the likes of The (old) Sun, Daily Star, Sunday Sport and Lads’ mags that carry such images in public, then so be it – that is your opinion, it’s not my opinion.

    1. What about the Watershed? You must have a problem with that! No breasts allowed to be shown in a sexual context before 9 pm. In fact during a Page 3 debate on one programme shown after 10 pm the breasts P3 models breasts were blurred out. I found that strange! I didn’t expect them to be blurred out at that time. So its not ok to see breasts in a sexual context before the Watershed but it’s ok in a family newspaper? That makes absolutely no sense!

      In any other context sexy material is not accepted in public. Why should a newspaper be any different? I’ve never seen a 70year old man salivating over a copy of Playboy on the bus or a man in the restroom at work with a copy of Men Only. That would not be accepted and rightly so. It’s sexy material, not public material.

      How do you suggest a horrified young girl gets an old man penalised for putting her in a sexually intimidating situation on the bus? Should she ask him his name or follow him home to get his address? That doesn’t work, believe me.

      It is deviant of anyone to sexually intimidate anyone else and lots of girls and women are put in this situation with Page 3. How is that ok?

      1. Oh and again I ask you why should your choice come before mine? I don’t want to stop you looking at sexy material but I’d like to choose not to see it or be affected by it on my way to work. Is it only horny men who are allowed a choice? Why is that?

    1. I have seen and read all the debates already, including this one. None of them bother to answer the fact that EVERYONE should be entitled to a choice with sexy material. We should just accept it and it’s effects in public despite the harm it has caused 1000’s of girls and women otherwise we must be man haters, prudes, lesbians, Victorian, needing a shag etc etc. It’s absolutely ridiculous! I have no issue with the fact the models enjoy their jobs. Good for them! I enjoy my job too. I don’t wish to see people being titilated while I’m doing it though. Their jobs are adult models and thats fine but it should be kept to adults who want to see it. Yes the Watershed. Makes no sense for it to exist while newspapers dont abide by it. What makes them different? Can’t parents put restrictions on phones and the Internet like I have done for my daughters, who yes have already been affected by Page 3. They don’t buy newspapers either BTW.

  21. Mysticarella, you keep going on about a “family” newspaper featuring Page 3. Tell me, what is the equivalent of Ofcom for “family” newspapers, to sanction such “family” newspapers for featuring Page 3 in a periodical version of the Watershed?

    Your opposition to Page 3 began with a bad experience at 13 years old when an old man shoved it in your face. You no doubt felt harassed and intimidated. I have been harassed and intimidated by people under the influence of alcohol. Because of this, do you reckon I should start or support a campaign to have alcohol consumption prohibited in public places?

    UEFA Champions League matches and Transport for London on their public transport already have bans in place regarding the consumption of alcohol – maybe I should advocate a campaign of total alcohol consumption prohibition in public places society-wide. If you want to drink alcohol, then you should drink it in private.

    1. You also say that your daughters have been affected by Page 3. How so? As that Page 3 model described, does it equally concern you that your daughters will encounter images of glamorous celebrities and models, feeling pressured to comply with these images, driving them to anorexia and other unhealthy attitudes and behaviours.

      1. My daughters are teens. It’s common for them to have been in a situation with thoughtless ‘men’ and public soft porn. You must think it’s unusual for this to happen. I assure you it is not.
        Because there are negative images elsewhere, why would this mean that Page 3 is ok?

        1. I’m not sure what you are talking about. Even without Page 3, The Sun, in common with most newspapers, is full of images of glamorous and sexualised actresses, models and pop stars and many young women feel they have no choice but to look like them.

    2. I think I have said ‘family newspaper’ twice maybe. That’s what The Sun sold itself as. Sexy and family don’t go well together in my opinion. *VOM*

      Well the debate that I watched on Page 3 was on a NEWS programme well after the Watershed. It didn’t seem appropriate for them to show the models there without blurring so why what is so different in a NEWSpaper?

      I think you will find that there are restrictions on alcohol. It is not freely available in public. No one is forcing you to go into a pub. No one drinks at work, it wouldn’t be tolerated. It’s not tolerated to drink on a bus or doctors waiting room. I’ve seen people have their alcohol confiscated. I have never seen anyone have a newspaper confiscated.

      Really though. What problem do you have if everyone has a choice?

      1. Love that you guys go on about ‘choice’ until it is pointed out that the choice is only yours, not ours, the ones who HAVE been humiliated and intimidated with Page 3.

        We won’t take your choice of being titilated but why cant you give us the choice not to see or be affected by that on our way to work, on the bus, at school, in a cafe with our kids etc? I’m interested to know why you think your choice is more important than ours? I don’t want to remove your choice to look but you insist girls and women must be able to deal with an environment where they may feel uncomfortable, intimidated and even threatened? Why? Do you dislike womenkind that much?

        1. You are still embarrassing yourself on this thread ? Thanks for the namecalling earlier. Better a freak than a fascist like you.

  22. You have the choice to remove yourself from the vicinity of a work colleague (be it male or female) reading a periodical with Page 3 or such similar images, assuming that the work colleague is reading it during a break time; you have a choice to sit away from person reading such a periodical on a bus, at school, or in a cafe. I exercise my choice to stay away from people under the influence of alcohol in such circumstances.

    If there is no sexy, there would be no family, unless you had your daughters via IVF.

    1. Why should anyone have to move? I asked why you think your choice is more important than mine?

      Where the actual f**k did I say I was against sex? Jeezus I did not conceive my kids on a bus or in my work restroom ffs! Lmao!!!!!!!!!!

      1. You assume that because I don’t want to see tits or men salivating over them on my way to work that I hate sex? That is hilarious! 🙂 Talk about narrow minds eh? 😉 Hahaha!

        1. For all you Page 3 fans who appear to have a problem
          getting their heads around this…..it really is this simple…. It’s a fact that women can and do actually enjoy sex and erotica without wanting to see, hear or be forced into being sexually intimadated with the ‘harmless fun’ you call Page 3 on a daily basis. It is narrow minded to suggest otherwise so be careful with your hypocrisy.

          Because we don’t want to see tits with our Monday morning coffee it really does not mean we have not shaved our legs for 4 weeks or want to bite the penis from every man who walks past us or that we have not been shagged properly recently. It doesn’t mean we’re jealous (some may be, I’m definitely not) I just don’t wish to see their work while I’m working and making important decisions regarding vulnerable people. I cant help but laugh when I see Page 3 fans call others narrow minded while they have these narrow minded views. #irony

  23. My choice is more important than yours only so much that it is MY choice, not YOURS, and if I believe MY choice does not it any way incite hatred or violence towards YOU or anybody else, then I’m happy to stand up for MY choice, MY view, MY opinion, against YOURS.

    I shall stand up for my choice either here on this website, in a court proceedings, at the ballot box, wherever.

  24. Why are female nipples so over-sexualised anyway? When I was younger you probably would have caught me jacking it to family-friendly clothing catalogs advertising women’s thongs over Page 3 anyway (ass over tit person til this very day).

Leave a Reply