![\"Screenshot](\"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/www.badreputation.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/10\/page3-580w.jpg\" "\\"page3-580w.jpg\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n
Page 3, revered by its supporters as ‘a British institution’ and pushed by its owners as ’empowering’, has been the horsefly on the cowpat of the Sun newspaper for years. In my early teens, pre-Internet, a glimpse of tit from a discarded copy of the Sun was my first vision of a naked breast. I’m also fairly sure it was the exact moment that I decided that mainstream, unimaginative, plastic-and-makeup porn wasn’t for me, but I digress.<\/p>\n
Other people have made better arguments (here’s one<\/a>, and here’s another<\/a>) than I could for why having a teenager with her tits out in the first few pages of a national newspaper might not be a particularly stellar idea. It’s objectification at its worst, and the empowerment argument neglects the fact that there are better, safer, and more rewarding ways to take your clothes off for financial gain if that’s what you truly want to do.<\/p>\n
My argument against Page 3 is quite simple; if you don’t want to reject it simply because it’s in bad taste, insensitive, and chauvinistic, then reject it because it uses psychological techniques to manipulate your views into agreeing with whatever fits the Sun’s goals at the time. The Sun sees its readership not just as customers, but as bargaining chips and weapons.<\/p>\n
Let’s take a quick look at a few examples of Page 3. The rather excellent\u00a0Tim Ireland<\/a>\u00a0over at\u00a0Bloggerheads<\/a>, nemesis of Nadine Dorries, has been collecting these – \u00a0I hope he won\u2019t mind me mirroring them here. Credit due entirely to him and anyone who might have scanned them for him.<\/p>\n
Now, it’s quite possible that these women hold these opinions.
It’s quite interesting, however, that they coincide with the vitriol
that appears in the
The Sun Says<\/em> portion of the paper, home of a much more blatant
attempt to tell their readership what to think.<\/p>\n
Think about this, though – what if these statements are invented by
the paper? Then, what we have on our hands is a cheap attempt to use the many cognitive biases that sexual attraction brings
into play<\/a> to form an opinion in the undecided. This person is
attractive; you’re naturally more inclined to agree with people that
you find attractive; your opinion is swayed. All the time, you’re
seeing it as just a bit of fun, just a silly piece of paper with a pair of
breasts. Every day, this message hits home. Over time, it affects people
– they think the way the Sun, and thus the Murdoch empire, wants
them to think.<\/p>\n
Yes, alright, I’ve strayed a bit into tin-foil-hat territory. The
fact is, though, that this is having an effect on the Sun’s
readership. How big an effect is arguable, of course, but it’s
non-zero. Also, don’t forget that there’s a huge line on the
role of these women – they’re being used as tools, to have
opinions thrust into their mouths. Even the names are probably pseudonyms.
They are there for no reason
at all<\/em>\u00a0other than to be a pair of tits, and that shit is
just not on.<\/p>\n
If you won’t boycott the Sun because you hate the exploitation
and objectification of women that it represents, boycott it because
you value your own power of self-determination.<\/p>\n