Glamour modelling..

[tina3747]

Page 3 girls- what are your thoughts??
Just another job or degrading to the girls doing it??
Has page 3 died its death and needs to be removed from the dailys now or still valid in today's society?
This is coming from watching 'This morning' earlier .

I think fair play to anyone who chooses to do this as a career, I think some get decent money and if they're treated fairly on their terms then what's the problem? I wonder why so many feminists get so enraged about the degrading of women when isn't it right that its the women's right to choose?
I think doing this type of work must be a lot safer (not to say there isn't a problem) in this era, I imagine back in the 70s ect it must have been a nightmare when even women in 'normal' jobs were getting sexually harassed.

Would you do it for the right amount of money??

 

[special_kala]

I would do it.

Being pretty is an asset....i know thats not the nicest thing to think but its true so if some women want to exploit that the i dont see i problem with it.

Its our choice to be what we want to be and if some people choose that career path then so be it

 

[jen1604]

I do agree that it has no place in a newspaper nowadays..Surely men can cope with keeping news and boobs separate,I think thats more degrading to men than women really,assuming to read the news they need to be convinced by seeing boobs. 'We want you to do some reading,here look at some boobies to entice you'

But I also think glamour modelling is just a job,if a woman chooses to do it then fair enough,if I didn't have mummy tummy I would And I totally agree about the feminist aspect and a woman's right to choose. Since when did feminist mean go out to work full time in a typically male focused job and make yourself look manly? Surely if we want to look like women and make money flaunting that then as modern feminists it is our right to do so.

 

[Sarahkka]

I am assuming that "page 3 girls" are kind of like the "sunshine girls" that one of our crappier papers features? ie, lots of make-up, lots of cleavage in photo?
If that is what it is, my thoughts are:
1) power to you - it is your own life and definitely do what makes you feel happy and fulfilled. Feminism is about making sure we all have choices, not about restricting choices due to narrow definitions of femininity and beauty (and that means it isn't okay to try to shame the buxom blonde who wants to pose for stuff like that OR hold the buxom blonde up as some kind of ideal woman to the rest of us and put pressure on women to look that way).
2) I would never do those kind of shots myself. I find them incredibly tacky, boring, and ridiculous and I would not feel at all happy about representing myself that way. I would do a photo shoot if it was interesting artistically and if the photographer was talented enough to capture the natural diversity of beauty found in women who are happy in their own skin. That would be far more my style. Glamour shots? Not my thing.
But I absolutely support anyone's right to pursue that, if they want.

And just to clarify - I do not mean that I find those women to be tacky, etc - it was the style of photography that I was referring to!

 

[tina3747]

I am assuming that "page 3 girls" are kind of like the "sunshine girls" that one of our crappier papers features? ie, lots of make-up, lots of cleavage in photo?
If that is what it is, my thoughts are:
1) power to you - it is your own life and definitely do what makes you feel happy and fulfilled. Feminism is about making sure we all have choices, not about restricting choices due to narrow definitions of femininity and beauty (and that means it isn't okay to try to shame the buxom blonde who wants to pose for stuff like that OR hold the buxom blonde up as some kind of ideal woman to the rest of us and put pressure on women to look that way).
2) I would never do those kind of shots myself. I find them incredibly tacky, boring, and ridiculous and I would not feel at all happy about representing myself that way. I would do a photo shoot if it was interesting artistically and if the photographer was talented enough to capture the natural diversity of beauty found in women who are happy in their own skin. That would be far more my style. Glamour shots? Not my thing.
But I absolutely support anyone's right to pursue that, if they want.

And just to clarify - I do not mean that I find those women to be tacky, etc - it was the style of photography that I was referring to!

I've just googled sunshine girls!!
Our main page 3paper is The Sun too! Although there's way more flesh showing than those shots! It's full boobs and nipples out, no idea why people need to see a pair of titty bang bangs with their cornflakes but each to their own hey!!

 

[Sarahkka]

Yours are full boob shots?!

 

[special_kala]

Indeed. They have to be fully natural boobs which I think is good (nothing against fake boobs though)

 

[Sarahkka]

I think that might rile up the conservative element here, and as they are the main readers of the Sun, that might not go over so well.
Huh.
Well, I don't think that changes my opinion from above, but wow. What an odd thing to run in a morning paper. It just seems so random and ... just weird?

 

[tina3747]

Yours are full boob shots?!

Yeah!! Quite shocking really when I think about it!!
Google The Sun- page 3!!

 

[Sarahkka]

Do you really call that "glamour modelling"? Isn't that more like soft porn?
I always thought glamour shots were those ones with the model wearing about five tonnes of make-up and that cheesy soft lighting!

 

[Sarahkka]

OMG! Just googled.

 

[Sarahkka]

Okay, I am not a prude and I am not at all bothered by nudity, but that is featured in one of your main papers and apparently has been for 40 years?
Some of the photos I saw were actually lovely black and white nudes. And some were just awesome. The one from the 80s with the model all decked out in a feathered hairdo and a headband. With that special soft lighting for some extra cheese. Love it!

 

[tina3747]

Do you really call that "glamour modelling"? Isn't that more like soft porn?
I always thought glamour shots were those ones with the model wearing about five tonnes of make-up and that cheesy soft lighting!

As long as they have bottoms ( be it dental floss thongs!) it's glamour modelling.

 

[tina3747]

Okay, I am not a prude and I am not at all bothered by nudity, but that is featured in one of your main papers and apparently has been for 40 years?
Some of the photos I saw were actually lovely black and white nudes. And some were just awesome. The one from the 80s with the model all decked out in a feathered hairdo and a headband. With that special soft lighting for some extra cheese. Love it!

Well we have some famous page 3 girls from the 80's that some would describe national treasures!!
I was shocked that topless sunbathing wasn't permitted on beaches in the US... Is it the same in Canada??

 

[Sarahkka]

Okay, I am not a prude and I am not at all bothered by nudity, but that is featured in one of your main papers and apparently has been for 40 years?
Some of the photos I saw were actually lovely black and white nudes. And some were just awesome. The one from the 80s with the model all decked out in a feathered hairdo and a headband. With that special soft lighting for some extra cheese. Love it!

Well we have some famous page 3 girls from the 80's that some would describe national treasures!!
I was shocked that topless sunbathing wasn't permitted on beaches in the US... Is it the same in Canada??

It depends what province you are in. In Ontario, I know you have the right to go topless whenever you want (like you can walk around downtown Toronto bare-chested if you want to). I actually don't know if that is law or not anywhere else. I would guess so.
But having said that, only an activist would do that. Most women would probably get pretty tired of the ogling, cat-calling, etc. It would be very unusual and would be a spectacle, for sure.
And in that spirit, there are lots of designated nude beaches in different places. I would guess that someone who wanted to sunbathe topless would probably head there, as they would be stared at or worse at a regular public beach. It would be very unusual to see someone doing that here.
I don't think it is against the law, but unless you have nerves of steel, it won't be a relaxing experience, either.
You must remember that you guys sent over the Puritans to settle here and those morals are still going strong for a lot of people!

 

[TattiesMum]

Before I go any further I'll confess to being a bit of a feminist ... and I DO object to page 3. Here's why ...

1. A newspaper is surely there to inform people of the news - breasts aren't news. there is no headline needed to declare 'Shock, Horror - Half of Population has Breasts' It's the sheer casualness of Page 3 that offends me ... oddly enough I don't need to see 'Titania's Top Tips' or 'Petra's Pert Puppies' staring at me from the seat opposite me on the bus - who really does? Does it inform or benefit anyone?

2. The single biggest picture of a woman in a newspaper - every single day - is one of a half naked woman with no news story attached ... what's that all about? If I want to look at breasts I'll pop to the bathroom and have a look at my own.

3. The gratutitous display of naked breasts in a daily newspaper is there purely for men to ogle and lust over ... it's objectification - reducing women to being nothing more than a pair of breasts to be admired and breasts to being nothing more than sexual objects. The model has done nothing of import and has nothing to say - she's just there to be looked at in a sexual way By extension that means that all women are just a pair of walking, talking breasts.

4. That objectification has consequences that reach further than you might think ... most women don't have breasts that look like the ones on the page 3 models that are shoved in front of us every single day. It makes women feel that their own breasts are abnormal if they don't look like that PLUS (and here's the biggie - no pun intended) why is it that so many women feel uncomfortable with breastfeeding in public? Could it be because they feel men are looking at their breasts? Why would we assume that men are automatically going to be ogling our baby feeding mammaries? Oh, yes! That would be because they are encouraged to view breasts as purely sexual on a daily basis by mainstream tabloids

Now I actually have nothing in particular against porn - it bores me but I don't get my feminist knickers in a twist over it (as long as the women involved have made a concious choice to do it and are happy with their choices). But for me buying porn should be a deliberate choice ... top shelf magazines that are kept away from children and not casually read on the tube or in the workplace.

I'm also not a prude about nudity - I fed all of my children in public, I walk around my house naked and I've even visited the odd Naturist beach in my time - but there is a huge difference between being comfortable with naked bodies in a non sexual way and objectification...

Look at it this way - what do you say to your 4 year old when they ask "Mummy? Why is there a picture of that lady with her boobies out?" what possible justification or explanation could you give them that doesn't involve telling them that men like to look at naked boobs of women they don't know - and what overall message is that giving them?

 

[xemmax]

Totally agree with TattiesMum. Glamour modeling objectifies women and although women have the right to choose, they are not in control of the industry whatsoever. It is run by men for men.

I'm not actively against it, but I don't agree with it, it's not something I would do and I would not approve of potential daughters doing it.

 

[Lina]

Completely agree Tattiesmum.

If you have weird fetishes of having your morning cuppa whilst hurrying to page 3, fine. But please do not hold it in such way that young and unsuspecting travelers who have no choice but to ride opposite you on a train or bus see. It really doesn't empower nor stop you from being seen as little more than an object, however much they tell you it does. It really doesn't.

 

[Sarahcake]

Its not really something I have a problem with to be honest. The Sun has been running page 3 girls for a long time and its widely known what is in there, if its proper news you are after, the Sun isnt really the paper for you any ways, just full of scandal and celeb stuff mostly!

I have a friend who glamour models, she's been all over the place e.g - FHM, Nuts mag and Lynx adverts and she seems to really enjoy it. She gets treated with respect at her shoots and has had a chance to go all over the world with it. She isnt forced to do it, its all her choice, she can pick and choose what shoots shes comfortable with doing and which ones she is not. So I say go for it tbh. Just my opinion though

 

[TattiesMum]

I have a friend who glamour models, she's been all over the place e.g - FHM, Nuts mag and Lynx adverts and she seems to really enjoy it. She gets treated with respect at her shoots and has had a chance to go all over the world with it. She isnt forced to do it, its all her choice, she can pick and choose what shoots shes comfortable with doing and which ones she is not. So I say go for it tbh. Just my opinion though

This is the most common argument which is made when people object to Page 3 ... But it's really missing the point:

I don't deny that the models are well paid, haven't been forced into the work and enjoy what they do I'm not claiming that they are exploited in any way either ...

I object to the continued existence of Page 3 because I believe that it harms all women, not just the women who choose to appear. The real damage caused by printing pictures of topless women for men to leer over every day is done to all those women who didn’t choose it.

It promotes a world view where women are regarded first and foremost as sexual objects. Printing a daily photograph of an attractive young woman baring her breasts for male appreciation creates and reinforces the idea that the primary role of a woman is to be beautiful and sexually available. All other aspects of women’s identities – their talents, abilities, achievements – are secondary. The message constructed and repeated day in, day out, is that women exist primarily for men’s sexual arousal.

That's what I object to