A personal view...
In Victorian England, the male elite kept pornography hidden away from working class men, women and children. Apparently, for their own protection and welfare. They believed that pornography would encourage endless fornication, that would inevitably affect the workforce and corrupt the innocent.
Only they held privy to view, categorise and no doubt 'enjoy' their private collections. That were sought and acquired from every corner of the world.
During the 20th century, there was a complete turnaround. The realisation that selling women's bodies via printed publications, equated to considerable wealth and power. The two main providers (pimps/ procurer's) of this 'Paper prostitution' were again, the male elite. Namely, Rupert Murdoch and his male counterpart Hugh Hefner. Who introduced mainstream pornography into the U.K and America. They have both built their empires, not by selling 'sex' As is defined as your gender or sexual acts between people. They sell female body parts. Namely 'Breast's' and 'Bottoms'. And the age of these breasts and bottoms tend to be between sixteen and twenty five. And of mainly white Caucasian.Thereby pandering to many of the nations men and boys. And these males project their fantasies and sense of entitlement onto women and girls. And if we object when they shout "Get your tit's out" They justify our rebuffs by stating that we are either lesbians or jealous. This is both a visual and verbal oppression, that renders many girls and women silent.
On acquiring the much 'troubled' sun newspaper in 1969. Rupert Murdoch told the editor Larry Lamb-
"I want a tearaway paper-with lot's of Tit's in it!"
Thereby, confirming the selling of female body parts and depicting females as mere sexual objects. Which possibly caused many of their readers to unwittingly or subconsciously become both voyeurs and objectifiers.
This was a highly profitable rescue for the sun newspaper, whose circulation rose dramatically to 10 million daily readers in 1997.
It now has the ninth largest circulation of any newspaper in the world and the largest circulation of any daily newspaper in the U.K.
In January, it sold around 2.4 million copies a day.
Therefore, axing page 3 could mean financial suicide, by jeopardising it's circulation.
Many women's groups who have criticised page 3 as degrading, are regularly vilified by the Sun, as 'dour' and 'bitter'.
And, former minister Claire Short, who campaigned against page 3 in 1986. Was described as 'Fat and jealous'.
During the Leveson enquiry, Dominic Mohan (present sun editor) defended and justified page 3, by stating-
"Page 3 celebrates natural beauty"
Which to my mind, is a dressed up version of 'Using Tit's to sell papers' As his boss, the 'born again Christian' Rupert Murdoch emphasised in 1970.
Mohan also stated "We’re allowed to publish these images (Tit's) and I think it's become quite an innocuous British institution. Where, as a parent myself, I'm more concerned about images that my children might come across on the internet or on digital devices"
Maybe Mohan is pretending to be ignorant of sexual curiosity and pubescent arousal. After all, children naturally become sexually aware, normally around the age of 11. Funnily enough, that is the approximate age of first time, internet porn users.
The fact that soft-core pornography inevitably leads to hard-core pornography is well documented. Besides which, the 'Innocuous and family friendly' sun used to advertise two pages of porn sites. Nowadays, there's less, which usually consists of adverts pertaining to sex chat calls.
Rupert Murdoch is a prominent shareholder in BskyB. Which platforms pornography channels such as Playboy,Telx, red hot tv. and 3D porn.
So in effect, the sun newspaper wittingly and openly contributes to the promotion and viewing of pornography, and to the objectification of females.
If it were merely a case of 'natural beauty', then why are the majority of page 3 females, slim, white and in their late teens or early twenties? Aren't all women beautiful,whatever their size, shape, age and ethnicity?
This all reminds me of most movie 'Rape' scenes. The victims are usually white, young, slim and busty too. There clothes are usually ripped off,exposing their breasts, thighs and buttocks. Whereas the perpetrator/s are fully clothed. That also goes for couple sex scenes, notice how the female is always nubile and usually the one least clothed. So, don't old, larger, unattractive people have sex then?
And where are the beautiful men? Is the whole human race ugly, apart from young females?
The Daily mirror stopped featuring topless models in the 1980's, deeming that the images were demeaning to women.
And we all know that Rupert Murdoch has many politicians in his fat pockets. They would never bite the hand that politically and financially feeds them.
David Cameron's stance on banning page 3 was pathetic. He shirked responsibility by stating "It's the parents responsibility, turn the page"
Actually, It's not just children that should be protected David. I as an adult woman, want protection from the daily sexism that I encounter due to the acceptable objectification of females. That swamps women, as they constantly try to climb out of the abyss of historical and contemporary oppression.
Nick Clegg matched the prime ministers brilliant solution by saying "I do not support a legislative ban on page 3, I believe that government in a liberal society should not dictate the content of newspapers. If you don't like it- don't buy it!"
So, these 'male elite' will continue to dismiss sexism and contribute to the 'Harmless' beginnings of the spiralling devastation of hard core pornography. Which creates countless victims on both sides of this iniquitous road, in the name of wealth and power.
Rupert Murdoch had the audacity to tweet this on May 2nd- "
'Is anyone complaining about Page 3 pix a reader. Enough of this elitist nonsense!' in response to the 'no more page 3 campaign'.
Here is my personal and open letter to those male elitists who sell women's body parts.
All of my life, I have known extreme sexism and still do. I existed merely as a sexual object to gratify males from the age of 18 months, when I was sexually molested by my Uncle. I was sexually abused between the ages of six and eight. By my mothers boyfriend, which mainly took place in the toilet. I can still remember the porn magazines, shoved behind the toilet pipe in front of me- whilst being molested. I continued to suffer sexual abuse, sexual harassment, rape, disrespect and sexual jeering, by every man that I knew or came across. I was surrounded by page 3 and pornography every day. And I grew up, thinking that this was the role of females. To be desired by men and gratify them. To be sexually available whenever and however they wanted.
At 16 years old, I was tricked and abducted by sex traffickers in London. I was forced into pornography and prostitution by violent coercion. Which included being viciously raped, physically beaten and threatened with weapons, including a gun.
These experiences impacted my life. Wasted my life. Destroyed my life.
I had never been a human being. I had been a fleshed robot, that had obeyed and catered to men's sexual wants and needs. And there are millions of others out there, just like me.
Only last week, I went into my local shop to buy a newspaper. Standing next to me were two builders holding the sun newspaper, opened at page 3. And as I felt their eyes on my body. I was overwhelmed with my personal memories. The degradation and disrespect of being leered at and being only viewed as a sexual object. I do not want my daughter or my granddaughter to have to feel this. To expect this..to accept this.
There are many victims within the realms of pornography. From the detrimental effects on young minds, who have twisted views of females. To the trafficking victims who are forced to perform. To the correlation of pornography and sexual violence. Which includes the increase of child sex attacks, gang rape and the ever increasing 'entertainment rape'. Which is captured on the internet forever. So, to all those who say "it's harmless fun". It may be for you, who sells it or enjoys looking at it. But you are not on the other end are you? Please think again, do some research. And you will discover that it's far from harmless. To so many females, in this acceptable and accessible pornified culture of ours.
I hate your sexist publication. And unlike you and your readers that objectify women,I am not proud of being British. This is where your British publication should be..In every British bin.
Lowest regards,
Suzzan Blac.
You can help by signing the petition to ban page 3!
.JPG)
