The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

British Left’s War on ‘Page Three Girls’

Posted on | March 11, 2013 | 27 Comments

Since 1970, Britain’s largest-selling newspaper, The Sun tabloid, has been famous — or, as some would say, notorious — for publishing photos of topless models on page 3, so that the “Page Three Girls” have become something of a national institution. Yet now, radical feminists have mounted a campaign to ban these buxom beauties:

The campaign to have the infamous ‘Page 3’ of The Sun Newspaper stopped, banned or otherwise censored has reached incredible feats over the past few months. There is no doubt that when it comes to orchestrating a campaign, Lucy-Anne Holmes and her sidekicks are no fools.
From high-profile news stories to political buy-in, from university blanket bans to a petition now signed by 85,000 people, the anti-boob campaigners are allowing their censorious and illiberal tendencies to shine through.

That’s from Raheem Kassam of The Commentator, who points out that the argument made by feminists is that — wait for it — celebrating beautiful women hurts the feelings of less-beautiful women:

Holmes declared her selfish and self-hating motivations in an interview with The Guardian in September 2012.
She said, “It took me until I was 35 to go, ‘why have I hated my boobs?’… Oh, because I’ve been comparing them to this image in the paper that is purely for the gratification of men. I have never really owned this part of my body.”
Does Holmes’s insecurity seem like a good reason to stop other, secure women from using their bodies in a way they choose to, and in a way that drives the sales of the most popular newspaper in Britain?

Hmmm. This war against “Page Three” confirms Rush Limbaugh’s Undeniable Truth of Life #24: “Feminism was established so as to permit unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.” It also looks as if it might be part of a larger strategy to hurt the business of The Sun’s publisher — Rupert Murdoch — by depriving his most successful newspaper of one of its most popular features.

But the question should be asked: Other than hurting the feelings of ugly feminists like Lucy-Anne Holmes, is “Page Three” bad for women? The models themselves aren’t complaining. The very first “Page Three Girl,” Stephanie Rahn was 62 when she described the impact on her career on the 40th anniversary of her Sun debut:

“I’d done the pictures for a modelling agency and I got a  call one day to tell  me my picture was appearing in The Sun. . . .
She says: “I would never have got other modelling jobs if it wasn’t for The Sun. Being on Page 3 until 1978 opened doors.
“I loved the people, the newspaper and I loved what they did for me and my career. I’m very grateful for my time on Page 3.”
Stefanie, from north London, notched up a few minor roles on TV series such as Some Mothers Do ’Ave ’Em, The Benny Hill Show and The Cut Price Comedy Show.
Her most famous role was playing Lady Marie in The French Revolution section  of Mel Brooks’ comic masterpiece, History Of The World: Part I in 1981.

Read more about the war on “Page Three” at The Commentator, and you should follow Raheem Kassam on Twitter. I met this young conservative British journalist Sunday in D.C. and he reminds me much of the late Christopher Hitchens, of whom he is a great admirer.

UPDATE: “For Leftists, anything that is not illegal shall be mandatory. Anything that is not mandatory shall be illegal.” If the Left ever decided that every chick with a nice rack must appear on Page Three, I might consider becoming a leftist.

UPDATE II: The ever-diligent Donald Douglas is prepared to do extensive research on Page Three girls. Oh, the sacrifices required of a citizen-journalist . . .

 


Bookmark and Share
Category: Feminism, Great Britain, Rule 5

Comments

  • Adobe_Walls

    Wow talk about self obsorbed. Existence is all about how I feel about MY boobs! It wasn’t until she was 35 that she owned her boobs? I submit that statement is false as it appears she was the only person who wanted them, her boobs couldn’t have belonged to anyone else.

  • Dana

    When our friends on the left say “freedom of choice,” they are referring to one thing, and one thing only. The freedom to choose whether to buy The Sun or some other paper, or not buy a newspaper at all, well, you can forget that!

  • Steve Skubinna

    Perhaps she resents that her boobs interfere with her view of her navel.

  • pabarge
  • http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ Scribe of Slog (McGehee)

    It must tick her off no end that men are only interested in her for her mind, her personality and sense of humour, and how well she dances.

  • http://theothermccain.com smitty

    Nothing says “intellectual consistency” like attacking Page 3 girls, while saying nothing of genital mutilation, gender-selective abortion, and trafficking in persons.

  • Finrod Felagund

    Blaming others for your own feelings is the classic example of fuzzy-headed liberal thinking.

  • http://twitter.com/RoxeanneDeLuca Roxeanne de Luca

    She said, “It took me until I was 35 to go, ‘why have I hated my boobs?’… Oh, because I’ve been comparing them to this image in the paper that is purely for the gratification of men. I have never really owned this part of my body.”

    Get the hell over yourself, chickie!

    If some dude doesn’t like your boobs because they aren’t quite Christina Hendricks enough, then to hell with him. If some dude sees your boobs and finds them sub-par, then don’t be a flaming idiot who takes off her shirt for jerks. If you are of legal drinking age and comparing your body to those of supermodels, get therapy.

    Somehow, I fail to see where “Banning Page 3″ helps any of the above situations.

  • http://twitter.com/RoxeanneDeLuca Roxeanne de Luca

    (I will also note that this further substantiates my theory that a lot of modern women would be happier and more empowered if they would stop jumping into the sack with various and sundry men. Boyfriends and long-term husbands are usually nothing but complimentary about their girlfriend’s and wives’ bodies, as the relationship has passed far beyond the purely physical level. If you’re worried about your body appealing to a lot of men on a very superficial level, it’s either because you are neurotic or because a lot of men whom you know superficially are intimately acquainted with your body.

    Just saying.)

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    After a few beatings, you won’t find the muslim women on Page 3, which fits the feminist agenda perfectly.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    No!

  • MohammedTheTeddyBear

    Gosh, they sound just like their islamofascist partners, don’t they?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Googie-Bergdorff/1015822103 Googie Bergdorff

    It’s weird how topless women who are attractive offend them, but when a fat ugly pig like Lena Dunham disrobes on my television every Sunday, the same types think it’s cool and edgy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=574820534 Sean Carnegie

    Because most of those things are done in the name of the Religion of Pieces, the sacred cow of leftists.

  • Billy___Bob

    Do leftists realize you can walk into any library or bookstore and find a whole section devoted to murder? How to murder. How not to murder. Murder porn is mainstream. How can they find that acceptable and find pictures of beautiful women so unacceptable?

  • West

    “I have never really owned this part of my body.”

    Tell ya what lady, if I buy you a pair if tits, will you shut the f up?

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    There is always Sophie Dahl The British tabloids seem to love writing about her.

  • Minicapt

    It would appear that she has noticed that they don’t.

    Cheers

  • Quartermaster

    We are quite free to choose so far as they are concerned. The only caveat is that we are free to choose what they want us to choose.

  • Steve Skubinna

    This is just a thought inspired by your avatar, but maybe you could sell her the Venus Drug?

  • Pingback: Of course you know THIS means war! | The Daley Gator

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    Ahh, the two safe whipping boys of the cowardly left. Obviously the first is Christianity (always safe, no beheadings), but the second is always the very tightly focused niche of nude women in slightly-right-of-center media. They are all over helping the pr0n industry women make a living. They love the jihadists and the enforcement of burkhas, sexual slavery, and mutilation as a lifestyle choice.

    But non-lefties looking at ta-tas? Very Bad.

    How very courageous of them.

  • herddog505

    Let me see if I’ve got this right:
    It’s a celebration of women to have The Vagina Monologues, nudity in that TV show “Girls”, etc., or naked women marching for this or that.
    It’s denigration of women to have topless models.
    HAHN???
    In what world do these things make sense???

  • JeffS

    So, will these undersized leftie chicks be protesting Playboy anytime soon? They’ve been publishing bare breasts for far longer.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Playboy often gets a pass from them because old Hugh is a disciple of Kinsey.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000018509269 Bill Donaldson

    You just can’t fix stupid. Maybe it’s time to boycott anyone calling themselves a feminist or associating with them. Don’t date them or even exchange pleasantries. Don’t enable them and above all, don’t touch them. Let them enjoy the isolation. Tell your girl friend what you’re doing and the word will get around soon enough.

  • Pingback: Rule 5 Friday: Save Page 3 | Blessed Blasphemy

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE