Welcome once more to the wretched hive of scum and grammatical villiany that is The Aldershot Woes Again... erm Again. And this one is all tits up on purpose.
The Sun is a paper form of ignorance enjoyed by chortling half wits from Lands End to John O'Grotes (But not Liverpool). Its purpose is to spoon feed Right Wing propaganda to morons and insulate the working classes in ignorance. Anyone with an IQ akin to a Wimpy napkin sees it as a vile mass of pulp and ink and knows not to read it, unless to get some ironic sniggers at buffoons.
However on page 3 it has big naked titties, which sounds fine by me, but this week it has been revealed that those titties are attached to women, at an estimated ratio of at least two to one. And that is really fucking bad.
This week the Times reported that the Sun was putting its nips away for good, and then the girl on page 3 had a bra on and the entire nation gasped, but then the next day the nips were back. My god, its been a roller coaster of a week.
In reality this was probably just a not particularly clever, but none the less effective, marketing stunt. As the Times and the Sun are both owned by media monopoly man and all round cock job, Rupert Murdoch.
However, it has manged to once more fan the flames of feminism and reignited the fiery debate on whether or not page 3 is sexist and should in modern cunty 2015 Britain be dropped once and for all?
Firstly I have to concede that the concept of page 3 is really weird. I mean think about it, its a newspaper, why does it have titty pics, whats that about? But is it immoral, is it damaging and should it be banned? I have to say no.
The feeedom of the press, of speech and of expression are imperitive and if the Sun want to supliment its right wing views with a mastabatory aid, then crack on (or off). So regardless of your opinion on the matter to deny a publication the right to print what it wants is to regress freedoms and open the door to further censorships.
If there were concerns over the working conditions of glamour models, the pay structures or the way in which girls were recruited or even coerced to pose for pictures, then there would absolutely be a case for moral outrage... but there aren't.
So whats the argument? Well some feminists claim that page 3 objectifies sexy women. And that it will teach young girls that the ONLY way to make a living is to get your jugs out and pout at a camera in order to assist a builder fling out his mid morning wank. But I honestly dont think this is the case.
Firstly, it only ever (to my knowledge) publishes pictures of sexy women. So it only teaches girls that if you are attractive and aged between 18 and 32 you can have a career as a pair of boobs. The argument then becomes "It teaches girls that you HAVE to be attractive in order to be successful". This argument falls apart before it begins, and considering it comes from feminists, is incredibly insulting to women. To take this position, firstly you have to assume that young girls are so stupid that they base thier life goals solely on page 3. Secondly, if body image portrayal is the reason page 3 is wrong and immoral, then so is every TV programme, movie, pop group and virtually all other publications ever. As in order to be successful in any of these industries, or any industry for that matter, whether you are male or female, it is an enourmous advantage to be attractive. Melons out or not.
Page 3 has been around forever, and out of all of the people with vaginas that I know, none of them want to be jug models. The only issue left is the matter of body image, and whether or not there is a page 3, in fact if every picture of top bollocks ever taken were burnt or edited to have David Camerons face covering every gazungo, it would not make one tiny dent in the issue of image and objectification.
We are all, fortunately or not, slaves to our genetic make up. And due to our genetics we all want to fuck good looking people and in knowing this we all want to be good looking. And if you are fortunate enough to have the genetics that mean you are one of the lucky wanna-be-fucked, you have the absolute right to use that natural advantage in the same way someone predispositioned with intelligence is free to use it to thier gain.
Objectification is an evolutionary side effect, its what keeps us passing our genes along, it is an occasionally unpleasant, neurosis causing, side effect, but it is not a hurdle feminsts need to jump. There are thousands of areas where women are oppressed and treated unfairly, perhaps equal pay and female genital mutilation dont trend so well with hashtags?
In a month where the freedoms of the press have been tested to the limits, where blood has been spilled to censor and where thousands have come together to support freedom, it appears incredibly calous to support Charlie Hebdo for there right to publish what they want but to condemn the Sun newspaper for it.
If you dont like pictures of supple, heaving, wet, breasts dont buy the Sun, in the same way that if your offended by satirical doodles of prophets dont get Charlie Hebdo. Offence is nearly always taken, rarely given and is certainly in this case avoidable.
Je Suis Woe.
