Forty Boobs

Once upon a time there was a young woman who lived in a far away part of the country who, like many women of her age, was appalled at the whole thing that was “The Sun” newspaper.

First and foremost, her objection to the rag was the politics and the smarmy way that they managed to get these magnificent headlines such as “Argy Bargy” which influenced the nation so dramatically.

But at that time, in the early eighties, she also objected to the Page Three girls. She abhorred the idea that women were selling their bodies for profit, for the titillation of young boys and older men, not even realising that they were being abused in this way.

However, whenever she happened to come across a copy of “The Sun” she always took a peek!

Bit of a dilemma really, if she was honest with herself. Her objection to these women parading themselves in this way was influenced greatly by the feminists and Labour Party stalwarts of the time, who constantly commented on the degradation of women. She was concerned that these women flaunting themselves was somehow going to lead men, young and old, to abuse the women that they were having relationships with. She feared that having tits out meant that men had certain expectations of the women that they were with, and if these ‘normal’ women did not live up to the images of the nubile beauties, these real people would be rejected. She worried that men who looked at Page Three every day felt they had a God-given right to look at any woman’s tits and this could lead to sexual abuse and rape.

She was concerned that men who looked at Page Three girls in this way would look at all women in this way and that women would ultimately be nothing more than a sex object, and all the great strides that the feminists had taken would disintegrate, enabling women to become the second class citizens that she felt they were.

And yet, she still looked at the tits whenever she had the opportunity.

At the same time, she also believed that if someone masturbated whilst they were in a relationship with someone, then the ‘wanker’ was clearly not fulfilled. It was a sign that the relationship was deeply flawed. She also believed that women who slept around with men were being abused by these men rather than seeing the sexual enjoyment for the woman.

She also fundamentally believed that a woman’s body was HER body and she should do everything within her power to protect it from abuse of any form.

And yet, she still absolutely believed that empowerment for women meant that THEY should be the ones who made choices. How could it be any other way?

What she was unsure of was whether these women were making choices.

What she, and others, were unaware of was that these women WERE making choices. They were choosing to get undressed and show their very fine bodies to the world. Yes, for profit. Yes, for fun. Yes, because they were proud of what they had. Yes, because they got a real kick out  of being sexually provocative and exciting.

It is now 40 years since Stephanie Rahn took her clothes off for the Sun newspaper. Looking at that photo now, it is still a beautiful pose. A woman, sleek, attractive, sexual, sitting down, showing the glorious arch of the woman’s form, with a dark nipple protruding from a tiny bust, smiling consciously at the camera, inviting the viewer to take a surreptitious glance at her body.

It is actually a very beautiful shot.

40 years on the current Page Three favourite, Rhian has replicated the pose in mirror image with a fuller boob, a smoother finish to the photo-shopped image and a more seductive look on her face.

So how does the woman who was so vociferous in her objection to Page Three in the Eighties feel today about this anniversary? What does she feel when she sees Stephanie and Rhian.

How does she feel about the Sam Fox’s and the Linda Lusardi’s and how they made their millions?

If I am honest, I am still in a dilemma about it. I do worry that there are too many unenlightened people in the world who cannot correlate effectively between what they see and how they treat the women in their lives. I think it is perfectly wonderful that women are aware of their sexuality. I want more women to be empowered by their sexuality but I want it to be their choice and I certainly do not want women forced into situations where their sexuality is manipulated for the benefit of others and not themselves.

If this all seems contradictory, then that is because it probably is.

Sex is a complicated and diverse matter with all sorts of oxymorons, contradictions, confusions and dilemmas. But it really shouldn’t be so. We as a society have confused the issue that our forefathers never had to contend with.

For I cannot get away from the fact that despite all my protestations about Page Three girls, I still wanted to look. This hasn’t made me into a sexual predator and it clearly hasn’t made the majority of Sun readers sexual predators. The Page Three girl images are so tame by comparison with what is available nowadays that it is inconceivable that these photos could make men rush out into the street and grab the tits of the nearest female passer-by. Has there ever been any evidence that a sexual attack has taken place as a direct consequence of someone ogling a Page Three beauty?

It all goes back to our weird relationship with sexuality.

We are a nation of prudes who want to look!

We are a nation of hypocrites!

The feminists objected to the Page Three phenomenon because they believed that women were being manipulated to sell their bodies for the gratification of men. It was, and is, a world dictated by men. Sexuality is still, in the main, a man’s world. But does that mean that women should not sell their wares? Isn’t it more about a shift in mindset and for us to see and acknowledge that these women are proud of their very beautiful bodies and actually want men and women to get their rocks off? That these women have chosen to do this. They have not been forced into anything.

And who am I to say that this was not happening 40 years ago when Stephanie Rahn allowed the photographer to take her picture? Was she manipulated into doing this? Or did she actually think that she had a good body, it was a sexy and exciting thing to do and that she wanted to put a smile on people’s faces and make them feel good for the day?

Sex does make people feel good and if the nation could only realise that then what harm is there in a national newspaper of, sadly, such high readership making people feel good? Is it not as simple as that?

The feminists will still argue that it is degrading for women, that the very fact that “The Sun” gets such high readership continually reinforces the notion that women are there for the grand titillation of our men folk, and that the numbers of ‘viewers’ equates to the number of possible abusers of women increasing.

All I am trying to say is that perhaps we should rethink this, and look at it more as an empowerment of women’s sexuality and embrace the fact that these women are doing something to further the cause of “normalising” women’s sexuality, which let us face facts, is normal.

I know this view is controversial but for me feminism is absolutely about the empowerment of women. You cannot have full liberty if you are not sexually free. If we pamper to the notion that women take their clothes off for the benefit of men, we are also saying that women only have sex for the benefit of men, and we are back to Stephen Fry!

Forty years on, we should go back and have a look at why these women took their clothes off. We should turn it all on its head and say, “Hallelujah” or something rather less religious – we, as women, are beautiful creatures. We, as women, have the right, by choice to embrace our sexuality. WE choose. WE decide. WE want. WE need OUR sexuality.

Simplistic? Possibly. Nothing ever is when it comes to sexuality because it is not ever just about sexuality. It is about relationships. It is about our relationship with one another. It is about our relationship with sex which a prudish, scared national hypocrisy reinforces to much more damaging effect than a girl getting her tits out.

Our whole relationship with sex needs rethinking. Pornography is there at the touch of a button which, in some ways, makes the old Page Three girl something of an anachronism.

My point is resolute. We must rethink the whole notion of female sexuality and empower women to make choices that are right for them, and if that means bearing their boobs in a national disgrace of a newspaper, so be it. Welcome it and see it as an opportunity for us all to smile, for us all to be honest that we actually rather like seeing a pair of tits on a daily basis.