Musings —11.09.2011 11:30 AM—
One of the feminist bloggers I link to, GritChik, has objected to the Sunshine girl tradition at the Sun, now in its fortieth year:
“So, a recent “Sunshine Girl” is headed to the pages of Hustler magazine. Must be a proud moment for her. I admit, I clicked the link in the article that took me to her November 4th appearance in the tabloid. And saw her posing in a barely-there bra and transparent panties.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no prude. And I believe that, at it’s best, nudity is an art form. At it’s worst it’s exploitative, degrading and damaging (to both men and women). We live in a hyper-sexualized society in which 3 year-olds are entering beauty pageants dressed as the Julia Roberts’ hooker character from Pretty Woman, complete with blonde wig and thigh-high leather boots. Girls, barely out of their teens (if we’re lucky), grace us from the cover of main stream men’s magazines with come-hither eyes and the suggestion that she would like you to join her in the bed she’s rolling around in.”
Way, way back at the dawn of time, when I was a journalism student at Carleton, Peter Worthington was invited to speak to us. When it came time for questions and answers, I challenged him on the whole Page Three Sunshine girl thing, saying it (a) wasn’t necessary, given the abundance of similar stuff elsewhere (said stuff which is even more readily available now); and (b), it probably wasn’t something a lot of journos at the Sun would like to see continue. Mr. Worthington was good-humoured about it all, and genially defended the feature.
The Sunshine Girl is no longer on page three, but she’s still around. And the video of Mme. Bourbonnais’ recent visit is a real eye-opener, to say the least.
What do you think, Dear Readers? Is GritChik right? Or do you favour seeing more of Mme. Bourbonnais?
(Not that there’s much more to see, as you will see.)