So , no more Page 3

I can see pros and cons of both.

 

I think you are taking this a tad more seriously than me. Happy to accept society's taboos myself without feeling like I have to be the liberator.

 

What about knocking one out at a bus stop? Will that cause any diseases?

That's more a sign of sexual aggression which some people would find intimidating and children no doubt quite confusing. Not to mention making a mess.

Also yes, there are several diseases which can be transmitted through semen.

Doesn't look like it has been dropped after all

I've changed my mind.

Lol top trolling by The Sun , and Nicole does seem to have a nice pair . I reckon she's got a great personality too.

I really hope they had a change of heart after all the Wimmin and metrosexuals started gloating , looks like they boobed. Hope to see Harriet Harperson on Daily Politics tomorrow , either her or that loon Lucas.

They still do nothing about the tits on the outside. The ones that read it.

Yeah! Phwoar! Go the Sun!

Though they should be a real man's paper and have Nicole spreading her flaps too, after all we wouldn't want to bow down to these raving pc feminists would we? And the human body is nothing to be ashamed of.

It's like one of those "where were you when Kennedy was shot" moments. I can still remember exactly where I was when I saw the first one. Well you would as a 13 year old, wouldn't you?

Bloody hel what a bunch of wets. It seems to me half of the posters on here will never get laid or want to. Sex sells and I doubt there is a day when a woman doesn't look at a man and think they would like to lay him and visa versa. The Sun isn't aimed at high brow Guardian readers,it is for the normal bloke in the street who happily looks at the female form. To compare somebody who looks at page 3 to child porn or Saville is bizarre. Look around there is plenty of ads /pics of half dressed men around, we don't notice because it is harmless.

I don't get any newspapers BTW

If boobs were no big deal the Sun wouldn't have had a page 3 for all these years. To say there is no difference between a topless man and a topless woman is nonsense. The problem with the Sun is that it has been stuck in the 70s "Carry On" attitude towards sex since, well, the 70s. Things have moved on but you wouldn't know it if all you did was read the Sun. The idea that women are there for the gratification of men, that women should have a certain look and body shape is still being peddled by the family newspaper. As someone said earlier, sex sells and that is why Murdoch gives so much space to boobs. The cosmetic surgery has done well out of it too. I know several women who have had boob jobs because they are not as pert as the models they see in the papers. This is especially sad as many young women are having surgery now before they have had kids. The people who right the Sun live in a world where people "romp" with and "bed" others. It is still all a bit phwoar and childish and also very old fashioned. The world might be going to hell in a handcart but don't worry guys, here is a nice pair of baps to cheer your day up. It is easy for a man to say it is harmless. What about the harm it does to those who are compared with the "ideal" body imagine that most woman don't actually have? Many woman have eating disorders because they worry about their body shapes. Many spend a fortune on "corrective" surgery yet it is harmless?

I especially loved the Page 3 model who said what about her right to sell her baps to the press. You can still do it in Men's mags dear or sell your tush on the street if you want. Boobs are not the problem here. The problem has always been giving specific types of women (young and fit) space in a purported "family" newspaper every day to cheer up White Van Man.

She seems to have a lazy eye - and she needs a hairbrush, other than that, what a great bit of journalism.

If The Sun wanted to make a big statement they perhaps could have spent a bit more time on it.

Ha, get in there The Sun!

Love how angry the lefties get about the Sun having so many readers (more than the Guardian, Indy and Mirror combined). Up there with the same people getting apocalyptic with rage when finding out the BBC make mountains of cash to fund smaller projects thanks to Clarkson and Top Gear!

Readership is not important in terms of numbers. For advertising purposes it is the type of reader you attract that matters. Broadsheets (when there were such things) could make a lot more by selling full page colour ads with a lower readership because they were selling to the right type of reader. In fact selling less was seen as a good thing as it meant you had the right audience. Selling to the lowest common denominator is not difficult as the Sun found - just shove a fit topless bird on Page 3. Job done.

Bloody hel what a bunch of wets. It seems to me half of the posters on here will never get laid or want to. Sex sells and I doubt there is a day when a woman doesn't look at a man and think they would like to lay him and visa versa. The Sun isn't aimed at high brow Guardian readers,it is for the normal bloke in the street who happily looks at the female form. To compare somebody who looks at page 3 to child porn or Saville is bizarre. Look around there is plenty of ads /pics of half dressed men around, we don't notice because it is harmless.

I don't get any newspapers BTW

I read "broadsheet" papers and I also like to look at naked women. Don't expect to see them paraded in a family newspaper every day though. There is also a huge difference between a topless woman and a topless man (assuming you are talking about that top half being uncovered). Why do men like looking at boobs? It causes sexual arousal does it not? If you were a woman sitting on a train next to a guy ogling Page 3 would you feel that was harmless? It I easy as a bloke to say it is no big deal but listen to the other side of the argument and you will that many people have a very different view.

The number of rapes recorded by the police in England and Wales has risen by 31% in the past year to 24,043 – the highest level since for at least 10 years, according to the Office of National Statistics.

The official statisticians say the increase in rapes and a 22% rise in all sexual offences reflects a greater willingness among victims to come forward to report attacks and better recording by the police.

Saw the above just now on a news page. I am not attributing this to Page 3 by the way but many women will argue that the way that women are portrayed in the media does not help certain men's attitude towards them and their sexual availability.

If boobs were no big deal the Sun wouldn't have had a page 3 for all these years. To say there is no difference between a topless man and a topless woman is nonsense. The problem with the Sun is that it has been stuck in the 70s "Carry On" attitude towards sex since, well, the 70s. Things have moved on but you wouldn't know it if all you did was read the Sun. The idea that women are there for the gratification of men, that women should have a certain look and body shape is still being peddled by the family newspaper. As someone said earlier, sex sells and that is why Murdoch gives so much space to boobs. The cosmetic surgery has done well out of it too. I know several women who have had boob jobs because they are not as pert as the models they see in the papers. This is especially sad as many young women are having surgery now before they have had kids. The people who right the Sun live in a world where people "romp" with and "bed" others. It is still all a bit phwoar and childish and also very old fashioned. The world might be going to hell in a handcart but don't worry guys, here is a nice pair of baps to cheer your day up. It is easy for a man to say it is harmless. What about the harm it does to those who are compared with the "ideal" body imagine that most woman don't actually have? Many woman have eating disorders because they worry about their body shapes. Many spend a fortune on "corrective" surgery yet it is harmless?

I especially loved the Page 3 model who said what about her right to sell her baps to the press. You can still do it in Men's mags dear or sell your tush on the street if you want. Boobs are not the problem here. The problem has always been giving specific types of women (young and fit) space in a purported "family" newspaper every day to cheer up White Van Man.

Since when was the Sun a family news paper? As far as I'm concerned it's one step up from the Star and aimed primarily at builders and white van drivers.

Women's self esteem issues can't be blamed on this kind of thing either. I'm sure feminists would love to blame page 3 for eating disorders like anorexia but they need to look closer to home. Women's magazine are full of fad diets, pictures of celebs who have lost wait, gained weight, bikini photos etc. The difference being these magazines are actively marketed at young women.

Lest anyone forgets the quality of the Sun

It does sell itself as a family newspaper and does look to engage women readers too. Page 3 alone is not to blame for poor self image but it certainly hasn't helped.

The number of rapes recorded by the police in England and Wales has risen by 31% in the past year to 24,043 – the highest level since for at least 10 years, according to the Office of National Statistics.

 

The official statisticians say the increase in rapes and a 22% rise in all sexual offences reflects a greater willingness among victims to come forward to report attacks and better recording by the police.

 

Saw the above just now on a news page. I am not attributing this to Page 3 by the way but many women will argue that the way that women are portrayed in the media does not help certain men's attitude towards them and their sexual availability.

But that isn't saying that sexual offences have increased.

Since when was the Sun a family news paper? As far as I'm concerned it's one step up from the Star and aimed primarily at builders and white van drivers.

 

Women's self esteem issues can't be blamed on this kind of thing either. I'm sure feminists would love to blame page 3 for eating disorders like anorexia but they need to look closer to home. Women's magazine are full of fad diets, pictures of celebs who have lost wait, gained weight, bikini photos etc. The difference being these magazines are actively marketed at young women.

Possibly driven by a desire to appear as attractive as the girls on page 3 that the blokes drool over?

Rape isn't about sex either it's about power. People don't turn into rapists because they've been looking at pictures of naked girls all day. They do it because of emotional issues, the feel rejected by their mothers, partners or some other deep lying emotional dysfunction.

There isn't a link, if you watch too much porn you go and knock one out, not rape someone. If you don't believe me go to an Arab country where porn is forbidden and women are sexually abused horrifically.

Readership is not important in terms of numbers. For advertising purposes it is the type of reader you attract that matters. Broadsheets (when there were such things) could make a lot more by selling full page colour ads with a lower readership because they were selling to the right type of reader. In fact selling less was seen as a good thing as it meant you had the right audience. Selling to the lowest common denominator is not difficult as the Sun found - just shove a fit topless bird on Page 3. Job done.

No they can't, that's completely wrong. On every point actually.

I have worked for both the Sunday Times and the Sun,the department I ran at The Sun had an annual budget of over £10m. Rolex/ Rolls Royce/ Waitrose/ Boss/ Kuoni Travel pay exactly the same per '000 readers as Swatch/ Lidl/ Aldi/ Asda/ Ford/ Royal Caribbean do. Mass market companies that advertise in The Sun and want a lower demographic audience have far bigger ad' budgets than aspirational brands.

The Times and Sunday Times lose money (the ST only started losing money in the last 5 years because of the collapse of the classified ad' market), they are propped up by the Sun which is an absolute money making machine.

Oh, as an aside, the Sun has more ABC1 readers than the Guardian and Indy combined.

Possibly driven by a desire to appear as attractive as the girls on page 3 that the blokes drool over?

So women's magazines are actively telling women you need to look like an object for a man to drool over?

If that's the case these magazines are far more damaging to female self esteem. I don't think it is the case, if it was why aren't there pictures of page 3 girls in women's magazines with the caption, "hey, you can look like this." I have never heard a girl say they want to look like Jenny, 23 from Essex.

Funny how all the right wingers become all liberal when tits are involved.

Have they got rid of Page 3 girls so that they can promote the "Page 7 Fella"

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AzT5pruwnbg/SgH5zozT4dI/AAAAAAAAHOY/ilGpbGI9avE/s1600-h/1988.jpg

I genuinely can't see why people get so up in arms about a pair of norks? In a paper, on a page, that everyone knows shows norks.

So women's magazines are actively telling women you need to look like an object for a man to drool over?

 

If that's the case these magazines are far more damaging to female self esteem. I don't think it is the case, if it was why aren't there pictures of page 3 girls in women's magazines with the caption, "hey, you can look like this." I have never heard a girl say they want to look like Jenny, 23 from Essex.

Of course they wouldn't put such a caption - it's more subliminal than that. Impressionable young girls THINK that men / boys judge them by appearance and so they might well be tempted to emulate artificially enhanced / airbrushed / surgically enlarged girls. They might well look at Katie Price and think 'look how much money and fame she gets because of her breasts and makeup' and try to copy that. They think this way because that's how they see young boys and some brains-in-their-dicks men react to these photos.

I don't think women look at men in the same way at all. OK I posted about Pelle on the MB but that was a firmly tongue-in-cheek post to underline how superficially some on here judge, for example, female sports presenters or sportswomen.

Of course they wouldn't put such a caption - it's more subliminal than that. Impressionable young girls THINK that men / boys judge them by appearance and so they might well be tempted to emulate artificially enhanced / airbrushed / surgically enlarged girls. They might well look at Katie Price and think 'look how much money and fame she gets because of her breasts and makeup' and try to copy that. They think this way because that's how they see young boys and some brains-in-their-dicks men react to these photos.

 

I don't think women look at men in the same way at all. OK I posted about Pelle on the MB but that was a firmly tongue-in-cheek post to underline how superficially some on here judge, for example, female sports presenters or sportswomen.

Just out of interest, what is wrong with some women making their money the same way Katie Price has? She has succesfully built herself a brand, and made millions doing it. Good luck to her.

No they can't, that's completely wrong. On every point actually.

 

I have worked for both the Sunday Times and the Sun,the department I ran at The Sun had an annual budget of over £10m. Rolex/ Rolls Royce/ Waitrose/ Boss/ Kuoni Travel pay exactly the same per '000 readers as Swatch/ Lidl/ Aldi/ Asda/ Ford/ Royal Caribbean do. Mass market companies that advertise in The Sun and want a lower demographic audience have far bigger ad' budgets than aspirational brands.

 

The Times and Sunday Times lose money (the ST only started losing money in the last 5 years because of the collapse of the classified ad' market), they are propped up by the Sun which is an absolute money making machine.

 

Oh, as an aside, the Sun has more ABC1 readers than the Guardian and Indy combined.

I worked for the Times, Guardian, Telegraph and Spectator, albeit before the digital age. The Guardian used to make a fortune out of ads in those days - equal to the cover price revenue. Re readership - you do know that anyone who has seen a front page (or any part) of a newspaper is said to have "read" it? Probably why they kept Page 3 going for so long!

Just out of interest, what is wrong with some women making their money the same way Katie Price has? She has succesfully built herself a brand, and made millions doing it. Good luck to her.

I don't think that is the issue Jeff.

Of course they wouldn't put such a caption - it's more subliminal than that. Impressionable young girls THINK that men / boys judge them by appearance and so they might well be tempted to emulate artificially enhanced / airbrushed / surgically enlarged girls. They might well look at Katie Price and think 'look how much money and fame she gets because of her breasts and makeup' and try to copy that. They think this way because that's how they see young boys and some brains-in-their-dicks men react to these photos.

 

I don't think women look at men in the same way at all. OK I posted about Pelle on the MB but that was a firmly tongue-in-cheek post to underline how superficially some on here judge, for example, female sports presenters or sportswomen.

Nobody, regardless of their gender, should be comparing themselves to an airbrushed photo. There is only so much blame you can palm off onto magazine before you need to start taking responsibility for your own actions. If you are trying to make yourself look like an image you KNOW isn't real then there is a certain amount of stupidity involved.

I don't see why your post about Pelle needs to be tongue in cheek either. I'm no friend of Dorothy but that bloke is gorgeous, you're allowed to fancy him. Same as guys are allowed to fancy Sharapova or Ennis, that doesn't make you superficial it's just human nature.

But that isn't saying that sexual offences have increased.

It is not but the numbers are troubling.

Nobody, regardless of their gender, should be comparing themselves to an airbrushed photo. There is only so much blame you can palm off onto magazine before you need to start taking responsibility for your own actions. If you are trying to make yourself look like an image you KNOW isn't real then there is a certain amount of stupidity involved.

 

I don't see why your post about Pelle needs to be tongue in cheek either. I'm no friend of Dorothy but that bloke is gorgeous, you're allowed to fancy him. Same as guys are allowed to fancy Sharapova or Ennis, that doesn't make you superficial it's just human nature.

Rape isn't about sex either it's about power. People don't turn into rapists because they've been looking at pictures of naked girls all day. They do it because of emotional issues, the feel rejected by their mothers, partners or some other deep lying emotional dysfunction.

 

There isn't a link, if you watch too much porn you go and knock one out, not rape someone. If you don't believe me go to an Arab country where porn is forbidden and women are sexually abused horrifically.

I agree it is about power. And unfortunately there are many in society who look at picture of half naked or naked women and think they are entitled to touch as well as look. There is a lot of subliminal stuff going on here - not to everyone I grant you but look at the way many in Spain and Greece etc see Brits abroad. They see English women as easy because they get drunk and behave badly (not all I grant you but a lot). Many come to this country from more repressed counties and see young women showing their breasts in a national newspaper and what message does that send to them? In some counties all you can see are a woman's eyes and here a great deal more. It sends the message that women are sexually available for all when in fact they are only available for the people they chose to be with. Lighthouse - trust me, women are horrifically sexually abused here as well - and that is with freely available porn.

Nobody, regardless of their gender, should be comparing themselves to an airbrushed photo. There is only so much blame you can palm off onto magazine before you need to start taking responsibility for your own actions. If you are trying to make yourself look like an image you KNOW isn't real then there is a certain amount of stupidity involved.

 

I don't see why your post about Pelle needs to be tongue in cheek either. I'm no friend of Dorothy but that bloke is gorgeous, you're allowed to fancy him. Same as guys are allowed to fancy Sharapova or Ennis, that doesn't make you superficial it's just human nature.

There is enormous pressure on people from peer groups to confirm to a certain look - that is why the advertising industry, the fashion industry etc rake in billions every year. We are all bombarded with images every day that are designed to make us part with our cash so we can look a certain way. Fortunately I am at a certain age now where I don't bother any more but I see it with the younger people, including my teenage children all the time. My youngest is anorexic. My middle daughter wont eat carbs. My eldest felt she looked fat in my wedding pictures alongside her two "stick thin" sisters even though she is size 8. It has been going on for years. My Mum was bulimic back in the 40s and 50s - but it is even worse nowdays because of the growth of the media.

I agree it is about power. And unfortunately there are many in society who look at picture of half naked or naked women and think they are entitled to touch as well as look. There is a lot of subliminal stuff going on here - not to everyone I grant you but look at the way many in Spain and Greece etc see Brits abroad. They see English women as easy because they get drunk and behave badly (not all I grant you but a lot). Many come to this country from more repressed counties and see young women showing their breasts in a national newspaper and what message does that send to them? In some counties all you can see are a woman's eyes and here a great deal more. It sends the message that women are sexually available for all when in fact they are only available for the people they chose to be with. Lighthouse - trust me, women are horrifically sexually abused here as well - and that is with freely available porn.

Maybe it's more a problem with immigrants then, as we know better than that.

Indeed Jeff

It is not but the numbers are troubling.

... and nothing to do with page 3.

TBH I don't think Nicole from Bompey looks that bad, if 'bad' is the right word. There has obviously been a bit of photo shopping but most women would have a fairly similar body shape just through sensible diet and exercise. I have seen much worse pictures of women in celebrity magazines with ribs showing and the 'thigh gap' which seems to be the latest craze.

If I had a teenage daughter and had to chose between her looking at page 3 and this copy of Heat magazine, I know what I'd chose.

I've conducted a survey amongst women (i.e. I asked the missus) and can report that Lady Trousers says that page 3 is "harmless" and doesn't have any issues with it.

Let me know whether that makes her a bad or good person so that I can report back with the verdict of the SaintsWeb thought police.

Cheers

.......

 

I don't see why your post about Pelle needs to be tongue in cheek either. I'm no friend of Dorothy but that bloke is gorgeous, you're allowed to fancy him. Same as guys are allowed to fancy Sharapova or Ennis, that doesn't make you superficial it's just human nature.

But I don't fancy him! I don't know him, so how can I fancy him? He's pretty, I grant you but is he good fun, intelligent, kind etc.? Far more important in most women's 'fancying' criteria than looks (that don't last) and money.

I agree it is about power. And unfortunately there are many in society who look at picture of half naked or naked women and think they are entitled to touch as well as look. There is a lot of subliminal stuff going on here - not to everyone I grant you but look at the way many in Spain and Greece etc see Brits abroad. They see English women as easy because they get drunk and behave badly (not all I grant you but a lot). Many come to this country from more repressed counties and see young women showing their breasts in a national newspaper and what message does that send to them? In some counties all you can see are a woman's eyes and here a great deal more. It sends the message that women are sexually available for all when in fact they are only available for the people they chose to be with. Lighthouse - trust me, women are horrifically sexually abused here as well - and that is with freely available porn.

I wont deny it happens here but it is nothing to do with porn. I know a lot of people who work in Dubai, supposedly one of the more Westernised and civilised countries in the Arab world but it has some very dark secrets. Basically slaves labour is brought in from places like India, Thailand and the Philippines. The rich Emiratis who own them basically rape them at will, knowing there is nothing the girls can do and the Police will just ignore them.

They don't have Page 3, porn is illegal and yet the actual number of rapes per capita is far, far in excess of the UK.

I think it is very easy as a bloke to be dismissive of woman or people who complain about how many woman are portrayed in the media and say it is just a bit of harmless fun. I am sure if we were constantly derided for our body shapes, penis size, lack of performance in bed, looks, hair or lack of etc we would have a different view. Fortunately most men are just plain looking and there aren't many Brad Pitts or Jude Laws wandering around to make us feel inferior. There is a lot more pressure on women to look a certain way and to be sexually attractive to men - that is why people like Katie Price have made a fortune.

But I don't fancy him! I don't know him, so how can I fancy him? He's pretty, I grant you but is he good fun, intelligent, kind etc.? Far more important in most women's 'fancying' criteria than looks (that don't last) and money.

I think the word "fancy" is the issue here, and how that word is defined. Blokes "fancying" criteria is probably very different to their "courting" criteria which probably takes into account the above conditions you set out.

I've conducted a survey amongst women (i.e. I asked the missus) and can report that Lady Trousers says that page 3 is "harmless" and doesn't have any issues with it.

 

Let me know whether that makes her a bad or good person so that I can report back with the verdict of the SaintsWeb thought police.

 

Cheers

This is the thing though - there are many who see it as harmless but that doesn't mean we ignore those who see it differently.

But I don't fancy him! I don't know him, so how can I fancy him? He's pretty, I grant you but is he good fun, intelligent, kind etc.? Far more important in most women's 'fancying' criteria than looks (that don't last) and money.

Well, whatever word you choose for a person you feel a sexual, physical attraction towards.

God, I feel sorry for Jack Dromey tonight, I bet Harperson's got him sleeping in the spare room.

I thought wimmins lib was all about ban the bra, do what you want. Here's some news , no women are forced onto page 3 against their will, they all went freely and I do believe the photographer is a bird. Surely the people demeaning women, are the ones who seem to be saying that the silly little things only go on page 3 because men have put the idea in their silly little heads.

The elephant in the room is Murdoch , because he owns The Sun , outrage is exaggerated. Wimmin lib types especially loony Lucas stand up for prozzies, overlook slut marches and other protests that involve tits being displayed, they don't seem to have a problem with the women's institute flashing their ancient norks . Its only when a popular right wing paper does it that there's an issue.

I think it is very easy as a bloke to be dismissive of woman or people who complain about how many woman are portrayed in the media and say it is just a bit of harmless fun. I am sure if we were constantly derided for our body shapes, penis size, lack of performance in bed, looks, hair or lack of etc we would have a different view. Fortunately most men are just plain looking and there aren't many Brad Pitts or Jude Laws wandering around to make us feel inferior. There is a lot more pressure on women to look a certain way and to be sexually attractive to men - that is why people like Katie Price have made a fortune.

I have to watch Pelle strut his stuff in front of me every week, knowing I and pretty much everyone on this board will never be that good looking, and girls will never fancy me as much as him. Do you know what that does to me?

Nothing.

I have to watch Pelle strut his stuff in front of me every week, knowing I and pretty much everyone on this board will never be that good looking, and girls will never fancy me as much as him. Do you know what that does to me?

 

Nothing.

You are talking purely about your own experience though. What about the young girls at school being derided as fat because they don't look like the latest skinny model or pop star? Do you get women slagging you off because you don't look like Pelle?

My anoxeric daughter, when she was at her most skeletal looking, was told by girls in her school that she looked "really good."

God, I feel sorry for Jack Dromey tonight, I bet Harperson's got him sleeping in the spare room.

 

I thought wimmins lib was all about ban the bra, do what you want. Here's some news , no women are forced onto page 3 against their will, they all went freely and I do believe the photographer is a bird. Surely the people demeaning women, are the ones who seem to be saying that the silly little things only go on page 3 because men have put the idea in their silly little heads.

 

The elephant in the room is Murdoch , because he owns The Sun , outrage is exaggerated. Wimmin lib types especially loony Lucas stand up for prozzies, overlook slut marches and other protests that involve tits being displayed, they don't seem to have a problem with the women's institute flashing their ancient norks . Its only when a popular right wing paper does it that there's an issue.

No one is saying that woman cannot do what they want. No one is saying ban jazz mags. It is about what is appropriate and what is not. No one complains about topless woman on a beach - would it be appropriate in the local High Street though?

It is not just The Sun either but Page 3 has became the name of boobs in tabloid newspapers.

Since when was the Sun a family news paper? As far as I'm concerned it's one step up from the Star and aimed primarily at builders and white van drivers.

 

Women's self esteem issues can't be blamed on this kind of thing either. I'm sure feminists would love to blame page 3 for eating disorders like anorexia but they need to look closer to home. Women's magazine are full of fad diets, pictures of celebs who have lost wait, gained weight, bikini photos etc. The difference being these magazines are actively marketed at young women.

True enough. There are few things more likely to encourage an unhealthy dose of female neurosis that the content in Cosmopolitan.

My anoxeric daughter, when she was at her most skeletal looking, was told by girls in her school that she looked "really good."

Were they all avid Sun readers? I don't want sound insensitive as it sounds like you've been to Hell and back with this but as far as I'm concerned magazines like Heat and indeed the entire fashion industry have much more to answer for.

Without wanting to sounds creepy, I'd be quite happy if my daughter looked like a page 3 girl. Most of them tend to be more busty, curvy and generally look much healthier than anything you will ever see on a cat walk. After all, that is what men actually fancy, I have no interest in girls with the body of a 15 year old boy.