So , no more Page 3

In your world. Afterall Iam a man and by your rules 'All men are vile' so your views are clouded by that view

Wahhh not all men!!!

You know I'm a man as well right?

I went to an all boys secondary school. If a girl walked past the school kids would be hanging out of the windows wolf whistling and cat calling. When we played the local mixed school at football again we would be showing off to the girls. The boys at that school didn't bat an eyelid because they were used to be around the girls all the time so they were nothing special. We saw them a sex objects because we were kept apart from them and anything in a skirt was something to be lusted after rather than treated as a normal human being. Probably not making my point well here but in a well adjusted society people should not be objectified and treated differently just because they have boobs and a vagina.

The point you are making to me is that a lack of exposure to women actually makes things worse. I can only speak for myself but if I walked down a beach and saw a topless woman I probably wouldn't think too much of it. That's largely down to stuff like Nuts magazine and page 3 which has largely taken the excitement and novelty of just seeing boobs. If I'd only ever seen them when attempting sex, I would probably inclined towards objectifying that woman through association.

Wahhh not all men!!!

 

You know I'm a man as well right?

Imposter

This is kind of what I was getting at.

 

Can anyone actually give a decent reason to keep page 3?

Define "decent"...

I can't think of a 'decent' reason for the existence of the universe but I quite like the fact that its here.

#poor analogy klaxon#

Imposter

Ok, that was actually pretty funny tbf.

Define "decent"...

 

I can't think of a 'decent' reason for the existence of the universe but I quite like the fact that its here.

 

#poor analogy klaxon#

Given the other meanings of decent, I almost immediately thought that was a poor choice of phrase. I should say a good reason. As in, a strong argument as to why it's worth sexualising young women, reducing them to little more than fap-fodder on the 3rd page of one of (I thought it was THE most, may be incorrect) the most popular newspapers in the country.

Why should we keep it? What purpose does it serve?

And yes, that is a poor analogy really. We have little choice in the existence of the universe, putting photos of topless women in a newspaper is very much a deliberate action

I think if it was confined to the inside pages of a newspaper that you had to pay for, it would probably be OK. It's the fact that they've made it compulsory viewing for teenage schoolchildren and self-righteous old men that is not acceptable.

Given the other meanings of decent, I almost immediately thought that was a poor choice of phrase. I should say a good reason. As in, a strong argument as to why it's worth sexualising young women, reducing them to little more than fap-fodder on the 3rd page of one of (I thought it was THE most, may be incorrect) the most popular newspapers in the country.

 

Why should we keep it? What purpose does it serve?

 

And yes, that is a poor analogy really. We have little choice in the existence of the universe, putting photos of topless women in a newspaper is very much a deliberate action

It keeps these young ladies in (I imagine) a well paid job. It's good for the economy.

Why should we keep it? What purpose does it serve?

Clearly there are enough teenage boys and white van men with an interest in page 3. We should keep it because of freedom of speech. It's their news paper and it's her body. If she wants to whip 'em out for some easy money then that's her choice.

It may not be a great reason for page 3 but it is legitimate, whereas there is no legit reason to ban it IMO. If you ban page 3 there is infinite porn and nudity on the internet. If we ban all of that then we end up like Saudi Arabia. That well known tolerant and enlightened country where women are well educated and treated as equals.

The point you are making to me is that a lack of exposure to women actually makes things worse. I can only speak for myself but if I walked down a beach and saw a topless woman I probably wouldn't think too much of it. That's largely down to stuff like Nuts magazine and page 3 which has largely taken the excitement and novelty of just seeing boobs. If I'd only ever seen them when attempting sex, I would probably inclined towards objectifying that woman through association.

What I was trying to say in a hamfisted way was that by making girls different and special (by deliberetaly excluding them from our school) we saw them as something different. The guys in the mixed school may have fancied some of them, but they saw them as pupils at the same school rather than some alien species. By putting a certain type and age of woman each day in a newspaper makes them ( or the fact that they are displaying areas of sexual interest to men - and some women I suppose) different and special. They are rolled off a conveyor belt. All pretty much the same in body shape. They don't even bother with diversity by showing different ages and body types.

Cards on the table. I have three teenage daughters. All smart. All pretty (no Bearsy - no rule 1 here!). They are also all flat chested and I don't want them thinking that they are not good enough to attract men unless they have a breast enlargement procedure (as their mother did).

It keeps these young ladies in (I imagine) a well paid job. It's good for the economy.

I doubt it's particularly lucrative.

So by making a big thing out of them (like going out of our way to put them in a newspaper every day) we are making them something special when 50% of the people have them ( well more if you include moobs). If they are not giving people a cheap thrill, why publish them in the first place?

I think the opposite! I think putting them in daily paper is making them commonplace, and banning them & covering them up is making big thing out of them! Sorry for being disagreeable tho I hope we agree on all points in future

What I was trying to say in a hamfisted way was that by making girls different and special (by deliberetaly excluding them from our school) we saw them as something different. The guys in the mixed school may have fancied some of them, but they saw them as pupils at the same school rather than some alien species. By putting a certain type and age of woman each day in a newspaper makes them ( or the fact that they are displaying areas of sexual interest to men - and some women I suppose) different and special. They are rolled off a conveyor belt. All pretty much the same in body shape. They don't even bother with diversity by showing different ages and body types.

 

Cards on the table. I have three teenage daughters. All smart. All pretty (no Bearsy - no rule 1 here!). They are also all flat chested and I don't want them thinking that they are not good enough to attract men unless they have a breast enlargement procedure (as their mother did).

Iam sure you are underestimating your daughters. Iam sure they have personality etc that will make them attractive and get attention and then not need surgery.

Clearly there are enough teenage boys and white van men with an interest in page 3. We should keep it because of freedom of speech. It's their news paper and it's her body. If she wants to whip 'em out for some easy money then that's her choice.

 

It may not be a great reason for page 3 but it is legitimate, whereas there is no legit reason to ban it IMO. If you ban page 3 there is infinite porn and nudity on the internet. If we ban all of that then we end up like Saudi Arabia. That well known tolerant and enlightened country where women are well educated and treated as equals.

Ok, a few points here.

1) I said on another thread. Freedom of Speech defences for things are rubbish. If your only defence of something is, freedom of speech, innit. That suggests the content you are defending is barely worth defending.

2) I've not called for anything to be out right banned.

3) I've already said I have no problem with models, or even pornography. In fact I have a friend who does porn. The point is the placement of this.

4) Not having page 3 does not make us anything like Saudi Arabia. That's a nonsense argument. We don't put hardcore porn on TV, does that mean we are like SA? We have a Watershed, where certain things aren't shown before a certain time, does that make us like SA? No, of course it doesn't.

Just because something is technically legitimate, does not make it worthwhile.

Just because something is technically legitimate, does not make it worthwhile.

should be forum motto

page 3 is back? sweet

They are also all flat chested and I don't want them thinking that they are not good enough to attract men unless they have a breast enlargement procedure (as their mother did).

The page three girls are actually quite unusual in the media in that they are normally well nourished. Most models are stick thin. You can argue they offer an alternative image girls wouldnt see otherwise - although that doesnt get over the objectification issue. Personally I dislike big tits and have a special loathing for boob jobs.

Clearly there are enough teenage boys and white van men with an interest in page 3. We should keep it because of freedom of speech. It's their news paper and it's her body. If she wants to whip 'em out for some easy money then that's her choice.

 

It may not be a great reason for page 3 but it is legitimate, whereas there is no legit reason to ban it IMO. If you ban page 3 there is infinite porn and nudity on the internet. If we ban all of that then we end up like Saudi Arabia. That well known tolerant and enlightened country where women are well educated and treated as equals.

Again I think banning is too strong. It should be an editorial decision based on the fact that Page 3 is outmoded in 2015. Whie Van Man and teenage boys can get their fill of boobs for nothing on the internet and TV. There are reasons that you don't get half naked women in The Guardian, Times, Telegraph, Independent, Mirror, Mail, Express etc. It is because they are sexual images and those images used to just appear in lads mags. It doesn't affect our freedom of speech (which in this case I assume goes along the lines as cor look at the baps on that). It just means that images appear where they are most appropriate. I believe a survey was carried out a while back amongst female readers of The Sun and the majority felt that Page 3 was inappropriate in a daily newspaper but most also didn't complain because they didn't want to be seen as killjoys as their menfolk told them it was all harmless fun (just as it is when women get hands up their skirts and their boobs grabbed every weekend in clubs up and down the country). If The Sun had a Page 5 with a ripped guy with his todger out each day then maybe there would be less of an issue - but just one gender and more than that only one type of that gender that is sexually attractive to most males in a family newspaper - hmmm - not sure how that works nowdays.

The page three girls are actually quite unusual in the media in that they are normally well nourished. Most models are stick thin. You can argue they offer an alternative image girls wouldnt see otherwise - although that doesnt get over the objectification issue. Personally I dislike big tits and have a special loathing for boob jobs.

You are quite right. Clothes horses (models) are much thinner. "Glamour" models tend to have more meat on their bones round the boobs and hips and are all of a body type that you wouldn't call typical. Many "normal" women are pear shaped but you don't see that on Page 3. My wife was a size 8 when we met and is distraught that she is now a 12. She is not what you could call fat. Sophie Dahl broke the mould briefly as a larger sized model but from what I have seen of her more recently she seems to have lost weight and is more the size you would expect. The model shape and the Page 3 shape are not usual shapes for women but sadly many feel they need to look like that to be socially acceptable because that is what we are feed daily through some media.

Iam sure you are underestimating your daughters. Iam sure they have personality etc that will make them attractive and get attention and then not need surgery.

They are all funny and engaging but I did hear one make a comment about her size (she is an and her lack of boobs. She is only 18. Her mother (my ex wife) has had quite a lot of plastic surgery (not that she needed it) and I just hope that hasn't sent the wrong message.

It keeps these young ladies in (I imagine) a well paid job. It's good for the economy.

I don't think that there will be a shortage of work for attractive young woman who are prepared to take their clothes off.

Again I think banning is too strong. It should be an editorial decision based on the fact that Page 3 is outmoded in 2015. Whie Van Man and teenage boys can get their fill of boobs for nothing on the internet and TV. There are reasons that you don't get half naked women in The Guardian, Times, Telegraph, Independent, Mirror, Mail, Express etc. It is because they are sexual images and those images used to just appear in lads mags. It doesn't affect our freedom of speech (which in this case I assume goes along the lines as cor look at the baps on that). It just means that images appear where they are most appropriate. I believe a survey was carried out a while back amongst female readers of The Sun and the majority felt that Page 3 was inappropriate in a daily newspaper but most also didn't complain because they didn't want to be seen as killjoys as their menfolk told them it was all harmless fun (just as it is when women get hands up their skirts and their boobs grabbed every weekend in clubs up and down the country). If The Sun had a Page 5 with a ripped guy with his todger out each day then maybe there would be less of an issue - but just one gender and more than that only one type of that gender that is sexually attractive to most males in a family newspaper - hmmm - not sure how that works nowdays.

But women who choose to read the Sun do so knowing full well there are topless women in it. That's the key issue for me, it is a completely free choice whether or not to see page 3. Clearly the women who do buy the Sun have decided the Sun (boobs 'n' all) is better than the Mirror, Times, Telegraph or any other media publication available.

It would be like me buying a copy of Heat magazine and then writing to the editor saying there is no need for gossip on celebrity love lives, please remove it. I don't want to read gossip so, I don't buy it. Clearly some people do like reading gossip and it's not my place to tell them they shouldn't. It's the same with page 3.

If I was a Sun reader, I would be completely nonplussed by topless buff men on page 5. As I said before, read a lads magazine and there are almost as many topless men in there as women when you take into account the adverts for razors, aftershave, CK boxers and various other items of menswear.

A bloke getting his knob out is crossing the line as that to most people can be seem as sexual harassment. I'm not discriminating here, I wouldn't want to see some woman's vag hanging out in a paper either.

Ok, a few points here.

 

1) I said on another thread. Freedom of Speech defences for things are rubbish. If your only defence of something is, freedom of speech, innit. That suggests the content you are defending is barely worth defending.

 

2) I've not called for anything to be out right banned.

 

3) I've already said I have no problem with models, or even pornography. In fact I have a friend who does porn. The point is the placement of this.

 

4) Not having page 3 does not make us anything like Saudi Arabia. That's a nonsense argument. We don't put hardcore porn on TV, does that mean we are like SA? We have a Watershed, where certain things aren't shown before a certain time, does that make us like SA? No, of course it doesn't.

 

Just because something is technically legitimate, does not make it worthwhile.

But if its as harmful as some people say it is, why not go down the banning route? Seems logical to me.

Banning plays into the hands of those who the word wimmin and slag off political correctness. The issue is also wider then just Page 3. As has been mentioned, there is a far greater threat with the widespread access to porn on the internet. Despite the rights/wrongs of Page 3 it is dreadfully out of date now and you would like to think that those people forming policy at NI would take the view that they should be treating all of their readers with more respect in this day and age.

But women who choose to read the Sun do so knowing full well there are topless women in it. That's the key issue for me, it is a completely free choice whether or not to see page 3. Clearly the women who do buy the Sun have decided the Sun (boobs 'n' all) is better than the Mirror, Times, Telegraph or any other media publication available.

 

It would be like me buying a copy of Heat magazine and then writing to the editor saying there is no need for gossip on celebrity love lives, please remove it. I don't want to read gossip so, I don't buy it. Clearly some people do like reading gossip and it's not my place to tell them they shouldn't. It's the same with page 3.

 

If I was a Sun reader, I would be completely nonplussed by topless buff men on page 5. As I said before, read a lads magazine and there are almost as many topless men in there as women when you take into account the adverts for razors, aftershave, CK boxers and various other items of menswear.

 

A bloke getting his knob out is crossing the line as that to most people can be seem as sexual harassment. I'm not discriminating here, I wouldn't want to see some woman's vag hanging out in a paper either.

Yep, you are dead right. Many of their readers do continue to buy the paper despite rather than because of the boobs and that is why Page 3 has lasted so long. If Page 3 ever threatened to hit Murdoch's bottom line you can bet that it would have been ditched years ago. I am sure those that like the paper but don't agree with Page 3 just turn the page and ignore it which is a shame.

Thing is if you want boobs there are far better products to look at whereas Heat is all about gossip. It is like, me like to look at a fit bird so we will chuck one in every day to keep them happy when they have finished reading about last night's match. It is just such an odd thing to add to a daily newspaper. The Sun likes to be known as a newspaper not a jazz mag so fine, stick to news, gossip, TV and sport and leave the sexual images to those who do it so much better than you and who sell on the back of sex.

But if its as harmful as some people say it is, why not go down the banning route? Seems logical to me.

I wouldn't advocate banning it but that's because I'm against censorship. I absolutely support the idea of freedom of speech but with that freedom comes responsibility (to respect and to not offend).

I don't think the Sun is being responsible.

It would be good to hear from more of the girls on here.

I don't think it should be banned. I just think, in 2015, it is high time that we move on...

Gash on pg 3?!

Gash on pg 3?!

...

Here you go again Jeff. You think that because you dealt with this okay then why cant others? Because they cant that is why. As I told you about my daughter. She had few friends at school and it was only when she lost weight (she was never overweight) to the point she was skin and bone did she start to get positive messages from some of her peers and became popular. Some kids have such a hard time of it at school they take their own lives. They are plenty of well adjusted people out there, there are also lots who find life unbearable because they cant deal with what they perceive is to be their wrong body image. It is much easier for blokes. When someone like Hugh Hefner can get the type of women he does even at 108 (or whatever age he is) it just goes to show how skewed and f**Ked up the world is. Bloke, if you are ugly and fat but super rich, no worries, sorted. Bernie Ecclestone. WTF? Look at his wife. But you don't see these rich powerful men with overweight munters on their arms do you?

What I am trying to get at is why pg 3 has had an affect on your daughter, when pg 3 girls aren't size 0 models?

It would be good to hear from more of the girls on here.

what about the girls who want to be page 3?

Page 3 is outdated, and pretty sh!t as well. Even when I was a teenage I had trouble wacking one off to a page 3.

Gash on pg 3?!

It's on every other page of the Sun TBH.

What I am trying to get at is why pg 3 has had an affect on your daughter, when pg 3 girls aren't size 0 models?

Exactly.

This is Posh Spice from Heat magazine

This is Page 3 queen Lucy Pinder

If your daughters have size issues from women in the media, they aren't getting it from page 3.

I am not saying that my daughters have body image issues just from Page 3. They are bombarded with images from all forms of media. Obviously the Page 3/ lads mag type is slim legs and waist and big boobs. I don't know about you but I don't know many, if any, women with bodies like that. These are the images that are presented as want men find sexually attractive. This is the benchmark. This is also unrealistic.

Re body image, you will probably know that anorexics think they are fat when they are not.

what about the girls who want to be page 3?

Page 3 is not the only place girls can get paid for getting their boobs out.

Page 3 is not the only place girls can get paid for getting their boobs out.

why stop them?

You have not been following the thread then? It is not a question of stopping them getting their boobs out for cash - it is whether a national daily family newspaper is the place for their boobs in the first place.

You have not been following the thread then? It is not a question of stopping them getting their boobs out for cash - it is whether a national daily family newspaper is the place for their boobs in the first place.

Since when is a tabloid classed as a family thing?

Since when is a tabloid classed as a family thing?

The Sun has called itself a family newspaper for as long as I've been alive.

Since when is a tabloid classed as a family thing?

Tabloid newspapers are just that, newspapers. Newspapers are often delivered to people's houses and the people in the house - usually families - read those newspapers.

Jazz mags are called things like Playboy and Men Only. There is usually a hint in the titles that said magazine contains, erm, adult material.

The Sun has always marketed itself as a family newspaper, as does the Mirror. To be fair to the Mirror they didn't go down the topless bird route (if they ever did I missed that).

The Mail and Express are also tabloid newspapers. Many of the old broadsheets have also shrunk and aren't really broadsheets any more.

What a surprise, first question on QT , page 3.

Nuttall hitting the nail on the head, as a scouser he chooses not to buy sun, you can do the same. Common sense solution.

RIP page 3, we are now on page 4.

Lol at Esther Mcvey on QT. She's totally against the objectification of women , it really " offends " her.

In case you don't know who she is, here's a picture.

why stop them?

Since when is a tabloid classed as a family thing?

Here he is, Gothams finest with his one sentence answers to everything.

It's on every other page of the Sun TBH.

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

This is Posh Spice from Heat magazine

 

This is Page 3 queen Lucy Pinder

 

If your daughters have size issues from women in the media, they aren't getting it from page 3.

What I am trying to get at is why pg 3 has had an affect on your daughter, when pg 3 girls aren't size 0 models?

Anorexia is a form of body dismorphia. It is not simply a case of looking at someone skinny and thinking I should look like that.

In many cases it is related to insecurity and inadequacy. So yes, seeing photoshopped images of unrealistic women on a daily basis can absolutely feed into this.

Please do not denigrate an extremely serious mental illness into such simplistic terms. Like all mental illnesses it is not nearly as simple as looking at a skinny girl and thinking I should be skinny too. Sufferers have a completely warped image of how they themselves look, and how those around them look. So yes, seeing women with unnatural body shapes on a daily basis in a national newspaper (not to mention the myriad other places the ideal is drummed into the head of men, women, boys and girls) absolutely has an impact on suffers of eating disorders and body dismorphia.

What a surprise, first question on QT , page 3.

 

Nuttall hitting the nail on the head, as a scouser he chooses not to buy sun, you can do the same. Common sense solution.

Looking at QT tonight and listening to the nice man from UKIP it occurred to me that The Sun really isn't being true to itself. If it was it would be supporting UKIP.

The following programme has been interesting. A "model" fought her corner supported (given the premise that turkeys don't vote for Chrismas) by former NI employee Andrew "Brillo Pad" Neil. At the end of the day, there is no reason whatsoever that it is okay to put sexual images in a family newspaper. The key word here is "family."

On a higher note, the vast majority of people in this country choose not to buy or read The Sun.

Anorexia is a form of body dismorphia. It is not simply a case of looking at someone skinny and thinking I should look like that.

 

In many cases it is related to insecurity and inadequacy. So yes, seeing photoshopped images of unrealistic women on a daily basis can absolutely feed into this.

Please do not denigrate an extremely serious mental illness into such simplistic terms. Like all mental illnesses it is not nearly as simple as looking at a skinny girl and thinking I should be skinny too. Sufferers have a completely warped image of how they themselves look, and how those around them look. So yes, seeing women with unnatural body shapes on a daily basis in a national newspaper (not to mention the myriad other places the ideal is drummed into the head of men, women, boys and girls) absolutely has an impact on suffers of eating disorders and body dismorphia.

This

Lol at Esther Mcvey on QT. She's totally against the objectification of women , it really " offends " her.

 

In case you don't know who she is, here's a picture.

 

Funnily enough my wife said she looks like an ex Page 3 girl!

Jesus, how cr@p is This Week? I have heard about TV dumbing down but this takes the biscuit. The Page 3 issue was just embarrassing.

Anorexia is a form of body dismorphia. It is not simply a case of looking at someone skinny and thinking I should look like that.

 

In many cases it is related to insecurity and inadequacy. So yes, seeing photoshopped images of unrealistic women on a daily basis can absolutely feed into this.

Please do not denigrate an extremely serious mental illness into such simplistic terms. Like all mental illnesses it is not nearly as simple as looking at a skinny girl and thinking I should be skinny too. Sufferers have a completely warped image of how they themselves look, and how those around them look. So yes, seeing women with unnatural body shapes on a daily basis in a national newspaper (not to mention the myriad other places the ideal is drummed into the head of men, women, boys and girls) absolutely has an impact on suffers of eating disorders and body dismorphia.