Lighthouse

It does indeed, I'm glad we finally agree. I'm sure you will agree also that, using this logic, every team will score the same number of points for the remainder of the season. I'm looking forward to our Champions League campaign with great excitement.

Haven't we sold out for the last 6 home games? We don't need a cup run this year to get people through the gates, decent football every week will do that by itself. I would rate our chances of matching Arsenal, Spuds and United over 16 game much higher than winning 6 consecutive games. A cup is strike one and you're out, it would be like if after the Man City game that was the end of the League campaign. Each game is as good as 50/50. When Chelsea and City are losing in their own back yard to Boro and Bradford, anything can happen. So from that point of view there is a 1 in 64 chance of winning the Cup if you enter at the 3rd round. If you can find me a bookies offering 64/1 on Saints to finish top 4 please let me know because I'm definitely having £50 on that.

There are no trophies for winning the FA Cup 4th round either. The trophy comes from winning 6 consecutive FA Cup games. If you win 6 consecutive Champions League games you win the qualifier and your group.

I will refer again to many Middle Eastern countries where images of porn and nudity are strictly forbidden and yet they have pretty much the worst record for women's rights on the planet. People don't base their morality around a picture on one page of a newspaper. If they started publishing 'ISIS weekly' magazine in WH Smiths would we all turn in to terrorists if we read it for a few weeks? Obviously not because we form our own opinions and don't just agree with everything we see on a piece of paper. If page 3 was indeed promoting the message that women are just sexual objects then all the girls on this thread would be saying, "I'm just a silly girl, would you like me to post a picture of my boobs," whilst all the men would be saying, "phwooooar boobs!!!... tits!!" The fact that we aren't and that most people generally don't approve of it shows that we are more advanced as a species than we give ourselves credit for. Basically, the people who see girls as objects will do so anyway because that is the way they are geared. Page 3 is just one source of material, if you take it away pervy men aren't going to go away, rethink their lives and set up a women's literacy programme in Djibouti.

I went today but I can't say I'm that bothered about the results. I remember saying to my mate with 10 minutes left that it was decision time, either two goals or no goals. Basically I wanted anything but a replay from today's game. At least now we don't have to worry about players getting injured in cup games and affecting our league form. It was a shame to lose Long today, hopefully he is back soon. You can see Pardew has got Palace looking a much better team from the shambles we beat on Boxing Day. On the other hand if your making Chamakh look good you're not doing something right. We looked lacklustre to be honest, like the players weren't really that interested in the game. A few poor misplaced passes and some very dodgy defending first half. Forster didn't really look with it either.

Poor bloke must have post natal depression after taking a 2st sh*te and an arse like a Japanese flag to go with it. Hope it doesn't affect his performance.

It's tough being a dyslexic paedo.

Leaving the eating disorders issue to one side, you may well think page 3 is pointless but it's not your newspaper so it's not your decision. They clearly think there is some merit to printing it so they do. The placements of it is not an issue as far as I'm concerned. It is well known there are topless girls on page 3, you can't have any complaints about images you are making a free choice to look at.

Apparently not. I was under the impression that women developed eating disorders based on peer pressure to conform to media images of what is deemed attractive. Apparently this is incorrect, so I apologise.

I'm clutching at straws by saying pictures of attractive topless women in a newspaper have similarities to pictures of attractive women in lingerie in a magazine? Eating disorders aren't caused by looking at pictures, it's peer pressure. Women are pretty much exposed to the same stuff. They all see the same newspapers, adverts, magazines, TV etc. and yet some are anorexic, some are morbidly obese and many are perfectly healthy and attractive. If we did away with page 3 and replaced it with pictures of overweight women wearing 80s style shell suits, do you think women would suddenly all become overweight and start wearing shell suits? No, of course not because their friends aren't telling them that's what they should look like. I'm not drumming the 'their is worse stuff' argument. I am drumming the 'it literally wont make any difference if we get rid of page 3' argument. It's a drop in the Ocean. It would be like having 100 venomous snakes in your house, killing a woodlouse and saying, "now we have less of a pest problem." There are near infinite pictures of naked and near naked women out there. What is infinity minus one? SOG, without knowing your family it sounds to me like your daughter just fell in with the wrong crowd at school. If her friends are all skinny and telling her how great she looks when she is dangerously underweight, that is the problem not some pictures in a newspaper.

Doesn't matter what it's for. You don't get fat monsters modelling lingerie and young women will generally compare themselves to any media image which they are told represents beauty. If you are going to say young women shouldn't compare themselves to lingerie models because the purpose is to look at the lingerie then you could say the same about page 3. They shouldn't be looking at page 3 at all because it is marketed towards men.

No, you are right. Sky Sports news does seem to pick female presenters of particular aesthetic quality. However that is one isolated case of discrimination and even they hired one female presenter some might consider less attractive.

You know what I meant. There are many things much worse than page 3 out there and getting rid of page 3 wont help at all. It's a drop in the ocean of female self image. How would this work in your opinion? Suppose we got rid of page three, then what? Young women say to themselves, "Well there is still an endless media bombardment of 6ft 4 stick insect women being branded as the latest in style and fashion but at least there isn't a picture of some boobs in a news papers." How is page three any different to any other picture of a woman in a bikini or lingerie catalogue? Why would seeing exposed nipples make you insecure about your weight? How is it any worse than a M&S summer catalogue?

My point is that getting rid of relatively normal looking girls on page 3 isn't going to help with female self image issues whilst there are much worse issues out there. The female fashion industry is dominated by women who are unrealistically tall, unrealistically thin AND they have been photoshopped to be even more unrealistic AND they are published in magazines specifically marketed at women. It's not that there are worse things, I am saying getting rid of page 3 wont help at all.

[video=youtube;DahkwAsth-o]

They are.

You keep referring to a 'family newspaper' and men getting their todgers out. Todgers aren't breasts. Breasts are just large glands behind the nipples and there is no need for them to cause offence. Displaying sexual organs would be seen as harassment and obscene by most people. Please stop comparing the two, there is nobody out there asking for naked Vaginas on page 3. I don't know by what criteria the Sun describes itself as a 'family newspaper' but it is not a Disney musical. You know there are topless girls on page 3, Dear Deidre and adverts for phone sex with grandma at the back. So why would you give it to a child to read? The Sun also features good old fashioned family fun like this on a regular basis. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6251460/2000-die-in-suspected-new-Boko-Haram-terror-massacre-including-women-and-kids.html

If you are going to blame page 3 for anorexia, there are hundreds of other images you also have to get rid of first. If you want to get rid of page 3 for this reason you also have to get rid of the entire fashion industry, all cat walks, magazines, poster, catalogues, heck even the mannequins they have in shops are an unreal standard of female body shape. Then you would have to get rid of all the thin and attractive women in the public domain. Not just Posh Spice and Cheryl f**king Tweedy/Cole/Fernandes/Tsunami/Toaster... whatever she calls herself this week. Sports stars like Sharapova and Ennis have bodies which are unrealistic to the average woman on the street so they should be banned. Basically anyone attractive in the media should be banned as they would make less attractive women insecure.

Imagine being a Mexican paedo. "She told me she was 12!"

They probably haven't shown their full hand but that's definitely a new nose to the one they had last season. Their 2014 car had one of the ugliest dildo noses on the grid.

Surely it's Kangwa who shot himself, or have I read that tweet wrong?

I had an old Ford Sierra which used to do that when I started it. He should check his oil filter.

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.

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.

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.