Lighthouse

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.

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.

My point is that Page 3 is heavily criticised for sending out the wrong message to young girls about how to look and behave. There are many other examples which are far worse and, unlike page 3, are actively marketed at young women. Miley was heavily criticised but I haven't seen any particular clamour for her to be banned from performing. I agree, it was dreadful and it's not an isolated case. Katie Perry, Nikki Minaj, Britney, Christina Aguelerlelelriea and many others have all donned skimpy outfits and been branded, 'you should look like this' to teenage girls. To me that is the key difference. They are being sold as role models in the media to young women, whereas page three isn't. That's just pictures of boobs for white van men, nothing more nothing less. Just because people see it, they don't automatically feel the need to imitate it. I watch porn but I've never felt the need to go round to my next door neighbour and fix her boiler.

A minutes silence at Swansea's next game? Someone had to say it.

Another dreadful role model which is actively marketed at impressionable teenage girls

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.

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

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.

Indeed Jeff ... 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So your counter argument as to why women's boobs shouldn't be seen as a taboo is, 'lets all sh*t in the streets'. That's a solid argument whelk, I can't fault your logic Yeah, we tried that about 700 years ago. Half of Europe got wiped out by the plague. Tell me, what diseases will exposed nipples unleash upon the population?

Where the f**k did that come from? Go on I'm dying to hear the logic behind that. Regarding your second point - yes there is a question of common decency that applies to both genders. I wouldn't walk into a restaurant in a pair of budgie smugglers and expect to be seated, even though it wouldn't constitute indecent exposure. I'm walking about places like beaches, swimming pools, sunbathers, advertising, media etc.

You seem to dismiss the male species as a bunch of ogling perverts out of hand. Women aren't met with 'phwoar' and they aren't noticed only for there bodies. Whenever I meet a female friend or co-working I tend to greet them with something like, "good morning, how are you today?" As do pretty much all the men I know. I've yet to sit in my office, have a female co-worker walk in and shout, "phwoar, your tits look good today!" I'm not sure what world you are living in but it seems to be more like a Carry On film than the one I'm in. I think some women hear one sexist comment from a teenaged virgin or pervy builder and think this represents the entire population. I've read a few magazines like Nuts and Zoo, not to mention the Sun and the Daily Star from time to time. If there are comments judging female politicians on their appearance they aren't coming from those magazines. They are infact coming from magazines aimed largely at women, such as Hello or Heat. 99% of men couldn't give the tiniest sh*t about Angela Merkel's shoes or Rebecca Brooks' handbag. There are no double standards. Women ***** about the appearance of other women WAAAAAAY more than men do.

Surely then there is a case for removing the taboo surrounding a woman's breasts. After-all women didn't evolve with clothing covering their breasts. At some point homo-sapiens quite happily walked around topless before somebody somewhere decided we should all cover up. Boobs are only objectified because we are brought up to believe they should be hidden and kept covered. If we were brought up believing there are nothing but another body part, nobody would give a sh*t about them.

Why? They're just boobs, I don't see what the big deal is personally.

Not to mention images like this, which are actively marketed towards men.

1. They aren't naked. I wouldn't have a problem with a topless man, in fact I have seen plenty of adverts for toiletries (and yoghurt for some reason) with topless men. 2. The Sun isn't my favourite newspaper with topless women and it wouldn't be with topless men either. There are plenty of other papers to chose from if it bothers you. The girls aren't on the front page, so you wouldn't even see the pictures unless you chose to read it.

The minimum age for page 3 girls is 18 and has been since 2003 so I'm not sure what he is getting upset about.

Here's the new Force India. I have to say I really like it, certainly compared to last years car which had one of the ugliest noses on the grid. The colour scheme is fairly similar to McLaren so I hope/assume the latter is going for something new this year.

I think we've just out grown it as a culture TBH. Last year they stopped making Nuts magazine because of a lack of interest. Let's face it, when you can find pictures and videos of every obscene sexual habit imaginable in 10 seconds on Google, nobody is going to pay for pictures of boobs in a magazine. I can't say I'm really that bothered as I never buy papers any more any get most of my news from on-line articles. News in briefs was good though, I'd like to thank Danni, 23 from Middlesex for explaining the large hadron collider to me.