KelvinsRightGlove

Ok, that was actually pretty funny tbf.

Wahhh not all men!!! You know I'm a man as well right?

It's impressive how many things you miss the point on here.

This is kind of what I was getting at. Can anyone actually give a decent reason to keep page 3?

TBF we'd probably know if that was the case too. His old man would be whining about it on twitter.

Zzzzz nothing anyone in UKIP ever says is anything to do with UKIP. It's an effective tool to distance yourself from any criticism. Hey, they even disowned themselves from their last manifesto. At some point, UKIP are going to have to be accountable for what they say.

Well, I addressed this above. Saying well this isn't the worst thing out there is a great way to stop changing anything. There's always something worse out there. I agree, there are worse things out there than page 3. That doesn't mean page 3 is a ok, or that we shouldn't think about whether it is worth keeping, or attempting to change it. Should we stop child porn, there's snuff films out there where people are killed and that's much worse etc. Again, this is taking it to the very extreme. Obviously page 3 are not the same or even similar. But simply saying there are worse things out there is not a great excuse to keep things as they are. Also, it's not just about role models. Yes, page 3 isn't targeted at teenage girls. That isn't the issue with it. The issue is that it is targeted at men, and the problems that can cause. Also, fair play that is quite funny. I don't think that is exactly the point, but funny none the less.

Did Reed start the other day as Corky still isn't fully fit?

What point are trying to make with that exactly? Miley has come under a fair amount of criticism from all angles for this, and subsequent antics on her tour. She certainly isn't a role model, it's a pretty transparent attempt to A) Shock (a poor one at that) & B) Shake off the child/disney star image and prove how adult she is. Sadly, it's so poorly thought out that she actually just seems pretty childish. It's a shame, as it ultimately detracts from her talent as a pop star. Call me some arm flailing liberal lefty or whatever, but it was just cringeworthy to watch. A semi-naked girl grinding up against a guy probably not a million miles off twice her age is just grim.

Aye, and stupid long hair. Fair to say I'm no Pellè.

Oh, no doubt porn has a massive affect on teenagers. It's scary to think what that is going to start doing. Which also makes me think, why the f**k bother with page 3? The vast majority of people are a matter of seconds and a few clicks away from porn of almost any imaginable type. At least porn is on a porn site (ordinarily). As I said, I'm not saying outright ban women (or men) getting their bits out on camera. Heck, I have friends who are models and even pornstars (Jeff you follow me on Twitter, you may well see me talk to her a fair bit. My problem with page 3 is the placement of it. It serves no real purpose, offers very little to anyone and as I outlined before sends a harmful message. I know they are extreme cases, but there has been more than one instance of men attacking and killing women because they are virgins, and can't get women to sleep with them. Whilst I am not for one minute placing blame for this solely at the door of page 3, I think it is one tiny aspect that helps go towards creating an attitude that women are objects for men to f**k and that men are owed sex by women. There's a whole mess of other crap that also falls into this category, and I am not at all implying it is anywhere near the worst offender. But it is one minute change to make, that has no effect on anyone that may just make a small, helpful change. It's not as if not showing a model with her top off is going to stop anyone from ever seeing it if they so wish, it's just the placement and accessibility of it that is the problem. I know it has been around for ages, and there are worse things out there, but these are both p!ss poor reasons to not want to try and make changes for the better.

I found my niche on here BTF, the annoying feminist bloke. Don't thank me, truth is I'm fairly new to this, and I'm pretty poor at it really. Most of what I say is like feminism 101. But your kind words are appreciated

Firstly, it's obviously awful if you were bullied. Bullying is a crappy thing for anyone to go through. As I said above, isolating certain examples and comparing them doesn't really stand up, as you are removing all societal context. In that respect, image, sexualisation and objectification are much larger issues for women. It'd also be interesting to know who was behind the Diet Coke ads. I'm genuinely curious as to what the make of the team that made the adverts was.

I think it's overly simplistic to say what we consume (by that I mean the media - TV, Film, Music, Books, Games and yes what we read and look at) doesn't affect or influence the way we think.

C'mon man. Bullying does not require violence to be damaging or hurtful.

I don't like page 3. I'm not saying women shouldn't be able to model, or get their boobs out for photos etc if they so wish. If that is their choice, more power to them. I do have a problem with the placement of it. This is a newspaper, not a top shelf porn magazine or 'lads-mag'. Now, obviously most people know that The Sun is hardly the pinnacle of top quality journalism. However, having a topless woman everyday in a paper costing (I'm guessing as I don't actually buy it) 30/40p with some banal comment roughly relating to something going on, in the highest selling paper in the country sends a message. As trashy as The Sun it, it still legitimises this message by being a 'newspaper'. This is what women are for, look at how attractive this woman is. Look at her silly little comment about the war, or how she doesn't know anything about politics, but it's ok because you can see her boobs. It is a dangerous message. I'm sure I wasn't the only young lad that bought The Sun with your mates and oggled at the page 3 girl - hey it's accessible as f**k, any newsagents and it costs less than a can of coke! It serves to condition boys that women are a sideshow to the real-world. There to have their bodies and attractiveness admired. They are objects, not people. To girls, it reinforces that idea. You are there to be attractive to men. This photoshopped image is what men want, and it is how you should want to look. The notion that of oh well there are men with their tops of is nonsensical whatabouttery, and false equivalence. It's a nice idea if you totally detach yourself from the world we live in. If men and women were treated equally, and subject to the same pressures and societal attitudes their may be some debate to be had. But it's not true.

In fairness, I was referring mostly to the films he has directed, though I can see I wasn't particularly clear in saying that. No doubt he starred in some good films.

It makes no difference, there'll still be plenty of attractive women wearing not many clothes in the paper. Instead, now it's a cynical move to drive more people to their website.

Fair point, well made.

I do well to spend so much time on here whilst out emptying bins, tbf.

I'd argue that the season he kept Scunny up in the Championship is an almost comparable achievement to promotion with Saints.

Lost out on a £14k win off a £2(ish) acca a few years ago, think it was the early rounds of the League cup. Something like 14 or 15 folds, predicted a few 'shocks' got screwed by Stoke going out to someone rubbish, possibly Swindon? Did that happen recently? That may actually have something to do with my irrational dislike of Stoke.

Ah ok, that sounds about right. Thanks.

I think it depends where they are loaned from. Not sure if there is a limit on players loaned from overseas, but there is a limit (not sure what number) to how many domestic/PL loans you can have.

Very true. There's a whole load of this in the industry I work in, it's extremely ugly.