sadoldgit

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.

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.

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).

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 suppose Murdoch would argue it keeps his circulation up (oo-er).

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?

I don't think we are saying that you cant show naked pictures of people. It is just is it appropriate to put these picture, every day, in a family newspaper. If it is so innocent why are people getting wound up about breast feeding in public. The pictures are there for sexual reasons and as we know, there is plenty of free access to nude pics without them being shoved in your face over breakfast.

Society. How decides if it is ok to be rascist or not? There are a lot of people that think that the objectification of women as sexual playthings is wrong. Not just "wimmin." As I said, I have no objection to women getting their kit off for the cameras. Some want to do it and there is clearly a market for it. My problem is where does that sit with a daily family newspaper. You may think it harmless but you need to listen to the victims of sexual assault of eating disorders. I am not saying these are all down to Page 3 but there is something about the way that woman are portrayed by the tabloids that doesn't make sense in 2015.

You are right that no one has called for the banning of Miley etc but as you also say she has come in for heavy criticism. Annie Lennox has been leading an argument about how pop videos are overly sexed up. No one is calling for a banning - just a use of common sense. There is a place for porn and it isn't on TV over the dinner table (ooer missus). Just as a pair of nice pert boobs isn't really appropriate over the cornflakes (ooer missus). Unfortunately not everyone is as well adjusted as you and there are people who use porn and then go out and act out what they have seen. Not just peados. There are people who feel that they are not sexually attractive because they don't look like one of the girls on Page 3 (and most women don't). We do not live in a well adjusted society and there are the Ched Evans of this world sadly who do believe that women are there for their self gratification. This has come through their upbrining and the messages they pick up growing up. 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.

Ok I concede. If it helps people get a better understanding of world affairs lets keep the baps!

Not arguing with the readership figures but as you know, there is more to that when deciding where to place your advertising. Just because The Sun has more ABC1 readers does not mean that they would get an account that would only suit the readership profile of The Guardian or Independent. when I joined the Guardian the sales were around 230,000. After a few years and before The Indy came along we hit over 400k which for The Guardian was huge. One of our ad girls realised that the average age of the Telegraph readers was over the target age of their job ads and we cleaned up as we had a much younger readership profile. We had a number of really successful years on the back of that and the young lady concerned eventually became MD. As you say, The Guardian/Observer are owned by The Scott Trust and as such are the only truly independent newspaper in the UK. Whilst this means that it cant compete financially with the likes of News International it does mean that the editorial team don't have to worry about proprietorial interference. It was been over 15 years since I worked in the print and I appreciate much has changed in that time. I also worked in the Circulation Dept rather tah Advertsining so will have a different view to you. I was made redundant from The Guardian at a time when advertising started to go online. I don't know how they can afford to print a paper version any more as I think the sales have dropped back to around 200k. You will know better than I how much they make from their online edition but I know that over the last few years many of my ex colleagues have lost their jobs. I know you are a News International man ( I was in The Times pre Murdoch so I am not) but The Guardian and Observer have had a much tougher ride and have had to survive on their wits rather than being a part of a multi national corporation. For those here that sneer at The Guardian and The Observer, given that that are truly independent they should be valued for the service they provide, even if you don't like the content.

I don't think it should be banned. I just think, in 2015, it is high time that we move on from "Page 3", leave the boobs for the girlie mags and internet sites and treat newspapers as newspapers and not somewhere where you get a cheap thrill. We wouldn't tolerate Love Thy Neighbour on TV anymore as we are now a more enlightened culture apparently. Page 3 comes out of the same era and is just as dated. Rather than it being banned it would be nice in tabloid editors decided that topless girls no longer have a place in a daily newspaper.

It is worrying that so many people are being raped each year.

What have a pair of breasts got to do with the news anyway? We all know a half of the population have them, hardly a daily news story is it?

Missing the point mate.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

It is not but the numbers are troubling.

I don't think that is the issue Jeff.

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!