sadoldgit

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!

It does sell itself as a family newspaper and does look to engage women readers too. Page 3 alone is not to blame for poor self image but it certainly hasn't helped.

The number of rapes recorded by the police in England and Wales has risen by 31% in the past year to 24,043 – the highest level since for at least 10 years, according to the Office of National Statistics. The official statisticians say the increase in rapes and a 22% rise in all sexual offences reflects a greater willingness among victims to come forward to report attacks and better recording by the police. Saw the above just now on a news page. I am not attributing this to Page 3 by the way but many women will argue that the way that women are portrayed in the media does not help certain men's attitude towards them and their sexual availability.

I read "broadsheet" papers and I also like to look at naked women. Don't expect to see them paraded in a family newspaper every day though. There is also a huge difference between a topless woman and a topless man (assuming you are talking about that top half being uncovered). Why do men like looking at boobs? It causes sexual arousal does it not? If you were a woman sitting on a train next to a guy ogling Page 3 would you feel that was harmless? It I easy as a bloke to say it is no big deal but listen to the other side of the argument and you will that many people have a very different view.

Readership is not important in terms of numbers. For advertising purposes it is the type of reader you attract that matters. Broadsheets (when there were such things) could make a lot more by selling full page colour ads with a lower readership because they were selling to the right type of reader. In fact selling less was seen as a good thing as it meant you had the right audience. Selling to the lowest common denominator is not difficult as the Sun found - just shove a fit topless bird on Page 3. Job done.

If boobs were no big deal the Sun wouldn't have had a page 3 for all these years. To say there is no difference between a topless man and a topless woman is nonsense. The problem with the Sun is that it has been stuck in the 70s "Carry On" attitude towards sex since, well, the 70s. Things have moved on but you wouldn't know it if all you did was read the Sun. The idea that women are there for the gratification of men, that women should have a certain look and body shape is still being peddled by the family newspaper. As someone said earlier, sex sells and that is why Murdoch gives so much space to boobs. The cosmetic surgery has done well out of it too. I know several women who have had boob jobs because they are not as pert as the models they see in the papers. This is especially sad as many young women are having surgery now before they have had kids. The people who right the Sun live in a world where people "romp" with and "bed" others. It is still all a bit phwoar and childish and also very old fashioned. The world might be going to hell in a handcart but don't worry guys, here is a nice pair of baps to cheer your day up. It is easy for a man to say it is harmless. What about the harm it does to those who are compared with the "ideal" body imagine that most woman don't actually have? Many woman have eating disorders because they worry about their body shapes. Many spend a fortune on "corrective" surgery yet it is harmless? I especially loved the Page 3 model who said what about her right to sell her baps to the press. You can still do it in Men's mags dear or sell your tush on the street if you want. Boobs are not the problem here. The problem has always been giving specific types of women (young and fit) space in a purported "family" newspaper every day to cheer up White Van Man.