sadoldgit Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 Spent some time on this thread today and just wanted to round things off. Do I like looking at fit young women flashing their boobs? Yes. Do I think they should be displayed every day in a family newspaper? No Do I want girls prevented from making money from showing there boobs? No. Are there other more appropriate places that they could sell pictures of their body? Yes. What is the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 Are there other more appropriate places that they could sell pictures of their body? Yes. What are the other career opportunities for topless-only glamour models? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 Here he is, Gothams finest with his one sentence answers to everything. Yeah but that thing is a bit the same as another thing from history but your reaction is slightly different. Everyone is a hypocrite. Repeat on every single thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 Yeah but that thing is a bit the same as another thing from history but your reaction is slightly different. Everyone is a hypocrite. Repeat on every single thread. HYPOCRITE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 Spent some time on this thread today and just wanted to round things off. Do I like looking at fit young women flashing their boobs? Yes. Do I think they should be displayed every day in a family newspaper? No Do I want girls prevented from making money from showing there boobs? No. Are there other more appropriate places that they could sell pictures of their body? Yes. What is the problem? Cool, and you're entitled to your opinion. By the way, I've seen models tits in other papers before, more the broadsheets which is apparently 'art'. Should this be allowed? And what about this picture I see on the tube everyday, as this is pretty hot (I think): Picture from the Independent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 What are the other career opportunities for topless-only glamour models? I think that they would have to probably take some classes and learn how to take their bottoms off as well as their tops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 Cool, and you're entitled to your opinion. By the way, I've seen models tits in other papers before, more the broadsheets which is apparently 'art'. Should this be allowed? And what about this picture I see on the tube everyday, as this is pretty hot (I think): Picture from the Independent. I think there is a difference between having a designated spot in the paper every day for boobs and showing them occasionally as the situation arises. Page 3 = boobs. Did you watch last night's debate about it on Question Time? It was hardly riveting stuff, almost as if the panel were embarrassed about discussing something that is well past its sell by date. Still The Sun have got a lot of free publicity out of it and no doubt sales will go up for a bit while we wait to see if the nipples are still there every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 I think there is a difference between having a designated spot in the paper every day for boobs and showing them occasionally as the situation arises. Page 3 = boobs. Did you watch last night's debate about it on Question Time? It was hardly riveting stuff, almost as if the panel were embarrassed about discussing something that is well past its sell by date. Still The Sun have got a lot of free publicity out of it and no doubt sales will go up for a bit while we wait to see if the nipples are still there every day. To be fair, it was pretty funny from the Sun. Hate the paper but they proper trolled everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 To be fair, it was pretty funny from the Sun. Hate the paper but they proper trolled everyone. Indeed. They do know how to play the game. The biggest two fingers though was when Rupe went all repentant on us and closed down The News of the Screws only to replace it with a Sunday Sun (as if we needed another). Sad state of affairs where that is the biggest selling daily newspaper but then is it really a newspaper? There is very little actual news in it and as we have seen recently the biggest issue seems to be around its use of breasts. Still, as we are in election year I look forward to Sarah from Brighton telling me why she is voting for UKIP whilst getting her baps out for the boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 Along with the debate on QT they also discussed the issue on ex Murdoch man Andrew Neils show (wheeling out a very uninspiring topless model with particularly bad skin). On both shows they seemed to get agitated by the fact that the feminists were making a fuss over boobs when there was a far greater issue around female genital mutilation to be discussed. Erm, why not put that on your agendas then and not Page effin 3 guys!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 I think we should use The Guardian as our benchmark for what is acceptable material for a "family newspaper"... http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2015/jan/22/-sp-penis-flashing-at-rick-owens-menswear-show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 (edited) That's okay. It is "fashion" so you can show that in a "serious" newspaper. Not a good look is it? Perhaps The Guardian should start its own Page 3 with a todger every day to redress the balance? Edited 23 January, 2015 by sadoldgit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 That's okay. It is "fashion" so you can show that in a "serious" newspaper. Not a good look is it? Perhaps The Guardian should start its own Page 3 with a todger every day to redress the balance? It's 'news' at least. It's not comparable to Page 3, as it is reporting on what is happening at a fashion show. I'm no expert on fashion (anyone who sees me IRL will attest to that), but I imagine male models with their penis hanging out is slightly out of the norm. I am aware Trousers was taking the mick a bit, just wanted to show why it is different though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 I just hope it doesn't catch on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 Anorexia is a form of body dismorphia. It is not simply a case of looking at someone skinny and thinking I should look like that. In many cases it is related to insecurity and inadequacy. So yes, seeing photoshopped images of unrealistic women on a daily basis can absolutely feed into this. Please do not denigrate an extremely serious mental illness into such simplistic terms. Like all mental illnesses it is not nearly as simple as looking at a skinny girl and thinking I should be skinny too. Sufferers have a completely warped image of how they themselves look, and how those around them look. So yes, seeing women with unnatural body shapes on a daily basis in a national newspaper (not to mention the myriad other places the ideal is drummed into the head of men, women, boys and girls) absolutely has an impact on suffers of eating disorders and body dismorphia. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 Perhaps if people were given jobs based on their ability rather than their looks that would be a start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 That's okay. It is "fashion" so you can show that in a "serious" newspaper. Not a good look is it? Perhaps The Guardian should start its own Page 3 with a todger every day to redress the balance? 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 Perhaps if people were given jobs based on their ability rather than their looks that would be a start? They are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 I don't watch SKY sports very often, but all of the women presenters on there seem to be babes. Aren't there any plain, overweight women who could do the job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 Perhaps if people were given jobs based on their ability rather than their looks that would be a start? They are. Unless we're talking glamour models - in which it is kinda a pre-requisite to be attractive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 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 I think vag's should be on page 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 I don't watch SKY sports very often, but all of the women presenters on there seem to be babes. Aren't there any plain, overweight women who could do the job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 They are. Unless we're talking glamour models - in which it is kinda a pre-requisite to be attractive... [video=youtube;DahkwAsth-o] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 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. That's nice, all of this we've been through already. 1) I did not blame anorexia on page 3, I explicitly stated it is a complex issue. Caused by many things, I said page 3 can be one of many things that can contribute to it, and yes there are worse things. 2) "Well this is worse, so you should go after that" is a bullsh*t argument. There is almost always something else worse out there. As I said before, disliking one thing, and thinking it should stop is not an admission you don't care about anything else. This is a delaying tactic to preserve the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 I think vag's should be on page 3 eww not naked vag! I would be ok with tasteful bush or at least landing strip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 That's nice, all of this we've been through already. 1) I did not blame anorexia on page 3, I explicitly stated it is a complex issue. Caused by many things, I said page 3 can be one of many things that can contribute to it, and yes there are worse things. 2) "Well this is worse, so you should go after that" is a bullsh*t argument. There is almost always something else worse out there. As I said before, disliking one thing, and thinking it should stop is not an admission you don't care about anything else. This is a delaying tactic to preserve the status quo. Agree with this. ISIS are high on the agenda now, so if the IRA rear their head again should it be ignored. No. HOWEVER, I believe the effort that seems to be going into this, and the publicity around it, is disproportiante to the problems pg 3 likely presents, and if the same efforts were put towards the ISP's allowing access to harmful p0rn sites then maybe this would be cracked down on. Just as an aside, does it not go against the freedom of the press? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 eww not naked vag! I would be ok with tasteful bush or at least landing strip "Looks like a shotguns gone off inside of her..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 That's nice, all of this we've been through already. 1) I did not blame anorexia on page 3, I explicitly stated it is a complex issue. Caused by many things, I said page 3 can be one of many things that can contribute to it, and yes there are worse things. 2) "Well this is worse, so you should go after that" is a bullsh*t argument. There is almost always something else worse out there. As I said before, disliking one thing, and thinking it should stop is not an admission you don't care about anything else. This is a delaying tactic to preserve the status quo. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 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. Hmmmm. Anyway, I've not said anorexia is solely blamed on page 3. I've also never said anorexia is the main reason to get rid of page 3. Removing page 3 is obviously not a silver bullet that will cure insecurity or inadequacy (in men or women), but it is a relatively small measure to take that may have beneficial impacts on society. Also, page 3 girls are normal looking? That's just flat out untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 Hmmmm. Anyway, I've not said anorexia is solely blamed on page 3. I've also never said anorexia is the main reason to get rid of page 3. Removing page 3 is obviously not a silver bullet that will cure insecurity or inadequacy (in men or women), but it is a relatively small measure to take that may have beneficial impacts on society. Also, page 3 girls are normal looking? That's just flat out untrue. To a degree, they are where I work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 To a degree, they are where I work... You work at a model agency Jeffers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 You work at a model agency Jeffers? Fashion retailers. To be fair the girls who work in design, merchandising etc are as hot as the models a lot of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 They are. Unless we're talking glamour models - in which it is kinda a pre-requisite to be attractive... I am talking about high profile media jobs. I guess the women how SKY employ got there on the basis of their in depth knowledge of professional football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 I am talking about high profile media jobs. I guess the women how SKY employ got there on the basis of their in depth knowledge of professional football People like Clare Balding, Anne Robinson and the like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 (edited) I am talking about high profile media jobs. I guess the women how SKY employ got there on the basis of their in depth knowledge of professional football Funnily enough, a lot of the Sky Sports presenters are former sports people, experts in their fields or daughters of famous sportspeople. For instance: Kelly Cates nee Dalglish Georgie Bingham, from a Sports journalism background, as is Jill Douglas Georgie Thompson, played tennis to a decent level Charlie Webster, sports journalist Chloe Everton, PE teacher Kirsty Gallagher, daughter of Bernard Kate Abdo, Sports journalist Vichy Gommersal, athletics to decent level Alex Hammond, horse racing expert Charlotte Jackson, played tennis and Lacrosse at County level Hayley McQueen, daughter of Gordon Just a few for you there... Edited 23 January, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 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? It would be a start and it would send out quite a big message. And Page 3 is very different to a woman in a lingerie catalogue. That is there to sell underwear. Page 3 is there to give the men some eye candy and sell newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 I am talking about high profile media jobs. I guess the women how SKY employ got there on the basis of their in depth knowledge of professional football 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 Andrew "Brillo Pad" Neil. . So let's get this right , on a thread where you've been banging on and on and on and on about not treating women by their looks, you have a dig at someone's looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 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? That's really clutching at straws now. Comparing page 3 to underwear/lingerie modelling. Do you really need to be told why that is different. I see you are still stuck on the anorexia thing. As I said, I don't actually think that is the biggest argument for getting rid of page 3. There are far bigger issues with it, most related to boys/men instead of girls. Despite your protestations otherwise, you are still very much drumming the 'well there's worse stuff out there' argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 It would be a start and it would send out quite a big message. And Page 3 is very different to a woman in a lingerie catalogue. That is there to sell underwear. Page 3 is there to give the men some eye candy and sell newspapers. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 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. Kelly Cates nee Dalglish Georgie Bingham, from a Sports journalism background, as is Jill Douglas Georgie Thompson, played tennis to a decent level Charlie Webster, sports journalist Chloe Everton, PE teacher Kirsty Gallagher, daughter of Bernard Kate Abdo, Sports journalist Vichy Gommersal, athletics to decent level Alex Hammond, horse racing expert Charlotte Jackson, played tennis and Lacrosse at County level Hayley McQueen, daughter of Gordon Just a few for you there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 Kelly Cates nee Dalglish Georgie Bingham, from a Sports journalism background, as is Jill Douglas Georgie Thompson, played tennis to a decent level Charlie Webster, sports journalist Chloe Everton, PE teacher Kirsty Gallagher, daughter of Bernard Kate Abdo, Sports journalist Vichy Gommersal, athletics to decent level Alex Hammond, horse racing expert Charlotte Jackson, played tennis and Lacrosse at County level Hayley McQueen, daughter of Gordon Just a few for you there... Did broadcast journalism (I think) at Leeds Uni. I had some friends on that course when I was there (not on that course), and she often came up - being one of the more well know students to have completed the course. Apparently she was always big on sports, and excelled on the course. This is of course all through the grapevine**. I don't doubt all the lady presenters on Sky Sports are very intelligent and competent, I imagine they get inundated with a huge amount of extremely qualified and talented people that could do a great job. I guess at this point, the more attractive of those have an extra edge. **EDIT: Just to clarify I wasn't there at the same time as GT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 Kelly Cates nee Dalglish Georgie Bingham, from a Sports journalism background, as is Jill Douglas Georgie Thompson, played tennis to a decent level Charlie Webster, sports journalist Chloe Everton, PE teacher Kirsty Gallagher, daughter of Bernard Kate Abdo, Sports journalist Vichy Gommersal, athletics to decent level Alex Hammond, horse racing expert Charlotte Jackson, played tennis and Lacrosse at County level Hayley McQueen, daughter of Gordon Just a few for you there... So basically it's nepotism and good looks. In this context, sports journalist is largely a circular concept. Look forward to seeing Clare Balding on SSN in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 So basically it's nepotism and good looks. In this context, sports journalist is largely a circular concept. Look forward to seeing Clare Balding on SSN in the near future. But you wouldnt, she's a far bigger name and would command too much money. It certainly helps to be aesthetically pleasing, but it's not the only reason they're on there. A lot have worked on sports desks for local radio etc. They all have sports backgrounds. Plus you don't want to watch people who look like a pork scratching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 People like Clare Balding, Anne Robinson and the like? Some people find them very attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 But you wouldnt, she's a far bigger name and would command too much money. It certainly helps to be aesthetically pleasing, but it's not the only reason they're on there. A lot have worked on sports desks for local radio etc. They all have sports backgrounds. Plus you don't want to watch people who look like a pork scratching. Quite a few male sports commentators would fit this description but that's OK because we don't judge sports presenters on looks, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 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. Not sure that you can stop people looking at a particular page in a daily newspaper. I think we have established that Page 3 is a part of the system that is wrong rather than being the cause but it really doesn't help anybody when in 2015 we still have a national newspaper that thinks it is ok to portray woman as sex objects. I agree that the problem is widespread and it would be more helpful if clothes models were an average size and body shape rather than the stick shape which I understand is suppose to make the clothes look better. Anorexia and other eating disorders are horrible and it is hearbreaking having to deal with a loved one who has this illness. It is about time that advertising stopped peddling dream images and started being more realistic. A girl looking at underwear modelled by a size 0 is not going to look the same in it if she is a 16 so why not show "normal" sized models. I don't know what the average size is. 12? 14? Wasn't Marilyn Monroe a size 16? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 Some people find them very attractive. So you're classing them as attractive high profile media presenters then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 23 January, 2015 Share Posted 23 January, 2015 Quite a few male sports commentators would fit this description but that's OK because we don't judge sports presenters on looks, after all. Agreed, as are a number of female ones, who are employed for their knowledge rather than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now