So , no more Page 3

[Lighthouse]

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.

 

I'm clutching at straws by saying pictures of attractive topless women in a newspaper have similarities to pictures of attractive women in lingerie in a magazine?

 

Eating disorders aren't caused by looking at pictures, it's peer pressure. Women are pretty much exposed to the same stuff. They all see the same newspapers, adverts, magazines, TV etc. and yet some are anorexic, some are morbidly obese and many are perfectly healthy and attractive.

 

If we did away with page 3 and replaced it with pictures of overweight women wearing 80s style shell suits, do you think women would suddenly all become overweight and start wearing shell suits? No, of course not because their friends aren't telling them that's what they should look like.

 

I'm not drumming the 'their is worse stuff' argument. I am drumming the 'it literally wont make any difference if we get rid of page 3' argument. It's a drop in the Ocean. It would be like having 100 venomous snakes in your house, killing a woodlouse and saying, "now we have less of a pest problem." There are near infinite pictures of naked and near naked women out there. What is infinity minus one?

 

SOG, without knowing your family it sounds to me like your daughter just fell in with the wrong crowd at school. If her friends are all skinny and telling her how great she looks when she is dangerously underweight, that is the problem not some pictures in a newspaper.

[bridge too far]

Do you know anything about anorexia Lighthouse?

 

Thought not.

[OldNick]

Do you know anything about anorexia Lighthouse?

 

Thought not.

BTF , in your dancing days would you say your figure and looks were important? Was Dawn French in your troupe and why not, and if not did you fight to have plumper and unattractive dancer at the front of the performance?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I'm clutching at straws by saying pictures of attractive topless women in a newspaper have similarities to pictures of attractive women in lingerie in a magazine?

 

Eating disorders aren't caused by looking at pictures, it's peer pressure. Women are pretty much exposed to the same stuff. They all see the same newspapers, adverts, magazines, TV etc. and yet some are anorexic, some are morbidly obese and many are perfectly healthy and attractive.

 

If we did away with page 3 and replaced it with pictures of overweight women wearing 80s style shell suits, do you think women would suddenly all become overweight and start wearing shell suits? No, of course not because their friends aren't telling them that's what they should look like.

 

I'm not drumming the 'their is worse stuff' argument. I am drumming the 'it literally wont make any difference if we get rid of page 3' argument. It's a drop in the Ocean. It would be like having 100 venomous snakes in your house, killing a woodlouse and saying, "now we have less of a pest problem." There are near infinite pictures of naked and near naked women out there. What is infinity minus one?

 

SOG, without knowing your family it sounds to me like your daughter just fell in with the wrong crowd at school. If her friends are all skinny and telling her how great she looks when she is dangerously underweight, that is the problem not some pictures in a newspaper.

 

Yes, that is clutching. If you cannot understand that Page 3 is sexualised images of women intended to titillate is different women modelling a product, there is literally no point in continuing this conversation.

 

Though, the rest of your post demonstrates this again. I'm not saying but there's worse things, whilst simultaneously saying there are worse things. You have again failed to understand that nobody is saying we should remove page 3, as then no body will be able to see naked women. If anything, I argues to the complete opposite. The very fact that there is such a huge amount of sexualised content, mostly far more graphic in nature than page 3 renders it utterly pointless. The problem with page 3 is not the graphic nature of it, but the placement of it and the message it portrays.

 

You are still bizarrely fixated on the eating disorder issue, which you clearly know less than nothing about. It's been said numerous times that this is not the only issue, or even the main reason many dislike page 3.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

BTF , in your dancing days would you say your figure and looks were important? Was Dawn French in your troupe and why not, and if not did you fight to have plumper and unattractive dancer at the front of the performance?

 

[OldNick]

Yes, that is clutching. If you cannot understand that Page 3 is sexualised images of women intended to titillate is different women modelling a product, there is literally no point in continuing this conversation.

 

Though, the rest of your post demonstrates this again. I'm not saying but there's worse things, whilst simultaneously saying there are worse things. You have again failed to understand that nobody is saying we should remove page 3, as then no body will be able to see naked women. If anything, I argues to the complete opposite. The very fact that there is such a huge amount of sexualised content, mostly far more graphic in nature than page 3 renders it utterly pointless. The problem with page 3 is not the graphic nature of it, but the placement of it and the message it portrays.

 

You are still bizarrely fixated on the eating disorder issue, which you clearly know less than nothing about. It's been said numerous times that this is not the only issue, or even the main reason many dislike page 3.

Many don't like Page 3 because it's in the Sun. If Mother Teresa had had a column in the Sun the Guardian readers of the world would be moaning about the content.

if you believe that models in advertising are not used to titilate then I'm am surprised.

Page 3 is redundant as I doubt that many men sit and look at it for any time at all and just turn the page. If the young ladies were not topless but in a seductive pose, that would be ok I assume

[Lighthouse]

Do you know anything about anorexia Lighthouse?

 

Thought not.

 

Apparently not.

 

I was under the impression that women developed eating disorders based on peer pressure to conform to media images of what is deemed attractive. Apparently this is incorrect, so I apologise.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Apparently not.

 

I was under the impression that women developed eating disorders based on peer pressure to conform to media images of what is deemed attractive. Apparently this is incorrect, so I apologise.

 

Eating disorders also affect men. I said above, eating disorders are far more complex than looking at skinny/attractive people and thinking that is how they should look.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Many don't like Page 3 because it's in the Sun. If Mother Teresa had had a column in the Sun the Guardian readers of the world would be moaning about the content.

if you believe that models in advertising are not used to titilate then I'm am surprised.

Page 3 is redundant as I doubt that many men sit and look at it for any time at all and just turn the page. If the young ladies were not topless but in a seductive pose, that would be ok I assume

 

There is such a ridiculous amount of strawmanning going on here.

[bridge too far]

Apparently not.

 

I was under the impression that women developed eating disorders based on peer pressure to conform to media images of what is deemed attractive. Apparently this is incorrect, so I apologise.

 

That's OK. I get quite sad, as the mother of a woman who suffered very badly with anorexia in her teens and twenties. It is a misconception indeed.

 

Most young people become anorexic in a vain attempt to establish some sort of control over their lives at a time when their bodies are telling them they're growing up.

 

My own daughter felt she'd lost control when her school (and to some extent her parents, if I'm honest) expected a great deal of her - she was very, very clever and a talented musician. She had no interest in 'fashion' or 'image' and didn't conform to peer pressure.

 

After years and years of hard work on her part, and the birth of her daughters, she's a lot, lot better. But the condition doesn't really get cured. It just gets controlled.

[Lighthouse]

Yes, that is clutching. If you cannot understand that Page 3 is sexualised images of women intended to titillate is different women modelling a product, there is literally no point in continuing this conversation.

 

Though, the rest of your post demonstrates this again. I'm not saying but there's worse things, whilst simultaneously saying there are worse things. You have again failed to understand that nobody is saying we should remove page 3, as then no body will be able to see naked women. If anything, I argues to the complete opposite. The very fact that there is such a huge amount of sexualised content, mostly far more graphic in nature than page 3 renders it utterly pointless. The problem with page 3 is not the graphic nature of it, but the placement of it and the message it portrays.

 

You are still bizarrely fixated on the eating disorder issue, which you clearly know less than nothing about. It's been said numerous times that this is not the only issue, or even the main reason many dislike page 3.

 

Leaving the eating disorders issue to one side, you may well think page 3 is pointless but it's not your newspaper so it's not your decision. They clearly think there is some merit to printing it so they do.

 

The placements of it is not an issue as far as I'm concerned. It is well known there are topless girls on page 3, you can't have any complaints about images you are making a free choice to look at.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Leaving the eating disorders issue to one side, you may well think page 3 is pointless but it's not your newspaper so it's not your decision. They clearly think there is some merit to printing it so they do.

 

The placements of it is not an issue as far as I'm concerned. It is well known there are topless girls on page 3, you can't have any complaints about images you are making a free choice to look at.

 

Why exactly can you not have any complaints about something, just because you know it's there? I've explained numerous times on here why I think there are issues with having topless photos of attractive young women placed prominently in one of the most popular newspapers in the country, available almost anywhere for 40p.

 

Just because something has been done for a while, and people know about it does not mean that it is good, healthy or should not be stopped/question. Again, this is just arguing for the status quo.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Many don't like Page 3 because it's in the sun

 

Nail on head.

 

It's more about the hatred of Murdoch rather than any moral issue .

[Coxford_lou]

There's been a lot of discussion here about the effect page 3 has on women (body image etc). But I actually think, the bigger issue is the effect it has on men. Men seeing something they want (which is only natural!) and that seems readily available, creates a 'get you tits out for the lads' culture/expectation. Looking at a subservient naked women in your national newspaper creates an expectation in the real world that you're in control and women are there for the taking. And the behaviour this creates, which isn't very appealing, means women modify their own behaviour as a result. I remember walking an extra half mile when I was 14 to avoid builders constantly shouting comments at me. Read @everdaysexism and you'll read countless tales of men quickly transitioning from charming to nasty when they don't get what they want. Women constantly modify their behaviour because of this, and it creates a slightly more cautious approach in women, that could be affecting their personality in other areas (career for one). I can't imagine what it would be like to be a guy and throw caution to the wind in everything I do. As a women you're constantly thinking about will you be safe, how will you be judged etc. even if you take a 'I don't care' attitude.

 

The great thing about the internet is it gives easy opportunity for women to share experiences and realise it's not just them this is happening to. This has created a rise in a new non-militant style of feminism that makes people realise - hang on, this isn't fair!

 

Of course, this isn't all just down to page 3 in the Sun, but you've got to look at the bigger picture, and the Sun is part of that. And I'm not saying all men are like this either. I know as many men as women these days who are champions of this new feminism. But it's still a fairly dominant aspect of modern life for women, and that's quite sad.

 

Someone said earlier, nudity is fine in European countries, so it should be here. Big difference is in Europe they have a much more grown up attitude to sex. The Page 3 girl is not a grown up attitude to sex, it's actually really bloody immature. Sunbathe topless on a French beach: no one will bat an eyelid. Sunbathe topless on Brighton beach, and I can guarantee you will be stared at, and get comments, and if you complain, you'll be told you were asking for it/attention seeking or that you love it really. Grow up England!

 

That's my perspective on the topic, and I'd be interested to hear other opinions and other perspectives.

[Goatboy]

I like boobs and look at them quite a lot. I like to imagine going wibble wibble inbetween them.

[Coxford_lou]

And I've not even mentioned the issues women have trying to breast feed in public.

[Coxford_lou]

Well, I like boobs too, and I look at mine quite a lot. There's nothing wrong with that.

[hypochondriac]

Well, I like boobs too, and I look at mine quite a lot. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

You may cause a forum meltdown with comments like that.

[Goatboy]

Well, I like boobs too, and I look at mine quite a lot. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

Unless this is you Lou:

[Jonnyboy]

14 year old lads have their own set of pressures though. I remember random groups trying to start fights with me for no reason. Girls don't get that (I hope).

[Coxford_lou]

I don't disagree, my brother was talking about this the other day. It's just that, I don't think the current mentality helps anyone - men or women. Women start behaving more defensively, men find it harder to approach women.

 

I responded to Goatboys post about boobs, not because I wanted this to descent into TMS style banter, but because I slightly worried it sounded like I'm being too serious and too harsh on men for liking boobs. But that's not my point. Boobs are great -everyone likes them. But the juvenile SUN Page 3 approach to boobs/sex doesn't do anyone any favours - men or women. It just satisfies a short term fix. This is a societal issue, not me having a downer on individuals.

[hutch]

And I've not even mentioned the issues women have trying to breast feed in public.

I know. I got thrown out of a restaurant last time I did it.

 

But that's just not fair, where else am I supposed to go for a good suck?

[Jonnyboy]

I agree but don't be fooled into thinking there aren't sexist pigs all round the world, in many countries it's far worse. It's a shame they have to spoil it for the rest of us.

[Goatboy]

I don't disagree, my brother was talking about this the other day. It's just that, I don't think the current mentality helps anyone - men or women. Women start behaving more defensively, men find it harder to approach women.

 

I responded to Goatboys post about boobs, not because I wanted this to ascend into TMS style banter, but because I slightly worried it sounded like I'm being too serious and too harsh on men for liking boobs. But that's not my point. Boobs are great -everyone likes them. But the juvenile SUN Page 3 approach to boobs/sex doesn't do anyone any favours - men or women. It just satisfies a short term fix. This is a societal issue, not me having a downer on individuals.

 

Edited for you Lou.

[Coxford_lou]

Oh come on guys, this is a serious topic - at least give it some thought!

[Coxford_lou]

I agree but don't be fooled into thinking there aren't sexist pigs all round the world, in many countries it's far worse. It's a shame they have to spoil it for the rest of us.

 

Oh I know - and I've experienced plenty of that. But I'm in England, and I love our country, so I'm telling my experience here. And from that, I think Page 3 in the Sun is destructive in many more ways than seems on the surface.

[bridge too far]

And I've not even mentioned the issues women have trying to breast feed in public.

 

See here

 

 

Facebook keep censoring this beautiful picture of a mother breastfeeding (presumably because some people have complained) yet the Sun gets away with its Page 3.

 

Double standards or what

[Coxford_lou]

See here

 

 

Facebook keep censoring this beautiful picture of a mother breastfeeding (presumably because some people have complained) yet the Sun gets away with its Page 3.

 

Double standards or what

 

Massive double standards. This is so messed up on so many levels, and I think it will take longer than my generation to resolve it. But the fact that through the internet, many men and women recognise the ridiculousness of this, gives me a lot of hope. First step is identifying the problem.

[Jonnyboy]

Jealousy is a strong emotion and we see that baby getting what should be ours.

 

(edit, jonny we're not in muppet show, shut up you idiot)

[sadoldgit]

Nail on head.

 

It's more about the hatred of Murdoch rather than any moral issue .

 

Completely disagree. I agree that Murdoch does transend a number of moral issue like the objectification of woman and the appalling breach of our rights through phone hacking to name just two things.

Edited 24 January, 2015 by sadoldgit

[sadoldgit]

Many don't like Page 3 because it's in the Sun. If Mother Teresa had had a column in the Sun the Guardian readers of the world would be moaning about the content.

if you believe that models in advertising are not used to titilate then I'm am surprised.

Page 3 is redundant as I doubt that many men sit and look at it for any time at all and just turn the page. If the young ladies were not topless but in a seductive pose, that would be ok I assume

 

This is nonsense. I don't like The Sun. I don't like Murdoch. I like the football coverage and if there was a columnist in it I like I wouldn't have a problem in reading the column. As it is they use dreadful people like Katie Hopkins and Kelvin McKenzie so I don't like a lot of their columns. If Mother Theresa had had a column there I wouldn't have a problem reading it. We are talking mainly about The Sun because they cornered the market in topless women in the red tops but when I talk about Page 3 I am also talking about the pictures that appeared in The Star and Sport as well. Seductive poses are also not ok because they have the same end result.

[sadoldgit]

It is a shame that some on here chose to ignore the issues and just put it down to a hatred of Murdoch and it is good to hear the girls perspective on topless models in national newspapers. It is so easy for a bloke to say it is harmless but when we have people like Ched Evans you can see that we produce many men who think women are here just for their sexual gratification. I said earlier that I thought "Page 3" was old fashioned and childish and it is nice to hear Lou support that view.

 

It is time The Sun and other red tops grew up and started to treat women seriously. Many British men too for that matter. There is nothing wrong with nudity but when you still put a certain body type in a national newspaper to titillate men on a daily basis in 2015 there has to be something wrong.

[Coxford_lou]

It is a shame that some on here chose to ignore the issues and just put it down to a hatred of Murdoch and it is good to hear the girls perspective on topless models in national newspapers. It is so easy for a bloke to say it is harmless but when we have people like Ched Evans you can see that we produce many men who think women are here just for their sexual gratification. I said earlier that I thought "Page 3" was old fashioned and childish and it is nice to hear Lou support that view.

 

It is time The Sun and other red tops grew up and started to treat women seriously. Many British men too for that matter. There is nothing wrong with nudity but when you still put a certain body type in a national newspaper to titillate men on a daily basis in 2015 there has to be something wrong.

 

It's harmless on an individual level. But when you hake a step back and look at its impact on a societal level, then suddenly it's not so harmless.

[Lighthouse]

I will refer again to many Middle Eastern countries where images of porn and nudity are strictly forbidden and yet they have pretty much the worst record for women's rights on the planet.

 

People don't base their morality around a picture on one page of a newspaper. If they started publishing 'ISIS weekly' magazine in WH Smiths would we all turn in to terrorists if we read it for a few weeks? Obviously not because we form our own opinions and don't just agree with everything we see on a piece of paper.

 

If page 3 was indeed promoting the message that women are just sexual objects then all the girls on this thread would be saying, "I'm just a silly girl, would you like me to post a picture of my boobs," whilst all the men would be saying, "phwooooar boobs!!!... tits!!" The fact that we aren't and that most people generally don't approve of it shows that we are more advanced as a species than we give ourselves credit for.

 

Basically, the people who see girls as objects will do so anyway because that is the way they are geared. Page 3 is just one source of material, if you take it away pervy men aren't going to go away, rethink their lives and set up a women's literacy programme in Djibouti.

[Goatboy]

I will refer again to many Middle Eastern countries where images of porn and nudity are strictly forbidden and yet they have pretty much the worst record for women's rights on the planet.

 

People don't base their morality around a picture on one page of a newspaper. If they started publishing 'ISIS weekly' magazine in WH Smiths would we all turn in to terrorists if we read it for a few weeks? Obviously not because we form our own opinions and don't just agree with everything we see on a piece of paper.

 

If page 3 was indeed promoting the message that women are just sexual objects then all the girls on this thread would be saying, "I'm just a silly girl, would you like me to post a picture of my boobs," whilst all the men would be saying, "phwooooar boobs!!!... tits!!" The fact that we aren't and that most people generally don't approve of it shows that we are more advanced as a species than we give ourselves credit for.

 

Basically, the people who see girls as objects will do so anyway because that is the way they are geared. Page 3 is just one source of material, if you take it away pervy men aren't going to go away, rethink their lives and set up a women's literacy programme in Djibouti.

 

[Coxford_lou]

I will refer again to many Middle Eastern countries where images of porn and nudity are strictly forbidden and yet they have pretty much the worst record for women's rights on the planet.

 

People don't base their morality around a picture on one page of a newspaper. If they started publishing 'ISIS weekly' magazine in WH Smiths would we all turn in to terrorists if we read it for a few weeks? Obviously not because we form our own opinions and don't just agree with everything we see on a piece of paper.

 

If page 3 was indeed promoting the message that women are just sexual objects then all the girls on this thread would be saying, "I'm just a silly girl, would you like me to post a picture of my boobs," whilst all the men would be saying, "phwooooar boobs!!!... tits!!" The fact that we aren't and that most people generally don't approve of it shows that we are more advanced as a species than we give ourselves credit for.

 

Basically, the people who see girls as objects will do so anyway because that is the way they are geared. Page 3 is just one source of material, if you take it away pervy men aren't going to go away, rethink their lives and set up a women's literacy programme in Djibouti.

 

Hi Lighthouse,

 

I always like your posts, so I'm replying now (rather than ini the morning), even though I probably shouldn't as I am slightly sloshed.

 

First off, to clarify, I don't have an issue with porn. I think everyone has a natural curiosity about sex, and seeking out porn (in its most innocent state) a fairly harmless way to serve that curiosity. This debate isn't about porn, it's about providing men with masturbation fodder in a mainstream media outlet.

 

I'm not sure how I can equate Middle Eastern behaviour with this debate at all. I've thought about your argument for all of 90 seconds, but I just can't see how it's relavant (but that could be because I'm slightly blotto).

 

But the bit I'm really struggling with is why all the girls on this forum would want to say "would you like me to post a picture of my boobs". I don't know for sure whether the men would say phwoooar or not (more likely on The Muppet Show, although to be honest, I suspect most of that's probably male bravado) but I'm not sure what the girls would get out of it in the first place.

 

But back to your central point, read @everydaysexism and what you'll learn is that while you and your friends may be an enlightened group of modern men, there are still enough unlightened men to have a negative impact on women's lives, every day. And by giving men, in a mainstream media outlet, images for them to **** over, it gives men permission to think their sexist behaviour is OK. Not all men, not the smart ones, but then, not everyone is smart are they. I mean, Christ, if I was a man, I'd be bloody confused too.

 

And when a large amount of the population are saying something is making them feel uncomfortable, you can either listen to their perspectivel or you can quote examples from other countries to 'prove' them wrong.

 

Hope this makes sense and I've not done too many typos!

[Goatboy]

Hi Lighthouse,

 

I always like your posts, so I'm replying now (rather than ini the morning), even though I probably shouldn't as I am slightly sloshed.

 

First off, to clarify, I don't have an issue with porn. I think everyone has a natural curiosity about sex, and seeking out porn (in its most innocent state) a fairly harmless way to serve that curiosity. This debate isn't about porn, it's about providing men with masturbation fodder in a mainstream media outlet.

 

I'm not sure how I can equate Middle Eastern behaviour with this debate at all. I've thought about your argument for all of 90 seconds, but I just can't see how it's relavant (but that could be because I'm slightly blotto).

 

But the bit I'm really struggling with is why all the girls on this forum would want to say "would you like me to post a picture of my boobs". I don't know for sure whether the men would say phwoooar or not (more likely on The Muppet Show, although to be honest, I suspect most of that's probably male bravado) but I'm not sure what the girls would get out of it in the first place.

 

But back to your central point, read @everydaysexism and what you'll learn is that while you and your friends may be an enlightened group of modern men, there are still enough unlightened men to have a negative impact on women's lives, every day. And by giving men, in a mainstream media outlet, images for them to **** over, it gives men permission to think their sexist behaviour is OK. Not all men, not the smart ones, but then, not everyone is smart are they. I mean, Christ, if I was a man, I'd be bloody confused too.

 

And when a large amount of the population are saying something is making them feel uncomfortable, you can either listen to their perspectivel or you can quote examples from other countries to 'prove' them wrong.

 

Hope this makes sense and I've not done too many typos!

 

It doesn't matter how sloshed you are Lou. We just lost in the FA Cup. This is a football forum. Priorities.

 

nb It's not just you. I've had no contributions to my Elvis thread.

[Coxford_lou]

It doesn't matter how sloshed you are Lou. We just lost in the FA Cup. This is a football forum. Priorities.

 

nb It's not just you. I've had no contributions to my Elvis thread.

 

Where's yor Elvis thread?! I love Elvis!

[Goatboy]

Where's yor Elvis thread?! I love Elvis!

 

The Arts Lou! I am not a shallow Goat!

Actually, rereading my Elvis thread, I am.

[Lord Duckhunter]

And when a large amount of the population are saying something is making them feel uncomfortable, you can either listen to their perspectivel or you can quote examples from other countries to 'prove' them wrong.

 

Hope this makes sense and I've not done too many typos!

 

But it's not a large amount of the population .

 

Most people don't give a shiny .

 

Millions buy The Sun

 

A very small vocal minority tell us what we should and shouldn't look at.

 

What happened to live and let live. The chicks are happy to pop them out , the blokes (and birds) that buy it are happy, as it's on page 3 you can't see it without actually looking for it. I really don't see what the issue is.

[Coxford_lou]

But it's not a large amount of the population .

 

Most people don't give a shiny .

 

Millions buy The Sun

 

A very small vocal minority tell us what we should and shouldn't look at.

 

What happened to live and let live. The chicks are happy to pop them out , the blokes (and birds) that buy it are happy, as it's on page 3 you can't see it without actually looking for it. I really don't see what the issue is.

 

Is that true though? Given there a healthy dbate on this forum (a football forum after all!) it would suggest that's not the case. Certainly in my world, I don't know anyone who would put up a defence for keeping page 3.

 

I did a quick google, but not enough to be exhaustive, but this YouGov poll suggests those wanting to remove Page 3 are in the majority. Do you have other evidence?

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/6jyst3v95o/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-021012-Page-3-girls.pdf

 

I'm all for live and let live. But when something on a large scale is having unintended impact on people, you have to sit up and listen. I suspect you've just never experienced the unintended impact, hence the lack of sympathy.

[hutch]

Not really, Lou, is it? 70% of the posts in this thread are from 8 people, so it's more of a quite little chat in the corner.

[Coxford_lou]

Not really, Lou, is it? 70% of the posts in this thread are from 8 people, so it's more of a quite little chat in the corner.

 

Given this is a football forum, my expectation is this debate wouldn't even be on here in the first place!

[buctootim]

Page three is an anachronism from a different age. Attitudes have changed and it should go. If I'm sat in a waiting room somewhere and the sun is the only paper I always skip past page 3 so I never see the news on page 2. That said I think its importance is overstated. Its not w**k material for men, its much more casual than that, more like checking someone out on the street. Also the Sun isn't seen as a style leader or influential by young people. The incessant ads and lifestyle mags which tell teenagers how to act, eat, think and dress are far more damaging.

[Whitey Grandad]

Page three is an anachronism from a different age. Attitudes have changed and it should go. If I'm sat in a waiting room somewhere and the sun is the only paper I always skip past page 3 so I never see the news on page 2. That said I think its importance is overstated. Its not w**k material for men, its much more casual than that, more like checking someone out on the street. Also the Sun isn't seen as a style leader or influential by young people. The incessant ads and lifestyle mags which tell teenagers how to act, eat, think and dress are far more damaging.

 

You're getting old

 

If it didn't sell newspapers they'd drop page 3 like a shot. I'm not one for telling others what they should or should not do, nor what they should or should not publish. Page 3 is easily ignored.

[Coxford_lou]

Ok, I overstated the w*nk material bit, I take that back.

 

As a standalone piece, it's not important. What it represents however, is.

[CB Saint]

One of my us colleagues has just read about this on CNN.

 

he couldn't beleive that we had topless women in a national newspaper. He also couldn't believe I didn't show him when he was over last month.