Should Page 3 discontinue?

wilkie2006

http://www.change.org/nomorepage3

We are asking Dominic Mohan to drop the bare boobs from The Sun newspaper.
We are asking very nicely.
Please, Dominic.
No More Page 3.
George Alagiah doesn’t say, ‘And now let’s look at Courtney, 21, from Warrington’s bare breasts,’ in the middle of the 6 O’ Clock News, does he, Dominic?
Philip and Holly don’t flash up pictures of Danni, 19, from Plymouth, in just her pants and a necklace, on This Morning, do they, Dominic?
No, they don’t.
There would be an outcry.
And you shouldn’t show the naked breasts of young women in your widely read ‘family’ newspaper either.
Consider this a long overdue outcry.
Dominic, stop showing topless pictures of young women in Britain’s most widely read newspaper, stop conditioning your readers to view women as sex objects.
Enough is enough.
Thank you.

So what do boards users reckon? Is this a load of PC bo11ocks or does the petition make sense?

I'm inclined to agree with it, really. Do people really need to see a pair of tits with their cornflakes? Aren't women a bit more than totty? And - perhaps most importantly - does Dani, 19, from Norwich really feel that, "Hillsborough emphasises that the government must be bold in dealing with the last unreformed public service"?

SoundFella

wilkie2006 wrote: »

http://www.change.org/nomorepage3

We are asking Dominic Mohan to drop the bare boobs from The Sun newspaper.
We are asking very nicely.
Please, Dominic.
No More Page 3.
George Alagiah doesn’t say, ‘And now let’s look at Courtney, 21, from Warrington’s bare breasts,’ in the middle of the 6 O’ Clock News, does he, Dominic?
Philip and Holly don’t flash up pictures of Danni, 19, from Plymouth, in just her pants and a necklace, on This Morning, do they, Dominic?
No, they don’t.
There would be an outcry.
And you shouldn’t show the naked breasts of young women in your widely read ‘family’ newspaper either.
Consider this a long overdue outcry.
Dominic, stop showing topless pictures of young women in Britain’s most widely read newspaper, stop conditioning your readers to view women as sex objects.
Enough is enough.
Thank you.

So what do boards users reckon? Is this a load of PC bo11ocks or does the petition make sense?

I'm inclined to agree with it, really. Do people really need to see a pair of tits with their cornflakes? Aren't women a bit more than totty? And - perhaps most importantly - does Dani, 19, from Norwich really feel that, "Hillsborough emphasises that the government must be bold in dealing with the last unreformed public service"?

All men will say to keep them but change it to a lad with his cock out on page 3 and I'm sure their opinion will change lol

dave1982

I hope Kate Middleton makes page 3

dark crystal

I honestly can't see a need for it any more, tbh. If guys want to get their jollies looking at tits, there's always Zoo or Nuts.

I suppose it does generate employment for the pretty ladies though....

CardBordWindow

SoundFella wrote: »

All men will say to keep them but change it to a lad with his cock out on page 3 and I'm sure their opinion will change lol

Introducing genatalia is not the issue. If they alternated between topless men and women, would that be a fair compromise?

GLaDOS

Couldn't give a damn about it, rag of a newspaper with or without boobies.

B.A._Baracus

You know what....
IF page 3 was to go .... then this world is becoming to "pc". Page 3 has been showing off boobs for decades and theres been no problem.

Cant help but feel people who are against page 3 are "WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?" types.

Helix

theyre only tits ffs

hatrickpatrick

Freedom of speech, he should be allowed to print whatever he wants on page 3.
It's your choice whether to buy the paper or not.

admiralofthefleet

funny that women want page 3 removed yet all their crap magazines like take a break, pick me up, love it ect.... have pages in them dedicated to pictures of naked men.
my wife reads them mags and they also make men out to be brainless

Tombi!

What was the reason for it in the first place?
Beyond "buy this, you get to see boobies!".

Was it a way to get a bit of happy fun time with yourself without having to buy a copy of Hustler or what?

Jimoslimos

Generally agree with the gist of it, that is apart from this bit;

And you shouldn’t show the naked breasts of young women in your widely read ‘family’ newspaper either.

It's that sort of backward attitude that has the whole place in a frenzy because some member of the royalty was snapped topless. By condeming nudity as something to be shielded from the eyes of the young they are in fact doing exactly the same as the sun - sexualising breasts

SoundFella

CardBordWindow wrote: »

SoundFella wrote: »

All men will say to keep them but change it to a lad with his cock out on page 3 and I'm sure their opinion will change lol

Introducing genatalia is not the issue. If they alternated between topless men and women, would that be a fair compromise?

Good point! I don't mind page 3 , nice touch to see on a early Monday morning at work but if it was a lad with his top off think I would kick up a fuss....

ChunkyLover_53

Won't someone, please, think of the boobies!

rednik

Bring back the Daily Sport, every page was a page 3. Now that really was a rag.

SoundFella

I think they main question is
"is there still a need for page 3"
When it was introduced it was so men could have something to cough clough look at on the bog , not everyone but a few . Ok but in this day and age porn is so easily accessed on the internet .

People (including myself) back in the day had to use their imagination or a VHS

The_Thing

If a topless woman on page 3 pisses off the same shower of whining so and so's that got the Hunky Dory and the Club Orange ads banned them we should vote to keep page 3 alive. I only wish it were possible to animate the photos somehow so we could see their boobs jiggle as we turn the page.

B.A._Baracus

The_Thing wrote: »

If a topless woman on page 3 pisses off the same shower of whining so and so's that got the Hunky Dory and the Club Orange ads banned them we should vote to keep page 3 alive. I only wish it were possible to animate the photos somehow so we could see their boobs jiggle as we turn the page.

Ha,
seems they have already thought of your idea! :pac:
Be it on their website at least ... lol

http://www.page3.com/page360/


(Now the irony is that the same people who voted for page 3 to go away are going to click that link)

WumBuster

sex sells- end of

PizzamanIRL

No, what will come after page 2?

intellectual dosser

I dont understand how these 'righteous' people actually buy The Sun? It doesnt make sense?

If you dont like it then dont buy it. I like tits, theres plenty of other reasons not to buy The Sun - it and the other red tops are basically insulting to society as a whole, the way they try to radically sway opinion and twist quotes/words - and no Im not some ponce holding up a broadsheet with tiny fingers.

Ghandee

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Ha,
seems they have already thought of your idea! :pac:
Be it on their website at least ... lol

http://www.page3.com/page360/


(Now the irony is that the same people who voted for page 3 to go away are going to click that link)

There's booobies in that link :pac:

im invisible

rednik wrote: »

Bring back the Daily Sport, every page was a page 3.

that must have been confusing...

Mickey H

rednik wrote: »

Bring back the Daily Sport, every page was a page 3. Now that really was a rag.

Bought this a few years ago thinking it was an actual newspaper dedicated to sport.

I got a fierce (but pleasant) shock.

Millicent

Isn't it just... well, a bit sad in this day and age? From some of the lads I've known in work who read that paper regularly, they don't need extra encouragement to be lechy gobshites.

say_who_now?

wilkie2006 wrote: »

http://www.change.org/nomorepage3

We are asking Dominic Mohan to drop the bare boobs from The Sun newspaper.
We are asking very nicely.
Please, Dominic.
No More Page 3.
George Alagiah doesn’t say, ‘And now let’s look at Courtney, 21, from Warrington’s bare breasts,’ in the middle of the 6 O’ Clock News, does he, Dominic?
Philip and Holly don’t flash up pictures of Danni, 19, from Plymouth, in just her pants and a necklace, on This Morning, do they, Dominic?
No, they don’t.
There would be an outcry.
And you shouldn’t show the naked breasts of young women in your widely read ‘family’ newspaper either.
Consider this a long overdue outcry.
Dominic, stop showing topless pictures of young women in Britain’s most widely read newspaper, stop conditioning your readers to view women as sex objects.
Enough is enough.
Thank you.

So what do boards users reckon? Is this a load of PC bo11ocks or does the petition make sense?

I'm inclined to agree with it, really. Do people really need to see a pair of tits with their cornflakes? Aren't women a bit more than totty? And - perhaps most importantly - does Dani, 19, from Norwich really feel that,"Hillsborough emphasises that the government must be bold in dealing with the last unreformed public service"?

These girls voluntarily put themselves forward for these modelling jobs and why not? They're young, it's not destroying their life in any way, shape, or form, and it's nothing more than light entertainment.

You also confuse yourself in the last paragraph there when you say "aren't women a bit more than totty?" and then you go on to question her intellect yourself! :pac:

I have to laugh at some people in this country, that lament "oh the catholic church attitude in this country, etc" and how we're so backward, yet this has been in papers in Britain for the last 30 years, and NOW people want to abolish it?

Make up ye're damn minds! :rolleyes:

Wereghost

I don't buy that rag (I admit to buying the Irish Daily Star, but I draw the line at the Sun). However, it's its politics and knee-jerk demagoguery that makes me type that, not the content of page three. Men are visually orientated and women are visually appealing. I don't see a huge problem with the Sun providing a little frisson for straight males, who presumably make up the predominant element of its readership.

Millicent

say_who_now? wrote: »

These girls voluntarily put themselves forward for these modelling jobs and why not? They're young, it's not destroying their life in any way, shape, or form, and it's nothing more than light entertainment.

How many young boys do you know with aspirations to pose in their underpants as a career though? It's not entirely harmless. I'm not saying it's the most awful offence against the genders ever but it's not just a bit of fun either.

deathrider

wilkie2006 wrote: »

http://www.change.org/nomorepage3

So what do boards users reckon? Is this a load of PC bo11ocks or does the petition make sense?

I'm inclined to agree with it, really. Do people really need to see a pair of tits with their cornflakes? Aren't women a bit more than totty? And - perhaps most importantly - does Dani, 19, from Norwich really feel that, "Hillsborough emphasises that the government must be bold in dealing with the last unreformed public service"?

I thought Dani, 19, was from Plymouth?...

Guy:Incognito

Millicent wrote: »

How many young boys do you know with aspirations to pose in their underpants as a career though? It's not entirely harmless. I'm not saying it's the most awful offence against the genders ever but it's not just a bit of fun either.

Yes, the world is being deprived or all these great doctors and top level researchers. We'd have no cancer or aids if these girls stayed on to further education.

say_who_now?

Millicent wrote:

How many young boys do you know with aspirations to pose in their underpants as a career though? It's not entirely harmless. I'm not saying it's the most awful offence against the genders ever but it's not just a bit of fun either.

As soon as I read that, all I could think was "Jedward" for some reason!

Why does everything have to be construed as offensive though, is a more pertinent question? Seriously, as another poster said- you're not forced to buy the paper, these girls model willingly, some have made good careers from it, some haven't, the same as any other chosen career. Some girls choose to do it just the once for a bit of a giggle.

Next thing you know if certain quarters get their way, the world really WILL be fifty shades of grey- the dull, boring, colorless, lifeless kind of grey. I don't want to live in that world!

Millicent

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Yes, the world is being deprived or all these great doctors and top level researchers. We'd have no cancer or aids if these girls stayed on to further education.

I get the very subtle sarcasm in your post but who's to say that they aren't capable girls? Are you assuming because they get their top off that they're inherently unintelligent? Because that just proves one of my problems with Page 3.

wilkie2006

say_who_now? wrote: »

You also confuse yourself in the last paragraph there when you say "aren't women a bit more than totty?" and then you go on to question her intellect yourself! :pac:

I think you'll find that was a quote from Andrew Rawnsley. I was drawing attention to how tabloids patronise the women by attributing statements to them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/16/andrew-rawnsley-poice-reform?INTCMP=SRCH

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Yes, the world is being deprived or all these great doctors and top level researchers. We'd have no cancer or aids if these girls stayed on to further education.

I'm pretty sure that you're still allowed go to college if you've gotten your tits out in the Sun.

I don't think it's at all damaging for the girls in question, in fact I think it's a great opportunity for them, but I still think page 3 should be dedicated to a different subject matter. Even if the girls were fully clothed, I see no reason for a newspaper to have a page dedicated to checking out women.

Guy:Incognito

Millicent wrote: »

I get the very subtle sarcasm in your post but who's to say that they aren't capable girls? Are you assuming because they get their top off that they're inherently unintelligent? Because that just proves one of my problems with Page 3.

Do highly intelligent women aspire to take their clothes off on page 3?
Ether way, it's boobs. No laws are broken. If thats what they want to have on page 3 of their paper thats their choice. Trying to brow beat them with petitions to stop it isnt the way, just dont buy it. It's not like it's going to be the Guardian if they get rid of it.

Millicent

say_who_now? wrote: »

As soon as I read that, all I could think was "Jedward" for some reason!

Why does everything have to be construed as offensive though, is a more pertinent question? Seriously, as another poster said- you're not forced to buy the paper, these girls model willingly, some have made good careers from it, some haven't, the same as any other chosen career. Some girls choose to do it just the once for a bit of a giggle.

Next thing you know if certain quarters get their way, the world really WILL be fifty shades of grey- the dull, boring, colorless, lifeless kind of grey. I don't want to live in that world!

It may be their ages; it may be that it's so normalised because it's in a national newspaper. I'm not necessarily saying I find it offensive. "Sad" is what I described it as earlier. The fact that little girls a few years ago were growing up wanting to be like Jordan; the horrible old fuckers who sit drooling over the pictures in a workplace canteen and making comments like it's the most normal behaviour in the world (have seen that many times); the fact that kids are exposed to papers like this that are left lying around the house... All of that is just a bit sad and depressing to me and a hangover of a different, less progressive time. I don't see the need for it any more.

hatrickpatrick

Millicent wrote: »

I get the very subtle sarcasm in your post but who's to say that they aren't capable girls? Are you assuming because they get their top off that they're inherently unintelligent? Because that just proves one of my problems with Page 3.

I wouldn't in the least say that, but it's their own free will to partake. Nobody forced them to do it at gunpoint, if they did then obviously that would be different.
You can call it 'sad', but people can choose to do sad things if they want to, none of us has a right to tell them otherwise.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Do highly intelligent women aspire to take their clothes off on page 3?

I heard once that those girls get a payment in the tens of thousands of pounds to do page three. If you're struggling to afford college, or hell, even if you've plenty of money, it's a pretty smart choice. All you have to do is invest in your look and get the opportunity, and for one or two days work you'll get more than most students make in a year.

I'm reasonably intelligent, just finished my third year of college with a first, and if I had the chance to do page three I would. It would be stupid to turn it down.

Millicent

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Do highly intelligent women aspire to take their clothes off on page 3?
Ether way, it's boobs. No laws are broken. If thats what they want to have on page 3 of their paper thats their choice. Trying to brow beat them with petitions to stop it isnt the way, just dont buy it. It's not like it's going to be the Guardian if they get rid of it.

What's the name of that girl, the Irish one, who got 600 points in the Leaving? The girls aren't necessarily stupid, it's that they aren't always the girls who see any future for themselves. It's not too long ago that Katie Price was loved in this country and the UK and held up as some icon for women. Glamour modelling has become so normalised in the past few years and it's often girls from poorer backgrounds who see it as a good way to make some money for themselves.

I know no laws are broken but just because something is legal, doesn't make it any less seedy or depressing.

What is your argument for keeping it, to turn the argument on its head? What purpose can it be argued to serve?

hatrickpatrick

Millicent wrote: »

I know no laws are broken but just because something is legal, doesn't make it any less seedy or depressing.

Depressing to you. Not everyone might share your viewpoint.

What is your argument for keeping it, to turn the argument on its head? What purpose can it be argued to serve?

Freedom of speech. If something in the media offends you, you have the choice not to consume it. You do not have the right to prevent others consuming it.

say_who_now?

wilkie2006 wrote: »

say_who_now? wrote: »

You also confuse yourself in the last paragraph there when you say "aren't women a bit more than totty?" and then you go on to question her intellect yourself! :pac:

I think you'll find that was a quote from Andrew Rawnsley. I was drawing attention to how tabloids patronise the women by attributing statements to them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/16/andrew-rawnsley-poice-reform?INTCMP=SRCH

Opinions are regurgitated by posters here ALL the time ffs, come on, you really are being picky now. I read the Sun newspaper to give me a bit of a laugh in the morning, then I'd dispose of it in the nearest wastepaper bin, it's not something that I'll ever draw my opinions from, so the Sun can attribute whatever it likes to whomever it likes, the majority of it's readership couldn't care less, and neither could the girls that model for them. Whatever happened to live and let live? Would anyone like to tell the girls they aren't having fun and that they are being taken advantage of, they are no role model for young women, etc.

I think you'd be given very short shrift tbh.

Millicent

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I wouldn't in the least say that, but it's their own free will to partake. Nobody forced them to do it at gunpoint, if they did then obviously that would be different.
You can call it 'sad', but people can choose to do sad things if they want to, none of us has a right to tell them otherwise.

That's fair enough and I'm not even sure I'm trying to force anything, tbh. My concern would be about the social conditioning that leads someone to that point. I also fail to see its relevance and what benefit it has to anyone, either model or reader, in this day and age?

GLaDOS

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Do highly intelligent women aspire to take their clothes off on page 3?

It's not inconceivable that some of them see it as a quick and easy way to make money while going through college.

Millicent

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Depressing to you. Not everyone might share your viewpoint.

Agreed and that's fair enough.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Freedom of speech. If something in the media offends you, you have the choice not to consume it. You do not have the right to prevent others consuming it.

This one I definitely don't agree with. Showing tits on Page 3 is freedom of speech?! You're having a laugh! Living in a country that still has blasphemy laws on its books and guarantees no freedom of speech, I think you'd be hard pushed to find sympathy for that position either.

omega666

Millicent wrote: »

It may be their ages; it may be that it's so normalised because it's in a national newspaper. I'm not necessarily saying I find it offensive. "Sad" is what I described it as earlier. The fact that little girls a few years ago were growing up wanting to be like Jordan; the horrible old fuckers who sit drooling over the pictures in a workplace canteen and making comments like it's the most normal behaviour in the world (have seen that many times); the fact that kids are exposed to papers like this that are left lying around the house... All of that is just a bit sad and depressing to me and a hangover of a different, less progressive time. I don't see the need for it any more.

some people would say durty auld irish women flocking in their droves to buy a book detailing graphic sex acts with bondage and submission is a bit sad. Each to thier own i guess.

Guy:Incognito

Millicent wrote: »

What is your argument for keeping it, to turn the argument on its head? What purpose can it be argued to serve?

They own the paper and they want it? Thats about the only arguement thats needed. If you owned it youd be free to do as you please with it.

It doesnt need to have a purpose. Even if the editer says he only puts it in so he can have a **** over it every day, thats his choice.

Millicent wrote: »

Glamour modelling has become so normalised in the past few years and it's often girls from poorer backgrounds who see it as a good way to make some money for themselves.

Would you rather keep them poor? It's their choice to follow any career they want. If they want to fly to Holland or Germany and become prostitutes they can.

asherbassad

wilkie2006 wrote: »

http://www.change.org/nomorepage3

So what do boards users reckon? Is this a load of PC bo11ocks or does the petition make sense?

I'm inclined to agree with it, really. Do people really need to see a pair of tits with their cornflakes? Aren't women a bit more than totty? And - perhaps most importantly - does Dani, 19, from Norwich really feel that, "Hillsborough emphasises that the government must be bold in dealing with the last unreformed public service"?

Would you suggest the publishers of a porno mag stop showing girls/guys fcuking? There are many other publications to read over one's porridge if one doesn't wish to view Desiree, 22, from Bristol, with all her charms.

say_who_now?

Millicent wrote:

It may be their ages; it may be that it's so normalised because it's in a national newspaper. I'm not necessarily saying I find it offensive. "Sad" is what I described it as earlier. The fact that little girls a few years ago were growing up wanting to be like Jordan; the horrible old f[COLOR="Black"]uc[/COLOR]kers who sit drooling over the pictures in a workplace canteen and making comments like it's the most normal behaviour in the world (have seen that many times); the fact that kids are exposed to papers like this that are left lying around the house... All of that is just a bit sad and depressing to me and a hangover of a different, less progressive time. I don't see the need for it any more.

Ahh right, ok I can see why you think it's sad. But these little girls as you put it growing up and wanting to be like jordan, hell there were the girls who became Scientists and mathematicians that wanted to be spice girls when they were kids! If you think you have a fight on your hands with page3, perhaps it'd be best you don't consider the amount of pre-pubescent girls that want to become hardcore porn stars!

There's always going to be horrible creepy fùckers too, in every walk of life, the one's that stare at page3 are just harmless, unsightly but harmless, and creepy, nothing more. There's a hell of a lot worse you could encounter.

As for what kids are exposed to, perhaps you should skip my post in the "awkward situations" thread then! :pac: Or avoid taking the kids on continental holidays where young women walk topless on the beaches showing their ample assets! We don't have the weather for it here is the only reason that stops many women going topless on the beaches, otherwise we too would have been normalised to it decades ago and not had it hidden away and buried like old "Mickey Masturbator" over there who you'd swear he never saw a tit in his life!

wilkie2006

say_who_now? wrote: »

Opinions are regurgitated by posters here ALL the time ffs, come on, you really are being picky now. I read the Sun newspaper to give me a bit of a laugh in the morning, then I'd dispose of it in the nearest wastepaper bin, it's not something that I'll ever draw my opinions from, so the Sun can attribute whatever it likes to whomever it likes, the majority of it's readership couldn't care less, and neither could the girls that model for them. Whatever happened to live and let live? Would anyone like to tell the girls they aren't having fun and that they are being taken advantage of, they are no role model for young women, etc.

I think you'd be given very short shrift tbh.

Not really the point I was making. I'm just saying why don't tabloid editors call a spade a spade - why is there any need to put words in these girls' mouths? We all know they're not being featured for their opinions.

Lord TSC

wilkie2006 wrote: »

I'm just saying why don't tabloid editors call a spade a spade - why is there any need to put words in these girls' mouths? We all know they're not being featured for their opinions.

*Insert Rainier Wolfcastle "That's the joke" image here.*

say_who_now?

wilkie wrote:

Not really the point I was making. I'm just saying why don't tabloid editors call a spade a spade - why is there any need to put words in these girls' mouths? We all know they're not being featured for their opinions.

The innuendo is going to kill me saying this, but it's a bit hard to get their personality across on paper, so they give them a soundbite is all, I don't really think it's meant to patronise the girls or make like they're idiots, and clearly if you read her opinion then at least one person has taken notice of her opinion!