There should be a move to ban Page 3.

midlandsmissus

Rupert Murdoch has been in the news recently for responding to a tweeter asking hin why page 3 was still in place, saying 'I'll consider it, maybe replace with glamorous fashionistas', (dont have exact wording right, but that was the message). There is also a group called 'No more Page 3'and some universities in England have boycotted the paper fron their campus until they stop page 3. I feel very strongly about this. There is huge sexism in the World, and one HUGE part of that is the media telling men how to view women. Page 3 is if no help to equality in this side of the world. Thoughts?

Hande hoche!

I see far more shirtless men in the media.

MonkstownHoop

there will always be women prepared to take their clothes off for money

Cereal Number

Agreed, sure the internet is full of fap material now, page 3 is antiquated

MonkstownHoop

MonkstownHoop wrote: »

there will always be women prepared to take their clothes off for money

Don't be ridiculous.

Oh. Wait.

Chucken

Some girls aspire to be a page 3 girl.

Grayson

MonkstownHoop wrote: »

there will always be women prepared to take their clothes off for money

And men willing to look.

Is the OP against things like the cosmo centerfold and pictures of brad pitt flexing his pecs?

ITS_A_BADGER

whats wrong with page 3? you can decide NOT to buy the paper that has topless women

YFlyer

Hande hoche! wrote: »

I see far more shirtless men in the media.

Only to raise the awareness of breast cancer. That's all.

ManMade

*Fires up popcorn machine*

Praetorian Saighdiuir

midlandsmissus wrote: »

and one HUGE part of that is the media telling men how to view women. Page 3 is if no help to equality in this side of the world. Thoughts?

Sooo stopping Page 3 would help equality? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight!

Page 3 has not shaped my view on women at all.

I don't see any harm in it but then again I am male and not outraged by the finest thing on this Earth, a womans body.

GLaDOS

There are many reasons to avoid The Sun, boobies ain't one of them.

midlandsmissus

MonkstownHoop wrote: »

there will always be women prepared to take their clothes off for money

If the sun didnt say to them this is a good idea for this money they wouldnt do it would they?

Wibbs

Banning things we may not like is not such a good plan MLM. Rarely ends well. Better to have wider society change through other means and get bored with such crapola than throwing legislation at it.

Amirani

Hande hoche! wrote: »

I see far more shirtless men in the media.

This exactly. What's ultimately sexist here is the casual acceptance of topless men while expressing outrage over one instance of topless women.

People can view the participants however they want but at the end of the day it's their choice to go topless, for whatever reason that may be.

midlandsmissus

Praetorian Saighdiuir wrote: »

Sooo stopping Page 3 would help equality?

Page 3 has not shaped my view on women at all.

I don't see any harm in it but then again I am male and not outraged by the finest thing on this Earth, a womans body.

Why is a half naked woman's body in a daily newspaper though...

orestes

I agree, it's a bloody disgrace. Not the page 3 bit, I just can't understand why a university would have that rag on campus in the first place.

midlandsmissus

MonkstownHoop wrote: »

there will always be women prepared to take their clothes off for money

You could potentially say that you have proved my point.

admiralofthefleet

there is a section in most of the womens weekly's that my wife reads where men are naked and made fun of for being 'daft'

should that be banned for being sexist too op?



also; if he is going to ban page 3 he may as well ban pages 1 - 2 and 4 - 76 as well

Praetorian Saighdiuir

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why is a half naked woman's body in a daily newspaper though...

No point asking me. No worse than underwear models on the walls of Pennys....where kids are commonly found :eek: The horror.

I don't think it's sexist or damaging to equality. People are too easily offended by things nowadays.

midlandsmissus

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

there is a section in most of the womens weekly's that my wife reads where men are naked and made fun of for being 'daft'

should that be banned for being sexist too op?

Yes it should but I am focusing on page 3 in this thread. I am annoyed enough to have been motivated to start a thread. When you do something about 'arent men daft' rather then use it to cancel out another relevant complaint, then get back to me.

irish bloke

There only a pair of baps for god sake...

Praetorian Saighdiuir

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Yes it should but I am focusing on page 3 in this thread. I am annoyed enough to have been motivated to start a thread. When you do something about 'arent men daft' rather then use it to cancel out another relevant complaint, then get back to me.

If you are soo annoyed and motivated, why don't you do something about it.

This thread is not classed as doing something about it.

ITS_A_BADGER

Its not like its hardcore porn stuck in the randomly in the newspaper, You know what you are going to get if you buy certain papers. IMO page 3 is a harmless thrill and no worse then a chipendale calender

midlandsmissus

irish bloke wrote: »

There only a pair of baps for god sake...

Why are a pair of naked breasts in a daily newspaper? Answer me that. Breasts? News. No.

stateofflux

i miss the daily sport

...for its comprehensive sports analysis

Fr_Dougal

Jesus. Christ. Are we back in the 80s way of thinking in banning stuff? I suppose we should re-ban The Life of Brian and condoms next? :rolleyes:

Grayson

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Yes it should but I am focusing on page 3 in this thread. I am annoyed enough to have been motivated to start a thread. When you do something about 'arent men daft' rather then use it to cancel out another relevant complaint, then get back to me.

Honestly, I think every trashy women's mag (that's what, 99.999% of them) do more damage to women. Want to see them banned?

midlandsmissus

Praetorian Saighdiuir wrote: »

If you are soo annoyed and motivated, why don't you do something about it.

This thread is not classed as doing something about it.

Its the start of doing something about it.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Its the start of doing something about it.

Good luck to ya but I think you are off yer tits.

donvito99

rabblerabblerabble PC brigade rabblerabblerabble

midlandsmissus

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Jesus. Christ. Are we back in the 80s way of thinking in banning stuff? I suppose we should re-ban The Life of Brian and condoms next? :rolleyes:

What purpose does a half naked woman serve in a national newspaper?

admiralofthefleet

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Yes it should but I am focusing on page 3 in this thread. I am annoyed enough to have been motivated to start a thread. When you do something about 'arent men daft' rather then use it to cancel out another relevant complaint, then get back to me.

im not trying to 'take over your thread' or cancel your argument im just stating that the articles in the womens magazines are equally if not more sexist than page 3

Grayson

irish bloke wrote: »

There only a pair of baps for god sake...

True. Ever hear what lenny bruce (I think it was him) said about the n word. Because so many people take so much offence at it, it gets more powerful. If they laughed it off and it was used more often, it'd have less power.

So that means more boobs. Boobs everywhere until we're just sick of them.

(.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.) (.)(.)

Praetorian Saighdiuir

midlandsmissus wrote: »

What purpose does a half naked woman serve in a national newspaper?

Morale in times of austerity

midlandsmissus

fullstop wrote: »

Go and start your thread in the ladies' lounge then if you want a one sided argument :rolleyes:

Focusing on the issue is not a one sided argument.

orestes

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why are a pair of naked breasts in a daily newspaper? Answer me that. Breasts? News. No.

But it's not the same pair every day, it's new ones every day.

"New" + one"s" = news.

Gee_G

I don't buy the sun, I think it's the biggest load of tat! But whether its half naked men or half naked women, the fact of the matter is, sex sells! 99% of ads on the TV use it. Most magazine ads use it! I don't think it forms the way men look at women or the other way around!

midlandsmissus

donvito99 wrote: »

rabblerabblerabble PC brigade rabblerabblerabble

Intelligent input.

awec

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why are a pair of naked breasts in a daily newspaper? Answer me that. Breasts? News. No.

I take it you never actually read newspapers if you think they are full of actual news.

The Sun especially.

Chucken

Im old enough to remember Playboy being banned in Ireland.

It hasnt made any difference to me, as a woman, thats its now not banned.

Page 3 girls choose this line of work, its not up to us to tell them what to do.

El Guapo!

What about art paintings and sculptures of naked women? Should we burn them all and ban it for the future? I know its a stretch saying that page 3 is art but its the same principle. Why are people outraged at the sight of a pair of boobs?
Women drool over men as much as men do over women. It's nothing new and that's never gonna change. There's far more important things to be worried about than a topless girl in a rag newspaper. People just love to complain about anything they possibly can nowadays.

Steve O

midlandsmissus wrote: »

What purpose does a half naked woman serve in a national newspaper?

Coz its a pair of facking tits innit?

Grayson

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why are a pair of naked breasts in a daily newspaper? Answer me that. Breasts? News. No.

There's no news in that paper either. Unless you count soccer results.

Fr_Dougal

midlandsmissus wrote: »

What purpose does a half naked woman serve in a national newspaper?

Don't buy a newspaper that has half naked women in it, problem solved.

irish bloke

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why are a pair of naked breasts in a daily newspaper? Answer me that. Breasts? News. No.

There for the lads!!

awec

OP, what would you say to the women who want to be page 3 girls?

midlandsmissus

Praetorian Saighdiuir wrote: »

Morale in times of austerity

How would you feel if there was a man with his dick out in the Newspaper everyday?

spankysue

I see no harm in Page 3, it's just a bit of fun imo, they're only boobs ffs, no big deal really and nothing to do with sexism.

A lot of women out there don't seem to understand that when most men are looking at your boobs, they're not thinking about Stacey from Essex on Page 3, they're thinking "Wohoo! BOOOOOOBS"

I have very reliable sources on this

Ziphius

This is hilarious.

What else should we ban OP? Women in the workplace?

Or perhaps we could have a state-mandated dress code for women so as not to arouse any men who may stumble upon?

fullstop

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why are a pair of naked breasts in a daily newspaper? Answer me that. Breasts? News. No.

Why is half the rubbish that's in a newspaper in a newspaper? They fill them with enough mundane ****e as it is. Besides, TITS ARE GREAT. TIIIIIIIITS.