The Suns Page 3 - 1970-2015

Harry Palmr

Yep the last Page 3 topless model has shown us her wares.

It happened last Friday and her name is Lissy Cunningham from Manchester (I'll let you find the picture) there has been no official announcement in the Sun but an article in the Times makes it clear that its sister paper is no longer running the feature which made its debut on 17 November 1970 with Stephanie Rahn sat in a sunny field looking all au natural.

So is this a long overdue victory for "progressive values" or capitulation to strident third wave feminism?

The Sun online will continue to give modelling opportunities to young lasses.

dobman88

2014 is so last year!

PizzamanIRL

Wat

jimgoose

With every adolescent male in the Universe owning a data-enabled smartphone the Sun's Page 3 was hardly a vital cog in the the Looking-At-Girlie's-Norks industry. It was probably more cost and bother than it was worth at this stage. :pac:

The King of Moo

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Yep the last Page 3 topless model has shown us her wares.

It happened last Friday and her name is Lissy Cunningham from Manchester (I'll let you find the picture) there has been no official announcement in the Sun but an article in the Times makes it clear that its sister paper is no longer running the feature which made its debut on 17 November 1970 with Stephanie Rahn sat in a sunny field looking all au natural.

So is this a long overdue victory for "progressive values" or capitulation to strident third wave feminism?

The Sun online will continue to give modelling opportunities to young lasses.

I'd say it's simply entering the 21st century. The notion that it's normal for a newspaper, even the sleaziest tabloid, to have pictures of topless women without no other pretence behind it than attracting male readers just doesn't really belong in the modern world.

Shiraz 4.99

But this will force me to the dark recesses of the internet for my twice weekly fap.
I cold be exposed to all sorts of filth & before you know it I'm addicted to dwarf amputee stump porn as my only release.
You'll rue this day I tell you.

who the fug

Bugger , anything that annoys Hattie Harman can't be all bad

Super-Rush

I have to say I'm really shocked you started this thread.

AudreyHepburn

As a woman I'd have more support for this if I though there would also be a ban on naked and semi naked pictures of men in publications but I guess that's asking a bit too much isn't it?

porsche959

7 posts in and no-one's mentioned political correctness yet...not bad.

How I will miss a 16 year old with a large bust telling me what views Rupert Murdoch wants me to have on world events...

Potatoeman

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'd say it's simply entering the 21st century. The notion that it's normal for a newspaper, even the sleaziest tabloid, to have pictures of topless women without no other pretence behind it than attracting male readers just doesn't really belong in the modern world.

Neither do newspapers.

swimming in a sea

Its down to money, it probably does not help sell the paper any more.

Ush1

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

As a woman I'd have more support for this if I though there would also be a ban on naked and semi naked pictures of men in publications but I guess that's asking a bit too much isn't it?

But there isn't a ban.

Harry Palmr

Super-Rush wrote: »

I have to say I'm really shocked you started this thread.

Why? Page 3 is a specific cultural artefact, that it happened to be invented by the Sun is missing the point.

eviltwin

Given the amount of porn available online these days page three seems a bit pointless.

Duggy747

Now what am I supposed to look at when I'm waiting in the Chinese for me food??

YFlyer

Does anyone in Liverpool know this?

dobman88

Didn't the Irish sun actually stop doing this in 2013? And wasn't the first "glamour model" printed in the paper in 1969, not 1970?

Thread title is very misleading.

ZiabR

dobman88 wrote: »

Didn't the Irish sun actually stop doing this in 2013? And wasn't the first "glamour model" printed in the paper in 1969, not 1970?

Thread title is very misleading.

You would be correct. Already gone from the Irish Sun.

porsche959

OSI wrote: »

What paper are you reading? :eek:

Seriously, in the '70s and '80s the page 3 girls used to be, in some cases, as young as 16. Less so in recent years.

who the fug

OSI wrote: »

What paper are you reading? :eek:

the sun and Sam Fox

Shrap

Duggy747 wrote: »

Now what am I supposed to look at when I'm waiting in the Chinese for me food??

I was about to ask "Who's going to miss it, more to the point?" but my question has been answered. And that's a good question Duggy. You'll have to ask them to put a topless calendar on the wall.

MistyCheese

I actually thought they'd already stopped doing 'Page 3'*. I don't know what brought the subject up but I was only saying the other day that there was no more 'Page 3'*. My other half corrected me on this.

It's anachronistic anyway, the only reason to keep it would be out of some peculiar sense of tradition. Sure in these days of Internet access there can't be many still getting their kicks off 'Page 3'*?

*'Page 3' refers to topless ladies featured on page three of The Sun newspaper. There will certainly still be a page three in between pages two and four.

Drexel

Who buys papers anymore?

no one reads the sun online since it went behind a pay wall!

eviltwin

OSI wrote: »

What paper are you reading? :eek:

Lindsey dawn mckenzie....didn't the sport or sun do a week of striptease with her in the days up to her 16th birthday until they could legally show her topless

The Backwards Man

It's not all good news. It means they'll have more column inches to publish their unsubstantiated vomitous pish.

WoollyRedHat

NomadicGray

porsche959 wrote: »

Seriously, in the '70s and '80s the page 3 girls used to be, in some cases, as young as 16. Less so in recent years.

Didn't they have a countdown to when a girl was turning 16 and they could print Her puctures?

Dave!

Fine Gael Cllr Keith Redmond is getting dogs abuse over this tweet

https://twitter.com/DrKeithRedmond/status/557505267546722305

Shrap

Dave! wrote: »

Fine Gael Cllr Keith Redmond is getting dogs abuse over this tweet

Good! FFS. What a twit!

pablomakaveli

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'd say it's simply entering the 21st century. The notion that it's normal for a newspaper, even the sleaziest tabloid, to have pictures of topless women without no other pretence behind it than attracting male readers just doesn't really belong in the modern world.

The idea that sex sells is a common one in the modern world. Page 3 is pretty tame nowadays compared to some other stuff we see.

AboutaWeekAgo

I love looking at boobs

Ben D Bus

Linda Lusardi. Mmmm.......:pac:

conorhal

Je Suis Sam Fox


:mad:

JOSman

So the bum cleavage shower are not allowed to look at cleavage?

Who buys this paper today?

somesoldiers

eviltwin wrote: »

Lindsey dawn mckenzie....didn't the sport or sun do a week of striptease with her in the days up to her 16th birthday until they could legally show her topless

that's right. She is still on the go though only makes porn with her husband now

somesoldiers

conorhal wrote: »

Je Suis Sam Fox


:mad:

her girlfriend/ wife gets to look for free nowadays

jimgoose

The Backwards Man wrote: »

...It means they'll have more column inches...

<SNORK>

K4t

Do people believe there is a difference between the likes of Georgia Salpa and a page 3 model? They're both paid for posing for a photographer and being attractive, except one isn't wearing all of her clothes.

Supermodels are paid for being attractive and often have to wear clothes they do not like, and parade themselves on a catwalk in front of hundreds of people, cameras and lights. A page 3 model poses in a room with maybe one or two photographers and a few friends.

I'm struggling to see what the big problem is here and why this is being celebrated as good thing or as 'progressive'.

somesoldiers

you can't see GS nips

Wang King

Does this mean I'm going to have to change my username?

VinLieger

K4t wrote: »

Do people believe there is a difference between the likes of Georgia Salpa and a page 3 model? They're both paid for posing for a photographer and being attractive, except one isn't wearing all of her clothes.

Supermodels are paid for being attractive and often have to wear clothes they do not like, and parade themselves on a catwalk in front of hundreds of people, cameras and lights. A page 3 model poses in a room with maybe one or two photographers and a few friends.

I'm struggling to see what the big problem is here and why this is being celebrated as good thing or as 'progressive'.

Because now nimbyist feminists can put another check mark in their win column while mistakenly thinking this is a victory for the cause, instead they are just imposing their own values on a bunch of women who have no problem with it

K4t

VinLieger wrote: »

Because now nimbyist feminists can put another check mark in their win column while mistakenly thinking this is a victory for the cause, instead they are just imposing their own values on a bunch of women who have no problem with it

I always felt the page 3 model had more credibility if anything than the likes of Salpa or the catwalk supermodel. They might not have always had what it takes to make it as a 'legit' model with regards to facial aesthetics so they simply exposed more of themselves to increase their attractiveness, while also exposing the ridiculous nature of the modelling industry.

catallus

Will no-one think of the effect this is going to have on the girls who were paid to model for these shots?

What are they going to do now?!:(

somesoldiers

hang round wine bars in Liverpool and Manchester hoping a footballer will take a shine to them?

K4t

catallus wrote: »

Will no-one think of the effect this is going to have on the girls who were paid to model for these shots?

What are they going to do now?!:(

Why poke fun at them for losing their jobs? I mean I could understand if it were a group of corrupt bankers or guards etc. these girls don't strike me as the type who caused any harm to the rest of society and it says more about you than them that you find the thought of them having to look for new work amusing.

Shrap

catallus wrote: »

Will no-one think of the effect this is going to have on the girls who were paid to model for these shots?

What are they going to do now?!:(

K4t wrote: »

Why poke fun at them for losing their jobs? I mean I could understand if it were a group of corrupt bankers or guards etc. these girls don't strike me as the type who caused any harm to the rest of society and it says more about you than them that you find the thought of them having to look for new work amusing.

Aren't all the top nakedness jobs on line these days? Nothing to stop them selling their pics there. I thought pg 3 was only a leg up into the more lucrative "modelling" jobs anyway. Girls might have started their careers there pre internet, but one page one day a year in a newspaper is hardly a job that'll pay the bills.

The Backwards Man

Shrap wrote: »

Aren't all the top nakedness jobs on line these days? Nothing to stop them selling their pics there. I thought pg 3 was only a leg up into the more lucrative "modelling" jobs anyway. Girls might have started their careers there pre internet, but one page one day a year in a newspaper is hardly a job that'll pay the bills.

I wouldn't imagine there's much money in it anymore anyway. Tits are ten a penny on the internet.

catallus

K4t wrote: »

...says more about you than them that you find the thought of them having to look for new work amusing.

Who finds it amusing??

I certainly don't, I've followed page 3 for years and I genuinely am worried that these girls are going to have their prospects cruelly restricted by this move.

VinLieger

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I wouldn't imagine there's much money in it anymore anyway. Tits are ten a penny on the internet.

Plus its now illegal to make any of the fun stuff in the UK

somesoldiers

I still have the two issues in my desk that Claire Tully appeared in in 2008. Thought it was a novelty at the time. Only times I ever bought The Sun, though I do subscribe to another one of Murdochs papers now suppose it all goes in the one pocket