Should Page 3 discontinue?

wilkie2006 · 16-09-2012 09:33PM #1

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 · 16-09-2012 09:34PM

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 · 16-09-2012 09:36PM

I hope Kate Middleton makes page 3

dark crystal · 16-09-2012 09:36PM

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 · 16-09-2012 09:36PM

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 · 16-09-2012 09:38PM

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

B.A._Baracus · 16-09-2012 09:39PM

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 · 16-09-2012 09:39PM

theyre only tits ffs

hatrickpatrick · 16-09-2012 09:39PM

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 · 16-09-2012 09:39PM

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! · 16-09-2012 09:41PM

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 · 16-09-2012 09:42PM

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 · 16-09-2012 09:43PM

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 · 16-09-2012 09:43PM

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

rednik · 16-09-2012 09:46PM

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

SoundFella · 16-09-2012 09:47PM

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 · 16-09-2012 09:53PM

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 · 16-09-2012 09:54PM

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 · 16-09-2012 09:56PM

sex sells- end of

PizzamanIRL · 16-09-2012 09:59PM

No, what will come after page 2?

intellectual dosser · 16-09-2012 10:00PM

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 · 16-09-2012 10:01PM

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 · 16-09-2012 10:02PM

rednik wrote: »

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

that must have been confusing...

Mickey H · 16-09-2012 10:05PM

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 · 16-09-2012 10:08PM

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? · 16-09-2012 10:12PM

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 · 16-09-2012 10:12PM

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 · 16-09-2012 10:13PM

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 · 16-09-2012 10:20PM

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 · 16-09-2012 10:26PM

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? · 16-09-2012 10:27PM

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!

Should Page 3 discontinue?

So, yay or nay to Page 3? 111 votes

Comments