TheMaganator Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I remember being introduced to Melinda Messenger on page 3 of the Sun when I was a young paperboy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30891939 The Say No to Page Three brigade still would like the removal of bikini-clad babes on the pages though. However "Reports suggest the change to the paper edition may be reversed if it results in a noticeable drop in sales." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Internet Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Keeley Hazell > * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibrahim Tall Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Never understood the argument against it tbh. If you don't want to see it, don't buy it. Not sure how it can be termed sexist either, the women involved are happy to strip for the paper and well paid to do so. They're not forced into it, it's a personal choice. A personal freedom of choice that a group want to have removed from them. The Suns a rag but there's far better reasons for thinking so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexton Hardcastle Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 If dirty birds want to get thier cans out for a few quid then so be it. If folk are that hacked off then don't spend your hard earned on such dross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 Never understood the argument against it tbh. If you don't want to see it, don't buy it. Not sure how it can be termed sexist either, the women involved are happy to strip for the paper and well paid to do so. They're not forced into it, it's a personal choice. A personal freedom of choice that a group want to have removed from them. The Suns a rag but there's far better reasons for thinking so. Their argument is (as far as I can tell) that it objectifies women. Oddly they are not running a campaign to drop the diet coke man and other associated hunks from our screens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_bolton Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Je suis boobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Their argument is (as far as I can tell) that it objectifies women. Oddly they are not running a campaign to drop the diet coke man and other associated hunks from our screens. Men and women are both objectified in various media, sex sells! I guess some do it in a slightly more subtle way than showing a pair of breasts. One could also argue that, in the case of the diet coke man, a product is being sold at least. Page three is simply tits for tits sake and as such has even less point to it. Personally, there are more important things to worry about, imo, however if women find it offensive and/or demeaning then that is their right. Equally, it's not illegal so if papers like The Sun wish to print photos showing a woman's breasts, then that is their right too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Is Page 7 Fella still on the go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Gin Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I'd rather they just dropped the whole paper. News written for simpletons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tian447 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 However "Reports suggest the change to the paper edition may be reversed if it results in a noticeable drop in sales."So it'll be back on Monday then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3fingersreid Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Last time I bought the scab rag the lovely Linda Lusardi was doing her stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuthy2k Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I will struggle knowing that poor Beki, 19 from Leeds will be unable to air her views on the latest Tory economic policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Say What Again Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I remember being introduced to Melinda Messenger on page 3 of the Sun when I was a young paperboy. I fell in love with Suzanne Mizzi as a spotty schoolboy. RIP Suzanne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I take it they're still going to objectify women in a national newspaper, just with covered nipples? If the sun are bowing to pressure then they're missing the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester copperpot Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I fell in love with Suzanne Mizzi as a spotty schoolboy. RIP Suzanne Check oot they fangs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Leilani was lovely. Maybe we can have a thread on here as a substitute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac_fae_Gillie Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I remember 2 sets of boys at school, the Linda Lusadi and the Sam Fox supporters, have enjoyed the Suns war on morals against our sex mad DJs and other TV stars last few years considering Sam Fox was 16 when they happily put her on page 3 once a week. as for dropping the page3, its a white van dash board paper no news just a quick read whilst on a break no issues with a man looking at a nice lass as well. Pointless dropping it, could be argued years ago it was bad to let kids see it but not as if the internet(apparently) doesn't have lots of free porn to corrupt the young.so the Page3 girl is nothing.. and I always preferred the Kays catalogue as a young lad, see thru bras oh how fast I could find that page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regal Kingston Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I agree that its not harming anybody, and it probably kills an institution and the industry that comes with it, but the page 3 era has been and gone. Its funny how most men remember the first one they seem though. It was the lovely Gail McKenna for me. Maybe it should be kept? For the young lads growing up. Saying that I cringe at the darts when they have the two beauties standing on the stage as decoration. Its just not needed for what is now quite a serious sport. You'd be better off with two young mascots who like the darts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I just think it is a shame that seething, manic, hypocritical feminists have got their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidsnot Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Kenny McTrowell in it today I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I agree that its not harming anybody, and it probably kills an institution and the industry that comes with it, I shouldn't expect that the industry for women to get money for taking their clothes off will crumble overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spitonastranger Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Their argument is (as far as I can tell) that it objectifies women. Oddly they are not running a campaign to drop the diet coke man and other associated hunks from our screens. run your own campaign then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 http://newsthump.com/2015/01/20/warning-that-scrapping-page-3-could-leave-footballers-unable-to-find-girlfriends/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Page 3 was the only 2 good reasons to but the paper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Draper Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Their argument is (as far as I can tell) that it objectifies women. "However, Education Secretary Nicky Morgan (CON), who is also women and equalities minister, said the move was "long overdue". She hailed it as a "a small but significant step towards improving media portrayal of women and girls", and added that she hoped it would be permanent." Unlike you to buck the party line, Magster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Cockade Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 run your own campaign then.It doesn't bother me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Say What Again Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Did other papers used to do or has it always been the sun? For some reason I thought the daily record used to do when I was a nipper. I'm sure The Star used to have a page 3 bursd too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Record, Star & Sun. As a 12 year old paperboy I was so skilled I could tell you the name, age & location of any P3 girl in the country by nipple alone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 If dirty birds want to get thier cans out for a few quid then so be it. I will struggle knowing that poor Beki, 19 from Leeds will be unable to air her views on the latest Tory economic policy. I wonder whether Beki, 19, from Leeds will be giving us her thoughts tomorrow on the Sun's decision to drop page 3? That would be a mindblast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 Just saw a now ex page 3 model on the news - she wasn't very happy. "These groups (no to page 3 etc) say they believe that women should be able to do anything that they want to do. Except this. They've decided we can't do this. They've taken away our choice." She's got a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Except they're not. They're saying that The Sun shouldn't publish it. Beki, 19 choosing to make some money by posing topless on page 3 is not the same debate as The Sun choosing to publish Beki, 19 on page 3. Not sure why people try to argue it doesn't objectify women. That's the whole point of the 'opinions on world affairs' section. 'Haha, obviously we know you don't really care about anything she has to say, look at her tits!' As someone else said earlier though, more important things to worry about really isn't there. Your average impressionable teenage boy will get more mysoginistic nonsense in 5 minutes on Facebook than a years Sun subscription. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st1874 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Is it not a bit patronising to suggest that every single one of these models hasn't got the slightest grasp on current affairs? Regardless is this the biggest drum feminists have to bang? More pedantic than I thought. As for The Sun, Page 3 contains at least as much worthwhile fact or intellectual reading material as every other page in the paper. None. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Is it not a bit patronising to suggest that every single one of these models hasn't got the slightest grasp on current affairs? Regardless is this the biggest drum feminists have to bang? More pedantic than I thought. As for The Sun, Page 3 contains at least as much worthwhile fact or intellectual reading material as every other page in the paper. None. I was banned from the Say No To Page 3 FB page for arguing that Page 3 at least showed models with some curves and suggested that, if their aim really is to empower young, impressionable, adolescent girls they should train their sights on the glossy fashion magazines with their anorexia-chic looks which distort and damage body image and self-worth - and that education is always better than censorship. Needless to say, they weren't up for debating any of the issues. I do wonder what they make of things when they go abroad to various places where sex and porn is far more obvious and in-yer-face with naked actors/actresss in tv adverts etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_hmfc Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 http://newsthump.com/2015/01/20/warning-that-scrapping-page-3-could-leave-footballers-unable-to-find-girlfriends/ Didn't read, still lol'd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Drago Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I was banned from the Say No To Page 3 FB page for arguing that Page 3 at least showed models with some curves and suggested that, if their aim really is to empower young, impressionable, adolescent girls they should train their sights on the glossy fashion magazines with their anorexia-chic looks which distort and damage body image and self-worth - and that education is always better than censorship. Needless to say, they weren't up for debating any of the issues. I do wonder what they make of things when they go abroad to various places where sex and porn is far more obvious and in-yer-face with naked actors/actresss in tv adverts etc... I'd also add that magazines aimed at woman such as Heat etc so far more to objectify woman than the likes of page 3 and FHM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I had a debate about page three, strippers, and things in general. The woman concerned thought page three should be banned, as should strippers and lap dancing bars. She did think the 'Chipendales' and the likes were OK, as it is just a laugh, and magazines with nearly naked men on some pages are OK, too, as it is just a light hearted magazine. She also refused to accept, that if there was a male equivalent of 'Loose Women' there would be an outcry, from types like her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I also met someone who is unreasonable and stupid, this means that other people who are not unreasonable nor stupid are invalidated. Basically, there are a lot of ****ing morons out there. Try conversing with intelligent people and you'll be less disappointed. However, if you find yourself often speaking to idiots it might be because the genuinely clever people are avoiding you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiewave Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Women want men to think like women. Men.want women to let men think like men. Women win this round. Middle-class, comfortable, unoppressed women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiewave Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Curiously, the campaigners "objectify" those photographs by overlooking the fact that the women who appeared in those photographs wanted to be there amd were paid for it. Taking away their agency, feminists. Making other people's decisions for them, feminists. But of all "victim" groups, feminists are by miles (sorry, kilometres) the most successful. There is now such a film classification in Spain as "especially indicated for promoting gender equality". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notbrainwashed Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Its just not needed for what is now quite a serious sport. Most controversial sentence on this thread, so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Page 3 models lead backlash against 'comfy shoe-wearing, no bra-wearing, man-haters http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11356808/Decision-to-drop-Page-3-cautiously-welcomed-by-critics.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiewave Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Page 3 models lead backlash against 'comfy shoe-wearing, no bra-wearing, man-haters http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11356808/Decision-to-drop-Page-3-cautiously-welcomed-by-critics.html Their tits, their decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Their tits, their decision. Unless, of course, their decision isn't what the feminists think their decision should be - in which case they'll take steps to ensure that making that decision is no longer an option for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 A female only has freedom of choice, if the feminisists agree with the decison they make. It is how these type of people work and think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I don't think feminists are looking to ban other women getting their tits out for money but keep battering on with the strawman bashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiewave Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I don't think feminists are looking to ban other women getting their tits out for money but keep battering on with the strawman bashing. Why only Page 3? Or especially Page 3? Plenty of feminists try to have any and all pornography banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beverley Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 i always thought the campaign was a load of rubbish. every woman who was on page 3 made a good living, and all seemed more than happy with what they were doing. i genuinely hate the nannying state that dictate what people should and shouldn't see. its perfectly ok to not like page 3 or disagree with half naked women in the paper, but it their choice to make a living that way. nobody is making them buy the paper. i haven't bought a paper in years, but i was never once offended by page 3. in fact my best friend from school and i had discussed doing it ourselves when we were older (we were around 15 i think) we never ever did, but not cos we suddenly hated the girls or what they were doing, just real life started and we got jobs. i also thought, as gizmo has already said, that i think it was a far more body positive image than anything you see on catwalks or in mags like heat and the likes. the page 3 girls were all as different as women are. they didn't all have perfect boobs, they all had curves, and they always looked very glamorous to us 14/15 year old girls. seems a shame that page 3 died before that rag the sun did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Why only Page 3? Or especially Page 3? Plenty of feminists try to have any and all pornography banned. I think they feel that positioning half naked women in a prominent position of a "news"paper for the purpose of male titilation assists in negative attitudes towards women across society and unfairly encourages judgment based on image. It's probably a safe conclusion if you take a look at the immediate response to the No More Page 3 campaign - "fat jealous bitches" etc. All sorts of people say all sorts of things. Feminism is probably still a net positive despite some people saying some things men on twitter disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rand Paul's Ray Bans Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Page three stays - top trolling from the Sun: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.