The end of " Page 3 topless pics "

[BlueWales]

It seemed daring when I was a lad in 1970 but now it's just past its sell by date , surely ? http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/sherlock.gif

[Phil1927]

But how will we know what Jo, 20, Surrey, thinks of the current situation in Syria, or what Fiona, 23, Coventry, has to say about the economy?

http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif

[blue matt]

getting ready for sharia law


after the charlie hebdo incident, they wouldnt want to offend anyone

[BLUETIT]

It's always had it's knockers. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif




B 2 B.

I think its for the breast

[Steve R]

It's the only thing we had to wank over in the 80s. Well, that and the Littlewoods Catalogue. Had it's day I'm afraid.

[BLUETIT]

It's the only thing we had to wank over in the 80s. Well, that and the Littlewoods Catalogue. Had it's day I'm afraid. B 2 B. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/ayatollah.gif

[JamesWales]

I've never been a Sun reader, not a particular fan of Page 3.

However, I don't cheer it's demise for several reasons.

Firstly, I think at it's heart, it's mere prudishness. The female body is beautiful, why fear it? Just like there is little wrong with breast feeding in public, I see little wrong with males (or females) enjoying the female form of someone who is willing to show it.

Secondly, I don't think pushing these things online, which is the modern equivalent of 'underground' is positive at all. It turns a rational, sane activity into something pervy, seedy, when it isn't. It further makes us hide our sexualities and be ashamed of them. If you like Page 3, so what? If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Finally, as with so much of contemporary feminism, it's just conservative nonsense at heart. If they can't tolerate looking at the female form on page 3 of a newspaper, why should someone else tolerate an oiled up male torso on the front page of Gay Times or Attitude magazine? It's also complete bollocks that one page in one newspaper objectifies women..utter claptrap. It's a photo of a woman who is happy to be photographed. It's a celebration of feminism as much as an abomination to it.

We should all just live with it in my opinion. Times change, and so be it, as mentioned, I'm not too bothered either way, but the current trend of forcing opinions on people and not tolerating things you don't like is quite unsavoury.

Don't like it? Don't buy it.

[Colon Man]

How will we survive without bare breasts on page 3? I hope someone invents the internet.

[redjk]

I've never been a Sun reader, not a particular fan of Page 3.Erm nobody has forced this move on the Sun, with the possible exception of Rupert Murdoch. Who was known to think it outdated.

[Steve R]

It's ok, they're going to start putting the tits on the front page.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/gallery/2010/5/13/1273737247351/06-Sun-006.jpg

[Colon Man]

It's ok, they're going to start putting the tits on the front page. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif

[bobh]

Linda Lusardi did OK out of it.
Bet she wouldn't have been a fairy godmother in panto if she was forced into some other line of work all those years ago.

[Mrs Steve R]

http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/boobs.gif

I don't want it gone but won't miss it, seems a bit outdated these days.

I think they've probably wanted rid for a while but didn't want to be seen a succumbing to any pressure.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

getting ready for sharia lawPage3 is probably the least offensive thing in the Sun.

[elytillidie]

Well past it's sell by date, degrades bitches, good riddance.

[Colon Man]

getting ready for sharia lawThe Sun is well-renowned for its policy of not offending Muslims and ethnic minorities.

[ian gibson]

WOMEN. Stop workmen shouting "get yer tits out" by having them permanently on display.

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

I've never been a Sun reader, not a particular fan of Page 3."We should all just live with it." That seems a rather conservative approach from someone complaining about conservatism. Yep, don't ask questions. Don't complain. But then you're not exactly 'living with it' anyway, are you?

[ian gibson]

WOMEN. Stop blokes staring at your tits by wearing skirts that barely cover the cheeks of your arse.

[goslow]

WOMEN. Stop workmen shouting "get yer tits out" by having them permanently on display. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif

[goslow]

WOMEN. Stop blokes staring at your tits by wearing skirts that barely cover the cheeks of your arse. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif

[Cozoni Wam]

Good, dont want my grand children seeing any of that.

There are enough xenophobic little Englanders in the world as it.

[JamesWales]

I've never been a Sun reader, not a particular fan of Page 3.
However, I don't cheer it's demise for several reasons.Contemporary radical feminism is a curse, and it's only growing in it's intolerance.

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

Point 1 - Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There were plenty of page 3 women I thought were rough as old boots. If your argument is that using attractive humans sells products, then hell, we need to overhaul the entire advertising industry, and most of the marketing and media industry. Surely a beautiful woman in a bikini in Heat magazine objectifies women as much as page 3? I know those magazines, and the rampant photo enhancements worry me more as a father than Tracy from Southend getting her baps out on page 3Gay Times is a niche magazine, usually placed at the back of the rack (no pun intended) and aimed at a specific audience. Maybe the gays don't like the way they're portrayed in that way, that's for them to sort out, but I'd understand the argument. We're talking about young women in a daily newspaper, and the judgement and expectations thereafter.

[Des Parrot]

Hell yes, loss of bl**dy good income when they buy syndicated photos, I have my holidays to pay for!

[NECS]

The Sisters will be happy.

[Scooby Doo]

PC Lot have won the battle, how surprising.

[Mrs Steve R]

PC Lot have won the battle, how surprising.Who are these PC lot anyway? I don't know anyone that would be offended by that, do you?

[surge]

So far the only people I've heard claim that stopping page three was a bad idea were women.

[lardy]

I've never been a Sun reader, not a particular fan of Page 3.
However, I don't cheer it's demise for several reasons.
Firstly, I think at it's heart, it's mere prudishness. The female body is beautiful, why fear it? Just like there is little wrong with breast feeding in public, I see little wrong with males (or females) enjoying the female form of someone who is willing to show it.You like to put labels on like contemporary radical feminism but they are hardly radical views. I expect there'd be grumbles from men if it was a muscley guy in tight speedos every day.

[NECS]

PC Lot have won the battle, how surprising.
Who are these PC lot anyway? I don't know anyone that would be offended by that, do you?Harriet was. She was on FiveLive telling us all about it this evening.

[Spoilt Victorian Child]

So far the only people I've heard claim that stopping page three was a bad idea were women. I know James Wales moans like a bitch in heat but I actually think it's a bloke you know.

[NECS]

I've never been a Sun reader, not a particular fan of Page 3.
However, I don't cheer it's demise for several reasons.
Firstly, I think at it's heart, it's mere prudishness. The female body is beautiful, why fear it? Just like there is little wrong with breast feeding in public, I see little wrong with males (or females) enjoying the female form of someone who is willing to show it.
Secondly, I don't think pushing these things online, which is the modern equivalent of 'underground' is positive at all. It turns a rational, sane activity into something pervy, seedy, when it isn't. It further makes us hide our sexualities and be ashamed of them. If you like Page 3, so what? If you don't like it, don't buy it. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif

[Colonel Cærdiffi]

PC Lot have won the battle, how surprising.
Who are these PC lot anyway? I don't know anyone that would be offended by that, do you?Only then can we enjoy our freedoms.

[lardy]

http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif at the suggestion that removing page 3 is going to push this kind of thing online.

[The Bloop]

PC Lot have won the battle, how surprising.Im still fuming at PC Lot being voted off of Strictly before the final. I blame that ballerina bird

[BLUETIT]

PC Lot have won the battle, how surprising.
Who are these PC lot anyway? I don't know anyone that would be offended by that, do you?B 2 B. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/ayatollah.gif

[Mrs Steve R]

PC Lot have won the battle, how surprising.
Who are these PC lot anyway? I don't know anyone that would be offended by that, do you?
Harriet was. She was on FiveLive telling us all about it this evening.The same Harriet that was a supporter of the Paedophile Information Exchange? You can't be serious? http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif

[Scooby Doo]

PC Lot have won the battle, how surprising.
Who are these PC lot anyway? I don't know anyone that would be offended by that, do you?Not personally but, there were a few ranting women on the Radio tonight coming home from work. Greenham common mob probably.

[Mrs Steve R]

PC Lot have won the battle, how surprising.
Who are these PC lot anyway? I don't know anyone that would be offended by that, do you?
Me. Tits are unsafe for children and help the terrorists win. We need to put restrictions on what bits of the Internet the public are allowed to see and our officials need full access to the contents of your hard drive, emails, phone calls and texts.It's only going to get worse.

[JamesWales]

Point 1 - Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There were plenty of page 3 women I thought were rough as old boots. If your argument is that using attractive humans sells products, then hell, we need to overhaul the entire advertising industry, and most of the marketing and media industry. Surely a beautiful woman in a bikini in Heat magazine objectifies women as much as page 3? I know those magazines, and the rampant photo enhancements worry me more as a father than Tracy from Southend getting her baps out on page 3
Point 2 - Why is it daft to compare a daily newspaper to a niche magazine? Why is that daft? That is your definition of daft. Equally, I could say, that Gay Times is staring me in the face at eye level, whereas Page 3 needed to be opened and deliberately sought out. Needless to say, I have no issue with Gay Times by the way, I'm merely making the point.Gay times is pretty prominantly located. Now you know that, would you support the argument that their front page models should cover up? They are on the front page afterall, unlike the sun.

[lardy]

JW, flip it on its head. Imagine the Sun has never had Page 3 but is introducing it. What arguments would be in favour of them doing so?

[surge]

The phone-call on the BBC from the ex-glamour model asks whether female nipples are so different to male nipples? Why can men pose topless but women can't?

[Wolf]

Whoever reads the sun needs fistfacking by a silverback gorilla......despicable rag paper.

[lardy]

The phone-call on the BBC from the ex-glamour model asks whether female nipples are so different to male nipples? Why can men pose topless but women can't? For the same reason that you would probably take your top off on a hot day in the front garden but wouldn't be so keen for your wife/gf to do the same.

[surge]

The phone-call on the BBC from the ex-glamour model asks whether female nipples are so different to male nipples? Why can men pose topless but women can't?
For the same reason that you would probably take your top off on a hot day in the front garden but wouldn't be so keen for your wife/gf to do the same.Boobs aren't news but the glamour model who phoned up argued that the Sun isn't news either.

[JamesWales]

JW, flip it on its head. Imagine the Sun has never had Page 3 but is introducing it. What arguments would be in favour of them doing so?im more concerned about very sexually provocative dancing and clothing on kids shows rather than the innocence of page three.

[purple haze2]

Why is it okay for feminists to pressure Murdock to remove page 3, when adverts aimed at women are objectify men with great physiques with women drooling over them.

Coke adverts, yoghurt adverts even worse as it's implying that the man in question is thick !

Other adverts make men look deliberately stupid or abuse men.

The song true love by pink and lily allen states that she wants to physically abuse her partner.

The stunning Leslie Mann in the film the change up with Ryan Reynolds and Jason Bateman, regularly physically hits her husband.

I know it's a comedy, but if the roles were reversed in that film or any of the other examples and so many more, then the feminists would rightly be up in arms about it.

Feminists don't want equality otherwise they would raise the issue on all forms of objectification or spousal abuse no matter the context.

[Kenny Lynch Mob]

Kathy Lloyd follows me on twitter. That's all i've got to say on the matter http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif

[Harry Flashman]

Kathy Lloyd follows me on twitter. That's all i've got to say on the matter http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif I tried drunkenly to grab her and Jo Guest at a Loaded night in uni. I was told to back off by Bez.

[Bobby_The_Bhoy]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/feminists-oppos e-hooters-bar-plan-1901691 (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/feminists-oppose-hooters-bar-plan-1901691)

Point 1 - Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There were plenty of page 3 women I thought were rough as old boots. If your argument is that using attractive humans sells products, then hell, we need to overhaul the entire advertising industry, and most of the marketing and media industry. Surely a beautiful woman in a bikini in Heat magazine objectifies women as much as page 3? I know those magazines, and the rampant photo enhancements worry me more as a father than Tracy from Southend getting her baps out on page 3
Point 2 - Why is it daft to compare a daily newspaper to a niche magazine? Why is that daft? That is your definition of daft. Equally, I could say, that Gay Times is staring me in the face at eye level, whereas Page 3 needed to be opened and deliberately sought out. Needless to say, I have no issue with Gay Times by the way, I'm merely making the point.I'm not suggesting breasts alone, but breaststroke are a part of a woman's make up just like her intelligence, character, wit, dress sense and love for the stone roses.

[surge]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/feminists-oppos e-hooters-bar-plan-1901691 (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/feminists-oppose-hooters-bar-plan-1901691)Having known a hooters girl, they all seemed to love working there.

JW, flip it on its head. Imagine the Sun has never had Page 3 but is introducing it. What arguments would be in favour of them doing so?Baps on show is always a good thing

Why is it okay for feminists to pressure Murdock to remove page 3, when adverts aimed at women are objectify men with great physiques with women drooling over them.Where? I've never seen such adverts

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

[I don't think the topless man on gay times is the same thing as a topless woman in whatever publication.

[Tuerto]

How will we survive without bare breasts on page 3? I hope someone invents the internet.I went to the newsagents the other day and bought two 'wank' mags, I was so embarrassed at the thought of the shop assistant thinking that I had no internet access!

[
Contemporary radical feminism is a pretty accepted term. The argument really is about how conservative it is, and how intolerant it is of opinion that doesnt accord with it.Why not? Women find topless men just as stimulating as men find topless women. The issue has been for so long that women have been seen as being the ones that need protecting from men whereas the reality is both men and women are equal in terms of sexuality. Society has for so long suppressed women: men being studs women being sluts as an example of that inequality. However attitudes are changing and it would be remiss to think women don't find men attractive.

[Harry Flashman]

Looks as good today as it did 30 years ago.

https://shkspr.mobi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2009_07_22_linda_lusardi_347x509.jpg

Mike - no need to pm me - I await the delete.

[Harry Flashman]

[
Contemporary radical feminism is a pretty accepted term. The argument really is about how conservative it is, and how intolerant it is of opinion that doesnt accord with it.
Who is objectifying women? They are making an opinion on a photo, they arent assuming anything else. If they are, they are idiots.You are only saying that because you were formerly a Page 7 Fella.

[
Contemporary radical feminism is a pretty accepted term. The argument really is about how conservative it is, and how intolerant it is of opinion that doesnt accord with it.
Who is objectifying women? They are making an opinion on a photo, they arent assuming anything else. If they are, they are idiots.
Gay times is pretty prominantly located. Now you know that, would you support the argument that their front page models should cover up? They are on the front page afterall, unlike the sun.Not gay news then. Phew!!

[Mrs Steve R]

Looks as good today as it did 30 years ago. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/yikes.gif I'm offended. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

I don't think the topless man on gay times is the same thing as a topless woman in whatever publication.Of course women find men attractive, but I'd say the criteria is more varied and peculiar (not peculiar enough for some of us, obviously).

[Hedsgone]

But the website will remain, yes?

[Harry Flashman]

Looks as good today as it did 30 years ago.
https://shkspr.mobi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2009_07_22_linda_lusardi_347x509.jpghttps://twitter.com/likeyshitey/status/556542102591791104

I don't think the topless man on gay times is the same thing as a topless woman in whatever publication.
Why not? Women find topless men just as stimulating as men find topless women. The issue has been for so long that women have been seen as being the ones that need protecting from men whereas the reality is both men and women are equal in terms of sexuality. Society has for so long suppressed women: men being studs women being sluts as an example of that inequality. However attitudes are changing and it would be remiss to think women don't find men attractive.historically no, but i do think attitudes are changing somewhat. You only have to look at adverts targeting women to see the sexualisation of the male form and what women are now allowed to say they Find attractive (his wallet usually)

Well I ****ed up that post.

[Mrs Steve R]

Looks as good today as it did 30 years ago.
https://shkspr.mobi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2009_07_22_linda_lusardi_347x509.jpg
Mike - no need to pm me - I await the delete.Thanks for that. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/rolleyes.gif

[Harry Flashman]

Looks as good today as it did 30 years ago.
https://shkspr.mobi/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2009_07_22_linda_lusardi_347x509.jpg
Mike - no need to pm me - I await the delete.
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/yikes.gif I'm offended. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif It took ages for the kids to film me getting that spot on.

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

historically no, but i do think attitudes are changing somewhat. You only have to look at adverts targeting women to see the sexualisation of the male form and what women are now allowed to say they Find attractive (his wallet usually)Yeah perhaps but I'd don't think they're at the same level yet. I had a leaflet through the other day with a picture of a woman in a bikini advertising laser eye surgery.

[Harry Flashman]

historically no, but i do think attitudes are changing somewhat. You only have to look at adverts targeting women to see the sexualisation of the male form and what women are now allowed to say they Find attractive (his wallet usually)
Yeah perhaps but I'd don't think they're at the same level yet. I had a leaflet through the other day with a picture of a woman in a bikini advertising laser eye surgery.It's aimed at the visually impaired due to excessive wanking market.

[Mrs Steve R]

http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

historically no, but i do think attitudes are changing somewhat. You only have to look at adverts targeting women to see the sexualisation of the male form and what women are now allowed to say they Find attractive (his wallet usually)
Yeah perhaps but I'd don't think they're at the same level yet. I had a leaflet through the other day with a picture of a woman in a bikini advertising laser eye surgery.
It's aimed at the visually impaired due to excessive wanking market.I must be on their database, I've been in there three times.

[lardy]

JW, flip it on its head. Imagine the Sun has never had Page 3 but is introducing it. What arguments would be in favour of them doing so?
You cant take historical context away from a situation. But, i imagine there would be a furore about it from conservative feminists and conservative religious people while most of the country shrugged their shoulders.In the cold light of day, if asked if a newspaper is the place to see a nearly naked person, male or female, then I would probably say no. There are more suitable places.

[TruBlue]

Kathy Lloyd follows me on twitter. That's all i've got to say on the matter http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/hehe.gif
I tried drunkenly to grab her and Jo Guest at a Loaded night in uni. I was told to back off by Bez.http://thumbsnap.com/s/F5rECjnA.jpg

[JamesWales]

JW, flip it on its head. Imagine the Sun has never had Page 3 but is introducing it. What arguments would be in favour of them doing so?
You cant take historical context away from a situation. But, i imagine there would be a furore about it from conservative feminists and conservative religious people while most of the country shrugged their shoulders.
im more concerned about very sexually provocative dancing and clothing on kids shows rather than the innocence of page three.Id support better standards in respect of sexualising children, bu i dont believe stopping page 3 helps that at all. All we are eoing is being prudish and pandering to feminists

[lardy]

JW, flip it on its head. Imagine the Sun has never had Page 3 but is introducing it. What arguments would be in favour of them doing so?
You cant take historical context away from a situation. But, i imagine there would be a furore about it from conservative feminists and conservative religious people while most of the country shrugged their shoulders.
im more concerned about very sexually provocative dancing and clothing on kids shows rather than the innocence of page three.
But children can easily see a newspaper and unless they go topless on kids tv, page 3 is surely more sexually provocative. If you have examples of more sexually provocative dancing then I am keen to see the evidence to make my own mind up.It's probably a lot easier to stop a young child from watching youtube than it is to stop them seeing the Sun in the corner of the room.

[lardy]

Anyway JW, I don't think you answered my question.

JW, flip it on its head. Imagine the Sun has never had Page 3 but is introducing it. What arguments would be in favour of them doing so?
You cant take historical context away from a situation. But, i imagine there would be a furore about it from conservative feminists and conservative religious people while most of the country shrugged their shoulders.
im more concerned about very sexually provocative dancing and clothing on kids shows rather than the innocence of page three.
But children can easily see a newspaper and unless they go topless on kids tv, page 3 is surely more sexually provocative. If you have examples of more sexually provocative dancing then I am keen to see the evidence to make my own mind up.if this was the 1980s then fair enough, but there a billions of websites out there if you really need to see a pair of chesticles. even better, add the word gif to your search on google and you get moving pictures. beat that page 3.

[Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond]

Why is it okay for feminists to pressure Murdock to remove page 3, when adverts aimed at women are objectify men with great physiques with women drooling over them. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif

[Mrs Steve R]

JW, flip it on its head. Imagine the Sun has never had Page 3 but is introducing it. What arguments would be in favour of them doing so?
You cant take historical context away from a situation. But, i imagine there would be a furore about it from conservative feminists and conservative religious people while most of the country shrugged their shoulders.
im more concerned about very sexually provocative dancing and clothing on kids shows rather than the innocence of page three.
But children can easily see a newspaper and unless they go topless on kids tv, page 3 is surely more sexually provocative. If you have examples of more sexually provocative dancing then I am keen to see the evidence to make my own mind up.
I'm as pervy as the next man. I'm quite happy to look at an attractive lady wearing just a skimpy pair of bikini bottoms. I wouldn't particularly call for Page 3 to be banned but it's also not the 1980s any more. If I fancy seeing a pair of boobs there are plenty of places I can go instead on the net which I couldn't then. http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/20/sky-to-automatically-block-por n-for-all-its-users-in-the-coming-days-5029957/?ito=facebook (http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/20/sky-to-automatically-block-porn-for-all-its-users-in-the-coming-days-5029957/?ito=facebook)

[BlueWales]

The Daily Star is going all out to attract disaffected Sun readers today
judging by its splash on the front page.

" Free page 3 poster inside ".