Options

Was given the axe too page 3 another attack on freedom.

1131416181979

Comments

  • Options
    SemieroticSemierotic Posts: 11,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't care about page 3 either way, but I think gossip rags, and the culture around them, are genuinely detrimental to us all.

    It's like Ricky Gervais' rant at the end of Extras: if we got rid of them tomorrow society wouldn't crumble, people would just get on with their lives.
  • Options
    DianaFireDianaFire Posts: 12,711
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Diabolus wrote: »
    No, it is not about equality at all and the same reasons I gave in my first reply, still apply.

    How long a campaign has been going or not, is totally irrelevant.If it was about equality it would be equal with regard to banning all sexualised images of both women and men in comparable forms of media. That would be equality.

    Not at all. Women couldn't get accepted into certain jobs when men could. Achieving that has been about equality. Getting rid of certain images in a newspaper when those images have never featured men is about equality.

    What you're talking about isn't related to equality at all. It would be a campaign to remove all sexualised images, regardless of gender. Neither gender would have been unequal in that respect as they were both represented.
  • Options
    darkislanddarkisland Posts: 3,178
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes it is a newspaper, but it's content is more like a celebrity gossip and lifestyle magazine.

    Years ago, I interviewed the Sun's then Political Editor. During the piece, he pointed out that the only actual 'news' content in the Sun is to be found on page two, with the rest of the paper being composed of showbiz, sport and 'lifestyle' stuff.

    I had a look at that day's Sun and sure enough, straight reportage of the previous day's news, in non-hysterical, straightforward terms. I didn't bother with the rest..;-)
  • Options
    TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Semierotic wrote: »
    I don't care about page 3 either way, but I think gossip rags, and the culture around them, are genuinely detrimental to us all.

    It's like Ricky Garvais' rant at the end of Extras: if we got rid of them tomorrow society wouldn't crumble, people would just get on with their lives.

    Good job people can exercise their freedom of choice and ignore them.
  • Options
    DianaFireDianaFire Posts: 12,711
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You know when you're in a hole the best way out is to stop digging.

    Where did the Sun say that?
  • Options
    SemieroticSemierotic Posts: 11,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Good job people can exercise their freedom of choice and ignore them.

    Well that's a non-sequitur.
  • Options
    PictoPicto Posts: 24,270
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    darkisland wrote: »
    Years ago, I interviewed the Sun's then Political Editor. During the piece, he pointed out that the only actual 'news' content in the Sun is to be found on page two, with the rest of the paper being composed of showbiz, sport and 'lifestyle' stuff.

    I had a look at that day's Sun and sure enough, straight reportage of the previous day's news, in non-hysterical, straightforward terms. I didn't bother with the rest..;-)

    Is it a coincidence that the only 'news content' is on page two, right opposite page three?
  • Options
    davzerdavzer Posts: 2,501
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Takae wrote: »
    1. :confused: There's nothing intellectual about it. To me, a daily newspaper is distinctively different from a lifestyle magazine, but you came from a different angle. I decided you must be pretending to be obtuse. Hence, my response.

    Given many a newspaper has a 'Lifestyle' section the two are more similar than you think.
  • Options
    lee_sharplee_sharp Posts: 605
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Semierotic wrote: »
    Well that's a non-sequitur.

    I don't see how bringing gardening equipment into the discussion is enhancing the topic..............
  • Options
    MidnightFalconMidnightFalcon Posts: 15,016
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DianaFire wrote: »
    Where did the Sun say that?

    Right under the bit where they pronounced on the social acceptability of boobs.
  • Options
    lee_sharplee_sharp Posts: 605
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Picto wrote: »
    Is it a coincidence that the only 'news content' is on page two, right opposite page three?


    Didn't page 2 used to be the political page years ago? Pictures of tits on both sides.....
  • Options
    davzerdavzer Posts: 2,501
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DianaFire wrote: »
    Getting rid of certain images in a newspaper when those images have never featured men is about equality.

    Page 7 fella must have passed you by.

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=page+7+fella&biw=1014&bih=527&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=VXC-VOH4Fua67gbb8oGwBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQsAQ&safe=active
  • Options
    jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,572
    Forum Member
    lee_sharp wrote: »
    Didn't page 2 used to be the political page years ago? Pictures of tits on both sides.....

    I think that joke has already been done!
  • Options
    TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jjwales wrote: »
    I think that joke has already been done!

    Joke?
  • Options
    EraserheadEraserhead Posts: 22,016
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Flat_Eric wrote: »
    Except that you do. And in women's mags. And on TV.

    Well it's been a very long time since I picked up a copy of The Sun but are you saying that there are full page pics of scantily-clad men in there every day of the week?

    As for woman's mags and TV, well there is plenty of female nudity etc. in men's mags and TV so we're all equal there right?
    I wouldn't have a problem with that

    Neither would I since I don't read The Sun but, like the Page 3 girls, I would still think WTF is that doing in the pages of a national newspaper?
  • Options
    annette kurtenannette kurten Posts: 39,543
    Forum Member
    grah2702 wrote: »
    The next step is to ban all revolting fat ugly women in the papers as they are even worse than a pair of nice perfect t*ts staring at you.
    Diabolus wrote: »
    A bit harsh old bean. Some feminists are ok looking. :o:D

    this is just the attitude to women that has lead to the campaigning.
    It worries me that there are people like you in the world.

    i`m really concerned about people who are unaware that there are people older than 60 still living.
  • Options
    idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    "It's as if a million van drivers cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced"
  • Options
    lee_sharplee_sharp Posts: 605
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jjwales wrote: »
    I think that joke has already been done!


    You could've not told me and left me believing I was highly original.
  • Options
    lee_sharplee_sharp Posts: 605
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Joke?


    I thought it was funny....I had to use my inhaler..
  • Options
    davzerdavzer Posts: 2,501
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Eraserhead wrote: »
    Well it's been a very long time since I picked up a copy of The Sun but are you saying that there are full page pics of scantily-clad men in there every day of the week?

    page 3 girls weren't in every day now either.

    I know this because I visit the Guardian website btw.
  • Options
    HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,697
    Forum Member
    Adamsk wrote: »
    I agree there was also a double standers issue somewhere in it.

    Theres no double standard at all-newspapers are family publications and easily accesible to children and titilating soft porn magazines are not.
  • Options
    DianaFireDianaFire Posts: 12,711
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Right under the bit where they pronounced on the social acceptability of boobs.

    You're conflating parts of the body with showing parts of the body in a newspaper every week.
  • Options
    davzerdavzer Posts: 2,501
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Theres no double standard at all-newspapers are family publications and easily accesible to children and titilating soft porn magazines are not.

    Women lifestyle magazines have ads for breast augmentation surgery with before and after pics. Given this surgery, in the vast majority of cases, is for purely cosmetic reasons then surely these objectifying images should be banned forthwith?

    Can't have cosmetically desirable breasts in easily accessible womens lifestyle magazines. Children could see it.

    I look forward to the forthcoming campaign from the former members of NMP3.
  • Options
    Diamond statDiamond stat Posts: 1,473
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Many religious types will feel very happy about this news.
  • Options
    ResonanceResonance Posts: 16,644
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Theres no double standard at all-newspapers are family publications and easily accesible to children and titilating soft porn magazines are not.

    Maybe, but they're the next target on the list of the organisations calling for an end to page 3. You see that's the problem. These banning types are never happy. They always want to go further. It's a power thing imo. That's why as a person who never reads the Sun I'm still bothered by this, because you can be sure it will be the thin end of the wedge/slippery slope towards getting rid of 'lads mags', porn and then wider censorship of the internet of anything they don't agree with. The latter is what really worries me.
Sign In or Register to comment.