Aint nothing wrong with a fit healthy woman flauting her body for men to erghhh 'look' at, If she is happy doing this, Why should anyone stop her.
I agree with there being nothing wrong with it. No one is being exploited here.....well maybe a case could be made for the sad sacks who would buy the magazine to longingly stare at what they will never have, but I digress.
I agree with there being nothing wrong with it. No one is being exploited here.....well maybe a case could be made for the sad sacks who would buy the magazine to longingly stare at what they will never have, but I digress.
likewise with men starrng a super car, not gonna happen
Aint nothing wrong with a fit healthy woman flauting her body for men to erghhh 'look' at
That statement does rather assume that its only men that like looking at page 3.......I bet there are a fair few women that appreciate looking at a nice pair of breasts too
As a naturist I would say that it should show that non-sexual nudity should be considered normal and acceptable.
However the reality is that the majority of people still like to cling on to out-dated Victorian values and, as a nation of prudes, look to sexualise everything.
A topless woman should be seen in exactly the same context as a topless man however breasts have become so sexualised now by the media that simply isn't going to happen. You just have to look at the ridiculous fuss created by a few very fuzzy images of Kate topless to see that.
That there is nothing wrong with breasts? That a topless woman is not a sleazy thing that needs to be hidden away?
I'd be more concerned about what message the Daily Mail is sending out with it's thinly disguised hatred of women.
Exactly. What you see on Page 3 is nothing you wouldn't see on many beaches around the world and plenty of people, including children, also use those beaches without being horribly traumatised.
But then it's typical for this country really - any time there's something to do with sex in the news, many people just hitch up their bloomers and jump on the table.
I await the "but what if it was your daughter?" line with earnest .. :rolleyes:
Murdoch will remove the girls from page 3 because it's just not right on a moral basis
Meanwhile he'll continue to operate newspapers and TV channels which advocate war, violate people's privacy, smear dead football fans, and churn out lies and propaganda on a daily basis
"Is not" is missing out of that sentence, the only problem I have with The Scum are the lies they have printed in it. You see boobs everywhere, if a women is happy to pose like that I don't see a problem. It's like stepping back into tbe 80's. I buy FHM or nuts for my partner and look at the boobs myself.
Perhaps they should change it to show mum's breastfeeding and celebrate that as "normal"... Anyone who is a mum should be able to apply to go on there too.. not just your 18 year old skinny made up to the nines woman.
After all, we're told it's not "sexual" so let's show it as such
Meanwhile he'll continue to operate newspapers and TV channels which advocate war, violate people's privacy, smear dead football fans, and churn out lies and propaganda on a daily basis
War and death are far less controversial subjects.
For every article that calls for something violent to be removed or banned there's probably 10 that call calls for something sexual to be be removed or banned.
Page 3 is as relevant as those slightly racist comedies we used to watch in the 70's .But the readers of these "newspapers" expect to see bare breasted girls over breakfast,
Page 3 is as relevant as those slightly racist comedies we used to watch in the 70's .But the readers of these "newspapers" expect to see bare breasted girls over breakfast,
Do men really get excited by it?
Would they stop buying the paper if these girls were not in?
All I have ever sen is a load of bravado in front of their mates when leering at the page 3. Which one can sugest the vilest things they could do to her. When they are on their own they probably do not give a crap about it.
It all seems a bit playground like really.
I feel the same about mags with topless men in with oiled toros. I just find it all a bit yawn.
Exactly. What you see on Page 3 is nothing you wouldn't see on many beaches around the world and plenty of people, including children, also use those beaches without being horribly traumatised.
But then it's typical for this country really - any time there's something to do with sex in the news, many people just hitch up their bloomers and jump on the table.
I await the "but what if it was your daughter?" line with earnest .. :rolleyes:
The only times I've seen the Sun in recent years is if there is a free copy in a supermarket cafe. But it's never bothered me. I find the self hatred of women and their bodies in women's magazines and other newspapers by women columnists such as Liz Jones far more offensive. At least the women in the Sun look happy and healthy, have a non anorexic shape and earn their own money. They also look pretty, not just sexy. The likes of Samantha Fox and Linda Lusardi carved out good careers on the back of Page 3, especially Lusardi, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Comments
I agree with there being nothing wrong with it. No one is being exploited here.....well maybe a case could be made for the sad sacks who would buy the magazine to longingly stare at what they will never have, but I digress.
likewise with men starrng a super car, not gonna happen
Only to Mrs MAW's
But in the pages of a national newspaper?
What kind of message is that sending out?
That Sun readers are w*nkers?
Joke.
ive seen far worse on the front page, which is terrible.
Gaddafi's lumped up face on the front page, real nice for children to see in the newsagents.
That there is nothing wrong with breasts? That a topless woman is not a sleazy thing that needs to be hidden away?
I'd be more concerned about what message the Daily Mail is sending out with it's thinly disguised hatred of women.
I'd rather see Jo, 20 from Brighton then Gaddafi. I'll give you that one.
Is the the message that is being sent - or the message that is being interpreted that is the problem here?
That statement does rather assume that its only men that like looking at page 3.......I bet there are a fair few women that appreciate looking at a nice pair of breasts too
whoops
As a naturist I would say that it should show that non-sexual nudity should be considered normal and acceptable.
However the reality is that the majority of people still like to cling on to out-dated Victorian values and, as a nation of prudes, look to sexualise everything.
A topless woman should be seen in exactly the same context as a topless man however breasts have become so sexualised now by the media that simply isn't going to happen. You just have to look at the ridiculous fuss created by a few very fuzzy images of Kate topless to see that.
The Sun, a newspaper?
Besides, the newspaper aspect was always a convenient means of campaigning. The person behind this has far grander plans.
Exactly. What you see on Page 3 is nothing you wouldn't see on many beaches around the world and plenty of people, including children, also use those beaches without being horribly traumatised.
But then it's typical for this country really - any time there's something to do with sex in the news, many people just hitch up their bloomers and jump on the table.
I await the "but what if it was your daughter?" line with earnest .. :rolleyes:
Meanwhile he'll continue to operate newspapers and TV channels which advocate war, violate people's privacy, smear dead football fans, and churn out lies and propaganda on a daily basis
This man has a conscience!
"Is not" is missing out of that sentence, the only problem I have with The Scum are the lies they have printed in it. You see boobs everywhere, if a women is happy to pose like that I don't see a problem. It's like stepping back into tbe 80's. I buy FHM or nuts for my partner and look at the boobs myself.
After all, we're told it's not "sexual" so let's show it as such
War and death are far less controversial subjects.
For every article that calls for something violent to be removed or banned there's probably 10 that call calls for something sexual to be be removed or banned.
Do men really get excited by it?
Would they stop buying the paper if these girls were not in?
All I have ever sen is a load of bravado in front of their mates when leering at the page 3. Which one can sugest the vilest things they could do to her. When they are on their own they probably do not give a crap about it.
It all seems a bit playground like really.
I feel the same about mags with topless men in with oiled toros. I just find it all a bit yawn.
Well presumably there's nothing wrong with showing a man's body either, but they never seem to appear on page anything.
Just because things are natural doesn't mean they should be on show. Sex is natural, but you wouldn't expect to see people indulging in public.
The only times I've seen the Sun in recent years is if there is a free copy in a supermarket cafe. But it's never bothered me. I find the self hatred of women and their bodies in women's magazines and other newspapers by women columnists such as Liz Jones far more offensive. At least the women in the Sun look happy and healthy, have a non anorexic shape and earn their own money. They also look pretty, not just sexy. The likes of Samantha Fox and Linda Lusardi carved out good careers on the back of Page 3, especially Lusardi, and there's nothing wrong with that.