Page 3 is no more in the Sun Newspaper

(23-01-2015 01:37 )mickster Wrote:  You forgot to mention the Northern Irish topless model who was on the show with them .She was hot , can't remember her name though .

Laura Lacole. She was great.

Their argument that topless models shouldn't appear in a newspaper because children might see them while out is also bollocks. Lot of magazines carry pictures of models topless too, including women's mags. Hypothetical situation, nopage3 campaigner and her young child waiting at a train station, walk over to a bench. Copy of a fashion mag left on the bench has blown open to a photoshoot showing a models bare breasts, copy of The Sun next to it blown open to page 3. So she'd be ok with her child seeing bare breasts in the fashion mag because that's in context, but unhappy if her child looked 6 inches to the left and saw bare breasts in a newspaper because bare boobies don't belong in newspapers apparently. Makes no fucking sense.

Bottom line for me is, we supposedly live in a free and democratic society. Any consenting adult, male or female, should be able to pursue any lawful career they wish. No matter how distasteful, objectionable or disagreeable anyone else may find it, if it's not breaking the law and all parties are consenting, do it.

Trying to impose and force your worldview onto other women by telling them what they shouldn't be doing is pretty grotesque. And it certainly ain't feminism.

(23-01-2015 00:00 )Tumble_Drier Wrote:  Caroline Lucas (Green MP) has just been shot down in flames by Andrew Neil on This Week on BBC1.

Apparently the Green Party have a policy of decriminalising pretty much every aspect of the sex trade that is currently illegal, yet their only MP has been screaming blue murder about Page 3.

The hypocrisy is almost comical. You couldn't make it up!

She was also banging on about how it would be OK to see tits in an art gallery, but not in a newspaper, which smacks of the old "would you be happy for your wife and servants to read this book" shit from the Lady Chatterly's Lover trial decades ago.

(23-01-2015 03:22 )Vic_Smith Wrote:  Their argument that topless models shouldn't appear in a newspaper because children might see them while out is also bollocks.

Not just for the reasons you gave. When it comes down to it, breasts are primarily there for feeding children. Little kids generally have a very relaxed attitude to bare breasts, and if they think of anything at all, they're thinking of dinner, not sex!

The rest of the media should have realised there was something suspicious going on when the The Sun refused to confirm or deny reports that it was wasn't publishing topless pictures anymore. Now The Sun can feel superior that the rest of the media went ahead with the story despite having no official confirmation of it.

I'm really angry over this decision, I say boycott the Sun. Whatever happened to let and let live, the Page3 girl was iconic, it launched many a successful career for the likes of Samantha Fox, Melinda Messenger and Jo Guest. It was a cheeky British tradition, BTW - What about banning the horoscopes on the grounds of misleading lies.

1 - Nobody forced you to buy the Sun, you made that choice.
2 - You don't have to read every fucking page in the paper.

A campaign such as this 20 years ago would have been laughed at, now look at us, it's a national disgrace

Fuck the Sun and Fuck The Feminists

(23-01-2015 13:45 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  I'm really angry over this decision

What decision?

^if it were me i'd let this oversight slide, he's probably got a shit load of prescription painkillers in him!

Some observations/thoughts/ramblings:

When the media outlets had to report that The Sun hadn't scrapped Page 3 after all, they all referred to it as featuring "a topless model" not even referring to her by name. Remember what "No More Page 3" and their lot said about how Page 3 is all about "Objectification"? Yeah.

And if you want rid of Page 3, get rid of similar things in Heat like "Torso of the week" which is so much worse. Because Page 3 isn't called "Daily tits" so should shirtless men be referred to as torsos?

No More Page 3 are allegedly feminists - whatever happened to women being able to do whatever the hell they want? Oh yeah, posing topless for a living isn't good enough. A page 3 girl has a change of heart, decides it's no longer for them, and steps away from it, same "Feminists" will hold it against them going forward. These "feminists" do more to hold some women back than the misogynists they claim to oppose.

I've seen them and their supporters taking photos of people reading newspapers on Trains and such, noting that they're "ogling" page 3. Did these people give permission to be photographed? No better than the Paparazzi.

How come the best arguments put forward on any side of this seem to come from the Page 3 girls themselves? Alex Sim-Wise wrote a brilliant blog on the whole subject when it appeared The Sun might have dropped it, still worth a read: http://simwisesucks.tumblr.com/post/1087...and-page-3

On a similar subject, I've seen debates on Page 3 on TV, and Lucy Collett has been a voice of reason on the times I've seen her speak, especially on the subject of things like body image, something that the NMP3 lot claim Page 3 does a lot of damage to. Really? More than Heat/Closer posting some pics of a celeb on the beach and deeming them too fat/skinny/short? Give me a break.

They count Russell Brand among their supporters. The same one who rang Andrew Sachs to say he shagged Sach's granddaughter, then jumped ship from the BBC before they could push him.

And this is nothing to do with what the campaign stands for, but their T-shirts are shit:



Seriously, look at that fucking terrible Frankie Goes to Hollywood/Wham "Choose Life" ripoff. the T-shirt it's printed on looks cheap as hell, but they're £15 a pop, only £1 goes to charity (Women's Aid) the rest of the profits going right back into a campaign that seems more like a vanity project than a worthy cause to get behind. If they donated a bigger portion of the money to charity and devoted the time and resources to tackling real problems, I'd be more impressed. In a world where Female Genital Mutilation is a thing along with human sex trafficking, one page of a shitty newspaper is really nothing to get worked up about.

I'm sorry if I'm repeating stuff others have already said in here, but I just wanted to put my thoughts out there.

Whats the betting the tshirts are being made in the far east by young girls on slave wages

(22-01-2015 08:43 )HannahsPet Wrote:  

(22-01-2015 03:28 )void walker Wrote:  I'm thinking about the original report in The Times. Did they knowingly print an untrue article or were they hoaxed by their own colleagues?

nah im guessing they saw all the celebrations from the lefties and thought sod it bring it back to piss them off

Be aware that most "Righties" are against page three for religious reasons. I do not think it is as simple as left vs right.......

Also be aware that many feminists would fight for womens right to choose what work they do, and this would include topless modelling. As always, things are not always black and white. Sometimes there are also many shades of grey.

As an example, I consider myself left of centre and a feminist, yet I have no objection to page 3. But a conservative friend I know wants it banned...... not always as simple as blaming it on the "lefties", although we do get blamed for most things, especially in the press.

Also be aware that Conservative Governments in the UK always increase censorship when in power. Also be aware that when they get their wish, and pull us out of Europe, the liberal changes that have taken place over the last 40 years will no doubt be rolled back. We only are allowed porn now in the UK due to falling in line with European regulations, which Mrs Thatchers Government tried to oppose.

Sometimes you need to look at the big picture.