Page 3 David Cameron's response

(71 Posts)
Mumraathenoisylion Tue 26-Nov-13 10:29:40

Apologies if this story has been posted before.

d-cam response to page 3 ban

I feel helpless with this one. It's not just the children, it's the violence on women, the way it makes women into animals to look at, the self confidence issues of teenagers, the expectation of men, the acceptance of young women and men that this is ok.

It's not ok. I want to do something about it, I actually feel like screaming reading this. What can be done?

Mumraathenoisylion Tue 26-Nov-13 10:32:17

Just as disturbing is that their 'quick poll' currently stands at 51% not in favour of banning page 3.

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Tue 26-Nov-13 10:51:56

News International are a big backer of call-me-Dave's party. Murdoch makes or breaks governments in the UK. No politician with an ounce of self-preservation will stand up to Rupert. Realpolitik.

morethanpotatoprints Tue 26-Nov-13 11:02:02

Well, he has gone up in my estimation.
When we start trying to ban things just because we don't like something then we are in trouble imo.

Mumraathenoisylion Tue 26-Nov-13 11:05:14

Really? It's not because I don't like it....although I don''s because the sexual objectification of women shouldn't be alongside fact I don't think the sexual objectification of women should happen anywhere but in this case it is a daily occurrence which millions of people see and now find acceptable.

BuffytheElfSquisher Tue 26-Nov-13 11:15:23

Trouble is morethan you talk about "not liking" something as though that was an absolute and objective thing. Whereas I'd suggest to you that the line between something that a group of people just doesn't like and something that is regarded as justifiably unacceptable by most people is one that's drawn by a combination of history (if it was made illegal a while ago, we're used to it being so) and the power of the group that wants it to stay or go.

morethanpotatoprints Tue 26-Nov-13 11:33:47


I don't care if its only a minority that likes it, freedom of choice is what we are talking about and I don't think anybody has a right to stop this.
I don't think it should be illegal, and nor do I think most people want it banned.

BuffytheElfSquisher Tue 26-Nov-13 11:46:07


I think it's a minority of misogynists who want to keep it and an apathetic majority who don't care.

I do not think that the rights of some men to choose to leer at young women trumps the rights of young women not to be the sex class.

I further think that if most people don't want it banned, then most people haven't thought carefully enough about it.

morethanpotatoprints Tue 26-Nov-13 11:51:03


I think there is only one right here and that is the right to freedom.
You don't have to look if you don't want to, you don't have to buy.
You can make your ds/ dh promise not to buy or look.
Nobody has the right to stop anybody else's choices imo.

ScientificProgressGoesBoink Tue 26-Nov-13 11:55:01

So more than, does your stance mean that hardcore violent child porn is acceptable too? Because by your rules it would be....

ScientificProgressGoesBoink Tue 26-Nov-13 11:59:47

What we are doing here it trying to draw a moral line in the sand. For some the objectification of women in this way, in an industry proven exploit vulnerable young women, is immoral. The rules and laws of a country don't just exist in vacuum, they change according to the acceptability (or not) of a persons actions according to the generation which governs. This is why women got to vote, why gay couples can marry and should be why we look again at the porn industry. This country has (supposedly) changed in its respect and equal rights for of those rights should be NOT to have to view this crap. And you can't escape it. Yesterday ds and I were in a cafe and there was the sun, open on page 3, which he saw.

BuffytheElfSquisher Tue 26-Nov-13 12:16:32

the right to freedom

Yeah, whose freedom?

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Tue 26-Nov-13 13:36:07

I know this won't be a popular view on here, but a lot of the apathy is because people generally see adult women choosing to go into this as a career. Comparisons with child porn don't really help. And I am not for or against page 3, just pointing out something that I don't think has been mentioned.

Personally, the Sun is guilty of far greater wrongs than page 3. I'd like to see it shut down for some of the other stuff it is guilty of.

BuffytheElfSquisher Tue 26-Nov-13 13:55:37

It's not the adult women posing in media like the sun whose choices concern me. It's my dd and ds growing up in a world that has no issue with the consequences of their choices. A world that prioritises the rights of adult men to be free to make a choice to consume women's bodies over the rights of women and girls not to be part of that consumption.

But these views, with many articulate and well-informed discussions of them, are available on here in other threads. Why are we rehashing them here? If you were in my class, I'd ask you to do the reading and then engage at an appropriate level.

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Tue 26-Nov-13 15:40:12

I dunno then. Mumraa, why did you bring this up? It's been done to death, apparently.

BuffytheElfSquisher Tue 26-Nov-13 16:10:49

There are relatively recent threads on the topic here, here and here.

I don't usually subscribe to the 'this has been done before' school of put downs, but come on, how often do we need to go over the same ground when a bit of background reading will provide clear and detailed responses to these very basic points? It strikes me as a little disrespectful.

BuffytheElfSquisher Tue 26-Nov-13 16:12:57

And actually, it's not the OP who is bringing up basic, lazy dismissals of the reasons why it might benefit everyone to do away with P3. OP posted something interesting and new. It's the choosy choice people I'm suggesting would benefit from reading previous discussions.

emcwill74 Tue 26-Nov-13 17:31:52

more than - you say you don't think most people want it banned, but why do we have to talk about 'banning' or it being 'illegal'? If Dinsmore decided to get with the 21st century and accept that women are a bit more than sexual commodities defined by their appearance and simply stopped printing the thing, as would be his right as editor with no need for any great democratic say-so, just like when the Sun started it in the first place, then I don't think most people would be bothered either. MOST PEOPLE don't buy the Sun. This tends to be forgotten when p3 supporters say 'who are 126,000 petition-signers to tell 2.3m Sun buyers blah blah blah', but that leaves over 50m people who don't buy it, and therefore, presumably, wouldn't give a toss if it bit the dust. I find more and more when I talk to people about page 3 they just look mildly surprised that it still exists.

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Tue 26-Nov-13 18:05:50

There is another thread on here at the moment about general public apathy to current issues. As dmc says, it's the biggest obstacle to those who would ban it. Nobody cares, really.

BuffytheElfSquisher Tue 26-Nov-13 18:11:06

But again, for those at the back, don't believe anyone's talking about banning it. Are they? Just that they'd like it to die a death as an outdated and embarrassing practice.

And yeah, I think many posters on this board are only too aware of how much most people care about the equality of women sad

I support the "no more page 3" campaign and have signed the petitions, but I'm still not sure if the ban on pornography should also include page 3 as I don't think breasts are "pornographic" iyswim?

Are they appropriate in a newspaper? No
Is it sexist? yes
Does it lead to treating women as sex objects? Yes.

But still not sure one law should include the other. I don't want to ban public displays of breasts, really I'd prefer to get to the point where women can wander around topless like men can without anyone blinking an eye and breastfeeding wouldn't encounter anything more than an offer of a glass of a water and a place to sit down.

But David Cameron is a bit of dim bulb really if he thinks parents can stop their children from buying newspapers, or going in to newsagents or going to schools where their teachers can be reading the fucking thing. confused

I mean he does have children right? --

Mumraathenoisylion Tue 26-Nov-13 18:25:08

I'm sorry if this has been done and done again, I'm also sorry if my op was slightly less eloquent and academic compared to many posts.

I do have a lot to learn. I feel very passionate about this particular subject though and my main reason of posting was one of despair that I and my two daughters have to live in a world where we are merely viewed as animals by some. I would also love advice on how to make that change (trying not to channel Michael Jackson here). I would like to do something pro-active.

Mumraathenoisylion Tue 26-Nov-13 18:27:01

I agree please my fil brings it to our house on every visit. My dm offers it to my husband to read.

Is it a generational thing?

emcwill74 Tue 26-Nov-13 18:32:13

If my fil brought the Sun into our house I would take it outside and put it in the recycling bin until he got the message!

BuffytheElfSquisher Tue 26-Nov-13 18:51:53

Please don't apologise mumraa, your OP was new and interesting.

It was the typical "freedom of choice" responses that irritated me with their depressing sameness. Those posters need to read previous threads, not you.

I share your despair about a society that at best apathetically ignores Page 3 and yet congratulates itself about how equal things are nowadays.

I'm sorry if I made you feel unwelcome smile

TheDoctrineOfWho Tue 26-Nov-13 19:16:30

A minority probably liked the Black and White Minstrels..,

Mumraathenoisylion Tue 26-Nov-13 19:30:05

No Buffy you absolutely didn't make me feel unwelcome.

I do know I have a lot to learn though smile.

TeiTetua Tue 26-Nov-13 20:18:12

PleaseJustLeaveYourBrotherAlon said "I support the "no more page 3" campaign and have signed the petitions, but I'm still not sure if the ban on pornography should also include page 3 as I don't think breasts are "pornographic" iyswim? "

I do swym but I actually do think breasts are pornographic, in the context of a publication that's appealing to voyeurism. Then again, in the right place and context, breasts, bums, vulvas or penises could all be perfectly legitimate. But whatever we call it, I don't think we're ever going back to "banning pornography" that's as mild as smiling ladies waving their boobs at a reader; anything that attracts prosecution would most likely have to be pretty serious (violent, sadistic etc) and/or associated with organized crime.

What's vile about the Sun is that it's so ubiquitous, and it legitimizes a pornographic view of women. I think the best we can hope for is putting pressure on the vendors to sell the Sun in some more restricted way (keep it out of easy reach, maybe) that will have an impact on its sales, and that might lead to them getting rid of the Page 3 rubbish. I really don't see what kind of law might directly restrict sale of the paper. "Anything that the consensus of people posting to the Feminism and Women's Rights section of Mumsnet says is offensive, is hereby banned. By order. Signed, H.M The Queen." There. That'll do it.

NiceTabard Tue 26-Nov-13 22:01:00

I don't get this "if you don't like it don't buy it" argument.

I have seen it loads despite never buying it.

Often I saw it when I was at secondary school, in uniform, and the man looking at it leered at it and then at me.

I have never felt comfortable on public transport with men looking at page 3 with eg their leg pressed against mine, or looking me up and down if I was standing in front of them. Or seeing them looking at it and then eyeing other girls and women around them. Revolting behaviour.

If you don't like it don't buy it is a pathetically weak argument. Children in the UK are exposed to page 3 and all the associated messages from the word go.

Interestingly I have only ever seen a man looking at a nuts type magazine on the tube once, and once a man looking at more hardcore gay porn. And they were both in the evening. Page 3 should be in that bracket, it shouldn't be OK to sit on the tube or bus looking at tits next to a child, first thing in the morning. If the tits were in any other publication it wouldn't be, yet because it's page 3 that's somehow fine. Bonkers.

NiceTabard Tue 26-Nov-13 22:08:04

Oh wow I just read DCs response about page 3.

What a wanker.

And also thick as shit, apparently hmm

Maybe you can stop your children ever seeing page 3 if you fit them with blinkers, don't take them outside, ever let them on public transport, and....

Well actually yes if you just never let them leave the house. And lock them in their room when any plumbers, builders, gas or electrical people etc etc etc come in.

Honestly what a load of old cock.

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Tue 26-Nov-13 22:50:08

Actually, what Tabard has just said is something I was thinking earlier. 'Lock them (kids) in their mom when any plumbers, builders, gas or electrical people come in'. Is this a class thing?

I don't mean that only lower class blokes look at tits. But aren't they the ones who do it in public? In the pub, in the van, on the tube etc etc? I don't live in London, but do many City types read the Sun and Star? What's the typical Sun/Star reader demographic? I'm not sure really, just wondering about this.

sashh Wed 27-Nov-13 07:31:37


Some page 3 images have been banned, they used to regularly feature 16 and 17 year olds. The law now classes these as indecent images of children. Do you want to go back to the days of the p3 girl being just that, a girl not an adult woman?

BuffytheElfSquisher Wed 27-Nov-13 09:01:59

Why in the name of Dworkin would you think I want that sashh?

NiceTabard Wed 27-Nov-13 18:35:08

Biggedy men in suits read it on the tube. Not as much as when I was growing up, but certainly it's not confined to people in manual type roles.

Actually thinking about it a bloke in my dept gets the Sun as there's a copy in his desk in the morn, he probably reads it on the train. We are in the city.

I think the demographic is men in their 20s - 40s from what I have seen over the years.

Brenslo Wed 27-Nov-13 19:12:52

TheDoctrineOfWho Tue 26-Nov-13 19:16:30
A minority probably liked the Black and White Minstrels..,

The Black & White Minstrels were never outlawed. They could put it on today and it would be perfectly legal. But no one would watch. What killed off the B&W Minstrels was a change in public attitude. People felt uncomfortable watching it and there was less and less demand.

That's the way forward with P.3. It's less popular now than it was, but not unpopular enough fore The Sun to drop it. But I'm not convinced it's the kind of thing that should be banned.

BuffytheElfSquisher Wed 27-Nov-13 20:23:28

I don't know this for certain of course, but I can't believe that if someone tried to put on a public performance of the B&W Minstrel show that this wouldn't be in breach of some kind of equality legislation. Surely?

emcwill74 Wed 27-Nov-13 20:36:12

I was on the tube with my kids at the back end of rush hour a week or so back (lomg story - we don't live in London). It was just after 9.30am on the Northern Line so me and the kids found seats but there weren't any others to move to. A man opposite me and my 8 y.o. DS was reading the Sun. He didn't look 'posh' but nor was he a manual labourer - he was wearing a suit - and in his 50s I would estimate. He was reading page 2 with the page turned over so a woman with her boobs out for that man's enjoyment was directly facing my son and I. What, as a parent, was I supposed to do Mr Cameron? Is the tube a no-go area for kids now? My DH (who was standing) and I just looked at each other hardly able to believe it. It seems crazy this is just normal!

mcmoonfucker Wed 27-Nov-13 20:42:08

There is also a contradiction in the laws. It used to be you could hang up calendars with naked women and peanut (WTF) holders that revealed naked women....and these have been banned from work places, without much bother from anyone and clearly with a recognition that these images are sexist and harmful to women.
So if the law accepts it is harmful sexualising women already why is it still acceptable to do this in a daily newspaper that has no limits on consumption ? There HAS to be something else going on.

SplitHeadGirl Wed 27-Nov-13 21:03:19

David Cameron is more concerned about how much botox he pumps into his face than he is about women!!

FloraFox Wed 27-Nov-13 21:27:31

I'm frequently amazed by these people who seem to think we live in a country where anyone can say or do anything they like and any restriction on that "freedom" would be the beginning of the end. There are many laws that restrict what can be said or shown, especially in a public place. As mcmoonfucker pointed out, the law recognises that showing pictures of naked women in a workplace creates a hostile environment for women and is not permitted. There are restrictions on what can be shown in advertising and this includes prohibitions on using images which depict women and sexual objects. Then people seem to say "who's to decide what's offensive" as if that isn't something that happens all the time and has been happening for years in relation to television, films, advertising etc.

Have a look at this (short) decision from the Advertising Standards Authority earlier this year on the Renault Clio ad:

It's really not that hard.

The newspapers are part of our public space and we are, as a society, entitled to decide what our public space should look like. If the newspapers don't voluntarily comply with standards that already apply to other aspects of public space, I would have no difficulty with moving this along with legislation.

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Wed 27-Nov-13 21:30:59

I mentioned on the first page, but no-one picked up on it. Who owns the Sun?? Of course there is something else going on! Politicians are shit scared of the press. Look at how Cameron dithered over Leveson, how he tried to lessen its impact and kowtow to the editors and owners. This is much bigger than the page 3 issue alone.

SplitHeadGirl Wed 27-Nov-13 21:42:22

Cameron is weak beyond belief. He cares nothing for people. Nepotism at its worst.

NiceTabard Wed 27-Nov-13 22:18:15

Biggedy you are right on one hand (press / politicians / big business all in each others pockets etc) but OTOH even if that weren't the case I can't imagine that many male tory politicians would give a monkeys about page 3.

CaptChaos Wed 27-Nov-13 22:24:36

I wrote to my local MP asking him to back the EDM about page 3. He basically said no, because he had traveled in Europe, and page 3 is no worse than sculpture and paintings he had seen and we wouldn't want to ban art now, would we?

I felt it was pointless to write back and point out that I have traveled all over the world, seen art in every continent and I can still see the difference between the Venus de Milo and a picture in a tabloid newspaper.

On the basis that he can't see the difference, I won't be voting for him. Well, that and he's a bloody Tory.

Dervel Wed 27-Nov-13 23:52:43

I am in the camp of getting rid of page 3, merely to see what happens. Inasmuch that I share this space (the uk), with many (it seems) who feel the prevalence of page 3 contributes to their feeling objectified, and reduced to a status of sex objects.

I don't think banning it will stop this objectification one iota. I think the problem is endemic and complex. However if it makes people feel more comfortable, that in my view trumps other people's right to be titilated.

When people bring up the censorship line, I am at a loss to define what is actually being expressed in printing a picture of a pair of breasts that is of such cultural import?

e basically said no, because he had traveled in Europe, and page 3 is no worse than sculpture and paintings he had seen and we wouldn't want to ban art now, would we?

Aw, bless.

Brenslo Thu 28-Nov-13 14:05:37

BuffytheElfSquisher Wed 27-Nov-13 20:23:28

I don't know this for certain of course, but I can't believe that if someone tried to put on a public performance of the B&W Minstrel show that this wouldn't be in breach of some kind of equality legislation. Surely?

I doubt it. White people dressing up as black people is no more illegal than a non Chinese person playing widow Twanky in a pantomime. The B&W Minstrel show was crap, that's what did for it. Simple supply and demand. When more people avoid The Sun because of P.3 than buy it, they will drop it.

Origen5 Wed 11-Dec-13 00:57:05

Though I am to use one of my favourite quotes fron this site, an 'evil man'(Yes, I actually saw this description of the male gender whilst reading a thread on this site), I am against Page 3. However, I struggle to see how to government censoring newspapers is going to end well. It's just a step down the slippery slope towards facism..

TheDoctrineOfSanta Fri 13-Dec-13 00:28:10

I call Godwin!

TheDoctrineOfSanta Fri 13-Dec-13 00:29:39

And on your first post in your current name, Origen5. Maybe we can get you a trophy.

ohnoitshimagain Sat 28-Dec-13 01:52:01

It's called Freedom and Democracy.

You cannot ban something just because you do not like it, and the consensus of the UK population seems to oppose the ban.

Therefore, page 3 shall remain.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Sat 28-Dec-13 11:00:17

Freedom and democracy? - For women to be treated as a bit of sexual titillation amongst the proper news? Great! hmm

ErrolTheDragon Sat 28-Dec-13 11:17:28

'You can control your children's access to newspapers and books and magazines. The problem with the internet is that our children are all online and they're using YouTube and they're searching for videos and the rest of it and there's a danger that they can stumble across really quite, sometimes hard-core legal pornography.'

I'm sure for DC - and for many of us - the internet problem is more important than the Sun - and I'm glad that he's pushing workable controls. However, it's not an 'either or' - and while for him and many of us controlling our kids access to print is easier (I doubt my DD or DCs kids have ever seen P3 of the Sun) it really isn't that easy for everyone.

BuffytheElfSquisher Sat 28-Dec-13 13:22:06

My concern, personally, isn't so much that one of my dc might themselves catch a glimpse of P3 at some point. "Why is that lady naked in the newspaper mummy?" "Because some people think it's OK to have a woman without her clothes on next to the news, I don't think that's very respectful towards women, what do you think?". In fact, I reckon ds (10) would have that thought process for himself, given that we discuss such issues fairly often and he's a thinking sort of person.

I don't like the contribution P3 makes to our society. The way it reinforces women as objects of sexual titilation, presented for men's enjoyment and only valued for their looks. This gives licence to the little everyday acts of sexism and harassment. That's why I object to it.

ErrolTheDragon Sat 28-Dec-13 13:29:31

Buffy - yes - its the normalising of objectification which makes it so unacceptable. Its in a mainstream 'newspaper' - not some seedy website. Young women unimportant enough to wrap chips in.

ohnoitshimagain Sun 29-Dec-13 03:33:43

^Freedom and democracy? - For women to be treated as a bit of sexual titillation amongst the proper news? Great!^

The 'proper' news in The Sun? come now, surely you jest!

Don't like it, don't buy it.

Simple, that's the way the free market works.

ohnoitshimagain Sun 29-Dec-13 03:35:37

Who are posing as models, men or women?

I believe they are women, so why not have a pop at them for letting the side down?

FloraFox Sun 29-Dec-13 05:04:10

Oh FGS another one who knows fuck all about how markets work here to pontificate about society. News flash: there is no such thing as a "free" market.

ohnoitshimagain Sun 29-Dec-13 06:55:24

Not literally free, agreed, but most certainly free to trade in the consensual arrangement.

So, why don't you have a go at the models themselves?

TheGreatHunt Sun 29-Dec-13 07:07:30

Page 3 is a ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous, notion. I don't think it should be banned.

I do however think the paper should be classified as "soft" porn and not so readily available. I remember seeing it as a child. Seeing boobs were not the problem, but the idea of staring at a woman's breasts in such a casual manner is for me.

For me, it's accepting that it's ok to openly look at a woman as an object.

If people want to look at a lady like that, then they shouldn't be buying a newspaper. It's disrespectful in the very least.

I've not articulated this well - but I can see our society is all about treating women as objects. It starts with page 3 and goes right through to hardcore porn.

ohnoitshimagain Sun 29-Dec-13 07:16:55

So would you like to see the 'Page 7 fella' banned as well?

(not sure if this still exists, but one paper used to have a topless male hunk on page 7)

How about adverts that use attractive male models, Calvin Klein ad for example, should that be banned too?

TheGreatHunt Sun 29-Dec-13 07:26:32

I didn't say it should be banned.

However, and you know full well, that having a woman's breasts on show is not the same as having a man's chest on show.

Why not have the page 3 ladies with tops on?

ohnoitshimagain Sun 29-Dec-13 07:35:14

Because then newspaper sales would go down.

High sales and profits is the nature of capitalism.

Now, if you were talking about destroying the very fabric of capitalism itself, I may jump on board, but until then, exploitation in all its forms is the name of the game.

TheGreatHunt Sun 29-Dec-13 07:38:05

hmm my heart bleeds.

Why not move the sun to the top shelf where it belongs then? Why normalise staring at a woman's breasts?

Capitalism in its purest sense means paying workers 1p an hour to make cheap clothes (for example) - doesn't make it right and certainly doesn't make it fair game.

ohnoitshimagain Sun 29-Dec-13 08:21:24

Except capitalism and economic rights, are separate from sexual morality and entitlement.

CaptChaosGlitteryBaubles Sun 29-Dec-13 08:34:14

exploitation in all its forms is the name of the game.

Well then, let's have small children back up chimneys, working in factories, cleaning the roads. Unless the little fuckers can pay for schooling, fuck em, it's all their good for. Men can't get a job to feed their family, get em into a workhouse, leeching bastards. Women too poor to feed their children, get them on their backs, it's all they deserve.

That kind of exploitation, you mean??? Except of course, the only bits that apply seem to be those attached to women.

MyMILisfromHELL Sun 29-Dec-13 08:53:38

Boobs are NOT news.

Where is the giant cock?

I don't want my son's growing up to think women are ornaments & have no other worth except for their physical/sexual appeal.

Furthermore, Page 3 normalises misogynism. It assumes all readers take pleasure from exhibitionism. It also assumes (in order to brainwash the masses) beauty & a woman's character comes in one package - slim, tanned, bi sexual, submissive, long hair, Caucasian, etc - thereby subliminally enforcing sexist (and racist) garbage 'tradition' on future generations.

Lastly, how do you explain to your 7yo dd why they're are random, naked ladies in the newspaper, used in art class? Or explain to your 5yo ds, when he innocently flicks the front page of a newspaper, in the supermarket, that a girl the same age as his babysitter is flashing her baps at him?

There have been plenty of the public, men & women, who have stepped forward & laid testimony to the negative impact/influence page 3 has marked on their upbringing, body image, sexual self-awareness, etc. One girl (am sure they are more) came forward to say her relative used it as a means to sexually abuse her. It goes on...

I'm no prude. Don't ban nudity, but make it inaccessible to under 18's. Don't ridicule the female form and undermine the importance of the female role in society. Don't flog a pair of tits off as being news. If it's a 'tradition' to see a pair of breasts with one's news, why is there not a giant cock or lovely, muscled dude on alternate days to boobs, telling us how they feel about World peace, global warming, etc?

I believe in no more page 3. I believe in a world where the sexes are equal. I believe that boobs are NOT news.

MyMILisfromHELL Sun 29-Dec-13 09:03:51

No one is asking DC to ban anything. Simply to support the No More Page 3 Petition to take boobs out of the news.

TheGreatHunt Sun 29-Dec-13 13:07:17

Except capitalism and economic rights, are separate from sexual morality and entitlements

No they are not. You can pretend they are in a theoretical economic model. However we're human beings and don't quite work that way. Which is why there's no such thing a perfect market and why economic theory is woolly.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Sun 29-Dec-13 22:11:32

The 'proper' news in The Sun? come now, surely you jest!

The Sun is a newspaper - regardless of whether you or I like the style/quality of journalism involved. The Sun itself goes even further, by calling itself a "family" newspaper. Because "family" and "news" is all about the naked ladies, innit?

ApocalypseThen Thu 02-Jan-14 06:47:58

It's called Freedom and Democracy.

It is really the great civil rights struggle de nos jours, isn't it, keeping women in their place. Their place, of course, being a special naked area where women are corralled for the amusement of men.

Thankfully, once the page is turned, women barely exist in the clothes-on world.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now