Seen this re page 3?

ut trying to ban adult women earning a living by posing topless is higher on your priorities list?

Did we write a list? I don't remember ranking my priorities

Or are we only allowed to care about one thing at a time? Should I assume based on you being here discussing it, your need to for tits in your paper trumps say, world peace?

It's definitely on the same continuum

violence against women and objectification of women in the media is part of the same thing

"oh don't worry, feminists have a problem with violence too"

But trying to ban adult women earning a living by posing topless is higher on your priorities list?

"you could happily walk about with your tits out down the street in several places actually"

Yes like in NY, where women who actually do this are pestered by other members of the public telling them to "cover up because there are children around" or arrested by cops who aren't even aware what the law is.

No need to mansplain America, I'm American. you could happily walk about with your tits out down the street in several places actually. We have different laws in different places. But please do continue to tell me all about it.

oh don't worry, feminists have a problem with violence too

"I prefer the "prudishness" of American "

You don't need quotes for the word prudishness.

America (USA) is the country where parents don't see a problem with violent TV or violent video games but they scream "what about the children!!!!" if a woman takes her top off at the beach. And it's the country where touching a 13 year old carries a greater sentence than if you actually murdered a 13 year old:

Also it was already the biggest newspaper BEFORE the NMP3 campaign. I think everyone already knew about the breasts before they got involved

However some people my husband, for one are now participating in the boycott so they definitely have lost business.

Anyway, to quote a fabulous woman. What's wrong with taking a moral stance?

buwegevove There a are a lot of issues in the states, and a lot off issues in the UK. For me personally, I prefer the "prudishness" of American over the rampant objectification of the female body in the UK. I blame it at least partially on why so few woman feel really comfortable breast feeding in public here.

Anyway are you saying you need to be Christian to take a moral stance on objectifying women? Is there a reason we can't say no to women's tits on everything without becoming a country of Christian fundamentalists?

And it's no wonder The Sun is the biggest selling British tabloid, look at all the free advertising and publicity all the people wanting to ban topless modelling are giving it.

And I don't think Murdoch has any intention of dropping Page 3.

"Probably doesn't play very well across the Atlantic where attitudes are a bit more censorious on these issues."

USA media would not allow anything like Page 3. But that's because Christianity has a huge say in what the laws are. Is that what you want?

You think Murdoch sees himself as running a serious media empire? I though he just owned a bunch of media outlets for his brand of racist, homophobic misogyny. However, I might just be being unfair. It might just be a coincidence that all his media outlets follow his personal ethos.

I imagine it's a bit of an embarrassment for someone who sees himself as running a serious media business that one of his main titles markets itself as basically being one step up from porn. Probably doesn't play very well across the Atlantic where attitudes are a bit more censorious on these issues.

Either your memory has failed you or NMP3 were being a little disingenious

The Yougov survey is here (took me 5 seconds to find it)

It wasn't a YouGov survey according to my failing memory it was an internal one

The point I was making is that support for P3 isn't overwhelming among the Sun readership (even at 61%) - so the argument for keeping it because 'that's what the public wants' doesn't stack up. And Murdoch knows this.

no responses though...even from netmums

(And I note the journo also had a go at recruiting at Netmums, but not MN interestingly www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/netmums-mums-panel-251/media-requests-7/1171623-breast-cancer-shoot.html)

Unfortunately even if Murdoch does swathe the models in 'fashionable clothes" (and totally agree this doesn't really address the underlying objectification issue), looks the The Sun will just print titty pics in other guises: www.facebook.com/NoMorePage3/posts/797789370284245

I recall reading a tweet from NMP3 that a survey of the Sun's readers showed that support for it was just in the minority of male readers (49%???) and less for female readers.

Either your memory has failed you or NMP3 were being a little disingenious

The Yougov survey is here (took me 5 seconds to find it)

yougov.co.uk/publicopinion/archive/6667/

61% of Sun readers in favour of keeping Page 3, pretty much everybody else against.

Unfortunately, I think this has now assumed the status of a 'small act of defiance' for the Sun readers - everybody knows that it is stupid and pointless but they want to keep it just because they know it annoys middle class white Guardian readers.

I also think Murdoch is now in a bit of a bind (my heart bleeds) - he can see that Page 3 is a bizarre anachronism and also a barrier to achieving the sort of success that mail online has - but at the same time the people who actually buy his paper say they want to keep it.

I can't really see it lasting much longer though - I think they'll gradually decrease the frequency (as they are doing already) until it quietly disappears.

Maybe. Small steps hey!

It's also still placing women as objects of attraction for men FuckOffWeasel. And lets remember the definition of attractive is incredibly narrow according to the Sun.

My first thought was, that he said some fashionable clothes, he didn't say how many exactly!

"Aren't beautiful young women more attractive in at least some fashionable clothes?"

NMP3 campaign sent me an email the other day with this quote. I think they are seeing it as a potential victory, but I can't help but feel he is still massively missing the point.

It doesn't really matter how "young" (urgh) woman are most attractive. Because you are purporting to run a newspaper. Not a wankmag.