Sun Drops Page 3

It's just not breakfast without bewbs

Birdo you just sound like a raging perv tbh.

Hey Birdo, why do you think you are owed breasts? Can't you find a woman who actually wants to show them to you.. without 35p exchanging hands?

It would be a shame for middle class women to see working class women who aren't so smart out of a job, just so they can take away a bit of fun for men in the morning.

Why do you assume working class women are stupid?
Why do you assume feminist are middle class? (I'm not)

Why do you think women are there to give men a bit of fun in the morning? Literally there are boobs everywhere. You will survive if you have to spend 5 seconds looking for them and not be able to do it while reading the paper.

Sigh. Rains too much here to be London.

I wonder whether birdo's imaginary feminists all live in London too?

You do realise it's a natural function for (straight) men to enjoy and get turned on by breasts too ?

Yes Birdo, even feminists understand basic biology.

We just think that a national "newspaper" where one would expect to see news and features is not the place to parade naked breasts. Or perhaps you think it is the role of national newspapers to turn you on?

Context, Birdo, context.

It's totally fine and normal for a child to see their parent's naked body when they are getting changed for swimming. It's not OK for them to say, see their parents posing sexually for naked selfies. Every day. Context.

Well, they can enjoy them without exposing children to hyper sexualised images of women over their morning cornflakes.

You do realise it's a natural function for (straight) men to enjoy and get turned on by breasts too ?

Because context is nothing?

You really don't get this.

Gratuitous exploitation of female bodies/objectification of female bodies as something for men to enjoy v's biological function of a breast to nourish a baby/child wherever it is needed. It isn't the same thing.

It's ok for anyone to see a baby being fed. It's not ok for children to be bombarded with sexualised images of women as nothing more than objects for viewing pleasure.

"And equating the feeding of babies to topless modelling is just bleurgh. Shows exactly what you think of women though Birdo83"

It's hypocritical. Either breasts are unsuitable for school kids to see, or they're not.

The reason it is illegal for women to be topless is because of men's objectification of women. It is the same thing.

Men want 'purity' of women when it suits but also the ability to ogle women, when it suits.

And equating the feeding of babies to topless modelling is just bleurgh. Shows exactly what you think of women though Birdo83.

I wonder how many people who support the "no more page 3" campaign also support Free The Nipple campaign?

Birdo - I supported the no more page 3 campaign and I am a feminist (have been for years and years). I am a secretary and my husband is a joiner. I cant wait to get home to let him know we are middle class because we are against the objectification of women in a way men do not have to put up with. Don't believe everything you read in the press - not all activists are middle class

Birdo, Page 3 isn't a job. None of the 'girls' are employed by the Sun, and therefore none will now be unemployed. It doesn't pay at all well (a couple of hundred per photo, if that) and the models are only appearing every few days. So this is just one contract out of their portfolio gone. If they want to carry on in the 'glamour' industry, then they certainly can by posing for other publications.

"It would be a shame for middle class women to see working class women who aren't so smart out of a job, just so they can take away a bit of fun for men in the morning." There is so much wrong with that s4entence I'm not quite sure where to start! But I'll give it a go .

I think you've managed to insult the majority of women in the world with that sentence. Insulting middle class women and working class all in one sweep of the typewriter. And yet the second part of the sentence is the real clincher "just so they can take away a bit of fun for men in the morning." Men do not have the right to fun at the expense of women. You have nailed it though. This is all about the men. Their behaviour. The way they view women.

"I hope you lot are happy to see all those women out of a job." I just don't know how men survive what with not being objectified in a national newspaper and all. Oh wait... don't they get other jobs? Better paid in the main too. Or are you suggesting that the only option open for some women is be objectified? That's all they are good enough for? Because that is what those two statements I've quoted from you add up to.

While I appreciate life is going to be very difficult for you now Birdo; not being able to ogle an 18 year old's naked breasts over your morning brew is a hardship I'm afraid you must just learn to cope with.

And your point about working class women not being as smart as middle class women and as such having to sell their bodies so that working class men can letch over is a tiny bit classist.

Interesting bit about this story on Radio 4's Today programme this morning. Stella Creasy MP saying it was a victory for the No More Page Three campaign and that it had opened up an important platform for debate about how women are sexualised in the media and men are not etc. Steve Hewlett's reply was very much to play it down, saying that it had been "well-flagged" that Murdoch himself was going to drop it and that it was impossible to tell whether it had been the result of the various campaigns or the simply the fact that "the world has changed."

Well, duh, why does he think the world has changed? Perhaps because people campaigned for that change?

It's so annoying. When other campaigns result in victory, such as changes to road safety or NHS policy or almost anything else I could think of, then the campaigners are generally acknowledged but when a feminist campaign is successful then the response is, "Oh we were going to change it anyway and it's just because the world has changed generally" !

i know chunky, like we should be grateful for this type of sexism, because it's not as bad as other types of sexism

But it would have made a difference to 14 year old me, to not have a couple of daily newspapers legitimise their bullying of me, just because I have boobs.

Again, it was common for them to be huddled around a copy of the newspaper, giggling, they would rip out the picture and chase me (and other girls obviously), or leave them lying around. If there is no page 3, then they can't do that. A porn mag would have been instantly confiscated, but The Sun is a newspaper, it's educational isn't it (!)

I don't get this argument that some people have it worse, so I shouldn't try to make my life better.

i am all in favour of getting rid of anything that encourages the objectification of women on a daily basis, however big or small. the fact that women are subjected to worse things in the UK and elsewhere does not take away from the fact that page three contributed to a world where men have a "right" to their daily dose of objectification of women. it won't end that, but it is nothing but a positive step

Chunky, there's many countries without Page 3 that have FAR worse rates of sexual assault than we do. It won't make any difference to that.