to be fed up that we still have Page 3 in 2011?

[JessinAvalon]

If you are too, please vote for 38 Degrees to take it on as a campaign.

38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/1492713-banning-page-3-as-it-symbolises-the-sexism-misogy?ref=comments

It's a disgrace. 'Feminists' who support a (usually very young) woman's right to make a living as a topless model are just as bad as leering blokes who read this shit.

And it's a family paper, that's what defenders of it always seem to say. Many's the time as a child we'd all get round the breakfast table to gaze at Anita, 19, from Bournemouth's norks...not. It's for slimy blokes to have a wank over and that's all.

Exploitation, plain and simple.

YABU

No one is being exploited by page 3. Those "girls" (I use quotations as I doubt many of them are as young as they claim to be....) choose to do this. Thanks to women's Lib, the Suffergettes etc they have the right to choose to do that for a living. And why not? You just have to stand there with yer tits out andget paid for it. Easy money imo.

FWIW, my DP reads the sports pages in The Sun (and has an oggle at page 3 when he thinks no one's looking) and tbh I dont care. He's left it lying around for DD (3) to find and she did giggle at "the laydeee with her boobies out, hehe!" I don't see it any differently than her seeing me topless. Personally I find the page 3 girls "thought/opinion of the day" far more amusing

YANBU

Things have gone full-circle, and IMO all this Girl- Power clap trap (yeah, right, the Power to get your tits out in a lads' mag) has contributed to the fact that Page 3 never died out like it had a chance of doing at one point.

Oh God YANBU I can't stand it

Rupert Murdoch didn't try to get away with it in his own country but he did over here.

Murdoch is an utter cunt, but page 3 existed long before he bought the Sun as far as I recall.

It is an anachronism, though and time to call it a day.

I wouldn't worry about men getting 'stiffies' or having a wank over them, though. Page 3 is not in the least bit sexy.

I don't like it. Children can by and large be kept away from harder pornpgraphy; but "The Sun" is easily accessible in many houses and page 3 can regularly be seen on trains etc.. The message is that objectification of women is not just permissible but normal. It says that the worth of a woman is dependent on her youth and sexual attractiveness.

Someone made the very good point that we can hardly be surprised that little girls are subject to sexual abuse on buses from 12 year old boys if the boys have access to material like this. Page 3 is to the premature sexualisation of boys what the padded cartoon character bra is to girls.

I can't believe any woman would think it's ok for this to continue.

pointissima is right.

Agree with Pointissima and BelleDameSansmerci too

YABU. If girls want to get their boobs out, it is none of your business, especially if you don't even read that particular paper. I think we have earned the right to do whatever jobs we like nowadays, and if I could make money from showing my jubblies, then why shouldn't I be allowed to? Apart from the fact that no one in their right mind wants to look at mine of course

Personally, I'd rather my DH looked at page 3 girls, than the mental orange things walking around fully clothed. Well, what passes for fully clothed around here... (clearly knocking on a bit emoticon)

To be fair, those girls do seem to offer some pretty well-informed and insightful views on the current world situation.

YABU. It's up to the woman if she wants to make a living from showing her tits. And most of them aren't exactly postponing a career in brain surgery. It's their only chance to earn serious money. And if they do go on to become brain surgeons, they've paid off their student loans .

And why are we demonising breasts anyway? Seriously, there are bigger things to worry about. If you want to start some sort of feminist crusade, what about female circumcision? Or just Google "acid attack", and you can find several sites concerning certain countries where this is common in order to punish women who reject male advances.

Breasts are normal, healthy things. There are bigger battles to be fought.

There is no reason for Page 3 except to sexualise and degrade women. It's the whole viewing a women as a sexual objects therefore dehumanising them to the male population.

So it is hardly suprising that so many young men think it's okay to ogle, cat-call, inapproiately touch women because after all that's what they are there for

Page 3 must be banned

Well if you follow that argument, why aren't pictures of fully naked men available for viewing in daily newspapers then?

YANBU. It is pathetic that it still exists.

why aren't pictures of fully naked men available for viewing in daily newspapers then?

Which is an interesting point in itself. The women aren't fully naked and there are often pics of topless men in newspapers. Which male secondary sexual characteristics would you like to see them flashing? Do men have any?

Breasts are normal and healthy. Page 3 is not about breasts - it's about tits, there's a world of difference. Page 3 tits are silicon and on 'models' that are in no way normally shaped.

I have a daughter, I do not want her growing up thinking Page 3 is a career option or a valid way of looking at women. It is not empowering it is sleazy and pandering to a very old fashioned idea and limited of what sexy is. This is a publication sold as a newspaper, Mandy from Manchester's DDs have no place in it.

Limited notion. Sorry.

Don't think you can ban it, but agree it is stupid and demeaning in a 'newspaper'.

Buy a wank mag if you want to look at tits, ffs.

Um, I think male pubic hair would count Mymblesson but as you say, I don't think the issue is really about biological classifications ...

you generally wouldn't see a woman with her breasts on show operating a power drill in the middle of the high street; whereas it would be normal for a man to go topless in that situation.

YANBU. What is the point of it? Nothing good, as far as I can tell. And I disagree with the logic that women's lib were fighting for the rights of girls to join the ranks of page 3 - if you tell them their whole lives (by presenting them with things like the 'family newspaper' that has topless women in the middle) that all they're good for is getting their kit off to please men, then no wonder they grow up 'wanting' to do it.

BlooferLady - I think I may have a look tomorrow to see what Nathalie, 21, (and her nipples) think of the events in Libya today

JLC- oh do. It's worth a peak at page 3 if only to see what their opinion is on current affairs. They always sound soooo wise beyond their many years

YABU, find a worthwhile cause to worry about sending emails about. This, imo, is a complete non issue.

No woman that doesn't want to be there becomes a topless model. No one is forcing anyone else to look at it.

What harm has it ever done anyone?

I am forced to look at it any time I might be on a train or cafe or wherever actually. And I find that incredibly inappropriate.

I find it virtually impossible to believe it still exists. Another YANBU here.

It's wrong because they are using their bodies to sell papers whether they have been forced to do it or not.