To be absolutely steaming about having a free copy of the Sun delivered by Royal Mail?

[Sixweekstowait]

I know I am not BU. I am going to post it back to Sun HQ in an unstamped envelope ( will probably tear it into pieces before I do). Who will join me?

I think you need a hobby

You come onto a discussion to tell people that their discussion is meaningless and give the above advice? Maybe you need a better hobby fifi669

There's nothing harmless or meaningless about Page 3 and the fact so many think it is absolutely fine to show a woman usually aged between 18-26 yrs in just her pants in a highly influential NEWSpaper shows how brainwashed the nation is.

Freepost Handwritten can handle parcels up to 4kg, so weight won't be an issue.

Sorry I haven't read all the thread but this is a screenshot from Through A Childs Eye fb page

Not a very good screenshot

It's fine if you click on it, coco - a bigger version comes up. MN only allows small images inside posts so no need for the !!

Ok thanks, I'm on my phone and it looks like a blur

sallyingforth you're backing up my point. I also don't think there's anything disgusting about the human body. They're just boobs. I don't find it offensive if you want to get them out for whatever reason. The same with page 3. If a woman chooses to make money that way each to their own.

I don't think men in general are actually that bothered about it anyway, they go straight to the sport first.

If they are 'just boobs' why the need to print them in a newspaper?

There's no need to print them, of course not. That doesn't make it soft porn, that's my point. If naked breasts are soft porn then a lot of other situations when breasts are exposed are also.

fifi669 - do they put those women's breasts in the Sun for the benefit of women? Are women interested in them? Do they put them in for the purpose of bringing the latest in current affairs to the general populace? No, they put them in for the sole purpose of entertaining men at the expense of women. So how does that have any place in a newspaper that I am then forced to look at while sitting next to someone on the train or while eating in a cafe? That my children are then forced to look at? It's not about the breasts per se or being ashamed of the human body - if fully naked men and women of all shapes, sizes and colours were a regular feature of the news for whatever reason, I'd have far less issue than only beautiful, mostly blonde and mostly white young women's breasts being featured with the clear message that women and their breasts exist for decoration and the gratification of men. So no, in the context in which they are published, they are not "just boobs".

Having a picture of breast with the sole purpose for men to wank over is soft porn.

YANBU. I'm sending our copy back

Page 3 is soft porn; The Sun is not a family friendly paper. Anyone who is not aware of this is surely living in a bubble.

I'm sure there are gay women that don't mind a peek too.

Do you honestly think there's an almighty wankathon when men buy the paper? I think maybe teenage boys, but fully grown men will give it a 10 second glance.

Your children are also forced to see topless sunbathers. Would you leave the beach? Tell them to cover up?

It's not at the expense of women if women choose to do it.

Since many gay women are heavily involved in campaigning for women's rights and feminism, fifi, I doubt very much that they are okay with page 3, although I cannot speak for them.

I wouldn't care about topless sunbathers. Both men and women of all shapes and sizes would be there, and none of them would be topless for the purpose of men's gratification.

How are you failing to grasp that this isn't about being offended by breasts, but being offended by women being objectified for no purpose other than the gratification of men?

Of course it's at the expense of women even if the page 3 models choose to do it - it perpetuates the attitude of society that women's breasts are public property to which men are entitled.

You've never really put much thought into this, have you?

Not necessarily fifi. I guess you have never been in the position of overhearing a couple of guys looking at page 3 and discussing it. "ooh, those are nice. You could hang your coat up on those...." and so on.

The sole purpose of page 3 is titillation. More recently (some time in the last 20years) they have tried to make it more acceptable by writing innocuous stuff about the girl in question. If they just wanted to print a picture of her, and write a little bit about what she's up to, then she would keep her top on. But no, they know that anyone who likes page 3 isn't going to look at the girl's face, they'll only be interested in her naked boobs, so they add a bit of crap about the girl so that people like you can say that it's all right really because "The narrative is always something bland about her studying at Uni....." and then spew out other justifications just as you have.

You remind me of a girl I knew who did page 3 once. She said all the same things you have before the shoot but came home a total mess because she'd been treated like a piece of meat, dehumanised; not to mention hardly able to go out on her own for the twats who accosted her in the street. In public though, she was still spouting the crap you are - bravado and self-justification. She spent a loooooooong time in therapy. It is not harmless, not by any means.

I keep expecting you to call us all a bunch of sillies.

The models aren't treated badly by The Sun Jux. Can't speak for the fallout but the whole set up is very professional.

I said you can't change what's happened and sometimes it's extremely pointless dragging up what's happened in the past.

This is not the past, The inquests are happening now. 96 people's deaths are being investigated.

People who saw that happen were identified by the Sun as scum, attacking the police and stealing from the dead. Some of those same people are now being asked to deliver the very paper that told them they were responsible for killing their friends and relations.

If you had seen a child die, and then a newspaper had a) said you killed the child and then b) said you had urinated on the body of that child, and it took you 25 years for an inquest to start that would once and for all show that you were innocent

But part way through that inquest you were told you had to deliver a copy of that same newspaper, possibly to the parents of the child would you still think, "can't change what happened, pointless dragging it up"?

Nancy, I'm glad of that. This girl was an exception (or exagerating?) then. She was a colleague, and someone I was quite fond of, in a colleaguey-sort of way ; we'd all tried to persuade her not to do it. I certainly can't claim further knowledge of how The Sun and it's photographers operate.

I doubt she was an exception. Perhaps she did other nude/semi nude work?

Page 3 is less revealing than so called artistic nudes. Google them both. It may be for the sole purpose of people looking (rather than feeding/all over tan etc), the end result is still the same.

Yes I have heard guys saying that sort of thing, they don't all rush off to the bathroom! The same sort of thing would be said if a busty lady entered a bar. I would also have to nudge a friend if a guy walked in with a huge trouser bulge....

Sunbathing topless is completely different. I might be wrong but I doubt Sallying does it for the gratification of men around her. Maybe she doesn't want strap marks or just prefers to sunbathe without a top.

A topless woman lying on a beach wouldn't bother me. But page 3 does.

The Sun is very trapped when it comes to Page Three. I think they want to axe it, Murdoch certainly does.

But their core readership are white, working class males under 35 yrs old.
Like it or not, it's undeniable that their sales would drop if they axed P.3.

The argument that more women would buy it if they dropped P.3 is probably unrealistic as well.

So, why would a successful business make a business decision that's going to lose them money?

The sole purpose for the model is to make money, the sole purpose for the sunbather is to get a tan. Some people will get off on either scenario.

The models aren't always topless either, sometimes they're in bikinis which is def something your children are likely to see.

The only issue I would have with page 3 is that it normalises the slim, big busted women as the ideal much like glossy magazines.

Frankly if men are sad enough to pay to see boobs, more fool them. The women however, making money from it, all power to them.

The reason I don't buy the sun is because the news within is poorly written shite. I do however rake part in their dream team.... At which I'm also shite.

They're due out tomorrow according to today's paper.