To ask how I can explain to DH why page 3 was wrong?

[Ifyourawizardwhydouwearglasses]

He just thinks it was harmless. 'If you don't like it, don't look.' I'd like to educate him but I can't seem to find the words.

He's intelligent but can't seem to get this one.

But nice bit of publicity for them, eh?

Yes, the truth isn't usually something the sun concern themselves with.

They really really hate women don't they.

If it's a choice between making a bit of money and making more money by having topless photos printed, that makes it less of a choice, surely?

they really hate women dont they
Quite.

Cunts

Ah but today the tits are back.

Sam fox was one of the most successful page three girls of the late 80s early 90s, she ended up being one of the wealthiest women in Britain, can someone explain to me how she was exploited?

Well the pictures of her before she turned 18 are now classed as 'indecent images of a child' and are clss 1 one the SAP scale and level 4 on the COPINE scale.

If those pictures were published now, every reader of the Sun could have a conviction for possessing indecent images. The Sun could be convicted of distributing them.

Sam Fox was exploited, just because she was well paid does not make it exploitation.

If you pay a child for sex it does not stop it being abuse.

They really really hate women don't they.
Yes.
Doing this as a joke is worse than just ignoring criticism.

Isnt sam fox one of the former p3 women who is on the side of nmp3 now?

The is joke on women (and pro feminist men) today then? I expect no less from that rag.

Don't suppose them taking the piss out of how little they think of women will change the opinions of some of the pro-p3 women?? Wishful thinking...?

Sam Fox did page 3 from the age of 16-20. So hardly the most together and in control period of a girls life, surrounded by more savvy and experienced adults. Her first topless pictures were submitted to a newspaper competition by her mother when she was 15. I think we'd call that child abuse now wouldn't we?

Shows how anachronistic and out of date page 3, and indeed the Sun itself, are to me.

Good post, sashh.

TBH I'm feeling quite let down and disgusted. The Sun is a vile newspaper anyway, but this is sinking to a new low.

Honestly, The Scum are pathetic.

Moving on from that, 21-year-old Lucy from Wiltshire is free to get her tits out in daily papers, if she must.

I am free to have a massive problem with that.

That's just the way it works.

In fact, now that I am at it ...

You want to call 'free speech' because you reckon you need to see barely-out-of-teens' breasts in a daily newspaper...?

Well, right back atchya. I call free speech, by saying I don't like it, and I don't want to see it any more. I am part of the campaign against Page 3, just as you can campaign to keep it. Free speech, innit?

Page 3 is numbered. They might think they've won one silly little battle, but they're losing the war. :)

Yy to sashh forago and japanesemargaret

The actual glamour models aren't being exploited.Absolutely not.They do very nicely out of it. it is how if affects every other girl and woman.Objectifying them ,judging and valuing them based on their sexual attractiveness or lack of.

What worries me a lot more are the comments by women and girls on the Independant FB page. Their opinion of the women that campaigned to have page 3 changed are that they are "Nazis" and "feminazis" that are stopping young girls being able to show off their bodies.

This, unfortunately has set back feminism more than ever.

Just because somebody gets paid, doesn't mean they aren't being exploited.

Choclover The actual glamour models aren't being exploited.Absolutely not.They do very nicely out of it. it is how if affects every other girl and woman.

^
This

In my local school a 14 yo girl was persuaded to send a topless photo to her so called bf who then posted it to his 400 friends on FB. IMO page 3 legitimises topless photos of women / girls like this. How much harm will it have done to this girl's life and her future at the school? It's not just a matter of individual choice to be in the pictures, it has wider consequences.

Any woman that doesn't believe that is so badly conditioned or stupid. BAM!, self-righteousness in action. Allow me then to call people that believe that nice little sheeps, whose only thoughts in their mind are the digested and accepted dogma from self centered websites and magazines, and that regurgitate them as much as they can, just to show they have an opinion.

I found the Sun joke funny. It's a rag giving the finger to a bunch of pearl-clutchers. Yes, it's stupid, yes, it's base, but man, they did not bow down to a group with hive mind and a twisted sense of priority.

Odd decision by the Sun. They were being generally congratulated for coming into the 21st century and recognising that page 3 topless pics were essentially old fashioned and the product of a dinosaur mindset. So now they want to announce to the world that actually they are that old fashioned and dinosaur-like? It no doubt keeps the older and dimmer section of their readership happy, but it's not the way to attract new readers.

Sorry, that last post really wasn't meant to sound ageist. I mostly meant older in the sense of readers who have been with them for 20/30/40 years and don't want anything to change.

Do young people buy newspapers?

I really resent the term "pearl clutchers" being thrown around to describe people who don't class tits as news. It's just so...lazy. It's up there with, 'you're probably just jealous'.

The Sun is news?