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.

would the impact on their readership be minimal? how have you arrived at that?

I don't think it's an either/or thing. They've stirred up debate, they've generated a backlash on both sides of the fence, they've raised the issue of the free choice of women to bare their breasts v. the objectification of women, and they've created a lot of publicity as a result.

I would think that their business has benefited quite nicely, thank you - and got people talking about the rights/wrongs of the porn and glamour industry. I'm sure that there is much rubbing of sweaty betrousered thighs going on over at the Sun at the moment.

Surely there can't be many people who are only buying it for the tits, there are plenty of other magazines and things they can get for that.

Mind you, not ones that it would be socially acceptable to stare at on the tube while pressing your leg against the leg of the 14 year old sitting next to you and occasionally looking between page 3 and her chest.

So maybe you have a point.

I would hope that not all Sun readers are behaving like that though, I had imagined it was a minority of them.

And it is clear that this is now "personal" - their actions lately make that very clear. It is not to do with business any more, at all. They want to upset people, they understand that people use page 3 to upset women and girls and they approve of that.

Is that their whole marketing plan?

They know that their only differentiator is that their publication is used to assist in sexually harrassing female children so they can't afford to let it go?

That's pretty draw-dropping, it can't be true can it? Maybe it is.

jaw dropping!

at least I didn't write "drawer dropping" which would have been a great slip!

I think that's a bit of a leap omnipotent .

Willferrellisactuallykindahot

Your posts on this thread, rather belie your user name, or do you actually think Will Ferrell needs a cool drink? Or are you merely a rank-hypocrite who thinks objectifying a man as a sex-object, whilst objecting to women being portrayed as sex-objects is acceptable? Just curious y'know.

An ex-g/f of mine was on P3 in the late 80s or early 90s. she loved the experience; said the photographer was really nice and her friend was so impressed with the report, she had a go at getting in (and succeeded) and said the same things.

They both took the paper to work to show everybody. These days you can watch X-factor and numerous other 'show-off' type programmes on telly.

Why are you all getting so worked up over people not agreeing with your point of view? Move to North Korea and get in with the elite. Then you can tell everbody to live according to your PoV.

I was just thinking around your question nancy.

You were thinking it might have a more than minimal impact on their readership. I was just trying to understand how it could have a significant negative impact, especially given that some people might start buying it.

That's the only reason I can think of. Because it's the only socially acceptable way to look at soft porn in public, and what sort of people that would be important to, and why. Important enough to stop them buying a newspaper that they have probably bought for years - I hear a lot of people enjoy the sports coverage in there.

Norland what would you say to female children who have had men use page 3 to facilitate pervy behaviour?

Given that it's the only generally accepted soft porn that it's OK to look at in public? So if it wasn't there, that wouldn't happen?

This is clearly not about money, at least any more. The impact on their readership would be minimal I imagine

we have no way of knowing that do we.What else differentiates it from other right wing tablids I wonder? ( not reading any myself)

Why is it more important for men to be able to stare at naked breast on the train while sitting next to schoolgirls, than for schoolgirls to be able to travel to school without having to put up with that?

Is it because lots of men who read the Sun couldn't give a flying fuck about how it makes the people around them feel, even if it makes the people around them feel profoundly upset and uncomfortable.

I saw an elderly woman on the tube give up her seat and stand once because the man next to her turned to page 3. Because it's so important for a man to be able to sit and stare at tits in that environment.

It's just pathetic.

Norland - just because someone likes doing something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Does P3 contribute anything to society at a wider level in 2015, or does it continue to portray women as objects with tits to be leered over?

Oh and yes to make that point again, many men who read this while sitting next to schoolgirls will know that there is a large chance it is making them uncomfortable and they will enjoy that.

It's shit, really.

Maybe I need to buy some fetish magazines with hardcore images of men to peruse at moments like that. But hold on, that wouldn't be OK would it, it would be socially unacceptable, and if I were a man and did that while sitting next to a schoolboy and shooting meaningful looks at his body someone might well tell me to stop / alert someone when they got off the train. FFS.

And can I make it clear that this is my problem with Page 3 - that it is regularly used to make women and girls uncomfortable / facilitate sexual harassment. If people only looked at page 3 in private / when there wasn't anyone around who was going to be upset it wouldn't fuck me off nearly as much.

SirChenjin you are talking about your view of what contributes to society. What right do you have to foist your view on the general populace?

For lighter entertainment is this also objectifying women as sex-objects?

Murdoch is foisting his view, Norland. You are free to like it, we are free to object to it.

Why have you posted to Youtube? In what way is that comparable to P3 of the Sun, read in public with women and girls present?

And you haven't answered my questions. Again - does P3 contribute anything to society at a wider level in 2015, or does it continue to portray women as objects with tits to be leered over? What do you think?

What does facilitating sexual harassment of female children (and women) add to society?

Because that is what Page 3 is used for a fair bit, and has been since I was a girl.

Your posts on this thread, rather belie your user name, or do you actually think Will Ferrell needs a cool drink? Or are you merely a rank-hypocrite who thinks objectifying a man as a sex-object, whilst objecting to women being portrayed as sex-objects is acceptable? Just curious y'know.

Really? Oh dear. Ok I'll bite.

Will Ferrell isn't really good looking in the aesthetic, coventional sense of the word. He doesn't have a perfectly sculpted body, a peachy bottom, gorgeous locks or dreamy eyes. However from watching several films starring him and seeing him being interviewed, I began to find him attractive, based on the other things he had to offer eg. How funny he is, hownje seems to be quite warm and friendly and so on. All of those things were what made him seem 'hot' (to me anyway!)

Unfortunately, we never get to see that side of page 3 girls. They are presented as a pair of boobs and nothing else. And how many female Will Ferrell/Seth Rogen/Jonah Hill/Steve Carrell (i could go on here couldn't i?i?) types are there in Hollywood? Women who are not 'hot' in the coventional sense but are successful and become attractive because of their other assets?

Fancying someone based on the whole person, isn't 'objectifying them' is it? Just because I object to bare breasts in a national family newspaper, does that mean I am never allowed to find a man attractive?

Just because I object to bare breasts in a national family newspaper, does that mean I am never allowed to find a man attractive?

Of course not. Just because I never buy or read The Sun (or any tabloid, I only take the Sunday Telegraph) does that mean I can't find women's breasts attractive? The question is rhetorical, because you'll probably think it is acceptable.

However my point is, you have a user name that is using the word 'hot' not in the sense of a man's core temperature being around 98.6 degrees F but in a purely sexual-attractiveness sense. Pure sexualisation = rank hypocrisy.

And you haven't answered my questions. Again - does P3 contribute anything to society at a wider level in 2015, or does it continue to portray women as objects with tits to be leered over? What do you think?

I haven't anwered your question, because you've chosen it to suit your own agenda of attempting to foist your own views and prejudices on the wider populace. Do you think the rest of humanity should live according to your views?

Are you saying, that your view is the owners of The Sun should be acting in a way that will benefit society (as you see society in 2015) as opposed to trying to sell copies of their rag, to enhance their profits? Are you really so naive as to think a picture of a semi-naked woman, is anything other than a method of selling more of their product, thus making their product more attractive to advertisers, thus increasing the profits of News International?

I doubt will sits on the tube looking at pictures of will in his pants in sexually provocative poses interspersed with staring at the groins of the men around her.

She may do obviously, and if she does I'd think that was out of line.

I find it hard to believe that there are men around who really don't understand the difference between fancying and objectifying, between looking unobtrusively and leering, between a friendly smile and a intimidating approach. I think men pretend they don't know the difference, in order that they can continue behaving in an outrageous way towards women and girls, and when challenged on it they can say "waah snoffair you want to abolish sex" etc etc etc

It really would be pathetic if it didn't have such a huge negative everyday impact on the quality of life of females, starting at about age 12/13.

Urgh just saw your last post Norland you come across as quite lacking in empathy or ethics.

FWIW I do believe that businesses should have their activities reined in, to not allow them a total free hand to do whatever they like in order to make money. Most countries have rules around that, you will find, and that is as it should be.

For somebody who equates themself with a god + an absolute monarch, to be preaching on the lack of ethics to someboy who equates themselves with child caring is beyond the pale.

would the impact on their readership be minimal? how have you arrived at that?

I would imagine because the advent of the internet has made looking at women's boobs (and much more besides) quite easy for those that wish to do it.

I personally will miss page 3....how else am I going to know what "India, 20 from Kent" thinks about the ongoing cris in the Ukraine?

However my point is, you have a user name that is using the word 'hot' not in the sense of a man's core temperature being around 98.6 degrees F but in a purely sexual-attractiveness sense. Pure sexualisation = rank hypocrisy.

WTF? So are you saying that I'm not allowed to find anyone sexually attractive, whatever its based on? I find my DH pretty 'hot', is that not allowed? Wow.