To think that page 3 might not be so bad if the women were older?

[Pyjamaramadrama]

Ok bear with me, I probably am bu but it's just a thought.

I'm against page 3 for various reasons. But one thing I particularly don't like is the very young age of the women they use, and I think use is an important word.

I wonder how many of these very young women are fully able to realise the consequences of what they're doing. I wonder how many believe that they're going to get rich and famous when in actual fact they get a few hundred quid every time they do a topless shoot that's out there forever more, but most get no further in the glamour world.

It also makes me really uncomfortable to think of men ogling 18, 19 year olds who are barely out of school. I'd be horrified if that was my dad, dh, brother.

I also wonder how many women lets say age 25+ would actually be willing to do page 3, I bet the numbers would half.

I'm not meaning to patronise young women but I know how much I've changed over the years, I wonder whether had I been in the position at 18 whether I'd have though topless modelling was glamorous and later regretted it, as I probably regret lots of things I did in my late teens, but once those pictures are out there there's no going back.

It partly feeds into the other reasons I dislike page 3 one being that I think the very young age blurs the lines then we end up with victim blaming when a teenager gets involved with an adult male or teacher.

I think they should be forced to feature mastectomy patients and very elderly women who can tuck their breasts into their belts

(Not really, but if we can't get rid of the cunt Murdoch I'd love a campaign where feminists hijacked the papers and stuck different pictures over them to draw attention to the injustice)

I would love to see the outcome if they said only women let's say aged 25+ I wonder how many would do it and how many would buy it for the tits. Which I think would be telling.

For me it wouldn't make a difference. My problem with page three is the idea that soft porn is acceptable to be waved around in a family news paper and perceived as "just a laugh" and normalised.

I went though 6 months of having Pg3 left on my desk by a senior worker and when complaining was dismissed as "it's a newspaper" if the same image was left on my desk from a top shelf magazine ("Jugs" or the like) it would be sexual harassment.

I think it was Susan Calman who once did a very funny sketch about how page 3 should be like jury service, with women of every age being called upon at random...

I do agree sacred.

I just think that an age restriction would be a laugh in the face of those who run it.

One of the arguments I often hear for page 3 and the like is that the women choose to do it, and that they're really well paid. Everyone just thinks Katie Price, Melinder Messenger. This is in fact bollocks, I worked with a woman who's dd was getting into glamour modelling. She was fairly successful and won an 'award', and yes she could get paid £500 for a few hours work but it got her nowhere in the end. She just has an ordinary job now hindered by her glamour model days.

I've heard that often they do use women in their mid-late 20s but then lie about their age to make them as young as possible. Which is sick imo.

I think they should show photos of all kinds of women breastfeeding. It would serve to remind men that breasts are primarily for feeding infants what men get from breasts is just a bonus. They need to learn their place and stand in line.

I don't think it would make any difference. The real problem is that once nudie pictures are gone, the readership will be able to forget that women exist at all.

They won't forget that women exist at all because they'll still see them making their tea for them every night

Oh, and doing the ironing, cleaning, laundry, going out to work, childcare, shopping etc. etc. etc.