I support Page 3, who's with me?

[Beth9009]

This might not go down well, but I cannot accept the campaign to ban Page 3. Here's why:

There is nothing wrong with the naked female body. A woman posing with her breasts on show is not lewd nor is it harmful to children.

Hypocrisy - Page 3 is no different to male models posing shirtless in women's magazines.

Prudishness - People who claim that newspapers should be banned from showing topless women are no different to the Victorians or to people in conservative parts of the world who don't allow women to show bare legs. It's the same principle.

Market mechanisms - if there is a demand for something and a consenting adult willing to supply it, then who is the government to get in the way?

Freedom of choice - if you don't like it, don't buy the Sun!

CaptainHindsight Fri 17-Jan-14 13:57:34
I wouldn't buy the sun anyway. Its for idiots.
Feel free to "read" away love

__

Don't try to take the intellectual high ground over me because I doubt you'd fair to well.

too* (need to check before I post)

It's a matter for parents. If they don't want their kids to see female breasts (gasp!), then they shouldn't buy the Sun

Are you being deliberately obtuse? You don't have to buy the Sun to see these images - that's the issue!

Buffy, you'll see I corrected my typo immediately. And note I chose not to point out CH's absence of an apostrophe in her post.

Don't try to take the intellectual high ground over me because I doubt you'd fair to well.

Op you are KILLING ME!

Not buying The Sun is easy, I've managed that my whole life.

Not seeing the Page 3 pictures in The Sun is trickier, since they are often lying openly in takeaways and other places of business.

Not living in a society full of men who grew up with The Sun lying around in their houses takes a lot more effort. Those are men who spent their formative years surrounded by images that gave them the idea that it is totally fine to think of women as primarily there for titillation. That's the problem. Not nudity, but the message that goes with it. Women are there to be sexually available. They're not even expensive, it's just an everyday thing.

Buffy - men grope and harass women no more than women do men. Lots of my girlfriends used to grab men's bottoms in clubs and bars! And have you ever been on a hen night with a male stripper? The ladies get away with things men would get arrested for.

The idea that porn/soft porn is turning boys/men into sexual monsters is a myth. And it doesn't even make sense. Do you think women were treated better in offices in the 1950s when their was less porn? Or in conservative Islamic countries?

You're really Dave Dinsmore on a lunch break aren't you?

Please would you cite your sources when you make outrageous untrue statements?

Thank you :)

AMumInScotland

• I make the same point to you as I did to Buffy. You claim that the trend of erotic imagery in the media is creating men who treat women as sexual playthings....

But what about women in the 1950s who were regularly groped and used for sex by their bosses who saw them as nothing but sex objects around the office? Or the girls in 19th and early 20th century boarding schools who were abused by male teachers?

What about women being groped and raped routinely in the streets by men in hardline Islamic countries, where porn and erotic imagery is banned?

Women in modern Britain are safer than they've ever been. There's no evidence that soft core porn is making it less safe for us. If anything, the evidence is to the contrary.

So Beth, just you then.

I'll let Murdoch know.

More women were killed by men in the UK last year than British soldiers killed in Afghanistan in the last 3 years.

UK not a safe place for women.

Can i just say that P3 does not grope women? Sex offenders grope women. Blaming a tabloid publication minimises their behaviour. A decent man takes Page 3 with a pince of salt and wouldnt dream of putting his hands or or disrespecting a woman. A 'saucy' hunk calendar does not implore me to molest firemen.

I'd better ask the teacher of my fiance's son to wear looser clothing. Can't have him exposed to sexual imagery, can we?

Grow up people. A pair of breasts isn't going to do any harm.

SauceForTheGander Fri 17-Jan-14 14:16:41
More women were killed by men in the UK last year than British soldiers killed in Afghanistan in the last 3 years.

UK not a safe place for women.

___

Compared to almost every single country in the world, it is. You mentioned Afghanistan....as a woman, how safe would you feel walking through a village in Afghanistan? If you dressed as a normal Western woman, you'd probably be raped within hours, unfortunately. THAT's a place that's unsafe for women due to unhealthy attitudes of men. And guess what, there's no Page 3 there....

You conflate facts.

I do also oppose the objectification of men. But it is less damaging to men as group because men are seen by society as multi faceted whole beings whereas women are judged entirely on their appearance.

How can you even be bothered to post this shit?

How can you even be bothered not to try a bit harder?

All the evidence suggests that men who aren't able to exercise their natural visual attraction to women (due to female sexuality being hidden) turn out to be rapists or sexually violent. It's why women are routinely groped and raped in strict Muslim countries where women are covered up head to tie and it's why abuse was so rife within the Catholic Church and other religious institutions.

The more free the society sexually, the safer the women. THAT's why I support Page 3.