Sun Drops Page 3

[PoppyAmex]

Very quietly, it would appear.

More here

I love pretty flowers. And kittens. And artwork. And breasts, breasts are bloody amazing, the way they are engineered and function is a cause for huge celebration, they are also extremely attractive, no matter their size, shape or perkiness. I am even partial to breasts accompanied by pretty flowers and kittens in artwork.

Still not seeing how that makes it ok to ogle teenager's bare breasts in a 'newspaper' over your corn flakes though.

And your I'm not trolling comment?

Maybe this is what he meant?

A small, but really meaningful step forward for feminism, and its battle for equality and respect for women. Very happy to see those changes actually happening.

As always, cats understand best

did anyone see the page 3 girl on the news, saying how unfair her career choice was taken away from her?

me and the other half just smothered addmittedly when we spoke about it, but just wondering what everyones thoughts on her "argument" is?

sniggered*

Perhaps she hasn't heard of the internet Ginger? After all, no opportunity there to exhibit her breasts to all and sundry. Oh no, not at all.

Loads of opportunities for her to have pictures of her breasts all over the place. Just not the annual picture she might have got in the S*n, if she was lucky.

Ginger, I didn't see it, but in answer to your question I'm going to c+p something I wrote upthread: 'Page 3 isn't a job. None of the 'girls' are employed by the Sun, and therefore none will now be unemployed. It doesn't pay at all well (a couple of hundred per photo, if that) and the models are only appearing every few days. So this is just one contract out of their portfolio gone.'

Even if she argued it is limiting the opportunities for her career choice, well I'm afraid that can sometimes happen as society changes for the better. Presumably women who wanted to be cigarette vendors in cinemas have had a career avenue taken from them. But that is the price a few pay for the many of us not to have to put up with smoke in a cinema. Her appearance on page 3 contributed to a sexist society, which negatively impacts on me, and that I have no choice whether I live in or not.

PS Hasn't Mr Dinsmore told her he's still doing 'page 3' online? Maybe she hasn't checked her email yet.

I completely agree with you all. she will have more than enough oppertunities to get her boobs out for the boys, if she wants too.

The Star are "proudly continuing page3" , page 3 is still online on the sun website, all is not lost for these glamour models I recon

Natnad, but hopefully the rest of the country will "proudly continue" to not bother reading it. It has about a 1/5 the circulation of the Sun.

Is it just me that thinks the Sun i.e. RM, is sticking it's fingers up at the campaign?

When I heard the news I thought it was progress but had to put palm to face when the newsreader said they were still running page 3 but with bikinis and lingerie.

I'm a man so forgive me if I've missed something but how will this end the objectification of women? Okay so no nipples is better but doesn't really change a great deal. I think the Sun know this and are playing campaigners like fools.

That's just what I said upthread Bruce. It's insulting.

But... In five years' time, today's 8 year olds won't know anything about that, they'll just know the man on the bus is looking at a bikini picture, which at least are in other places like holiday ads.

Egos and who has won don't matter.

It's not about egos though, they are still objectifying women, just covering their nipples. Women in bikinis have a place in holiday ads though, they are there to illustrate being on the beach/ by the pool/ whatever as well as for titillation, whereas 'Page 3 girls' (nipples covered or not) are there purely for men to look at.

Yup.

It's still better for the future 13 year old girl though.

I'm not worried about my DC seeing nipples/ nudity, I am worried about him seeing pictures of women in a purely decorative, sexualised context. Which is what page 3 is even if their nipples are covered.

I'm with you TheHounds

Yonic

I thought it was about context and the fact that the women are on page 3 solely for the purposes of male pleasure. I understand what you're saying about the 8 year old scenario but isn't it ultimately about changing societal attitudes about men gawping at pictures of women?

In this respect I think a point has been made, and hats off to the campaigners, but in five years time I'm wondering if we'll be questioning what has actually been achieved.

Apologies if I sound like I'm getting down on on the work done so far.

I don't think it is any better for 13 year old girls if there are still women in their underwear on Page 3.

Ok, well, I think it's pretty cool, so let's agree to differ.

Would The Star's lower sales be anything to do with its explicit cover pictures? I usually cover The Star up with a Guardian or a Telegraph if it's on sale.

I wonder if Sun readers actually realise sitting reading the Star in public with its porn covers is too much?

Apparently Page 3 is returning tomorrow.

Sun's page 3 tomorrow (picture with the text "Further to reports in other media outlets, we would like to clarify that this is page 3 and this is a picture of Nicole, 22, from Bournemouth. We would like to apologise on behalf of [sic] the print and broadcast journalists who have spent the last two days talking about us.")