Donate SIGN UP

The End Of Page Three???

Avatar Image
sp1814 | 18:31 Mon 19th Jan 2015 | News
126 Answers
The sad demise of a harmless British tradition, brought low by a phalanx of hairy feminists and liberal yoghurt knitters?

Or the welcome eradication of a blatantly sexist anachronism in what purports to be a family newspaper?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/19/has-the-sun-axed-page-3-topless-pictures?CMP=share_btn_tw

You might assume from my inclusion of the words 'phalanx', 'anachronism' and 'purports' in the above questions, that I am one of the aforementioned liberal yoghurt-knitter, but personally I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other about the future of Page Three...

...other than it might make room for more stories about Kim Kardashian...which I think we can all agree is a very bad thing indeed.

Your thoughts?
Gravatar

Answers

101 to 120 of 126rss feed

First Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
NoW sold about 2.7m when the plug was pulled. Sun on Sunday sells about 1.7m and falling.
Retrochic

/// Would you be happy for your grandchild to be on page three? ///

No but if that was her chosen career, who has the right to say what an independent person can do or not do, one can show disapproval, but that is all.

/// What about children? 'Mummy why is that lady showing her boobies in the paper? Answer that one -oh because she has no aspirations to go to school and get an education because she can show them off in the paper and get loads of money -fantastic role models they are aren't they? ///

You could same the same regarding a professional football player, but would you try and dissuade your son from following that route?

I don't think so somehow, so its all down to the matter of the showing of one's boobs.
youngmafbog - 'get a life' lol! bit 1990's that isn't it lol!

Indignation? you must be joking I really could not care a less as it does not affect me and never will but I am allowed an opinion, which I will express freely as and when necessary. Je suis Charlie as they say...............
All the butch lesbians will now be happy. Their next target will be gilds in underwear or bikinis.
anotholdgit -oh come on puh-leese! At least (allegedly) a professional footballer needs a modicum of talent -all a page three girl needs is a half decent face and a good pair of knockers! You are right -they can do what they want why not ? This is not the issue here, the OP was not about the girls morals or aspirations, of if they should be 'allowed' to do it -it was asking if page three has had its day -which it has because Murdoch has said so.
One assumes that, if parents feel the need to shield their children from Page3, they will also make sure they do not have access to ... smart phones, any device connected to the Internet, Brighton Beach, Brighton town centre during the naked bike ride, and coverage of Rio Carnival, etc etc.

Keep them in a cocoon. Protect them from the world.
Cloverjo

/// I don't mind anyone looking at whatever they want online. I just don't want them to when I'm in the same room, on the same train or whatever. ///

You shouldn't be staring at what people are reading, don't you know it's rude?
dave50 surely the butch lesbians will be sad they can't see boobs in their newspaper anymore -think you are getting mixed up between lesbianism and feminism
joggerjayne you are missing the point totally -if you access nudity or porn online you are making an effort to do that -its your choice . There is nothing wrong with a nude female image -but its totally out of context in a daily newspaper.
Retrochic

/// dave50 surely the butch lesbians will be sad they can't see boobs in their newspaper anymore -think you are getting mixed up between lesbianism and feminism ///

Isn't Sam Fox a lesbian?

/// joggerjayne you are missing the point totally -if you access nudity or porn online you are making an effort to do that -its your choice . ///

And if you access nudity via a newspaper, is not one also making an effort to do that, by purchasing and reading a certain newspaper?
Interesting comparison between this thread and the one a few months ago regarding breast feeding in public.
"Surely it should be down to the buying public "

Murdoch said it was time to remove it as it was 'old-fashioned'.

Interesting that some still believe the myth that things are 'down to the buying public'.... the buying public are a reactive force, they do not manufacture, advertising is there to supply the demand.

Lots of dubious analogies and anecdotal evidence in this thread, and of course the very sexist positions Page 3 was meant to incite.

Any Ms, Miss or Mr care to proffer a view on why the Sun never published closeups of fully erect male tadgers ?
In the early days of satellite television anyone out there remember 'Topless Darts'?

Created a whole new interest into what was deemed a rather boring sport.
I'm not sure that I'm missing the point really.

If its out of context in a newspaper, why is it not out of context in any magazine?

We live in a world where we are bombarded by images, both real and fictional, of people starving, people with disease, people being murdered, bombs going off, people maimed by violence, fighting, violence, etc etc. It's a tough, nasty world. Parents have to prepare thie children to survive out there.

How does anyone have time to get worked up about a grainy black and white photo of a pair of boobs? If people feel that distressed by Page3, how are they ever going to prepare a child to face the world?

And are we really saying the Sun is a "news" paper? It's a red-top tabloid, which provides a bit of light entertainment. Half of the headlines are fictional stories bout things that happen in TV soaps.
sevenOP
That would be illegal.
sevenOP

/// Any Ms, Miss or Mr care to proffer a view on why the Sun never published closeups of fully erect male tadgers ? ///

A different kettle of fish entirely, the Sun has never published close-up of female genitalia either.
retrocop>"sevenOP That would be illegal"

anotheoldgit>"sevenOP...A different kettle of fish entirely, the Sun has never published close-up of female genitalia either. "

Why would it be illegal - who decided that and why - and why is it a different 'kettle of fish' ? - apart from the amine odour connection.

And where is "Surely it should be down to the buying public " in this ?
Why is anything illegal here ?
Because the elites at Westminster has decreed it so (or it was illegal before they were formed).
I wonder if some would have all old master's nudes removed from art galleries?

101 to 120 of 126rss feed

First Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

The End Of Page Three???

Answer Question >>