The End of Page 3

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 3:51 pm

Page 3 models lead backlash against 'comfy shoe-wearing, no bra-wearing, man-haters' - Telegraph

Many years ago. I admired Harriet Harman for her stance on women's rights but has this gone too far now.

I have to find myself agreeing with Glamour model Jodie Marsh when she says there are far more pressing matters re: women's rights such stoning to death, etc etc

Surely, a woman's right Is equal to men ie freedom of choice. If they want to bare their breasts, why shouldn't they ? After all, the same feminist groups campaign for nursing Mothers to expose a bare breast In public.

I have never seen the big deal with Page 3. It comes down to choice. If you don't want to see naked breasts, then It's simple, you buy the Express Instead.

How do members feel about this ?

theia · Post by **theia** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:16 pm

Oscar Namechange;1472196 wrote: Page 3 models lead backlash against 'comfy shoe-wearing, no bra-wearing, man-haters' - Telegraph

Many years ago. I admired Harriet Harman for her stance on women's rights but has this gone too far now.

I have to find myself agreeing with Glamour model Jodie Marsh when she says there are far more pressing matters re: women's rights such stoning to death, etc etc

Surely, a woman's right Is equal to men ie freedom of choice. If they want to bare their breasts, why shouldn't they ? After all, the same feminist groups campaign for nursing Mothers to expose a bare breast In public.

I have never seen the big deal with Page 3. It comes down to choice. If you don't want to see naked breasts, then It's simple, you buy the Express Instead.

How do members feel about this ?

Way back, in my late teens, early 20s, when the Sun was first published, I bought it to see what the models looked like on page 3. I'd never seen a picture of a topless model and since I was destined to have small breasts I was curious.

I don't really understand why the Sun feels it has to stop these pictures. As you said, if the models are happy to model and some people are happy to look at the pictures, why not?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:19 pm

theia;1472201 wrote: Way back, in my late teens, early 20s, when the Sun was first published, I bought it to see what the models looked like on page 3. I'd never seen a picture of a topless model and since I was destined to have small breasts I was curious.

I don't really understand why the Sun feels it has to stop these pictures. As you said, if the models are happy to model and some people are happy to look at the pictures, why not?

Wanna swop ? My latest bra Is 40 DD :wah: I'll swop any day.

It really does smack of anti-woman to me. I don't get the double standards by Harmen and her Ilk. Fighting for women's rights but denying them the right to earn money the way they want to.

theia · Post by **theia** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:24 pm

Oscar Namechange;1472202 wrote: Wanna swop ? My latest bra Is 40 DD :wah: I'll swop any day.

It really does smack of anti-woman to me. I don't get the double standards by Harmen and her Ilk. Fighting for women's rights but denying them the right to earn money the way they want to.

If we were a similar age I could blame you for standing in front of me in the queue for breasts, because someone damn well did! There was virtually NOTHING left for me.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 5:21 pm

theia;1472203 wrote: If we were a similar age I could blame you for standing in front of me in the queue for breasts, because someone damn well did! There was virtually NOTHING left for me.

:wah::wah::wah:

Peter calls my bra's my ' over shoulder boulder holder'.

I'd swap them any day just to be able to run again :wah:

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:16 pm

As I see it, when they first started showing the Page 3 pics, it boosted sales because it had the shock value of low level porn. These days, especially with open Internet access to material that makes Page 3 seems rather Puritanical. it's nothing special any more & I don't really see what all the fuss is about. Furthermore, while campaign groups continue to protest about it the Sun (and similar papers) continue to rake in the money from the very welcome additional free publicity.

Last time I saw a copy of the Sun was last week while I was waiting for my Fish & Chips to be cooked at the local Chippy, and I was far more disgusted at the amount of adverts there were in it. They must have taken up about 75% of the print space.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:26 pm

With the Internet today and even teenage mags, a bare breast is hardly an outrage. If anything, groups should be accepting It as a progression of the times rather than treat It as It was viewed 40 years ago.

People have a choice... they either buy It or they don't. People know exactly what It's going to contain after 40 years. These feminist lobbyists are really taking away freedom of choice... not the content.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:01 am

Oscar Namechange;1472212 wrote: With the Internet today and even teenage mags, a bare breast is hardly an outrage. If anything, groups should be accepting It as a progression of the times rather than treat It as It was viewed 40 years ago.

People have a choice... they either buy It or they don't. People know exactly what It's going to contain after 40 years. These feminist lobbyists are really taking away freedom of choice... not the content.

Exactly. The usual claim is that the women are being exploited. Well, I don't exactly see the modeling fees they receive as being exploitative. The models are there, not only by choice, but is usually something they aspire to. If they were MADE to pose partly naked, that would be exploitation. If they were MADE to appear fully clothed that, too, would be exploitation. The choice, and the freedom to choose, is not only in the reader's / viewer's freedom to choose whether or not to buy the paper, but the freedom of the model's choice to appear in it. Surely that is what feminism is (or, at least, should be) all about - Giving women the right to choose what they wear - or not, as the case may be.

As for breastfeeding in public - I don't see what all the fuss is about that either. It's one of the most natural things in the world. We are mammals, and the very word 'mammal' is defined of 'mammary'. Why shouldn't a Mother nurse her young wherever she chooses? I know it's not quite on the same level as a Page 3 Girl, but the principle is still the same with the right to choose. Anyone who is offended then, as far as I'm concerned, they're the ones that have the problem.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:26 am

I remember reading somewhere some years ago about girls aspiring to be page 3 models because It often catapaults them Into TV work. Melinda Messenger Is one example. Now a respected TV presenter on ' Cowboy Builders'. Another Is Linda Lusadi who presents TV shows. Samantha Fox went on to earn a lot of money In Germany singing.

If you look at their backgrounds also, they come from very respectable families, they are far from forced Into some seedy porn Industry. In fact, It's a career choice from what I've seen and read over the years. None of the girls as I recall ended up In the gutter. Most married, had children and lead respectable lives. The money they earned from Page 3 probably even In some cases enabled them to get on the property market and feed their children. Where's the shame In that ? I admire their nerve and tenacity,

Harriet Harmen and her like have led, almost a witch hunt on Page 3 for many years. I wonder what Is the real reason ? I don't seem able to find one sensible reason for It.

Feminist campaigners like her are dangerous. These Page 3 models have never needed her help for they are not being and have never been exploited. Far from It, by all accounts, the competition Is stiff ( no pun Intended ) and few make It to Page 3. It makes me wonder the true cause for the relentless campaign. Ashamed of the female form, Jealousy, or what I suspect most, the erosion of free will and free choice step by step. And they call us the Nazi's !!!

My husband looks at Page 3 but I never understand these women who ban their men from buying It. I've seen worse In teenage mags.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Jan 22, 2015 4:40 pm

I remember when I was in my early teens I used to get those "Top Of The Pops" LPs (which were actually copies - sometimes recorded by Elton John, before he became famous), and they, more often than not included topless models on their covers, as well as a free poster, yet no-one bothered about these, but continued to protest about the Sun.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Jan 22, 2015 4:55 pm

FourPart;1472298 wrote: I remember when I was in my early teens I used to get those "Top Of The Pops" LPs (which were actually copies - sometimes recorded by Elton John, before he became famous), and they, more often than not included topless models on their covers, as well as a free poster, yet no-one bothered about these, but continued to protest about the Sun.

You're right.

Vinyl Records Top of The Pops | eBay

It makes the witch hunt on Page 3 all the more ominous.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Jan 23, 2015 2:27 pm

It's been many years since I lived in England --- I recall back then (late '70's) seeing bared breasts on the Front Page, & I think it was the Sun. I found it repellent, but only because it's a newspaper & that's not news.