Search results

Am I right in hearing that it's back tomorrow? Amazing trolling from Rupert Murdoch if so! The free publicity...

I follow Stavvers as it goes. She's hardly sticking up for page 3 is she? And correct me if I'm wrong but the second blog, thought provoking as it is, falls foul of the "haven't directly or indirectly financially benefited from" proviso. It doesn't make that voice any less worthy, just biased.

Really? No one? I've known a few. I must have just been very unlucky then.

The choice hasn't been removed. If a woman wants to make money showing her breasts there is plenty of opportunity for her to do it. It's just that it is not deemed fit to be part of Britain's most widely read national newspaper.

That's convenient. I'm sure had these long standing rules been drawn up with female assistance, they might have looked a little different.

I don't think people are truly ignorant. I don't think people are genuinely misogynistic. I do think people are scared though. Desperately trying to hang on to what they've got. I understand that, it's human nature but it totally gets in the way of us having a fair and equal society. Page 3 is...

You miss the point I'm making about straight men as it goes. The point I'm making is that it's not up to straight men to decide whether something objectifes women or not. It's not up to straight men to consider if page 3 causes self-esteem issues in women. This thread has so many examples of...

As a side issue - Can anyone find me someone who isn't a straight male or hasn't directly or indirectly financially benefitted from page 3 that is speaking out on behalf of it?

Some people judge. Most people notice.

No, you're putting words into my mouth. I have never said that. Undoubtedly page three was symbolic of that attitude (what was "news in briefs" about if it wasn't?) - that's not the same as saying that all fans of page three viewed women as solely sex objects. Having learnt my sexual swear...

The funny thing about it is, is that this is actually an economic argument more than anything else. Nuts and Zoo have stopped - why? Because there are an infinite amount of breasts on the internet. If no other woman ever agreed to show her tits for money again, there are more than enough pairs...

No we haven't. What the "one-legged bra-burners" object to is men judging women's worth solely on their looks.

So is the assumption that they are the only two choices that pretty girls have? You can have big tits and a brain.

Absolutely nothing but that isn't the sum total of her worth.

:fishing:

All change starts with "minority do-gooders."

The point I'm trying to make is that in my opinion, it's not really up to straight males to judge the effects of page 3 on general objectification and self-esteem of women. I find it hard to argue that it is in any way a force for the good. The vociferous disapproval of it in some quarters may...

It interesting you focus on that bit, perhaps it is a little far fetched. I'm not sure this bit was though. "Those women didn't buy the Sun either," says Holmes. "We're hearing about 15-year-old girls who have been walking down the school corridor and their boobs are being graded out of 10...

That's really easy to say as (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong) a straight male. Have a read of Peter Gummits post above for the other side of the story.

You may have a point.