BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,216
What a bizarre question.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The end of the Sun's page 3
- Thread starter H block
- Start date
What a bizarre question.
I normally look with only one eye open, so i'm only half as bad as the others.
spring hall convert
Well-known member
Absolutely nothing but that isn't the sum total of her worth.
nwgull
Well-known member
Is it because you are going blind ?
Terrible exploitation that. Terrible insult to women too. Not allowed to look at women in the flesh, it's just not natural.
Absolutely nothing is the answer but we have been socialised by the one legged bra burners to think that it is not normal.
spring hall convert
Well-known member
So is the assumption that they are the only two choices that pretty girls have? You can have big tits and a brain.
spring hall convert
Well-known member
No we haven't.
What the "one-legged bra-burners" object to is men judging women's worth solely on their looks.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
What are all you loons on about!?
This isn't about censoring women being glamour models, or getting their kit off for photos whenever they please.
It is the appropriateness of a portrayal of women in a NEWSpaper.
Bloodyhell, anyone would think the feminists are overreacting shrill screaming bedwetters, but they're nothing compared to half the posters on here throwing their toys out of their prams because there is no longer a pair of tits in a NEWSPAPER!
spring hall convert
Well-known member
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 of tits out there to keep the comitted onanist busy for the rest of their lives.
Glamour models are just suffering from the same market forces as musicians. The internet is killing their industry. Nobody owes them a living.
Perhaps we are about to go through an era of glamour models crowd funding?
It may or not be the case that page 3 was merely a harmless bit of titilation etc. but that's not the point, and those that may think that's all it's about simply aren't getting it (ahem)...
In reality, the world exists in more ways than perceived through simply headed men's eyes.
Also, there may be more indirect victims of this deliberate dumbing down/infantilising of 'readers', such as those near to them.
And, multiplied by its casual availability, that's why this victory does represent something significant.
In reality, the world exists in more ways than perceived through simply headed men's eyes.
Also, there may be more indirect victims of this deliberate dumbing down/infantilising of 'readers', such as those near to them.
And, multiplied by its casual availability, that's why this victory does represent something significant.
London Irish
Well-known member
Close friends huh
It's not a victory at all, it really is the dumbest, most snobbish, most patronising wing of feminism celebrating this non event. Feminism has many different streams of thought, many of whom dont give a damn about this Mary Whitehouse for lefties campaign.
First off, the tits have just been moved behind the paywall, not abolished. It's just a money making move targeted at Sun readers.
Second, what they replaced the consensual posed pics with was non-consensual bikini snaps of celebs. Just as much objectification as before - but with the added insult of consent - a key feminist demand - also being removed.
You have to be a spectacular fool to see anything worth celebrating here.
User removed 4
New member
Since when has enjoying looking at page 3 made this the case ? You're saying that liking a nice pair of tits on page 3 inevitably means I will judge ALL women solely on their looks right ? Christ what a grey ,boring sterile world you and the likes of you want , you've certainly turned football into the atmosphere free bore fest that that you want for society in general.
Moshe Gariani
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2005
- 12,121
Overly intellectual nonsense.Close friends huh
It's not a victory at all, it really is the dumbest, most snobbish, most patronising wing of feminism celebrating this non event. Feminism has many different streams of thought, many of whom dont give a damn about this Mary Whitehouse for lefties campaign.
First off, the tits have just been moved behind the paywall, not abolished. It's just a money making move targeted at Sun readers.
Second, what they replaced the consensual posed pics with was non-consensual bikini snaps of celebs. Just as much objectification as before - but with the added insult of consent - a key feminist demand - also being removed.
You have to be a spectacular fool to see anything worth celebrating here.
Massive differences between a random topless 18 year old on Page 3 and a film star on a beach.
The celebrity in bikini beach pictures are obviously several steps down the exploitation/degradation tariff.
Yep, up there with the first flight across the Atlantic, the discovery of penicillin, and over 50 years of Coronation Street. A bit like when Elvis died, i shall remember where i was and what i was doing when this milestone was reached.
With all the bad news about..Murder..plane crashes...Kidnapping..etc etc....Surely the picture of a pretty girl showing off her assets is something to smile about... The Sun a NEWS paper, thats stretching it a bit. One step up from News of the World perhaps.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,216
No we haven't, we have just developed a more respectful way of expressing that attraction. Well on the most part anyway.