IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Save page 3
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Pattaya |
Locked Out wrote:
andrew wrote:
It's a personal choice what readers look at
Arr, but the in-your-face presentation makes it difficult - no, impossible- not to see it.
andrew wrote:
no one is forcing the women to pose naked
In the same way that no one is forcing the 8 year old boy to look at it - or the 13 year old girl to not be made to feel inadequate by it? Or anyone who doesn't think that it belongs where it is to be offended by it?
andrew wrote:
it's not porn far from it
It's not news either. So why put it in a newspaper? Incidentally, if it isn't there to titillate, what is it there for?
andrew wrote:
it creates jobs...
Oh, for Christ's sake... It doesn't. Do you truly believe that the Sun is what keeps the models in work and without the Sun they would be adding to the unemployment figures?
andrew wrote:
And why are women moaning about it
Ask women that question and I'll guarantee you that you'll get quite a few who will give you answers you probably won't enjoy hearing.
andrew wrote:
they not forced to look at tits
Sorry, but if they open the Sun at Page 3 that's exactly what they are being forced to do.
andrew wrote:
every female has them
That's true. Just as every bloke has a willy. You want to put those on Page 3 too? If not, why not?
andrew wrote:
if people wanted porn they look online.
Well, there you are, then. You don't really need the Sun, do you?
andrew wrote:
I don't moan at topless men on health magazines or on Attitude
Neither are newspapers, one is about promoting physical {the clue's in the name} well being, the other concerns itself with gay sexuality. Therefore both could possibly be expected to discuss - and very probably illustrate - the male physique in a way which no newspaper would ever be expected to.. It's also worth mentioning that neither tome would ascribe the term "family publication" to itself.
andrew wrote:
so please leave page 3 alone.
The Sun is a horrific rag whose stock in trade is hypocrisy of the worst kind. And its main distinguishing feature is Page 3. I'll savage it to death whenever I feel like it, thankyou.
Don't always agree with LO,but with him 100% on this. |
|
bh |
I feel one day there will be no papers, as the Internet will have destroyed them, but as we know the net is full of stuff far worse than page 3. Or maybe Sun readers, haven't the brains for PCs!
Celibacy rules OK. |
|
Locked Out |
andrew wrote:
It's a personal choice what readers look at
Arr, but the in-your-face presentation makes it difficult - no, impossible- not to see it.
andrew wrote:
no one is forcing the women to pose naked
In the same way that no one is forcing the 8 year old boy to look at it - or the 13 year old girl to not be made to feel inadequate by it? Or anyone who doesn't think that it belongs where it is to be offended by it?
andrew wrote:
it's not porn far from it
It's not news either. So why put it in a newspaper? Incidentally, if it isn't there to titillate, what is it there for?
andrew wrote:
it creates jobs...
Oh, for Christ's sake... It doesn't. Do you truly believe that the Sun is what keeps the models in work and without the Sun they would be adding to the unemployment figures?
andrew wrote:
And why are women moaning about it
Ask women that question and I'll guarantee you that you'll get quite a few who will give you answers you probably won't enjoy hearing.
andrew wrote:
they not forced to look at tits
Sorry, but if they open the Sun at Page 3 that's exactly what they are being forced to do.
andrew wrote:
every female has them
That's true. Just as every bloke has a willy. You want to put those on Page 3 too? If not, why not?
andrew wrote:
if people wanted porn they look online.
Well, there you are, then. You don't really need the Sun, do you?
andrew wrote:
I don't moan at topless men on health magazines or on Attitude
Neither are newspapers, one is about promoting physical {the clue's in the name} well being, the other concerns itself with gay sexuality. Therefore both could possibly be expected to discuss - and very probably illustrate - the male physique in a way which no newspaper would ever be expected to.. It's also worth mentioning that neither tome would ascribe the term "family publication" to itself.
andrew wrote:
so please leave page 3 alone.
The Sun is a horrific rag whose stock in trade is hypocrisy of the worst kind. And its main distinguishing feature is Page 3. I'll savage it to death whenever I feel like it, thankyou. |
|
Pattaya |
I'd be more worried if a topless ITK appeared on page 3.....what would Mrs ITK say!  |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
andrew wrote:
www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-commons-22871074
It's a personal choice what readers look at, no one is forcing the women to pose naked, it's not porn far from it, it creates jobs please note that one ITK. And why are women moaning about it they not forced to look at tits every female has them if people wanted porn they look online.
I don't moan at topless men on health magazines or on Attitude so please leave page 3 alone.
I am not sure why people want breasts in newspapers though. I would have thought leering would be a separate activity to reading the paper? |
|
|
|
|
