Oh gawd
Millions see the Sun page 3 girls with their knickers on. Millions see the Venus de Milo or David with his k--b hanging out, but that's 'art darling'.!!
I don't see the point to having the page 3 girls to be honest and I think it is a good move as it is old hat, so out of date and it will not give advantage to those who literally hate the paper to 'have a go'. I find the pictures a waste of paper space and print but as for being offended by them then I find the hypocrisy, lies and damage to our security some papers print offends me more to be frank.
Alan Johnson on Daily Politics today said it was a result for feminists. OK maybe. However I would have thought the feminists might have gone in then other direction and said if as an example Labour MP Chris Bryant poses in his underpants on a gay website why shouldn't the female of the species have equal rights and pose in their underpants too.
If it is a feminist cause then. I say it is tantamount to hypocrisy for the reason above and if it is because children see the pictures or it is for dirty old men then let's stop pornography altogether because it is easily available to see. At the end of the day I am neither pleased nor saddened but if I don't want to watch a porn video I don't buy it. Likewise the Sun.
I am at a loss at times to understand what the sight of the female form means to some. In art it is fine, breast feeding, it is fine, progs on TV it is fine if it is discussing health issues but not in a drama. In a newspaper that you didn't have to buy nor view all hell broke loose and the females form on display was pornography.