Page 3

Which garage and sandwich shop do you visit Iam64 ? I have never seen Page 3 open for all to see in Greggs or Morrisons thats for sure.
Anyway there are far worse things to hurt your eyes than a pair of boobygons surely.

I don't buy it gillybob but if I pick my car up from the garage or call in to the sandwich shop - there it'll be, page 3 open for all of us to 'enjoy'

Maybe a victory for common sense. If you don't want to look at it, don't buy it!

WOOT !!!! Nips are back - could this have been a publicity stunt ?

Remember salad creme being withdrawn ?

Really? Well, that's a relief. I'm off to the photographer first thing in the morning. Oh, I might find a footballer, too............?

Ha, had the lot of us!

Page 3 is still printed in tomorrows paper, just showed it on Sky .

As you were.

TriciaF, I'm sure you DH is right, this is just to get the Sun into the media again and increase sales, nothing to do with "doing the right thing"

Atqui. You are right, scantily clad women are much sexier. Stockings, suspender belt etc, - off for a cold shower.

The downside is that poor footballers' will have a hard time finding a wife!!!

Just what my DH said Atqui. Who knows how the male mind works!

Sometimes 'scantily clad' women make for a more provocative image, so nothing changes.

I saw it as a victory for the feminists too ( POGS' post.)
I have no strong feelings either way - husband thinks it's to do with reader numbers falling in The Sun and Murdoch is trying this to boost sales.

If more people became naturists there would not be this preoccupation with the human body - female or male.

I find the images of people being murdered more offensive. There was no need to show the gunman in Paris walking up to the injured police officer and shooting him. I know the policeman was pixaled out but it was obvious he was there and easy to imagine what he was saying, how he looked and what he was feeling. In fact the report said he was pleading for his life so you didn't really have to use your imagination.

I hated the Sun with a vengeance as a teen. I once had it shoved under my nose by some yob and his friends, all saying 'get them out, bet yours are as good as hers'. Young men did buy it as a form of legitimate porn (according to Ex) that they could look at freely on the street, and also in the office. I hated seeing men reading it in their lunchbreaks. I rarely saw a woman reading it. I find all photos of scantily clad females rather offensive, no matter where or why, in particular if they are being used to sell something. I always feel the message is 'buy this shower gel and this woman will miraculously appear in your shower and have rampant sex with you' even if you have halitosis, an unpleasant personality and are incredibly self-centred.

With you on that pompa.

A page 3 model was interviewed earlier and she said she thought it was nonsense, saying that since the dawn of the ability to draw/paint the naked form has been depicted and appreciated.

What a fuss, if you don't like it, don't buy the Sun.

I'm much more concerned about violence in the media rather that a few very nice boobs.

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.

Don't worry NotTooOld - they're continuing with it in the online version of The Sun!

Darn it. That's my ambition down the pan.

I could never see the problem with page 3 . Admittedly I wouldn't want my DD or DGD to be a page 3 girl but it doesn't bother me in the slightest that others choose this path and they do choose to do it, they are not forced. They probably make quite a bit of money doing it too. Personally I wouldn't read the Sun as I think it's a rubbish newspaper (there are others equally as bad) and to my knowledge my DS, DH or father have never bought it either. So what's the problem?

Girls taking their tops off for money? Show me a real problem.

About time too.

They still intend to print pictures of young women in underwear or swimwear so they are still objectifying women.

Yawn...

True.