http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30891939

Love that they'll still be online

Thanks for the mammaries.

Je suis page three.

Etc..

Boobs online. How unique.

It's a real pity frankly - I'd come to rely on their incisive analysis of current geo-political events

Indeed. What will we decide to think of world events without the opinion of Lucy, 23 from Essex. page 3 is pretty much an anachronism and to be be honest I don't think the campaign has been half the success some members of it are claiming to be. The fact is you can say 'I wish this stone would turn to dust' and if you wait long enough it'll probably happen, but you didn't make it happen. The universe changed to be the way you wanted it to be but actually it doesn't give a crap what you think, it was going to happen anyway. I personally suspect there are hard-nosed business reasons why Page 3 has been phased out. The closure of the likes of Nuts and crashing numbers for FHM & CO suggest the appetite for 'glamour photography' was atrophying anyway. The Sun are nothing if not pragmatic. If they were going to pay any attention to 'No To Page 3', they'd have done so long before now. So IMO, less 'victory' more 'coincidence'.

I have sympathy for the campaign's arguments in term of it not being appropriate public imagery and how it trivialises women but I do also feel there's a bit of a sub current of demonisation of male sexuality, the way female sexuality was demonised for generations before say the 1960's.. Heterosexual men like looking at pretty women. The less clothes those women have on, generally, the more they like looking at them. If we entrench the idea that this of itself is somehow wrong or bad, we're going to curse entire generations of men to all sorts of problems.

The repression of female sexuality was wrong. But repressing male sexuality is no better. Two wrong definitely do not make a right.

I defend every woman's right to privacy, to not be hassled or intruded upon (or god forbid, worse). But the bare fact (if you'll excuse the pun) is that the women in question were consenting. They knew what they were doing, they knew what the pictures were for. For someone else to come in a say "no, this is all awful. You are bad for being in these pictures and you are worse for looking at them!" is imposing moral standards that they themselves don't subscribe to. And on principle, that is something I'm very much against.

I never understood Page 3.

Photos of boobs? Meh. Doesn't do anything for me, just give me the real thing.

Fnarrr fnarr

Apparently The Sun's new logo looks like this...



news report I've just heard said Page 3 semi naked lady is back tomorrow.

I was surprised why there was so much emphasis on the Sun when the Daily Star often had more than one topless pic in their newspapers, and the Daily Sport had loads of topless pics.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30928544



So, a few days of free publicity for The Sun.

I always assumed page 3 existed to save men the embarrassment of buying a porn mag from a paper shop.
Given the internet exists now, it's role seems rather redundant.