scrubbedexpat027

Believe. And guess what, in a place of free speech, it's allowed. I will try harder to live up to your standards in the future.

lansbury

one which unfortunately no longer has the laws of 1863

scrubbedexpat027

http://youtu.be/LS37SNYjg8w

[ .. runs for cover .. ]

RoadWarriorFromLP

She'll probably get more business from her rejection than she would have from an article in the travel section of that rag.

I don't doubt her sincerity, but it was a wise PR move, regardless. (The Guardian's travel section may take notice.)

Anian

It's sad that today a topless woman is considered a sex object rather than just as a woman. And by a feminist no less.

markwm

Wow.

Ozzidoc

Nope. Still no clearer.

Steerpike

Your post, and the referenced article, raise a number of issues that are not entirely cut and dried in my mind ...

I do find the female body visually attractive, and I don't consider that as entirely 'sexual'. I may think "that's nice", and not "boy I'd like to hump that...".

The US is considered 'prudish' because sex is heavily banned/censored on TV, while in the UK, sex and nakedness are relatively accepted, and the UK is considered 'liberal' or 'progressive' as a consequence. How does this sit with the idea of women's rights?

I have heard it said (I can't say I have any expertise in the matter but certainly sounds plausible) that men find women's bodies physically attractive, while women don't find mens bodies physically attractive, at least in the same way. So the 'unequal' treatment of women in this regard may be somewhat appropriate in that men want to look at women, while women don't want to look at men ... . As I write this I can imagine it's going to be contentious ...

Nutmegger

I feel it is the venue that is questionable -- if a woman wants to take her clothes off and pose for a mag such as Playboy, go for it! (Getting well remunerated, I hope.) If a man wants to buy said mag to ogle her, no problem! But it seems that a daily newspaper, which is read on the bus or subway and then frequently carelessly tossed away, is not an appropriate forum to flash naked pics, of either sex.

SultanOfSwing

Pun intentional?

Put it this way - if the Sun ever stopped printing naked ladies on page 3, that's one more full page that will get filled up with their brand of 'journalism'. Those nice girls are doing the UK a favour, IMO

Sally Redux

I think they do.
Some creepy blokes on the Tube fold the paper to page 3 and sort of push it at you - at least they did when I was younger, doubt it would happen to me now.

markwm

Really? That is amusing.

Weeze

It's such an old fashioned idea of what's acceptable in society. Running a countdown to a models 16th birthday on one page while having articles about "ban the pedo" on another is such an amazing inconsistency that it's surprising we are still having this discussion in 2013. Today on page 3 we have Ryian 26 from Manchester, while 2 pages later we are being told to "put your clothes on ladies" under a discussion of the MTV awards.

It enables bullying and discrimination (if you want examples of some of the stories why not check out the latest "say no to page 3" campaign) in schools and workplaces. If you are one that finds page 3 distasteful then you are not seeing the humour or are making a fuss about nothing.

Really it's just a bit odd isn't it. Would it be acceptable to start the news headlines on itvnews and then take a break to see Rachel, 22 from Leeds breasts? If not then why is it acceptable in a national newspaper?

Sally Redux

I remember a letter to our local paper in Solihull titled something like 'Keep breasts on Page 3.' A woman had been horrified by seeing a breastfeeding mother in the town.


Says it all really.

Anian

Sounds like you sat on the remote and switched it to Hollyoaks.

The Sun is entertainment, with a bit of news thrown in, it isn't news in itself. When it comes to entertainment, boobs are allowed.