Murdoch may stop Page 3

Wtf? Angela Merkel's had more time on the front page than topless women, and that's assuming girls can't have male role models.

I'm sorry but the Sun tells boys they gain recognition through going into business or politics? I don't think are talking about the same paper. Scrolling down their webpage, males identified are Rooney, Alex Reid, John Bishop and Robbie Fowler, 2 criminals, a male model with have his balls felt on TV, Robbie Williams. How come boys aren't being told all they can aspire to be is a footballer, or as an object in Heat magazines "Torso of the week".

'No one likes oppression'. You are phrasing female submission in a distortingly negative light. Of course no one likes 'oppression', in the same way no one likes murder. But murder and euthanasia aren't the same and nor is oppression and submission. I recently created a poll on here that asked heterosexual men and women to list sexual preferences; overwhelmingly, the women reported to prefer sexual submission and the men sexual domination. Yes, these are sexual preferences and do not necessarily reflect their everyday mindsets, but to suggest that human sexuality (which is at the very core of our existences) does not influence other areas of our activity would be absurd. Certainly our sexual appetites will have more of an effect on our societal attitudes than observing a well-endowed woman in a newspaper every day. I'm not saying women necessarily enjoy societal submission and men societal domination because they do in the bedroom, but I think it's definitely possible that there's a link and is certainly not worth dismissing offhand.

Have you considered it might be the other way around?

Well yeah, that's because they're not allowed to put topless women on the front cover. Not that that stops the Express trying though... I didn't ever say that there is no other women in those papers, but the overwhelming majority of people in positions are power are men so it makes for a sharp contrast between the representation of men and women. Of course girls can have male role models, but our society splits us in two depending on gender so in general boys will aspire to be like certain men and girls will aspire to be like certain women.

Some of those men have talent, which I mentioned in my original post. Those men aren't in the paper primarily because of what they look like, which makes it different from the role of women in the Sun. There are two differences between The Sun's page 3 and Heat's "Torso of the week". First, men's chests aren't sexualised in the same way as women's, so a man without a top on cannot be compared to a woman without one on. I'd probably be arrested for going outside without a top on, whereas you'd just get some odd looks and some stupid comments considering how cold it is. Secondly, Heat is a weekly magazine with a more specific demographic, whereas the Sun is the biggest selling national newspaper. Heat is more comparable to FHM or Nuts or whatever (although with significantly less nakedness). It's not claiming to be news.

You can tell from their expressions that they often are being abused. There are research papers analysing it all, written by psychologists, in the US the FBI have rescued girls and used them as evidence in some cases.

I really doubt a gang of armed youths is going to have a civilised debate with a self-confessed paedophile. The more likely outcome is repeated stabbing

I've just read this thread the whole way through - and goodness, girls got it bad.

I mean seriously guys. You keep having a go about "women being apathetic and not speaking out about this". But the women who are speaking out about it are being shouted down and accused of being feminists as if it's some dirty shameful thing.

Can you not just understand that opening a newspaper and seeing a topless woman, pictures of Olympic heroes like Jennifer Ennis dwarfed in terms of size and positioning in the paper... I remember being about 5 or 6, and seeing the daily star in the corner shop, with a topless blonde on the front, nipples out and everything, and asking my mum, "why is that lady on the newspaper?"

I don't know what my mum said back to me, but I still remember it clearly. I struggled throughout my teens wondering whether I was the wrong size or body type, whether guys would judge me if I looked this way or that way, and it's because things like Page 3 objectify women, they show them as being objects for men's sexual satisfaction - in a male dominated industry, in the 70s when Page 3 was introduced, you can understand that. But today, we should be showing young girls that being a topless model isn't something that should be their greatest aspiration.

An old school friend who didn't go to uni tried to get into glamour modelling, as in her words, "it would make the most money". Girls are drawn into this culture of thinking that behaving a certain way is what men want, I struggled personally for a while trying to work out why when I dressed provocatively and went out clubbing I would be treated nastily by guys, either pushed around or harassed, touched up and then called a slag when I complained. And if you really want to doubt my statistics, I have been raped in the past, and sexually assaulted. I'm sure you won't believe me because I'm just "another internet feminist" but it is true, and whether you believe it or not I'm bringing it up because I believe this society has led to women being treated without respect.

I'm not saying all this is the fault of Page 3, it is the fault of a society that treats women like sexual objects. We are shown images daily, in newspapers and porn popups online and magazines, that project the idea of women being there just for the benefit of men. Girls are topless in Page 3 because men want to see boobs, we all get that. The point I think everyone who wishes to remove Page 3 is that it is not suitable content for a family newspaper, you can view porn anywhere you like online or in top shelf mags, just get rid of it from a newspaper which is being read by people who don't want to see topless women (here's one woman speaking out about it, if I'm being too "apathetic" for you).

I know I'm going to get trolled now for having the audacity to be a feminist, but just hear me out. I've made my point and given my reasons, and much as you might like to belittle women on this forum, my argument carries as much weight as anybody else's. Can't we just all be friends and get along, look at boobies on your own time and not in amongst the news and Katie Price's latest shenanigans?

Did newspapers really have a bigger effect on your perception of your body than women's magazines? The magazine that published the topless Kate Middleton photos was the French version of Closer, a women's magazine, and you don't have to look past the front cover on most (all?) women's magazines to see something about body shape and/or diets.

This isn't men vs women, it's women buying and reading what they want, and the people publishing these magazines are publishing what sells. If women liked to look at photos of cars then women's magazines would be full of those too.

All of the usual porn industry lies are being repeated here:

2/ It's a "free" country, so they are "free" to earn their pittance displaying their sex for a few quid and then have that "freely" distributed by the world's largest companies for massive profit.

I am of the belief that people are lazy, and they take what they're given. Since the target "women's magazines" are about clothes, makeup, etc - essentially selling things, and telling meaningless celebrity drivel, I avoid them. I do however indulge in Take A Break as "my dog ate my husbands ashes - but it's okay because I have his ghost!" type stories are hilarious, and there isn't such a negative view point on body image.

I think there are vast swathes of the media in which women are presented poorly, and Page 3 is simply one of them - but the difference in Page 3 is that it has no purpose whatsoever other than to give you a girl's boobs to look at. Women's magazines don't show topless women - because most of us don't want to see them. While the stick thin size 0 models in mags like Grazia are very bad for body image, they at least have clothes on, and are at least serving a purpose i.e. selling those clothes, rather than just being there so some bloke can get a lil stiffy with his elevenses.

It isn't a matter of the women having the choice to be topless in the newspaper, it's the fact anybody believes that having boobs is necessary in a newspaper, particularly on the first page you open.

I've just read this thread the whole way through - and goodness, girls got it bad.

I mean seriously guys. You keep having a go about "women being apathetic and not speaking out about this". But the women who are speaking out about it are being shouted down and accused of being feminists as if it's some dirty shameful thing.

Can you not just understand that opening a newspaper and seeing a topless woman, pictures of Olympic heroes like Jennifer Ennis dwarfed in terms of size and positioning in the paper... I remember being about 5 or 6, and seeing the daily star in the corner shop, with a topless blonde on the front, nipples out and everything, and asking my mum, "why is that lady on the newspaper?"

I don't know what my mum said back to me, but I still remember it clearly. I struggled throughout my teens wondering whether I was the wrong size or body type, whether guys would judge me if I looked this way or that way, and it's because things like Page 3 objectify women, they show them as being objects for men's sexual satisfaction - in a male dominated industry, in the 70s when Page 3 was introduced, you can understand that. But today, we should be showing young girls that being a topless model isn't something that should be their greatest aspiration.

An old school friend who didn't go to uni tried to get into glamour modelling, as in her words, "it would make the most money". Girls are drawn into this culture of thinking that behaving a certain way is what men want, I struggled personally for a while trying to work out why when I dressed provocatively and went out clubbing I would be treated nastily by guys, either pushed around or harassed, touched up and then called a slag when I complained. And if you really want to doubt my statistics, I have been raped in the past, and sexually assaulted. I'm sure you won't believe me because I'm just "another internet feminist" but it is true, and whether you believe it or not I'm bringing it up because I believe this society has led to women being treated without respect.

I'm not saying all this is the fault of Page 3, it is the fault of a society that treats women like sexual objects. We are shown images daily, in newspapers and porn popups online and magazines, that project the idea of women being there just for the benefit of men. Girls are topless in Page 3 because men want to see boobs, we all get that. The point I think everyone who wishes to remove Page 3 is that it is not suitable content for a family newspaper, you can view porn anywhere you like online or in top shelf mags, just get rid of it from a newspaper which is being read by people who don't want to see topless women (here's one woman speaking out about it, if I'm being too "apathetic" for you).

I know I'm going to get trolled now for having the audacity to be a feminist, but just hear me out. I've made my point and given my reasons, and much as you might like to belittle women on this forum, my argument carries as much weight as anybody else's. Can't we just all be friends and get along, look at boobies on your own time and not in amongst the news and Katie Price's latest shenanigans?

It isn't a matter of the women having the choice to be topless in the newspaper, it's the fact anybody believes that having boobs is necessary in a newspaper, particularly on the first page you open.

I don't think anybody here is saying it's necessary, that isn't the point. All I am personally trying to say is that it shouldn't be the place of government (who I can only assume feminists are trying to appeal to, since nobody is bothering to deny it when I bring it up) to legislate against things like this on the subjective moral grounds of "it's for the good of society". That is endorsing a paternalist state.

Not true. Most women do not complain, therefore it is reasonable to conclude they are either apathetic or support the status quo. Not once in this thread has anyone been 'shouted down' for expressing feminist ideals. The ones that have been shouted down have likely invited it by being rude.

I can completely understand this point, but do not forget that men are equally as blighted by societal pressures to conform to a physical ideal, so it's not so much a feminist issue as a generational one. Arguably this doesn't mean that people should be disallowed from selling their aesthetics for money. A shift in attitudes doesn't have to include a curtailment of the liberties of others

Arguably by calling for page 3 to be removed because some children might see the images you are denying families the responsibility to care for their children properly. Besides, since when was the Sun a family newspaper? They've had page 3 for years and unpleasantly stalked countless public figures (for 'news' about their personal lives not in the public interest to know at all) to the point of committing a string of criminal offences in recent times.

Again, no non-trolls have belittled feminists unless said feminists have asked for it. You make a more compelling argument than the thread starter, but I think the biggest problems are that you are viewing sexualisation as strictly a feminist issue, when it's something that affects both men and women, and that you call for page three and the like to be removed because they entrench certain attitudes that could be changed without intruding upon the liberty of those who want to sell their bodies for cash