No more breasts :'(

Before jumping on the defensive perhaps appreciate that I was asking for a source and offered my experience. That's not to say that females can't push male ideals but it does take some weight off the chances.

You've not provided any source yourself and so are mearly offering a 'may' scenario. So again; Please source us evidence that most female aimed magazines which heavily lean towards fashion and beauty etc are steered and influences by men.

Again: Not trying to debate that that's not the case.. but that no one has actually given and proof that it is either.

This is BS, women put pressure on themselves to look good.

I like the implication that people wanted to read The Sun.

Over 2 million daily circulation.

You are being incredibly sexist and speculative by blaming the source of this pressure on men; it makes you no less than a misandrist. The pressure is just as much from women, no different to how men have pressure from other men and from women. Your posts in this thread display a quite shocking hatred of men - even blaming the magazines on them! The editors in chief are female for heaven's sake and meeting demand with supply.

And lastly, there's no such thing as looking good for yourself; you look good for others to see you looking good which, in turn, makes you feel good. So yes it is for male approval but also for female approval, and this is the same for men and women alike.

I never said people didn't buy it. I just find it funny that these social justice warriors would read it. Unless they're trying to change a piece of media that they don't read.

So? If I am a vocal atheist, I'm not going to get a job as a priest. If this woman in your example disagrees with a company's proven track record to maximise meeting demand then why would she be hired?

There's no reason why marketing according to gender is wrong (which I appreciate you haven't said directly); it makes logical and practical and business sense to everyone who isn't blinded by sexism. "Gender roles" are simply the result of average preferences of males and females respectively derived from our biological and psychological differences. Businesses cater to these different interests, and to think of this as a fundamental social problem is really quite strange. Of course there is going to be a minority who don't fit in with the average but since it is impossible to cater to everyone the best you can do is cater to the majority. Should we also have non-gender marketing and merchandising in clothes shops? Should we have men's shirts next to women's underwear? What if I want to wear a nice thong from Topshop? What if I disagree with this retail fashion layout but I want a job at Topman?

I think it lacks class and that the Sun is garbage, but surely if the models choose to pose topless, knowing they'll be objectified by sleazy men, it shouldn't be a problem? I thought the feminists wanted to free the nipples anyway.

I'm not a misandrist. I believe in gender equality, which is why I dislike the fact that women are constantly pressured to look good for other people. It so happens that men are generally the ones in charge in the press industry. It's also possible for women to have internalised misogyny, which I believe is largely the case for these magazines whose editors are female. I don't read them, but the front pages always seem to be about impressing men, and if women are being told by other women that their self-worth is directly proportional to how they are viewed by a man, then we have a problem.

You can easily reverse the genders in this text.

Um... no?

if men are being told by other men that their self-worth is directly proportional to how they are viewed by a woman, then we have a problem.

If you don't like page 3 boobs, maybe you shouldn't buy a newspaper with page 3 boobs.

If this decision by the Sun is driven by falling sales then fine, but if the undue pressure applied by idiotic feminists informed such a move I hope it will be swiftly reversed.

If you don't like page 3 boobs, maybe you shouldn't buy a newspaper with page 3 boobs.

This isn't a matter of battling sexism, protecting children or getting rid of the "old fashioned".

1) Being attracted to the opposite sex is not sexism.
2) Boobs are not damaging to kids. Children can and will access far more explicit images on the internet; and they won't be damaged by them either.
3) If something is "old fashioned", it will fall out of circulation naturally. Clearly there is a demand for page 3.

If this decision by the Sun is driven by falling sales then fine, but if the undue pressure applied by idiotic feminists informed such a move I hope it will be swiftly reversed.

It seemed that you were saying a great deal more than that. Economics helps explain why markets behave as they do. The reason why there is a clear distinction in gender between products in a toy shop or magazines on a shelf is because there is a clear distinction between male and female interests on average, i.e. this merchandising is the result of recognising these differences and meeting demand with supply, not the other way around.

I support The Sun removing page three.

Well, as a woman I'm quite happy about this. Hopefully men will stop objectifying us so much in future.

^this.
There's plenty of magazines that have topless male models that people drool over; how is that any worse than a page 3 girl? Noone forced them to pose for it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Like everyone else said - it's not even like pictured in The Sun would be particularly explicit and taking this out of circulation changes precisely nothing anyway.

Posted from TSR Mobile

And if you do like page 3 boobs, maybe you shouldn't buy a newspaper without page 3 boobs.



What difference does it make? It was a decision by the Sun, Murdoch can do as he pleases with his paper.

^this.
There's plenty of magazines that have topless male models that people drool over; how is that any worse than a page 3 girl? Noone forced them to pose for it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Like everyone else said - it's not even like pictured in The Sun would be particularly explicit and taking this out of circulation changes precisely nothing anyway.

Posted from TSR Mobile

^this.
There's plenty of magazines that have topless male models that people drool over; how is that any worse than a page 3 girl? Noone forced them to pose for it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Like everyone else said - it's not even like pictured in The Sun would be particularly explicit and taking this out of circulation changes precisely nothing anyway.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm curious: do you think banning porn would reduce 'objectification' (whatever that is) too?