Page 3 model challenges Germaine Greer and Harriet Harman in live interview

Chloe Goodman, a topless model, last night criticised Harriet Harman's anti-Page 3 stance, saying women shouldn't "tell each other what jobs to take".

Goodman, who was recently evicted from the Celebrity Big Brother house, was outspoken in her support for The Sun's reportedly defunct topless page last night.

She argued that models weren't exploited, telling host Jon Snow that women "are given lots of choices with career options, many of [them] do choose to do Page 3 because it’s something they wish to do."

Goodman added: "Why should feminist women then tell other women how to live their lives? Women fought together to get the vote and so on and so forth, so why should women now be fighting each other, and tell each other what job roles to now take within the industry?"

While she might not have had the vocabulary of her opponents, Goodman managed to slightly flummox Harman.

The Labour MP had said: "In 100 years' time, if you look back at the newspapers of this country… and you see women standing in their knickers with their breasts showing, what would you think about women’s role in society?”

But Goodman countered: "What do we think of women and men 1,000 years ago, when we see statues [of them] nude?" She added: "All over the world there are [depictions of] bodies in the nude, so I don’t understand why it’s just Page 3 that’s being targeted."

Greer argued that Page 3 was "meek" and said she didn't oppose the tabloid institution. She argued that, in any newspaper women are most prominent in advertising, and said that "senior women" were "virtually invisible" and "ridiculed with impunity". She added: "Page 3 would have been fine if we had anything else".

well what if we think of women and men one thousand years ago when you see

statues written all over the walls love men and women news are well that's a good thought a thousand years ago they were in the nude.

As for the "what does it say about women in society when there are pictures of them nude in newspapers" argument, there are women in suits in tabloids too, and there are also men in their underwear.

There's literally a big picture of a dude in his briefs for a Calvin Klein ad my local paper today.

I also liked Goodman's antiquity point -- nude bodies were appreciated then and now and it doesn't paint a degrading picture of women.

In both cases, the human body is being used as purely aesthetic means to commercial ends.

The only relevant difference between the two is that one image is supposed to cater toward the opposite sex, while the other is supposed to cater toward the same sex.

Guys are being sold an aesthetic aspiration by Calvin Klein. Not only does that objectify the male models, it sells the message to guys that you need to look this way, and should aspire to be this way

- you should view yourself as an object.

And what was the role of woman in society, centuries ago when those paintings and sculptures were commissioned?..
Unless there is a page 4 in The Sun, featuring naked male models, you don't really have a leg to stand on, my friend.

Have you read a freaking women's magazine in your life?

And it doesn't matter - in both instances the models are being objectified, and there's nothing wrong with it. See TurboCretin's response. (Although I would argue that nobody wants to have sex with an object, but I digress...).

How they were depicted had little to do with their role in society (as it is today). Both women and men have been depicted nude for centuries out of appreciation and admiration of the human form and human sexuality. We like to see each other naked - it's as simple as that.

A woman should have the right to pose naked for pay, as should a man. And publishers should have the right to display this to consumers. There's nothing wrong with this.

Absolutely not! Reaching for the stars with that one.

Within the past 3 centuries there have barely been any notable nude sculptures. Why? Because society has changed along with our connotations to nudity. Just because it was acceptable and a norm then, does not make it a norm now.

You don't need to have a body like David Gandy to wear underwear, so with respect I am sceptical about your first point. Why is it that male underwear models - without fail - have unsustainably low body fat and rippling muscles? To enhance the appearance of the underwear? Well it doesn't achieve that. What it does is to sell guys an image. When you buy into that image, it's tacit expression of an aspiration toward the ideal you're presented with (you seem to agree that CK trades on this aspiration).

I don't see the point of your comment about there being no page in the Sun dedicated to naked men. The poster you originally quoted used underwear adverts as an example of objectification of men. If you accept that underwear adverts objectify men (and you do seem to acknowledge this) then what is the pertinence of your complaint about the lack of p.7 hunks?

It has a very sizable male readership.

But do they need to be super sexy? It's still selling sex, just not as directly.

Greek women (outside of Sparta) covered themselves almost head to toe.
Which would explain why the vast majority of nude statues were male...

Christianity was largely respnsible for that. It wasn't until the sexual liberation in the 1960s that feminists fought for that this stuff become acceptable again.

Standards of beauty were a little different. She was supposed to be the 'ideal woman' in that painting (but I think she's still fairly hot). And there was plenty of 'smut' in those days and beforehand (it just didn't exactly make its way into art galleries and museums, for obvious reasons). The Romans were particularly notorious (again, in depictions of women and men). Why? People like sex and nudity! That's not a crime.

No; they're pandering.

And I'll repeat myself: next time you wanna have go on some one-sided moralistic tirade about the 'sexual objectification' of women in magazines and how 'degrading' and 'harmful' to women it is, open a freakin' women's magazine

men are portrayed in the same way

Does this stuff even exist in countries like Saudi Arabia and Somalia where women are actually degraded and treated as objects? No; it happens in counties where women are happy and liberated. Go figure.

I'll be quite ashamed and embarrassed to know someone who was a Page 3 model. It's not something you're going to write on your CV is it. Glad the topless models have gone.