Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Heart'n'Soul)
    Oh boohoo. How about get yourselves a woman and look at her body?
    It's the same reason I like looking at topless men - fun but without any obligations.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Heart'n'Soul)
    Oh boohoo. How about get yourselves a woman and look at her body?
    Not worth going to jail over.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phoebe Buffay)
    Stand their ground with what? Some days there will be boobs, other days there won't be. This is such a non - issue.
    What's the point of that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Heart'n'Soul)
    Oh boohoo. How about get yourselves a woman and look at her body?
    What I learnt from this thread:

    • It is wrong to be sexually attracted to women.
    • This crime is known as 'objectification'.
    • However, it is okay to objectify a woman if she is not a stranger to you, as shown by the above quote.


    Well played, modern feminism, keep it up.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think anyone took page 3 seriously in the first place, it's from a time of Carry On and Benny Hill.

    It's weird that it was ok, when it would be against the law if the woman stepped out the page into the world.

    Removing page 3 won't stop men tactlessly oggling women (and certainly won't stop women tactlessly oggling men, which apparently is acceptable), but most of all it won't stop people following the 'news' and depressing themselves with irrelevant or fake stories.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The Sun trolled us all lol

    This morning paper has a topless girl on page 3.

    Business resumed. Go away feminists and stop telling other girls what's right and what's wrong just to suit your irrational agenda.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Page three is going to stop showing topless models

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...pless-pictures

    As someone who can't for the life of them get a girlfriend this is the only way I can possibly see them.

    But I hear there is this thing called Google images. Apparently there is a huge supply of boobs on there.

    I will report my findings.


    Edit: Disclaimer, I feel the need to point out that I have never bought a copy of the Sun. I'm not actually personally upset there is no more page 3.
    A step towards gender equality
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Castiel.)
    A step towards gender equality
    How? There's millions online...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bittr n swt)
    How? There's millions online...
    A teeny, tiny step.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Castiel.)
    A teeny, tiny step.
    Well not anymore as the sun has a topless model this morning on page 3 hahaha
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    BD's the name BD's the game if you catch my drift
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phoebe Buffay)
    It's the same reason I like looking at topless men - fun but without any obligations.
    Gentlemen, here we have a woman. She may be a feminist. She may not be a feminist. No matter which side of the fence she sits on, it is clear to see she is not trying to shove feminism down our throats and belittle men like other 'feminists'.

    Fair play to this young lady, she can understand something from someone else's point of view! Well done!

    How come men always have to try and see things from women's eyes? We should let you wear revealing clothes, but then not stare. We should not see your boobs in a sexual way. We should see you as equals and not objects in a newspaper/magazine. Yet when us men are putting the point forward that the exact same happens in men's magazines etc, we are all of a sudden 'not understanding the issues' and avoiding the point?

    Why don't women see that equality will never be achieved with the current state 'feminism' - whatever that even means anymore - is. 75% of the women posting on forums in favour of feminism do not even want equality, they just want to have an argue, moan about how unfair everything is, and then run off trying to turn the world in to a female dictatorship.


    Kudos to this young lady for not shoving her beliefs down any bodies throats.

    From your average guy, who whilst does not follow/support feminism, is not against it all. You could say I am an atheist of feminism. I don't care if women want to be equal, then step up to the platter. I do, however, have a problem when feminism is taken to the extreme and women want to run the world. Not all of you feminists, but some are really letting the team down.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHalfCentaur)
    Breasts are seen as sexual objects(even though they're not!)
    Can anyone explain what "sexual object" means?

    I think breasts can be sexual objects as many men and women find them sexually and attractive and derive pleasure from them.

    There are societies in which female toplessness is normal, and breasts are not so sexualized there it's true. But that doesn't apply so much to our society.

    Also, from an evolutionary point of view, most animals do not stimulate the mammary glands during copulation. Humans are unusual in that they do. However, human breasts are much more enlarged than other primates', and this is not related to lactation, suggesting that sexual selection may have enlarged them.

    From a hormonal point of view breast stimulation can stimulate oxytocin, which is involved in pair bonding and physical pleasure. What may have happened in evolution is that oxytocin's role in lactation and bonding the mother and child may have been coopted to bonding men and women during sex.

    The only argument I have heard is that you don't need breasts to have sex, therefore they are not sexual objects. But then you may as well argue that french kissing is not sexual, grabbing someone's butt is not sexual etc., which sounds like nonsense to me.

    tldr: Breasts totally can be sexual objects.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eva.Gregoria)
    What's the point of that?
    Because men want to see boobies and it obviously increases sales of the newspaper. Why would they not do it? Simple money making techniques.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bittr n swt)
    The Sun trolled us all lol

    This morning paper has a topless girl on page 3.

    Business resumed. Go away feminists and stop telling other girls what's right and what's wrong just to suit your irrational agenda.
    Ah so it was all just marketing, worked a treat, now wheres Chilcot ?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eva.Gregoria)
    What's the point of that?
    Why does there have to be a point?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheHalfCentaur)
    Topless men and women are not the same? If a woman goes topless, creepy men **** over it. If a man goes topless, he's just topless. Breasts are seen as sexual objects(even though they're not!), so only if society sees breasts and man chests the same should they be treated the same. I'm not saying that it's right for breasts to be so taboo and forbidden and attractive, I'm saying that it is a thing that needs to be considered.
    Of course they're sexual objects most straight men are sexually aroused by them. The fact they're seen as sexual objects almost defines them as being that, if they weren't sexual objects they wouldn't be seen as so.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by bittr n swt)
    The Sun trolled us all lol

    This morning paper has a topless girl on page 3.

    Business resumed. Go away feminists and stop telling other girls what's right and what's wrong just to suit your irrational agenda.
    Oh dear. Now I definitely WON'T buy a copy of the Sun!

    In fact I won't even read the sun now unless the page 3 is abolished.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    Of course they're sexual objects most straight men are sexually aroused by them. The fact they're seen as sexual objects almost defines them as being that, if they weren't sexual objects they wouldn't be seen as so.
    They're literally not sexual. They're there to feed babies. Not to entice men. In tribes where women go topless, it's not anything shocking or sexy, it's just another part of their anatomy, like an arm. BECAUSE they're seen as taboo and forbidden, they become attractive, which is ridiculous.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lewif002)
    Because men want to see boobies and it obviously increases sales of the newspaper. Why would they not do it? Simple money making techniques.
    Why bring it down in the first place, that's my question.

    (Original post by Phoebe Buffay)
    Why does there have to be a point?
    It's alright for them to bring down the naked pictures for a week and bring it back up again just for laughs and giggles?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.