Page 3 (as we know it!) is no more. Which side are you on?

I love me some firm pert tits, but it got a bit uncomfortable when the kids were little, opening the page & saying, “look daddy, boobies just like mammy’s”
Time & a place & all that shite.

A couple of points:

a) anyone who purports to speak for “all women” is an idiot and a fraud.

b) we don’t have Page 3 in the US, so I can’t speak from experience. But I tend to agree with the person who said (essentially) “turn the page”,

I think that if we (the world in general) saw more naked people – not fewer – then nudity would become commonplace and boring. There would be no need for a Page 3 because it wouldn’t be ‘special’ any more.

The people who want to censor are actually contributing to the problem – by making boobs scarce, it imputes a higher value to them. Make them common, no one will care.

This is a tabloid paper we are talking about and everything in them are meant to be mindless sensational stuff. Everyone knows that turning to page 3 will get you an eyeful. So I leave it to the consumer to either not buy the rag or turn to page 3 or skip page 3 and go to page 4 instead. Taking away ones choice by eliminating an tradition at that tabloid is not the way to deal with these kind of issues. In a free market let the consumer decide and not allow some uptight group take away our freedom of choice. If the topless gal was really a problem, people would not buy it but it seems to be a pretty popular tabloid.

Plus there could always be a compromise by putting a beefcake in a G string banana hammock next to the gal.

Noticed they still put pics of “babes” in bikinis, that’s progress according to The Sun.
Page 3, in the age of the internet, is like trying to sell someone an engraving of an arsehole.

@elbanditoroso Why not include pictures of naked men then too? Why is it just women on Page 3?

^ Sure, why not? As long as it drives sales.

@janbb – fine with me. I’ll turn the page. No problem.

Who even wants to see a naked man?

A mortician?

I agree with you, @janbb. Not that naked men appeal to me, because they don’t, but @elbanditoroso has spoken sense: let’s remove some of the mystery and titillation from nudity. Let’s remove the shame, if that’s even possible.

As I said, naked men don’t appeal to me, but they certainly don’t frighten or disgust me, either. I’m naked right now, in fact, under these clothes.

A bunch of feminist whining that doesn’t know what they are speaking on or how the real world works. Shame on the Brits and the Sun for allowing those redacted to succeed.

Good. Women exposing themselves in public is a gross violation of sacred and holy judeo-christian fantasy values. These satan worshipping sluts and their enablers should consider themselves lucky that they were not burnt at the stake as witches.

I loved when they had a supposed comment from the girls in a box next to their tits, some topical quote relating to politics/terrorism…yeah, whatever you say darlin.

@ucme – how were the page 3 women chosen?

@elbanditoroso Model agencies selected on loop, i’d guess

It was lame. I picture the people who would buy the paper for Page 3 must be guys like Benny Hill or the “nudge nudge, wink, wink, say no more” character from Monty Python.

@jaytkay I envision more of a Michael Moore drooling over page 3

No one ever bought the rag specifically for the tit page, that’s fucking laughable that anyone would conceive such an idea. Be like ordering a hot dog & eating just the bun, ya daft bugger.

@ucme You need to go back to marketing school as we are talking a major albeit tabloid and I can guarantee you they would not give up a prime page 3 to anything other than something that Flurthered the sale of their rag.

@Cruiser You’re going to have to run that by me again, the sentence grew more incoherent as it wore on :D

I think he is saying that the editors would not give a whole page to tits of the tits did not spur men to buy, thus, increasing sales, if even if not exponentially.

Slightly better :D
It’s not a whole page, for one & secondly, they succumbed to pressure from the feminist lobby, eventually. I don’t see sales being unduly affected, I really don’t.

^ [...they succumbed to pressure from the feminist lobby, eventually. I don’t see sales being unduly affected, I really don’t.
Then they cowed down and whimped out for nothing

@ucem try sobering up by getting a good nights sleep and reading it in the morning! ;)

^^ “Flurthered the sale” That bottle is sucking out of you, put it down man :D
@Hypocrisy_Central Of course they did, another rag delightfully named The Daily Star has retained their own “page 3” claiming pride & a good old British tradition as primary reasons.
Bless

I was mostly on the side of page 4. Page 3 was a bit much at breakfast time.

@flutherother Did Page 4 have the naked men? (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)

In the age of free HD hardcore internet pornography, I do not see how a tit page is any sort of sales-draw anymore. Twelve year olds today, if they find their father’s old porn mags, look at them and think “that is some lame shit”

@janbb Now that would have ruined my breakfast!

^ Second that 100,000,000 times over.

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-01-22/the-sun-resurrects-topless-page-3-ending-days-of-speculation/

^^ Haha, no such thing as bad publicity.

Page 3 breast display certainly has my support. Call me “El-bra-Dito”

Well that didn’t last long.

The Sun brings back topless women days after apparent end of Page

^^ Err, been there already.

@jaytkay Well that didn’t last long.
They need to come sue in California, activist judges here are great at cowing to the minority desenters

I will never come to page 3 of anything and view it the same way again.

on

off

Okay children, I would like you all to turn to page 3 of your pop up books & don’t forget to wear the protective goggles provided”