|
page 3 banned
|
View this Thread in Original format
| rubez |
i don't what what other countries are like, but in the UK, we have a fine and famous tradition in The Sun newspaper - for decades, on page 3 you got a nice topless model. now a bunch of insecure campaigning feminists have seen it thrown out.
the claim is, women were objectified and degraded by it. although i am not convinced by that claim. no-one of sound mind really gives a flying . it's just a pair of to admire. best thing was, it was opposite the only real news page of the entire paper, so it served as a one stop shop to browse whilst you ate your lunch.
i think the feminists think we are all a bunch of frothing-at-the-mouth rapists or something. worst of all - it's not as if the feminists are now suddenly going to buy the sun because there's no - they just ruin it for everyone else.
all the models were very healthy looking i.e. no visible ribs. we are allowed to see titty as long as it comes in the form of a flat-chested stick-thin catwalk model, it seems. that empowers women, right? the women on page 3 are just slags.
i'd argue that page 3 made normal woman more secure about their bodies than the freaks pedaled on london catwalks, fashion magazines and billboards everywhere.
the muslim fanatics got it all wrong, if they want to change certain aspects of a publication, forget the AK's - get a bunch of nagging feminists to squeal in their ear.
ing hate busy-bodies. they need to get a life and stop meddling in other peoples affairs, this changes exactly all. maybe it will give them some sort of ego trip whilst they lock on to their next target to make up for their inadequacies.
poppy was my favourite. RIP, sort of :stongue: |
|
|
| Dykes_on_Jay |
You "read" The Sun.
Explains a lot. |
|
|
| Lira |
| I really can't understand why they didn't just add something like "Page 4 blokes" so equality and hormones could reign supreme :( |
|
|
| kadomony |
| but wait, these women actually submitted pictures in hopes of being chosen right? |
|
|
| DJ Sarah H |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I really can't understand why they didn't just add something like "Page 4 blokes" so equality and hormones could reign supreme :( |
They did, it was called 'page 7 fella'
The feature did not last long, mainly due to the fact very few women actually bought 'The Sun' |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| hey rubez, did you ever get around to understanding the US constitution's 16th amendment? |
|
|
| Vector A |
| I was a bit miffed that he never responded to my post in that Ron Paul thread. |
|
|
| Big Worm |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
hey rubez, did you ever get around to understanding the US constitution's 16th amendment? |
Yup, was wondering that too. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
hey rubez, did you ever get around to understanding the US constitution's 16th amendment? |
he hasnt gotten that far yet, i think he is still working on the 4th amendment....
If the feminists really wanted to make a positive change, they should have just pushed to have the sun discontinued, do the world a favor, and while they're at it, get rid of the sun newspapers in canada too.... 90% of the sunshine girls in the ottawa sun are sourced from trailer parks.. |
|
|
| pointPi |
| If you own a newspaper that needs a regular pin-up photo in order to sell, why print it anyway? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pointPi
If you own a newspaper that needs a regular pin-up photo in order to sell, why print it anyway? |
Because that's all the Sun you can get in England :p
Also, 'tis back, apparently. |
|
|
| rubez |
"If you own a newspaper that needs a regular pin-up photo in order to sell, why print it anyway?"
because it sells?
i don't know if it (or any paper) even makes a profit, they are more loss-leading political mouthpieces i think.
good to see page 3 back. yesterday it was a ing sainsburys advert!
| quote: | | the paper again features a photograph of a topless model, which appears under a “Clarifications and Corrections” header and comes after a front-page panel announces: “We’ve had a mammary lapse.” |
:stongue: insult to injury, take that feminists!
| quote: | | “So it seems the fight might be back on,” tweeted Lucy-Anne Holmes, the founder of the No More Page 3 campaign. |
get a hobby, lady! suffragette, you are not. |
|
|
|
|
