Re: seen far worse in films and tv This is hardly about telling women they can't get their norks out and make money from it. As referenced in this thread, there are enough places where girls can make money from topless modelling, and probably always will be. But is it right for what is probably the most popular newspaper in the country, quite often in view of kids, to show a woman as 'sex object' on a daily basis, whereas men are only sporadically presented in this light? It's one of the greatest misconceptions of feminism that it is preoccupied with telling women how they should act. It isn't, it's about striving for equality, part of this being to help young girls to see that they they can be valued for things other than their body, and that the world (and news) shouldn't solely be seen through hetrosexual male eyes. Reyt, I'll get off mi soapbox!
Re: but did they not have..... May well have done, I don't read it. But he won't have had his tackle out, will he?
Re: seen far worse in films and tv Men also frequently appear as successful politicians and businessmen in The Sun. Do women appear in this way, or mainly as sex objects?
To be honest all I read in the sun is the sport, news in briefs and striker. So I think I am the wrong person to answer that question.
might not be politically correct but I find it amusing amused that the campaigners who make the most fuss generally have a body that ought to be covered up
I'd rather poke my own eyeballs out than read the sun after Hillsborough. I like tits looking at them, touching them and other stuff I can't say I think they belong in a daily newspaper - half the world has them it's not news. The whole idea seems so outdated almost from another time now. http://youtu.be/l1P6KUyOhBc
It's obvious that the women who oppose page three are all frigid. It's simple jealous as no one wants too look at their boobs in the paper.
Absurd as it was now they're gone it feels like a loss. You watch, it'll be Readers' Wives next. 1-0 to Millie Tant.