As rubbish as the paper is, The Sun is Britain's favourite newspaper for some bizarre reason. Every day for the last 40 odd years, the newspaper has featured a topless woman on the third page. They've now decided that they don't want to do that any more, bowing to pressure from various groups who don't like seeing a pair of boobs in their daily newspaper, lord forbid if they ever "read" The Daily Sport.
Some people have said that Page 3 is demeaning and has no place in newspapers in the 21st Century, even though, Page 3 Girls became somewhat of a British institution. As an adult, I did wonder how papers got away with printing pictures mostly naked women in them, given that if the woman in question removed the last one or two garments, the picture would have to be printed in a pornographic magazine, only for the eyes of those over the age of 18. But I just gave it up as a bad fight as it is something that has always happened in my lifetime and The Sun without the standard picture of a topless woman in it just wouldn't feel right.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be that the vast majority of people who object to the publishing of nearly naked women in newspapers are women who feel some how violated that Page 3 is just another way to objectify women. So Page 3, along with full blown pornographic magazines and websites are wrong as they depict naked and nearly naked women in various poses to wet the sexual appetite of men who like looking at the pictures. I would like to call you people hypocrites and point out that there are a lot of people with double standards. While pictures like these might 'objectify' women, there are plenty of magazines and publications that 'objectify' men too. There are countless pornographic magazines with men in similar poses to the women in pornographic magazines featuring women, there are also a lot of calendars that are sold every year with scantily clad men in them, just as there are of calendars featuring scantily clad women. So women are just as guilty as men, when it comes to objectifying the opposite sex, so please don't feed that crap to me. You don't see me complaining that pictures of scantily clad men are demeaning, do you? Does anyone remember the Page 7 Fella or the Page 8 Mate?
Another thing I would like to point out is that a lot of people, men and women alike, go into the modelling industry willingly, because it's what they want to do for a living and it's just as a legitimate choice as becoming a shop assistant, PA, lawyer, police officer, journalist or any other job you may care to mention. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to want to get paid for flaunting what they've got to people who want to look, people are always being told, "if you've got it, flaunt it", well why not get paid for it then? So before you turn around and say, "she's someone's daughter, don't you know", if she's chosen to do that for a living, let her, is it hurting you if she willingly poses for pictures, wearing nothing but a pair of knickers? No, it isn't, is the short answer, no one's asking you to do it and no one is forcing her to do it either. Who are you to judge someone's career choice? Just because her career choice entails her taking her clothes off for a living.
I would like to point out, that I don't actually buy newspapers from any source, as these days, the news articles are generally available online the previous day and most news sites don't request that you pay them a fee to read them and because of that I think newspapers are a massive waste of paper and remnants of past pre-internet news telling, but it keeps someone in a job, so crack on.
