Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Should Page 3 discontinue?
Comments
-
say_who_now? wrote: »The innuendo is going to kill me saying this, but it's a bit hard to get their personality across on paper, so they give them a soundbite is all, I don't really think it's meant to patronise the girls or make like they're idiots, and clearly if you read her opinion then at least one person has taken notice of her opinion!
Are they supposed to have a personality? I thought they were just there for their tits?0 -
If an attractive girl wants to show off her dirty pillows in a newspaper and get paid reasonably well for it I have no problem.
I do have an issue with the creepy paparazzi who hide in bushes miles from their unsuspecting prey and take pictures using military grade telephoto equipment and then use the "Sure, they're public property" excuse. I also do not understand the mentality of anyone who wants to see a grainy, barely visible pair of lady bumps taken from near earth orbit... be it the future queen of blighty or Jedwards mum! :eek:
The interwebs are awash with porn, if you want to shake it around a bit, google is surely your first port of call
No trees were harmed in the posting of this message, however a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
0 -
wilkie2006 wrote: »Are they supposed to have a personality? I thought they were just there for their tits?
A little bit from column "a", a little bit from column "b"!
0 -
-
-
FouxDaFaFa wrote: »I've always found page 3 so weird and out of place. It's kind of alienating to be reading a paper (when someone puts a gun to my head and makes me read the red tops) and for there suddenly to be this naked girl with the most bizarre blurb beside her.
"Jenny, 21, from Newcastle, supports the people of Syria in their struggle to overcome brutal oppression". It's just weird.
I'd find it more alienating quite frankly if someone were putting a gun to my head! Do you often get people putting a gun to your head? You might want to report that to the Gardai!
And I'd hardly call it "suddenly" either when the feature itself is called "PAGE 3", clue is in the title! 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
say_who_now? wrote: »Ahh right, ok I can see why you think it's sad. But these little girls as you put it growing up and wanting to be like jordan, hell there were the girls who became Scientists and mathematicians that wanted to be spice girls when they were kids! If you think you have a fight on your hands with page3, perhaps it'd be best you don't consider the amount of pre-pubescent girls that want to become hardcore porn stars!
Two sides of the same coin, IMO. The severity is all that differs.say_who_now? wrote: »There's always going to be horrible creepy fùckers too, in every walk of life, the one's that stare at page3 are just harmless, unsightly but harmless, and creepy, nothing more. There's a hell of a lot worse you could encounter.
As for what kids are exposed to, perhaps you should skip my post in the "awkward situations" thread then! :pac: Or avoid taking the kids on continental holidays where young women walk topless on the beaches showing their ample assets! We don't have the weather for it here is the only reason that stops many women going topless on the beaches, otherwise we too would have been normalised to it decades ago and not had it hidden away and buried like old "Mickey Masturbator" over there who you'd swear he never saw a tit in his life!
I've actually no problem with women going topless on a beach. There's a different context and motivation there; it's not purely for the titillation of socially incapable old pervs to salivate over. The guys I described in the workplace canteen earlier were exactly the same ones who would casually sexually harass the young ones in work and think nothing of it. That's not too long ago either.
Sex is natural; nudity is natural. Parading young ones (as young as 16 less than 10 years ago) alongside news, however tabloid, is not.0 -
-
-
I'm really suprised that, as of this post, its 52 in favor. 50 against. Down the middle.
I cant help but think that the vast majority of people against page 3 feel so because they dont want nudity shown to kids. As it is a news paper that can be easily picked up... (after all, the issue is not about nudity in magainzes just the aspect that its a newspaper)
But what about singers in the public eye like Rihianna and the likes? ... "Come here, rude boy, boy, can you get it up? Come here rude boy, boy, is you big enough?" :pac:
Or is society entering the golden age of "pc" - that nothing is deemed acceptable to everyone 0 -
B.A._Baracus wrote: »I'm really suprised that, as of this post, its 52 in favor. 50 against. Down the middle.
I cant help but think that the vast majority of people against page 3 feel so because they dont want nudity shown to kids. As it is a news paper that can be easily picked up... (after all, the issue is about nudity in magainzes just the aspect that its a newspaper)
But what about singers in the public eye like Rihianna and the likes? ... "Come here, rude boy, boy, can you get it up? Come here rude boy, boy, is you big enough?" :pac:
Or is society entering the golden age of "pc" - that nothing is deemed acceptable to everyone
Rihanna is in no way suitable for kids. It's shocking the amount of parents who let their kids listen to such explicit lyrics. There are things that are not suitable for kids and it's not a "Won't somebody please think of the children?" rant to point that out.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
B.A._Baracus wrote: »I'm really suprised that, as of this post, its 52 in favor. 50 against. Down the middle.
I cant help but think that the vast majority of people against page 3 feel so because they dont want nudity shown to kids. As it is a news paper that can be easily picked up... (after all, the issue is not about nudity in magainzes just the aspect that its a newspaper)
But what about singers in the public eye like Rihianna and the likes? ... "Come here, rude boy, boy, can you get it up? Come here rude boy, boy, is you big enough?" :pac:
Or is society entering the golden age of "pc" - that nothing is deemed acceptable to everyone
I think sexual freedom is brilliant. I'm delighted that Ireland's becoming more liberated and that people are able to do what they want with people who want to do it. What I don't think is useful, though, is things like Page 3 that makes sexuality a commodity - something to buy, trade with and appropriate. Sticking a pair of tits in a newspaper, without any context, isn't sexy - it's like looking at a car ad. Obviously people don't all agree but it's just how I feel.0 -
wilkie2006 wrote: »I think sexual freedom is brilliant. I'm delighted that Ireland's becoming more liberated and that people are able to do what they want with people who want to do it. What I don't think is useful, though, is things like Page 3 that makes sexuality a commodity - something to buy, trade with and appropriate. Sticking a pair of tits in a newspaper, without any context, isn't sexy - it's like looking at a car ad. Obviously people don't all agree but it's just how I feel.
That's one of the things that bothers me about it too that I couldn't quite put my finger on. Thanks!
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »They objectifies women, therefore they should be discontinued. But before we discontinue those Page 3s, I think the Chippendales ought to be banned from performing on Irish shore as they objectify men.
It should be noted that its perfectly acceptable to show a guys naked ass on tv. But a womens ass classes under female nudity 0 -
-
-
If one person can give me a cogent argument as to why it's not an outdated and backward practice, I will happily change my mind on this.
I won't give you any other argument Millicent other than it gives me a few seconds of a smile in the morning before I turn to the back pages to read the Dear Deirdre letters. I don't think it's outdated by any means, and certainly it has progressed with the times, you've pointed out yourself earlier why we'll never see the likes of Samantha Fox on Page 3 ever again (she was 16 when she made her first appearance on Page 3 back in the 80's, and has made numerous return appearances since!).
Also it is not the practice itself that is backward, but some of the audience that view it! You cannot ban something on the grounds that a minority derive sexual gratification from it! In that case you would have to ban everything on the planet!
There are far more important things in the world to be worrying about than a girl who chooses to model for page 3!
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
But why keep it? What possible point does it have or need does it serve? I'm not comfortable with the slippery slope argument on this one. Films, books etc. need to be protected against puritanical censorship in the name of art and self expression; splashing a pair of 18-year-old boobs in what's supposed to be a newspaper doesn't need to be.
If one person can give me a cogent argument as to why it's not an outdated and backward practice, I will happily change my mind on this.
Ok. We ban page 3 then
Then what happens? We must both agree that this would be an significant event. One that will make headline news & also open up other doors... So what follows? Because there will be people who will use this as an example to censor other things...
- Lets put a stop to magazines such as playboy? Make them harder to buy. (kinda like the 80s isnt it?) They objectify women too.
- Lets do the same to men's magazines? (Like, the 90s isnt it?) Again, objectify women.
- Lets stop lingerie advertisement? objectify women
- Censor all sexual content from newspapers. (1950s Ireland is calling)0 -
B.A._Baracus wrote: »Ok. We ban page 3 then
Then what happens? We must both agree that this would be an significant event. One that will make headline news & also open up other doors... So what follows? Because their will be people who will use this as an example to censor other things...
- Lets put a stop to magazines such as playboy? Make them harder to buy. (kinda like the 80s isnt it?) They objectify women too.
- Lets do the same to men's magazines? (Like, the 90s isnt it?) Again, objectify women.
- Lets stop lingerie advertisement? objectify women
- Censor all sexual content from newspapers. (1950s Ireland is calling)
I haven't said anything about those other publications. I read porn. I like some nudey mags. I just think that newspapers should be held to a higher standard than Page 3, is all. We can deal with the other arguments when they crop up but there's no point in arguing to keep something because it *might* have a knock-on effect on other publications.0 -
Meh, an erect penis cannot be shown in mainstream tv/movies.B.A._Baracus wrote: »It should be noted that its perfectly acceptable to show a guys naked ass on tv. But a womens ass classes under female nudity0 -
-
I haven't said anything about those other publications. I read porn. I like some nudey mags. I just think that newspapers should be held to a higher standard than Page 3, is all. We can deal with the other arguments when they crop up but there's no point in arguing to keep something because it *might* have a knock-on effect on other publications.
It would.
I just read wikipedia and seems the first Page 3 (boobs version) was 1970. 42 years old.
Lets think logically. Are the sun really going to end it? or will they be forced to end it? (the latter seems the only way) Be it political or law.
You honestly standing behind the fact it "MIGHT" carry over to other mediums of female nudity? 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
There was a thread on here recently about a poster being outraged by a woman breastfeeding her child in a restaurant. It's amazing the amount of people that agreed with her, it was disgusting, inappropriate etc. Yet the majority seem to feel that tits being displayed on page 3 is ok
Honestly there must be something wrong with society if a woman using her breasts for their intended purpose is frowned upon. A girl aspires to display said breasts in a national newspaper so a few blokes can get their jollies and that's fine?0 -
say_who_now? wrote: »If one person can give me a cogent argument as to why it's not an outdated and backward practice, I will happily change my mind on this.
I won't give you any other argument Millicent other than it gives me a few seconds of a smile in the morning before I turn to the back pages to read the Dear Deirdre letters. I don't think it's outdated by any means, and certainly it has progressed with the times, you've pointed out yourself earlier why we'll never see the likes of Samantha Fox on Page 3 ever again (she was 16 when she made her first appearance on Page 3 back in the 80's, and has made numerous return appearances since!).
Also it is not the practice itself that is backward, but some of the audience that view it! You cannot ban something on the grounds that a minority derive sexual gratification from it! In that case you would have to ban everything on the planet!
There are far more important things in the world to be worrying about than a girl who chooses to model for page 3!
I read a study before that found when men look at attractive breasts it has a soothing destressing effect caused by a release of chemicals of some sort in the brain.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
There was a thread on here recently about a poster being outraged by a woman breastfeeding her child in a restaurant. It's amazing the amount of people that agreed with her, it was disgusting, inappropriate etc. Yet the majority seem to feel that tits being displayed on page 3 is ok
Honestly there must be something wrong with society if a woman using her breasts for their intended purpose is frowned upon. A girl aspires to display said breasts in a national newspaper so a few blokes can get their jollies and that's fine?
Breasts have many purposes, attracting the opposite sex and signalling fertility included.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement