238 thoughts on “Tit For Tat

    1. louislefronde

      Hmmm. I see the cultural marxists are up in arms again. Herein lies the problem with the media in Ireland. One day they will champion freedom of speech (Charlie Hebdou) the next day they’ll vilify someone for freedom of speech (in this case Keith Redmond, but it could be anyone)

      Frankly, cultural marxists (and their fellow travellers) have been putting the squeeze on anyone or institution which they deem ‘politically incorrect’. By a process of osmosis we can see this trend (which has been going on since the mid 1990’s) evident in our newspapers, on our radios and on television. This modern day puritanism attacks not only Freedom of Speech, but also vilifies those who choose to speak or publish in a ‘non-pc way’.

      1. Don Pidgeoni

        Non-PC way = talking like an a***hole. You may be free to speak but I am free to call you an idiot for using the word feminazis like its an actual thing

      2. Rep

        Wait, so freedom of speech means that you can say what you want without any sort of repercussions and that anyone who questions or challenges what you say is deemed ‘politically incorrect’?

        1. Goff

          Nope.

          Slanted towards the US 1st amendment but same basic principles apply:

          http://xkcd.com/1357/

          Are people disagreeing with him? Yes
          Has he been arrested or killed by people disagreeing with him? No
          Nothing to see here…

          1. louislefronde

            Don’t you just love when the Irish media decide (in this case the Independent) to make an example of someone, in this case some randomer (a dentist) who very few had ever heard of before someone in the media decided to make ‘an example of him’ To hold him up to scorn before the mob (bullying) -because he chose to use the expression ‘Feminazi’…

            Tut tut tut….goes the banging drum of the sanctimonious politically correct, the disciples of cultural marxism The modern day puritans, who instead of using fire to burn use column inches in the print media. Conditioned and conditioning (with Timotei) others to ‘say as I do, and do what I say’ otherwise you will be ostracised and vilified for being ‘incorrect’. The Frankfurt School of Neo-Marxism would be proud of them.

        2. louislefronde

          We all know that Freedom of Speech is limited by law. In this case, whether you agree with the views or not, his comment is not defamatory, neither does it come within the meaning of incitement to hatred. The online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a Feminazi as a term used in a “usually disparaging” manner, to describe “an extreme or militant feminist”

          Frankly, I’d describe them as a pain in the hole…

      1. Khumat Mebrah

        I’m sure you would appreciate being deprived of a paycheck by the hysterical “think of the children brigade”(look up their campaign, thats what it amounts to).

        First the Feminazis came for my page 3……(only semi joking, censorious cults need to be met head on, not given a platform)

        1. Don Pidgeoni

          Khumat, you seem really upset for these women, who now there is no more P3 will have no other possible publication or website that might pay them for the same work. What will become of them???!!!

          1. Khumat Mebrah

            Its more the fact that someone listened to the morons fronting this campaign, I dont care for the Sun or page 3. I honestly cant believe people are so stupid as to fall for the “think of the children” argument wrapped in a feminist cloak. How soon before these campaigns expand, emboldened by their success, to other areas, film, literature etc censored or dropped by publishers, suppliers etc. All on the emotional whims of a few middle class western women and the cult they follow.

          2. Don Pidgeoni

            You should try reading the debate about the campaign again. It might take you a while since its been going on since the 70s and you seem a little silly

          3. Nigel

            Well I wasn’t paying attention, but I’m willing to guess ‘think of the children’ didn’t actually constitute a huge part of it on one side but that ‘FEMINAZIS’ did on the other.

          4. Don Pidgeoni

            Why bother? You already have your “panties” in a “twist” about “Page 3” anyway and I’m not sure I’m “silly” enough to be able to “explain” it to “you”.

          5. Khumat Mebrah

            Go on, no one on this page, nor in the article has actually articulated what the point of this anti page 3 campaign is. Think about it, there are women campaigning to have other womens breasts removed from the pages of a newspaper, that is the issue we are talking about, and its supposedly for feminism. Welcome to bizarro-land, where the idle middle class worry about the moral corruption a pair of tits pose to society…

          6. Nigel

            Yes it’s bizarre and unbelievable that feminism would suddenly and out of nowhere have a problem with casual everyday national-level sexual objectification of women.

          7. Don Pidgeoni

            That isn’t bizarre at all and the campaign website makes it very clear why they are campaigning. People aren’t explaining it because you seems a little nutso. You also seem to hate middle class women in particular. Who hurt you, Khumat?

          8. Khumat Mebrah

            “a problem with casual everyday national-level sexual objectification of women.”

            you see, that wasn’t hard, you could just have typed that and said, “yeah, its some TLDR bullshit from the 70’s”. There is nothing wrong with the objectification of women or men(if thats your thing). Sexuality is a good, healthy thing. So long as the objectification is not forced or enforced, any objection is on moral rounds, not based on logic, facts or rationality.

          9. Don Pidgeoni

            Ah, but you managed it all by yourself!! Although you forgot the other 5 so no gold star today. Still, *proud face*

          10. Nigel

            If there’s nothing wrong with objectification then there’s nothing wrong with objecting to objectification either. Nobody had to listen to or act on the objections. Objecting to things you think are bad is good and healthy and objecting to objections about objectification is tyranny and censorship.

        2. Stephanenny

          I have looked up the campaign. From what I’ve read of your comments you either haven’t looked it up at all or strictly read articles only opposing it.

  1. Grouse

    Do some men sit around saying “feminazis” to each other over pints? Is it a word anyone has ever said out loud?

      1. Khumat Mebrah

        Because nothing says “equality” more than middle class women looking down on working class girls posing in a working class newspaper and demanding they be put out of a job, and concern trolling on their behalf.

        1. Jane

          Yeah, I mean I know it suits your argument to say that was the reason some women were protesting this, but it doesn’t flatter your intelligence to pretend that you really think that the aim was to put other women out of work.

          1. Khumat Mebrah

            What it was about was irrelevant, the end result is women being derived of a paycheck by middle class snobs.
            Read the campaign, its concern trolling from the Mary Whitehouse handbook. “think of the children..etc etc”

          2. Don Pidgeoni

            There are plenty of other places they can get work that will also probably pay better than the Sun

          1. Khumat Mebrah

            Well its working class people who read it….. Look at the circulation demographics, then look at the campaigners, middle class, university educated(well not really, mickey mouse womens studies doesnt really count as a degree). This is a clear occasion of concern trolling by the better off telling the “lesser thens” what is good for them.

          2. John E. Bravo

            While I admire your username greatly, I don’t think your argument stands up, given that when it comes to Page 3 it’s middle class people who write it, upper class people who invest and profit from it, and a diversity of people starring in and protesting against it. The working class are barely involved.

            It’s fully reasonable to express concern about the representation of people you see as sharing a common identity with you, as there is a huge blowback on common representation and how people interact with each other on a daily basis. It’s why common interest groups often protest media representation – so that denigration in a fictional space (like page 3) doesn’t become normalised on a social level: less about punishment and more about prevention of damaging attitudes at root. Hence the Italian-American Civil Rights League, the NAACP, and the recently active (and, in my opinion, misguidedly anachronistic), CRAIC.

            While the middle-class snobbery thing is definitely evident in many media storms – the whole healthy eating nebula for one – in this case it’s far more helpful and accurate to tease out the issue along gender lines, given that Page 3’s fanbase was comprised mostly of men and its content comprised entirely of sexualised images of women, than about the income brackets or educational backgrounds of the people – men and women – who are involved in profiting from it or protesting against it, which is far more mixed in all areas as to provide any useful conclusions.

            Still though, once again, excellent username.

          3. John E. Bravo

            My long post was directed at Khumat.

            Don P. – was this directed at me? End of chain ambiguity.

          4. Caroline

            You keep saying “concern trolling” but it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

            Maybe you should leave that out, but just throw in a few more “feminazis” and a bit more class-related stuff, and up the hysterics a bit more. I think that will win over a lot more people to your view.

          5. Don Pidgeoni

            No pidgeon can refuse any request on his daughter’s wedding day. I cannot lie, Godfeathers is where the Pidgeoni family started our olive seed import business

          6. JimmytheHead

            *less thAns

            if youre going to troll (correct use khumat, pay attention) at least get your spelling correct. Separating people into classes is also a dead giveaway. Try harder

          7. Khumat Mebrah

            @John E Bravo, Its not about Page three’s “fanbase”(consumers) being male, look at the income and class of its consumers, then compare and contrast the the campaigners.
            This is an exercise in censorship by middle class university educated women against the working class who consume the Sun. Se below another comment describing the readers as “sleazy”. Yes Male working class Sun reader(of which its readers are, are sleazy)

            “so that denigration in a fictional space (like page 3) doesn’t become normalised on a social level: ”

            Utter bullshit, denigration? Its a woman getting paid for psoing with her top off, cop on with that feminist crap.

            And LOL at the rest of you, its called censorship, congrats on being bedfellows with the religious loons who also call for the removal of sexuality from everyday life.

          8. Nigel

            A) How dare you interfere with the steady diet of sot-core porn that keeps the proles placated and complacent? How dare you call ogling naked breasts in public sleazy?
            B) It’s not called censorship because this isn’t censorship.

          9. Jess

            Khumati can understand your anger at feminism. Its hard to have to deal with the loss of an advantage that your just born with on the sacrificial altar of equality. But its just something you’ll need to get used to, like equal pay and women voting.

            As for censorship, Samantha Fox’s first page 3 was on her 16th birthday and would now be classified as child porn. Censoring some things are steps forward for society. Do try and keep up

          10. John E. Bravo

            @Don P. He was awesome. I mean, I am.

            Also, last night, I realised that the voice of the Ice King in Adventure Time is done by the same man as Wakko on the Animaniacs. Mind temporarily blown.

            @Khumat. Nah man; you’re badly wrong. See above for details.

          11. Khumat Mebrah

            @Jess, yes because making a pair of breasts and female sexuality appear to be dangerous to kids is the same as equal pay for women and voting…

            Yeah 16 year old breasts are “child porn”..in a legal sense, only though, its government legislation, not real law, its arbitrary, a 16 year old who has gone through puberty is not a child.

            “Censorship is a step forward for society”? LOL, get a hold of yourself, are you sure you are not a member of Youth defence or Coir?
            And here I was thinking the more modern a society the more FREE we are…

          12. Don Pidgeoni

            “in a legal sense, only though, its government legislation, not real law, its arbitrary”

            Someone has a dubious internet search history

          13. Jess

            “Yeah 16 year old breasts are “child porn”..in a legal sense, only though, its government legislation, not real law, its arbitrary, a 16 year old who has gone through puberty is not a child.”

            That is literally the dumbest thing ive ever read. Did you actually read that back to yourself before hitting post?

            ‘only in a legal sense, not real law’ ie the law i’ve made up in my head that allows me to gawp at children.

          14. Khumat Mebrah

            16 is arbitrary, invented by a govt minister, hence 16 is a “child” today, but not in the 70’s and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Extending the legal definition of a “child” to 16 does not make anyone who has sex with a post pubescent 16 year old a paedophile, or anyone who “gawps” at one a paedophile either. Get a hold of yourself, you could write for the Sun, with crap like that, PAEDOGEDDEN!! A child is pre pubescent, an adult/teen is post pubescent. You cannot be a paedophile if you are attracted to post pubescent men/women, that is just common sense.

            That legislation is not “real law”, its made on a whim, common law has at least some historical basis, statute can be voted in by a bunch of thicks, I dont see why anyone would hold it in any regard(intellectually speaking, obv I obey it, dont want to get locked up)

          15. Don Pidgeoni

            The age of consent has been 16 since the 50s and has much more to do with the fact that you may physically be an adult but very much still be a child.

            You do realise you sound like a massive paedo, don’t you? Maybe change your name to Khumat Mepaedohunters?

          16. Jess

            Don, arguing with him has taken a strange journey. From trying to explain, to a feeling that you might be talking to someone who is on the spectrum, to now, a large suspicion that you are in fact talking to a pedophile.

          17. Khumat Mebrah

            @Don….nice, because discussing is advocatin’ innit HURR DURR. They could raise the age of consent to 17 or 19 my point would still be valid and it would not make someone a paedophile because they broke “the law”. You state its a “fact” someone who is 16 “is a child”, no, a child is pre puberty, puberty literally means the development of an adult body.. Its a pretty clear indicator one is not a child anymore.

            @Jess, you are, quite clearly, a moron. Google the definition of a paedophile, hint, its not someone who lusts after a 16year old and they wouldn’t be charged as such, its called statutory rape. Go back to worrying about eh, meanies printing newspapers with pics of women, hurting your feels. Also, you were the one who brought it up, you clown.

          18. Nigel

            Khumat is, in fact, correct here. Technically, he’d be an ephebophile. Right bunch of charmers they are, too/

          19. Khumat Mebrah

            @Nigel, I hope you mean “he” in the rhetorical sense, I wasn’t aware we were discussing personal preferences, I was merely correcting the hysterical escaped “Brass eye” cast members above.

      1. sickofallthisbs

        Well yeah, if I said I hope only 45% of the people who voted for FG were looking at themselves with no top on in the mirror. It has less of an effect, innit?

    1. Mé Féin

      I’m not, and I’m a well-endowed, testosterone-laded manly man. Plus I think these feminazis are part of a sinister fringe.

    1. Clo

      Even the Irish Dental Council agrees:
      Under the provisions of Section 49 of the Dentists Act 1985 a dentist may only use the description dentist, dental surgeon or dental practitioner. An exception is made in the case of dentists whose names are registered in the Register of Dental Specialists who are permitted to use a designated distinctive title.

      A dentist may not in connection with the practice of dentistry take or use, or affix to or use in connection with his/her premises any title or description which is reasonably calculated to suggest that he/she possesses any professional status or qualification other than the professional status or qualification he/she in fact possesses and which is indicated by the particulars relating to him/her which are entered in the Register of Dentists.

    1. sickofallthisbs

      Great, well done. You are an inspiration to us all. Clap Clap. Applause! Applause! Where would we be without you, fighting the good fight?

          1. sickofallthisbs

            He actually replied to somebody but I think it may apply to you: “I can’t stand the sanctimonious.”

  2. Llareggub

    What a cretinous lamp.

    All those ‘lots of women unemployed’ will just have to find alternative employment that doesn’t involve having their baps photographed for sleaze bags.

    Would you like fries with that?

    1. Khumat Mebrah

      “All those ‘lots of women unemployed’ will just have to find alternative employment that doesn’t involve having their baps photographed for sleaze bags.”

      How good of you to tell women what jobs are and aren’t acceptable for them to hold. Female sexuality is always sleazy innit…

      1. Llareggub

        ‘Female sexuality is always sleazy innit…’

        If you say so.

        But on the other hand, if you’d read the comment properly, you’d see I was inferring that the viewer (‘Doctor’ Redmond) is the sleaze bag in this instance.

        1. Khumat Mebrah

          So its just male sexuality thats sleazy then…..got it. I suppose you never admire a topless man or anything of that sort.

          1. Khumat Mebrah

            Maybe you need to type a little clearer, what is your point? Men shouldnt look at page 3? Men thinking women are sexy is sleazy, you really need to spell it out, I obviously am that thick.

          2. Nigel

            Page 3 is sleazy, mostly because Page 3 is more about a certain type of male sexuality than it is about female sexuality.

          3. Khumat Mebrah

            Are you(or these campaigners) the arbiters of “acceptable sexuality”, good to know.

            No historical connotations there at all……………..

          4. Nigel

            Really? Weren’t you just arbiting that to condemn Page 3 and people looking at Page 3 is to condemn all male and female sexuality, as if Page 3 and looking at Page constitutes the sum total of human sexuality? Deciding that a particular thing constitutes the sum total of human sexuality? No historical connotations there at all….

          5. Don Pidgeoni

            Its not about policing women’s sexuality (albeit a very very narrow idea of what is considered a “sexy” women), its about the appropriateness of the context in which their sexuality is expressed. Is a “family” paper that children have access to, and which is illegal under UK law, appropriate?

          6. Khumat Mebrah

            @Don Pidegoni
            “its about the appropriateness of the context in which their sexuality is expressed. Is a “family” paper that children have access to, and which is illegal under UK law, appropriate?”

            HAHA, what did I say, “think of the children”, LOL, get a hold of yourself its a pair of tits, nothing more, little johnny isnt going off to a field to rape someone after reading page three, no more then he will go off and kill someone after playing GTA. CENSORSHIP using the age old tactic of appealing to paternalism.
            Yes a pair of breasts are appropriate in a family newspaper, artistic merit or not, dont like it, dont buy it! Raise your own kids.

          7. Don Pidgeoni

            An illegal pair of tits and yes, I wouldn’t want kids to see porn when they are underage because there are fairly obvious consequences of that. You won’t believe any links I share so I won’t waste my time.

            Page 3 is artistic now? Lol, nice one. That made me laugh.

            If you are really that upset, start your own campaign? Maybe it could be a campaign about understanding what censorship is, as no one is banning your access to see some women’s boobs.

          8. Don Pidgeoni

            Look, Nigel, a family that watches porn together stays together. I don’t make the rules.

            *makes out with brother*

          9. Khumat Mebrah

            @Nigel, Is your IRL name Helen Lovejoy? No one has been harmed by looking at a pair of breasts, ever, the fact harm has come into this shows how twisted some peoples though process is. SEX IS GOOD, prudishness and censorship is BAD. Catholic Ireland is alive and kicking I see!! Family friendly? What does that even mean,?

          10. Khumat Mebrah

            LOL at you equating tits with porn. SHUT DOWN THE NATIONAL GALLERY TO KIDS, TITS ON DISPLAY!!

            Mary Whitehouse hiding under the guise of feminism,.

            I would like any women commenting to take note of this, YOUR TITS ARE DANGEROUS TO KIDS, COVER UP!!(according to Nigel and Don Pigeoni)

          11. Nigel

            I dunno. People have been harmed by having to put up with men raised to believe that they have an entitlement to see women’s breasts demanding to see their breasts while walking down the street, which happens quite a lot.

            SEXISM IS GOOD.

  3. Custo

    The ‘Irish’ Sun dropped the Page 3 thing about 2 years ago I think. Did that offend him as much?

    1. Lorcan Nagle

      You can’t let a little thing like facts get in the way of a dig at equal rights campaigners.

    2. Fair's fair, like

      Exactly what I was thinking. Does he insist on a copy of the British Sun to get his daily diddies?

  4. Parky Mark

    He used to go out with Amanda Brunker, former Miss Ireland and known for trying to start a fight with Jordan over who had the bigger knockers at some niteclub in Naas. Easy to see what kind of thing he’s into.

  5. Parky Mark

    And technically, those women were all self employed and hopefully didn’t rely on the odd job from the sun to keep them afloat.

  6. Odis

    In fairness, Page 3 gave us the silicone celebrity that is Jordan (aka Katie Price), amongst others. She writes books now dontchano.
    Though this hardly amounts to “Lots of Girls” heading for the Job Centre.
    But Hey – She’s a whole lotta gurl!

  7. Khumat Mebrah

    And now in today’s round of who’s campaign is this? Roman Catholic church, or Feminist?

          1. sickofallthisbs

            Did … did … did you just use the word, wang? I am going to resurrect “diddies” now.

          2. Jess

            Is wang not ok? I thought wang was ok. Its kina onomatopoeic ‘waaaanggg’ like ‘badoiiiiinggg’.

    1. Khumat Mebrah

      Its not about the tits, its the act of campaigning against them thats the issue, I dont read the Sun.

      1. Don Pidgeoni

        Wait, I thought it was about middle-class women policing working class women’s sexuality? Are you confused by your own arguments? Do you need a lie down?

      2. Jane

        Ah, that makes more sense. So if the so-called “women” had been all ladylike and waited patiently and silently for the representation of women to improve, you’d have been all over that with unending support. But because they decided to do something about it, they automatically lost your support (which, tragically, turns out not to have been essential to the cause, but never mind).

        That says something about your attitude to women that I can’t quite put my finger on, but it’s a bit like you expect them to be passive and have no opinions or something.

      3. Khumat Mebrah

        @ReproBertie How is removing tits from a newspaper advancing “equality?

        @Jane, nice try, pull the other one, “representation of women”, if men were campaigning against this on religious or moral grounds what would you say? Its a call for censorship, not equality. dont like it, dont buy it, that equality. Just because some middle class sensibilites are offended by the presence of tits in a newspaper they dont read, does not mean you have to jump with their cause. Why are you supporting the removal of the female form from a newspaper?

          1. Khumat Mebrah

            White Knights gonna white Knight, they should get checked for low test levels, its illiogical to campaign for something thats utterly irrelevant. And you should know, you never side with the censor, ever.

          2. Caroline

            Awww. You never side with the censor cause that’s against the bro rulez of the internet, ya queer. It’s an absolutely darling little philosophy.

            First they came for the bantz…

          3. Lorcan Nagle

            And as soon as the phrase White Knight gets bandied around, you know where from the arguement springs.

          4. ReproBertie

            Feminazis and white knights. How simple life must be when, instead of listening to arguments you can just label those arguing and thus dismiss them completely. Thinking is hard after all.

          5. Khumat Mebrah

            So jokes are out of the equation? Feminism truly is po-faced.

            Its an illogical campaign based on feelings, its not about “equality”, its not about “protecting the children”.

            Anyone campaigning for “equality for women” by banning a topless woman from a newspaper really needs to reevaluate what direction their life is heading, maybe check in with the doctor and get their meds changed.

        1. ReproBertie

          You really have to ask how removing a daily item devoted to portraying women as objects is advancing equality?

          1. Khumat Mebrah

            Yes I do, show me how it created actual “inequality”, how can a picture of a half naked woman create inequality. Its the height of stupidity.

          2. Khumat Mebrah

            And?? “Leering”, how about looking, what the issue, why are you that insecure that someone elses actions that dont relate to you in any way, somehow offend you? the campaigners have a problem, but its not with page 3.

          3. ReproBertie

            When it comes to speaking about the height of stupidity you’re clearly the expert.

            Women are objects to be leered at. That’s the message that Page 3 has been promoting for over 40 years. Intelligent articulate people? No, objects to be leered at. Entitled to bodily privacy? No, objects to be leered at. Entitled to walk down the street without being cat called? No, objects to be leered at.

            Page 3 was not the only page in a daily newspaper promting this idea but it was the most obvious. Now it’s gone and only an idiot would need to have how that is a step towards equality explained to them.

    2. Jane

      Well indeed. Both the catholics and the wimmin are massive influences on the editorial content of the Sun. That’s a given.

      1. Don Pidgeoni

        There was a Russian ( I think) TV station where the women stripped while reading the news. Fierce paper cuts

          1. Don Pidgeoni

            I am the new Mary Whitehouse apparently, though I was going for Mary Milhouse, so no. Bad Clampers!

  8. Soundings

    You can tell the next local elections will be in 2019, and that FG will see their existing seats halved in the general election in 2016. Might as well say something to be remembered by, I suppose, shure maybe the Indo/Sindo might give you a column.

  9. Jane

    “Why are you supporting the removal of the female form from a newspaper?”

    Thoughtful question. The reason that I would support it is hidden in your question – the fact that the removal of photos of naked women removes women from a certain newspaper. That’s actually the problem. If naked women weren’t featured as a titliation, women would largely cease to exist. In reality, what they’re doing here is putting bras on page 3, but if they did remove the photos of women on this page, it would be possible, some days, to read the entire publication without encountering the disturbing notion that women did anything of note anywhere in the world in the last 24 hours.

    1. Khumat Mebrah

      “but if they did remove the photos of women on this page, it would be possible, some days, to read the entire publication without encountering the disturbing notion that women did anything of note anywhere in the world in the last 24 hours.”

      A pair of tits isnt holding you back, its your own inferiority complex, dont read the Sun, no one is forcing you to, I dont, its trash.

        1. Khumat Mebrah

          “uppity women”, no, stupid women, yes. Page 3 does not affect you, get over yourselves, not everything is about you.

          1. Nigel

            Yeah Khumat those stupid women need a strong man from the testosterzone to tell them should and shouldn’t concern them.

          2. Don Pidgeoni

            Ah, got it. So these women are stupid because you don’t agree with them. And this is a free modern society where people can do what they want, as long as you consider it to be worthwhile. So clear now!

          3. Nigel

            To get outta the friendzone and into the testosterzone just follow my amazing hints sure to turn the most strident feminazi into a page 3 giggler totally hot for ‘it!’ Available at the shocking giveaway price of 99.99! DO IT NOW YOU SAD BETA MALE LOSERRRR!

  10. Clampers Outside!

    In fairness, if this were to go the full push, we’d have to ban every women’s fashion magazine on the planet.

    Yes, an awful lot of high end fashion shows an awful lot of flesh and no, the context is not different, both are selling ‘sexy’.

    Put that spanner in and see how it turns.

    1. Jess

      There is a difference in context. Women’s magazines don’t portray women solely as sex objects. There is a difference between sexy and sex toy

      1. Clampers Outside!

        Tell that to the lesbian readers drooling over the women in underwear in suggestive poses in the ads of those high end glossy magazines for women….. eh…

        By the way, I am, as I said pushing the idea out to a degree just to see where does the line lie…. I’m not saying that’s my view, but it could be someone’s, and probably is.

        So, who draws it? Whose sensibilities must it satisfy before we reach the line…. I dunno myself.

        1. ReproBertie

          Oh come on. It’s not that hard to find the line. Woman photographed in underwear to sell underwear is not the same as woman photographed with her tits out for gratuitous titillation.

          1. Clampers Outside!

            Yeah, but whose titillation….

            What titillates you may not even give a stirring to another but may give a stiffy to someone else…. so where does it end.

            And yes, some women, not just men will get a stirring from provocatively advertised underwear and yes, in the end it is the same. It’s still ‘sex’ that is being sold. Everything else is relative.

          2. ReproBertie

            I think you’re deliberately missing the point. A page 3 photo serves one purpose – look at her tits. That’s the sole reason for its existence.

            A photo in a fashion magazine serves a different purpose. It’s there to advertise clothing. That the photo could be provocative or titillating is secondary.

    2. Nigel

      I doubt anyone will. Page 3 is a holdover from a more antediluvian strain of old-school misogyny, a last vestige of a particular strain of mid-century sexism, and while I had forgotten it existed until this article, good riddance to it. There’s plenty of ink to be spilled about modern portrayals of sexuality, about how it’s been co-opted and pornified, but Page 3 was the acceptability of decades of old-fashioned male leering in public. Plenty of leering still going on, so a symbolic victory as such, but there you go.

          1. jeremy kyle

            Still plenty of tits on the ol’ internet if it bothers you Keith. But hey, at least dole queues will be more exciting now, weh? weh? weh?

            Nah.

      1. Khumat Mebrah

        “Page 3 is a holdover from a more antediluvian strain of old-school misogyny, a last vestige of a particular strain of mid-century sexism,” Page 3 was the acceptability of decades of old-fashioned male leering in public. Plenty of leering still going on,

        MAN IN FINDING WOMEN ATTRACTIVE SHOCKER. Put down the womens lib theory from the 70’s and join the human race, men find women attractive, they notice and like it, it works both ways. Shove your puritanism.

        1. Iseult

          Yeah except that yer average pg. 3 “hottie” isn’t exactly representative of the other half of the human race….any female who forgot to put her vest on is a less than desirable role model for my wee girlie..I have slightly higher hopes for her future

      1. cookies mcgarnagle

        It’s all in the eyes – you know behind them is a creature who loves nothing better than an aul girl on a chain. Sure it’s a job isn’t it?

  11. Redundo page 3 Frilly Keane

    Ta’ück am I going t’read all that

    Ye’d swear ye were stuck for 2D tits
    Or the affected girls likewise. Any girl with the stripping n’ flashing vocation with daycent assets will make a good living. And let her at it.

    In the name of Christ how did ye manage two ton and more replies to this tripe.

Comments are closed.