No more page 3!

Hades said:
I don't buy the sun and couldn't care less about page 3 going. But a company following the law both before and after the 2003 change isn't creepy.
Click to expand...

Because it was legal that makes it OK?

I suspect not in most peoples eyes, and if it was so OK why did they change the law?

I suppose by your logic, you would have no issues with the age of consent being lowered to 13 then, seeing as it isn't creepy as long as it is legal?

Or indeed you wouldn't mind smashing some 13yr old pasty if you were in certain areas of Japan?
 
BuffetSlayer said:
Because it was legal that makes it OK?

I suspect not in most peoples eyes, and if it was so OK why did they change the law?

I suppose by your logic, you would have no issues with the age of consent being lowered to 13 then, seeing as it isn't creepy as long as it is legal?

Or indeed you wouldn't mind smashing some 13yr old pasty if you were in certain areas of Japan?
Click to expand...

I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion , the laws are there to be followed , if you have a moral objection then fine , but don't call out people with bs senarios as above , most people wouldn't have put those two things together. Let alone make a point of it . The law has never allowed 13 year olds to have concentual sex and would never be lowered , the law has however allowed 16 year olds to do photo covers in the past , I don't see the valid connection ?
 
It's not creepy due to the ages (though the countdown they did to [was it Sam Fox?] reaching her 16th birthday so they could publish pics was just about as creepy as can be). It's creepy because the country's most popular newspaper dedicating a whole page, and its most prominent picture of a woman, as a boobs-out sexy shot for the delectation of the families enjoying the paper over their breakfast is just slightly weird.

It's not about the individual "consenting adults" who feature in the pics (why do people think it is?), but about the statement the presence of the pics actually makes.
 
krooton said:
To be honest, it never sat well with me. You have all these top-shelf mags, but a kid can buy the Sun and get their rocks off regardless.

It's also a bit depressing, as not only do these girls hunger so much for any sort of 'fame', most are uggers, fat, or look 30 when supposedly 20 :p
Click to expand...

I think you've been buying the wrong thing mate. Not that I buy any paper, I'm not stupid enough to pay to read lies.
 
I have young children and really have no issue whatsoever with Page 3, I would just explain it to them. Dont see any moral issues at all, these are not exploited people, they are adults who have chosen to make money from their natural assets.
 
MasterOC said:
I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion , the laws are there to be followed , if you have a moral objection then fine , but don't call out people with bs senarios as above , most people wouldn't have put those two things together. Let alone make a point of it . The law has never allowed 13 year olds to have concentual sex and would never be lowered , the law has however allowed 16 year olds to do photo covers in the past , I don't see the valid connection ?
Click to expand...

Actually, the age of consent in England was 13 until it was changed to 16.

I also have not reached any conclusion. I have, however asked questions.

My overall point is that Hades said it wasn't creepy to use 16yr old cover girls before 2003 because it was legal, ergo implying that it's legality made it OK.

I was highlighting that to most people it would not be OK, and indeed that is most likely why the law changed. The same way as most people would not visit Japan and smash a lot of 13yr old pasty just because they could. It would be creepy and in most peoples view, just plain wrong. But it wouldn't be illegal.

I am not suggesting for a second that Hades likes 13yr olds because he thinks 16yr olds in the newspaper wasn't creepy, it was more a mechanism of argument to show the logic in his statement could be seen as flawed, and ask questions that cause a little more thought about the "it's legal so it isn't creepy'" outlook.
 
chroniclard said:
If its all above board and legal and someone chooses to do that, what's the issue.
Click to expand...

I would agree that there's not necessarily (though commonly there is) a moral issue against the transaction in paying for sex. But if we're talking creepy (and we are), then I would still say it is so.

It would also be creepy for someone to pay another to be their platonic friend for the evening.
 
chroniclard said:
If its all above board and legal and someone chooses to do that, what's the issue.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree on the one hand that people should be free to use their natural resources as long as it does not hurt anyone, would you be fine with your neighbour opening a brothel? If it was legal and above board would you have an issue with it?

So I guess in that example, it comes down to the definition of harm which would perhaps encompass the discomfort or distaste of those in proximity to certain types of activities.
 
chroniclard said:
If its all above board and legal and someone chooses to do that, what's the issue.
Click to expand...

Seems a strange point to be making to your kids though, I'm sure you'd have a strong objection if your daughter (assuming you have one) was to take up being an escort.

Often women involved in prostitution don't do it through choice they do it because they have drug addictions, debts, emotional issues. It's a very exploitative situation from the men who use them.
 
BuffetSlayer said:
Whilst I agree on the one hand that people should be free to use their natural resources as long as it does not hurt anyone, would you be fine with your neighbour opening a brothel? If it was legal and above board would you have an issue with it?

So I guess in that example, it comes down to the definition of harm which would perhaps encompass the discomfort or distaste of those in proximity to certain types of activities.
Click to expand...

The difference is a brothel with more than one woman operating from it is illegal, it's perfectly legal to be a prostitute.
 
I am not making any point about prostitution to my kids. Just saying that Page 3 is easily explainable and not really a big issue. Though I cant remember seeing physical copy of the Sun for years.
 
BuffetSlayer said:
True, but we are talking hypothetically about things being legal and whether that makes them OK.

So if a brothel was legal, would you be happy to have one next door?
Click to expand...

Bit of a silly question to ask.

Casino's are legal.. I wouldnt want one next door
Night clubs are legal… I wouldn’t want one next door.
Sewage factories are legal… I wouldn’t want one next door.
McDonalds are legal… I wouldn’t want one next door.

Doesn't mean I object to any of them. Or think they should not exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom