Clare Short wants page 3 women banned from The Sun....My question is to forum members is page 3 outdated or do you still look at the women?

Bet Clare didn't want papge 7 men banned :rolleyes:

Do I want to look at naked women? No thanks Jon.

Damn it's been too long since I read the Sun. I didn't know they had men on page 7. Wooooweeee. Are they naked?

being scouse, i obviously don't read the sun. I'm not really fussed either way, does it really make any difference if they're there or not? Does anyone buy the paper, purely for the fact that there's breasts in them, and if so, shouldn't those people just get a hobby or something?

I have been told that a quarter of people who buy the Sun do so just for the Page 3 girls - it's cheap pornography. If it was stopped, sales would plummet.

Rupert Murdoch's Fox broadcasting network and plethora of print titles are notorious in certain circles for tits n' arse and nowt much else.

I'm sure you'll all remember the Sun's anti-paedophile name and shame campaign? And it's support for a Sarah's law? All this from a newspaper that has barely* legal teens posing half-naked on Page 3!

(sorry - I'm going on at the rightwing propaganda machine again) :rolleyes:

*And that's barely as in almost, but it works both ways.

I think Page 3 should remain as it is.
If it gets taken away from us.... we're doomed!


Keep Page 3 ! :thumbsup:

Nicholarse was saying on his show the other night that he reckons Page 3 is a waste of space. His argument was that nobody is really interested in soft porn anyway and if they wanted a 1-man orgy they'd go get a proper magazine and spend a bit of 'personal time' with that instead. :lol:

Also he says it's embarrassing opening the paper. He feels he can't read what's on page 2 cos some will think he's perving at whatever is on page 3. Lol! I can kinda see his point as I myself would turn over very quickly if I happened to be reading The Sun in public. Most of the stories are made up anyway though so it's a bit of a useless paper. During the Gulf War (the recent one) I didn't even bother looking at it for news about what was going on as I was fairly sure it'd be totally inaccurate. :loopy:

The Sun is sparse when it comes to reporting news rather than stories, imo. Getting rid of nudity from their pages would mean they would have to find something to fill the space which is probably why they're unlikely to do it. Imagine if they got rid of all the chat-line ads too. It'd be reduced to something the length of a Uni ragmag.

Whilst being male, and thus not adverse to pictures of topless models, I do think it's a bit out of place in a national newspaper.

If you want to see page 3, buy from the top shelf.

Actually, lets just scrap the sun totally.

Originally posted by jackthedog
Actually, lets just scrap the sun totally.

Agreed! :loopy:

Originally posted by Andy78

Agreed! :loopy:

so if you dont like somthing you just ban it ....
very nice:confused:

I dont usually post in this forum but after all that drivel thats been posted before in this thread and the tripe Claire Short has come out with I cannot control myself, anwer me this one simple question.

HOW come if page three is outdated and nobody is interested that The Sun newspaper is the best selling paper in the UK? its not because of the in depth reporting on serious issues!

Originally posted by Harris Tweed
...its not because of the in depth reporting on serious issues!
Nor is it thanks to the page 3 models. If papers sold well because of their adult content then the Sport would be the best-seller. The Sun sells well because it has a clever marketing campaign that has established it as the paper for the people. It's simple style, readability (no long words!) and cheap price also play an important role in its success.

Originally posted by panda79
so if you dont like somthing you just ban it ....
very nice:confused:

yes, indeed, ban everything i don't like, and i'll be much happier. yay!

Originally posted by Andy78
yes, indeed, ban everything i don't like, and i'll be much happier. yay!

and how would you feel if they banned somthing you liked ?:confused:

That would suck, hence why they should just ban the stuff i don't like. That would be best.

i dont no what to say to that andy lol:o

Hee Hee, am just kidding. being my usual silly self. :D

Liking your attitude Andy!

Ban crap stuff, keep good stuff. What's so hard for people to understand eh?

yup, makes perfect sense to me too. I should be a politician.

Like it or loathe it, The Sun is the top-selling publication in Britain, and therefore the most important.

Sad isn't it, or should I say aren't we.

4 million Sun readers

4 million illiterate people in the UK

You do the math :D

Originally posted by Abdul
4 million Sun readers

4 million illiterate people in the UK

You do the math :D

now now steady on,,,,lol

Come on tango2...surely you've heard the joke before.

The Sun - for the gentleman who likes his paper to have more pictures than words.

No,I mean the 4 million readers,,,lol

It was last time I checked...on my paper round 15 years ago

And no election has been won in the past 25 years by a party not supported by the Sun. :o

i find some of the postings on this thread quite patronising.... so what if anyone reads the sun its a free country and i can read what i like ........unless the thought police want to control what we read
very 1984:confused:

I've got broadband, so if I'm that desperate to ogle boobies I don't have to resort to brainwashing tripe like The Sun and its ilk. Thank god.

n.b. No offense to any Sun readers.

Originally posted by panda79
i find some of the postings on this thread quite patronising.... so what if anyone reads the sun its a free country and i can read what i like ........unless the thought police want to control what we read
very 1984:confused:

Doesn't the it's a free country speech apply to allowing people to write what they like too? If people want to criticise The Sun and its "readers" then let them, patronisingly or not (that means to talk down to someone). It'd be a sad day for democracy if people were not allowed to say and write what they want, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by max
Doesn't the it's a free country speech apply to allowing people to write what they like too? If people want to criticise The Sun and its "readers" then let them, patronisingly or not (that means to talk down to someone). It'd be a sad day for democracy if people were not allowed to say and write what they want, wouldn't it?

pity it dont apply to the rest of us on here then::mad:

So....resurrected thread (five years on)....

...and one of the most popular newspapers in Britain today STILL features teenagers displaying their naked breasts.

Why?

I'm told by a colleague that he buys it because The Sun is best for sport. And no, he never looks at the front pages. Actually, I believe him - he has daughters and is fiercely protective about anything that could belittle or demean them in any way. So....is he typical? Do the rest of you (The Sun readers) only look at the back pages? Or do you also look at the front (ahem)?

Why the naked breasts??? Why should your kids see them? Your teenagers? Your mum? Your, well, YOU!

Why not just be honest, and look at porn? And if it's not porn (soft) then why does it exist?

"Is Page 3 obsolete?" Discuss. :)

Like it or loathe it, The Sun is the top-selling publication in Britain, and therefore the most important.

Sad isn't it, or should I say aren't we.

Yes, I was surprised that it was the top selling publication in Britain. If there are men on Page 7, I shall be joining the ranks.:rolleyes:

Not that I read The Sun, to be honest I find it quite an abhorrent publication.

But, A Government official shouldn't interfere with the publication of the free press; no matter how trivial.

Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:

* The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
* The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
* The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;
* The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
* The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
* The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
* And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:

* The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
* The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
* The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;
* The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
* The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
* The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
* And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

Ah , now, I like this dont I ? My husband is an MP tha knows.:)

Clare Short wants page 3 women banned from The Sun....My question is to forum members is page 3 outdated or do you still look at the women?

Bet Clare didn't want papge 7 men banned :rolleyes:

If a woman had her pride and joy out would not make any differance if she was on page 3 or page 43 would be the first page i turn to :)

They should force everyone to read the intellectual, Pinko, Left-wing Guardian - IMHO :hihi:

i only read the sun for the racing.....but they keep moving it from page 3.....

No shouldn't be banned...if you don't like it then don't buy the bloody newspaper then - simple as !!!!

I miss the page 7 fellas I do.

So....resurrected thread (five years on)....

...and one of the most popular newspapers in Britain today STILL features teenagers displaying their naked breasts.

Why?

I'm told by a colleague that he buys it because The Sun is best for sport. And no, he never looks at the front pages. Actually, I believe him - he has daughters and is fiercely protective about anything that could belittle or demean them in any way. So....is he typical? Do the rest of you (The Sun readers) only look at the back pages? Or do you also look at the front (ahem)?

Why the naked breasts??? Why should your kids see them? Your teenagers? Your mum? Your, well, YOU!

Why not just be honest, and look at porn? And if it's not porn (soft) then why does it exist?

"Is Page 3 obsolete?" Discuss. :)


Speaking as a feminist I support the rights of pretty young ladies to be comfortable with their bodies enough to expose them in national news papers; I consider this an empowering act of which the Suffragette movement would be proud.
And for those who say it's cheap and demeaning, The Sun also allows the model to offer a thought-provoking comment on the major political issue of the day.

They should force everyone to read the intellectual, Pinko, Left-wing Guardian - IMHO :hihi:


Good point. It would I might add be difficult to force that on Mail or Sun readers, as you'd have to educate them first.
Sadly the education department doesn't have the ongoing resources.:D

Speaking as a feminist I support the rights of pretty young ladies to be comfortable with their bodies enough to expose them in national news papers; I consider this an empowering act of which the Suffragette movement would be proud.
And for those who say it's cheap and demeaning, The Sun also allows the model to offer a thought-provoking comment on the major political issue of the day.

And as the young ladies are getting paid very nicely for what they do for free on many holiday beaches, I wonder just who is exploiting who?

And as the young ladies are getting paid very nicely for what they do for free on many holiday beaches, I wonder just who is exploiting who?


I like that they allow the models to contribute their thoughts on the day's top stories, the young women are often surprisingly well-informed and thoughtful.

Sadly the education department doesn't have the ongoing resources.:D

I blame the government.

I like that they allow the models to contribute their thoughts on the day's top stories, the young women are often surprisingly well-informed and thoughtful.

Is there any reason why they should be any less informed than anyone else?

Is there any reason why they should be any less informed than anyone else?

They're GIRLS, duh!

No, seriously, models aren't famous for their brains. Sadly, the website doesn't include the model's contributions so Peta's (21, Essex) thoughts on Copenhagen, for instance, will remain a mystery.

They're GIRLS, duh!

No, seriously, models aren't famous for their brains. Sadly, the website doesn't include the model's contributions so Peta's (21, Essex) thoughts on Copenhagen, for instance, will remain a mystery.

Oh I see. Like teachers aren't famous for their looks.

Isn't it odd how all the stupid models have made a pot of cash despite being thick. Probably a damn sight more than many of the self proclaimed male intelligencia on this forum.

What are your thoughts on Copenhagen by the way?

Can't remember her name, once saw one of the Nuts\Zoo girls on a chat show like This Morning. She was a stunner. She was also a Doctor. She'd been a lap dancer or pole dancer all through University and still models for Nuts\Zoo as well as practicing in the medical profession. She said she does it because she enjoys it, gets paid well, and to prove that models are not the stereotypical air heads (and presumably to prove girls with brains are lookers too).

I've not read the sun since I was about 10 years old (funnily enough that's about the reading level of the 'journalism' inside it as well) and think it's a worthless rag. However, banning things is almost always a bad thing, this case is not an exception imo.

OK, when you look at a page 3 girl.

What are you looking at? are you thinking about what she aspires to be, her thoughts, her academic ability.

When you open up the paper at page 3, what is the 1st thing you will look at? personally, I always look at the page 3 model's boobs

Clare has probably auditioned as a Page 3 Girl and because the Sun refused to accept her wrinkles she has turned bitchy. She is also very fortunate that wrinkles aren't painful otherwise she would be in absolute agony.

OK, when you look at a page 3 girl.

What are you looking at? are you thinking about what she aspires to be, her thoughts, her academic ability.

When you open up the paper at page 3, what is the 1st thing you will look at? personally, I always look at the page 3 model's boobs

No no no, there's the 'news in breifs', where the model gives us her view on the big news story of the day. :P

Best paper their is for sport coverage, second to none. Always buy it on a monday when it has Score supplement in. Can spend a good hour reading about weekends footy.:cool:
As for page 3, wish I could earn money that they do. Unfortunately my hairy arse doesn't quite like as good in a bikini. :hihi:

Oh I see. Like teachers aren't famous for their looks.

Not generally, no. Name a famously attractive teacher.

Isn't it odd how all the stupid models have made a pot of cash despite being thick.

Have they? Every stupid model is rich?

Probably a damn sight more than many of the self proclaimed male intelligencia on this forum.

Is 'money earned' a valid measure of intelligence, do you think?

Is 'money earned' a valid measure of intelligence, do you think?

To make yourself rich you need to either win the lottery or do it using your wits. Some people think that footballers are thick, but the top players had the savvy to get themselves in the right places at the right time. No one is sweeping the streets because they were too clever to get a better job.

I suspect that there are more millionaire women who do modelling than there are millionaire blokes driving buses.

Utilising a physical skill or your natural beauty to earn money is a sensible thing to do.
But having the wit to recognise that you can make good money from it, in no way qualifies you as particularly intelligent. Wealthy, yes, clever, no.

No shouldn't be banned...if you don't like it then don't buy the bloody newspaper then - simple as !!!!

Not quite as simple as you are suggesting. Because the Sun is a newspaper not a top shelf mag, it is hard to avoid it. Kids can pick it up in the newsagents; you could be sat next to someone on the bus or tram who is reading it. I have never bought a copy, but I have seen Page 3. This ubiquitousness means that it normalises the notion that women are to be valued primarily for their sexual attributes and their looks, which has been shown to lead to psychological difficulties in women, especially teenagers.

If it normalises anything, it's just that women have breasts and that they don't always have to be hidden away.
Nobody would complain (too much) if I walk down the street in the summer with no shirt on, why should it be any different for Sasha (19, Somerset, 34DD)?

It's really not abnormal for women to have breasts and for men to like looking at them. What is slightly abnormal is the British prudishness we display about our bodies.

Utilising a physical skill or your natural beauty to earn money is a sensible thing to do.
But having the wit to recognise that you can make good money from it, in no way qualifies you as particularly intelligent. Wealthy, yes, clever, no.

I couldn't agree with you less. Most people have some form of talent. It is the ability to recognise when that talent is capable of earning you a living where you need inteligence.

Model agencies are bombarded with stupid girls who have no hope of making the grade, just as X Factor is bombarded with talentless folks who are wasting their time chasing a forlorn dream.

Equally there are stupid people incapable of recognising that they have a talent, and as a result do not exploit it's potential.

i find some of the postings on this thread quite patronising.... so what if anyone reads the sun its a free country and i can read what i like ........unless the thought police want to control what we read
very 1984:confused:

People don't read the Sun, they just look at the pictures - hence page 3

So....resurrected thread (five years on)....

...and one of the most popular newspapers in Britain today STILL features teenagers displaying their naked breasts.

Why?

Seemingly, it's sufficient to say, 'because men like to look at them' and 'girls have a right to make money by showing off their bodies'.

Those comments would apply if we were talking about an openly soft porn mag. The Sun purpotes to be a family publication. Now, who can advance a credible theory as to why the majority of any family group (assuming man, woman and kids) would want to look at teenage girls displaying their breasts?

Is there not something a little weird, not to say distasteful, about the way women and children are subjected to this? (Not to mention men who don't find the concept a turn on - surely there must be some who are uncomfortable with Page Three?)

Or is Page Three such a British tradition that we no longer question it?

I think as a marketing ploy or contribution to the paper, page 3 adds nothing.
I've recently started buying the Sun and Star 'cos they're 20p and i use them at home for the dog to wee on - i purposely have never bought either paper due to this content for 20 years.
Not 'cos i don't look, but because the females at home shouldn't be subjected to it.

Utilising a physical skill or your natural beauty to earn money is a sensible thing to do.
But having the wit to recognise that you can make good money from it, in no way qualifies you as particularly intelligent. Wealthy, yes, clever, no.


Exploiting young women's bodies to sell a tabloid rag is good marketing, but is it moral?

If it normalises anything, it's just that women have breasts and that they don't always have to be hidden away.
Nobody would complain (too much) if I walk down the street in the summer with no shirt on, why should it be any different for Sasha (19, Somerset, 34DD)?

It's really not abnormal for women to have breasts and for men to like looking at them. What is slightly abnormal is the British prudishness we display about our bodies.

It's an oft-cited myth that women who object to things like Page 3 must be prudish and/or sexually uptight. But objecting to Page 3 is not about objecting to sex or to nudity. It's about objecting to sexualised images of women being commonplace and hard to avoid. In fact, I believe that if women were not surrounded by these images, telling them what they 'should' look or behave like, then we would actually have fewer hang-ups about our bodies and be more comfortable with nudity.

Women do indeed have breasts and many men like looking at them. But it does not follow that sexualised images of women should be on display in 'family' newspapers.

It's an oft-cited myth that women who object to things like Page 3 must be prudish and/or sexually uptight. But objecting to Page 3 is not about objecting to sex or to nudity. It's about objecting to sexualised images of women being commonplace and hard to avoid. In fact, I believe that if women were not surrounded by these images, telling them what they 'should' look or behave like, then we would actually have fewer hang-ups about our bodies and be more comfortable with nudity.

Women do indeed have breasts and many men like looking at them. But it does not follow that sexualised images of women should be on display in 'family' newspapers.

I couldn't agree more. The Sun contributes to reinforcing the view that women are here for our pleasure, to be stared at, ogled and commented upon. Some men are just too stupid or hormonal to know the difference between 'The Sun' world and real world.

Exploiting young women's bodies to sell a tabloid rag is good marketing, but is it moral?Nobody makes these women pose semi naked, this is the UK not a Taleban controled where women do as they're made to do.

I've recently started buying the Sun and Star 'cos they're 20p and i use them at home for the dog to wee on - it.
Isn't your dog house trained or is it old.?

Isn't your dog house trained or is it old.?

She's old now and an ex breeding bitch - so she was never house trained. At 4 years old some things are a little difficult to stop completely.(when we got her).

She's old now and an ex breeding bitch - so she was never house trained.

Sounds like an ex of mine:hihi:

Nobody makes these women pose semi naked, this is the UK not a Taleban controled where women do as they're made to do.
As a student I did a few days modeling underwear for a High Street store catalogue. It was hardly exploitation as I was paid very well and got to keep all the items that I wore. I am sure the girls that pose topless get a far better rate for the job.

If all parties are happy with the arrangement, I really don't know what all the fuss is about.

mary whitehouse tried this about 30 years ago? she got nowhere and neither will clare short :huh:.what next banning women on the telly who sell perfume because the adverts to provoctive . there is regulations in place that look after the models who pose in newspapers/on telly etc.so the rules are not being breached so no case to answer some people need to get a life :hihi:

mary whitehouse tried this about 30 years ago? she got nowhere and neither will clare short :huh:.what next banning women on the telly who sell perfume because the adverts to provoctive . there is regulations in place that look after the models who pose in newspapers/on telly etc.so the rules are not being breached so no case to answer some people need to get a life :hihi:

It's not about whether any rules are being broken - that is a moot point because there are currently no laws banning Page 3 and its ilk and that is what we are debating. The question is whether we should have a proliferation of sexualised images of women, freely available on the lower shelves of any newsagents, when there is evidence that these images contribute to issues such as low self-esteem, body dysmorphia, eating disorders etc in many women, particularly younger ones. And whether the growing 'pornographication' of society is really a good thing.

I would welcome some informed debate on this, but unfortunately the level of many people's comments seem to be along the lines of: I like looking at women's breasts, so that must make it OK, and anyone who disagrees is [insert random insult here, perhaps relating to prudishness, frigidity, or the need to get a life].

No need to ban it!! If you don't like it don't buy it! Simple! You don't even have to look at page 3 if you don't want to!!

It's been there as long as I have been alive at least, what's changed now to ban it??

It's not about whether any rules are being broken - that is a moot point because there are currently no laws banning Page 3 and its ilk and that is what we are debating. The question is whether we should have a proliferation of sexualised images of women, freely available on the lower shelves of any newsagents, when there is evidence that these images contribute to issues such as low self-esteem, body dysmorphia, eating disorders etc in many women, particularly younger ones. And whether the growing 'pornographication' of society is really a good thing.

I would welcome some informed debate on this, but unfortunately the level of many people's comments seem to be along the lines of: I like looking at women's breasts, so that must make it OK, and anyone who disagrees is [insert random insult here, perhaps relating to prudishness, frigidity, or the need to get a life].

You ought to see what kind of magazines are on the lower shelves of News Vendors in Greece, Turkey, Spain, Portugal etc.

Clare Short wants page 3 women banned from The Sun....My question is to forum members is page 3 outdated or do you still look at the women?

Bet Clare didn't want papge 7 men banned :rolleyes:

The last time I read the Sun which was some time ago, I was surprised to find page 3 women still there. Isnt it rather outdated these days?

Sh2006.

You ought to see what kind of magazines are on the lower shelves of News Vendors in Greece, Turkey, Spain, Portugal etc.

Seen them. And your point is?

The last time I read the Sun which was some time ago, I was surprised to find page 3 women still there. Isnt it rather outdated these days?

Sh2006.

As long as men like to look at beautiful women it will never be outdated.

I buy the sun and really dont care less for page 3 to be honest.

No need to ban it!! If you don't like it don't buy it! Simple! You don't even have to look at page 3 if you don't want to!!

It's been there as long as I have been alive at least, what's changed now to ban it??

In response to your first point: as I mentioned earlier, you can't avoid Page 3. I have seen it at work and on public transport, when people sitting near me are reading it. You wouldn't get someone reading a top shelf mag in a similar way. Its ubiquitousness and people's acceptance of it contributes to the notion that women's main purpose is for men's sexual gratification.

In response to your second point: we now have more evidence as to the damage done by sexualised images of women in the media. Page 3 is just a small part of that, but it plays a part nonetheless.

In response to your first point: as I mentioned earlier, you can't avoid Page 3. I have seen it at work and on public transport, when people sitting near me are reading it. You wouldn't get someone reading a top shelf mag in a similar way. Its ubiquitousness and people's acceptance of it contributes to the notion that women's main purpose is for men's sexual gratification.

Does page 3 really offend you? Seriously?

In response to your second point: we now have more evidence as to the damage done by sexualised images of women in the media. Page 3 is just a small part of that, but it plays a part nonetheless.

What evidence is there of "damage" caused by sexualised images of women in the media? What does that statement even mean?

Are you claiming a person might carry out a sexual assault and use sexual images they have seen in things like page 3 as motivation? If this is the case, why are more far liberal places like Holland (for example) not swamped with sexually motivated crime?

There are many many countries, particularly throughout Europe who have extremely lax regulations regarding pornography, brothels, sexual images in press and on tv. Surely, this argument of people who claim sexy images motivates sex crimes has been shot to pieces years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm all for page 3. Personally, I don't buy the paper but I'm not the slightest bit bothered by page 3 girls.

But if we go down the censorship route, life may be a whole lot worse.

It's not about whether any rules are being broken - that is a moot point because there are currently no laws banning Page 3 and its ilk and that is what we are debating. The question is whether we should have a proliferation of sexualised images of women, freely available on the lower shelves of any newsagents, when there is evidence that these images contribute to issues such as low self-esteem, body dysmorphia, eating disorders etc in many women, particularly younger ones. And whether the growing 'pornographication' of society is really a good thing.

I would welcome some informed debate on this, but unfortunately the level of many people's comments seem to be along the lines of: I like looking at women's breasts, so that must make it OK, and anyone who disagrees is [insert random insult here, perhaps relating to prudishness, frigidity, or the need to get a life].

The majority of the earlier posts were arguing that it was exploitation and or imorral and or perverted. I've argued against all three of those points.
Until this page I don't think that anyone had raised how it affects the minds of other women.
I'd be interested to see proof that showing girls breasts on page 3 somehow contributes to body dismorphia amongst other women.

The obvious prediction...is...pornography should increase the incidence of sexually violent crimes against women.

Case studies and anecdotal evidence tend to support this prediction.

In 1987 and 1988, two studies of a total of more than 130 convicted rapists and child molesters have found that most used pornography while preparing to commit an offence. Another study, by researchers at York University in Toronto in 1987, reported that 39 per cent of battered women had at some time been upset by their partners trying to get them to do what they had seen portrayed in pornographic material.

The first attempt to test the prediction that pornography promotes sexual violence was published in 1971 by Berl Kutchinsky, a criminologist at the University of Copenhagen. The data seemed to disprove the prediction: after the legislation on pornography in Denmark was liberalised, pornography became more widely available, but the incidence of sex crimes decreased.

This study continues to be quoted as the authoritative evidence, but researchers began to question the data only two years later, by Victor Bachy of the University of Louvain in Belgium. The main problem was that sex crimes had not changed uniformly. Minor crimes such as indecent exposure and 'peeping' did indeed fall, but serious crimes such as rape and attempted rape increased, at least for a few years after pornography became more widely available.

In Australia, the federal government has tended to relax its controls on pornography since 1970. Different states have, however, implemented these changes to varying extents and, as a result, have unwittingly conducted an interesting experiment on the effect of pornography. Queensland, the most conservative state, has maintained the strictest controls on pornography and has a comparatively low rate of rape reports. By contrast, South Australia, the most liberal state in relation to pornography, has seen escalating reports of rape since the early 1970s (see Figure 2).

A more complex study in the US, by Larry Baron and his colleagues at the University of New Hampshire in 1984, attempted to plot the circulation figures of pornographic magazines in different states against the incidence of rape reports. The researchers found a strong relationship: on average, every increase of 2 per cent in the circulation of pornography was linked to a 1 per cent increase in the incidence of rape reports.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12617154.200-flesh-and-blood-does-pornography-lead-to-sexual-violence.html?page=3

I dont usually post in this forum but after all that drivel thats been posted before in this thread and the tripe Claire Short has come out with I cannot control myself, anwer me this one simple question.

HOW come if page three is outdated and nobody is interested that The Sun newspaper is the best selling paper in the UK? its not because of the in depth reporting on serious issues!

It's fairly obvious you don't post regularly on this forum as this is your first!:) I don't consider the Sun to be a newspaper although it's obviously affilliated to the Times. Should the Times have a page 3 with topless pictures of Carol Vorderman and Mylene Claas (sp) The Sun is merely a reminder of all the cra* you missed on telly last night and which footballer rhyhipnolled who and if you need so desperately need to look at ladies chests I'd suggest you close the 'paper' and look at a ladies chest ... use the paper to mop up after :)

Spindrift - those studies seem like ones designed to validate a point of view. They are studying the limited population, finding a common behaviour and erroneously claiming causality.
Watch
130 convicted rapists and child molesters have found that most used pornography while preparing to commit an offence.
and
130 convicted rapists and child molesters have found that most drank water while preparing to commit an offence.
Oh no, people who drink water are likely to rape and molest...

A valid study would look at a large random sample of people, profile their porn habits and then track them for years. This would then allow any true link between porn use and subsequent sex offences to be made, instead of starting with a small sample, finding some normal behaviour and trying to implicate it in the fact that they are already sex offenders.

It's fairly obvious you don't post regularly on this forum as this is your first!:) I don't consider the Sun to be a newspaper although it's obviously affilliated to the Times. Should the Times have a page 3 with topless pictures of Carol Vorderman and Mylene Claas (sp) The Sun is merely a reminder of all the cra* you missed on telly last night and which footballer rhyhipnolled who and if you need so desperately need to look at ladies chests I'd suggest you close the 'paper' and look at a ladies chest ... use the paper to mop up after :)

Chest?
What's up, breasts too risqué for you to type?

Chest?
What's up, breasts too risqué for you to type?

Good point - was sure you only had one post too - you now seem to have over 27000 . Going to be very rude now and say titties:hihi:

Any man who objects to Page 3 girls must be gay.