It might be a bit tacky, but it’s not offensive to women

0
Have your say

So we were all led to believe that Page 3 had had its day.

Thanks to the politically-correct people of this world, there would be no more Lacey, 19, from Bedford, displaying her charms. Sad times indeed.

The Sun’s sister paper The Times claimed the tabloid would no longer be featuring topless models.

But then The Sun went and confused everybody by featuring another Page 3 picture.

Yes it’s a bit of a tacky outdated concept.

But up against the current moral culture of modern Britain, it’s about as offensive to women as the saucy seaside postcards you can pick up from Clarence Pier in Southsea.

I’d much rather my kids saw a pair of boobs in the paper than some of the things you see going on in programmes like EastEnders.

It just seems utterly ridiculous, the amount of effort some people have gone to to campaign to get topless pictures removed from a newspaper.

What next? Are we going to have to be fully-clothed when we go the beach?

Believe me, you see more naked flesh on a night down Guildhall Walk!

It stinks of double standards to me. I went on an internet forum where the feminazis were overjoyed with the fact Page 3 had been ‘axed’, yet just a few posts above the same women were leering at a half-naked picture of Brad Pitt.

I reckon lots of them haven’t had any male attention since decimalisation, so have been consumed by bitterness and are now rejoicing in trying to ruin a bit of harmless fun.

So in a world of equality it’s seemingly okay for men to be shown stripped to the waist mowing the lawn, drinking Diet Coke with a gaggle of salivating women looking on, but people get on their high horse about Page 3.

As far as I know, no-one has ever been forced to appear on Page 3.

A lot of women have gone on to have great careers on the back of it. They certainly don’t regard it as a form of exploitation.

If women want to pose topless and make decent money from it, I say let them get on with it.