Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Will The Sun's new editor get rid of Page 3 girls?   ( divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

12902 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jan 2003 at 8:57 AM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

70 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

2003-01-14 08:27:28 AM  
Headline of article: Should the Sun keep its Page 3 girls?

Response of Fark headline writer: nooooooooooooo!!!

What are you, some kinda boobie hater or somethin'.
2003-01-14 09:00:28 AM  
What, no Brit tits! Cancel my internet.
2003-01-14 09:00:30 AM  
If we have to give up Page 3, the SbB girls will just have to pick up the slack.
2003-01-14 09:01:43 AM  
Good lord, I should hope not!
2003-01-14 09:03:04 AM  
Anyone remember when you used to get pictures of women on beer cans?
2003-01-14 09:03:22 AM  
Over my dead kitten!!
2003-01-14 09:05:06 AM  
There's only one word that comes to mind for news like this. That word is "noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooo!!!!!!!"
2003-01-14 09:05:27 AM  
Answer: No, this is a stupid publicity stunt.
2003-01-14 09:06:11 AM  
maybe they should add a page 3 boy...for all the ladies.
2003-01-14 09:07:52 AM  
What a sad day that would be for British newspapers.
2003-01-14 09:08:25 AM  
Although I love Page 3, I do think it contrasts somewhat with the wholesome family values that the Sun claims to uphold, and selfrighteous condemnation of anyone who doesn't.

What they should do is get rid of the family values.
2003-01-14 09:08:51 AM  
Have to agree with a lot of the posts on the BBC website. If you've ever had the displeasure of "reading" the Sun, it takes about 5 mins. It's all tack and crap so they'd lose tens of thousands of readers if they took it down. That said, maybe fark can link to the Daily Star. It has Page 3.....5, 7, 9, 13, 18.......
2003-01-14 09:09:13 AM could just look elsewhere for your naked women. Apparently, this Internet thing is full of them.

Favourite reader's comment:
"Imagine naked men on Page 3. Would that be accepted? Well I don't think so because male chauvinism is still highly integrated in our society.
Anon, UK"

Because, as we all know, women are just emotionally stable individuals who would never become excited at the prospect of viewing the naked body of the opposite sex. This was probably written by someone who was just angry that none of the boys at school ever hit on her. Or her father abused her. Pick your stereotype.
2003-01-14 09:09:35 AM  
01-14-03 09:03:04 AM Eat_my_shorts
Anyone remember when you used to get pictures of women on beer cans?


Was it Tennants or Harp?
2003-01-14 09:10:51 AM  
the nectar of the gods. a.k.a. Tennants :)
2003-01-14 09:11:55 AM  
> maybe they should add a page 3 boy...for all the ladies.

Actually, I think they did for a while (or maybe it was The Star), but the muscly hunk photos weren't as popular as the T&A photos.

Strange, eh?
2003-01-14 09:12:19 AM  
Tennants Super - the cooking lager.
2003-01-14 09:13:19 AM  
repetative wrist injuries are down 182% in Britain as a result.
2003-01-14 09:14:41 AM  
Does the BBC just pick randomly from submitted comments or something, because some of them are particularly brainless.
2003-01-14 09:17:56 AM  
Good tag choice!
2003-01-14 09:18:05 AM  
Ahh yes, Tennants...good days, good days.
They recently opened a Wetherspoons in Belfast and it's £1.75 a pint ($2.50) but the B@5tards dont serve Guinness.
2003-01-14 09:18:50 AM  
Get rid of the page 3 girls, and replace it with page 3 guys, yeaaaaah.
2003-01-14 09:20:14 AM  
I don't know, it can be kinda embarrassing reading the Sun on the train...
The other day I was caught 'reading' page 3 by some old woman; I was so embarrassed - I almost gave myself a vasectomy, trying to do up my flies...
2003-01-14 09:26:23 AM  
The Sun got rid of the news ages ago, if they lose anything else they'll have a blank piece of paper.
2003-01-14 09:27:38 AM  
PsychoNun: "Maybe they should add a page 3 boy...for all the ladies."

Now you're talking...
2003-01-14 09:30:45 AM  
Excellent use of the "scary" tag.
2003-01-14 09:31:15 AM  
Page 7 Fellas????? How come you fukkheads never post the Page 7 fellas????
2003-01-14 09:31:25 AM  
If memory serves me right they did actually have a "Page 7 Fella" or something ages back.
2003-01-14 09:31:29 AM  
They do have men in the Sun, I think they're page 7 men? (Not that I'm looking... erm... *worried people are thinking he might be gay* 'HEY, HOW 'BOUT THOSE BEARS?!')
2003-01-14 09:31:30 AM  
I think page 3 should go full-frontal.
2003-01-14 09:33:25 AM  
What they should do is get rid of the family values

and lay off harassing the paediatricians.
2003-01-14 09:34:56 AM  
They do have men in the Sun, I think they're page 7 men? (Not that I'm looking... erm... *worried people are thinking he might be gay* 'HEY, HOW 'BOUT THOSE BEARS?!')

Bestiality isn't the answer, mate.
2003-01-14 09:35:04 AM  
Eat_My_Shorts: Sorry,I thought you were talking about this beer:

[image from too old to be available]

2003-01-14 09:35:54 AM  
What currently appears on page 3 is tacky, and only a step or two above porn.

I'm not quite sure why this lady believes Page 3 is anything more than porn. Makes me wonder what kind of porn she normally looks at.
2003-01-14 09:37:40 AM  
They stopped the Page 7 Fella after one of the guys was named Tio. They got in hot water when the headline read:

Page 7 Fella-Tio
2003-01-14 09:49:13 AM  
Forsythe P. Jones
tennants girls were much hotter :)
(desperately trying to find an image of one of the cans!!)
2003-01-14 09:52:16 AM  
What, no more buck-toothed chicks with no muscle tone sticking their butts way up in the air while making really dumb faces? Oh, the horror...

It's not porn, but it's not exactly high-quality work, either. Better and far more attractively-done nudes can be found on, fer chrissakes.
2003-01-14 09:54:20 AM  
I also thought that the display of a person in a sexual manner was considered porn.

And that a naked woman was rather sexual.

Ummm... so... naked woman is not porn.

There is no god.
2003-01-14 09:59:01 AM  
No-one buys the Sun for its accurate, cutting-edge journalism. Given that scud mags are glossy, less absorbent and hence easier to wipe clean, the only logical conclusion can be that the only people who buy the Sun are those who are too embarrassed to buy a pron mag (or too short to reach the top shelf).
2003-01-14 10:13:47 AM  
Who cares?? Just go out and by the Daily Sport!
2003-01-14 10:17:01 AM  
Jeho, you trolling or serious?

If you're serious, then, the definition of porn is a touchy issue... the current one used in the US is something on the order of "no artistic merit, causes sexual thoughts..." which, as the Reverend Bill Hicks was quick to point out, sounds like just about every commercial on television.

There are lots of places where nudity does not equate to sex, particularly partial nudity. England is a weird place, but when you consider that in many parts of southern Europe a woman wearing a bathing-suit top is looked at the same way Americans look at Mormons wearing long-underwear swim trunks to the pool, then Page3 is about as pornographic as a typical SFW boobies post. The same turn-on as a chick in a bikini can be... but not porn.

With friends who have done a lot of photography, and having done some figure modeling myself, the best rule-of-thumb definition for what separates porn from art is this; art moves you from deep within, but you're not ashamed to have it out or accessible to company. Porn may or may not give you something, but you constantly feel like checking over your shoulder to make sure nobody's looking.

My problem with Page3 is that it's tasteless, not that it's porn...
2003-01-14 10:23:00 AM  
Someone call the FBI and the Denver police. This is worse than flat champagne
2003-01-14 10:42:01 AM  
Exactly who wants "taste" in their pornflakes? The pretentious and over-priviledged, that's who.

Good, old-fashioned smut never hurt anyone. Except perhaps Sarah Payne.
2003-01-14 10:47:22 AM  
He better not, some of the hottest women on this earth are on
2003-01-14 10:48:02 AM  
If appointed the Sun's new editor, I shall get rid of the bottoms! Elect me!
2003-01-14 10:52:06 AM  
Farkertothemax: The new editor is a she.
2003-01-14 10:59:44 AM  
...would love to see page 7 come back by the way!

What was on page 7?
2003-01-14 11:04:36 AM  
Ain't pretentious, me and a case of Schafer'll back that up... maybe overpriveleged, though. Have had fantastic luck with women in general, and looking at "parts" just doesn't cut it for me... all the big sexual organs are right between the ears.
2003-01-14 11:05:24 AM  
From my cold, dead kitten.
2003-01-14 11:13:06 AM  
Personally, I think there are better looking women other places. Not saying that they are not good looking, but I think it's the way they look too fake and retouched in most of the ones I have seen.
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.