Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Read the comment by Jonny Jones (second down) :,D
doesn't seem right to me.
Maybe they reckon men just look at the pictures.
Seems to be very accurate
30 minutes ago
If the author had made her name (and therefore got this gig) by being a PhD. in Chemical Engineering, you might say "Indeed - why should women be put in a prominent position just because they happen to look interesting with no clothes on?".
But Dr. Brooke Magnanti made her name by gobbing off chaps for money, writing salaciously about her sexual experiences under a pseudonym, and then not turning out to be a total thickie who didn't have to sell sex.
Seems like the wrong person to be trying to make a point about using sexuality to pay the bills or get on in business or a career, really.
so whoever says it, while sure, pot/kettle interface, it's still a solid point.
i'm saying it doesn't really matter, because it's not about curbing sexuality or sex workers at all. it's about getting it off of a national daily paper. completely different points. so who cares who's saying it. if jenna jameson said it it'd still be a solid point.
i think it's a bit of a stupid article having read it now.
now i don't know WHAT to think.
and ogling the page 3 girls. I never, ever thought less of women because of it. Some girls get their tits out. Others work on finding a cure for AIDS. Some go into porn, others are housewives.
Who cares? I don't get this campaign. Nothing wrong with sex.
not sure any of us are best placed to judge how exposure to something has affected us.
i think overall they should probably get rid of it - overall it's probably slightly damaging
How's sex damaging? What about Heat and Closer and all those mags? They objectify men to the max. No-one talks about getting rid of those. It's just going "look, something sexy".
Also, I'm pretty sure I'm best placed to judge how exposure to something has affected me.
i think excessive exposure to fantasy women (or men) probably creates distorted expectations of reality, which is overall a bit of a bad thing.
you can't possibly know how subtle exposure over years has affected how you think about women. You can't know this at all - you'll never have two versions of yourself to compare. Surely it's a near impossible thing to gauge.
And as men are in a position of power and are doing more objectifying than women (unless you can unearth the millions of gigabytes of conveniently hidden female facing pornography on the internet) then 'Heat objectify men!' is not an equal arguement.
Besides, the Page 3 thing isn't about banning sex. It's about getting rid of a stupid and goofy institution that is backwards. Boobs are great, but they aren't news, nor is putting a kitschy 'lol this lass is thick because she has her top off' joke next to each one as a means of deriding. Page 3 hasn't had a negative impact on me, but it's letting the whole side down by existing.
but for the horrible snidey way it looks at women's imperfections. I think that has more effect than page 3 does.
but society is able to focus on multiple fronts at once and by a campaign existing against Page 3 it doesn't condone or rule out something against Women's Mags. I'm sure various petitions have been raised before, but they've just not gained as much traction, for whatever reason.
It is about sex. What about the women who want to do it? Who feel it's their right to do it? Who are positively proud of it? You gonna tell them they can't because you think it's backwards?
How can attraction be backwards? What's backwards is sticking women in head to toe cloth so men can't see them. Getting your tits out is fucking emancipation. you don't have to read the sun. women don't have to get their tits out. But we can do both if we want. The only issue is people judging. They need to chill the fuck out. It's freedom baby.
High fucking five to that.
Ok, I *rage* a bit too much perhaps, but my point is valid. completely valid. It's not banned for these exact reasons.
I wholeheartedly believe it's important to argue against this blanket it-must-be-exploitation nonsense that is peddled.
but at the same time i don't think it should exist.
i don't think it's exploitation, i'm not sure anyone in this thread has argued that. I just don't think it's particularly healthy for society.
So sex or sexual attraction is unhealthy? The entire human race is built on this principle. There's nothing unhealthy about it.
It would be deeply, deeply unhealthy to not allow it. What kind of society would that be? Where does it end if we ban it, or even, as you said, just discourage it.
I don't want to be frowned upon for liking a photo or a half naked woman any more than she wants to be frowned upon to do it.
I HAVEN'T SAID IT SHOULD BE BANNED
quoting myself now
"i think excessive exposure to fantasy women (or men) probably creates distorted expectations of reality, which is overall a bit of a bad thing.''
but page 3 is the least of the problems there. Girls mags, tv and film all peddle attraction and perfection more than page 3. Page 3 is quite blatant in what it is. I'm sure The Daily Mail website or Grazia mag is worse for body dis-morphia etc.
about patriarchal society right there. If women want to do it, let them. It can't be stopped, but Newspapers aren't the place for it, they're for news. The snide remarks next to them aren't called for either, how does the piss-taking fit into your emancipation theory? Have you also thought about the fact that the Sun promotes a singular body image, rather than something more broad?
There are issues here beyond it just being 'women getting their tits out' which they're free to do whevenever they want, obviously.
of 'body image propgated by womens mags and lads mags' thing will follow this, which is of course a thing to consider as well, but it doesn't automatically give a green light to something like Pg3 just because it's an issue elsewhere.
they're for much more now. But I still think the stereotyped busty girl in her knickers next to snide comment on her mental acuity is a bit outmoded, is all.
yeah I hear you
We all do. It's called being attractive. You want to start rallying against sexual feeling now, towards attractive people? It's sex. It's nature. It's a bloody photograph. Ok, so you say it shouldn't be in a paper, but I say why not? It's got more place than The Daily Mail's "straight to the point" section.
We can't just get rid of something because it makes some people angry. Or because it's suggested by these same "outraged" people that it causes sexism".
I think it's sexist to tell a woman she's making the world a worse place by being a glamour model. It's her body, let her do what she likes. That's a free society.
I have objections to it tonally, and I'll stress again the 'news in briefs' part that gives me a gripe. I'm not rallying about sexual feeling, but are tall slender girls not sexy? Girls with wide hips and small boobs are suddenly abhorrent? Everything that isn't blonde, young and busty? I don't think glamour models make the world a worse place.
Good, so we agree. Let's let it exist and stress about something important other than people's free choices.
We don't agree, you're just picking points you like and ignoring the ones you don't. Again, it's nothing to do with hating sex, or attraction, or nature. It's only you making these things. Do you think feminists hate sex? Maybe Radical feminists, or Marxist feminist to some extent, but i'd imagine most of them fall into the category of liberal feminism which is not about sex hating women trying to neuter the world, it's about curtailing ridiculous latter day sentiments from sex; removing the horseshit 'jokes' from News in Briefs and the 'ooh we shouldn't really but here are some soapy tits' attitude of Nuts and Zoo, all of which are things that stop a naked woman from being sexually attractive as a positive, and turn it into some weird mocking negative.
yes, I'd probably actually be a mote happier with the whole Page 3 institution if the pathetic sexist humour that accompanies each model was removed, like I said above, the negative par of it is about tone, not about sex.
that they believe? Which is quite possible. Then you're laughing at it as if it's mocking her. That's pretty lame. So suddenly she can have her tits out but not have an opinion on current affairs?
I know I sound like a cock saying this but really now.
Maybe they are written by them? Not sure that matters, it's the juxtaposition of the two things that is supposed to cause humour. You don't stick someone quoting Descartes texts and link it to the current economic crisis next to some airbrushed woman with her breasts out. That isn't there to make her look clever and sexy, it's there to make her look thick because she's got them out. Have a care mate, it's not hard to figure out.
Of course. It's not meant to mock them. They do see the final result. They understand the joke.
It's only mocking if you pity them or look down on them. These are grown women doing something they actively want to do, and doing it at the peak of success and exposure. I think that's great. Human being achieves something they wanted. How is this possibly bad? Stop telling them what's right and wrong. Let them decide themselves. It's their life.
there are plenty of aveneues they can go to if they want to do that that don't involve pointing and laughing. You think the 'news in brief' section is supposed to be mocking, which is a bit sad.
you *don't* think, which is sad. It is mocking, that's always been its purpose.
the way it's written alone - especially since the number of unique words in The Sun is abhorrently low so that the readers don't have to access any part of their brain while they paw through it - is deliberately vocab-heavy. It's mocking. That's the point. It's like they're saying 'just in case this particular girl is actually fully comfortable with doing this and it's a possible form of empowerment, let's have a pop at her intellect!'
Moker, I give you fox hunting. Or indeed the homosexual age of consent being higher than for heterosexuals.
Or in fact any NUMBER of things that we got rid of ever, like workhouses.
Do you honestly think the country was wholehearted all for getting rid of the death penalty?
Get your head out of your contrarian arse and stop sounding like you subscribe to some Men's Rights Association.
to the legal oppression of someone because of their sexuality?
I've just checked and I definitely didn't write that.
It's their right to do it.
In regards to fox hunting - That's different. It's killing for entertainment. We're talking about a pair of breasts.
With regards to the age of gay sex, that was an equality issue.
You're getting angry because you think I'm arguing against something. I'm not, I'm arguing for something. For equality, for the freedom for women to pose, men to look and everyone to chill out.
Why get rid of it when women want to do it? I'm being extraordinarily liberal here. I think it's suppressive and wrong to dictate what consenting adults can do just because (SOME) feminists / fox hunters / homophobes think otherwise.
Let people do what they like.
It's getting more equal but yes, I do.
I really don't. I'm not being contrary for the sake of it. I also think there's not a single jot of evidence to say one way or the other. It's all conjecture.
But I do know for sure that telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies is wrong.
that a large institution, within a patriarchy, using images of naked women, alongside quotes mocking them, has nothing to do with equality, at all?
it's their opinion? Unless it's made up of course.
Large institution, small institution, there are women who want to do this. So let them. This is the free country we live in and it's right and just that it's this way, even if people argue it causes sexism. Suppression of rights sometimes sexism too.
I don't think Page 3 encourages sexism anymore (or actually probably less) than many many other parts of society. Pick anything - newsreaders for example. Why are they all attractive? Why are there no John Simpson female equivalents? That's pretty bad. Or all these teen soaps like Hollyoaks with amazing women in them. Or even female bands. Or whatever. I really don't think Page 3 causes sexism. I honestly mean that. It hasn't in me, I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks that it has in them or anyone they know. It's blatant, not insidious. It's a whipping boy, not the problem.
they see the quotes. The see the final paper. It's not hidden from them. If they want to do it, then good luck to them. They're an adult choosing to live their life how they choose and they are free to do it. It's a glorious thing that doesn't exist in many countries.
It's not as if it's a trick pulled on them.
means that it is not a problem, which i disagree with
The "free country we live in" isn't stopping these legions of women that you talk about from, for example, getting naked on their own website and charging people to look. Many people do it. But it's a national newspaper that we're talking about. Page 3 in the Sun was created by men, for men and womens' rights would not be affected in the slightest if it was abolished.
Treating women as sex objects with no brains, whether they are "happy" about it or not, is just blatantly backwards and damaging. The women who claim to be happy with it are doing it because it's the place in society that they have learned to occupy, which is possibly more fucked up TBH than if they were being coerced.
I'm not sure why this conversation is so focussed on the bit of text next to the photo either, it would be fucked up with or without it. I suspect it only exists to make the publisher feel slightly less of a blatant creep, anyway.
without any evidence. I also honestly can't believe you'd have the audacity to proclaim what a woman can and can't do with her body as it doesn't line up with your moral code.
But the mechanism for doing it shouldn't be operated by lecherous men. Let these women who are so desperate to get nude do it under their own steam. I have no issue with sex, nudity or non-exploitative pornography, but I think you know that already and are choosing to make this conversation about something else. The existence of Page 3 has literally nothing to do with womens rights.
As for Page 3 contributing to sexism, listen to the way people who look at Page 3 talk about women and compare it with the language used by people who don't. I don't have any evidence for this (I doubt it exists) but I would happily bet that the difference is tangible.
As for Page 3 contributing to sexism, listen to the way people who look at Page 3 talk about women and compare it with the language used by people who don't.
Like I say, I can't back it up, but I'm pretty confident it'd be true with a large enough sample. moker wants hard evidence, I can't think of anything better :(
you still think you dont get people going 'phwoar.. look at the top bollocks on that'
More to the point, look a the countries where women have to cover up head to toe. They're the most sexist nations of all.
Equality is the right for women to get naked. Sorry if it offends some people.
So let's just never try?
have done all my life - I'm liberal, I truly believe in an egalitarian society and I would not consider myself sexist at all.
In fact, everything I'm saying is about equal rights. Women can do what they want as much as men can, without judgement or suppression. End of.
They should be able to, they can't always.
I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist, but banning page 3 is taking away rights, not giving them.
women would still have the right to take their tops off, and the right to be photographed doing it, and the right to be paid for it. What right is being taken away?
the idea of `rights` with `specific opportunities to get naked`. Yes, those specific opportunities would not exist any more. I don't think anyone would miss them. They have no relationship with a person's rights or freedom. I'm almost certain you're trolling now.
if they wanted to do it but they were told it was now illegal. It's dictating how people live their lives.
So if you take something away it doesn't infringe on someone's rights?!?
Stop moving the goalposts. If the Sun stops printing pictures of Page 3 girls, what right is being taken away?
- every internet thread ever.
Surely everyone knows the quotes are made up.
-- What about Heat and Closer and all those mags? They objectify men to the max. No-one talks about getting rid of those. It's just going "look, something sexy". --
Seriously mate, that's the sort of sexist bullshit CG trolls out for lolz. It's down there with, "Where are the MOWOs?" and, "I'm not racist, I've got lots of black mates".
But yeah, particularly that argument is used by the sort of brain-light thundercunts who think men are marginalised in our society. You're far better than that.
But I do think we can't object to page 3 without objecting to other very popular and prominent publications that objectify men, AND women.
I also think men have as much right to comment on equality as women.
I'm trying to be as reasonable as possible but I think people just think I'm being all "tits oot for the lads" but I really, really am not. It's more fighting the "tits oot if that's what you want to do" corner.
then they really need to experience a world outside of university-educated liberals.
An I say that as a university (part) educated liberal who thinks Page 3 isn't quite as innocent as you claim, but not really a big deal either.
I also get the point he's trying to make but I think he's picked entirely the wrong thing to use as an example.
Also, apathy isn't really a position. Apathy is precisely why things don't change when it's probably a good idea that they do: because people like to just leave things as they are.
The argument that, "Page 3 never affected me," isn't flawed because he doesn't know, it's flawed because he's someone who considers everything carefully. But that doesn't mean it's true for everyone else. There's a parallel saying, "I've never been taken in by a dodgy scam so I don't see the need for there to be any consumer protection laws". Why? Because a lot of people ARE strongly influenced in their views by things around them. I never picked up smoking but that doesn't mean I think banning smoking advertising is 'nanny state gone mad' or something: clearly advertising works.
Page 3 is an advert for conjoining viewing women as sexual objects first and patronising their views. Whether loads of people who read the Sun are subtly altered in their views by that isn't something I have evidence for, but I can't really see that the 'rights' of people who aren't affected and could just buy a copy of Playboy anyway should really matter too much to saying, "Hey let's keep this sort of thing on the newsagents' top shelf, thanks".
I fully support it. I think it's a perfect thing to defend to make my point about oppressive beliefs in the form of liberal thinking. No-one is being emancipated by banning page 3, they're being oppressed.
Women also are sexual objects. So are men. This is what makes the world go round. It keeps the species alive.
I don't think page 3 patronising their views. Even the "News In Briefs" section. How does it patronise their beliefs? By quoting them?
I'm not angry about all this, I'm not hating on anyone and despite what this thread makes me look like, I'm quite a nice, calm guy. But I strongly belief in the rights of people to be able to live their lives without judgement from the right - and something which is more insidious - the left.
are far more focused on women than they are on men.
competing to shag us. There may be a kernel of biological truth in that ridiculous tongue in cheek statement.
i used to open on page 3 and then quickly just turn over so nobody would look at me looking at a pair of tits. But nowadays i stay on page 3 for a few moments, poised as if the tits don't phase me at all, pretend to read the side columns and not pay attention to the tits at all, and then turn the page calmly. Smooth
read what the lass with her baps out thinks of the issue of the day.. then mutter something along the lines of 'like this slag know anything about the EU crisis' before flipping the paper round and reading the sport section
not even sexy in a degrading kind of way
I'm not a fan of page 3 in principal, but surely if you don't like something, you don't buy it...
and because they're getting angry about it under the guise of feminism, then they must be right.
and I'd say there are much more harmful things that kids have access to nowadays than Busty Bev from Basingstoke.
i think just because people can understand that what they are seeing is not reality, it doesn't stop it having an impact.
I imagine this impact is lessened, but I think it probably still has an effect at some level.
and being a man who seems to look at his natural desires as a source of guilt and anything that panders to them as a dangerous thing that will make him treat women appallingly.
At the moment the men seem divided into 'guys that don't give a shit anyway' vs 'guys that give a shit but have been brought up to have respect regardless'. And they're all wanking to porn regardless.
On page 3. Seems a weird battlefield for this conflict to be taking place in 2012.
Think I may have oversimplified my opinions on this.
is a pair of tits.....
a time where titillation was innocent and oppression of women was endemic.
Nothing to do with oppression.
I was just pointing out that titillation was more innocent back then and oppression was widespread as a way of questioning the assumed link between pornography being harder now and therefore changing how men view women.
are we... are we just using this as an excuse to talk about boobs?
it takes you to an article about the 2004 FA Cup final. Curveball
didn't really work that well and you didn't want to catch a glimpse of yourself in the mirror wearing those.
They also had the page 7 fella (not jobless) for a while, that died out.
They then changed tact from fake bangers to 100% natural bangers, not sure if this is still the case.
When I hear blokes talking about their names eg 'did you see Cassie,22,Croydon this morning?' that seems a bit weird. Not that they shouldn't have names of course.
You can have all this for free.
nope the old fashioned 3d glasses one red jug and one blue jug thing (I'm not really an expert on how 3rd pictures work)
with a selection in as a youth
they were perishable after one use so had to keep a surplus at all times
I always forget about page 3 until I open the paper. Then i go to the loo and cry because I'll never be pretty and/or have nice mams.
''unrealistic'' depictions of female bodies creating preasure on women and to a lesser extent* unrealistic expectations for men.
*a lesser extent because unless your a child you'll have prob seen a woman naked before and know the score.
unrealistic expectations for women who end up seeing me naked.
but also bad pictures
But I really don't like abs and six packs and stuff on men. I don't like fatties either, but really prominent muscles give me the willies.
and you should all feel bad. Especially moker. And also Lucien. Not sure he posted in here, but him anyway.
I don't have an opinion on equality? That's pretty sexist.
I'm furthering the gap in equality?
in your interpretation of how complicit women are in this process, even if i don't disagree with the point you're making.
Sorry being a bit trolly/tongue in cheek.
I actually agree with you. Female representation in the media (and to a certain extend male representation) should change.
That's sexist. Or fucked up at least. So women are immediately snookered in their choices because there are more male photographers then female? What about all the make up artists behind the camera being women?
With the greatest of respect, I just can't see a valid point in there. It all sounds more judgement and assumption.
All I'm saying is let people choose to do what they want.
because "society" influences them. So you want to get into that existential argument?
But to break it down to the "societal pressures" argument, I think that it's nonsense. So these women are somehow tricked into doing it against their will, through suggestion? What a crock of shit.
That's genuinely insulting to the individuals involved.
It's also btw kinda sexist, if you then suggest or make the quantium leap that society is insidiously against women so they're more suggestible than men.
To be fair, I can't really make head nor tail of your argument, it's so vague.
as they have no free will..?
how much control? where would you draw the line?
I'm saying that it's a woman's right to be a page 3 girl if she so wishes and removing that right because some people deem it offensive is wrong.
Got that? You, and your crew, are talking about immeasurable societial pressures influencing the way your brain makes decisions. I mean FFS, what are you on about?
I've tried to address it as much as possible but you can't just pull a vague and unprovable, unquantifiable argument out the hat to battle against a simple statement about rights. We can argue on feminist theory and psychology all night and get nowhere but all I'm saying is let a woman be a glamour model if she wants. There is no trick question or double meaning to this. It's allowing people to live their lives as they wish. I don't care if you think society pushed them into it through subtle suggestion and interalised sexism. They're no proof, no consensus and no way to measure such theories and it's stupid to go down such lines.
I also take great offence at the suggestion in any way that I am sexist because I am male. That is fucking out and out sexism right there.
:D :D :D
basically 'cos I'm male.
please post more
nobody's rights are affected. If a factory shuts down, you or I would be unable to apply to work in that factory any more, but our rights are untouched. I can't explain that in a simpler way.
So now that we've got that out of the way: people can still get as naked as the day is long, anywhere they like (apart from out in public etc.). I think what everyone in this thread who is opposed to Page 3 is saying is: people should be free (rights!) to do this as they wish, on their own terms. But Page 3 is a bad place for it because it carries historical baggage, has a disparaging tone and encourages women to be viewed as empty-heads. Women can not be considered to be treated equally in the press as long as Page 3 exists.
You probably don't care about this if you don't want to think about other factors besides the simple existence of Page 3, but there it is.
Not sure anyone has actually explicitly called you sexist either, but I'm not about to wade through this absolute hot carl of a thread again. Nothing I've written was intended to be insulting.
Sorry, everyone else was out of the office
*ducks rotten vegetables*
What? Because you're a woman? So obviously I don't understand or have a right to say anythign about it because I'm a man.
It seems to me, that basically you're sexist. Or have a big chip on your shoulder. Or you're a misandrist.
Whereas I'm constantly expressing the desire for people to be able to be treated equally in their choices, free from judgemetn from left or right wing ideals, you're constantly pushign the differences between men and women and then using that to explain why I have to be wrong.
It's about being one, not being separate. I'd literally go as far as saying, fundamentally, this is the thign that fucks me off about left wing politics and being left wing libertarian, that pisses me off even more.
Aside from the fact that I don't think your first sentence is correct (it's not 'removing a right'), issues to do with rights often come into conflict with other rights. Sure, there's a sense in which I suppose a woman has a right to want to appear on Page 3...but that comes into conflict with the right of people not to have a dumb, simplistic, boob-centric view of women propagated in the country's most popular newspaper.
Also you can say that girls should be free to choose to be page 3 models if they want, but frankly if the entire platform upon which page 3 rests is morally shaky (which I think is a gross understatement of the harm it does) then you can argue that society as a whole should have the right to remove that platform and the harm it does. If the construct that allows page 3 in the first place is sexist, then how can you justify any 'rights' within it?
Is he allowed to say that this definitely is sexist? As he's a man? A man with a massive, manly beard?
He shaved his off
I win on the beard stakes. Although it's pretty sexist to measure people on a male-only criterion.
this, ladies, truly is the voice of oppression.
a) i believe that logically, following facts, i see evidence that it harms equality, rather than helps it
b) every woman that i have ever discussed this with agrees. some agree and don't care, because they're so used to it and don't see any point bothering with it; some agree and care a lot
I know plenty of women who don't mind page 3. They're indifferent to it. There are also many women who actively persue a career in it. So you can't argue that all women are against it.
how do I get free Legos?
I've heard they travel from halfway across the world to have a go on your nice mams :)
which was a buffed bloke wot in his kecks
Hmm, didn't mean to post this, had a comment to say but couldn't phrase it well.
You seem to discount the notion of there being a subconscious level in which society operates and she has an ideology that prejudices her worldview and a 6th form habit of throwing out embarrassing insults and demonisations.
apologies to both of you for how that came across.
but if I find someone who thinks that ideologies are bad I'll send them your way so you can win that argument.
Everyone has a set of beliefs that inform the way they see the world around them. I'm curious as to why you think wishpig's ideology "prejudices" her worldview any more than all the other people in this thread.
Just imagine I walked in, cut you down with my devastating wit and then walked out again. You can post something about how this proves that I couldn't back up my words, but inside you'll suspect that I actually could.
This way I look pretty cool, and you've had the last word.
I think we're done here.
OH NO BUT WHAT ABOUT OUR FREEDOMSSS?!?!?!?!?!
yeah i'm not too concerned about people's freedom to see a pair of tits printed on a newspaper.
Also moker pretty accurately demonstrates a (generally anti-feminist) political position that i HATE, i.e that people are ultimately rational and able to make objective decisions. People just seem to assume this as fact when talking about politics. When has this ever been true irl? It's just a really poor level of cognitive dissonance really.
If you tolerat ethis, then your children wear v-necks.
So it won't affect you so you don't care? What about the people who want page 3? What about page 3 girls? What about the photographers, make up artist and the industry around it?
But it's ok to ban it as you don't care? Fuck that outlook.
But freedom is never unmitigated. What if you want to be free to be a paedo? Of course that's ridiculous, because you're guided by some moral compass that says 'That isn't a freedom, that's a wrong thing to do'. So why can't that morality apply to Page 3 as well?
e.g. you might justify restricting freedom to be a paedo because it causes harm to someone else. But what about the harm to society as a whole that Page 3 causes (or continues)?
or is a complete moron
I'm not hating, I'm being rational. How am I trolling? By supporting the rights for human beings to live their lives how they wish?
From what I can see, from this one comment, you're trolling.
Put it on page 17 or something like that?
The Daily Shemail
and you shouldnt look at them
i hate this fucking forum sometimes
and you can read all manner of filth. But no wanking to the former.
We have to put up with this
into taking all their clothes off
or tides or something, not Darren hes gay.
but couldnt open the facebook link at work
defended by 'liberal' middle class white male indie kids on the internet
Not sexist: sexism, men.
not sure how, it was kind of hypnotic, like jiggiling... balls
anyway, the idea that page 3 is al-right on the defence its a celebration of 'attractiveness' was the most troubling one for me.