web analytics

Look at these three tits.

Feminist politicians in the UK think it’s terribly important to prevent heterosexual men from enjoying titty pictures in the newspaper. Or something.

Rupert Murdoch’s Sun newspaper (it’s never mentioned in print without the Rupert Murdoch part) has featured a Page 3 girl for more than 40 years. That is, on the third page of the newspaper, there’s a girl baring her tits. It’s tacky, it’s embarrassing, I’m not the target audience, so what the hell business is it of mine? Working class men liked it (I guess), many of the models went on to lucrative careers in…being pretty girls with huge tits, so it had to be stopped. And it has.

It took three years of concerted bitching and moaning, but the Perpetually Outraged Brigade finally hounded it out.

I don’t even know where to start with this one. The internet is full of free porn of the vilest kind. The world is full of genuine and horrible repression of women. And this — this — seemed to somebody worth fighting for. A lot of somebodies. A lot of stupid, shallow, deeply unserious somebodies.

Oh, Page 3 is still there, in (Rupert Murdoch’s PBUH) Sun. It’s now pretty girls with big tits wearing bras and bikinis, so…way to win one for the sisterhood, ladies!

Y’all probably don’t remember, but this blog used to feature Page 3 Weasels. No, really:

sock it to me

Comments


Comment from CrabbyOldBat
Time: January 20, 2015, 9:45 pm

Well, those weezies are right in line with the new bikinis-not-boobies policy of the Sun. You go, girls!

 


Comment from P2
Time: January 20, 2015, 10:26 pm

A travesty! Yet another iconic emblem of Britain erased in the name of “progress”…. Barkeep! A goodly portion of the Famous Grouse, if you will…..there are icons to be toasted!

 


Comment from thefritz
Time: January 20, 2015, 10:48 pm

No boobies in the print version but you can still get the nipple candy online…

 


Comment from Uncle Al
Time: January 20, 2015, 11:07 pm

Western culture seems to have a disgusting preponderance of people who can be defined generally this way:

* They care ever so much about perceived problem X

* They identify a trivial manifestation of X

* They spend Y (a large number) time whining (whingeing for you UK folks) and agitating about stopping X!

* After successfully stopping X! they congratulate themselves on a job well done, bask in self-righteousness, and start all over with a new X, never realizing (realising) that the original X is just as much alive and kicking as before.

If these people spent even 1% of Y on identifying the basis or root cause for their perceived problem X and working to change that rather than some proxy for it, they might do some good. But that good would be by their standards and not mine, so in most cases I am quite happy to let them continue wasting their time and effort on things that do little damage.

 


Comment from Skandia Recluse
Time: January 20, 2015, 11:37 pm

Once the top comes off, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle, or the terrorists have won.

 


Comment from Some Vegetable
Time: January 21, 2015, 12:36 am

It fascinates me that feminists demand the right for women to be allowed to do anything they want except things the feminists don’t want them to do.

Now excuse me while I search the web for more examples of Rule 34 now that Stoatie has tackyed one more example to the list

:-) Weaselicous Vargas Girls! :-)

 


Comment from Stark Dickflüssig
Time: January 21, 2015, 12:39 am

How about a Page Three girl topless but wearing a giant, foam berjiner costume? Or with some random cyrillic nonsense reviling Pu10 scrawled in shoe polish across her bewbz?

 


Comment from Simon Oliver Lockwood
Time: January 21, 2015, 1:17 am

I saw that some ethnic Pakistani MP named Sadiq Khan tweeted his support for the campaign. I’m sure that’s just an indication of how much he supports women’s rights and equality.

 


Comment from surly
Time: January 21, 2015, 2:26 am

They’re just pissed nobody wants a gander at their ugly ol’ bewbs.

 


Comment from Steamboat McGoo
Time: January 21, 2015, 4:19 am

Skandia – I understood almost but not quite some of that! Magnificent!

 


Comment from dissent555
Time: January 21, 2015, 4:56 am

“It fascinates me that feminists demand the right for women to be allowed to do anything they want except things the feminists don’t want them to do.” – Some Veg

Indeed. It’s the XX corollary to the general principle – “Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out”.

 


Comment from dissent555
Time: January 21, 2015, 4:59 am

I did a google search on tits and found this –

http://tinyurl.com/k546pvb

 


Comment from mojo
Time: January 21, 2015, 5:10 am

I guess I’m not your target species.

 


Comment from Nina
Time: January 21, 2015, 5:48 am

Page three weasels.

Snort.

That’s going on FB, baby.

 


Comment from mojo
Time: January 21, 2015, 5:58 am

So some chickadee flashing her knockers on page 3 is degrading (or whatever), but Beyoncé dry-humping a bench in front of a literal wall of ass is empowering.

Yeah.

 


Comment from dissent555
Time: January 21, 2015, 6:19 am

In news related to another pair of boobs,

http://www.theonion.com/articles/biden-arrives-early-to-set-up-state-of-the-union-f,37812/

 


Comment from tibby
Time: January 21, 2015, 5:22 pm

@ dissent555 – giggling at the bouncing tits.

 


Comment from Stark Dickflüssig
Time: January 22, 2015, 3:12 am

Haha, whoops!

 


Comment from Hutch
Time: January 22, 2015, 5:15 am

You made the ONT on AOSHQ tonight. Congrats, Stoaty.

 

Write a comment

(as if I cared)

(yeah. I'm going to write)

(oooo! you have a website?)


Beware: more than one link in a comment is apt to earn you a trip to the spam filter, where you will remain -- cold, frightened and alone -- until I remember to clean the trap. But, hey, without Akismet, we'd be up to our asses in...well, ass porn, mostly.


<< carry me back to ol' virginny