placebonaut
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2026
- Messages
- 1,065
was that a thing? jesus, I never knewI'm pretty sure most of us UK members are old enough to remember the days of sixteen year old page three girls. Aye?
was that a thing? jesus, I never knewI'm pretty sure most of us UK members are old enough to remember the days of sixteen year old page three girls. Aye?
Not that I doubted you BB, but even so that sentence seemed so unbelievable that I had to verify it. And verification came back loud and clear, that indeed it was a thing, presumably right from when they started 'the feature' in 1969, possibly right up to January 2015, when the topless pictures ended due to widespread pressure from many quarters, MPs, through to women's Activism groups. Although I wouldn't be surprised if the 16 year olds were 'phased out' at some point before that.I'm pretty sure most of us UK members are old enough to remember the days of sixteen year old page three girls. Aye?
It wasn't just a thing, the tabloids used to start a 'countdown' a week or so before a girl's 16th birthday with tantalising shots before the 'big reveal' on her 16th. Creepy af and grim. True though.was that a thing? jesus, I never knew
As McKenzie approached her 16th birthday, the Sunday Sport tabloid newspaper expressed an interest in turning her topless debut into a media event. Throughout June and July 1994, it published pictures of McKenzie, counting down the days until it could legally show her topless.
Yeah. Up until early naughties. 2003 I think.was that a thing? jesus, I never knew
in my 15/16 year old class in the 80's I'd say at least half the girls were seeing lads in their early 20's, much to our chagrinYeah. Up until early naughties. 2003 I think.
And folk don't believe stuff like noncing was more accepted back then. Fuck.
The Sun was massively hypocritical and riddled with double standards. I shouldn't be surprised really.Yeah. Up until early naughties. 2003 I think.
And folk don't believe stuff like noncing was more accepted back then. Fuck.
Nothing whatsoever amiss in mentioning it mate, whatever age you are. It happened, so it can be discussed. End of. Don't stress it.The Sun was massively hypocritical and riddled with double standards. I shouldn't be surprised really.
At the same time as featuring topless 16 year olds on their page 3, and sexualsing 16 year olds more broadly, Charlotte Church for example, (we've already seen that there was sexualised articles and photos about her getting published when she was just 15. I'm sure there'd be loads more examples. The Brooke Shields rabbit hole is not one I wish to go down, but I'm sure there'd be loads of examples regarding her.) there'd be sensationalist front page articles covering the various high profile pdfs of the time getting sent to prison for their crimes. IIRC there was a lot of sexy photos of the 14 year old Mandy Smith (Bill Wyman's "girl friend". I'd have been about the same age as her at the time, so I don't think there's anything amiss with me mentioning that in such terms.
still cannot figure out if you are being a total cunt here & trying to take the piss in a nasty way OR you are being just like EADD should be with a hard piss take outta me but meant in a good way.correct - as you demonstrate in never eating "pre-gab daily"![]()
The most controversial Brass Eye - complete with ad breakOriginal transmission - unedited.
100% yes.I'm pretty sure most of us UK members are old enough to remember the days of sixteen year old page three girls. Aye?
Nothing whatsoever amiss in mentioning it mate, whatever age you are. It happened, so it can be discussed. End of. Don't stress it.
We're all so afraid of offending / breaking the 'rules' that any and all communication is getting progressively (sic) more difficult by the day. Boils my piss tbh. Especially as the goalposts shift every few months "Ooooh you can't say that now" Aaaagh.
Beam me up Scottie! (If that is still ok to say?)