The National Readership Survey does publish male/female readership figures for The Sun.

The latest figures (the twelve months to September 2011) shows 56% of The Sun’s readership is male. Of interest, The Mirror’s readership is 55% male.

Of course, this is readership, not who buys it.

“While pictures of topless women might have been acceptable in the 1970s”

Actually, everything I’ve read suggests that it was more shocking back then, simply because it was a new idea.

It’s part of The Sun’s image, and while it may not adversely affect sales to men, it (judging from the figures that James had provided) doesn’t seem to put women off, either.

I can’t see the Page 3 girls going anywhere anytime soon, I’m afraid.

We also have quite a long article on The Sun’s Page 3 girls – including the slightly mind-boggling news that it put their figures up by 40% when launched.

First, I will bet Miss Mylo doesn’t even read the Sun or the Star…She’s one of the feminist masses who wants to, and is creating. a female society devoid of any masculine obsessions. I mean the UK is going into criminal offense overload harkening back to the parish constable era.

“A female society devoid of any masculine obsessions”, huh? Wow. I don’t think there are many feminists with that aim, Dan.

Sarah might be one of them, but I can’t see anything in her post to indicate that. To me, her post appears to be a perfectly reasonable question about the demographics of a particular publication that contains content that is potentially alienating to 50% of its audience.

But if you want to leap in and get defensive because you feel your privileged position is being threatened, you go right ahead there, mate.

sally,if semi literate yobs buy the see page 3 chick an hear about what the wag are doing, that’s there fing businessl.

Ssrsh is probably not a Sun reader…but that doesn’t matter to women who would like to see the Puritans come bsck/

Years ago Clare Short warned if a generation of uneducated and jobless young men in a growing matriarchy….I would say there will be few guys in news work in 5 years…you just have to lok who is attending colleges.

So let the Shameless growd have page three and you can gaze at hunky men
www.hard-truths.blogspot.com

I fail to see why it should be more unacceptable now than in the 1970’s to have a pair of tits on page three.

I think, sometimes, this country is going backwards not forwards.

Dan – I’m not a Sun reader, no. As Sally points out, I’m just wondering why they keep publishing something that I thought must damage their female readership figures. James’s figures appear to show that, at least on the face of it, their readership is no different to a similar newspaper without the feature. Not sure why I’m not allowed to ask.

Derek – attitudes towards sexism have significantly changed since the 1970s, even if you haven’t. Surely showing respect to everyone in this country, regardless of their gender, is a positive thing? How is this “going backwards”?

Sarah and I seem to have interpreted Derek’s comment differently. I read it as “It wasn’t acceptable then and it isn’t acceptable now.”

Err, hang on, I do have respect, thank you very much. I respect the right of people who want to buy the Sun to look at the torturing on page three, just as I respect the right of someone who doesn’t like page three.

However, in this country we’ve become so politically correct you can’t say boo to a goose, and we have a vocal minority trying to set the agenda for the majority.

If you don’t like page three, simple – don’t buy the Sun. And don’t give me that rubbish that it’s degrading to women. It’s not. No one forces the page three girls to get their kit off.

I’m not a Sun reader. I prefer the Times.

That should read totty, not torturing. Sodding predictive text.

Sally – you misinterpreted me.

I think this country is becoming far less liberal than it used to be, and what I meant was that I would have expected far more anti-page three feeling in the 70’s when the attitude to sex was very much restricted access “behind closed doors” so to speak, rather than today where sex is readily available online etc.

Perhaps the concept of page 3 is outdated, but not unacceptable in 2012

Sorry I misunderstood, and thanks for clarifying.

Well, I think we’ll see the end of page 3 before too long. Same goes for pages 1, 2, 4, 5 and the rest of The Sun.

Something mildly amusing… if the Sun has to print (perhaps as a quote) the word ‘tits’, it will print it as t*ts.

Obviously the display of the word is more controversial than the display of the items in question.