A.A. Gill was right.
The media seem to have the story but not show the evidence.
The newstatesman seems to have the ba*** to actually show the covers of Nuts magazine. Amazing.
Newsnight on a debate on Page 3 deftly didn't show any t*ts whatsoever.
If you don't include Harriet Harman and Neil Wallis as t*ts.
What we actually got was close-ups of clothed cr*tches.

The Harman mantra is page 3 is only there for men to 'leer' at women's b**bs.

'To look with a sidelong glance, indicative especially of sexual desire or sly and malicious intent.'

I'd like you and like-mided pundits to re-wire me and my fellow straight men, because evidently, mother nature has done a crap job. Thank you.

Liberal Democrat politics aside, I agree completely with this piece. And, by the way, Sam Gisoad, the idea that you can compare Nuts magazine to a woman reading 50 Shades of Grey is ridiculous: a euphemistic arty picture on the cover of an erotic novel may hint at the sexual content inside but it is not the same as page upon page of pictures of naked women. The fact is that sex object culture does indeed make women feel deeply uncomfortable and offended. I too have sat on a morning commute next to a man 'reading' a women's magazine and not had the courage to say something about how unhappy the experience made me.

Crucially, this isn't about censorship or freedom of speech- Caron is not suggesting that this man should not be allowed to enjoy Nuts magazine, but that there should be some sensitivity to the idea that other people may find it offensive and it probably best done in his own home. Being constantly bombarded by images of women as sexual objects is terrible for the self-esteem of normal women in society. It's not just about being forced to compare your body to that of a photoshopped 'babe' who conforms to a heteronormative oppressive idea of female beauty, it's about having to go about your day being constantly reminded that many people view you as the sum total of your body parts and nothing more.

Next time this happens to me, I hope I will have the courage to challenge this type of behaviour.

I know lots of people have already made a similar point but:
In the left hand column: "To read a lads' mag in public is to declare that women's bodies are public property." In the right hand column: "Laurie Penny: In Defence of 50 Shades of Grey".

If I relied on the New Statesman for moral guidance my moral compass would be proper f****d.

"The equivalent would be me sitting there openly looking at pictures of men's naked backsides - or worse. "

Go ahead. No really, go right ahead. I can honestly say I don't know a single man who would care. Or is this the classic "I don't want to, so you mustn't?" It is, isn't it?

"If men...want to look at this stuff, then there's very little I can do to stop them"

..."but there should be." Okay, I inferred that bit. Just so I know, are you okay with me reading my copy of 120 Days of Sodom on the train? Where's the spectrum here? If we run a line from, say, Collette to, say, Escort (through Anais Nin, Henry Miller, De Sade, Pauline Reage, 50 Shades, GQ, Maxim, FHM, Nuts, Zoo, Bizarre) where does it suddenly become unacceptable? Or, more to the point, at which point do we have to stop lest we make a Liberal Democrat feel "uncomfortable"?

I've never wanted to read Nuts myself - the women look plastic and the articles are barely literate, but by god I do now.

You honestly think that if a man looks at pictures of semi-naked women who voluntarily posed for such pictures and got paid a healthy sum to do so, automatically regards them all as second class citizens? You really are unbelievably delusional.
There are also plenty of publications aimed at women that DO have pictures of semi-naked men adorning their pages, I think it's More that has a 'Torso of the Week' feature, I believe that is where Rav, the guy from crimewatch, got his break. Then you get the likes of cosmo etc and guess what? No men are offended by women looking at pictures of incredibly well built guys who don't reflect what the average mans body looks like, funny that isn't it.

I might have a look of one in the supermarket.

Don't ever visit the national gallery. Appalling.

Since when did it become socially acceptable to publicly ogle photos of half naked seductively posed women?

Well clearly it never did, but really if he's allowed to buy it in a newsagents he should be permitted to read it in public. Sure he looks a plonker, sure it will offend people, and sure you're allowed to tell him you don't like it. He ain't breaking no laws though.

The only time I've ever read Nuts - in public or otherwise - was when I was given a free copy at Euston Station. It had a very distasteful piece about a woman who'd had a tumour that weighed about three stones removed from her bum, and seemed to be parading that as entertainment. I quickly put the magazine into the receptacle reserved for the Metro and the Evening Standard (aka the floor) - I needn't have worried about what I looked like reading it - since most other people on the train had one as well (briefly).

It really beats me how they manage to sell any of these magazines. Or indeed the women's mags either - which despite not being quite so adorned with scantily clad bodies of either gender, still manage to be a bit tacky. It is a bit weird sitting next to a woman in her 50s reading "20 ways to knit a better orgasm" - but each to their own I guess.

Good grief, get over yourself. As you said, you don't have a right not to be offended (notwithstanding the dangerous provisions found in the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and Communications Act 2003). This man has a right to look at prurient content if he wants, just as you have a right to rehash old arguments about male privilege and publish them in the New Statesman. If you want to spend your time looking at naked pictures of men, be my guest.

What constitutes acceptable behaviour in a shared space is difficult to judge and changes over time. We can agree that it would be more pleasant if men didn't read Nuts in such circumstances, but you demanding they don't is much more dangerous. Maybe Nuts man was offended by the woman in front reading Fifty Shades of Grey. Maybe he was offended by the man opposite who donned his tefillin and started to pray. And he was clearly offended by the content or fact of your conversation. Should he have asked them / you to stop too?

The right to free speech is not absolute (cf. Justice Holmes' often-out-of-context quotation on shouting fire in a crowded theatre), but there are good reasons for valuing it significantly more highly than you appear to do. The path you seem to advocate leads to mass surveillance, censorship and fear (all in the name of protecting the children from terrorists).

"there's very little I can do to stop them"

since that person wasn't doing anything illegal that is how it should be.

Men like looking at pictures of naked women. All heterosexual men. I mean young attractive naked women. If men did not like looking at naked women, the human race would have died out some time ago. Get a life.

The way I see it, this magazine's not for me but I don't have a problem with people reading it in public, and I don't think just because someone is it means they don't view women as equal (although in many cases that's probably how it is). My feeling is, why aren't there women's equivalents of these magazines?

I was Ok with the general direction this piece was going until I saw that the author is a Lib Dem activist.
Considering the attacks on the poor and the disabled under a coalition of 'her' Party and the Tories, I think any sense of outrage she feels about men looking at naked/near naked women should be immediately redirected at her heroes in Westminster.
Once she has purged her Party of the self-serving Tory neo-cons with which it seems to be peopled, she will have earned the support and trust of the many who might support her feminist views.
Judging by her Party's current popularity I might humbly suggest she gets 'more active'.
I don't buy lad's mags and I'm certainly never going to vote Lib Dem ever again in my lifetime.