The Sun's Page 3 is no more (sort of) as they have decided to do away the practice of showing topless glamour models in their paper after more than 40 years. 

While many have welcomed this news and see it as a step forward by the paper, others have been critical of what they view as a prudish move by the paper, and argue that it's actually a retrograde move.

The move does of course impact on those who work in the glamour model industry directly, and they took to TV, Twitter and other mediums to let it be known that they feel that it was a bad decision to get rid of Page 3 for good.

Speaking on Channel 4 News, model Chloe Goodman compared the women shown on Page 3 to Greek statues of a naked Aphrodite, and that the feature was not the reason that women are "undervalued" in society. She added: "Why should feminist women then tell other women how to live their lives? Women fought together to get the vote and so on and so forth, so why should women now be fighting each other, and tell each other what job roles to now take within the industry?".

"Why should women now be fighting each other, and tell each other what job roles to now take within the industry?"

Rhian Sugden took to Twitter, with tongue in cheek, to give her opinion on the matter.

When interviewed by the BBC, Laura Lacole said that "this isn't a triumph for feminism. This is a triumph for prudishness", while Jodie Marsh, one of the most famous faces to have appeared on Page 3 in the past said that telling women that they couldn't pose for it is not being feminist. 

Nicola McLean appeared on Sky News and stated that it was sad to see a number of women waking up with no jobs as a result of the page being axed.

Keeley Hazell also wrote a piece for The Huffington Post about why she was also sad to see the demise of Page 3, and getting rid of it might not be the big leap forward for equality that many people are proclaiming it to be, and actually reinforces the problem that women can't be viewed as being intelligent and sexy, but as completely one-dimensional instead.

"By getting rid of Page 3 based on sexual objectification, are we not saying, 'I don't wish to be viewed as a sexual being because it undermines my intellectual self'? Is that really a step forward for society? Or does it not confirm the problem - that we can only be one thing."

So far, the move from the paper looks to be a permanent one, so despite the protests it won't be returning, although they did manage to sneak in a look back at the more famous shoots under the headline "Thanks for the mammaries"

Via i100