Men who wouldn't win a prize at Crufts feel entitled to judge the appearance of women and find them lacking, as if they've wilfully failed to conform to conventional standards of beauty out of spite. Men who might easily be mistaken for Dobby the House Elf, feel wronged when the office isn't staffed with eye candy of a standard they deem high enough.
At first blush, the success of the No More Page 3 campaign does not look like a victory for free speech. After all, a thing that was being published, is no longer being published. The prudish censors have prevailed, right? Look again... Is the absence of naked breasts from Page 3 a victory for feminism, though? I worry that it is not.
We receive mixed messages and begin to think that if you're sexy you can't be smart. Therefore we don't want to be viewed as sexy because we believe it disregards our intellectual abilities. But is avoiding sexuality and getting rid of things like Page 3 the answer to our problem? Or is it just repressing sexuality?
Many people will look at today's Page 3 - described by the Official Page 3 on Twitter as 'seriously sexy' - and feel uncomfortable about the inclusion of a picture of an innocent baby. It is the Sun newspaper which needs to be held to account for being the first to include a picture of a newborn in a sexualised soft porn image. A new line has been crossed and it represents a disturbing new low for the British press.