The groundwork has been laid thoroughly by campaigners, charities, women's organisations and the like, who have worked tirelessly to change this situation, and yet there is still no means at all of holding the UK press to task for degrading, sexist or harmful reporting. Which leaves us wondering; is it time to update the Editors' Code?
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?