This is a rather simplistic explanation, but I will assert my reasons nevertheless.
- Most of its front section “news” is mostly celeb gossip and whimsically based speculation about current events or controversial incidents. None of this news is truly informative and lacks substance in their reasoning
- Most men state they only buy it for the sport section.
- I personally believe that the Page 3 section of The Sun is rather poor in comparison to proper lad’s mags such as Nuts, Zoo, FHM, Maxim and Front
- However, the Page 3 section may detract attention away from the poor quality of the news to some readers
- Most of the girls featured in Page 3 are fairly down-to-earth (with the notable exceptions of Jodie Marsh and Katie Price). In fact, the Page 3 section itself actually attempts to make the girls appear to be more intelligent than they might be
- Laughably, in Britain’s increasingly politically correct society politicians and community leaders ramble about the need for “role models”. The majority of celebrities we see (who don’t strip naked) themselves are terrible role models, along with the supporters of the Page 3 campaign who themselves are dreadful hypocrites. Most of their supporters have shown short-termism in their explanations in advocating the removal of Page 3
- Most of the supporters of the Ban Page 3 campaign also criticise Page 3 for damaging girls’ self-image and blame it for anorexia, bulima and other mental body disorders. What I think is the real issue is that girls who suffer anorexia, self harming and bulima are victims of bullying by nasty, devious young boys who have been brought up with a real lack of respect for women. These young boys often manipulate frail girls with the images they see of stick-thin Hollywood actresses or British soap actresses, who themselves admit to putting their health at risk
- The Sun has never asked their models to lose heavy amounts of weight to be stick thin. Their 2011 Page 3 Idol winner Lucy Collett is rather voluptuous, with 2012 winner Mel Clarke rather small-chested. This also shows there is no pressure from the Sun to make their models undertake plastic surgery either
- Supporters of the BanPage3 campaign have stated concern that Page 3 provides access to soft porn to children. Sorry, but I find the fact that many parents lacking knowledge of parental locks for their home computers to stop access to pornography or lad mags’ websites a much bigger problem
- Finally, the Ban Page 3 campaign seems to have only appeared due to a lack of incidents against Feminist campaigners recently. There surely must be bigger problems for the country to be worried about?
Since the first on 17 November, 1970, there has been approximately 4000 Page Three girls. The original photographer Beverley Goodway would tell me, and I’m sure his successor the excellent Alison Webster would concur, that their most stressful task is gently fending off all the girls who dream of being Page Three girls but just aren’t suitable…
…And why shouldn’t a girl stuck behind the bread counter at Tesco, an office girl down the local council, the unemployed, find a new glamorous life via Page Three? Who are the 32,358 to deny them that? What arrogance.
I wonder how many of those same “wimmen” watched Calendar Girls? The story of twelve brave and feisty WI members who raised millions of pounds for leukemia and cancer research (and a new sofa!) by posing nude in memory of one of their numbers deceased husbands, it was a runaway success and a true story.
Seeing the occasional nipple when someone else buys The Sun is not going to ruin my day, cause me to rip out my eyes or indeed, cause me to care about their “campaign” (AKA, “I’m bored, I’m rich, what shall I do today?”
I mean, come on, a nipple is the first thing most of see the day we come into the world when it’s thrust into our mouths and starts feeding us, what’s more natural than looking at that?
Plus, SAVE THE BADGERS!