It's not 'sex' that sells- It's female body parts.
Rupert Murdoch= Business pimp.
My personal view...
In Victorian England, the male elite kept pornography hidden away from working class men, women and children. Apparently, for their own protection and welfare. They believed that pornography would encourage endless fornication, that would inevitably affect the workforce and corrupt the innocent.
Only they held privy to view, categorise and no doubt 'enjoy' their private collections. That were sought and acquired from every corner of the world.
During the 20th century, there was a complete turnaround. The realisation that selling women's bodies via printed publications, equated to considerable wealth and power. The two main providers (pimps/ procurer's) of this 'Paper prostitution' were again, the male elite. Namely, Rupert Murdoch and his male counterpart Hugh Hefner. Who introduced mainstream pornography into the U.K and America. They have both built their empires, not by selling sex - by selling female body parts.
On acquiring the much 'troubled' sun newspaper in 1969. Rupert Murdoch told the editor Larry Lamb-
"I want a tearaway paper-with lot's of Tit's in it!"
Thereby, confirming the selling of female body parts and depicting females as mere sexual objects. Which possibly caused many of their readers to unwittingly or subconsciously become both voyeurs and objectifiers.
This was a highly profitable rescue for the sun newspaper, whose circulation rose dramatically to 10 million daily readers in 1997.
It now has the ninth largest circulation of any newspaper in the world and the largest circulation of any daily newspaper in the U.K.
In January, it sold around 2.4 million copies a day.
Therefore, axing page 3 could mean financial suicide, by jeopardising it's circulation.
Many women's groups who have criticised page 3 as degrading, are regularly vilified by the Sun, as 'dour' and 'bitter'.
And, former minister Claire Short, who campaigned against page 3 in 1986. Was described as 'Fat and jealous'.
During the Leveson enquiry, Dominic Mohan (present sun editor) defended and justified page 3, by stating-
"Page 3 celebrates natural beauty"
Which to my mind, is a dressed up version of 'Using Tit's to sell papers' As his boss, the 'born again Christian' Rupert Murdoch emphasised in 1970.
Mohan also stated "We’re allowed to publish these images (Tit's) and I think it's become quite an innocuous British institution. Where, as a parent myself, I'm more concerned about images that my children might come across on the internet or on digital devices"
Maybe Mohan is pretending to be ignorant of sexual curiosity and pubescent arousal. After all, children naturally become sexually aware, normally around the age of 11. Funnily enough, that is the approximate age of first time, internet porn users.
The fact that soft-core pornography inevitably leads to hard-core pornography is well documented. Besides which, the 'Innocuous and family friendly' sun used to advertise two pages of porn sites. Nowadays, there's less, which usually consists of adverts pertaining to sex chat calls.
Rupert Murdoch is a prominent shareholder in BskyB. Which platforms pornography channels such as Playboy,Telx, red hot tv. and 3D porn.
So in effect, the sun newspaper wittingly and openly contributes to the promotion and viewing of pornography, and to the objectification of females.
If it were merely a case of 'natural beauty', then why are the majority of page 3 females, slim, white and in their late teens or early twenties? Aren't all women beautiful,whatever their size, shape, age and ethnicity?
And where are the beautiful men? Is the whole human race ugly, apart from young females?
The Daily mirror stopped featuring topless models in the 1980's, deeming that the images were demeaning to women.
And we all know that Rupert Murdoch has many politicians in his fat pockets. They would never bite the hand that politically and financially feeds them.
David Cameron's stance on banning page 3 was pathetic. He shirked responsibility by stating "It's the parents responsibility, turn the page"
Actually, It's not just children that should be protected David. I as an adult woman, want protection from the daily sexism that I encounter due to the acceptable objectification of females. That swamps women, as they constantly try to climb out of the abyss of historical and contemporary oppression.
Nick Clegg matched the prime ministers brilliant solution by saying "I do not support a legislative ban on page 3, I believe that government in a liberal society should not dictate the content of newspapers. If you don't like it- don't buy it!"
So, these 'male elite' will continue to dismiss sexism and contribute to the 'Harmless' beginnings of the spiralling devastation of hard core pornography. Which creates countless victims on both sides of this iniquitous road, in the name of wealth and power.