Is this benefitting her or women in general? I’m really unimpressed

I’ll take my clothes off and it will be shameless
‘Cuz everyone knows that’s how you get famous
I’ll look at the sun and I’ll look in the mirror
I’m on the right track yeah I’m on to a winner

What about David Beckham? He was a successful footballer, has children and a partner. Why does he feel the need to sit provocatively in his underwear (wearing even fewer clothes than this woman!), and half the time he’s not even advertising underwear!! It’s a disgrace!!!!!

She has nothing else to offer and no talent to speak of so she resorts to taking her clothes off. It’s what she’s always done 🤷‍♀️

I really don’t understand especially as she has spoken about her experience of sexual assault before

What the fuck has that got to do with anything?
Sounds like misogynistic victim blaming and that you think not wearing clothing you deem appropriate = asking for it.
Pfft.

This. I simply don't believe lingerie exists only for the male gaze. It's ok for women to wear beautiful things and to feel good. Bizarre to imagine that feminists, mothers and survivors of sexual assault should wear hair shirts only.

I disagree.
I think women being in a position to choose to do this is a good thing.

Do you know what isn’t good for women as a whole, slut shaming. That is far more detrimental than someone choosing to accept a modelling job from a lingerie company.

You’re literally equating what a women wears to sexual assault. That is far more damaging to women than her posing in underwear.

Nothing in your OP benefits women.

Being seen in your underwear is not inherently for the male gaze, and if you think it is you're a misogynist. Hope that helps!

But that isnt the OP's question - she didnt say "are non- straight women happy to see these pictures"

She is asking if they benefit EA or the general population of women.

And it doesnt benefit women in general, only EA's bank account. And the men/women who perv off of them

Quoted wrong post.

If she was advertising a multi-pack of full briefs from Tu At Sainsbury's, yes. But she's advertising Agent Provocateur, which is a very sexy designer lingerie brand. The photos are meant to be overtly sexy, because it's an overtly sexy brand. Why would you expect her to look demure when advertising a PVC corset?

She's just lost a shed load of weight, so I imagine she's feeling a lot happier and more confident.

I don't like the woman but how she dresses is entirely up to her, and that's why I didn't open the article when I saw it on the DM a few minutes ago.

It's absolutely disgusting that you correlate her previous sexual assault with her doing a modeling shoot.

THAT is not benefitting women.

What about women who buy underwear? Or women who find other women sexually attractive?

I’m not a fan of (cringeworthy) boudoir type photo shoots and that’s what those photos remind me of. But as others have mentioned, she’s getting paid to model that stuff, so whatever …

To answer your qs, it only benefits her and the men who benefit from the photos.

It sure doesn't benefit me as a woman

She also makes documentaries about unwanted male attention

What else is she going to do? She’s a very below average actor, can’t do comedy as her tv show proved and I’m assuming she has no other skills either. At least she’s working.

I work with a woman who regularly takes photos like this and has made a lot of money over the years.

She’s 100% lesbian with no interest in men at all.
She doesn’t do it for their benefit, she does it for her own.

She looks fantastic.

She’s already successful, lots of money, seemingly intelligent and has a child and partner.

So why does this mean she can’t have photos in sexy underwear?

I think these photos are gorgeous and powerful.

She doesn’t need the money or fame - she’s doing it because she can.
Good for her.

Why do some women feel the need to choose between being sexy vs successful.

Why should she? That's obviously part of the theme they're portraying.

Nope, not if she doesn’t want to. Whats the problem?