To be disappointed that feminist Emma Watson has posed topless

[MutePoint]

To promote her new film. Can't these A listers just wear a classy outfit?

showing a bit of flesh in a magazine (not a lads mag).

Does it make a difference that it's not a lads mag? If this photo was in Nuts or the Sun promoting a film would that be different?

Maybe wants some publicity to make up for the fact she missed out on La La Land because of her crazy demands?

So it can be seen as 'classy' art instead...

Dear God, woman, never go to an art gallery. The number of tits on actual full display there would give you a heart attack.

Sorry MutePoint but not being ashamed of your body and breasts is exactly the type of role model I want for young girls ... its not like she's posed sexually - its Avant Garde

Yes it would be different because their entire raison d'etre is "phwoar lads, get a load of this". There's a huge difference between selling images of yourself explicitly for the titillation of men and creating images which men may happen to find appealing - because once you start to allow women's choices to be restricted by what the need to avoid arousing any man's lust then we know full well what follows.

Oh ffs just had a look. 10 pictures at least,some she's covered from head to toe.. but the one picture she's "topless"(no she fecking isn't) and that's the issue and she's letting the side down.
At least post all of them and see if posters would pick up on the one you deem unacceptable to see if there's really that much of an impact in just one photo from a whole photoshoot. Or is it because that was the only pic the shitty rags picked on and are blasting everywhere ?

So would the actor who plays the beast be photographed in a skimpy thong with a sheer covering over other parts? Genuine q, I don't read Vanity Fair.

The medium makes a huge difference.
The pose makes an even greater difference.

Not all toplessness and nudity is anti feminist. Far from it.

Some of the other pictures. It's definitely tits out for the lads isn't it?

P.s. The clothes are absolutely awful

pooryorick I hope your comment to me was intended to be a light-hearted joke, as that's what my 'classy art' comment was...

...

No I don't think DS does many topless shoots, (but he was definitely cast for his sex appeal to the target audience of the film).

I'm genuinely not seeing the issue here. She's hardly topless for good ness sake, topless for me shows nipples. I don't see why she can't do this picture and also be a feminist. It's her body, she can display it as she pleases. That's her right.

Where might I find the rest of these pictures

For research purposes

pooryorick I hope your comment to me was intended to be a light-hearted joke, as that's what my 'classy art' comment was...

Sorry, Fritz, there are so many breastbeating (LOL DID YOU SEE WHAT I DID THERE) loonies out tonight that my radar is off. It's at that point where you can't take the piss because it sounds too realistic.

I was actually pretty cultured in the past (pre children), I'll have you know!

Magazine aimed at adult women has an artistic photo of an adult woman with part of her boobs showing. Can't see the story here.
Art history is full of People doing nude drawings and paintings. Not all nudity is sexual and aimed at giving men something to wank over.

To me anyone who says this image is an awful role model, id want to ask why theyre letting their kid read an adults magazine. Yes beauty and yhe beast was a disney film but look how many fairytale ones have been redone recently with a more general audience. Morality police need to calm down here.

Has Emma ever actually claimed to be a role model, or is that just something that was stuck on her...because famous women must be role models while famous men can be whatever the fuck they please?

Why would a woman want to look at a photo of a woman posing with what looks like a crocheted doily draped over her? I really don't see the point of it. I think she just looks silly.

The entire story together with lots of other photos can be seen at www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/02/emma-watson-cover-story. It is, as has been said up thread, a high fashion shoot. This particular photo is captioned "Watson in Burberry". As it was taken (along with a number of others) for Vanity Fair it is clearly aimed at the typical Vanity Fair reader - women aged around 45 with an interest in high fashion.

2rebecca why would a woman want to see most of the outfits in the article beats me as they're all pretty awful. But as i said,and showed it was one picture out of many. But i guess that didn't compute with OP's rant.

gardengeek gross! Now there's no way I would agree that was art!

It's an artistic photograph that creates a certain aesthetic. It might not be to your taste, that's fine. Personally I quite like it as a picture, annoying as the model is....I like the fact that it's extremely stylised and ladylike with just a subtle hint of something more sensual. I didn't even notice the boobs until I'd been looking at it for a couple of moments; I found the hair and face a lot more arresting at first.

She's dressed like this for a photographic shoot, she won't be wearing it to take the bins out.

I thought all the 'best' feminists were freeing the nipple these days.

OP, in the dainty words of Billy Connelly "G'way an boil yer hed... there's filth inside it".

Alas, PoorYorik, there's truth there.
The menz can shag up and down and no one gives a rats' ass. But a Woman must be modest and pure!