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?

Fritz, I've heard that there are pics of DS topless on the internet, where he's not even covered his nips. I don't think they're Vanity Fair ones though. I wouldn't really know because I wouldn't look at thst sort of thing.

The menz can shag up and down and no one gives a rats' ass. But a Woman must be modest and pure!

No...apparently even when she's in a high fashion shoot for a glossy magazine read by upper class women, with her nipples and most of her body covered, she's still a man-pleasing slaggy slag slag!

I wish tits really did have the power that some people on here seem to think. I'd go totally Lady Gaga fire-shooting bra on everyone who ever pissed me off. Pow pow.

Far fewer male actors pose semi naked. I get fed up with young women pretending they're being emancipated by taking their kit off because men don't do it.
When they do they don't pretend they're being artistic or empowered.

Reducing the whole interview and photo shoot to the one picture where there is a bit of boob, is classic discredit the woman strategy.

Her tits, her choice.

I'm undecided.

I get the broad point that feminism means choice. I have a stronger feeling that there has been a subtle subversion of that choice, that has - low and behold - meant that women take off their clothes far more often than men. We hear that 'feminism means choice' and how strong and empowered they are for undressing in exactly same way that men have been desiring and manipulating for years.

Generally - I don't mean this pic actually - it doesn't half seem to me that women just carry on taking their kit off, everyone yells ' empowerment!' and the men still sit back and get to watch half-naked females. Nothing's changed except that women get to feel as they've called the shot. And I'm not at all convinced that we have.

But these pics...I admit I was surprised that ER did the shot, but for me, it's just the right side of the line for various reasons mentioned here.

Far fewer male actors pose semi naked.

To be fair it isn't hard to find a male actor, sports personality or musician, etc without a top on.

just type in Tom Hiddleston magazine shoot into google and you will see a plethora of shots that verge on pornographic and yet people arent all up in arms about him exploiting himself and being a terrible role model. Altho they did have something to say about that pvc outfit didnt they but mainly because it was ridiculous not because of how much flesh it showed.

She doesnt strike me as the type to get her tits out to further her career, and she hasnt got them out anyway!

I suspect that she has done this because she wanted to, which is after all what feminism is all about, the right to do things that we want to do because we want to do them and not because we are forced to (or indeed prevented from) doing them.

I agree with lazytuesday.
Im much more dissapointed with the attitude that a young women cannot pose in clothes she has chosen to wear (shes not topless its a sheer top).
Id possibly change my mind if Id ever seen a post like this about pictures of topless men, Ah but I forgot only womens nipples are offensive and we are only let down if women use their bodies in whatever way they please.

Lets face it

Daniel Radcliffe himself posed naked when promoting the play he was in, in which he acted naked.
Matthew Lewis posed in just his pants and a range of shots of a similar nature. JK Rowling even commented on it.
Tom Felton has done some showing parts of his torso.

Its not just Hermione who has shown flesh in images.

What has the fact that she's a feminist got to do with it?

Surely it's her right to wear whatever she wants? I think she looks awesome.

1. She's not topless. She's got some of granny's old crochet tablecloth covering her nips

1. Yes, she's out and about promoting a kids film, but it's for Vanity Fair. It's not a children's publication by any stretch, so why would it bother your lil'uns? Unless you show it to them yourself, in which case... don't.

1. Fannydaggerz 😂

I think Daniel Radcliffe posing naked for a play in which he is naked is fair enough. Doing Equus without nudity (or swearing) would be daft. This sin't what she is doing though. It's just posing just in a doily for the sake of it. No-one is seriously going to buy that doily and wear it like that are they?

Id possibly change my mind if Id ever seen a post like this about pictures of topless men, Ah but I forgot only womens nipples are offensive and we are only let down if women use their bodies in whatever way they please

But the playing field isn't, and never has been, an even one. Men aren't trying to redress years of having had images of their bodies exploited and used to promote and sell everything from cars to chocolate.

Of course women's nipples aren't offensive. I don't think it's about that at all.

Women aren't coming from an equal place with all of this, so it's not possible to draw direct parallels, in my view.

It's not about condemnation, I agree; but it's not a simplistic subject.

OK, so DR for Equinox - but what about Matthew Lewis (Neville) ?
David Beckham is always posing topless.
Many male actors and celebrities from other fields really do pose without their tops on.

Strangly enough when they do it, it doesn't cause the same type of thread on MN,

AYankinSpanx I don't just think I called the shots, I most definitely did call the shots. I wanted to be a part of the fantastic art project I was reading about so I volunteered to be part of it, enjoyed the experience and am proud that I was involved. Why would you assume that just because a woman is showing a bit of flesh she's been coerced into doing it?

Also worth noting that although the original BATB film was very much an animated film aimed at small children, the live action movies are aimed at slightly older audiences including adult women, who many well have been fans of the original movie as a child. The target audience of the Disney live action films is slightly older, even if they are still PG rated.

Well no 2REbecca but thats not what high fashion/style magazines are about. 95% of the stuff you see in those magazine are not of clothes that you or I could or would actually wear, they are a stylized version of a "look".

Ever looked at anything on a Fashion Week catwalk and thought "Ooh that would be lovely for X's wedding"? No, more likely "Who the fuck would wear that?!"

I didn't know that being an articulate, intelligent active feminist and role model for women meant you're not allowed to get your tits out. You see the irony here, yes?

She looks amazing. It's not exploitative. Good for her.

Ffs.

Yanbu, op. I was so surprised to see that photo. She appears to be a sheep on a bandwagon.

And if you actually read the article or at least look at the other images - this is ONE image out of several. In others she is completely covered top to bottom. Its just a series of modelling styled fashion images, for a high end fashion type magazine.

Fucking hell I wish my tits were that perky. They were never that perky, even when I was 23.

I don't know much about feminism, but surely having the power to choose what you show off and what you cover up has to be part of it?

Meh its high fashion not playboy.

This is her out and about wearing not much more. So I don't think she has changed her look or normal style for this shoot.

That is extremely tame for Vanity Fair. I stopped my subscription years back when they had a pull-out cover with a bunch of naked a-list actresses and a fully-clothed actor. Loathe that shit, then Hitch died so no point in buying it anyway. Emma has fabulous knockers.