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?

In the context of this tame and tasteful picture, you are projecting more than my local Cineworld. She actually showed more skin than this in her backless shot in Deathly Hallows (when the Horcrux showed her kissing Harry, and that was indeed a sexualised shot). This is one picture from a high fashion shoot in a magazine primarily read by middle aged, upper middle class women. I swear you're one of those people who's not happy unless they're outraged. BURN THE WITCH AND HER COVERED TITS. BURN HER!!!!

Er, Yorick, there is only one person who appears to be getting hysterical and it's not me. I'm not at all bothered by nudity and it's not either nudity or sexualisation which bothers me about this photo but the fact Emma Watson is preaching one thing then doing another.

Have you ever seen a lads' or porn mag? It's sure as fuck not one of those. Do you really want to be offended by the objectification of women? I could show you much, much worse than Emma's crochet-covered tits and fully dressed lower body.

Calm down and pull yourself together. Where have I said that the objectification of women offends me? I haven't. My objection isn't to pictures like that themselves, I have no issue with them. I just have an issue with the hypocrisy of someone who says she is challenging gender stereotypes but will take her clothes off to promote a film.

You don't have to be doing outright pornography to be sexualised. And this is a series of pictures of her in virginial white with a slightly open mouthed come hither look and not much covering her bits. Plus she is doing it to promote a film and would have known it was going to get maximum exposure outside Vanity Fair in the general press because: Hermione is topless. She would have known it would be in The Sun the next day.

Now I don't care if other women want to walk down Broadway naked with a film crew and show the footage on a screen in Time Square. Not my circus, not my monkeys. Don't care.

But, yes, I do judge celebrities who use their position to lecture people then go out and do exactly the opposite, there seems to be a lot of it about at the moment. What is 'young actress needs to take her clothes off to further her flagging career' other than a gender stereotype? She has one other film in post production and nothing else lined up. So she's suddenly lost all her principles. I couldn't care less about women posing naked. But I am bothered by sanctimony followed up by hypocrisy.

Now go and have a nice cup of warm milk and a sit down until you feel a bit calmer. And actually reading people's posts before you start hysterically attacking them is usually a good idea.

VF is about fashion. It's clearly a high fashion shoot. She is big into that kind of thing!

This isn't a men's mag. It's VF. In a high fashion shoot. With barely anything to be seen anyway.

You need to grow up and are part of the problem. The girls that she's a role model for have breasts. Should they pretend they don't? Should they be ashamed of their bodies and hide them away?

This is a magazine for women, with fashion for women, with a woman
wearing stuff that other women will look at.

GROW UP.

To be fair OP, pretty sure Emma Watson doesn't care what you think - carry on with your breast policing. People are entitled to change their minds, say one thing and do another - clutches pearls, the betrayal!!! Get a real problem.

Bill, you're embarrassing yourself.

She would be a hypocrite if she did something that was anti-feminist. She didn't. Have you ever seen high fashion show? This is how we roll. A bit of side-boob isn't in anyway hypocrisy. If you can point to where she says women should hide their breasts away at all costs I'll agree, but I'm pretty sure she never said that.

Mute who are you to decide what is empowering to someone else? I know a heck of a lot of women who have down glamour shoots (for themselves) and said they felt empowered.

I don't think you know a thing about feminism if wearing a see-through top that shows her shameful, sinful body, is so disappointing to you.

Arealhumanbeing that's such a good point. I've been trying to train my brain away from that thinking. Instead of 'girls shouldn't wear tops that show shoulders as it is distracting for the boys' (which happened all the fucking time at my school) how about instead of teaching females that their bodies are something to cover up or for the distractible pleasure of males, we teach males that the female body is not for their pleasure. If it pleases the female to wear a mini skirt and a see through top and sky high stripper heels...you should still be able to look at her without blaming any distracting feelings on her choice of clothing!

I love Emma Watson. As a mum of 2 little girls, I think she is a brilliant role model.

I very much doubt that Emma Watson has been persuaded do something that she is not happy about. If she's happy, isn't that what feminism is about?

I slightly despair that being a feminist is being turned into a requirement to cover yourself up. To me, that is the opposite of what it should mean.

Iwas, hypocrisy doesn't mean that you have to do the absolute opposite of what you've said. It's pretending to have higher ideals than you have or affecting virtue.

She has made a big deal about how much she wants to challenge gender stereotypes. Then gone and turned herself into a massive stereotype: actress with flagging career takes clothes off for publicity.

I was a bit surprised at the picture, especially as its promoting Beauty and the Beast, but actually its not that topless, and its not being shown to kids. They will see the actual film. And if I had daughters, I'd be rather glad that Disney seem to have moved away from the Cinderella look of a couple of years ago, when they took a pretty, normally shaped woman and made her look like a human Barbie doll, and have gone for a more natural look.

She can do what the hell she wants.

I agree with Bill.

To be honest, the fact that nipples et al aren't on show is what makes it sexual. It adds to a sort of coyness and flirtation about the whole thing. If I'm getting changed and drop my towel and flash tits and fanny, that's not sexual. If I pose coquettishly with my arms in front of both, it is.

That being said, I suspect she thinks it's art. She is just that type.

And have you ever read Vanity Fair? It's not a women's magazine.

Really? Perhaps you should tell the women who read it. Around 80% of Vanity Fair's readers are women with an average age of 45.

It's still not a women's magazine. Elle, Cosmopolitan et al all have a readership of over 99% females. VF is a news and cultural magazine which tends to have a larger female audience, not a women's magazine. In fact it has several features which are deliberately intended to appeal to men like the semi regular watch magazine.

Anyway, I didn't think feminists approved of dividing things into binary 'men's' and 'women's' categories. Amazing how quickly some people will drop that when it suits their purposes. Bit like Emma and her bra.

YANBU it's a shame women in films always seem to have to comply with this sort of image of availability/nudity/shite.

Know one ever says that about David Beckham when hes showing off his six pack in his boxers posing for pictures. Hes letting the male race down how could he sell him self short and agree to this.

If people in the entertainment industry started walking around looking like nuns and priests know one is going to take any notice of them. Its business she is wearing a fashion designers clothing. Cat walk models wear clothing like that its the fashion world. She hasn't sold herself short the woman could wear a bin bag and still look gorgeous.

Surely 80% of female readership does make it a women's magazine. Just a different one than Elle and Cosmo.

Elle, Cosmopolitan et al all have a readership of over 99% females

No they don't.

Cosmopolitan - 84% females.

Elle is somewhat higher - 93% females.

Both are aimed at younger women with lower household income than those who read Vanity Fair.

I was prepared to be disappointed, ... but then I saw the photograph. This is definitely fashion rather than glamour, and she's been quite adventurous with fashion over the years. None of the styling choices are "sexy"; make-up, hair or stance, and as others have said, she isn't topless, just exposing more of the curves of the breast than we nip down to Tesco showing. She looks a bit scary-cool to me, I don't think she's remotely arsed about her milkshake bringing all the boys to the yard or teaching the rest of us how to do it.

Yeah, screwed up slightly with an unreliable google link there. But it's still not a women's magazine. They describe themselves as:

'Vanity Fair is a cultural filter, sparking the global conversation about the people and ideas that matter most
Muscular long-form journalism, stunning photography, insightful essays, and superb design make each issue of Vanity Fair a must-read. Every month, the magazine commissions the best writers and photographers to explain the pressing issues of the day and take the pulse of the culture. Vanity Fair consistently delivers crucial reporting on business and finance, domestic politics and world affairs, even as it covers the very best in arts and entertainment.

They don't position themselves as a women's magazine. It isn't categorised by the industry as a women's magazine. It's just not a women's magazine. Yes I've had a google fail but googling 'Vanity Fair women's magazine' and it's striking how little comes up. Because although it does have a large female readership it's not simply a 'women's magazine'.

Anyway, women's magazine or not, it doesn't change the fact she bangs on about challenging gender stereotypes but is prepared to play right into them when her career is going tits up.

How do lesbian and bi women react or view this type of image ?

there's been a huge to and fro as to whether she's got them out for the lads , whether it's right or wrong to be allowed to have / enjoy your breasts as sexual parts of you to be shared or displayed at your own wish .. but I've not heard anything from a declared lesbian or bi woman on this thread about female display generally or Emma Watson in particular . Just interested if there's anothrr perspective ...

Pun wasn't actually intended there.

Why does there have to be a perspective or a debate about whether she has confirmed to lesbian / gay / trans / straight codes of different forms of feminism? All pointless because she, and others, do whatever the fuck they want - as they should - without justifying it or making it political. And then some people painfully bleat on in the background because this women who does not actually know them chose to do something that doesn't please everybody. To me, this is the opposite of feminism.

It may not be your idea of a woman's magazine. It may not describe itself as a woman's magazine. But by dint of having 80% female readership it is most definitely a woman's magazine.

My heart sank when I read the title of this thread. Then I opened it. The photo is hardly 'tits out for the lads' is it?

Men,dads and young girls are now the target audience for vanity fair are they?

Vanity Fair is a current affairs , news and arts magazine. It is not a women's magazine.

I wonder how many men read Vanity Fair?

Bill be honest you don't like her.