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

[CoffeeMumForever]

nb: this post is about Emily atack and her latest extremely sexual photos in the press

Why why why!!!!! She’s already successful, lots of money, seemingly intelligent and has a child and partner. Why why why do women keep wanting to come across as sex dolls? I really don’t understand especially as she has spoken about her experience of sexual assault before. Do so many women feel like the most important thing to them in life is still being classed as a ‘wanted, needed by men, sexual being’ above everything else? This can’t be for money purposes.

As a woman who likes sexy lingerie and who likes other women

I can certainly see the benefit from multiple angles

What do you mean ‘the reaction it will have?’

She’s not wearing much so men will want to assault and rape her? She’s putting ideas in their weak impressionable little heads?

I’d love you to explain the correlation between how a woman dresses and having been sexually assaulted.

Comments like this are far more detrimental to women...

Uh ye

That's gross victim blaming

And that's slut shaming

Women are allowed to enjoy sex

There's nothing wrong with enjoying sex or looking sexy or being sexual

I think she can find plenty of guys to do the deed with let’s be honest

Again, what are you going on about?

What are you even on about? Your posts are incoherent.

How do most people show this tho. Clothing obviously

And? You're not making any sense.

She looks tacky and vulgar in those outfits imo.

What I’m saying is if we fancy someone how do we show that?

That has nothing to do with what I said?

More slut shaming...

You're not making any sense. I don't think you have the capacity to engage with this thread. Maybe try another one?

I think this might be useful to the Op, and perhaps to another poster.

Susan B Anthony exhibit "What Were You Wearing?"
https://sbaproject.org/what-were-you-wearing/#:~:text=The%20What%20Were%20You%20Wearing,not%20equate%20to%20their%20consent.

The exhibit is extraordinarily powerful. It shows what women were wearing when they were sexually assaulted.

Take a look. You might learn something new.

There are multiple ways. What exactly are you getting at? Your coded messages are just confusing everyone.

Good lord, it'll be linked to the show she is in - Rivals - which is all about sex, show jumping and media in the 80's. Maybe it benefits her - she looks amazing, and probably got paid a lot of money to wear expensive underwear in a rather nice looking posh house. It just popped up on my Instagram on her own page, and my first thought was, 'Ooo is Rivals back on the TV, she looks amazing, and I'd love to prance about a posh house in those undies too'.

Nope. Women making a career of sexualising themselves is not only horrendously damaging but only benefits men.

I don’t subscribe to the notion that I need to unthinkingly support every choice every woman makes, even when they’re actively harmful.

@lsmith6767 is -
a) Matt Hancock
b) someone who really ought to be getting on with their revision
c) merely a twat.

To be fair she's making the most of her earning power whilst she can

Nope. Women making a career of sexualising themselves is not only horrendously damaging but only benefits men.

Evidence please.

I understand where you are coming from OP. Adverts like this give the impression that women have to dress up in these ridiculous outfits in order to be attractive. And let's face it. There are very few of us who are going to look like Emily with her perfect figure. Although I do understand that some women like wearing it, so that is their choice.

When I was younger and felt like I ought to wear this stuff I bought some 'sexy' undies but looked ridiculous and we just laughed. Pot belly hanging over the top of the knickers, no boobs and no bum. I looked like a pregnant bean pole wrapped in net curtaining. It's a good job he loves me for me and not my body!

But why did Gina see something in him then?

since the first bra was burned?