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.

I'm not unthinkingly supporting her choice. I've thought about and I still support her choice.

I don't subscribe to the notion that being sexy, or even making money from being sexy, as being inherently anti-feminist.

If we all had killer curves like her I’m sure we would be doing the same

Who's to say that I don't and I'm not?

It was more the insults towards her talent and saying she had nothing to offer

Which was you reducing her to a mere sex object yourself....

I’m with you on this @CoffeeMumForever simply immature behavior.
And no men or M&S undies don’t compare.

Just keep your man happy ffs 😂

Sexy and sexualised are two different things.

So would you say certain women wear those titty bitty shorts in the gym to look sexy?

Go on then. What's the difference?

so women should be able to wear what they like and do what they like except they shouldn't be allowed to?

Why is it immature? and why don't men or M&S compare?

Why not?

Ye there's nothing sexualised about David Ghandi advertising here....

What a weird thing to say.

Eh? What?

No I mean he should know about it

Yeah I re read the OP a few times to see if I was missing something and was quoting EA herself - but that doesnt seem to be the case, so I work out what the correlation is in relation to EA doing a random photoshoot vs somehow "benefitting all women" in the first place.

Does anybodys work, regardless of the type, benefit "all women"? I work in the public sector in a role that is improvement focussed but still wouldn't make that claim so can't imagine why an actress doing a photoshoot should be assumed to have done that.

Basically, no idea what OP is on about!

I'm getting man vibes from you

I disagree entirely. The assumption that women present themselves sexually just for men, for one thing. Saying ‘she has a child and partner’ wtf? Should she be dressing modestly now? Ridiculous. She looks smoking hot and was probably paid well for it, good luck to her.

And ‘she has spoken about sexual assault before’ is the most concerning comment. It’s really just victim blaming.

You must be outraged at posters in the window of Ann Summers

But seriously a bit gross to imply that as a victim of such horrible misogyny in the past a woman isn’t allowed to act/be sexy?

Oh and “seemingly intelligent “. Jesus 🙄

I loved her in Rivals ❤️

@BriefEncountersOfTheThirdKind why? Because the shit she has on isn’t practical sensible underwear is it?
It’s temporary decorative tat, only at male gay displays have I seen the male equivalent.

Why does underwear have to be practical and sensible? Plenty of women wear "sexy" underwear daily

Personally, I find so called "sexy" bras hold me better than so-called "practical" teeshirt bras for example

You're the one being demeaning here tbh

And David Gandy looks hot in those "basic" underwear anyway, positioned laying on a bed to be extra appealing...

Have you seen the cost of AP underwear? Temporary tat it is not!
I’m a honey birdette fan myself as the selection is better but again, far too costly to be described as ‘temporary tat’.

And what does practical, sensible underwear have to do with it? Isn’t there a place for both practical and fancy?