Emma Watson poses topless: When did it become un-feminist to be sexual?
Long rant short: The feminist way to sexuality, is that the person decides when she wants to express her sexuality, if she wants to be looked at with desire and when.
Emma Watson recently posed topless for a magazine cover and the world rolled itself into a tight ball of self-righteousness and hurled itself at her. How could she? She, the feminist? She, our Forever Hermione? Our (s)hero bowing to capitalist commodification and sexualisation of the feminine body…
Long rant short: It’s not un-feminist to be sexual. The feminist way to sexuality, is that the person decides when she wants to express her sexuality, if she wants to be looked at with desire and when. It’s the difference between choosing when to be sexy, which sexy clothes to wear when doing it, which magazine to be sexy for and who will shoot this sexy image, and negotiating the money to be paid for this; and stealing racy pictures from a celebrity’s cell phone and making money off them. Or clicking a surreptitious photograph of a star’s cleavage and then running it on the front page.
Besides their craft, the other commodity an actor or a model trades in, is the image. In the golden era of Hollywood, this ‘image’ was property of the studio the actress had a contract with. The transference of this ownership from a studio (most likely owned by a conglomerate of men) to the actor itself has been a long stride in equal rights.
So when Kim Kardashian sought to break the Internet with her well-oiled bulbous bottom in 2014, she was just being a smart girl. As one of the most photographed celebrities of our times, she has built an empire on sneaking out cheeky pics on Instagram. She saw a business opportunity in shooting an iconic image with Paper magazine, shot by Jean-Paul Goud and went for it.
The concern feminists would have over this is whether Kardashian, and Watson, are acting out of internalised patriarchy (in which they see themselves as men see them) or of their own free will.
For this, consider dear Watson. The girl (now woman) invested her earnings from the Harry Potter franchise and lived on an allowance set by her parents. She attended university after cinematic fame had found her. She is 26 and has played varied roles. She started a campaign to make men advocate feminism. She, by all media reports since we here at DNA don’t know her personally, seems like the kind of person who over-thinks every decision to distraction.
She can have her breasts and show them too.