Why Emma Watson's 'Provocative' Photo is Still a Feminist Act Like 0 Twitter Ciara Hall Follow March 6, 2017, 12:35 p.m. in Life and Styles Views: 868 Like us on facebook When I first heard about the controversy regarding Emma Watson and her 'provocative' photo, bearing her stomach and parts of her breasts, I decided to stay out of it. My initial reaction was a very general 'that's a silly thing to get offended about', and I had faith in humanity that this would just blow over and it wouldn't be a deal in a couple of days. Except the controversy is still here. People are still talking about it. And I have to say, I don't understand why. The argument that I've heard people offer is that Emma Watson is very outspoken about being a feminist, and that posing with parts of her torso exposed contradicts this statement. You can't be a feminist and have boobs. Everybody knows that. Feminists are all conventionally unattractive women who dress head-to-toe in men's business suits, and the moment she puts on a skirt or some lipstick, she immediately loses her status as a feminist. Except that that very clearly isn't true. And the manner in which people have responded to Emma Watson's photograph just proves to me how much we need feminism. Because, first of all, there is nothing inherently sexual about Emma Watson's photograph. You can see parts of her breasts and her stomach, but besides that, she is standing tall with her arms crossed delicately before herself. The only reason why the photograph has been deemed sexual at all is because parts of a woman's body are exposed - and that is a problem. Because, honestly, what about a woman's stomach and breasts is sexual, besides the fact that society has deemed them so? Why can't Emma Watson be taken seriously as a feminist while simultaneously having breasts attached to her body? And even if the photographs were completely sexual, even if she was lounging on a bed with a come-hither look in her eye and a pout on her lip, could she not still believe in equality? Want to be taken seriously as an individual? How is it that one photograph can so completely define who a woman is one hundred percent of the time? This is our society's problem - more than the fact that Emma Watson happens to have tits. We fail to see women as complex individuals. We have been taught to see them in the terms of stereotypes - a woman is either an unliberated whore or an ugly and completely asexual feminist. Any crossover between the two stereotypes completely baffles our mind and we don't know how to understand it. Because here's the thing - women have sexuality. Even feminist women feel desire, have wants and needs of their own (unless they're asexual), and that is perfectly fine. That's more than fine - that's human. And women should be allowed to express their sexuality in any way that they feel comfortable with, whether that mean that they take topless photographs and release them publicly or dress head-to-toe in a man's business suit. As long as she is doing it because she wants to do it and it makes her feel comfortable and liberated, then that's alright. That's a completely feminist act and she should feel no shame for it. Being a feminist does not mean that you have to limit yourself to being one thing. Being a feminist means that you can be free, that you can do what you want and what makes you happy, that you don't have to bend exclusively to a man's whim. That's what being a feminist means. Or, if nothing else, being a feminist at least means that you shouldn't be publicly shamed for having tits. Published by Ciara Hall Share Mail Messenger Twitter Pinterest Linkedin Comments Related Article Life and Styles DEAR WOMEN Life and Styles Escape from the BS Life and Styles It Is Still August Right?