Put your top back on, woman

Blah blah blah feminist statement blah blah small-breasted women something something and would you please put that shirt on again, Keira?
To many, it might seem like an odd decision. Keira Knightley, famously private, has posed topless for a fashion magazine.

The black and white pictures, taken by Patrick Demarchelier forInterview, show the actress with wet hair, low cut trousers and elbow-length lace gloves. Oh, and her boobs out. [Didact: What boobs? You mean those mosquito bites in the picture at about chest level?]

Yes – as her critics have rushed to point out – this is the same woman who publicly complained that her cleavage had been digitally enhanced in a poster for the 2004 film KingArthur. And whose chest was allegedly enlarged for a Chanel advert.

“They always pencil in my boobs. I was only angry when they were really, really droopy,” she said of King Arthur. “I thought, ‘Well if you’re going to make me fantasy breasts, at least make me perky breasts”.

And, yes, this is also the same woman who claims to be a feminist. [Didact: A married feminist, apparently- isn't that an oxymoron, by the way?] 
Now where did I put that pitchfork?  
But before we all rush to condemn Keira, let’s stop and think about what these pictures really mean. [Didact: Very little of anything, luv.]

Because the first thought that entered my head was HUR-RAH. Finally, somebody not afraid to stand up and bare their small breasts. [Didact: What exactly is so interesting about them then?]
Of course, we do often see flat chests represented in magazines. Fashion loves a small pair. Their pages often contain more nipples than actual words. But that’s different somehow.
The best take on Keira Knightley that I've ever heard came from Jeremy Clarkson, back when he was reviewing the Alfa Romeo 4C (at least, that's what I think it was- I'm way behind on my Top Gear episodes, sadly). As he pointed out, the car had absolutely no function whatsoever, and was, for all intents and purposes, useless.

It was also jaw-droppingly beautiful. And it is precisely because it was good for little other than looking good that Clarkson pointed out that it was like a certain English actress:
I mean, look at Keira Knightley. She's nothing more than an ironing board with a face. And she works.
This is very true. Ms. Knightley is indeed flat as a board. She is also a highly talented and gifted actress, and- insofar as I can tell, since I don't keep up with this stuff- a highly engaging yet very private young woman.

And here is the picture that inspired rather too much wasted typespace:

When I look at this, and then at the resulting Telly commentary on the same, all I see is a lot of breathless nonsense being spewed by vapid feminists about how "empowering" it is to see a small-breasted woman showing off her non-existent assets to the rest of the world.

Instead, why not actually try, I dunno, looking at what Keira Knightley does and judging her abilities based on talent and skill, rather than on publicity-grabbing silliness like this?

But no, that would be too much to expect. Let us never forget that the feminist is a creature made up of narcissism, hubris, and no small amount of self-loathing.

A feminist looks at these pictures and thinks, "how wonderful that a small-breasted woman has the courage to take off her shirt for the camera!".

By that standard, of course, every college sorority girl who ever starred in a Girls Gone Wild video is a feminist. (What exalted company these people keep!)

A sane man, by contrast, looks at those photos and thinks, "that's it?"- and then gets back to doing whatever he was doing in the first place before this non-news came up.

You tell me whose reaction is more sensible.


  1. Always considered her face plain at best and never saw the attraction. Seriously, guys if you are attracted to twelve year old boys please say so instead of using women who resemble twelve year old boys as a proxy. Julia Stiles is just as flat but better looking. Kate Hudson is flat and better looking than Keira as well.

    This cry for attention from Knightley could not have come at a worse time thanks to icloud hack of hotter celebs. Everyone will be too busy fapping it over Jennifer Lawrence's full nudity to even notice Knightly's half way effort

    1. Julia Stiles is just as flat but better looking. Kate Hudson is flat and better looking than Keira as well.

      Funny you mention Julia Stiles. That's another great actress who is just so-so in the looks department.

      On that note, I got the Top Gear reference slightly wrong. What Clarkson actually said was, "from certain angles, it isn't even that good looking", and went on to point out that the 4C is art simply because it serves no purpose other than its own existence. If you think about it, that's not a bad description of Kiera Knightley either.

      The lass is a good but not phenomenal actress. She's got a very nice face. And other than that, there's nothing much to her. But somehow, she is interesting and pretty. Not beautiful, not sensational, just interesting.

      Everyone will be too busy fapping it over Jennifer Lawrence's full nudity to even notice Knightly's half way effort

      Just goes to show why taking selfies is such a barmy idea. I never did understand the point. And I have to say, storing nude pictures of oneself online is just asking for public humiliation.


Post a comment

Contact the Didact: mantlesapproach@gmail.com

Popular Posts