Does this really sell newspapers?

Don't blame the poor girl, Do you think she had any say in how she looked?
She will have been dressed by stylists and publicists in order to make the front pages; job done.

Of course the poor young women wearing next to nothing are usually at the whim of those at the top of the entertainment business, all men I would think. And of course those at the very top in the fashion world who are absolutely swayed by what men like to see whether male or female.
Certainly you never see a young male actor appearing on the red carpet wearing next to nothing. Nor do male singers writhe around on stage wearing their underwear.
And tbh I think that infamous young woman married or living with some famous rap artist whose name escapes me, frequently seen in public places wearing a see through plastic bag etc., is very sad indeed.

Yes it does sell newspapers, if Daisy wanted to be front page she succeeded, not especially attractive, just eye catching.

Boz

I think it is a mark of present-day female desperation to appear sexy. If done to attract the male, just think what type of man you are attracting?

I think in Daisy's case it's done to attract media attention - it worked.

Why is it, in these days of sexual equality do women celebrities feel they need to dispense with clothes to catch attention when the male equivalent don'?

Why are male celebrities not turning up for premiers in mankinis, or fishnet budgie smugglers, of eye-wincingly revealing tight trousers?

M0nica

Why is it, in these days of sexual equality do women celebrities feel they need to dispense with clothes to catch attention when the male equivalent don'?

Why are male celebrities not turning up for premiers in mankinis, or fishnet budgie smugglers, of eye-wincingly revealing tight trousers?

Because women would laugh at them!

Well, in a nutshell men get to wear what they want and women get to wear what men want as well.

I thought that it was just me who thought that the DT was trying to catch down to The Sun. Some of the huge front page photographs recently have, frankly, been verging on the offensive.

M0nica

Why is it, in these days of sexual equality do women celebrities feel they need to dispense with clothes to catch attention when the male equivalent don'?

Why are male celebrities not turning up for premiers in mankinis, or fishnet budgie smugglers, of eye-wincingly revealing tight trousers?

Maybe because the same men who encourage women to wear as little as possible would actively discourage men from showing off their meat and two veg in case it made the observers feel inadequate.

Women dress to impress other women,
They undress to impress men

It attracts the wrong kind of men, I’ve no idea if Daisy has any intelligence but if she dresses like a bimbo it’s doubtful.

Whoever this woman is she does herself, and others no favours,. If you've got it flaunt it, seems to be the norm nowadays. Pretty woman, surely doesn't need to flaunt it. The dress, nightie, is hideous.

Sexual equality???

Maybe that’s the problem, if men see women as equal that’s why many men treat them so badly
There seem to be a great many men who have no respect at all for women.

Babs03

Well, in a nutshell men get to wear what they want and women get to wear what men want as well.

Spot on.

I just wish the women who dress like this while spouting all the fashionable mantras about the freedom to dress as they wish, and not be seen only as sex objects, could see that

Whatever happened to glamour?

If you look around the men's wear department in the clothes store and then around the women's department I think we get a far larger choice of clothes than men.

M0nica

Babs03

Well, in a nutshell men get to wear what they want and women get to wear what men want as well.

Spot on.

I just wish the women who dress like this while spouting all the fashionable mantras about the freedom to dress as they wish, and not be seen only as sex objects, could see that

No, women wear what they “think” attracts men and many get it wrong, Glamour is wearing what makes you look and feel good, not showing as much flesh as possible.

I remember when that famous photo of Kate Middleton was on the front pages. Taken when she was a student. A see through dress revealing her underwear. In fact that photo changed Prince William’s feelings about her.

Women should try doing what our male counterparts do, dress smartly but comfortably, no need to stuff yourself into suffocating dresses that pull you in and push you out whilst wearing heels you can’t walk in, or wear skimpy dresses that have to be glued on in all relevant places. Men would never submit themselves to this.
Thing is women’s clothes are never as well made as men’s, this is based upon the fact that women always buy more clothes than men, so women end up having to pay more as well.
About time we wised up to this girls 🧐

Careful broadsheets !
We won't be talking about page three tabloid girls anymore - it will page one Telegraph and Grauniad .

She's nothing you mention, are you jealous of a woman with a good body? I'd be over the moon if I had that body.

She didn’t need to do it. She’s so beautiful and such a talented actor she didn’t need to show everyone her almost naked body as well. Such a shame. But yes there are loads of leery old men reading the DT who will have enjoyed the thrill. Sad

I worked in local press advertising for fourteen years and still remember an early training mantra about newspapers. “The job of headlines is to make ‘em (the readers) MAD, GLAD or SAD” - that’s what sells newspapers!

Amazing that the formerly sensible old Telegraph is now desperate enough to try to appeal to newspaper
buyers with pics like this on the front page. Gorgeous girl, typical premiere outfit, but a bit trivial for front page news, as far as I’m concerned. I hardly think even one extra copy would be sold by its inclusion, unless someone happened to be a fan of the girl and happened to be passing a newsagent’s shop when that particular edition of the Telegraph was on display.

I very much doubt that attacting men, or a man, has anything to do with this young woman's apparel.

She is an actress, and thus forced to keep herself in the public eye and in the eye of impresarios and theatre and film producers. She is after all employed to play a role for as long as it lasts making a film, or a television series or as long as the run of a play. After that she is out on her backside, depending on unemployment benifit until she gets a new part.

She is still of the age, where you wear the most daring fashions you have the nerve for - remember the topless actresses of the 1960s,? And our mini-skirts and no bras in the 1970s.

Basically women dress and make up to impress other women, rather than men, but those who have to keep themselves in the public eye do tend to go to extremes, and always did.

Chocolatelovinggran

She forgot to put her vest on. Her mother should have reminded her.

That made me chuckle

My mum would scatter her own ashes if I wore something like that out in public and off the beach!
I don't know why these people have to show off their body parts & if men did it they'd be crucified for it!
I suppose draping themselves over cars doesn't work these days, so they assume half dressing will get them noticed. Which it does, but not often in a good way, unless they're spotted by men wanting to take pics for their portfolio's or film producers looking for women who are happy to flaunt their bodies to the world!!
I'm not a prude, but I really don't think that much of the women who need to flaunt themselves as much!