[caslon]

There's nothing sexualised about it. The person is of an ambiguous build and facing away from the camera. The article does more sexualising than the photo itself does, in the typical way that British media likes to oversexualise and play scandal to sell papers.

[quietbritishjim]

To me it clearly seems to be a woman, and perhaps I'm just revealing my own overly prudish nature, but to me a topless woman in just tiny bikini bottoms at a beach is somewhat sexualised.

Imagine it were a photo of a good looking man wearing almost nothing and suggestive of some exposure if only you were looking from another angle. Would that have done so well?

I think it's just hard for us as men to recognise the sexism because we're not used to being systematically sexualised.

[Throe83949]

> I think it's just hard for us as men to recognise the sexism because we're not used to being systematically sexualised.

Not true. Men get all sorts of comments about their height, appearance, facial hair, even genital size... We can not work at some jobs because of oversexualization.

And this type of harrasement is normalised.

[bazoom42]

Probably your cultural background. The attitudes towards nakedness are very different across cultures. Your attitude seem to be that if you sexualize the back of a women it is the woman who is the problem and should be covered up.

[enneff]

Yes you are a prude. There is nothing salacious about nudity especially at a beach!

[lupusreal]

> The person is of an ambiguous build

Rude...

[fsckboy]

>The person is of an ambiguous build

wut? ambiguous on what dimension? That's a brick shithouse right there. (how's that slang for you, ESL learners!? it's definitely not an insult, and it's unisex so, not offensive, just means "good build")

[quietbritishjim]

> brick shithouse... just means "good build"

No, it means an exceptionally muscular build, which the subject of that photo doesn't have.

Anyway, the comment you're replying to clearly means "a build that leaves the gender ambiguous", not that the dimensions are ambiguous! You don't seem to really be disagreeing with that.