It has been made clear by some editors that publishing pictures of  topless girls is a good way to sell newspapers. They further convince themselves that this practice is okay by saying the girls want to do it, enjoy it and it is harmless and many readers want to see bare breasts.

Here are some simple questions. Is it right to:

  1. Encourage girls to put their sexual organs on view to a wider public – including those who do not want to be subjected to those pictures?
  2. Expose impressionable  schoolgirls and boys to the perception that exposing your breasts is a normal part of life?
  3. Encourage the mis-perception (and in almost all cases, the myth)  that a girl’s way to fame and fortune is to expose her sexual organs in a newspaper?
  4. Contribute to the perception that girls are sexual objects for gratification?
  5. Create (even unintentionally)  in the minds of some men that if women are prepared to expose their  bare breasts  in public, that is a signal  (“I’m up for it”) that other sexual activity is welcomed?
  6. Enable people to do what they want to do/enjoy, even when that hurts them (directly or indirectly)? For example do we really respect those few topless models who have eventually gain TV presenting roles?

The answer to all these questions if , of course NO, and to allow/encourage it is unethical journalism.  Both editors and models are exploiting the natural human sexual urge – the former for  circulation and the models to gain attention and fame. This is not a moralising issue. What sexual activity between consenting adults and the motives of those who subscribe to magazines/websites with pictures of naked bodies in them, is a matter for them. However, publishing sexual content for the general public is unethical for the six negatives listed above.


We all know (including the editor and model) that exposing your sexual organs in public is wrong. That is why this practice is referred to as  “glamour modelling”  instead of the more accurate term, “soft pornography”.


Domains for sale: