The girl in question (actually she's a woman, but we'll get to that) was actress, activist, avid book reader and speaker at the United Nations Emma Watson, who is on the cover of the March issue of Vanity Fair.

In a high concept fashion shoot by Tim Walker, who is known for this kind of thing, to accompany an in-depth profile of Watson in which she talks about feminism, Gloria Steinem, her work and keeping her private life private, there is a photo of Emma Watson "topless".

By topless we mean that she's wearing a beautiful rope bolero from Burberry, which shows a hint of breast.

"Beauty and the Breasts", blared the headline on The Sun (page 3) alongside the image.

Daily Mail columnist Julia Hartley-Brewer then tweeted a picture of the page, writing: "Feminism, feminism... gender wage gap... why oh why am I not taken seriously... feminism... oh, and here are my tits!"

She later followed up with tweets pointing out the "hypocrisy" between reactions to Emma Watson's Vanity Fair shoot and those to Page 3 girls (campaigns to scrap the topless Page 3 girls have run in Britain for some time and the girls were thought to have been scrapped in 2015 but made a triumphant return a few days later).

Others piled on with the particular glee that comes when the internet thinks they've spotted a chink in someone's armour.

Watson was a "hypocrite", and getting her "tits out for the lads". She was, of course, a failure at being a feminist. Obviously.

Others came to Watson's defence on social media, pointing out that you can be a feminist and also be sexual and also that the Pope is Catholic and that yes, yes, we are in 2017.

So this is where we circle back and say, firstly, that Watson's shoot is not the same thing as one of The Sun's Page 3 girls, given that Watson has the power to make her own decisions, and wealth and is posing in a high fashion shoot.

And, as an aside, there is also a man who is topless in some of the photos. As well the cover photo has been sexualised by the chortlers and those who were morally outraged, who took that photo and made it into a weapon against a young woman who dared to be both sexy and brainy.

This outrage is a hiss at women who advocate for causes and also like fashion to shut up and know their place. It's a reminder that the world would like Emma Watson to please stay swotty Hermione Granger forever more and not become a woman who makes her own choices.

As Emily Ratajkowski wrote of owning her sexuality in a piece for Lenny Letter, she refuses to take on the doses of shame that the world would like to give her.

"To me, 'sexy' is a kind of beauty, a kind of self-expression, one that is to be celebrated, one that is wonderfully female. Why does the implication have to be that sex is a thing men get to take from women and women give up? Most adolescent women are introduced to 'sexy' women through porn or Photoshopped images of celebrities. Is that the only example of a sexual woman we will provide to the young women of our culture? Where can girls look to see women who find empowerment in deciding when and how to be or feel sexual? Even if being sexualised by society's gaze is demeaning, there must be a space where women can still be sexual when they choose to be."

And, likewise, you don't have to give up one part of yourself to make way for another.

In the Vanity Fair interview, Derek Blasberg asks Gloria Steinem whether Watson might be perceived as annoying or a "Goody Two-Shoes" because of her feminism, and Steinem replies with this, "Let me ask you something: If you did a story on a young male actor who was very private and involved in activism, would you think he was too severe or serious? Why do women always have to be listeners? Emma is interested in the world, she is caring, and though she is active she is also joyous and informed.

"It's possible to be both serious and fun, you know. That response is why men will ask a woman, 'Why don't you just smile, honey?' "

And yes, you can be sexy and a feminist. You can be funny and a feminist. You can defy people's expectations of you.

Because isn't that what the boring "outrage" and the cries of "hypocrisy" that were sparked by this absurdly beautiful photo are all about? It's about putting women in their place.