Keira Knightley poses topless in new photo spread for Interview magazine. Photo: Patrick Demarchelier/Interview

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 for Interview, show the actress with wet hair, low cut trousers and elbow-length lace gloves. Oh, and her boobs out.

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 King Arthur. 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.

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.

Because the first thought that entered my head was HUR-RAH. Finally, somebody not afraid to stand up and bare their small breasts.

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.

Thanks to TV shows such as America's Next Top Model we've become desensitised to them. We're all too aware that being topless backstage at fashion shows is part of a model's job, as they hurriedly change from one outfit to another. And we've seen Kate Moss, topless on the beach enough times. Her attitude? Get them out and light up a fag.

Because, in professional terms, a model's body is a commodity – the vehicle they use to sell products (Naomi Campbell has also posed topless in the same issue of Interview, and no one has looked twice).

For Keira, it's different. She is the commodity. The only thing she's selling is herself. That's why this is such a powerful statement for her to whip off her bra – especially for those of us with near flat-chests.

Having small boobs can be a curious thing. The physical implications aside (I'm assured by large breasted friends that I will never know the feeling of knocking a wine glass over with my chest, nor experience the phenomenon known as 'boob crumbs'), I'm just not sure we meagre-chested women have the same affinity with our lady lumps.

I, for one, have never thought of my boobs as 'the girls' (or even 'the guys'). In fact, I rarely think about them. It might be because they're easier to dress, of course – not to mention carry around. I get this, I really do. They just don't factor much in my day-to-day thoughts and never when it comes to my feelings of attractiveness.

But that doesn't mean that I feel unfeminine. Just a bit 'so what?' And something makes me think Keira feels the same way.

"I don't mind exposing my tits because they're so small – people aren't really that interested", she said when posing almost topless for Mario Testino in 2012.

Small boobs aren't traditionally seen as desirable. They're often overlooked - even by those of us to who they're physically attached.

By posing topless, Keira is putting paid to all that. She's throwing out ideas of what the naked female form should, or shouldn't, look like, taking control of her own image and saying: ''This is me". And we fellow flatties salute her for it.

Anyone calling these shots 'sexy' is horribly, horribly misguided. To me, it's clear that Keira hasn't gone topless for the purpose of male titillation.

Powerful, yes. Strong, yes. Feminist, absolutely. X-rated? Not even close.

And that's why this is a victory for small breasted women.

Telegraph, London