Ok, so where were we? Oh yeah: Anna Friel is, like, totally wearing tights on the cover of Esquire! I know right? Pretty frickin crazy.

No but really, we actually mean it this time. Because when, I'd like to ask you, was the last time you saw tights on the cover of a men's mag? Think about it very hard for a second and I think you'll find it was...hmm, never. Because boys don't like tights. They like stockings. And suspenders. (I know this because in my first year at university, one particularly misogynistic, er, 'friend' of mine said something along the lines of "Errgh. You're wearing tights. That's possibly the unsexiest thing I've ever seen." to which my response, if I remember rightly, was "Hmmm well you can eff right off and out of my room then.)

So what, I'd like to ask you, does all this mean? Does Anna Friel's posing nearly naked in her tights represent a victory for womankind - a kind of triumph for comfort over coquette - or is it a form of female trivialisation through sexualisation - a modern variation on the old sexist 'slutty nurse' model?

We are, we must confess, torn on this one. Because while we are naturally outraged at the idea of objectification, we also quite like the idea of wearing tights underneath our shorts without feeling like one big turn-off when we, um, start to peel off said shorts and tights. Uh-oh! Anyone else feel like they're digging themselves into a hole? Time for a snap judgement.

So: Anna Friel's tights. Ummm, well at least she's modeling something that she might actually wear in real life. But is it just me or... are there no knickers under those tights? Tsk, like anyone would do that.