It's a man eat dog world

So Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall is in trouble for declaring that he has "no objection" to eating darling little puppies. Of course he in trouble: his comments were intelligent and utterly reasonable, suitably backed-up with caveats, but also happen to go against a deeply held belief that dogs are 'pets' and sacrosanct as such.
Hugh is not claiming that he wants to, or that anyone should, eat these furry little creatures, just that there is no sensible distinction between eating a purpose-reared puppy and a purpose-reared pig. Both are intelligent enough creatures, but somehow, the thought of eating the one is abhorrent, but eating the other is utterly acceptable. In true Daily Mail style, there is even a revoltingly cute picture of a little puppy attached to the article, just to hammer home how inhuman you would have to be to eat one. You have to love their sheer gall; ever petrified their 'readers' will form their own opinion on a set of facts. Ha. Hark at me. Facts in a Daily Mail article!
Anyway...It can't be diet. True, dogs eat all kinds of shit - dog food is hardly what you would call haute cuisine - so I wouldn't necessarily want to eat anything that had been feasting on cheap gristly sludge. Pigs, on the other hand, aren't exactly known for their discerning culinary tastes either.
It is surely not about intelligence either. In most 'intelligent' animal lists dogs and pigs feature pretty consistently. Of course what most people mean by 'intelligent' in animals is actually their faculty to do as they are told, which dogs, most of the time, are pretty good at.
I am unwilling to suggest that my pathological dislike of dogs has me cheering in support of the Hugh's comments, but only because I agree whole heartedly. There can be, there is, no reasonable difference between the two.
I would eat you if you had been fed on the right things...

You may have an Oscar, but you still have to take your clothes off...

Why is it that, on the whole, women have to have their beauty weaponised by the press, but men can get away with being ugly, old, fat, sweaty, oily, hairy, vile, or just plain boring? There are plenty of exceptions on both sides of the argument. I know this.

But why does every article about an actress, even highly respectful, admiring and intelligent articles, have to be accompanied by lush semi-naked shots of them sprawled across a velvet chaise longue? Empire magazine, who generally have a good understanding of the idea that talent is unrelated to physical perfection (or not) are guilty of sexualising their female stars. Looking at 100 Empire covers, almost every single one with a female actor has her stripped naked, or at least showing some side-boob. True there may be some flexed and oiled  torsos but they really are in the minority.

I know that these are adult women and they surely have a choice in these matters, but I am sure it must be a little wearing sometimes. Yes, we respect your work and yes, we respect you as a person, not just as a woman, yes, we respect your excellent performances and recognise your discerning taste...now just take your clothes off and pout as hard as you can...