AS I WRITE I am staring at two pictures of Kim Kardashian’s posterior, a body part so large it has its own postcode, so culturally significant it has become a meme, and so venerated that it’s probably worshipped as a god in several countries.

The first is on my own iPhone and taken a couple of months ago when I was standing right behind her at a black-tie awards ceremony in London. There was so much junk in her famous trunk that I couldn’t resist taking a picture.

The second is the picture of her glistening naked rump that was thrust into the face of an unsuspecting world on Wednesday by a hitherto-unknown publication called Paper magazine.

Don't panic – I’m not going to write one of those sorrowing pieces about how women all over the world work very hard in all sorts of ways not to be objectified, and how a man would never strip naked and be sprayed with WD40 to try to break Twitter or whatever the objective was (not without everyone laughing hysterically, anyway), and how regrettable it all is. But I will say this...

I compared the picture I took of Kim to the one in Paper magazine. In mine, which you can see below, she is sort of in proportion, but in the mag shoot, she has an unfeasibly tiny Victorian waist and massive tits and arse (sorry, I know it’s Sunday but we must call a spade a spade).

I can’t say with any certainty that the mag pix have been Photoshopped to kingdom come, but Paper credits not one but two digital assistants for the shoot – ie one for each cheek – and here, I think, is the problem I have with the whole thing.