5 ms·

It would be nice if this title made clear that there are boobs on display in that article, which isn't really "acceptable" in many workplaces :/

faebi 3y ago
„Topless“ is pretty obvious already, no?
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  No, a news article discussing something explicit does not always mean there will be explicit content. Do ISIS beheading news articles always show ISIS beheading videos? Did news articles about the deposing of Ghadaffi show the videos of his body being mutilated? I remember having to see that on Liveleak. America may be prude as fuck, but that doesn't mean everyone in the coffee shop seeing boobs on my screen understands that this is a news article. I WANT to read this article, but I can't because it's explicit. Sure, maybe that's a point in itself, but as a man, I'm not exactly going to win that societal level battle on my own.
tekla 3y ago
It's funny since the title of the article is ‘I don’t know why our boobs are so frightening’ You didn't think "topless" was a hint for something?
- pbjtime 3y ago
  By that logic, what would you expect to see in an article about child porn?
  - tekla 3y ago
    Child porn is illegal. Breasts are not.
    - chucksta 3y ago
      Public nudity is very much taboo in the US, and illegal in many places. So unfortunately they kinda are here.
      - BizarroLand 3y ago
        Still a false equivalence. You're overlooking the severity of the crime by orders of magnitude. Going topless in America will probably get you a fine, or maybe 30 days in jail if the judge is having a bad day. Child Porn will get you a decade if you're lucky and get you on a register for the rest of your life.
        chucksta 3y ago
        Not true at all, public nudity in the US can put you on the sex offenders list if the judge is having a bad day. >In the United States, states have differing nudity and public decency laws.[4] In most states, state law prohibits exposure of the genitals and/or the female nipples in a public place, while in other states simple nudity is legal, but evidence of intent to shock, arouse or offend other persons (lewd conduct) is evidence of prohibited conduct. For example, in most states, it is a criminal offense punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and/or registered sex offender requirements and restrictions. Some states permit local governments to set local standards. Public nudity itself has not been a crime throughout California since a 2000 Appellate Court ruling, and prosecutions and convictions are unheard of, but arrests do still occur, though they also are unusual,[5] and Vermont only prohibits "open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior"[6] so many forms of public nudity are legal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_exposure_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_exposure_in_the_Unite...
  - eterps 3y ago
    That sounds like a: https://www.thoughtco.com/false-analogy-fallacy-1690850 https://www.thoughtco.com/false-analogy-fallacy-1690850
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  I thought the article would discuss the reason they are doing it and other related issues. I have no problem seeing boobs, I promise, but for example, this article would get you thrown out of a library.
  - eterps 3y ago
    > this article would get you thrown out of a library I'm curious, in what country would that be the case? Are there no books about Renaissance/Neoclassicist art in that library? Or biology for that matter?
Brian_K_White 3y ago
Well let's see... If reading articles about topless musicians is part of your job, then it's part of your job and everyone in that workplace already knows that. If it's not part of your job, then why are you doing it in the workplace? The title did "warn" that there at least might be simply by topic and the publication. How is one supposed to be ok with reading and thinking about breasts but not seeing them? What magical thing happens differently through the eyes as an image vs through the eyes as language? ...especially outside of a sexual context. (for those too terrified to risk looking, the single pic did not depict any sort of sex act) I don't see even a hint of a valid argument here. I only see something, less wholesome than those breasts "on display".
slim 3y ago
you thought that The guardian would not deliver on the promise of the click baity title ?

faebi 3y ago

„Topless“ is pretty obvious already, no?

mrguyorama 3y ago
No, a news article discussing something explicit does not always mean there will be explicit content. Do ISIS beheading news articles always show ISIS beheading videos? Did news articles about the deposing of Ghadaffi show the videos of his body being mutilated? I remember having to see that on Liveleak. America may be prude as fuck, but that doesn't mean everyone in the coffee shop seeing boobs on my screen understands that this is a news article. I WANT to read this article, but I can't because it's explicit. Sure, maybe that's a point in itself, but as a man, I'm not exactly going to win that societal level battle on my own.

tekla 3y ago

It's funny since the title of the article is ‘I don’t know why our boobs are so frightening’ You didn't think "topless" was a hint for something?

pbjtime 3y ago
By that logic, what would you expect to see in an article about child porn?
- tekla 3y ago
  Child porn is illegal. Breasts are not.
  - chucksta 3y ago
    Public nudity is very much taboo in the US, and illegal in many places. So unfortunately they kinda are here.
    - BizarroLand 3y ago
      Still a false equivalence. You're overlooking the severity of the crime by orders of magnitude. Going topless in America will probably get you a fine, or maybe 30 days in jail if the judge is having a bad day. Child Porn will get you a decade if you're lucky and get you on a register for the rest of your life.
      - chucksta 3y ago
        Not true at all, public nudity in the US can put you on the sex offenders list if the judge is having a bad day. >In the United States, states have differing nudity and public decency laws.[4] In most states, state law prohibits exposure of the genitals and/or the female nipples in a public place, while in other states simple nudity is legal, but evidence of intent to shock, arouse or offend other persons (lewd conduct) is evidence of prohibited conduct. For example, in most states, it is a criminal offense punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and/or registered sex offender requirements and restrictions. Some states permit local governments to set local standards. Public nudity itself has not been a crime throughout California since a 2000 Appellate Court ruling, and prosecutions and convictions are unheard of, but arrests do still occur, though they also are unusual,[5] and Vermont only prohibits "open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior"[6] so many forms of public nudity are legal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_exposure_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_exposure_in_the_Unite...
- eterps 3y ago
  That sounds like a: https://www.thoughtco.com/false-analogy-fallacy-1690850 https://www.thoughtco.com/false-analogy-fallacy-1690850
mrguyorama 3y ago
I thought the article would discuss the reason they are doing it and other related issues. I have no problem seeing boobs, I promise, but for example, this article would get you thrown out of a library.
- eterps 3y ago
  > this article would get you thrown out of a library I'm curious, in what country would that be the case? Are there no books about Renaissance/Neoclassicist art in that library? Or biology for that matter?

Brian_K_White 3y ago

Well let's see... If reading articles about topless musicians is part of your job, then it's part of your job and everyone in that workplace already knows that. If it's not part of your job, then why are you doing it in the workplace? The title did "warn" that there at least might be simply by topic and the publication. How is one supposed to be ok with reading and thinking about breasts but not seeing them? What magical thing happens differently through the eyes as an image vs through the eyes as language? ...especially outside of a sexual context. (for those too terrified to risk looking, the single pic did not depict any sort of sex act) I don't see even a hint of a valid argument here. I only see something, less wholesome than those breasts "on display".

slim 3y ago

you thought that The guardian would not deliver on the promise of the click baity title ?