Somehow I think a true researcher knows enough about STEM and the reason for existence of certain bodily processes and attributes to not be offended by an image

Somehow I think a true researcher knows enough about STEM and the reason for existence of certain bodily processes and attributes to not be offended by an image of testicles or clitoris. Otherwise we would not have such images in the schoolbooks for children (at least in most developed countries these images are part of the education). Indeed you can argue that usage of pornographic material in academic articles is similarly offensive as going to school with horn implants. Or perhaps the horn implants are not so offensive? But then the question here is whether the image of someone's face, which originates from a pornographic material is offensive. I find it hard to make a concrete decision about this, because Lena's face (and many other women and men's faces) is very very lovely taken out of the pornographic context. Besides pornography seems offensive only to few people as a percent of the world's population... This also reminds me how children across the world answer the question whether a drawing of a head is image of a person or image of a head. If I remember this correctly, a story was told by psychology teacher back in school, so long time ago, the children in Europe see a person, the children of natives in Northern America see a head. So this all is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? Thus being offended by the usage of Lena image implies the author knows the source of it and imagines the missing pornographic part.