6 ms·

To me it clearly seems to be a woman, and perhaps I'm just revealing my own overly prudish nature, but to me a topless woman in just tiny bikini bottoms at a be

To me it clearly seems to be a woman, and perhaps I'm just revealing my own overly prudish nature, but to me a topless woman in just tiny bikini bottoms at a beach is somewhat sexualised. Imagine it were a photo of a good looking man wearing almost nothing and suggestive of some exposure if only you were looking from another angle. Would that have done so well? I think it's just hard for us as men to recognise the sexism because we're not used to being systematically sexualised.

Throe83949 2y ago
> I think it's just hard for us as men to recognise the sexism because we're not used to being systematically sexualised. Not true. Men get all sorts of comments about their height, appearance, facial hair, even genital size... We can not work at some jobs because of oversexualization. And this type of harrasement is normalised.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  And libido, that is, a stereotype that men are by default sexual predators. This is one reason why you don't see many men working at day cares and elementary schools.
enneff 2y ago
Yes you are a prude. There is nothing salacious about nudity especially at a beach!
- quietbritishjim 2y ago
  If you are on the beach with them, sure. If you stick it in a PowerPoint in an office, that's a different matter. (Same as if it's a nearly-naked man for that matter.)
  - haswell 2y ago
    How and why does this make it a different matter? Photographs capture a moment in time. This moment occurred at a beach. It wasn’t sexual then, and it’s not sexual now. If someone manipulated the image to be explicit or presented it in an obviously sexual context, that might be a different story, but even then, the original image itself was never inherently sexual. I’d reframe this to point out the image is very natural, i.e. what could be more natural than experiencing nature in one’s natural state? Seeing this as something sexual is a choice, and an unnecessary one at that.
    - eigenket 2y ago
      > How and why does this make it a different matter? Context is important. I've spent time on nude beaches, that doesn't mean its appropriate to turn up to work with my dick out. What is appropriate in one place is weird in other places (it would also be weird to rock up to a nude beach in my work clothes).
      - haswell 2y ago
        Appropriateness is orthogonal to sexualization though. Yes, context matters, but I fail to see anything about this particular context shift that is inherently sexual. It’s also worth pointing out that exposing your genitalia is in a different category than taking your top off, and certainly different than implied toplessness.
- eigenket 2y ago
  I fully agree that being topless at the beach is fine and cool, do whatever you like there. I also agree with the poster above who said it feels slightly weird to share a picture of that with people in a work environment.
  - enneff 2y ago
    I think if it were a frontal shot then sure I’d agree. But in this case I think if you draw anything sexual from that image then you are just way too horny and that’s your business and yours alone. This is exactly the kind of image you would use to market Photoshop, a tool for image makers who are concerned with producing exactly this kind of idyllic, escapist scene.
    - Mistletoe 2y ago
      Ok, I encourage you to use this picture in your email signature at work or use it as your desktop wallpaper and see how far you get in 2024. And I think it is definitely a good thing it is like that now. How do you think women that worked where John Knoll was doing demos felt about the naked woman? Not sexualizing the workplace is better for everyone. Actually kind of dismayed to see HN be so "good ol' boy" on this one. It reminds me again how out of touch and male-dominated it is. I love the photo, but it's a great photo for private use, not work use. I think you guys aren't paying attention to the HR videos you are supposed to be watching. I do think John knew exactly what he was doing and that the killer app for Photoshop, computers, and the internet that would come after was sex.
      - enneff 2y ago
        I’m not interested in your hypotheticals when we can just talk about the actual use of the image. Why change the context? At the places I’ve worked it’s been unusual for people to even set a wallpaper and extremely unusual to use some arbitrary image in an email signature (like what??). Maybe you should ask some women that you know what they would think about this actual scenario (not contrived scenarios), rather than presuming.
- mrbluecoat 2y ago
  Let's try to be civil here. Name calling is unnecessary.
  - enneff 2y ago
    I’m not name calling. They said “maybe I’m a prude,” and I was just confirming it.
Rinzler89 2y ago
[flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bazoom42 2y ago
Probably your cultural background. The attitudes towards nakedness are very different across cultures. Your attitude seem to be that if you sexualize the back of a women it is the woman who is the problem and should be covered up.
- quietbritishjim 2y ago
  > Your attitude seem to be that ... it is the woman who is the problem and should be covered up. 100% not. In fact it's the opposite: you're supposing that a woman in swimwear at a beach is giving implied consent for her image to be used in a radically different context. That would put the onus on the woman to cover up in a way that I wouldn't. In any case, I think the bigger problem is actually for instead those people in the business environment where this appears. Is it really a surprise that a semi-nude image used for illustrating image processing software is of a woman? Do you honestly think it is just as a likely as a man? I know the term "micro aggression" is controversial but sexist choices like this are real and common and do have an impact on attitudes for both men and women.
  - bazoom42 2y ago
    > you're supposing that a woman in swimwear at a beach is giving implied consent for her image to be used in a radically different context. Are you suggeting he used the image of his wife without her consent? That would indeed be inappropriate, but the article does not seem to support this accusation. The quote from her imply she is fine with it: > "The beauty of the internet is that people can take things, and do what they want with them, to project what they want or feel," she says.
  - runjake 2y ago
    Do you feel the statue of David is sexual and/or sexist? What about the numerous Greek statues of completely nude, anatomically-accurate men? Given my cultural background, it disturbs me that you’ve sexualized this photo enough to start casting the shadow of sexist offenses onto others, when it’s an opportunity for self-reflection. Why are you sexualizing this photo?

Throe83949 2y ago

> I think it's just hard for us as men to recognise the sexism because we're not used to being systematically sexualised. Not true. Men get all sorts of comments about their height, appearance, facial hair, even genital size... We can not work at some jobs because of oversexualization. And this type of harrasement is normalised.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago
And libido, that is, a stereotype that men are by default sexual predators. This is one reason why you don't see many men working at day cares and elementary schools.

enneff 2y ago

Yes you are a prude. There is nothing salacious about nudity especially at a beach!

quietbritishjim 2y ago
If you are on the beach with them, sure. If you stick it in a PowerPoint in an office, that's a different matter. (Same as if it's a nearly-naked man for that matter.)
- haswell 2y ago
  How and why does this make it a different matter? Photographs capture a moment in time. This moment occurred at a beach. It wasn’t sexual then, and it’s not sexual now. If someone manipulated the image to be explicit or presented it in an obviously sexual context, that might be a different story, but even then, the original image itself was never inherently sexual. I’d reframe this to point out the image is very natural, i.e. what could be more natural than experiencing nature in one’s natural state? Seeing this as something sexual is a choice, and an unnecessary one at that.
  - eigenket 2y ago
    > How and why does this make it a different matter? Context is important. I've spent time on nude beaches, that doesn't mean its appropriate to turn up to work with my dick out. What is appropriate in one place is weird in other places (it would also be weird to rock up to a nude beach in my work clothes).
    - haswell 2y ago
      Appropriateness is orthogonal to sexualization though. Yes, context matters, but I fail to see anything about this particular context shift that is inherently sexual. It’s also worth pointing out that exposing your genitalia is in a different category than taking your top off, and certainly different than implied toplessness.
eigenket 2y ago
I fully agree that being topless at the beach is fine and cool, do whatever you like there. I also agree with the poster above who said it feels slightly weird to share a picture of that with people in a work environment.
- enneff 2y ago
  I think if it were a frontal shot then sure I’d agree. But in this case I think if you draw anything sexual from that image then you are just way too horny and that’s your business and yours alone. This is exactly the kind of image you would use to market Photoshop, a tool for image makers who are concerned with producing exactly this kind of idyllic, escapist scene.
  - Mistletoe 2y ago
    Ok, I encourage you to use this picture in your email signature at work or use it as your desktop wallpaper and see how far you get in 2024. And I think it is definitely a good thing it is like that now. How do you think women that worked where John Knoll was doing demos felt about the naked woman? Not sexualizing the workplace is better for everyone. Actually kind of dismayed to see HN be so "good ol' boy" on this one. It reminds me again how out of touch and male-dominated it is. I love the photo, but it's a great photo for private use, not work use. I think you guys aren't paying attention to the HR videos you are supposed to be watching. I do think John knew exactly what he was doing and that the killer app for Photoshop, computers, and the internet that would come after was sex.
    - enneff 2y ago
      I’m not interested in your hypotheticals when we can just talk about the actual use of the image. Why change the context? At the places I’ve worked it’s been unusual for people to even set a wallpaper and extremely unusual to use some arbitrary image in an email signature (like what??). Maybe you should ask some women that you know what they would think about this actual scenario (not contrived scenarios), rather than presuming.
mrbluecoat 2y ago
Let's try to be civil here. Name calling is unnecessary.
- enneff 2y ago
  I’m not name calling. They said “maybe I’m a prude,” and I was just confirming it.

Rinzler89 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bazoom42 2y ago

Probably your cultural background. The attitudes towards nakedness are very different across cultures. Your attitude seem to be that if you sexualize the back of a women it is the woman who is the problem and should be covered up.

quietbritishjim 2y ago
> Your attitude seem to be that ... it is the woman who is the problem and should be covered up. 100% not. In fact it's the opposite: you're supposing that a woman in swimwear at a beach is giving implied consent for her image to be used in a radically different context. That would put the onus on the woman to cover up in a way that I wouldn't. In any case, I think the bigger problem is actually for instead those people in the business environment where this appears. Is it really a surprise that a semi-nude image used for illustrating image processing software is of a woman? Do you honestly think it is just as a likely as a man? I know the term "micro aggression" is controversial but sexist choices like this are real and common and do have an impact on attitudes for both men and women.
- bazoom42 2y ago
  > you're supposing that a woman in swimwear at a beach is giving implied consent for her image to be used in a radically different context. Are you suggeting he used the image of his wife without her consent? That would indeed be inappropriate, but the article does not seem to support this accusation. The quote from her imply she is fine with it: > "The beauty of the internet is that people can take things, and do what they want with them, to project what they want or feel," she says.
- runjake 2y ago
  Do you feel the statue of David is sexual and/or sexist? What about the numerous Greek statues of completely nude, anatomically-accurate men? Given my cultural background, it disturbs me that you’ve sexualized this photo enough to start casting the shadow of sexist offenses onto others, when it’s an opportunity for self-reflection. Why are you sexualizing this photo?