4 ms·
It's your broad claim "by any United States standard" that's likely the cause of the downvotes. Lots of US people here work in places where these two non-pruri
by gojomo 14y ago
It's your broad claim "by any United States standard" that's likely the cause of the downvotes.
Lots of US people here work in places where these two non-pruriently-posed cartoon nudes, used for a valid illustrative purpose, present no 'safety' problem.
Please don't make the US work environment seem more prude or homogenous than it actually is. This is not "definitely, most very not-safe-for-work". It depends on where you work. That makes "mildly NSFW" a fair description - it's enough of a warning for those in very sensitive environments, while allowing that in other places it'd be considered harmless.
- kevingadd 14y agoI've never encountered a work environment where viewing those drawings at work would be defensible unless you were actually an artist. Note that I'm not saying that this would be a firable offense, but that someone could easily complain to HR about it and it could be considered creating a hostile work environment if it makes them feel unwelcome. These things matter!
- gojomo 14y agoAnd I've never worked anyplace where it would be a problem. Which refutes your categorical pronouncements about nationally-consistent standards. Everyone's got an anecdote!
- kevingadd 14y agoWell, if you're demanding standards, you could spend a few seconds looking up the definition of sexual harassment in the workplace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_environment_sexual_harassment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_environment_sexual_hara... You'll notice 'pictures of pornography in cubicles' is one of them. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html (a government website, note) mentions specific cases where visible pornography counted as establishing a hostile work environment.
- icebraining 14y agoThankfully there's no such thing in this post.
- gojomo 14y agoNude sketches in this context are not 'pornography'. (Go ahead, look it up!) And, an illustration in a browsed web article isn't the same as posted pictures in a cubicle. Yes, the kind of hypersensitive context-oblivious standards you're describing exist in many workplaces. The point is they're not in all. The dissenting comments and downvotes you've received contain valuable information: others' experience really, honestly, truly differs from your blanket claims.
- oneeyedpigeon 14y agoIn an ancestor comment you (correctly) noted that you hadn't said this post was porn. Now you are all but saying exactly that. Which is it?
- kevingadd 14y agoI'll make my point again: The problem is not that the content is or isn't pornography; the problem is that the content can be considered pornography by a viewer. It doesn't matter whether I think it's pornography, it's whether the person at the desk across from me does. If they think it's pornography, they're well within their rights to file an HR complaint if it makes them uncomfortable. Which is why it's good to have clear 'NSFW' warnings on things that might be inappropriate in the workplace. Trying to get really specific about what might be appropriate doesn't do anyone much good; just tag it NSFW if it's remotely questionable and people can check it out at home. Make sense? Visible genitals - whether male or female - are often considered not appropriate for general audiences in the US. So it is not exactly crazy to assume that someone might be made uncomfortable or upset by a coworker viewing them at work.
- lucian1900 14y agoNudity is not pornography. I don't think it's healthy to assume others are so crazy as to call this blog post pornography.
- throwaway1980 14y agoEver worked in construction?