Hacker News Reader

Comment by yawaramin | Hacker News Reader

No one said anything about the agency of Playboy models, only about the inappropriateness of using Playboy or other NSFW materials in professional environments making women uncomfortable. In the privacy of your own home, do whatever you like (legally). But don't bring it into the office!

View on HN

So is the hangup that it was published in Playboy? What if the cropped non-nude version of the photograph first appeared in a mainstream publication, and then was appropriated by the imaging community afterward? Does that contextual difference change anything if we're still discussing the same photograph?

I don't know–it depends! It's difficult to talk hypotheticals. In the end it's all about the context.

Why is it difficult? The hypothetical makes all the relevant information available.

What information are you using right now when dealing the judgement of "inappropriate" to the current situation?

Like I said, it's very difficult to talk about hypotheticals because in real life there are always unintended consequences. For example, the model from the cropped image from the mainstream publication may have later spoken out that she was made to feel uncomfortable during the photo shoot. And people may find that objectionable. As long as we keep talking in hypotheticals, we can justify anything!

But it most definitely is not a NSFW image because it was cropped.

It's not explicit but it is suggestive, and it takes on a new dimension if you know its context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com