Warning - Above link is NSFW(images of topless women).
That said, I found it very interesting. I honestly had no idea it was legal anywhere outside of private or 'cordoned off' places.
That said, I found it very interesting. I honestly had no idea it was legal anywhere outside of private or 'cordoned off' places.
That said, in my opinion people working in such a workplace reading a post "Why “go nuts, show nuts” doesn’t work in 2022" should be savvy enough to not click links, or read the post in the first place.
Also, ironically, the fact that we have to mark such links (to Wikipedia!) as NSFW is exactly what this particular comment chain is about, no?
It was definitely a valid remark, and in this case, it was useful at least for me.
This is more to say that this is a disagreement between you two at the object level, not someone overthinking a simple matter.
Boobs on the screen isn't the greatest look at work or any public location, and I don't really think it requires going any deeper than that. I can appreciate the pointless debate here and there, but this isn't some great philosophical question we have here lol.
Like it or not, there are plenty of jobs that would be very unhappy with you viewing said images in an office setting.
This was all back in the day, long before trans awareness even hit the mainstream.
I have nipples, Greg. Can you milk me? [Meet the Parents]
It generally isn't. The map image in the article colors a state blue for "legal at the State/Territory level". But that's not where the laws banning nudity come from anyway, so it's almost purely uninformative.
Like it or not, in some US workplaces, a background shirtless man isn't probably a big deal.
A front and center topless lady in a thong probably is.
I'd make the same declaration if it was a front and center pic of some dude in a banana hammock.
I'm making no judgement on laws or society, just trying to give a heads up to folks who might not expect that from a wikipedia link.