It would be nice if this title made clear that there are boobs on display in that article, which isn't really "acceptable" in many workplaces :/
You didn't think "topless" was a hint for something?
Going topless in America will probably get you a fine, or maybe 30 days in jail if the judge is having a bad day.
Child Porn will get you a decade if you're lucky and get you on a register for the rest of your life.
>In the United States, states have differing nudity and public decency laws.[4] In most states, state law prohibits exposure of the genitals and/or the female nipples in a public place, while in other states simple nudity is legal, but evidence of intent to shock, arouse or offend other persons (lewd conduct) is evidence of prohibited conduct. For example, in most states, it is a criminal offense punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and/or registered sex offender requirements and restrictions. Some states permit local governments to set local standards. Public nudity itself has not been a crime throughout California since a 2000 Appellate Court ruling, and prosecutions and convictions are unheard of, but arrests do still occur, though they also are unusual,[5] and Vermont only prohibits "open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior"[6] so many forms of public nudity are legal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_exposure_in_the_Unite...
I'm curious, in what country would that be the case?
Are there no books about Renaissance/Neoclassicist art in that library? Or biology for that matter?
If reading articles about topless musicians is part of your job, then it's part of your job and everyone in that workplace already knows that.
If it's not part of your job, then why are you doing it in the workplace?
The title did "warn" that there at least might be simply by topic and the publication.
How is one supposed to be ok with reading and thinking about breasts but not seeing them? What magical thing happens differently through the eyes as an image vs through the eyes as language?
...especially outside of a sexual context. (for those too terrified to risk looking, the single pic did not depict any sort of sex act)
I don't see even a hint of a valid argument here. I only see something, less wholesome than those breasts "on display".
Do ISIS beheading news articles always show ISIS beheading videos? Did news articles about the deposing of Ghadaffi show the videos of his body being mutilated? I remember having to see that on Liveleak.
America may be prude as fuck, but that doesn't mean everyone in the coffee shop seeing boobs on my screen understands that this is a news article. I WANT to read this article, but I can't because it's explicit. Sure, maybe that's a point in itself, but as a man, I'm not exactly going to win that societal level battle on my own.