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.
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.
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.
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?
I'm not the person you asked but I feel like answering with my (unwanted) perspective. The statue of David, in its current context in a museum is not a particuarly sexual or sexist object. On the other hand if my employer (or whoever) started introducing equivalent statues of naked people (of any sex) into my workplace I would probably view that as innapropriate.
This is essentially how I view the image of Jennifer - in the context of a loving relationship between two people on the beach its a nice thing, but I would view it as a bit weird if someone at my workplace started sharing an equivalent picture of their partner.
Some people are offendend by women having uncovered hair. Being offended does not mean everyone else have to accomodate you.
Clearly in the context of my comment its neither. Its whoever is bringing the naked statues into my workplace.
This (to me) is such a blindingly obvious third option that I assume you deliberately didn't include it as an option because you're trying to argue a point you know is flawed.
The impact of (to take a random example) a university having a statue of Venus or whatever in the grounds, is not the same as having the Lenna image in a textbook
https://www.cmc.edu/news/every-picture-tells-a-story
Even though the statue might objectively be showing more, people are not automata, so the context is everything.
I’m unable to comprehend how you got to that assumption.
But to be clear, I undestand you shouldn’t bring art or musical instruments to work if you work for the Taleban. But in the story, the audience are adult creatives working professionaly with visual arts
Because you conflate art in public spaces with the use of images like Jennifer in selling software. To me it seems obvious that these are fundamentally not the same.