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.