Edit: don't worry. Its work friendly!
Disagree. If you wouldn't want your boss to see the magazine lying on your desk, you definitely shouldn't open the link.
The difference, of course, being that it is only an image of the cover. It can't actually be opened to show the nude women on the inside.
The difference, of course, being that it is only an image of the cover. It can't actually be opened to show the nude women on the inside.
Unfortunately we don't live in a reasonable world. We live in a climate of hysterical reactionary puritanism, and you have to be careful and think like your oppressors if you want to survive.
|
The difference, of course, being that it is only an image of the cover. It can't actually be opened to show the nude women on the inside.Unfortunately we don't live in a reasonable world. We live in a climate of hysterical reactionary puritanism, and you have to be careful and think like your oppressors if you want to survive.
I agree.
Anecdote follows:
I was at the equivalent of a company picnic last summer, and a guy wearing a t-shirt with the Playboy logo was asked to change. The dress code for the picnic was shorts and t-shirts for everyone, but his plain black shirt with the rabbit head logo, no words, no other art or logos, was deemed by the Higher Powers to be potentially degrading to the female attendees.
The difference, of course, being that it is only an image of the cover. It can't actually be opened to show the nude women on the inside.Unfortunately we don't live in a reasonable world. We live in a climate of hysterical reactionary puritanism, and you have to be careful and think like your oppressors if you want to survive.I agree.
Anecdote follows:
I was at the equivalent of a company picnic last summer, and a guy wearing a t-shirt with the Playboy logo was asked to change. The dress code for the picnic was shorts and t-shirts for everyone, but his plain black shirt with the rabbit head logo, no words, no other art or logos, was deemed by the Higher Powers to be potentially degrading to the female attendees.
*facepalm*
I was at the equivalent of a company picnic last summer, and a guy wearing a t-shirt with the Playboy logo was asked to change. The dress code for the picnic was shorts and t-shirts for everyone, but his plain black shirt with the rabbit head logo, no words, no other art or logos, was deemed by the Higher Powers to be potentially degrading to the female attendees.
It wouldn't have bothered me, but I know some women who would be upset, especially if they didn't know the guy that well.
It's funny that some people (male and female) would be upset by the playboy shirt, but I'd bet nobody would've complained about a Saw or Sopranos tshirt. I'm not calling to ban those either, but anything remotely sexual is a problem for HR while HR wouldn't blink twice about excessive fictional violence.
I was at the equivalent of a company picnic last summer, and a guy wearing a t-shirt with the Playboy logo was asked to change. The dress code for the picnic was shorts and t-shirts for everyone, but his plain black shirt with the rabbit head logo, no words, no other art or logos, was deemed by the Higher Powers to be potentially degrading to the female attendees.It wouldn't have bothered me, but I know some women who would be upset, especially if they didn't know the guy that well.
It's funny that some people (male and female) would be upset by the playboy shirt, but I'd bet nobody would've complained about a Saw or Sopranos tshirt. I'm not calling to ban those either, but anything remotely sexual is a problem for HR while HR wouldn't blink twice about excessive fictional violence.
+1. I'm constantly baffled by the amount of violence that is permitted for primetime television, yet a woman's nipple will get you an R rating for a film. America is a strange, strange land...
|
|
I was at the equivalent of a company picnic last summer, and a guy wearing a t-shirt with the Playboy logo was asked to change. The dress code for the picnic was shorts and t-shirts for everyone, but his plain black shirt with the rabbit head logo, no words, no other art or logos, was deemed by the Higher Powers to be potentially degrading to the female attendees.It wouldn't have bothered me, but I know some women who would be upset, especially if they didn't know the guy that well.
It's funny that some people (male and female) would be upset by the playboy shirt, but I'd bet nobody would've complained about a Saw or Sopranos tshirt. I'm not calling to ban those either, but anything remotely sexual is a problem for HR while HR wouldn't blink twice about excessive fictional violence.
I work with 95% men in all the businesses that I do books for. I have found through the years that it seems the attitude of the women decides how nasty or tasteful men can be. I am very open and loud mouth so they are not afraid of being inappropriate around me however there are many women in today's society that still think men should behave on some level. I agree with you that if it would have been any other shirt it wouldn't have been a big deal, we often wonder why nobody says anything about my husbands gaming shirts but then we remember that they are to closed minded to understand what the shirt is about.