• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this offensive to you?

What do you think?


  • Total voters
    70
I don't find it offensive in the slightest.

It's obvious that it was put there to create controversy and sell more papers though.
 
Can't talk at the moment, I'm in police custody. I saw a woman with erect nipples in a medical journal and subsequently went on a rape spree.

Like I said... the cover photo is not acceptable.
 
Yes, I've ridden in every state in the continual US on a bike and most states many times over. And for your information I never been to Sturgis during bike week. But we're talking nipples here and I didn't see one.

there is also Sturgis, KY and Sturgis, MS with both having bike rallies before the big one in SD
 
A box of tissues later, do you know what an areola is? :2razz:


Seriously though, why do breasts and nipples have to be sexualised when presented in a non-sexual context. An article about breast cancer should be able to show a naked breast if it wants, because it's relevant to the topic. That most people can't see a bit of nipple without thinking sex speaks a lot about the maturity of American society.

What if the NY times wanted to talk about penis cancer and had a penis pic?
 
What if the NY times wanted to talk about penis cancer and had a penis pic?
Then our Latin language loving, Jewophile God would pixel the "penis" out so people couldn't see it and thus go crazy with lust and fu...I mean "make love" everything in sight!
 
What if the NY times wanted to talk about penis cancer and had a penis pic?

Penises are a primary sexual characteristic, so probably not, same with vaginas. But I don't see the big deal about secondary sexual characteristics presented in a non-sexual context.
 
Personally, in the grand scheme of things it appears very small. But they came up with boundaries back in the day for a reason. They had to draw a line somewhere and say this is what we'll respect for the sake of social etiquette. Now, I will definitely admit that in time some of those boundaries were in need of change or complete removal. But without good cause or argument others IMO need to still be kept in place. Without some form of tradition and values we'll become desensitized and confused to what our purpose and priorities are beyond self gratification. Even freedom and free expression need some restraint to the point where they don't infringe on others rights.

I don't like public displays of intense physical intimacy. I think there's a time and place for everything and it's not anymore appealing to me than public nudity would be. When I was in my teens and twenties none of that would've bothered me very much, so it's somewhat dependent on other factors like age and circumstances.

For example; there was a time when most actresses of a certain caliber tried to never show nipple, complete naked buttocks or exposed pubic area. Why? Because that was the line they wouldn't cross to keep it classy and try to stay in the A-list ratings for future top jobs. Were there exceptions? Of course there is almost always, inevitably going to be someone who doesn't fall into a certain category or there's only been minor incidents but it was for the most part accepted as a general, unwritten rule. I believe it was just one of the codes including ability and other qualifications the producers used in who they'd accept, especially new talent.

This concept applied to TV, film, magazines and basically any public exposure of what was considered lewd behavior. The point being that if some nipple exposure is suddenly okay, then how much more will we accept? Complete bare breasts? Total frontal nudity? Who's going to say where the new line is drawn and when? Twerking is acceptable? Next Awards Show will we have Jerking? Is it all fine if children see it?
 
I wasn't really satirizing you. Rather I was mocking society in general as well as this forum's policy on nudity.



I think most people can manage to stay on topic. Even when confronted with a nipple.



Both. Back and forth. And to the tattoo. And the headlines. A tiny sliver of areola is not that interesting to me really. I recognize its controversy and that is what draws my attention moreso than the nipple's allure in and of itself. If showing female nipples wasn't such an asinine societal taboo, the edge of nipple in that photo wouldn't be distracting to anyone at all.

Not really a sliver a bit more than that :wink2: .
 
Because it isn't about boobs, it's about breast cancer and the lady on the cover has apparently had surgery for breast cancer, going by the scar on her breast.
How do you know she didn't sustain the injury during a knife fight?
 
How do you know she didn't sustain the injury during a knife fight?

Well, I don't but since her scar is consistent with a lumpectomy and the article is about breast cancer, it isn't so outrageous to imagine that the scar is due to a lumpectomy because of a cancerous tumor.
 
Well, I don't but since her scar is consistent with a lumpectomy and the article is about breast cancer, it isn't so outrageous to imagine that the scar is due to a lumpectomy because of a cancerous tumor.
lulz

You're so naive.
 
lulz

You're so naive.

If you were being sarcastic, then how would I know, given your lack of use of a smiley? :)
 
If you were being sarcastic, then how would I know, given your lack of use of a smiley? :)
Because you're psychic.

And because it's obvious that that woman is an experienced knife fighter. Anyone can see that. She's just a trouble causer who got what she deserved.
 
Because you're psychic.

And because it's obvious that that woman is an experienced knife fighter. Anyone can see that. She's just a trouble causer who got what she deserved.

And I suppose the Star of David is really from a gang initiation, and she's an expert in Jewjitsu.
 
And I suppose the Star of David is really from a gang initiation, and she's an expert in Jewjitsu.
That's ageist!
 
Penises are a primary sexual characteristic, so probably not, same with vaginas. But I don't see the big deal about secondary sexual characteristics presented in a non-sexual context.

Penises spend more time flaccid than erected and are used far more often for urinating than for sex so they are not primarily a sexual organ if you want to get technical. If you put a pic of an erection in the paper it would be sexual but if you had a pic of a non aroused penis I see no difference than the nipple pic. Neither belong in the news section of the NY Times. They did it to TITillate and sell papers not to enlighten people on cancer.
 
Penises spend more time flaccid than erected and are used far more often for urinating than for sex so they are not primarily a sexual organ if you want to get technical. If you put a pic of an erection in the paper it would be sexual but if you had a pic of a non aroused penis I see no difference than the nipple pic. Neither belong in the news section of the NY Times. They did it to TITillate and sell papers not to enlighten people on cancer.

Penises are genitalia. Breasts are not genitalia. Men expose their "moobs" not to mention their fat hairy bellies all the time. Now THAT should be offensive. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom