• 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

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This picture was obviously on the front page of the New York Times. The article was about breast cancer. What do you think?


  • I support them putting it on the front page.
  • They shouldn't have put the picture on the front page.
  • They shouldn't have had a picture at all.
  • Come on its just boobs
 

Attachments

  • Image1.jpg
    Image1.jpg
    38.4 KB · Views: 807
I don't personally find it offensive. Why would I?
 
This picture was obviously on the front page of the New York Times. The article was about breast cancer. What do you think?


  • I support them putting it on the front page.
  • They shouldn't have put the picture on the front page.
  • They shouldn't have had a picture at all.
  • Come on its just boobs

Oh my GOD it's a BLACK tanktop! *Walks to the other side of the street*

LOL

No - I don't let tattoos and some nip offend me. You see more in all those 'nursing baby pro-mom' shots that pop up everywhere.
 
Not at all. It's barely showing anything anyway.
 
It's a plot by the Jews to control us through mammary glands. They aren't even trying to hide their naked power grab.










:roll:
 
I am bewildered as to why the New York Times couldn't afford a better looking one for the picture
 
I am bewildered as to why the New York Times couldn't afford a better looking one for the picture

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.
 
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.

So attractive women with breast cancer don't exist?:confused:
 
This picture was obviously on the front page of the New York Times. The article was about breast cancer. What do you think?


  • I support them putting it on the front page.
  • They shouldn't have put the picture on the front page.
  • They shouldn't have had a picture at all.
  • Come on its just boobs
I don't understand why this pic would be offensive.
 
So attractive women with breast cancer don't exist?:confused:

Leave it to you to judge someone's attractiveness by 10 square inches of flesh without face or body or anything else.

Sorry - let me airbrush that up for you. :roll: Maybe the dude in your avatar would have been a better candidate, eh?
 
It's their paper, they ought to be able to put anything on the front page they want and anyone who doesn't like it doesn't have to buy it.
 
This picture was obviously on the front page of the New York Times. The article was about breast cancer. What do you think?


  • I support them putting it on the front page.
  • They shouldn't have put the picture on the front page.
  • They shouldn't have had a picture at all.
  • Come on its just boobs

Meh. The nipple was maybe a bit much, and I'm not sure why the Star of David was necessary. Apart from those minor issues, however; I don't see anything to get especially worked up about. :shrug:

Edit:

Never mind, the story appears to be related to Israel.
 
It they had a picture with more nipple...and maybe one of those piercing things like Janet Jackson had...and they put it on a children's magazine...I MIGHT be offended.
 
This picture was obviously on the front page of the New York Times. The article was about breast cancer. What do you think?


  • I support them putting it on the front page.
  • They shouldn't have put the picture on the front page.
  • They shouldn't have had a picture at all.
  • Come on its just boobs

No big deal, why not if the subject was breast cancer?
 
Leave it to you to judge someone's attractiveness by 10 square inches of flesh without face or body or anything else.

Sorry - let me airbrush that up for you. :roll: Maybe the dude in your avatar would have been a better candidate, eh?

Jesus ****ing christ, I am glad everyone does not wear their feelings on their shirt sleeve it would be a pathetic world
 
I didn't vote as I think the picture is fine, the breast is fine but the nipple is not fine... I mean, it is a fine looking nipple, just not front page material.
 
Why should her looks be of concern to anybody?

It was just an obeservation, maybe they will post a penis tomorrow with some type of infection coming out of it
 
I don't understand why this pic would be offensive.

Meh. The nipple was maybe a bit much, and I'm not sure why the Star of David was necessary. Apart from those minor issues, however; I don't see anything to get especially worked up about. :shrug:

Edit:

Never mind, the story appears to be related to Israel.

No big deal, why not if the subject was breast cancer?

I posted it because Newsbusters took exception to it, that's all

Is a Nipple Top Necessary to Read About Cancer On the Front of The New York Times? | NewsBusters
 
It was just an obeservation, maybe they will post a penis tomorrow with some type of infection coming out of it

Will look as about as attractive as a normal penis does to me. :shrug:
 
So attractive women with breast cancer don't exist?:confused:

What exactly do you find unattractive about her? You can't see her face at all. She's not fat. She's not flat-chested. She doesn't have saggy or wrinkly boobs. I just don't understand. :confused: Is this your actual opinion or are you just trying to be controversial?
 
What exactly do you find unattractive about her? You can't see her face at all. She's not fat. She's not flat-chested. She doesn't have saggy or wrinkly boobs. I just don't understand. :confused: Is this your actual opinion or are you just trying to be controversial?

I wondered the same thing. Must be because they aren't gargantuan. He probably just likes that over-inflated breast implants look. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom