• 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
to me I don't see the need for the pic, I know what they are talking about if they say boobs.

Thurston Howell, III ---must you be so graphic.
 
Last edited:
I wondered the same thing. Must be because they aren't gargantuan. He probably just likes that over-inflated breast implants look. :lol:


or ones that say "inflate to 40 lbs PSI"?
 
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?

it was just run of the mill which was below expectations for a large newspaper
 
I wondered the same thing. Must be because they aren't gargantuan. He probably just likes that over-inflated breast implants look. :lol:

There is such a thing as too big with regards to boobs.

From an attractive POV and an empathetic one. I can't imagine the back problems that must arise.
 
There is such a thing as too big with regards to boobs.

From an attractive POV and an empathetic one. I can't imagine the back problems that must arise.

I have two friends and a mother of one of my friends who all had reduction surgeries done.
 
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 find it offensive.

I know that they are trying to make a point about breast cancer, but for some reason this didn't really hit home to me.
 
Totally out of line for a mainstream newspaper. To become just a tease rag. Put then the NY Times is just a rag anyway and has been for a long time.
 
Totally out of line for a mainstream newspaper. To become just a tease rag. Put then the NY Times is just a rag anyway and has been for a long time.

Why? It's a serious issue. Women of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage are at great risk of breast and ovarian cancers. The story reveals how (amongst other issues)this affects women's lives and choices in Israel. To screen or not? Preventative mastectomy? Have children first then the mastectomy? Men are carriers, should they be tested? There is great in depth reporting and an international angel to it. So it's very appropriate for the front page, with the picture.

Jews of Ashkenazi, or central and eastern European, backgrounds, who make up about half the Jews in Israel and the vast majority of those in the United States, are much more likely to carry mutations that increase the risks for both breast and ovarian cancers, according to the National Cancer Institute.

A number of influential geneticists and cancer doctors from various medical centers here say that the Israeli Health Ministry should pay for free voluntary genetic testing of all Ashkenazi women over the age of 25. About a million women would be covered, at a cost of less than $100 per test. Jews of Iraqi descent, whose families also often carry a harmful mutation, might also be screened.

With reporting like this, it is not a "tease".
 
Why? It's a serious issue. Women of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage are at great risk of breast and ovarian cancers. The story reveals how (amongst other issues)this affects women's lives and choices in Israel. To screen or not? Preventative mastectomy? Have children first then the mastectomy? Men are carriers, should they be tested? There is great in depth reporting and an international angel to it. So it's very appropriate for the front page, with the picture.



With reporting like this, it is not a "tease".

This. Just because they are breasts doesn't mean they have to be sexual.
 
This. Just because they are breasts doesn't mean they have to be sexual.

Bingo! It's an important health story and one that has resonance in the states. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should have been tested for it, as an Ashkenazi Jew, but wasn't and is lucky to be a breast cancer survivor.
If I had known of my risk, I would have at least been able to be informed. My twins are the result of in vitro fertilization. My second pregnancy was natural. I blasted my body with a whole lot of hormones, and if I knew I was BRCA-positive or at risk, I could have asked my doctors if giving myself all these hormones was going to affect my risk of breast cancer down the road. But now it's always in the back of my mind. I wonder if I made it more likely that I would get breast cancer eventually by going through IVF.

Right there, some of her decisions in getting pregnant should have been reviewed, given her heritage.

Being prudish when women's lives are at stake, is ridiculous.
 
I can't understand why people get upset about this sort of thing.
 
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!! :mad: This is a clear sign that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is degrading our moral standards in this great country of ours! Its another sign of moral degradation happening under this regime!!


Honestly: No i dont care. I think its fine. I see no problem with this. If people cant be mature... **** em.
 
I don't find it offensive, not the body part. I find it unnecessary, and I find the newspapers appeal to people's prurient interest, probably in their commercial interest, to be offensive. If you're Hustler, we know who you are. NYT, you're not supposed to be Hustler. It's commercialism, they want to catch people's eye and pull it to the paper to get them to read further, hook them and get them to buy a copy. I bet it worked and the issue sold better than normal.
 
I don't find it offensive, not the body part. I find it unnecessary, and I find the newspapers appeal to people's prurient interest, probably in their commercial interest, to be offensive. If you're Hustler, we know who you are. NYT, you're not supposed to be Hustler. It's commercialism, they want to catch people's eye and pull it to the paper to get them to read further, hook them and get them to buy a copy. I bet it worked and the issue sold better than normal.

And that's also serves the goal of breast cancer awareness, so it's a good thing. :) Women need to be aware of their risks.
 
I don't find it offensive, not the body part. I find it unnecessary, and I find the newspapers appeal to people's prurient interest, probably in their commercial interest, to be offensive. If you're Hustler, we know who you are. NYT, you're not supposed to be Hustler. It's commercialism, they want to catch people's eye and pull it to the paper to get them to read further, hook them and get them to buy a copy. I bet it worked and the issue sold better than normal.

This picture is not sexual in any way. Hustler would go out of business if they all they showed was pictures like this.
 
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

Yes its VERY offensive! WHY did they print a pix of anybody with a tattoo!
The human body is a beautiful creation, marking it is sacrilege!
 
This is naked aggression! :spank:
 
Yes its VERY offensive! WHY did they print a pix of anybody with a tattoo!
The human body is a beautiful creation, marking it is sacrilege!

I like tattoos, but I have to admit that it's incredibly funny to me seeing a picture of a Jewish woman with a Star of David tattoo.
 
I think that it shows the desperation of the NYT to sell their newspapers. ;)
 
Bingo! It's an important health story and one that has resonance in the states. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should have been tested for it, as an Ashkenazi Jew, but wasn't and is lucky to be a breast cancer survivor.


Right there, some of her decisions in getting pregnant should have been reviewed, given her heritage.

Being prudish when women's lives are at stake, is ridiculous.

Exactly, this is much ado about nothing. How anyone can find this offensive is beyond me.

Pretty ****ed up world you live in when an important Health Story like this is being frowned upon because you get to see a glimpse of a nipple and yet it wasn't that long ago that people were posting pictures of the Boston Bombing victims here and screaming blue murder because they didn't have access to pictures of Osama Bin swimming or the victims or the Sandy Hook School massacare.

That's so messed up.
 
It's certainly not offensive, but I fail to see what the picture has to do with breast cancer. A more fitting picture would have been of a single mastectomy.
 
Back
Top Bottom