• 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?

  • I support them putting it on the front page.

    Votes: 28 40.0%

  • They shouldn't have put the picture on the front page.

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • They shouldn't have had a picture at all.

    Votes: 4 5.7%

  • Come on its just boobs

    Votes: 37 52.9%
  • Total voters
    70
Ockham said:
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.
Click to expand...

agreed. she could have gotten that scar in a bar fight.....
 
Every small step in the direction of the coarsening of the culture deserves to be questioned. There was no reason to include the nipple except to generate controversy/buzz/what-have-you.
 
cpwill said:
Every small step in the direction of the coarsening of the culture deserves to be questioned. There was no reason to include the nipple except to generate controversy/buzz/what-have-you.
Click to expand...

true, although I am not offended by it, the nipple was completely gratuitous. it added nothing of value to the photo. pull the top up a 1/4 inch and cover it and the scar is still completely visible.
 
Newspaper exist to sell... they have to generate some "buzz" to cause people to buy en mass.

Legitimate tactics, no harm done.
 
I wonder what the reaction would be if it was a pic of a scrotum with a scar and a missing testicle.

EDIT: Maybe with just a bit of penis showing to liven things up and mirror the little bit of nipple.
 
Last edited:
I dont mind saying that I was VERY offended. WHen I first read some of the hysteria regarding this edition and Times "showing nipples" on their front page, I wasnt...all...excited...but was certainly curious as to the content and what the big deal was. Then I saw it. Whaaaaaaaaaaat??? Theres no image of a breast or nipple. I felt...kinda cheated. Come on, Times...step up your game!!!
 
VanceMack said:
I dont mind saying that I was VERY offended. WHen I first read some of the hysteria regarding this edition and Times "showing nipples" on their front page, I wasnt...all...excited...but was certainly curious as to the content and what the big deal was. Then I saw it. Whaaaaaaaaaaat??? Theres no image of a breast or nipple. I felt...kinda cheated. Come on, Times...step up your game!!!
Click to expand...

It's just a titular representation.
 
I don't enjoy they showed part of the areola because it was unnecessary , the female could have worn a different bra that would show the scar and not the areola it distracts the readers attention from the issue at hand to just the picture . Let us be honest what was the first thing you focused on when first viewing the picture the scar and what it means or the breast and its showing of the nipple . Be honest :cool:
 
Un biased said:
I don't enjoy they showed part of the areola because it was unnecessary , the female could have worn a different bra that would show the scar and not the areola it distracts the readers attention from the issue at hand to just the picture . Let us be honest what was the first thing you focused on when first viewing the picture the scar and what it means or the breast and its showing of the nipple . Be honest :cool:
Click to expand...

I thought everyone liked pepperoni!

pizza-boobs.jpg
 
I was offended because they didn't show the entire nipple....and a little bit of bush ;)
 
Thank God they only showed a sliver of the areola. Society isn't ready for the full nip.

Unless you're a guy. Or prepubescent. Then full nip is fine.
 
Why on Earth would this offend me?

Why would I even care much?

Because it shows the top of her areola?

Oh, heaven forbid....
 
Last edited:
Un biased said:
I don't enjoy they showed part of the areola because it was unnecessary...
Click to expand...

Agreed! This is outrageous!

And where are the mods????? Mods, we've got a link to areola slivers here!!!! I demand you remove it and ban the poster! My God, take the link down before an innocent child accidentally clicks on it! Why, the poor child might get the impression adult women have nipples!!!
 
Here's why the NY Times did it - to force attention on the issue of breast cancer. It worked and it worked very well! Good for the Times. I thought I'd never say that.

Honestly, how much discussion nationally or even on this board would there have been if the NYT had used a pink ribbon graphic instead? Very little. If tight arsed Americans have a problem with it it's doubtful that most of them read the NYT to start with.
 
pbrauer said:
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
Click to expand...

Find what offensive? The star of David?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
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.
Click to expand...

You actually see more riding on a bus.
 
the_recruit said:
Thank God they only showed a sliver of the areola. Society isn't ready for the full nip.

Unless you're a guy. Or prepubescent. Then full nip is fine.
Click to expand...

Really, I don't see what the big deal is either. Everyone has nipples.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Nipples have always been off limits unless it's a girlie mag. This was a cheap and tawdry effort to sell papers and it belittles breast cancer survivors.
Click to expand...

It does not, you prude. It makes people like you get all offended and make a big deal about it online, and gives the issue more attention than it would get otherwise, so the marketing works.
 
ChrisL said:
It does not, you prude. It makes people like you get all offended and make a big deal about it online, and gives the issue more attention than it would get otherwise, so the marketing works.
Click to expand...

So you admit it was marketing. An attempt to sell papers not enlighten people on breast cancer. We agree. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom