| |
|
I'm not sure I can help with that decision, but I can provide a little more about my thinking in case it helps. I'm happy as it stands: NSFW warning in the thread topic, and the FHM image hidden. I am using a work computer, and I'd feel uneasy about following that discussion if the FHM cover or worse were inthread. Whilst the FHM image is behind spoiler tags, I feel I can access that thread without feeling I'm in danger of violating professional standards, because I am not going to look at that image from this computer - though I can see you may argue this means I cannot honestly contribute to the discussion.
I think we have to navigate all the time on intuitive sense of boundaries, especially when in comes to NSFW-type decisions. If it was being argued that someone felt unable to access the thread because a vogue cover would violate their professional code of conduct, I could see an argument for hiding the Vogue cover as well. I don't think anyone's making that argument though, and as Flyboy points out the nature the discussion requires Vogue covers to be viewed. I'm inclined to argue that it does not however require overtly sexualised images in thread as well.
Though this does presuppose the argument to some extent, I don't think it's difficult to agree that there is a genuine difference from this analogy: If someone had a copy of Vogue in the office, is anyone being harassed? I think it's unlikely that sexual harassment would occur from Vogue cover images, and that this points to the genuine differences that exist. It's clear however that sexualised images of a certain kind, like the FHM cover, clearly could constitute sexual harassment* and could be used as evidence of such at disciplinary proceedings. So people are in general able to agree a difference, even though that judgement precedes and may take a long while to meet our collective ability to construct a precise definition of the difference.
*in a work context |
|
|
