For the folks downvoting the above comment, it doesn’t necessarily reflect a viewpoint (that you could disagree with) but could simply be a heads up for people at a workplace with policies against viewing that content at work. (A policy that you might also disagree with… but the warning itself is still useful to some.)

I did not and can't downvote, no I have no stake in this.

That said, in my opinion people working in such a workplace reading a post "Why “go nuts, show nuts” doesn’t work in 2022" should be savvy enough to not click links, or read the post in the first place.

Also, ironically, the fact that we have to mark such links (to Wikipedia!) as NSFW is exactly what this particular comment chain is about, no?

You're overthinking it. Well, it's in the name right? Its not safe for work. I'm in a semi-full conference room currently, and opening the link would be a bit awkward, as it would be really out of context for osmeone who have a view onto my screen.

It was definitely a valid remark, and in this case, it was useful at least for me.

I disagree that they're overthinking it, and you haven't addressed (or perhaps you overlooked?) their main point, that if this is true then you should have thought about that before opening _this_ link, instead of the links on this page.

This is more to say that this is a disagreement between you two at the object level, not someone overthinking a simple matter.

Then why don't you just work at work? Is it not awkward if your open a live gaming stream at work?

Reading HN is a normal thing to do in a lot of workplaces.

Especially in a conference room; OMG the boredom. I'd always try to bring a technical manual or something, for when I got tired of being "a good boy."

Ah, the ol' Hacker News "being a contrarian just to be a contrarian" thing.

Boobs on the screen isn't the greatest look at work or any public location, and I don't really think it requires going any deeper than that. I can appreciate the pointless debate here and there, but this isn't some great philosophical question we have here lol.

Yeah. It's not just a prudish workplace policy thing. There is definitely stuff I wouldn't want on a screen in an office workplace policies notwithstanding because someone could take offense whether reasonably IMO or not. For that matter, there are almost certainly (non-porn) films I wouldn't go out of my way to watch on a plane especially if there were children nearby.

Does HN give you the ability to downvote after some threshold? I still don't have it.

I think it's 500 karma - you've got 54...

Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't trying to be moral police, just warning folks of what was on the page.

Like it or not, there are plenty of jobs that would be very unhappy with you viewing said images in an office setting.

Yup, a lot of policies are dumb and and you can’t tilt all the time. A useful heads up for some I reckon.

Decency laws prohibiting toplessness were challenged back in the day under Equal Protection and Due Process. Both sexes have nipples, some men have larger moobs than women. There's just not much biological difference, and thus no basis to legislate on other than the sex of the person bearing their breasts - nipples are nipples, basically.

This was all back in the day, long before trans awareness even hit the mainstream.

> There's just not much biological difference, … - nipples are nipples

I have nipples, Greg. Can you milk me? [Meet the Parents]

With the right hormones, stimulus, and/or medical issues you can get a male mammal's nipples to produce milk [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation

> I honestly had no idea it was legal anywhere outside of private or 'cordoned off' places.

It generally isn't. The map image in the article colors a state blue for "legal at the State/Territory level". But that's not where the laws banning nudity come from anyway, so it's almost purely uninformative.

The fact that this apparently has to be categorized as NSFW is sad in itself.

Images of topless women and men.

There are 9 topless women on the page, and 2 topless men if I counted right, who are both obscured and in the background.

Like it or not, in some US workplaces, a background shirtless man isn't probably a big deal.

A front and center topless lady in a thong probably is.

I'd make the same declaration if it was a front and center pic of some dude in a banana hammock.

I'm making no judgement on laws or society, just trying to give a heads up to folks who might not expect that from a wikipedia link.