[caslon]

There's nothing sexualised about it. The person is of an ambiguous build and facing away from the camera. The article does more sexualising than the photo itself does, in the typical way that British media likes to oversexualise and play scandal to sell papers.

[quietbritishjim]

To me it clearly seems to be a woman, and perhaps I'm just revealing my own overly prudish nature, but to me a topless woman in just tiny bikini bottoms at a beach is somewhat sexualised.

Imagine it were a photo of a good looking man wearing almost nothing and suggestive of some exposure if only you were looking from another angle. Would that have done so well?

I think it's just hard for us as men to recognise the sexism because we're not used to being systematically sexualised.

[Throe83949]

> I think it's just hard for us as men to recognise the sexism because we're not used to being systematically sexualised.

Not true. Men get all sorts of comments about their height, appearance, facial hair, even genital size... We can not work at some jobs because of oversexualization.

And this type of harrasement is normalised.

[Cthulhu_]

And libido, that is, a stereotype that men are by default sexual predators. This is one reason why you don't see many men working at day cares and elementary schools.

[bazoom42]

Probably your cultural background. The attitudes towards nakedness are very different across cultures. Your attitude seem to be that if you sexualize the back of a women it is the woman who is the problem and should be covered up.

[quietbritishjim]

> Your attitude seem to be that ... it is the woman who is the problem and should be covered up.

100% not. In fact it's the opposite: you're supposing that a woman in swimwear at a beach is giving implied consent for her image to be used in a radically different context. That would put the onus on the woman to cover up in a way that I wouldn't.

In any case, I think the bigger problem is actually for instead those people in the business environment where this appears. Is it really a surprise that a semi-nude image used for illustrating image processing software is of a woman? Do you honestly think it is just as a likely as a man? I know the term "micro aggression" is controversial but sexist choices like this are real and common and do have an impact on attitudes for both men and women.

[bazoom42]

> you're supposing that a woman in swimwear at a beach is giving implied consent for her image to be used in a radically different context.

Are you suggeting he used the image of his wife without her consent? That would indeed be inappropriate, but the article does not seem to support this accusation. The quote from her imply she is fine with it:

> "The beauty of the internet is that people can take things, and do what they want with them, to project what they want or feel," she says.

[runjake]

Do you feel the statue of David is sexual and/or sexist? What about the numerous Greek statues of completely nude, anatomically-accurate men?

Given my cultural background, it disturbs me that you’ve sexualized this photo enough to start casting the shadow of sexist offenses onto others, when it’s an opportunity for self-reflection. Why are you sexualizing this photo?

[eigenket]

> Do you feel the statue of David is sexual and/or sexist?

I'm not the person you asked but I feel like answering with my (unwanted) perspective. The statue of David, in its current context in a museum is not a particuarly sexual or sexist object. On the other hand if my employer (or whoever) started introducing equivalent statues of naked people (of any sex) into my workplace I would probably view that as innapropriate.

This is essentially how I view the image of Jennifer - in the context of a loving relationship between two people on the beach its a nice thing, but I would view it as a bit weird if someone at my workplace started sharing an equivalent picture of their partner.

[bazoom42]

The question is - is it you or Michelangelo who is the problem?

Some people are offendend by women having uncovered hair. Being offended does not mean everyone else have to accomodate you.

[enneff]

Yes you are a prude. There is nothing salacious about nudity especially at a beach!

[quietbritishjim]

If you are on the beach with them, sure. If you stick it in a PowerPoint in an office, that's a different matter. (Same as if it's a nearly-naked man for that matter.)

[haswell]

How and why does this make it a different matter? Photographs capture a moment in time. This moment occurred at a beach. It wasn’t sexual then, and it’s not sexual now.

If someone manipulated the image to be explicit or presented it in an obviously sexual context, that might be a different story, but even then, the original image itself was never inherently sexual.

I’d reframe this to point out the image is very natural, i.e. what could be more natural than experiencing nature in one’s natural state?

Seeing this as something sexual is a choice, and an unnecessary one at that.

[eigenket]

> How and why does this make it a different matter?

Context is important. I've spent time on nude beaches, that doesn't mean its appropriate to turn up to work with my dick out. What is appropriate in one place is weird in other places (it would also be weird to rock up to a nude beach in my work clothes).

[haswell]

Appropriateness is orthogonal to sexualization though.

Yes, context matters, but I fail to see anything about this particular context shift that is inherently sexual.

It’s also worth pointing out that exposing your genitalia is in a different category than taking your top off, and certainly different than implied toplessness.

[eigenket]

I fully agree that being topless at the beach is fine and cool, do whatever you like there. I also agree with the poster above who said it feels slightly weird to share a picture of that with people in a work environment.

[enneff]

I think if it were a frontal shot then sure I’d agree. But in this case I think if you draw anything sexual from that image then you are just way too horny and that’s your business and yours alone.

This is exactly the kind of image you would use to market Photoshop, a tool for image makers who are concerned with producing exactly this kind of idyllic, escapist scene.

[Mistletoe]

Ok, I encourage you to use this picture in your email signature at work or use it as your desktop wallpaper and see how far you get in 2024. And I think it is definitely a good thing it is like that now. How do you think women that worked where John Knoll was doing demos felt about the naked woman? Not sexualizing the workplace is better for everyone. Actually kind of dismayed to see HN be so "good ol' boy" on this one. It reminds me again how out of touch and male-dominated it is.

I love the photo, but it's a great photo for private use, not work use. I think you guys aren't paying attention to the HR videos you are supposed to be watching.

I do think John knew exactly what he was doing and that the killer app for Photoshop, computers, and the internet that would come after was sex.

[enneff]

I’m not interested in your hypotheticals when we can just talk about the actual use of the image. Why change the context? At the places I’ve worked it’s been unusual for people to even set a wallpaper and extremely unusual to use some arbitrary image in an email signature (like what??).

Maybe you should ask some women that you know what they would think about this actual scenario (not contrived scenarios), rather than presuming.

[mrbluecoat]

Let's try to be civil here. Name calling is unnecessary.

[enneff]

I’m not name calling. They said “maybe I’m a prude,” and I was just confirming it.

[lupusreal]

> The person is of an ambiguous build

Rude...

[fsckboy]

>The person is of an ambiguous build

wut? ambiguous on what dimension? That's a brick shithouse right there. (how's that slang for you, ESL learners!? it's definitely not an insult, and it's unisex so, not offensive, just means "good build")

[quietbritishjim]

> brick shithouse... just means "good build"

No, it means an exceptionally muscular build, which the subject of that photo doesn't have.

Anyway, the comment you're replying to clearly means "a build that leaves the gender ambiguous", not that the dimensions are ambiguous! You don't seem to really be disagreeing with that.

[zimpenfish]

> No, it means an exceptionally muscular build

Maybe in some places but north-west UK just means "kinda robust/big/thick" (e.g. could be a bouncer or wrestler) - there's no requirement for "exceptionally muscular". Akin of what kids these days use "absolute unit" for.

(quibbles aside, I agree with you - GP is wrong, not even slightly a "brick shithouse" by any of the definitions)

[fsckboy]

the Commodores' Brick House (with Lionel Ritchie) was a smash hit song and not at all about a muscular woman https://youtu.be/KzOJaHHlIcQ?t=20

it does not only mean exceptionally muscular (nor only mean what it means in some farflung gotham of Britain)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/built_like_a_brick_shithouse#...

in the picture she also is muscular, not like a body builder, but like a fit person showing definition (everybody working out or doing yoga was not "a thing" when that picture was taken)

[cafard]

> it means an exceptionally muscular build

In what dialect of English?

[quietbritishjim]

This is south London.

But also, it's just obvious from the words in the phrase. I assume that outside toilets were often just wooden shacks, so a brick one is notable for its robustness. Is that comparible with a beefy labourer's physique? Sure. Is comparible to a curvy, classically feminine body shape? That doesn't make sense.

As the sibling comment to this one says, it doesn't even just apply to people (in fact I'd say it primarily doesn't).

[defrost]

Well built usually, built better than expected, overbuilt, solid.

Jeffersonian, 'Straylin, British.

Here's Thomas Jefferson's Brick Shithouse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poplar_Forest6.jpg