[mnw21cam]

I agree. Different people have very different thresholds for what is "sexual", so it's incorrect to make a blanket statement that it is not sexual. It's sexual for a decent proportion of people - just the fact that this article was tagged NSFW shows that.

[diggan]

> It's sexual for a decent proportion of people - just the fact that this article was tagged NSFW shows that

I don't think it shows that at all. Any content not suitable for a work computer in the typical office gets a NSFW label, it's literally in the name. An image of some war-time event can be as NSFW as an image of a woman removing her clothes, and at the same time neither images can be sexual.

[spacemadness]

Yeah it’s certainly not safe for work. Should it be? I mean, ideally yes. In practice? Hell no. I don’t need Karen from accounting coming up with her own reasons why I’m looking at a naked pregnant lady even though I know there is nothing wrong with it.

[kube-system]

> It's sexual for a decent proportion of people - just the fact that this article was tagged NSFW shows that.

Most workplaces would find there to be many categories of inappropriate things other than sexual content: violence, profanity, non-sexual imagery of people in unprofessional contexts, etc.

[mnw21cam]

I don't think anyone is seriously considering that this article was flagged as NSFW for the reasons you quote.

[kube-system]

Office environments expect a certain degree of modesty, far beyond most people's bar for "sexuality".