[forgotpasswd3x]

I seriously cannot imagine a work environment where it's ok for you to be reading this article sans images, but it wouldn't be ok to be reading this article with the graphics.

> When did Wired become NSFW?

More like when did caseysoftware decide to work somewhere stupid.

I work at a generic corporate america job. I've got a generic corporate america boss, and you know what? He wouldn't get any more upset with me for reading an article with that image in it than he'd get upset with me for reading some article so completely unrelated to work on the clock.

Women have breasts. If you work somewhere where images of breasts are more of an issue than you know... not working at work, then maybe you should just not work there. It's not Wired that's at fault. It's your ridiculously backwards employer.

[caseysoftware]

I usually don't respond to trolls but this time I will.

I'm less concerned about my employer - after all we have the post-slaughter Charlie Hebdo cover framed on the wall - and thinking more of female coworkers. In case you haven't noticed, there is a huge "women are oppressed!" theme being pushed.

True or not, something like this is likely to set them off and result in negative consequences for you.

[Lawtonfogle]

Simple.

Without image: A quick glance and they'll see IT words and won't care.

With image: A quick glance and OMGWTFBBQ FIRED!

At least in the US the standard around nudity/reproduction is extremely immature. I was helping on a health system once and the user having an issue with part of the system recording reproductive health info, they refused to email/attach screenshots of the problem and had to send it physically in a sealed folder like it was some top secret document.