Wouldn't visiting Fark at all be considered "not safe for work"? I presume most employers would lay the smack down on an employee who isn't doing their work and is browsing the web, whether it's reading an article or looking at a breast.

Just a thought.

uh...the meaning of breasteses depends on context. Janet's was just dumb, out-of-place, and obviously sexual. A mom giving suck to her kids isn't.

If anyone knows a US state in which breastfeeding is illegal, I'd be obliged if they'd name it, with links to the relevant law. I've seen women breastfeeding in public in red states. People do look away, but then again it's obviously impolite to stare.

And that woman DOES have a nice set of hee-hees.

I love fark

IT's the situation that wierds me out.

The president of a country, on a tour of a disaster zone, speaks to people while an AP photographer is snapping pictures. So far so good. But... the person he's talking to has a titty hanging out with a kid dangling off of it.

The bodyguard is the only guy with a grip on reality. Everyone else is trying to make pretend that there isn't a kid playing titty-tarzan in the middle of the picture.

There's a reason you don't see this every day: Some women have a little class, modesty, a sense of propriety and wrap the kid in a blanket to at least try and hide what's going on, but we are out of luck and good judgement in this case.

"You guys are a bunch of jerkoffs at a jerkoff festival, during jerkoff month."

I'm in the jerkoff semifinals at the Jerkoffapalooza. You make it sound like a bad thing.

pho-to-SHOP! pho-to-SHOP! pho-to-SHOP!

Bouncy bouncy bouncy!

2005-02-13 05:36:18 AM DixieNormus

IT's the situation that wierds me out.

The president of a country, on a tour of a disaster zone, speaks to people while an AP photographer is snapping pictures. So far so good. But... the person he's talking to has a titty hanging out with a kid dangling off of it.

The bodyguard is the only guy with a grip on reality. Everyone else is trying to make pretend that there isn't a kid playing titty-tarzan in the middle of the picture.

There's a reason you don't see this every day: Some women have a little class, modesty, a sense of propriety and wrap the kid in a blanket to at least try and hide what's going on, but we are out of luck and good judgement in this case.

You're assuming things about Venezuelan society and their concepts of what's in good taste, and what's not. This is a country where almost every church has a picture of Jesus macking down on Mary's tits in bright living colors. My bet is the person in the picture displaying no sense of propriety isn't the breast-feeding mother, it's the bodyguard using the opportunity for a free peep show.

Would it be in better taste to bottle feed the kid with contaminated water from the flooding? Amoebic dysentery shows loads of class.

lowdown: That picture is SFW. Breastfeeding is not porno.

Depends on where you work (the SFW part, that is). It doesn't have to be porno to offend someone and that someone could go to HR with it. Take note that I think that people like that are absurd but I've seen it happen over much less than a picture like this one.

On the other hand, at my previous job the boss wanted me to help him find porn on the Internet. Of course I obliged.

SouthernBeatnik:

Wouldn't visiting Fark at all be considered "not safe for work"? I presume most employers would lay the smack down on an employee who isn't doing their work and is browsing the web, whether it's reading an article or looking at a breast.

Just a thought.

Again, depends on where you work. Where I work we're pretty strict about a lot of things but we don't jump on people for surfing the net for a few minutes. Then again, ya'd best be doing it during your lunch hour.

We had a guy that surfed for at least 6.5 hours every day and was on his cell phone the rest of the time. He didn't do ANY farking work at all and got mad when they wrote him up. Then he mouthed off to his VP. When he "quickly left the company" people that sat in his area were literally dancing in the aisles.

I just noticed that the classiest person in the picture is Presidente Chavez---He's actually looking that woman straight in the eye. Wow.

Bonzo_1116:

I just noticed that the classiest person in the picture is Presidente Chavez---He's actually looking that woman straight in the eye. Wow.

That's because he's getting her phone number. Hell, it's obvious that she puts out.

Bonzo_1116:

I just noticed that the classiest person in the picture is Presidente Chavez---He's actually looking that woman straight in the eye. Wow

I'd bet in the seconds before or after that pic was snapped, good old Prez gave the baby a nice pat on the head, just to get a better look.

/Like I would have.

KidneyStone & coney
Oh, I'm sure he snuck a little peek after the pic, but at least he chatted her up first. Eyes first - boobies second, boys, and you'll never go wrong.

@Bonzo_1116

Valid points. But this is an AP wire, on the Intarweb; not some local rag. It's still wierding me out.

She puts the "tit" in "constituent."

...fapfapfapfapfapfap-

What?

circletimessquare: how is breastfeeding NSFW?

It may be perfectly ok from a sociatal point of view, but still not suitable for WORK. Remember, many fundamental rights, things such as freedom of speech, right to privacy, etc must be relinquished at your place of employment. If the company deems that offensive, you can be dismissed.

Jesus 2.0:
...your reasoning can equally be applied to, for example, explicit pictures of the act of defecation. Should we stop labelling them "NSFW"? It's okay with me if we do, but a lot of people probably feel otherwise.

Jesus are you ever dumb! errrr.... I mean, Jesus 2.0 are you ever dumb!

A kid breastfeeding or, say, even a boobie in a shampoo commercial is nothing to raise an eyebrow at in a reasonably civilised society. But taking a dump while you're talking to President Chavez or while trying to sell Head and Shoulders is still kinda gauche. You know, comparatively speaking and all. Except for the US and other crazy countries, where it's pretty much on par.

Seriously, why are you americans so damn afraid of the naked body? FARKING BREAST FEADING?! OH SAVE MY POOR EYES!

a) she is hot!
b) how in the world could you americans classify this picture as nsfw? breastfeeding a baby is the most normal and commonplace of activities there ever was! YOU HAVE ALL BEEN BREASTFED!
some people indeed have some serious puritan problems.
the worst part is that you make women guilty over their own bodies.

I submitted this as a Photoshop contest... never got the green light I guess :-(

mmm bitty...

2005-02-13 06:54:47 AM meridian

circletimessquare: how is breastfeeding NSFW?

It may be perfectly ok from a sociatal point of view, but still not suitable for WORK. Remember, many fundamental rights, things such as freedom of speech, right to privacy, etc must be relinquished at your place of employment. If the company deems that offensive, you can be dismissed.

last i checked, national law trumps company policy

if i worked for a wack company that said evolution was wrong and found me looking at pictures of trilobites on naturalhistory.com and reprimanded me for that reason and that reason alone, is that something you would respect?

so how can you ask me to respect a company policy that says breastfeeding will burn its employees eyes out, destroy their moral compass, and bring on the coming of the antichrist?

maybe an employee who saw a boobie lactating into a baby's mouth (the horror! the horror! my soul! it burns!), and was reprimanded for that reason and that reason alone has a nice case for a lawsuit on his hands?

so i'll tell you what: don't expect me to respect asshattery and i won't call you an asshat for expecting me to do so, how does that sound?

arno:
YOU HAVE ALL BEEN BREASTFED!
Um...no.


And it is NSFW at my work. Any boobie is NSFW at my work. No matter the context. I'm not risking it.

ha! only in America would people think a mother breastfeeding is weird. America is such a farked-in-the-head country when it comes to sex.....

Oh how, HOW could You Americans blah blah blah soapbox outrage boo-hoo-hoo--someone could see that picture from across a cubicle bank, discern only a very nice, supple young hogan, think it was some sort of porn picture, and go running off to tell someone's supervisor--then Farker in question would have to explain, no boss, Hugo Chavez, perfectly natural, yes boss, I actually do get paid to do real work on this computer and not argue with the smug nimrods on Fark--either way you run the risk of getting busted out for not working---

circletimessquare:so i'll tell you what: don't expect me to respect asshattery ...

Dude, I respect and agree with everything you say, but unfortunately large corporations really do live by a different set of fundamental rights... try excercising your freedom of speech by blogging negatively about your employer, for example, and see how long you last there. Its sucks, but that's the reality.... people and companies with power and money can usually trump many national laws and most certainly fundamental human rights.

cke-gt [TotalFark]

I don't know much about babies and such, but that kid looks like it should be eating hamburgers by now.

So now we have another reason why America so farked, at least compared to other western countries: American women pull the kids off of the teat so early. Maybe they put 'em off the teat because of prudishnesss or because they have to go back to work early. And so our kids don't get the proper nutrition, and thus have some sort of intellectual deficiency. Hence we have no universal healthcare like other western countries, and we are hyperreligious compared to other western nation....and we let our govt/corporations/media treat us live livestock....

/glad my momma did not work, and breast fed her kids all the way....

btw, good call, foog inc.--in 2008 I wanna see a candidate standing at the threashold of an open port-a-john kisssing the fontanelle of a baby being breast fed by a hyper obese Rennaisansse Festival attendee--Howard Dean would do it without batting an eyelash--

cry0fan:

all the way...to what? puberty?

/didn't have no momma
//drank Mountain Dew from infancy all the way

Borninfire: There are many statues of women with bare breasts, nobody biatches about those.

Borninfire, meet John Ashcroft. John Ashcroft, Borninfire.

listen, you're all jerky mcjerkwads...
At least those of you that are arguing the "safeness" of this woman's boob being safe for work.'

Face it, the USA is a puritan country that is offended by a breast, be it sexual or nurturing.
It's sad and I hate it but thats the way it is.

Some dickhead companies would fire you for looking at a boob online, no matter what its function is.

Get over it.

PS, that ISN'T George Bush's fault!

2005-02-13 07:28:16 AM meridian

circletimessquare:so i'll tell you what: don't expect me to respect asshattery ...

Dude, I respect and agree with everything you say, but unfortunately large corporations really do live by a different set of fundamental rights... try excercising your freedom of speech by blogging negatively about your employer, for example, and see how long you last there. Its sucks, but that's the reality.... people and companies with power and money can usually trump many national laws and most certainly fundamental human rights.

completely wrong

blogging about secrets or bad-mouthing your employer in a blog has nothing to do with free speech

meanwhile, censoring or allowing breastfeeding does not impact the bottom line, so it is a subject matter related only to free speech

but hurting your company's image does impact the bottom line, so it is more complicated than simply being about free speech

the whole point is that i am pointing to standards of behavior that are greater than corporate directives, while you seem to be asking me to meekly accept what the company says like a sheep

if someone were reprimanded for seeing breastfeeding at work, there would be a law suit there the employee could pursue, and that makes sense

but if someone bad-mouthed their employer in a blog, there would NOT be a lawsuit there the employee could take, and that also makes sense

freedom of speech does not allow you to say things like "fire!" in a crowded theatre

freedom of speech does not allow you to say "campbells soup puts dead babies in cream of mushroom soup and i know because i work there!" and hurt the company financially

freedom of speech has its limits, and that makes perfect sense

and you seem to be telling me i am wrong by telling me that the will of the corporation should be greater than free speech, and that i should accept that

and what i am telling you is that freedom of speech does beat the corporation, and that IS legally enforced... but your analogy to anti-employer blogging is not about free speech

a very impressive lunch indeed.

how is breastfeeding NSFW?

no, seriously, how farked up is our society if something this natural and nonsexual is so taboo?

Are you allowed to look at people taking a piss at work?

I'd suckle it.

If I masterbait to this does that make me a homosexual pedo???

STRYPERSWINE: Are you allowed to look at people taking a piss at work?


Bwaa-hahahahaha

STRYPERSWINE:

Are you allowed to look at people taking a piss at work?

Best point EVER made on Fark. EVER.

STRYPERSWINE has come out of nowhere and taken the lead. It looks like STRYPERSWINE may be the winner today.

try excercising your freedom of speech by blogging negatively about your employer, for example, and see how long you last there.

got interpreted as

blogging about secrets or bad-mouthing your employer in a blog has nothing to do with free speech

by circletimessquare

I'll dig a bit deeper in to your post momentarily, but come on, that's a gross exaggeration of what I see meridian discussing - blogging negatively, to me, implies putting down personal opinions and commenting about one's own life - if a great deal of time is spent at work, then you should be allowed to present your opinion of things...even if it is negative...

for instance:

"Here at company X, we just bought Gateway computers - I think it was a bad decision because I am partial to Dell for reasons a, b, c, blah blah this is a stupid blog anyway."

As for

but if someone bad-mouthed their employer in a blog, there would NOT be a lawsuit there the employee could take, and that also makes sense

freedom of speech does not allow you to say things like "fire!" in a crowded theatre

freedom of speech does not allow you to say "campbells soup puts dead babies in cream of mushroom soup and i know because i work there!" and hurt the company financially

freedom of speech has its limits, and that makes perfect sense


What rock are you living under? Of course there are legal courses of action to contest slander (mostly for the purposes of public record - such as a quote or perhaps the internet - but written forms are cases of libel...but you knew this, right?), and I agree that's fine. The cases you presented aren't about Free Speech, kiddo, you're presenting outright LIES and using them as evidence to whatever your misguided ends may be. What are you trying to get at? That corporations should be able to have their interpretations (much like your shiatty one up above) of the language and of Free Speech be enforced through law suits? Hmmm? Seriously, I'm interested to see where you're going with this...

Free Speech is a protection of individual thought, collective voices, and what our society deems 'appropriate' (even Flynt deserves credit for testing it)...but the petty crap you brought up is, in my opinion, not worth talking about - when a person is lying to a public (and knows full well they are) or mileading them with malicious intent, that's not Free Speech. If a person wants to get a permit from the city and give a Black Panther Party sponsored gathering with public speakers, more power to them.

Go back to your sandbox.

great job STRYPERSWINE you just outed that you have four different accounts!

circletimessquare
MEN are accountable for the arousal they feel from seeing a naked a woman, and there is nothing wrong with feeling aroused unless you are a farking rapist with poor impulse control

So...by that logic, women should be allowed to run around naked everywhere?

This reminds me or the Family Guy episode where Peter is getting in touch with his fem side and lets Stewie suck his boob...Stewie wakes up and and shutters and chokes as he picks Peters boob curlies out of his mouth..

/Gold, pure comedy gold..

That is so funny.
If idiot-boy did that Ashcroft and Fatso Falwell would be on suicide watch.

So...by that logic, women should be allowed to run around naked everywhere?

Works for me. We just need to make sure some standards are in place, like we should have for Spandex shorts.

Remember ladies, it's a privilege, not a right.

That is an odd picture.

I, too, love Fark.

2005-02-13 08:53:53 AM sp0rk_of_psychosis

what the heck are you babbling about? there is nothing you said that contradicts what i said or vice versa. you presented various free speech scenarios that have nothing to do with the scenarios i was presenting, and then acted like i stood against free speech... huh?

2005-02-13 09:04:03 AM Mouser

So...by that logic, women should be allowed to run around naked everywhere?

of course not, but i will say this:

if some hypothetical totally hot naked chick you didn't know walked by you, you are completely entitled to strike up a conversation with her, and to follow that conversation where ever it leads, but nothing more if she avoids your advances

simply because she wasn't wearing clothes doesn't entitle you to anything more or less in terms of what you can do with her

what the heck am i talking about?

i'm going with the utterly impossible hypothetical situation you present to make my point: personal accountability always exists

whatever you say to someone else or do to someone else is completely on you, and you cannot blame your bad behavior on her female body, however scantily clothed

you can blame your male arousal on her female body, but that's the whole point: male arousal is not bad behavior

there are male dimwits out there who think that the woman is to blame for them acting bad, but they are the ones who confuse bad behavior with male arousal

that's the same logic as "don't make me hit you"

huh?

all i'm arguing for is the notion of a strong sense of personal accountability, and a woman's state of dress doesn't excuse that