…and this is a 
I had a premonition that this would happen: that when I wrote about The Strange Case of the Woman with a Breast on her Foot someone would suggest that I should have put a "Not Safe For Work" warning on it, even ironically, perhaps. It's such a common thing, that we voluntarily self-censor; I've done it a few times myself, and have felt weird about it. Why should we be at all concerned about linking to a website that might have a picture of a bare breast (or even stranger, a nipple on a foot)? It's not as if it should be regarded as hideous or offensive, and it's a bit creepy that we so willingly denigrate the appearance of the human body.
At the same time, would anyone regard that ghastly video in the Rivers of blood post to be "not safe for work"? Probably not. We get all hypersensitive about a little healthy exposed flesh, but animals getting their throats cut? Nah, you aren't going to get fired for seeing that.
Fortunately, Susie Bright has an excellent post on this very subject. Go ahead and follow that link. I promise, there are no eviscerated animals, horrific traffic accidents, corpses, videos from Iraq, or photos of factories belching toxins into the atmosphere at that site. It might not be safe for prudes to read, but there's nothing to offend people with healthier attitudes. And it's a good message: don't be embarrassed by normal, healthy, positive images of people.
Comments
Posted by: itwasntme | March 13, 2007 6:16 PM
Just wanted to drop this into the bucket: breasts are modified sweat glands, as any woman who has breast-fed her child can tell you: the let-down response is frequently accompanied by sweating all over the body, especially when your'e just starting out with breastfeeding after giving birth
Posted by: Alex | March 13, 2007 6:21 PM
"don't be embarrassed by normal, healthy, positive images of people"
Outstanding! I for one would love to see more articles posted here containing images of scantily covered (or bare) "controversial" female body parts. But please, make sure the "parts" are all still connected and functional. I have a weak stomach.
Posted by: itwasntme | March 13, 2007 6:22 PM
BTW, I have a lot to say about early possible evolution of breastfeeding, when to wean vis a vis "potty training", possible tribal implications for early hominids, its effects of the smell of babies, etc., that I haven't seen anywhere else, and probably nobody cares. But if somebody is doing any research, I have some info to pass along.
Posted by: Owen | March 13, 2007 6:37 PM
Apparently some of those prudes are the networking team where I work... Guess I'll have to check back later.
Posted by: Andy Cunningham | March 13, 2007 6:43 PM
Owen, the prudes are actually the lawyers and senior managers who told the network guys what to block.
We block this stuff because the company tells us to, not because we get our kicks from randomly blocking your surfing.
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 13, 2007 6:43 PM
I heartily agree, and thank you for the Susie Bright post, whose blog led me to some books my wife and I intend to acquirq posthaste. ^.^
Posted by: Efogoto | March 13, 2007 6:48 PM
Heh. My office also has a filter that refused to let me link to Susie Bright's page due to "Pornography". No knock on our techs, Andy, just ironic given PZ linking to it to promote non-prudishness.
Posted by: Buffybot | March 13, 2007 6:52 PM
That's bizarre - in that context it looks more like a veruca than a nipple.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 13, 2007 6:53 PM
cn't stnd cnsrshp f n knd. Hwvr, d nj dsmvwllng, whch s strngl fn t dcphr.
Posted by: writerdd | March 13, 2007 7:06 PM
If you work for prudes who try to censor you, get a new job.
Posted by: Zombie | March 13, 2007 7:08 PM
*sigh*
"NSFW" has nothing to do with bosses, companies, or whatever being either prudish (as liberals often object) or politically correct (the usual conservative complaint).
It's about legal liability in the court system. Policies exist so companies have a defense when somebody sues them. That's the whole thing.
Employees have no choice in the matter - just because something doesn't offend me in the slightest doesn't protect me from somebody else complaining, and my boss might have little choice either. Unfortunately, the legal system being what it is, companies have no choice but to use the most conservative interpretation possible, because the alternative is a risk of expensive and pointless litigation.
If you want to fight the power, go ahead and stop identifying material that might cause somebody problems. You aren't required to identify anything on your blog. Unfortunately, that means some people, through no fault or prudishness of their own, will not be able to read the blog on work equipment.
Posted by: Kristine | March 13, 2007 7:09 PM
I think I need to put that "Not Safe for Prudes" sign on my blog. May I? ;-)
Posted by: Greg Laden | March 13, 2007 7:16 PM
itwasntme:
This comes under my area, though not central to my own work, I do have a PhD student writing her thesis on this.
Oh, and speaking of NSFW: You know BlogSpot, which fore example is where Larry Moran's blog "Sandwalk" is hosted? My wife, a HS teacher, can't get to any blogspot sites from her school computer. I think there are several domains turned off in her school.
That is simply an example of caution causing damage. For example, Larry has a lot of posts that would be perfect for her AP bio class ... like the molecule of the week, etc. Not to mention who knows what on other blogspot hosted sites.
Posted by: Greg Laden | March 13, 2007 7:26 PM
By the way, I've heard NSFW actually stands for: "Now Show Friends and Workmates."
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 13, 2007 7:28 PM
Right, because job openings that a given worker has the skills to acquire, in companies that won't have similar censorship policies, just grow on trees...
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 13, 2007 7:36 PM
I think PZ's deeper point is that we're letting prudish conservatives dictate to us what's offensive.
Even when we get home- we can watch brutal scenes of murder and torture on TV or in the cinema, but unless we pay the big bucks to get HBO- we can't see any nudity or people talking in adult language.
Posted by: Josh | March 13, 2007 7:36 PM
I'll have to take your word that Susie Bright's post is a good one, because I keep getting redirected to some Typepad page whenever I try to read it. Seems to be broken.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 13, 2007 7:40 PM
Josh the link works for me.
http://susiebright.blogs.com/susie_brights_journal_/2007/03/so_what_do_you_.html
Posted by: FerretFan | March 13, 2007 7:46 PM
Hey, someone stole that ferret-in-jailstripes image from a group trying to get ferrets legalized in California. It doesn't make a sense to have the ferret in that clothing in the context of "Not Safe for Prudes".
At least take the stripes off its clothing. No self-respecting ferret would ever wear stripes like that while admonishing prudes, come on!
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 13, 2007 7:55 PM
I'm also reminded of Zappa's testimony to congress about offensive lyrics in rock music.
http://downlode.org/Etext/zappa.html
Well worth reading.
Posted by: coz | March 13, 2007 8:00 PM
I don't mind the NSFW thing, some workplaces are pretty strict, may not make sense but sometimes is easier not to get caught looking at something woogly. Just wait till you get home to oggle over it.
I can't see how the breast foot is NSFW, it looks like a boil to me.
Greg- I like this and it is so true 'By the way, I've heard NSFW actually stands for: "Now Show Friends and Workmates."'
Posted by: MaverickRonin | March 13, 2007 9:12 PM
NSFW isn't supposed to be some form of voluntarily self-censorship. Its supposed to be a friendly warning to someone who might have a prude over their shoulder. Normally your blog is safe work at pretty much any workplace but the DI so most people wouldn't have to worry about accessing it in mixed company. A hyperlink can lead to anything and you won't know what till you click on it and by then it may be too late.
Your Rivers of blood post didn't need a warning because it described the video it was linking to in enough detail do let people know what they were going to see. The breast foot post just has a picture of a breast-like-object on the front page without any warning. If you were particularly unlucky you might just hit your Pharyngula bookmark hoping for some more young-earth creationists to make fun of or a cool squid picture, but instead you'd end up spending the rest of your day trying to convince someone that you don't visit really strange porn sites.
Posted by: Elayne Riggs | March 13, 2007 10:30 PM
What Zombie and MaverickRonin said. It's a legal thing on the part of the company, and a common courtesy thing on the part of the poster. That so many people are APPLAUDING the idea of NOT having common courtesy when you don't know the situation of anyone who views the sites to which you link plays right into the hands of the radical reactionaries who are always intimating we're not being decent and respectful bloggers. Yeah, I know, it may not matter to you what they think, but we don't have to go proving them correct either.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 13, 2007 11:09 PM
Yes, lets censor ourselves so that we don't give the Christian conservatives an excuse to fire or sue us.
Let's sit back and hope that the coming theocracy treats us kindly.
Let's continue to vote for nice-mannered democrats that don't get all uppity about unjustified wars and won't upset the religious right.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 13, 2007 11:14 PM
Oh- and don't forget that we have to send a message to the terrorists that they shouldn't attack us- because we too are scared of the naked body.
Posted by: Amy | March 13, 2007 11:51 PM
I disagree with many of the comments here and on Susie Bright's Page (but not her whole premise). There are things that are unsuitable for work environments and that most certainly includes naked pictures of ANYONE. As a female who works mostly with guys I have had to put up with a lot of shit. We have come a very long way and I am happy for it. Unless you have been sexually harassed or have had to put up with a barrage of dirty jokes against your will, you will never understand how stressful and demeaning that is. I don't care how PC that is. PC is just right-wing bullshit against common decency anyway. Most employers have had the good sense to censor the things that people can view at work and rightfully so. I do not put up with sexually suggestive items in my workplace; no one should. You can call me a prude if you want (I am not). I am just in favor of boundaries. Some things do not belong at work. Now that wouldn't include the breast on the foot thing; that's just sort of strange.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | March 14, 2007 12:24 AM
Amy, I'm not in favor of having people spending the workday reading explicit material on their computers. I have sympathy for your POV.
But by the same token- do you imagine that the risk of sexual harassment is decreased by blocking access to either PZ's or Bright's blogs at work?
Posted by: archgoon | March 14, 2007 1:55 AM
Wow. PZ had a premonition of my actions.
Did you happen to write it down? I can get a ton of cred in certain circles if I can demonstrate that my actions are those of prophecy. :)
Posted by: Robert M. | March 14, 2007 10:23 AM
My first reaction to the picture was "Hey, what's that weird thing on her foot?" Without the accompanying text, I doubt I could have identified it.
An NSFW warning seems superfluous when you need an explanation to figure out what in the picture is inappropriate for the office.
Posted by: Frumious B | March 15, 2007 4:25 PM
CB:
Risk? No. But one avenue for sexual harassment is shut down by restricting porn.
Will restricting porn shut down all avenues for sexual harassment? No. Does that mean we shouldn't restrict it? Don't be rediculous. Claiming that a solution which isn't 100% is not worth implementing is just a way to wiggle out of having to do anything at all.
----
Anyway, those of us who are sensitive to our workmates' sensibilities, even the prudish ones, appreciate knowing not just when we might trigger the filter (which is logged), but also when we risk having a pic on our screen that someone we work with would be offended by. We might choose to look, anyway, but at least we know to turn our monitor away.