Women's Health Magazine October 2021 Change Your Body [Single Issue Magazine] Hearst Plc

This is already like, in my opinion, where you've definitely desensitized or aren't understanding the implication of saving the image/post for later in front of someone just being seen as kind of creepy / weird. Disagree here. If a coworker was looking at the cover and said they wanted to look at more of the stuff in at home no one would blink an eye. https://www.amazon.com.au/Womens-Health-Magazine-October-Change/dp/B09GYNP2NM Similar pose (not a 1 for 1, but similar in the look over shoulder) This is inherently moving a goalpost because a real person isn't "drawn with intent", but even then the type of picture taken would change the intent of the image. Real photos are taken with intent. So not its not moving any goalpost. Also any of the images you show for the intent, no one I know in real life would call any of them NSFW, even though one is clearly more for a horny audiance. I wouldn't consider the depictions of women on Sports Illustrated super SFW in the first place, but it's definitely designed to be "treading the line". And yet both images you posted were not NSFW. They're on the racks at magazine counters, and not even in the little plastic bags. The first image does walk a line, it tantalize, it hints, and it doesnt show. But its still clearly SFW. And you're arguing that an entire issue of Sport Illistrated depicing women is just as NSFW as the Aura image posted. Lets do an exercise, and presume the Aura is the cover of a magazine, is the Aura more or less NSFW than rolling stones? https://www.google.com/imgres?q=rolling%20stone%20sexy%20magazine%20covers%20risque&imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.insider.com%2F4e4bfc64eab8ea6a6d00001b%3Fwidth%3D600%26format%3Djpeg%26auto%3Dwebp&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fbuffalo-study-covers-rolling-stone-women-sexualization-2011-8&docid=WItYM1_d98-pqM&tbnid=4MyGehPn1N6gjM&vet=12ahUKEwiws-u_k5qVAxXyZvUHHZydAjkQnPAOegQINhAA..i&w=600&h=711&hcb=2&ved=2ahUKEwiws-u_k5qVAxXyZvUHHZydAjkQnPAOegQINhAA (sorry for long goolge link) In comparison the Aura is tame, yet Rolling Stones can be in the waiting rooms of doctors offices nation wide, and we dont say its NSFW. I think you misunderstand that Porn and NSFW I really dont misunderstand. Ecci is not all nsfw either. Its a broad range from light teasing to almost full pornography. Its a catch all for anything that sits between a sunday church service and playboy. I think you are however misunderstanding the reasons people will call this NSFW, and it's because it's very clearly meant to provoke a sexualized response out of the viewer I do misunderstand, because just because its ment to evoke sexualization does not make it NSFW. Black Widow in her skin tight outfit was designed to do the same. It falls into SFW though. No ones going to say a damn thing watching Iron Man 2 about it. The issue is that, in comparison to content that is published for, and ment to be consumed in public areas the Aura image above less than what is in the SFW sphere. I have linked the womans health image, I'm sure someone sexualizes it. I have linked the rolling stones covers (I know for damn sure someone has sexualized that). Both would fall into the SFW. If the Aura was a billboard advertize a beer or candy, or even a casino (she's in the gold saucer) no one would think twice. All allowed in the public sphere and all would be considered by the broader public as SFW. Its suggestivty is less than a cover of rolling stones. This is why I do not understand calling it NSFW, it does not meet the metrics as established by broad cultural norms.