Readers of the NYT are offended by a photo of a post-lumpectomy breast?

[question everything]

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/breast-cancer-survivor-responds-to-nyt-photo-controversy-202828081.html

When the New York Times ran a powerful front-page photo illustrating a breast-cancer gene story on Wednesday, it touched off a major controversy. One missing voice in the din, though, was that of the 28-year-old woman in the photo—whose face was not in the frame but whose upper torso, including a lumpectomy scar, small Star of David tattoo, and partial left areola were there for all to see. But on Monday she spoke out, albeit anonymously, to the New York Times.

(snip)

Criticism was fierce, though, both in the newspaper’s comments and letters section and elsewhere online, on blogs and in social media. People noted a variety of reasons for being shocked and offended, from the tattoo, which reminded some readers of the Holocaust, to the fact that the disembodied image did not include the woman’s face or head. But the biggest problem seemed to be that of the nearly exposed nipple, which readers called “trashy,” “inappropriate” and “risqué.” The Drudge Report called the photo a “Peep Show” in a headline, while freaked-out tweets talked about “boobs” and warned, “Areola above the fold!” The shots continued: The Daily Caller criticized the paper for using "boob shots," while Bustle noted that "the New York Times has managed to titillate and enrage the always-prim-and-proper Internet."

On the other side, of course, have been those lambasting the critics. “There was discussion over this? Grow up,” reads one tweet. Another comment included, "Really? All this fuss over an areola? Hoping one day we'll embrace human form instead of making it stupidly taboo?" and “As long as I live in America I will never get why nudity is so bad but violence is cool.”

Slate featured essays from both points of view, with Amanda Marcotte noting that it’s “grossly inappropriate to sexualize breast cancer” and Jessica Winter writing, in response, “If a woman sees her breasts as part of her personal and sexual identity, that doesn’t mean she’s somehow the self-objectifying victim of patriarchal social conditioning.”

(snip)

[TreasonousBastard]

1. I never cease to be amazed...

Really, never.

One of these days they'll find "pissed off over absolutely nothing" gene and we'll all be the better for it.

[deathrind]

2. Really!?!?

People were actually "outraged" over this. The ignorance in this country is stunning at times. Every story I read like this edges me one step closer to the belief that the movie "Idiocracy" was non-fiction disguised as fiction.

[Journeyman]

3. The only thing notable about the picture is that a Jew has a tattoo. . .

and a Jewish tattoo to boot.

And even that warrants from me, at most, a "meh."

[niyad]

4. all of this outrage over part of a breast? was there a run on pearls?