NSFW is definitely a sliding (multi-dimensional) scale, and different cultures and work places place themselves differently on it. At a previous workplace (software department in a manufacturing company in Western Europe) a women with only the lower half of her bikini laying on a beach was fine as a desktop background as long as you couldn't see her nipples. At a different company in field service exposed frontal breasts were still SFW. Meanwhile in many other jobs you would get in trouble for far less.

Many years ago, I worked a printing company, and several of our accounts were local porn mags and an adult newspaper that was basically escort ads. The account reps loved those jobs.

Are there shows you'd be comfortable having paused fullscreen in a work environment?

Just doing so would suggest you aren't actually working (on its own a problem in many cultures).

I probably wouldn't do this in a shared office, but I'm pretty open about the fact that I often like to have a show in the background while I work. Keeps my mind from wandering too far if I have a momentary pause for a big download or a long compile or something. And a lot of people find moderate background noise helps them focus. I've been through every Star Trek multiple times and am plenty productive at work. But Bay Watch isn't something I would want coworkers to see. Nipples or no nipples, it's trying to sexualize / objectify about as much as they could get away with in prime time TV. I can't go join a meeting about inclusive culture with my female coworkers if they just saw me staring at Pamela Anderson's bouncing tits in the middle of the workday.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. My statement was not a defense of watching Baywatch but rather a comment on watching everything being highly dependent on your workplace situation and culture.

In an office setting the background noise can be highly disruptive, for example.

Though Star Trek had its moments as well.

How can you call yourself Beef Wellington when you aren't even familiar with the concept of lunch

Well, unless you work for NBC that is.

High jacking the top comment to include my epiphany that "work" is really relative. I used to work at a place that had playboys in the bathroom. We should replace NSFW with NSFC - Not Safe for Childern.

> Not Safe for Childern.

Which is also a debatable because I don't think there's much resarch indicating that images of naked people are in any way harmful for children.

Maybe NSFPP? Not safe for parents and puritans?

"Images of naked people" and "sexualised images of naked people" are different things. A six year-old reading Playboy is totally different to a six year-old visiting a nudist beach.

Or just "contains nudity". I always found it strange that people seem more worried about kids seeing naked people than they are about kids being exposed to violence.

Not Safe for Children according to who? And how do you define children?

And some people actually work at playboy - they have a website after all.