I understood the context quite easily. There were four, somewhat surrealistic, panels being described. Given the fact Harley Quinn is a comedy character you can assume its something being done for laughs. Knowing that the point of the issue (according to the easily accessible solicits) is Harley is looking for an artist to her new comic, its clear that they are going for some kind of Chuck Jones's inspired "Duck Amuck" lunacy.
Now, as for the sexualizing suicide, nonsense: one only has to read the description of the offending panel to realize the point of the panel isn't to titillate. She's nude, but nudity doesn't always correlate to sexuality. Secondly, the description of how they want the character's expression is clearly non-sexual.
So, yeah, it was pretty easy for me to figure out. But then, I'm not stupid, nor do I have an ax to grind with DC comics (or a website to shill that catalogs the company's many real missteps).
I understand the context as well. That doesn't change the fact that DC, a company which is constantly under fire from the internet for this type of thing, should have seen the potential for epic clusterfuck (and THIS website is the one that actually reported on the context, while hundreds of other, more popular, more "respected" sites went with DC WANTS YOU TO DRAW HARLEY QUINN NAKED KILLING HERSELF, just like all the mainstream sites that went with DC BLOCKS BATWOMAN GAY MARRIAGE). That's not The Outhouse grinding an ax - we were fairer than most sites that allegedly don't have an ax to grind.
The fact is, a casual observer could easily see how badly that contest go wrong, so why can't DC's paid, professional marketing department?
To argue that the story makes sense in context is a straw man argument, because nobody is claiming it doesn't make sense in context (though perhaps the topic of suicide used as a humorous plot device a week before worldwide suicide prevention day is an ill-considered choice under any circumstances). The real argument being made is that DC should have seen how easily this would be "misinterpreted" and either hedge their bets by explaining it better, or go with a different page entirely and avoid it.
But they didn't, because they are epicly stupid when it comes to PR.