Protesters to Facebook: Breast-feeding does not equal obscenity

[1069]

Protesters to Facebook: Breast-feeding does not equal obscenity

By Lisa M. Krieger, Mercury News
12/26/2008

Protesting a Facebook ban on photographs of lactating breasts, mothers are staging a "nurse in'' today at the site's headquarters in downtown Palo Alto.

A simultaneous "virtual protest" will be held online, when women change their standard Facebook snapshot to a photo of themselves nursing — or, in the spirit of the holidays, an image of Madonna with child. Even an image of any mammal feeding her young will do, say organizers with the group Mothers International Lactation Campaign.

Facebook has removed these photos from members' albums and profiles, saying that displays of areola — the dark skin around the nipple — violate the company's policy regarding "obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit" material. Facebook also threatened to terminate the members' accounts. The social-networking site MySpace also has deleted photos of babies nursing from exposed breasts.

"What about a baby breast-feeding is obscene? Especially in comparison to MANY other pictures posted all over Facebook that really are obscene?'' the event organizers asked on their Web site, called "Hey Facebook, breast-feeding is not obscene!''

One of the images deleted was a portrait of San Jose's Patricia Madden and daughters Zoe and Isobel, photographed while feeding in the bathtub. The birth doula, who encourages new mothers to breast-feed, was photographed by her husband.

"It's amazing to me that we're living in a world where people are upset by this,'' she said. "You can't see my nipples. It's completely legal to breast-feed in public. Breast-feeding is completely natural and healthy. They took off the photo, without my permission.''

Facebook says its policies are designed to ensure its Web site remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users, including the many teenagers who use the site.

>snip<


link

What do y'all think about this?

 

[DeeJayH]

more important things to be concerned about in this world

 

[jallman]

I think it's about stupid and I hope facebook bans every account that has the picture changed to something that has been made clear is against the site's policy.

 

[Arcana XV]

I think Facebook are being retarded. There's nothing wrong, obscene or sexually explicit about a mother breastfeeding her child. It's not something I wouldn't want my kid to see on the internet, even when she was really little.

Deleting the photos was an idiotic decision. And the reason they give for deleting them, wanting to keep the site "safe" and a "secure and trusted" environment for teenagers. What a crock! There's nothing even remotely threatening about a mother breastfeeding a baby. If I think of an image that depicts "safe and secure" in the best possible way, a baby nursing in her mother's arms would definitely come to mind.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Allowing photos of breast feeding would lead to facebook being put on the ban list for many internet filters, which is even more serious now that certain nations are creating official national filters. Facebook has a lot more to lose by allowing the photos than they have to gain. If anything they should ammend their policy to read that nudity is banned period, rather than going with obscene/pornographic

 

[DeeJayH]

one can surely find a way to take a picture of a woman breastfeeding her child without the need to show the areola
and it is the areola which seems to be the violation of TOS
not the breast feeding it has been spun into

 

[Dynamic]

I don't think there is a problem with breast feeding....but why the **** would you post pictures of it? That's kind of creepy to me. I breast fed my kids...but I tried to keep it as discreet as possible. There's nothing wrong with being proud of breast feeding your children..but is it really necessary to post pictures of it?
The other side of it is, women are not wanting new mothers to shy away from breast feeding their children or to view it as sexual. And since the site is comparing the act of breast feeding to pornography I can see why people are outraged by it. It certainly is not sexual to breast feed a child. Now if the boob is just there by itself I could see a problem, but a baby attached to a breast? Who views that as sexual?

 

[Dynamic]

one can surely find a way to take a picture of a woman breastfeeding her child without the need to show the areola
and it is the areola which seems to be the violation of TOS
not the breast feeding it has been spun into

That depends. Some women have areolas half the size of their breasts. And the bigger areolas tend to come with larger breasts...so that's not always true.

 

[DeeJayH]

just so long as you do not expect me to care :shrug:

 

[Dr_Patrick]

For far too long in our society people have automatically associated nudity with pornography. People like this are uptight and enjoy getting offended by insignificant **** like this so that they can feel like their life has meaning and that they are passionate about "important" issues. This really should come as no surprise to anyone.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

I don't think there is a problem with breast feeding....but why the **** would you post pictures of it? That's kind of creepy to me. I breast fed my kids...but I tried to keep it as discreet as possible. There's nothing wrong with being proud of breast feeding your children..but is it really necessary to post pictures of it?
The other side of it is, women are not wanting new mothers to shy away from breast feeding their children or to view it as sexual. And since the site is comparing the act of breast feeding to pornography I can see why people are outraged by it. It certainly is not sexual to breast feed a child. Now if the boob is just there by itself I could see a problem, but a baby attached to a breast? Who views that as sexual?

Why is a woman's breast by itself sexual? What exactly is sexual about that? Would you consider a statue of a nude woman to be sexual or a classic painting? The problem with our society is that we have gotten so uptight and on edge about nudity that we automatically associate it to sex.

 

[ADK_Forever]

Why is a woman's breast by itself sexual? What exactly is sexual about that? Would you consider a statue of a nude woman to be sexual or a classic painting? The problem with our society is that we have gotten so uptight and on edge about nudity that we automatically associate it to sex.

The truth is that the display of pubic hair is also mostly forbidden and it certainly is no sex organ. To argue that the breast is not a sex organ so it should be displayable is really ignoring reality. Some people do look at breasts as sexual and that is reality. Facebook is a private biz and has the right to establish its own TOS. You agree to that when you join. They also probably are sensitive to kids seeing these photos and upsetting their parents, as well as all those right wingers who know what is best for everyone.

Bottom line: It's FB's website and their rules. Want to flash junior eating breakfast? Put it on your own website.

Personally, I feel that displaying breasts is like in the song:

I AIN'T NEVER HAD TOO MUCH FUN- Trace Adkins

Blue lights flashing in my rear view
The sheriff said Boy I should have known it was you
You got 14 people in the back of this truck
I warned you twice and now I'm writing you up
I said officer what have I've done
He smiled and said boy you're having too much fun

Chorus:
Too much fun whats that mean
It's like too much money, there's no such thing
It's like a girl too pretty, with too much class
Being too lucky, a car too fast
No matter what they say I've done, well I ain't never had too much fun

There was a fight Friday night at the Stumble Inn
Me and old Harley just had to join in
Next thing you know we were both seeing stars
They threw us out, closed down the bar
I said the Long Branch is open, the nights still young
and we ain't never had too much fun

Chorus:
Too much fun whats that mean
It's like too much money, there's no such thing
Its like a girl too pretty, with too much class
Being too lucky, a car too fast
No matter what they say I've done, well I ain't never had too much fun

Im a holy terror, a tornado
wind me up turn me loose and let me go

Chorus:
Too much fun whats that mean
It's like too much money, there's no such thing
Its like a girl too pretty, with too much class
Being too lucky, a car too fast
No matter what they say I've done, well I ain't never had too much fun

No matter what they say I've done, well I ain't never had too much fun
Give me the reins and let me run
cuz I ain't never had too much fun

You could change:
"No matter what they say I've done, well I ain't never had too much fun"
to
Too much fun whats that mean
It's like too much money, there's no such thing
Its like a girl too pretty, with too much class
Being too lucky, a car too fast.
No matter how they make their tests,
... I ain't never seen too many breasts! :lol:

 

[Dr_Patrick]

The truth is that the display of pubic hair is also mostly forbidden and it certainly is no sex organ. To argue that the breast is not a sex organ so it should be displayable is really ignoring reality. Some people do look at breasts as sexual and that is reality. Facebook is a private biz and has the right to establish its own TOS. You agree to that when you join. They also probably are sensitive to kids seeing these photos and upsetting their parents, as well as all those right wingers who know what is best for everyone.

Some may view breasts as sexual, but that doesn't change the fact that is a completely subjective view. I personally don't view the breast as sexual. I think it's rather sad and pathetic that something which is used primarily to feed is viewed as sexual by itself simply because some people (mostly men) view it that way. There's nothing sexual about a baby getting fed. If someone gets off on that then they obviously have a cog loose.

And yes, Facebook has every right to do what they want. However, I'm referring to this as a larger scale issue because it isn't just limited to Facebook. A lot of people get offended when women breastfeed in public. It's idiotic to me that anyone would actually get offended by a woman feeding her child.

 

[ADK_Forever]

Some may view breasts as sexual, but that doesn't change the fact that is a completely subjective view. I personally don't view the breast as sexual. I think it's rather sad and pathetic that something which is used primarily to feed is viewed as sexual by itself simply because some people (mostly men) view it that way. There's nothing sexual about a baby getting fed. If someone gets off on that then they obviously have a cog loose.

And yes, Facebook has every right to do what they want. However, I'm referring to this as a larger scale issue because it isn't just limited to Facebook. A lot of people get offended when women breastfeed in public. It's idiotic to me that anyone would actually get offended by a woman feeding her child.

I'm not arguing with you, just giving my opinion on the subject. If breasts weren't viewed as sexual all those implants wouldn't be sold and implanted. Many people appreciate nudity as art but, that doesn't give me the right to walk around naked. A balance has to be met when it comes to the larger population. Some parents are fine with walking around nude in front of their little kids. Some think it's a sin for them to look at women in bikinis or thongs. It's not any one person or website's right to tell everyone what is right for them. However, they have the right to run their business in such a way as to attract and keep as many customers as they can. Forbidding breast feeding is one of those measures. And for the record, I think breast feeding in public and posting pics of it are two different things.

 

[jallman]

Facebook is privately owned and they have every right to establish whatever rules they wish in regards to what the site finds acceptable or not. I couldn't give two curses about the breast feeding picture issue. What I find idiotic is that these people think that by intentionally violating the TOS of the site, they are going to force it to comply.

Ban 'em all if they don't like the rules, **** 'em. Let 'em go to myspace or something.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Facebook is privately owned and they have every right to establish whatever rules they wish in regards to what the site finds acceptable or not.

Yes and consumers have every right to express their discontent with its business practices. People like you always seem to spout complete freedom in terms of business on the basis that consumers have the choice, but when it comes down to it you always side with the business against the consumers.

This really is an interesting issue, though, considering the fact that the line between what is "sexual/immoral" and what is "nonsexual/moral" is being directly challenged. The idea that a breast is always and in every circumstance sexual-immoral is ridiculous, obviously, and that sort of absolutism is what is being criticized by this. I definitely support them because of that.

 

[jallman]

Yes and consumers have every right to express their discontent with its business practices. People like you always seem to spout complete freedom in terms of business on the basis that consumers have the choice, but when it comes down to it you always side with the business against the consumers.

This really is an interesting issue, though, considering the fact that the line between what is "sexual/immoral" and what is "nonsexual/moral" is being directly challenged. The idea that a breast is always and in every circumstance sexual-immoral is ridiculous, obviously, and that sort of absolutism is what is being criticized by this. I definitely support them because of that.

I absolutely am siding with the business. Protesting is fine but accept the consequences when you break the TOS.

 

[Jerry]

Protesters to Facebook: Breast-feeding does not equal obscenity

By Lisa M. Krieger, Mercury News
12/26/2008

Protesting a Facebook ban on photographs of lactating breasts, mothers are staging a "nurse in'' today at the site's headquarters in downtown Palo Alto.

A simultaneous "virtual protest" will be held online, when women change their standard Facebook snapshot to a photo of themselves nursing — or, in the spirit of the holidays, an image of Madonna with child. Even an image of any mammal feeding her young will do, say organizers with the group Mothers International Lactation Campaign.

Facebook has removed these photos from members' albums and profiles, saying that displays of areola — the dark skin around the nipple — violate the company's policy regarding "obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit" material. Facebook also threatened to terminate the members' accounts. The social-networking site MySpace also has deleted photos of babies nursing from exposed breasts.

"What about a baby breast-feeding is obscene? Especially in comparison to MANY other pictures posted all over Facebook that really are obscene?'' the event organizers asked on their Web site, called "Hey Facebook, breast-feeding is not obscene!''

One of the images deleted was a portrait of San Jose's Patricia Madden and daughters Zoe and Isobel, photographed while feeding in the bathtub. The birth doula, who encourages new mothers to breast-feed, was photographed by her husband.

"It's amazing to me that we're living in a world where people are upset by this,'' she said. "You can't see my nipples. It's completely legal to breast-feed in public. Breast-feeding is completely natural and healthy. They took off the photo, without my permission.''

Facebook says its policies are designed to ensure its Web site remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users, including the many teenagers who use the site.

>snip<


link

What do y'all think about this?

The protest is just and this will be over soon.

Facebook is just trying to protect themselves from a lawsuit. They'll fold as soon as the protest gives them something to defend themselves with in court; and overwhelming public opinion that breastfeeding is not obscene is just what they need.

 

[Jerry]

For far too long in our society people have automatically associated nudity with pornography. People like this are uptight and enjoy getting offended by insignificant **** like this so that they can feel like their life has meaning and that they are passionate about "important" issues. This really should come as no surprise to anyone.

Was there any mention of the public being offended?

 

[Jerry]

Why is a woman's breast by itself sexual? What exactly is sexual about that? Would you consider a statue of a nude woman to be sexual or a classic painting? The problem with our society is that we have gotten so uptight and on edge about nudity that we automatically associate it to sex.

Again, where in the article did "society" get offended?

I only saw the Facebook saw a policy violation...what did I miss?

 

[Graffight]

Protesters to Facebook: Breast-feeding does not equal obscenity

By Lisa M. Krieger, Mercury News
12/26/2008

Protesting a Facebook ban on photographs of lactating breasts, mothers are staging a "nurse in'' today at the site's headquarters in downtown Palo Alto.

A simultaneous "virtual protest" will be held online, when women change their standard Facebook snapshot to a photo of themselves nursing — or, in the spirit of the holidays, an image of Madonna with child. Even an image of any mammal feeding her young will do, say organizers with the group Mothers International Lactation Campaign.

Facebook has removed these photos from members' albums and profiles, saying that displays of areola — the dark skin around the nipple — violate the company's policy regarding "obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit" material. Facebook also threatened to terminate the members' accounts. The social-networking site MySpace also has deleted photos of babies nursing from exposed breasts.

"What about a baby breast-feeding is obscene? Especially in comparison to MANY other pictures posted all over Facebook that really are obscene?'' the event organizers asked on their Web site, called "Hey Facebook, breast-feeding is not obscene!''

One of the images deleted was a portrait of San Jose's Patricia Madden and daughters Zoe and Isobel, photographed while feeding in the bathtub. The birth doula, who encourages new mothers to breast-feed, was photographed by her husband.

"It's amazing to me that we're living in a world where people are upset by this,'' she said. "You can't see my nipples. It's completely legal to breast-feed in public. Breast-feeding is completely natural and healthy. They took off the photo, without my permission.''

Facebook says its policies are designed to ensure its Web site remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users, including the many teenagers who use the site.

>snip<


link

What do y'all think about this?

I just wonder why women want so badly to be able to show their breast...does it really matter? i mean I don't find it offensive, nor do i think that it shouldn't be done in public or anything like that, but geese what's the big deal...some people find it offensive, some children don't need to see boobies and nipples flailing all over the place, some men do find breasts sexual...no matter what they are being used for. why is it such a big deal that facebook doesn't want to get involved in any of that? Why do women neeeed to show themselves breastfeeding without covering the boob up?

 

[1069]

I just wonder why women want so badly to be able to show their breast...does it really matter? i mean I don't find it offensive, nor do i think that it shouldn't be done in public or anything like that, but geese what's the big deal...some people find it offensive, some children don't need to see boobies and nipples flailing all over the place, some men do find breasts sexual...no matter what they are being used for. why is it such a big deal that facebook doesn't want to get involved in any of that? Why do women neeeed to show themselves breastfeeding without covering the boob up?

Perhaps it's the hypocrisy of men (however chubby they are, however large their breasts are) being permitted to walk around in public flailing their boobies and nipples at everyone in sight, while women are forced to cover theirs, no matter how small and inoffensive they are, even though women are the ones with an actual, practical reason to have their boobies out in the first place: to breastfeed conveniently.

I am fortunate to live in a city- possibly the only city in the US- where women are legally allowed to go topless in public. The public nudity/ obscenity laws are exactly the same for men and women here: genitals and anuses must be covered. And that's it.
It's been that way since the late 60s or early 70s, when dozens if not hundreds of women, including many nursing mothers, protested the sexist laws that forced them to keep their breasts covered.
I find it a shame that so much of the country is still so behind the times.
This is not much different than forcing women to wear burkas. it's only a matter of degree.
Some cultures find women's faces- especially their mouths- to be sexually provocative, and force them to cover them in public.
There's nothing fair or right about it.
I personally find faces much more sexual than breasts.
Does that give me the right to force others to cover their faces with veils?

If anybody's got a problem here, it's the spectator. And they need to just get over it. It's not like they can't avert their eyes if they see something that offends them.

If Christians are trying to create a more "life"-friendly, mom-and-child friendly society, they sure are doing a piss poor job of it.
How come it's always secular feminists who have to go to bat against society for women and children?

 

[Graffight]

Perhaps it's the hypocrisy of men (however chubby they are, however large their breasts are) being permitted to walk around in public flailing their boobies and nipples at everyone in sight, while women are forced to cover theirs, no matter how small and inoffensive they are, even though women are the ones with an actual, practical reason to have their boobies out in the first place: to breastfeed conveniently.

I am fortunate to live in a city- possibly the only city in the US- where women are legally allowed to go topless in public. The public nudity/ obscenity laws are exactly the same for men and women here: genitals and anuses must be covered. And that's it.
It's been that way since the late 60s or early 70s, when dozens if not hundreds of women, including many nursing mothers, protested the sexist laws that forced them to keep their breasts covered.
I find it a shame that so much of the country is still so behind the times.
This is not much different than forcing women to wear burkas. it's only a matter of degree.
Some cultures find women's faces- especially their mouths- to be sexually provocative, and force them to cover them in public.
There's nothing fair or right about it.
I personally find faces much more sexual than breasts.
Does that give me the right to force others to cover their faces with veils?

If anybody's got a problem here, it's the spectator. And they need to just get over it. It's not like they can't avert their eyes if they see something that offends them.

If Christians are trying to create a more "life"-friendly, mom-and-child friendly society, they sure are doing a piss poor job of it.
How come it's always secular feminists who have to go to bat against society for women and children?

I don't know...i mean on one hand i see where you're coming from and i totally agree, but on the other hand i understand that biologically speaking breasts are not only for feeding but for attracting the opposite sex. that's why four legged animals don't have big breasts except for when their feeding their young. You might think that faces are more sexual than breasts but firstly you're a woman and secondly you do not think the way the majority of men think. I mean i have no problem with public breastfeeding, if the baby is hungry and you don't have something to cover yourself up with, the baby still has to eat, and you are not wrong for feeding it...but on the other hand if i see a boobie out even if the woman is breastfeeding part of me still wants to see that boobie (just being honest) cause it's still a sexually attractive object to me, and while i might have sense enough not to stare at it, my 12 year old son (which i don't actually have) may not yet be endowed with that same personal restraint and i really don't think he needs to be lookin' at boobies all like that. Now if we lived in a culture where there was not such an emphasis on sexuality i might agree with you more, but in todays culture i don't think the whole boobie out thing is the greatest of ideas...but thats just my opinion....by the way what city is that you live in?

 

[Felicity]

Facebook has removed these photos from members' albums and profiles, saying that displays of areola — the dark skin around the nipple — violate the company's policy regarding "obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit"

If a mom is feeding her baby, the areola isn't showing. Most of it is in the baby's mouth and the baby's head should obscure the rest. What's the problem? I suppose a person could be obnoxious and flop their boobs all over the place spraying milk everywhere, but that would be an individual's problem--not the general nursing mother's. (I'm weaning my baby right now and so I'm feeling very nostalgic for the loss of that special bond)--otherwise, as has been said, if it's a private company--they can do what they want with regard to what sort of pictures they want on their sight. Seems dumb to make a fuss IMO.

 

[Graffight]

If a mom is feeding her baby, the areola isn't showing. Most of it is in the baby's mouth and the baby's head should obscure the rest. What's the problem? I suppose a person could be obnoxious and flop their boobs all over the place spraying milk everywhere, but that would be an individual's problem--not the general nursing mother's. (I'm weaning my baby right now and so I'm feeling very nostalgic for the loss of that special bond)--otherwise, as has been said, if it's a private company--they can do what they want with regard to what sort of pictures they want on their sight. Seems dumb to make a fuss IMO.

some women have BIG areolas :mrgreen: