Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Nudity Policy Draws Nursing Moms' Ire
HSRD writes "Web-savvy moms who breast-feed are irate that social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace restrict photos of nursing babies. The disputes reveal how the sites' community policing techniques sometimes struggle to keep up with the booming number and diversity of their members."
If you want to post your breastfeeding pics why not do it where it's welcome?
As a private enterprise, they have the right to restrict what they want. And they figure that more people that visit their site than not would not like looking at it. And if they are after traffic numbers for ad providers, they will do whatever gets them the most views. Capitalism at work. And furthermore, I have noticed that a lot of breastfeeding moms just tend to be REALLY sitting on a cactus all the time when it comes to breastfeeding in public, general attitudes about breastfeeding in public, and that doesn't usually get news unless it is a slow news day. Case in point, this story Although slashdot is made of very intelligent people, I know someone will say something about the first amendment in 5,4,3,2...
Do you really need to post pics of your nursing infant on a social website? Does anyone want to share that, really? And are facebook and myspace required to host any picture you send them? I guess nobody read the TOS.
I think boob hysteria is ridiculous. So is the fake "outrage".
Those boobies -- I mean babies -- are just doing what the rest of us are thinking.
In a Puritan society such as the United States where the human body is generally seen as filthy, this is what we get. Besides, THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Last i heard nudity was legal.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
spoiler tag- images stay on the site and you have to actually click the link to view the photo- moms get to share their breastfeeding photos and nobody gets "offended" unless they go out of their way to do so...
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
It's a totally nonsexual thing. I think the people that get upset over this are the ones that are disturbed. It's like how often the most vehement anti-gay people are actually trying to suppress their own tendencies.
Legally, female chestal nudity is defined as showing of the nipple and/or the areola.
That is unfair because areolae come in different shapes and sizes. A woman with the nicest nips and smallest, densest areolae wouldn't break this rule because the baby's mouth would nom-nom-nom both the nipple and the areola, obscuring them from the sight of observers in which case the nudity rule wouldn't be broken.
More unfortunate would be the women with really puffy areaolae or the ones with the really big, stretched-out pancake areaolae. There would be no hiding then no matter how big or hungry their baby may be. The puffy areaolae would push the baby's head further away from the teet, increasing the likelihood of passers-by seeing the defiant areola or even the nipple. Big silver-dollar areolae require no explanation as they would be impossible to hide unless the baby is hydrocephalic.
Just my 2 cents as I am not a lawyer, but I hope that more and more brave women step up to fight these sexist, unjust laws.
I bet they aren't concerned about pics of actual moms actually breastfeeding. They're probably more worried about the multitudes of people that would be posting pics of "HOT MILFS WITH RED HOT MILK JUST FOR YOU!" if they thought they could get away with it.
Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
I read about this 3 or 4 days ago in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Yet I see dozens of crappy "stories" on slashdot that are not news - some idiot with a blog making a comment on something or other - belongs in idle.
Perhaps it's time to just bite the bullet and move over to Digg since quality here is about the same now.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Just thinking out loud here, but it seems to me that these vocal, nursing mothers have a bit in common with exhibitionists and nudists:
So here's the question: Why should nursing mothers be accommodated by changes in Facebook policies, but exhibitionists / nudists not?
I can see some people arguing against exhibitionists posting their pictures, because many people believe that seeing people bump their uglies is bad for kids.
But nursing mothers and non-prurient nudists seem to me to have a great deal in common in this issue. If nursing mothers get their way, should nudists get to post their pictures as well?
Obviously those infants are being exploited into performing sexual acts in front of a camera. You're damn right those pictures should be removed, think of the children!
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
For you breastfeeding mothers out there, I really thought you could be much more mature about your pictures and realize that neither Facebook or MySpace is the place for such content.
Oh, and this has nothing to do with "diversity", so lets not even get sidetracked with trying to shoehorn that BS in the justification.
I'm quite certain, even without looking, that there are plenty of websites/blogs that would more than welcome such content and "camaraderie" between mothers.
They can't have it both ways. You ask these women "would you allow nudity on myspace?" They'll probably say "hell no" and go on about the children and all that crap. Guess what -- YOUR BREAST IS OUT, THAT IS NUDITY.
I'm not a prude, I would prefer that myspace just gives it up and allows nudity (it's pretty slutty as it is anyway...), problem solves for these breast-feeders... but myspace is just not going to allow this type of double-standard.
Facebook could handle this in a much more efficient maner, for example.
So. Meh. Ban it.
I'm tired of seeing fugly tittys in public.
Pissing is as natural as breastfeeding. Yet if i piss in public i get put on the sex offender list.
How about this -- allow any nudity and adult content on Facebook and Myspace, no holds barred (pun intended) -- but only for accounts labeled as having "adult content." Others can opt-in if they wish to see this content (and can verify age); if they don't opt-in, it need not bother their sensitive eyes.
As for nursing in public, why not just allow it -- as long as you also allow people to stare, comment, take pictures, whatever. That should put a stop to most of it without the guv'mint encroaching on anyone's liberties, yes?
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
there is no excuse for anyone to have to look at your dirty pillows.
Hey, aren't you Carrie's mom? I thought you were dead!
Its thier website! They can allow/disallow anything they want! You don't HAVE to use them, and there are PLENTY of localities around the world that it IS illegal to breast feed in public so perhaps they just don't want to have problems with those locations.
Really, you have to show your breast feeding to the world? Why? The only people that WANT to see it, don't want to see it because its natural or beautiful, they want to see tits. I highly suspect that most, if not all, of the women who have this overwhelming urge to put pictures of it on the Internet are also slighly voyeristic and want to show thier tits to the world.
If you don't like that they don't allow you to show your tits, don't use their website. This may be hard to believe, but 10 years ago, you didn't have a facebook/myspace/livejournal page. Okay, some of you might have, but the majority of you didn't, so I think you should be able to figure out that you can, in fact, live without posting your tittie shots on the Internet.
If you REALLY want to do it, there are PLENTY of websites that would LOVE to have your tits to show them, they are called porn sites, and there are PLENTY that cater to moms, milfs and nursing so put your pictures where they are welcome and stop thinking everyone else in the world has to confirm to what you want. They don't have to, and if you think they are 'bad' for not allowing it, that pretty much just makes you a spoiled brat.
Finally, as I understand their nudity rules, in order for your picture to get taken down, you would have to show an exposed nipple, which means either you're showing both your breasts or you aren't actually breast feeding since there would be a babies mouth over the breast that is exposed, covering up the very thing that is banned.
Go make a porn if you want to show your tits that bad, hell, I'll probably buy it, but quit with this bullshit if trying to make everyone else in the world do what you want, the entire world really doesn't revolve around you.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You want to show your friends that stuff *fine*. Send it in an e-mail or put it in a photo album but for crissakes don't post it on the internet.
I think most of the internet would go bankrupt without nude pictures on the internet.
Put pr0n on the internet! The survival of the intarweb is at stake!
I'm not puritanical, religious or a prude and I have a healthy taste for porn; but I don't want pictures of nursing women thrust at me. I don't understand why it's necessary to show everyone?
Hey, aren't you Carrie's mom? I thought you were dead!
No, just a fan. The movie was great inspiration.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I think many people want to turn their lives and life styles into some sort of political showdown. This smacks of Identity politics to me.
Why should children have to be fed in a toilet? do you routinely eat in the toilet?
Actually, don't answer that...
Maybe it's because I live in Canada, but I just couldn't care. Nope really I just don't care. Kid needs to suck on a breast to get a meal? Fine. Who cares, welcome to the same thing you did 20-30 years ago. Bet it tasted good when you had a couple of dozen braincells firing away going NOMNOMNOM. It's far less aggravating then the small kid screaming their head off.
If it's that much of a problem, don't even get worked up into the whole relationship-having a kid game. You're going to have to deal with that, plus the cold hard reality that kids don't work on a timescale to benefit you. Formula works in a pinch, and then there's the times you can't stick breast milk in a bottle either or store it, and you're stuck with the last option. Hey lets not forget the occasional misfiring brain farts either, those are always fun.(lets not forget the benefits of this either for the kid)
Then again maybe I'm just old enough that I just don't give a damn and have already figured out that it's a part of life, and there is nothing to be worked up over.
Om, nomnomnom...
People ought to realize that nudity and sex are two different things.
This is not hatred. This is retribution. This is not revenge. This is justice.
For some reason I think that the whole nursing the child pics and such are just a form of exhibitionism. YOu can take those pics, but thats what you want to show your friends, why not loving pictures of you holding your child. People saying its natural are right, however the focus of the picture isn't on the child as it is the mother, which makes in a selfish picture and negates the reason you wanted to show the picture, which is the importance of your child. These women obviously get some sort of gratification from showing some skin and the attention.
What do you find disgusting in two pair of breast of a lactating woman ? It is not as if she was enticing people to look at them in a sexual way. But then again since I am old enough to go on the beach, I saw naked breast, so I am quite immunized.
... they're not in CT like I am. The "breastfeeding lobby" here is rabid. There is also a number of laws here that impose criminal penalties. I personally know of restaurants that have been closed down just for saying something to a nursing mother. Personally, I find NOTHING sexual about a nursing baby. And people who do are just... disgusting.
This arguement is one of the most inconsiderate and assinine ones I consistantly hear... Ok lets make a rule that you, presumably a healthy adult, may only eat while holding a tray of food on a toilet seat in public restrooms.
Ok now lets pretend that you are NOT a healthy adult, but a small child with a delicate immune system, and you lack the mental capacity to deal with waiting for your food, or transitions to cold, loud, scary places.
Now lets pretend that you are a reasonable adult human, a mammel. Lets also pretend you know what the hell the word "Mammel" means. Lets also pretend that you were mature enough to look the other way if you are so self rightious that you cannot morally stand for a baby to eat his lunch in public.
I am not a christianazi like the typical moral elite of the U.S. but I like to point out that jebus would have not survived infancy were it not for the all powerful boobies.
The problem came up over a photo of Anna Nichole Smith breastfeeding her 90 year old husband. At first no one saw a problem with something small and shriveled breastfeeding until some one noticed the big smile.
If you set your Google SafeSearch filter on "strict filtering" and search for clitoris, you get zero returns.
But if you try a Google SafeSearch "strict filtering" search for penis, you get...
33,000,000 returns.
That's because "clitoris" is on Google's list of naughty words which are never, ever "safe." Penis is just fine, however. http://tr.im/2tee (susiebright.blogs.com)
This double standard continues through many body part images. It would seem in today's morality, Men's breasts are totally acceptable, and can be published in photos and videos completely uncovered. Womens breasts however, are dirty and must be covered, even when feeding a child..
Several folks have posted comments to the effect to "take it to the bathroom" for breastfeeding mothers. Don't know about anybody else, but my wife is NOT feeding my son in the bathroom. Do you go to a stall in the bathroom for every meal you eat in public? (please don't tell me if you do). Nobody in my family is being forced to eat in the bathroom, including my nursing son.
If you don't like an infant's method of eating, you have personal problems, and should see someone about it. It is NOT sexual, it is NOT dirty, it is NOT something that needs to be done behind closed doors, it is SIMPLY A BABY EATING. jeesh. Grow up.
Do you realize that for every one of us there are two, count them, TWO nipples? And almost half of us have some serious fatty tissue behind those nipples! I mean we can't have children seeing the things can we? Keep their shirst on! I mean the single best thing for a newborn to suckle on should be shameful and weird. Babies eat from bottles right? And watching a baby nurse ... well I know all kinds of people that it turns on ... OK not even one. Its a bewb - BAN it!
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
For a long time, enterprises that depend on large-scale public interaction to succeed have taken the easy way out. They seek to immunize themselves from legal challenges, boycotts, and legislation by hysterical, vote-hungry politicians by adopting the most stringent and unreasonable policies. As a result, some wingnut who is offended by the sight of a bare breast, even when it is being used for its primary purpose, receives more consideration than the rest of us who couldn't care less.
Meanwhile, more cynical and opportunistic people co-opt the state's tools of enforcement and coercion to jam their narrow, constricted social vision down our throats. It's time we grew up a little and quit allowing "social zones" like Facebook and even the local shopping mall be controlled by fruitcakes who believe some weird, Disney-esque version of reality is the only one "suitable for all ages". If you can't explain to your five-year-old why the nice lady has an infant glued to her chest, perhaps you should just stay home and unplug the computer. The rest of us have lives to lead, and we're sick of putting up with you.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I understand how somebody making an issue out of breastfeeding can be found annoying, but how can you have an issue with the act itself?
Scratch that. I don't care what reason you might have for finding breastfeeding annoying - that's your issue. It is when you attempt to tell me what I can and can not do because of your personal hang-ups that I start to get pissed. Telling me I must use a restroom is ridiculous. Calling it "full frontal nudity" is as well. Last I checked full frontal nudity involved a lack of pants and visible nipples, neither of which is the case when I breast fed. Perhaps you kids do it differently today.
I really don't care about the Facebook policy, they're a private enterprise last I looked and I think they should be able to set any reasonable policy they see fit. What I do care about is your notion that
Take your personal notions of dignity and practice them wherever you choose, just don't tell me to wear a burka because you find my skin immodest.
What the hell is a mammel?
/irony
It's poetry with a beat behind it! And guns! They're like beatniks with automatic weapons.
I'm asking this, because I'm not one for facebook or myspace or generally most social networking sites. But it would seem to me that if I run a web-site as a business, and I have an anti-nudity policy, and I call exposed breasts a part of that, and I don't want nursing on my web-site, for whatever good or bad reason, then that's my right as teh owner of that business. If customers don't like the policy, they are welcome to go elsewhere. And if non-paying users (not customers if they don't pay) don't like it, well then it's my right to decide whether or not I care.
So why does it seem, to me, that these nursing mothers feel they have a right to change facebook's policies? This isn't a public venue where the debate is an interesting one. This is facebook's business policies -- so isn't it over-stepping the bounds to insist on such a change? Are these nursing mothers even share-holders?
So I'm asking, what am I missing?
A lot of the anti breastfeeding nonsense does seem to come from a particular strata of women who seem to consider it...unfair competition?
I saw one unbelievable letter to the editor once decrying public breastfeeding under the guise that it "made children grow up too quickly" (meaning the children who were "forced" to witness a child being fed). There is so much so fundamentally wrong with that argument that it's hard to know where to start.
For a while I was posting photography work I had done to Facebook. About the time I started working with nude models, I decided it was time to move my collection somewhere else rather than have the art vs. porn fight. It was at that time I also looked closely at the fine print of the terms of service and realized that by posting pictures I had been giving Facebook the unrestricted right to reproduce my pictures without payment or permission.
So I started putting my pictures up on a website whose owner I knew wouldn't care I was taking snaps of naked women: My dad.
This sig is false.
Let me guess, you're one of those fat chicks whose saggy tits no-one wants to look at anyway. Guessing from your posts already in this thread, no-one wants to have kids with you at all, I can see why you're bitter about women who have babies to feed.
I would mod you insightful if that weren't so obvious. This is a female slashdotter, after all! Cowgirl Nell -- a frightful thought!
Bet it tasted good when you had a couple of dozen braincells firing away going NOMNOMNOM.
still does, man...
Stop Computers/Cars Analogies on S
People who have a problem with breastfeeding in public should think about exactly why they have an issue with it.
I think it's pretty clear - they probably have no concept of women's breasts as non-sexual...
Every time there is a big deal made about it - it's basically equating a mother providing sustinance for her child in the most natural way possible with spring break flashing or something....It's just unbeleivable when you really think about it - especially because when breastfeeding (and especially when doing it in public) you can't even see a breast - usually the shirt is open giving the infant access to one breast and the baby's head is up againszt the breast, blocking any view anyway....
RTFA:
False dichotomy; why can't she just carry on using Facebook, and post the damn pictures somewhere else?
They are not, it's Facebook trying to retrospectively "clean up their act"
And they are tw@s for doing it.
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Non-nursing breasts are on display in our culture every day as a sexual attraction.
Nursing breasts are very important to babies who must have milk to survive. All milk comes from female breasts. Babies fed on cow milk are more likely to have health problems (such as infections and diabetes) than babies fed on human milk. Babies fed on human breast milk have better brain development. Mothers should be encouraged to nurse their babies as much and as long as possible. This means they will be 'breastfeeding in public' unless we intend to ban nursing mothers from public places. It is a decadent and depraved culture that finds images of nursing breasts "obscene" while elevating the display of non-nursing breasts to the status of idol. Shame. The real problem is that our culture apparently has many infantile adults who find the true function of a female breast to be upsetting.
....they make the rules. If you find it necessary to post pics of yourself breastfeeding, I'm sure you'll find another site that will accept it.
A restroom isn't a toilet, you idiot.
Wikipedia:
The word "toilet" can be used to refer to the fixture itself or to the room containing the fixture, especially in British English. In Canadian English, the latter is euphemistically called a washroom, and in American English, a restroom.
...as long as the root cause - epidemic religious schizophrenia - has not been quenched.
Why else would a group of grown up, educated people make a "dirty" taboo out of one of the two only things that we could not possibly exist without (sex), and everything related,
while not only allowing, but actively promoting to kill non-believers.
But what can you do, when 80%+ of a nation need a therapy to not fall back to the middle ages? We can't leave them to themselves. They're humans too, after all.
Now wonder how many countries you can apply this comment to. ;)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
My friend, I have the perfect solution to your problem!
It takes some practice, but I guarentee (nay, promise!) you it'll be worth the effort.
Step 1: Find something you don't like looking at (ie. a paint chip on your car).
Step 2: Stare at the thing you don't like looking at for 30 seconds.
Step 3: Direct your vision away from the thing you don't want to see.
Step 4: Go to step 1.
There's a variation for step 3; instead of looking away, you can also close your eyes, then look away. You can even just close your eyes. The point is if you're not looking at the thing you don't want to see, you won't see it anymore.
If you practice this maneuver for five minutes, once per day, I guarentee you'll develop the instinctive reflex to divert your attention from scenes which bother you. As a bonus, it may even aid you in developing the skill of minding your own fucking business.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
You jest, but I can't count the number of times I heard the rational for continuing to breast feed toddlers as "It feels good". When you have someone suck your nipples because you think it feels good, it IS a sexual act. Since my own child was born, I have met many women that really should be arrested for child molestation.
The grandparent poster may be using the word "toilet" in reference to the entire room, not just the toilet fixture. The term "restroom" isn't used much outside of the United States.
Don't know what happened, but some of my paragraphs got scrambled. Here's how that was supposed to read:
Two of my three children were breastfed, and I have no problem with boob-food happening. I don't think it's sexual (not that some weird folks can't make it so for themselves). When it happens in public, I think using a blanket/towel/etc. is a good idea, not because there's anything dirty about the breast, but because I don't think it's something that needs the amount and quality of attention it's likely to get in public.
I see no need for pictures of anybody eating on FB/MS, regardless of age or what they're eating. I also don't see a need for pictures of people belching, or blowing their noses. I don't think that needs to be a ToS issue (as of yet). When it comes to babies breastfeeding, I don't see any purpose in showing pictures of that. It's a crappy angle for looking at the baby. I'd rather see the baby sleeping or playing or smiling or being cute or something -- speaking just for me.
The pushing of the boob is getting to be an issue for me. I ran into a guy on an IM network who's an amateur photographer, and he wanted to send me some of his pictures. Since I didn't know him, I was a bit concerned about what the pictures would be, which he picked up on, and assured me that he didn't do nudes. However, he did do some tasteful topless shots of his wife. I told him I didn't want to see those, and he's been so intrigued by that that it comes up every time we chat (every week or three). I'm planning on getting very direct the next time he asks, if he does. Topless isn't all he does, and I don't mind looking at his other shots from time to time.
I do think there's something of militancy in this movement of "accept me, approve of me, or you're a bigot/puritan/pervert." And that I'm totally ready to give the finger to. I don't shove my lifestyle down your throat or demand your acceptance or approval, and I'm not obliged to build your feelings of self-worth.
You never should have been so eager to unleash the beast of [CENSORSHIP] in the first place, now you find first hand what you set upon the Internet and society and you want to cry?
Have a tall cup of STFU baby machine whores and a couple tablespoons of your own medicine.
Maybe next time before you start wanting to force shit on other people you will remember this and grow the fuck up just a little.
I am a woman and I'm not interested in seeing somebody's naked boob. Is this naked boob just on a page where anyone can accidently stumble upon it or do you need a password? If it's just out there then I agree with Facebook & MySpace removing it. Otherwise, if you have to use a password and log in to a certain pre-authorized group then it's probably OK.
I say no. Bring the damn blanket.
Thankfully, it's not up to prudes like you. What's written on my t-shirt may be offensive for some people, but their only recourse is to not look at it. Similarly, since most places have laws that prohibit telling a woman to "cover up" when breastfeeding, your only recourse if that sight offends you is to not look at it.
And that's exactly how it should be. You don't have the right to tell people not to do things that offend you unless they're actively in your way (they address you, touch you, sit on your table). Otherwise, what offends you doesn't necessarily offend people at large, and you're not special enough to be the standard.
Facebook is filled with networks of mothers. A lot of ads cater to them. They make money off of mothers. I cannot believe the number of ignorant comments to this thread -- more so than the average slashdot thread. But then, this is one where women would understand more than men, and parents more than people who are childfree. Still, I'd expect at least a few more enlightened people who understand basic human biology, laws pertaining to breastfeeding, the amount of women (especially mothers) who are are the internet, and other things outside the little slashdot world. I was wrong. I'm used to diversity, I guess. I suggest the mothers contact the people who are paying facebook to reach us. Why should we buy products from companies that support a place like facebook? Mothers are a POWERFUL force as far as consumers are concerned. This might not end the way some of you expect it will.
I, for one, have no idea what the word "Mammel" means.
to protect your dignity (and my eyes) ... Or my eyes.
You say it's about "protecting your eyes"? If so, I can think of many far uglier things than a baby breastfeeding that we generally expect to be see in public or in photos posted on the Internet ... say, ugly fat women, badly disfigured individuals ... by your logic, we must then also ban public appearance or imagery of these?
Sorry, but you don't have a right not to see things you don't personally like seeing. Seeing things that you don't like is just part of life, mature adults are generally able to deal with it without whining about it, e.g. I think it's a total non-issue, and I find it absurd that you think it's an issue at all.
You're crying at the idea of seeing a baby feeding in the most natural way - and yet you call others "crybabies"? Now that's rich. I hope you can see the irony in that.
You don't have the right to tell people not to do things that offend you unless they're actively in your way (they address you, touch you, sit on your table).
I'll remember that when some creep smiles and opens his trench coat from across the room for you.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
It has traditionally been okay for women to breastfeed in the public in the Western society (and most others, in fact), for a long, long time. There is no good reason why this policy should be changed, and vast majority of people seem to be perfectly happy about it. If you personally aren't, you can always turn away - but don't impose your outlook on the society as a whole. We have laws protecting breastfeeding for a reason.
(On the other hand, traditionally, it is not okay to have sex or masturbate in public, so people are conditioned to consider it gross as they grow up - unlike breastfeeding. Of course, this is pure conditioning; there's nothing wrong about acts as such.)
http://slashdot.org/~girlintraining/friends:
"girlintraining (1395911) is all alone in the world."
It's not that all 'natural acts' need to be allowed in public, but I do think it's pretty fucked up any time a sexually repressed minority decide to ask the majority of people under the age of 12 months to eat in the bathroom. Especially when those people will go on an hour long crying fit unless they eat several times a day.
I'd love to be able to read your comments back to you in a few years when you've grown up and had your own kids, though. Wow, are you going to feel like an asshole.
Facebook & MySpace are private systems. They have the right to say what is put on their system same as other sites. If you didnt like it you could go post it on your own site somewhere else. Its not like cheap web hosting is hard to find.
you eat with a blanket over your head? no?? but you expect an infant to? you have obviously never met an infant.
big difference between feeding a child, and exposing your genitals. Breasts are not genitals by the way.
internet rule number 5: when you have no valid argument, attack spelling and grammar.
If I expose my chest in public, that's a crime. I fail to see how involving a baby suddenly makes it morally justified, since the crime is exposing my tits, not what I'm doing with them. Blanket. Now. Thanks.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I also don't eat with my shirt and bra off in public either...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
It's a bit of a sign of a sick society when the "wardrobe manfunction" resulted in actual legal action against the woman who had her top removed and nothing against the man that removed it - not that I think it deserved legal action there either. Another worrying thing was people that wanted legal action taken against Brittany when a photographer was taking photos up her skirt and she had no knickers on. In some countries it's a crime to take unwanted photos up girls skirts but some in the USA seem to think it's a crime to be the subject of such a photo and it's OK to be the photographer. That is a getting into a Taliban mindset.
If you want a woman to stop breastfeeding where you are in public, asking her politely is sure to fail. Instead, just go stand as close as possible without making contact and stare at her open shirt. Sure you are going to get some nasty remarks... but you have a right to stand in public and view things displayed in public. After some grousing... she will cover up or leave. If not, get out your video camera.
What about places that normally don't allow you to bring in your own food or drink (movie theaters, restaurants)?
Just because you don't have any friends, or find a use for Facebook, doesn't mean you have to be agitated by those who do and like to keep up with what their friends and family are up to. Personally, I like seeing pictures of my nieces and nephews.
...we get to protest and apply political and social pressure to change the rules. If you find it unsettling that rules change from time to time, think deeply about what that says regarding your mental condition.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Just because you have to follow the crowd doesn't mean other ppl have to be a lemming.
If I expose my chest in public, that's a crime
Not in New York State it isn't. You could expose your chest anywhere I could expose my chest (as a male) and be completely legal while doing so. Breast-feeding is a further exemption -- you can "expose" yourself in places that you would otherwise be precluded from doing so (i.e: places that require you to wear a shirt).
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
internet rule number 5: when you have no valid argument, attack spelling and grammar.
You forgot to capitalize the first word of that sentence ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
And that those same chemicals are released during sex, helping to bond the partners together?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925365.500
Ask me about repetitive DNA
Girlintraining you're trying to hard to fit into the boys club here.
More than likely one day you'll be a mother, then you'll have to become a hypocrite at least once or twice. You're not perfect and there are times and situations that will arrive where you must feed baby *now* and you wont be prepared, I assume you would let it starve?
Not to mention you're ignoring one thing: personal responsibility, if you don't like it don't look, that's your responsibility.
I'd wager a guess 70% of the people on this site are disgusting to look at but *they* aren't shunned into backalleys and toilets.
Trying to force a breastfeeding mother and child out of sight as though they're disease carrying lepers is the only immoral action here.
Plus you'd be first to complain if the child was screaming.
Such incredibly selfish juvenile beliefs here these days, who are your parents and wtf did they do to you all to hate parenting so much?
How can Facebook display or distribute your photos without "reproducing" them?
It seems to me that when you accepted Faceback's TOS you agreed to license your submissions to Facebook without fees for in exchange for their exposure to a world-wide social network - and for no other purpose.
I see it as an all-or-nothing deal.
Apparently, many think it's okay to show 95 percent of a female's breast as long as her spawn is attached to it. If you show the same amount of skin with no kid, it's said to be indecent. If you happen to whip yours out during, say Superbowl halftime (while covering that five percent with some decoration), concerned mothers everywhere (with kidlets sucking on their tits no doubt) bitch to the FCC for the shocking and unholy exposure of most of a breast in public.
Mmmk...
People need to crawl out from behind their crosses for a moment and consider what ridiculous and contradictory standards they're promoting. If Facebook says "no titties," then quit posting pics of them and acting surprised when the banhammer comes down. That's their decision. If you don't like this policy, then sure, protest. But protest to allow breasts in full view, with no qualifiers. Male breasts, female breasts, kid or no kid. Facebook's policy (and many others) are currently set to 'sexist,' and these dipshits think it's a good idea to change that to 'sexist with an exception for my baby, because he's so CUTE!!1'
Some of these groups are just so fucking LOUD. Damn. Maybe Slashdot users should start taking hormone injections, perhaps this special post-baby balance would be conductive to USEFUL change. I'm sure DRM would be banned via constitutional amendment by the end of the week.
Disclaimer:
I happen to like breasts - a lot, in fact.
"Strangers have the best candy" -Me
If someone is breastfeeding in public, and there is a group of guys standing around staring at her exposed breasts, and talking about it - is that okay? Is that an acceptable consequence of "allowing" breastfeeding in public? Or are we going to have these "perverts" arrested for harassment, or create new laws to punish them? I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, but honestly - while I don't think it's okay for guys to do the described behavior - if we are going to start arresting people for that behavior, or come up with a new crime to charge them with - fuck it. No public breastfeeding for you. Get over it. We don't need more shit to put people away for. There is actually a point where it's responsible behavior to consider the impact of your choices on others. The line on this one is where I am unclear, and where I think the argument is - but we've got a society, right now, that makes it difficult for guys to NOT think about sex when they see a healthy breast in front of them. Either we change the culture, or we deal with the consequences in appropriate ways.
By which I surmise that you'd be happy being regularly forced to eat there.
No?
...where just about every natural human act is considered ether porn or perversion.
It's sad how in the United States' culture extreme violence is tolerated as entertainment and nursing babies is obscene.
When will we learn we are just primates? Oh, wait, we're not, because we were made "in God's image."
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
I'd like to see you use this argument if it was about a restaurant owner refusing to serve a black guy.
When that was socially acceptable, we did.
Quack, quack.
As the article says, Facebook may be a victim of it's own popularity. We live in a society who's emotional and metal health in the area of sex is sadly lacking (read about the Puritans... talk about a bunch of seriously messed up puppies! I mean cutting people's ears off because they listened to music? Pretty dang messed up.) So when you have a public place (real or virtual) with a constituency who's members span the gamut from Nudist, Wiccans dancing sky-clad, and attendees from Burning Man to Religious Fundamentalists of every religion, sect, and parish imaginable coexisting, it's hard not to imagine some pretty impressive head butting happening.
A place the size of Facebook, typically picks the least provocative position. It avoids pissing off the government. It makes the most people happy. It also means that the rights of small groups probably get stepped on. It means that the right thing to do often yields to the expedient thing to do. This is a sticky question. There won't be any simple answers. We all have a vested interest in how the world goes. Sometimes my vested interest smacks right up against yours. It get's even more difficult of that event happens inside some third parties play space. There are legal issues, moral issues, ethical concerns, and social considerations. All framed inside a commercial context where ultimately the final decision is often what helps or hurts the business. Maybe the answer is a million little Facebooks. Maybe Facebook get's tremendously better and honoring the interests of special groups while limiting the impact they can make outside their group.
In the specific case in question. Give people the power to express themselves, pictures they want to use, and can share publically, provided the viewer has the proper association or privilege to see those pictures. Then have a set of pictures that won't cause anybody trouble, and those can be viewed anywhere. Create a grading system for personal images that allows filtering what can be viewed according to the filtering criteria. Give people some control over the process so they can say as long as I comply with the default filtering, I'd like to add custom filters. Inside the family of breast-feeders, the picture of swollen nipple and chubby cheeked babies, should be as normal as pictures of the last vacation, or the new car. We just need to get way more creative in how we deal with one another, and maybe backing the anal retention down a couple notches might not hurt either.
I cannot believe the number of ignorant comments to this thread
Me either. I honestly don't know where to begin rebuking this kind of ignorance...
I don't have a problem with breastfeeding in public, if they don't have a problem with people staring and oggling.
It is a two way street, you can't complain about breastfeeding in public, just as you can't complain about people staring at your breasts when exposed.
Personally I am not a fan on the basis that I generally like my restaurant to be restaurant, my beaches to be beaches and my baby changing to be done privately (as my changing would be)
The ones being breast-fed, I mean. These tiny children are being forced to look at naked breasts! Surely this is child sexual abuse! Those women should be arrested!
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
more boobies are always good :)
Why should children have to be fed in a toilet? do you routinely eat in the toilet?
No, but if I'm eating breakfast in a public place, and if I'm having milk on my cereal, I don't invite the cow to stand on the table while I milk it.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is bad news, for republicans.
Yes, we all wish that everyone would be a lot more mature so we could show our dicks and tits online without people freaking out. Life is so unfair, isn't it.
It is not unreasonable, by any stretch, for facebook to ban breast feeding pictures. This has no impact on the baby getting its food. That is the only reason why it is legal to breastfeed in public. It may be stupid, it may not be, but you can't realistically draw parallels between online picture sharing and breast feeding in public.
Look at other female mammals. Do they have breasts? Only when they're nursing. Humans, on the other hand, have them all the time. If they were just for feeding, that would not be so.
You are toeing the social construct line where it does not make sense to do so. Not every aspect of human behavior is a product of the media and religion.
but anyone that sexualizes the act of natural feeding of offspring is the one with the problem.....not the mother. i think we're afraid to face the fact that we are actually animals.
Go ahead, put your tits online!! Why do moms that are nursing feel the need to show their junk in public? Now online... I don't really care about said issue, I just don't understand why otherwise normal women want to put their boobs on the web...
Eye for an eye and half of the world will have just one eye!
from your own words "for a lot of people" that doesnt mean everybody.
Who has the right to distinguish between offensive and non-offensive. They have every right to not play the game and avoid drawing a line in the sand where ok and not ok is.
in regards to your profile pic, Then i guess you are SOL and should go somewhere else.
and I will correct you
Its not a problem with the policy; it is an area in which you desire a different policy then the one they employ. There is nothing wrong with the policy other than the fact that you and several breast feeding mothers don't like how it affects them.
What about a porn star? what if a nude model or porn star wanted their profile picture to be a nude photo of themselves? What if they 'posed' artistically. Facebook doesnt and won't have the time energy interest to start scrutinizing the details of what makes one accepable or not until it provides them a financial incentive to do so.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
I'd suggest to forbid photos of pregnant women, too.
The best is if we keep kids unknowing what happens in the life of a child before two years of age, the point when they start to remember things.
Until they run into a teenage pregnancy. Then we explain them they should marry and give them the book about how to be a good mother.
Good comment, but you would have looked more intelligent if you'd managed to spell "mammal" correctly.
---linuxrocks123
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
There are many responses from people here that allege disgust and outrage at the sight of breastfeeding.
My advice is this: go to rotten.com and toughen up your pathetically frail minds a little bit. How can you be that sheltered? It's like a character from a comedy movie or something.
It's baffling that we, collectively, can't get over this whole nudity taboo. There's nothing obscene about chests, crotches, or asses, nor are they traumatizing for children to see, nor are they 'dirty', etc. etc.
I'm so sick of this juvenile mentality, it's like we as a society are stuck psychologically in middle school. As far as I'm concerned it isn't outrageous that they have this sort of content taken down, it's just baffling!
And, since I know this is an issue for SOMEone, even if seeing someone's breasts gives you a stiffy, why is that anyone else's business? As long as you aren't jumping people in dark alleys (and, shocking as this may seem, these are NOT inseperable behaviors), I don't see the issue.
If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
I'm not shocked that her kiddie porn was taken down.
I'm shocked that this incestious pedofile of an exhibitionist thought she could expose herself to an infant and get away with it.
Natural breastfeeding is thousand times more convenient than bottle storage, let alone formula handling. It's free, it's almost always ready, and it's incredibly effective. I fully support a woman's right to breastfeed any age child, anytime, anywhere.
They were right - the revolution did not get televised. It was posted on YouTube instead. All in 120 characters. SLOOSH!
...was used 9 times in this post.
I just get conflicted that I've wanted to see my female friends' breasts for years, but this is "perverted". However suddenly they post pictures of them to Facebook.
I'm sure some of you half-men are leaping to accuse me of being ignorant. Please proceed. I'm not sure that I am though. Frankly to me this all stinks of women being women. To them everything is "different", and men are all just perverts because we find their various bits attractive.
I don't find the act of breast feeding attractive I guess I should disclaim. Much like I'm sure a woman wouldn't find a picture of me flexing, and lifting a fire ladder, while urinating attractive I guess. However this doesn't mean I'd post said picture on Facebook.
Even if I could somehow associate urinating with something meaningful like child rearing.
Which I can't. But still my point is sound. They are breasts. Just because a child is attached doesn't change that fact. It is basically irrelevant if it makes you angry or not or whether you feel the sexualisation of breasts is somehow man's fault (what isn't man's fault nowadays exactly?) Accept it and the consequences are much easier to come to terms with.
Or my eyes.
What, do these breastfeeding mothers strap you to a chair and hold your eyelids open "Clockwork Orange" style while they feed their infants?
Seriously, if something offends you, you don't have to look at it; the Supreme Court has already decided that, if you're in public, you don't have a right not to be offended.
We all have the conservative religious morality cop prudes to thank for turning every aspect of the human body into something that must be covered up, only to be seen as a sinful object. Sometimes I wonder what goes through the mind of someone who becomes disturbed at seeing a woman breastfeeding her baby. Are they frustrated because they can't get a sip too?
Telling me I must use a restroom is ridiculous.
Absolutely. I love the "Could you please do that in the restroom?" line. My wife and I were in a restaurant and she discreetly began nursing our son. I mean, she tried to turn away from the rest of the restaurant. It's not the sort of thing you'd even notice unless you were staring at the other patrons. Anyway, some woman gets all bitchy and demands that she go to the bathroom to nurse. My wife turned and said, "Why don't you eat YOUR meal in the bathroom, bitch?"
We're not militant. It was just the last straw, of sorts. The lady called the manager. The manager informed her that under state law, we were allowed to feed our baby in public. She got up and left without paying her bill. The manager called the police. Some people have issues. I really don't care.
probably one of the holiest of acts that mankind has ever evolved to have, breastfeeding, is, OBSCENE ?
a HOLISTIC act of unconditional love and giving in between the mother and child, the holiest of all bonds, is OBSCENE ?
i believe in no religion, but there are some stuff way higher and holier than any religion. what you despise as obscene is one of that.
whats obscene are people like you. i wish we could export you and your kind to mars or moon. there you could revel in your backwardness and lack of compassion, and knock each others' brains out.
Read radical news here
...welcome our breast-feeding overlords!
The last thing I need to see is someone injecting their fluids into someone else, be it spit, semen, or breast milk. in public at least.
I hate the multiple page thing, wish submitters would submit the 1 page version that is usually lurking about:
http://www.ibtimes.com/services/pop_print.htm?id=241147&tb=bh
In Canada going topless is legal. Woman have the right to walk around topless wherever and whenever they like .... and very, very occasionally on hot summer days one gets luck, but by and large due to cold weather and the natural shyness of most woman nipples are not exposed (which is a pity given the link between temperature and nipples)
Facebook is exceedingly popular in Canada and it occurs to me that their policy is counter to Canadian law. Presumably a Canadian nipple displayer or even a suckling infant's mother could demand the right of exposure under Canadian law.
The moms need to get over it. There are infinity minus 1 other ways to express yourself in a picture, for Christ's sake.
It's pretty funny reading these comments. My wife breast fed both of our kids until they were about 8 months old. I loved it. Not because I'm a pervert who wants his wife's hooter hanging out with my tax deduction hanging off it, but I loved it because my kids are healthy, well fed, and I don't have to spend fistfuls of cash on formula.
She had a couple of times where someone would ask her not to feed the baby where she was. She would always calmly ask where the individual would like her to feed the baby. Both times, bathroom stalls were suggested. Both times she asked them if they would eat their food in there or give their baby a bottle in there. Both times, they walked away.
The second time, the bitch at the mall called the police. It didn't work out too well, though. I was in the cop's wedding.
I'd wager a guess 70% of the people on this site are disgusting to look at but *they* aren't shunned into backalleys and toilets.
Restaurants always ask me to eat out back if I show up, so this is not a good argument.
Sadly, Americans think they are the only people in the world to use Facebook.
..
Ummm.. perhaps the only people in the world.
And, yes, it was created in the good ol' USA. Including all its hangups about breasts, nudity, (migod, what a land of hypocritical preverts!) and the fact that they think that kids are better off with Gerbers and other chemical substitutes. (Hey! Maybe even melamine! The Chinese love that apparently!)
But most of the planet Earth seems to have other ideas.
America? You are no longer top dog. And the dog's teats are running dry.
Better get used to it.
.
- aqk
F U
Before entering a movie theater, you have to empty
your breasts. You see this all the time around
here. Women usually squeeze and tug at their
breasts to squirt the milk into the gutter or
into a trash can. It's just what you're expected
to do before entering a theater.
Twinkie, beer, london broil, breastmilk... it just
doesn't matter. Food is food. Dump it outside the
theater before you walk in.
This entire thread should be marked -1, offtopic - this isn't about women being allowed to breast-feed their children in public. This is about women choosing to post picture of themselves breastfeeding on a public forum.
This is about facebook's take on public decency and their implementation of those standards. Any argument about the legality of breastfeeding in public is a red herring - If the women in question don't post these pictures, their children don't go hungry.
"Oh no! I can't show my friends my baby sucking on my boobs! I'm going to cry!" Said one woman, later on joined in the struggle by people turning something small into something big. Trying to staple on sexual equality, women's rights, and naturalism pitted against perversion of the human condition. However, in the end, this struggle was believed to be undoubtedly futile with the all-to-obvious ending of people responding to the above quote with, "who gives a fuck?"
But then, something on /. went horribly wrong, and people actually gave a fuck...
-Author's Comments-
When I was writing this scary book, the scariest thing to me was imagining someone using a social network website to show off to their friends something generally private. I mean, that's like if I were in a restaurant and someone was disgruntled because they got in trouble for chewing their food then opening their mouth in front of everyone to show off something. And show off what exactly? What are these mothers trying to show? How pro they are at getting sucked on? When's the last time you felt like making your Facebook profile a picture of you cramming a spoon full of yum down someone's mouth? Or take the baby's side of it, when's the last time you felt like making your face on the internet a picture of you with a mouthful of food?
Is eating something you must do in a dark corner of your home? Last time I checked, no, eating can be social. But if I recall correctly, the polite thing to do when eating in public is making the process as minimally noticeable as possible. For example, you don't chew with your mouth open, and you don't talk with your mouth full.
So that's the scary thing to me, in a world where minimizing the appearance of the digestion process is preferred (from chewed food to gas spewed), that some psychopaths would be offended that they cannot show their friends a process of eating that is considerably more uncomfortable to watch, if only because it is less commonly seen. But every time I think about all the activists sensationalizing the superfluous details of the story like women's rights and equality, that's when I really cringe and wish I had a night-light to chase away that boogieman.
Ever fantasized about boobs in your teen/20s (with/without losing virginity)?
What's the "core" user base of the modern social web sites(esp Facebook)?
Any connections?
Breastfed babies don't suck in as much air as
bottlefed babies. Burping the baby is seldom
needed.
Facebook should follow the goatse trailblazing legal approach. Put a warning on top of the photo "The goatse.cx lawyer has informed us that we need a warning! So.. if you are under the age of 18 or find this photograph offensive, please don't look at it. Thank you!"
You ever notice those random people posting flyers for bands, protests, and religious gatherings on phone/power poles in your town? People seem to think that the internet functions in the same way.
FYI, it does not.
Facebook is a privately held entity, and as such they have free right to refuse business and set regulations on how you use THEIR SERVICES. It's not good business to tell people to go away, but that doesn't mean it isn't outside their power. When you post anything on there, it's akin to going to your local corner store, taping a bulletin to their window. If the clerk tore it down, would you feel compelled to tell him he's violated your first amendment rights? No, because you KNOW that the store is his property.
On the internet, let's pretend that a website is a store and the person who owns and operates it is the clerk. The exact same analogy now applies.
This isn't a case of censorship, nor is it a case of perception of nudity, the website said "we don't want you to do X". If we declared X to be "post pictures of broken furniture" nobody would care because it's not a hot button issue. I hope everyone who feels so affected by this can take a deep breath and remember that just because you don't like rules doesn't mean they don't exist. /thread, go home, worry about something important
Men are distracted by breasts, but that's not really the problem. What makes men really uncomfortable it the idea that some milking mom is going to freak out on them for glancing over and get all postal because she thinks he's leering in a sexual way. Your outburst does not help the issue of acceptance.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Yea, it's natural. So is taking a shit or piss. But you'd be pretty annoyed if I sat down randomly next to you in public and pitched a loaf next to you. Cover that shit up. I don't want to see it. Just like most people don't want to see me whip out my dong in public.
"A geek like you, but who doesn't get the respect
you do because I wear a skirt and you wear pants."
Riiight...
I'm guessing you are male. I've known a number of
geek women, and I've yet to see an attitude like
yours. Not that it's impossible of course, but
IMHO the chances are rather slim.
(you could be a non-geek one of course, in which
case you've mistaken slashdot for myspace)
How can it be that on the internet there supposedly are a lot of people who do not like breasts.
Rule #1 is that on the internet, the men are men.
Rule #2 is that on the internet, the women are men.
Rule #3 is that on the internet, the girls are FBI agents.
Plus the "training" reference is obvious. It's a term used in S+M stuff. He's the slave. He's being trained to be a girl. His master makes him dress like a girl and do girly things. (probably also some really nasty things too)
...and there was tons of drama there. Anyone recall the outcome...?
The targets of your protests (ie. Facebook) also reserve the right to tell you to fuck off, and opt to ignore your request.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
You seriously think that a baby is going to starve because its mother took an extra 30 seconds to go to the restroom to breastfeed?
I guess that might make the baby cry a little, but crying is half of what babies do. The other half is sleep. They eat and poop pretty much autonomously.
This is /., so here is a car analogy: If I see a car wreck on the highway, it is human nature to look. It isnt something I ever hope to see, but inevitably, it happens. When I stare, the people in the accident should not be offended. Here is the analogy part: If I see someone breastfeeding in a public place (for example, in the movie theatre), I will probably stare. Im still not going to like it, but it will be interfering with my ability to look at other things. I can hope that it was an accident, but the circumstances where it could be one is if the mother is a disease carrying leper and her arms are gone, so she cant pull the baby away from her breasts long enough to respect the rest of society enough not to breastfeed in public.
Suppose the woman was fully dressed in a very
conservative way. Despite this, a group of guy
stands around staring at her body and talking
about it.
I don't see the difference.
Society has already decided, in 48 states, that mothers are -not- required to go the toilet to feed their kids. So, you lose.
You don't need to f%$k every couple of hours!
If we don't allow women to breastfeed in public pretty much whenever and wherever they (or, really, the baby) please then there are two possible outcomes:
(1) Moms will be forced to formula/bottle feed; which has indisputably negative health effects for the baby.
or
(2) Moms will be unable to leave home for the first year or so of the childs life.
Your comparison to public sex simply makes no sense.
Seriously, breastfeeding should be considered nudity. I understand that sometimes it has to be done because the little worm won't shut it, but it doesn't have to be accepted as a part of everyday life. Most people carry a bottle when they're in public, and I really don't want to see my high school classmates nursing their kids because they tagged somebody in a photo. I think we should put the social stigma back on this issue. (possibly flamebait, but wtf.)
I'll remember that when some creep smiles and opens his trench coat from across the room for you.
Massive difference in context: When a male creep flashes a female stranger it is firstly a potentially threatening and dangerous situation and should rightfully invoke fear, is secondly explicitly sexual, and is thirdly specifically directed at her.
When a woman flips open to breastfeed in front of me, it is not potentially threatening to me, isn't explicitly sexual, and isn't directed at me. Do you really think this is equivalent?
Restrooms are probably the cleanest places you can find in public areas because they're one of the few that are regularly sanitized.
Uh, the very reason they are "regularly sanitized" is because they are FILTHY. Do you have any clue how much urine and bits of feces get splashed all over a cubicle and walls etc. just from one, single flush of a toilet? Now do that for dozens of strangers in a row, before the cleaner comes in, and then make a baby eat there. WTF.
What next, getting morally outraged because I don't want to see you having sex with someone? I mean, after all.. That's perfectly natural too. So is masturbation.
You are setting up your own strawman false-equivalent that is easier to shoot down (sex in public) than breastfeeding, and pretending there is an equivalence between the two.
How the hell can a glimpse of a healthy female breast possibly be considered offensive by anyone??? That's the craziest fucking thing I've ever heard.
AFAIK it is true they cannot ask you to stop breastfeeding, but they certainly can ask you to leave their premise (private property) for whatever reason they wish.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Also disallow any full frontal MALE breast nudity. Wanna bet it won#t be the case ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Is it acceptable to you that a twenty year old person (male or female) sucks milk from a womans breast in public. I think I would find such a scene disturbing, although a two year old sucking on the same breast is totally acceptable to me.
So, at what age is breast feeding no longer acceptable ?
Now, If you have no problem with an adult sucking breast milk in public, do you have a problem with an adult sucking semen from a penis in public ? What if it were a 18 month old baby sucking semen from a penis ? What if an adult was licking the shit out of someones ass in public ? I'm trying to decide how we make such arbitrary decisions about what is acceptable and what is not.
Personally I have no issue with public breast feeding. But I certainly would not want to see some of the other activities I described, although I can't say for sure where I draw the line.
Actually, while most people would agree it is 'distasteful' the previous poster has a perfectly valid point, and you are very very wrong.
If someone chooses to breastfeed in a public place, they have no 'expectation of privacy' and should accept someone taking a photo of them, watching them, whatever.
If it is find to do in public, then dont complain about the public taking notice!
Of course it is not NICE to stare/take pictures/whatever, but it is just as 'right' as the breastfeeding itself.
Or perhaps you think your double standards trump the previous posters rights?
Of course what you want to do above is assault at the least, and SHOULD get you arrested, and charged.
If the woman wants her privacy (and the rest of us for whatever we do in public..) then perhaps she should find somewhere where she does have privacy...
I suspect of course in the real world someone WOULD try to stop that photo being taken, or even call some misguided police to cause trouble - this is the world of double standards we live in, but that does not make it right.
What the hell is a mammel? /irony
Cigarettes for babies?
These may not be my thoughts (or they maybe) but I dont see why I should have my liberties taken away and be forced to see this sort of thing. I understand babies need to eat but why do that in public view. I need to pee but I tend to do it in a designated, private area.
Many public websites do not allow photographs of people in their underwear, isn't this discriminating against underwear models? should they sue for possible loss of earnings?
Wow, I didnt know that 'society' consisted of only US states ;) pity the rest of the world...
Actually, not disagreeing with you, but that was a PARTICULARLY stupid thing to say.
Secondly, the issue here isn't whether or not breastfeeding is allowed in public. It's whether or not Facebook has the right to censor photos of breastfeeding mothers. Aside from the fact that none of the young mothers *I* know would be caught dead posting breastfeeding pictures on Facebook (Seriously? What the HELL are you thinking? It's the Internet. Would you post a basic shot of just your tits on it? No? Then what convinces you that it's better to have a baby in the picture that just so happens to be hanging out near said tits?), the fact remains that Facebook has the right to remove content at its sole discretion. Like it or lump it, that fact remains.
As for your final point, I don't think there's a Christian church in the world who would disagree with you that Jesus did, in fact, suckle happily away at the Virgin Teat. Were you just flaming, or are you actually stupid enough to think that people believe otherwise?
P.S. As I mentioned before, please check your spelling of "mammal." Also for your consideration: "argument," "asinine," "let's," and "self-righteous."
The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
I can see there are not many breastfeeding mothers around here :-)
You are all missing the point these women are trying to make.
Facebook is telling them that something they do everyday and which is as normal as breathing to them, is obsceen. They are labelling it as indecent putting the loving act of feeding their baby in the same category as porn or violence. That hurts.
Especialy because it concerns their children. It makes them feel degraded. And that makes them angry.
And in case you haven't noticed. FB has not only banned public pictures, they have also removed photo's that were labeled private and only visible to friends. So it has nothing to do with this being public and everything with an overzealous censor at FB.
I'd always assumed that "girlintraining" was a pre-op tranny, myself. Last I heard, the surgeons weren't THAT good.
If you're serious, then you have no idea how hard babies suck, and how sensitive womens' nipples are to pain. Given that you're an Anonymous Coward on Slashdot, I shouldn't find the latter surprising.
In meatspace you just don't have any choice--there is no more land. {...} The Internet looks infinite, but it's not.
Well in contrary to the meatspace, teh intertubes has an (almost) instantenous ability to jump from one place to another.
If I duplicate Facebook's site and change only the breast policy, do you think that people will switch, even though the new one is better?
Why do you need to *duplicate the whole* Facebook ?
Why not just host your *picture galleries* in some jurisdiction that makes a distinction between feeding a child and sexual assault ?
Then only put a single cover picture and link to your gallery on Facebook ? ("Latest pictures of junior available on this URL")
That should solve so many problem on so many levels :
- picture against Facebook's rules of policy aren't hosted there anymore. no more problem.
- the link is visible in Facebook, so friends are kept in loop without having to track hundreds of separate websites. the "hard to move the whole friend network" problem isn't there.
- thanks to advances like OpenID, there won't even be that much different log-ins to track (the friends will use one single OpenID - from their blog for example - to log into all the various off-site galleries)
- bots are able to follow links and can jump from one domain to another following links. If the target gallery is designed to be bots-friendly, the pictures will nonetheless be accessible to Google and such, and will still be searchable.
- In an indirect way, people will be "voting with their wallets" - the users will spend a little bit more time on off-site galleries and a little less viewing pictures on Facebook, thus depriving them from their lucrative ADS revenue stream. If this get significant enough Facebook might notice it, and might rethink its policy. Otherwise you still have a solution that works anyway.
In short :
The web has always been though as a distributed and interlinked system. Please keep this in mind and keep distributing you content in several places and linking them together as you see it fit.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Hey ! I think your onto something there :
I think that just goes to show how stupid and dangerous it is to allow a central authority to gain such control, especially when there are other alternatives. {...} No, the real (but difficult) solution is to convince Facebook's users to start building a truly distributed social network, so that there is no one entity which gets to decide what's acceptable and what isn't
I smell a great business plan !~
We could, you know, imagine a distributed content system. With each content linked to each other.
Doesn't need to be complicated.
Sort of just text documents with pictures in them. But in addition of that with links between them : like some *advanced text*. All connected in all direction like some higher dimensional figure. But I can't find a name for it yet~
But that sure is going to be a lot of complicated data. Maybe we should hire some guys to help us develop this linked-text format. I've heard that the people at the LHC have to deal with lots of data to publish on a regular basis. Maybe they could help us design with format~
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I don't know about you... but I wouldn't like eating in a restroom either. Restrooms might be clean (not all of them are) but they still usually smell like shit (or air freshner, which normally is not all that better).
The main thing is that it's not nice sending people to breastfeed to a small space all by themselves. If you're sitting at the table with the breastfeeding person you probably can work things out with them... if you're in another table it's pretty easy to look the other way.
As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
They should be posting those pics on Breaststory!
As a private enterprise, they have the right to restrict what they want.
And people have the right to complain.
And they figure that more people that visit their site than not would not like looking at it. And if they are after traffic numbers for ad providers, they will do whatever gets them the most views. Capitalism at work.
And how do you think people will hear about what Facebook are doing, in order to decide whether to use it? Perhaps by telling people about it, and maybe some news stories about it too?
Last time I looked, Slashdot often has stories about private organisations, and not the Government. Why is this any different? Is there some reason why stories about Facebook - you know, one of the major websites on the Internet - are not newsworthy all of a sudden?
I take a shit every day and it is perfectly normal activity, as normal as breathing and eating. It is also a loving act because seriously, who wouldn't be proud of a good solid bowel movement? I know I am. Some people might think it's obscene but let's face the fact: everybody poops!
It may be a loving act and it may be as normal as breathing, but that means nothing when you're asking if it is socially acceptable to display in public. Sorry to poop on your parade.
Does that mean that if I post a shirtless pic of myself (I don't, more to save my own modesty) on facebook that it should be considered nudity?
And BTW, I'm a guy...
How about if I'm a guy with gynecomastia?
At this point though, it seems more a case of law (many states/provinces legally permit breastfeeding in public, and in fact rules against such are illegal) than a case of my values or even yours.
While there may be some overlap, the female members of group(s) that are against the display of breasts in public are quite likely to be the same that would bitch about breastfeeding in public.
Seriously, how many guys do you know that would bitch about boobs in public? The only time it's ever bothered me was when I saw a cute baby, went to look closer, and got the dirty look because he was apparently attached to a boob at the time (a bit embarrassing, but it's fairly natural for people to peek at cute babies, especially those planning their own future parenthood).
The rest of the society has no problem with breastfeeding, as evidenced by a number of laws in place specifically to protect the right to breastfeed in public. It's just a bunch of whiny pervs like you, and who cares about your respect anyway?
As the subject says; Why post the pictures? Is it really all that important for people to see?
Now we see the violence inherent in the system.
You seem to be confused about something. _You_ have chosen to be offended, so it it a time for _you_ to take some responsibility. Bring a blanket and put it over your own head and then you won't have to see anything you don't like. Why would you expect the entire world to get out of your way just because you can't be bothered to prepare for that?
Depends how hungry I am, I've eaten in the shower, drank beer in the shower, hell I've eaten pizza or a sandwhich while taking a crunch. At the bar, I even drink beer while pissing at a urinal. So yes, I do eat in a bathroom :-)
Am I the only male that is not turned on by breast feeding?? Are men so perverse that a baby feeding turns them on?
In puritan USA, breasts fall under the "evil anatomy" that has to be obsessed over under any circumstances. Perhaps they should require women cover up with a large vale when nursing?
In a free society nude people could walk down the street.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Well, you're most certainly welcome to :)
The benefits conferred to infants via breast milk are vastly and dangerously overstated. New mothers are so brainwashed by well-meaning people like yourself that they actually endanger their babies by purchasing breast milk from unscreened donors--breast milk that could infect their children with hepatitis or HIV.
The benefits of breastfeeding can only be measured over large populations. If you think your individual child is going to get sick any less, or be any smarter, or even any measurable benefit from breastfeeding, you are crazy.
Perhaps you think that I am crazy. Perhaps you are right. But if I am, please show me the test that can determine even whether or not a 5 year old kid was breastfed (let alone, whether that 5 year old kid got any benefit/detriment from breast milk vs. formula).
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Gorillas have a dominant male, with a harem of females, and the other males don't get any.
Sounds like humans in high school.
Chimpanzees live in a large group and mate a lot, but there is a hierarchy of males where the more dominant ones get more.
Now that sounds more like grown adult humans.
In "Making Sense of Sex", the authors discuss how a female bonobo will observe a male eating something good, and then go to them to offer sex. While the male is getting busy, the female will take the food.
That sounds like older humans who have been in many relationships.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Thats awesome, claim your used to diversity in the same paragraph where you argue against some other group who feels differently than you do.
'Have an open mind, accept other peoples point of view, but yours has to match mine exactly or you don't have an open mind.'
If you were as politically correct and willing to accept diversity as you'd like to have us think, you wouldn't have posted what you did as you would be willing to accept the other 'unenlightened' points of view. Cut the holier than thou bullshit, you suck at it.
Mothers are a powerful force, no doubt, they make up a rather large percentage of our population. What you are unlikely to find is a large percentage of mothers who actually gives a shit about posting breast feeding photos on Facebook. I'm sure many won't see a problem with it, but most won't see why you would want to in the first place so its likely to end exactly like I expect it to. The same way it always does when a tiny group of vocal people start doing silly crap to get their own agenda accomplished. The end result is that the rest of the world starts to think of them as nutjobs, including those who would otherwise be sympathetic to their cause.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
One of these days I should really create an account... le sigh.
That said, this is simply about breasts. What is facebook's policy on unobstructed, nipple-visible breasts? Its clearly not pornographic under the traditional definition - plain nudity is never considered porn. Does FB ban nudity as well? If the answer is yes, then it doesn't matter if there's a baby or a large gage barbell hanging off of the nipple, the picture should be removed.
Now, if they don't ban nudity and any woman can post her bare breasts, then breastfeeding should be allowed.
If not, sorry, you're simply violating their no-nudity policy. You are not special because you are breastfeeding your baby - no more special than artist who expresses herself with body paint, tattoos, or piercings that cause her to reveal her nipples.
I'm sick of this "I have children, make an exception for me because I'm special and entitled".
Well I think it is sexy. So if the objective is to reduce arousal... mission accomplished. Then again, the amount of forced cleavage shots from young girls is probably more significant. FYI: there is a vid on youtube with a 8 year old still breast feeding. search for "breastfeeding at 8"
Yes indeed, these concepts are at the core of the web it self (hence my joke).
The sad truth is that :
- except for a few geeks, nobody is going on their own to build their own "small-brick-of-the-great-social-building" (giving "not enough skills" as the main excuse).
- thus people will have to rely on ready-to-use solutions.
- it is not in most companies' interests (at least not in the interest of those companies which managed to get most market share) to be interoperable.
- thus most of the time, the ready-to-use solution that most Joe-6-packs will find is Facebook or another similar system which completely lost and isolated (expect for the much more cheaper connection, there's basically no difference if the service runs on the internet or if it is some direct connected service like back in the BBS-over-modem time). See the Facebook's chat system which had to be reverse engineered to create the plugin for pidgin.
- only very few actors like Google are in a specific niche where interoperating with partners is critical. And even then they don't succeed in all their side project : in addition to their search engine, their e-mail system is incredibly popular and uses an open system including the chat system (conforms to XMPP/Jabber). But on the other hand their Virtual World wasn't the expected success, in web already dominated by other players in the MMO/virtual reality field.
Thus, it is going to be a very difficult uphill battle to convince giants like Facebook to play along with smaller players.
On the other hand, Facebook's API for plugins make it possible, even if the main developers aren't interested in, to try to develop plugins to help inter-operate with open standards.
On a side note, I think that what I'm proposing a couple of post above (host the pictures in an off-site gallery and only publish the URL on facebook) is a nice first step toward the direction.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
the reason situations like this come up is absolutely not because people are offended by women breastfeeding their children. the reason this is an issue is because women get mad/scared/freaked when they notice that someone is watching them breastfeed their child and the person watching is castigated for being pervert. what's the big deal if you watch some woman breastfeed her child. the percentage of people who would find that erotic is roughly equivalent to the percentage that download softcore porn...not very high.
I found a censoring application on Facebook: http://apps.facebook.com/censorit