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."
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".
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!
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.
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.
The problem is simple - Facebook has a black and white policy for censorship, when censorship is a gray area. That's why you have various ratings for movies and video games. The article hints at changing culture to accept the pictures. There is a technological/social solution besides forcing acceptance - a rating system for objectionableness and the ability for an individual user to set what level of objectionableness they are willing to tolerate. The article offers another solution at the end:
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.
Facebook has a black and white policy for censorship, when censorship is a gray area.
No bare breasts. What's gray about that?
I agree that it's not the smartest policy move, but facebook has that right.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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?
Ah. But surely Facebook and MySpace are not places for display of alcohol consumption either. Or are you insinuating that those sites are actually the right place for such content?
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...
"If you want to post your breastfeeding pics why not do it where it's welcome?"
Toss them up on 4chan, where they will be treated with respect and archived for generations yet unborn.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Hmmn, so pictures of children eating shouldn't go on facebook or myspace? I've seen pictures of adults eating, what's the difference?
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.
I didn't say they didn't have the right to ban things. I said that a problem with that policy is it doesn't take into account gray areas, such non-offensive nudity, which for a lot of people includes breast exposed during nursing. What happens if I want my Facebook photo to be Venus De Milo?
No bare breasts. What's gray about that?
Will they ban beach pics of fat uncle Tony who has gynecomastia wearing just his shorts?
... 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.
Actually, they might not.
There was a real flap in my hometown a couple of weeks before Christmas where a mother was breastfeeding in a restaurant, and the waitress asked her to stop. When the mother refused, the waitress got ugly, had her manager come out, and even called the police. The police said the restaurant had the right to ask her to stop, and that the mother was in the wrong.
The thing is, it's legal to breastfeed anywhere that you're legally allowed to be while not breastfeeding, and noone has the right to ask you to stop, or to ask you to leave solely on the fact that you're breastfeeding.
Now there's a lawsuit against the restaurant, and the city police department, who had no clue about the laws they're supposed to be enforcing.
Would laws like this regarding breastfeeding translate into the online world? Depends on how they were written, but I know the one in this case says you're not allowed to ask a breastfeeding mother to "cover up." Does removing a photo of breastfeeding constitute asking her to cover up? It might.
Of course, with MySpace, we're talking about the US here, where babies are legally required to close their eyes while breastfeeding, because seeing the nipple during feeding would irreparably harm the child's fragile brain.....
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
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.
Nursing is not obscene and doing it publicly is not exhibitionism. A photo of you having the stick removed from you arse would be obscene though.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Just why exactly isn't it illegal to breastfeed in public when it's illegal to have sex in public? Both are equally natural and equally disconcerting to everyone but the people involved.
By the same token, they could have any privacy policy and TOS they want, too, but you can bet there would be a huge uproar here if they did things nerds thought was unethical. To me, both cases are just as interesting. (That is to say, not.)
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
... realize that neither Facebook or MySpace is the place for such content...
Why not, and says whom?
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.
Do they allow bikinis? Because frankly you see more with today's bikinis than you see when a woman is breast feeding. I never understood the whole big whoop over this anyway. There must be some seriously perverted folks out there if they are getting a woody from a woman breast feeding. Maybe we are different but here in AR during the summer I have seen women nursing their babies in the park pretty constantly. Nobody pays anymore mind to it than to a woman changing a dirty diaper. Hell before they turn two than is pretty much all they do, eat and poop with some spitting up thrown in for good measure. Of the women I knew who breast fed trying to get a picture of them WITHOUT the baby latched on like a heat seeking missile in those first two years was pretty impossible.
And finally lets be honest: we are talking about the Internet here. Anyone can type in "titties" into any search engine and see a whole lot better breasts without having a baby in the picture. Just put in a simple "friends only" button so those that aren't on their friends lists can't see anything. Problem solved. This "protect teh childrenz!" crap is frankly just that: crap. Any red blooded teen boy is going to find a way around any damned filter you set up anyway and they are going to be looking for something better than a boob with a big fat baby head in the way. Parents should just do their damned job instead of expecting the world to do it for them.
Just to see if it was any good when the whole "cyber nanny" filtering software craze hit I installed some filtering software and blocked all my oldest boys favorite sites. I then told him "I want you to see if you can get around it." it took him all of 4 minutes with Google to completely blow through that filtering crap. That is why when my nephews are over the PC they use can be seen by me from my bench simply by glancing to my left. And the PC at their house that is hooked to the net is in the breakfast nook where anyone can look over or walk by. Hell of a lot better IMHO than expecting the world to child proof itself for my boys benefit.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
Yeah, I know, it's not really scary or antisocial behaviour to breastfeed, but nobody wants to see someone else's kid doing it when trying to eat.
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.
Well, for starters, you generally aren't going to gather a crowd when breastfeeding...
Besides, EVERYONE wants to have sex... not everyone wants to watch milk get sucked out of a fat womans nipple.
I think it is about mob control, NOT keeping you from doing what you want.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
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?
Because one is an intimate act between two individuals; the other is just a normal feeding activity and the real reason why breasts exist. That some people have a problem with bare breasts because they've been overly sexualized by media and some religions is not the breastfeeding mother's (or hungry baby's) fault.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
How about the obvious? Sometimes, babies need to eat wherever they are, regardless of social setting. No one NEEDS to have sex at any particular time. And, I'll add that if you think watching a couple have sex is as equally disconcerting as a mother breastfeeding, you may want to move to the nearest monastery. Nothing there should ever disconcert you.
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.
Yes it's thier(sic) website & they can allow/disallow anything they bleeding want, however they must make that clear in the T&C's
What they are guilty of, actually, is that they encouraged Everyone to join, no strings, in order to gain members/traction, then surreptitiously change(d) the T&C's to specifically exclude all this stuff that people have been posting for years.
Disclaimer: I would rather gnaw my own ear off, with a pencil stuck in my eye, than have a myfacebeplace page.
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Just why exactly isn't it illegal to breastfeed in public when it's illegal to have sex in public? Both are equally natural and equally disconcerting to everyone but the people involved.
What? you think you have a right to find everything you look at pleasant? Just because you find it disconcerting does not automatically make it bad.
dear god, I hope so!
I can assure you that one does not gather a crowd with having sex in public. It would seem that nobody cares and will at most give you a passing glance they otherwise would not.
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.
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....
You're right. The world is full of things I don't want to see; they're everywhere! Clearly the solution is the entire world must reconfigure itself so that I never see anything I don't want to look at.
Every store should stop stocking things that I don't want to buy. ...or...
All art that I don't like should be destroyed. Every person that I don't like should be shipped to another planet.
Every place that I don't want to visit should be nuked.
All people on earth (those that are left, anyway) who want to speak should be required to first verify that I want to hear what they are saying first.
If you don't want to see it, DONT FUCKING LOOK AT IT!
Ahh, yes. This argument hinges upon "civilized" being defined as "the western culture I'm from". In China, children (and, occasionally, adults) urinate in the street and nobody cares. And yet, the places where that happens are considered more civilized than places in Europe that 300 years ago that called themselves that.
And yet sex is an intimate act between two individuals just because certain religions and cultures have deemed it so. It used to be just about procreation and there was zero emotion or intimacy attached, do you see monkeys having trouble with sexual acts in public? No, because it's a normal act of furthering the species.
Next argument please.
Nursing in a general setting is not obscene, because you really do just need to feed the kid. Thing is, its different when you take photos of yourself breastfeeding. Then it becomes more about sex, and thats why the banned it from facebook.
Just because sexuality has been overly criminalized by a prudish society is not the fault of those engaging in sexual acts.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
This is the same issue we have gone over again and again here on /. when talking about blocking cellphone reception in movie theaters.
I allow you onto my private property to eat at my restaurant. I can tell you to leave for any, or even no, reason.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
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.
I think that depends on where you are having sex in public. I assure you where I live, in the heart of Texas...you'd get more than a passing glance, except maybe in a rock concert or party (where you can be raped and beaten to death, and not get a call on your behalf).
I think the deal is, as anyone who has children knows, when the baby is hungry you better feed it. Hungry babies have various habits which make EVERYONE in their immediate vicinity suffer when not fed.
Breast feeding isn't an intimate act? Do you know that the chemicals released in the brain during breast feeding are what help bond mother and baby? That those same chemicals are used by con artists to get people to be more trusting?
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
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.
... realize that neither Facebook or MySpace is the place for such content...
Why not, and says whom?
Ah, my point exactly as to the lines that are casually crossed and who deems what as inappropriate. I'm quite certain that I can think of a couple dozen "completely natural" acts that human beings partake on a daily basis that have no reason whatsoever being photographed and put online. Allow this, and what will follow?
In reading TFA, I noticed that one mother stated "I think it's time we all get over this notion that women's breasts are dangerous and harmful for children to see...". I'm curious how that mother would feel when they find one of their daughters topless online? After all, in her mind, they're harmless and we should get over it, right?
This is why the policy should draw a firm line that removes question regarding favoritism with this type of censorship.
And to be clear on my stance regarding censorship, normally I'm completely against it, but in this particular case, and with these social networking sites, some level of protection needs to be applied given the sheer number of "children" using them. As I stated before, I'm certain there are plenty of other sites that would welcome this type of content.
...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.
The trouble with these social sites is that you do have to use them when you want to stay in contact with all your friends that are also there. Its the whole point of those pages after all, they network their users so that you have a lot of dependencies, so that once you are in, it becomes quite hard to leave without losing a lot. This feels kind of like arguing "Whats wrong with filtering the Internet? You can after all just build up your own independed network...".
There's a difference between a statue and a picture of real tits.
Not according to the government.
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.
Will they ban beach pics of fat uncle Tony who has gynecomastia wearing just his shorts?
I hope so.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
How about the obvious? Sometimes, babies need to eat wherever they are, regardless of social setting. No one NEEDS to have sex at any particular time. And, I'll add that if you think watching a couple have sex is as equally disconcerting as a mother breastfeeding, you may want to move to the nearest monastery. Nothing there should ever disconcert you.
Monastery? While that might solve his problem, that is only treating the symptoms.
If you find the sight of a mother breastfeeding highly disconcerting, you should probably see a psychologist. Your subconscious is clearly grappling with something unpleasant...
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
That will require honing the technology to make it more certain that only people within specific networks and groups could see, say, a breast-feeding photo, while keeping children from seeing nudity.
But that's exactly what is wrong with that policy! Every child who got breast-feed has already seen nudity as defined by "bare breasts (et.al.)" (except the breast-feeding mother was covering the eyes of the toddler during the meals ;) ).
The term "nudity" itself or at least its negative connotation is wrong.
They are unequivocally and inarguably the absolute best one by leaps and bounds.
Go ahead, say they should use breast pumps. Just ignore the whole immune-system-feedback loop and biochemical bonding processes and tell those ugly disgusting women that they need to make their babies grow up less happy and healthy just so as to avoid offending your delicate sensibilities.
Maybe you could even argue that breastfeeding women should especially arrange their lives so as never to be seen by people who don't want to see them. Maybe give them their very own restaurants and drinking fountains and seats on the bus away from us decent non-breastfeeding folk.
Sound good?
And those chemicals are exactly those that also create the bonding during the sexual intercourse.
From a hormonal point of view breast-feeding and sexual intercourse are pretty similar.
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.
No. And neither did you.
FYI...breast pumps usually damage a woman's milk ducts (leaky teats). That is a reason why some mother's only breast feed.
No, everywhere and at everytime you are able to prepare 37ÂC warm food with exactly the nutritional ingredients a newborn needs.
They do NOT have a policy against pictures showing ANYONE eating. They have a policy against showing nudity. That is why you cannot put pictures like the ones on Free Cumswallowing Videos Galleries at zuzazu.com on Facebook either. Sure, these women are eating. They are also not allowed to post those pictures of them eating on Facebook.
Personally, I'd be happy if Facebook did not have policy against nudity. Heck, I'm barely in support of public anti-nudity laws. The only reason I have any support for them is the thought of really crowded places where people are going to be grinding into each other whether dressed or not. But, that does not mean that I am ignorant enough to try to claim that anti-nudity policies are the same as anti-eating policies.
And keep a stove with a battery pack nearby to warm the milk to 37 degree Celsius.
Why would breast feeding be "disconcerting".
Breast feeding in public should not be illegal, just as eating a meal in public is not illegal. Both are non-sexual acts. Everyone kisses with their mouth, but we don't have to cover up our mouths in public. Eating a meal is just as natural and both don't bother me.
On the other hand I do feel having sex is something people should do in private.
Anarchists never rule
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.
Pragmatically speaking, sex is a LOT messier, too messy for many public places. I don't think anyone wants to, say, eat in a restaurant where people mess cum and other stuff on the chairs or tables and who knows where else. Sex is messy.
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.
It used to be just about procreation and there was zero emotion or intimacy attached, do you see monkeys having trouble with sexual acts in public?
This argument doesn't quite work, because we're humans and not monkeys. What does that have to do with it? It has to do with our evolutionary legacy. Humans are different when it comes to sex than most other creatures. We have sex when the woman is not in estrous, you can't even tell when a woman is in estrous, woman have orgasms (well, the one's with _me_ do, anyway, can't say for you), and males and females are supposedly monogomous, but are not really.
Human society is largely a result of our sexual history and tendencies. People are jealous, they cheat, and they don't have sex in public in general. Compare human mating habits to our close relatives (orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas); it is a fascinating topic (see The Third Chimpanzee).
Anyway, the result is that sex is a private thing. Feeding is not. It's stupid to pretend otherwise.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
And, clearly, breasts are the only possible source of food for infants.
Not always. Of course, it is usually the best source of food for infants. It constantly amazes me that our society still seems to think that technology is always superior to nature, but frankly, we're rank amateurs. Nature's been working on this for millennia.
BTW, we had an infant that refused to feed from anything except Mommy's breast. Are you suggesting that my wife should not have been allowed in public for over two years?
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
Along with the sibling post by AC, some people might disagree.
Gladly, our society had, on the whole, treated breastfeeding in public in a sane way - by treating it as normal, not putting restrictions on it, and even protecting it (this is actually one of the few positive examples of "think of the children"). If you are such a prude that you can't stand seeing it - unlike the vast majority of the rest of us - you are always free to turn away and stop looking, or just leave. What you suggest is a very real, physical, objective inconvenience to the woman and the baby. Whereas the "inconvenience" you claim you suffer when looking at such an act is entirely in your messed-up head. That's why no-one cares about the latter, and everyone cares about the former.
Fortunately, nobody has to move just yet. Your comment just raised the quality of /. up just enough to keep us going a little longer.
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.
Equal rights. Men are allowed to remove their shirts in public so women are as well.
Neither men or woman are allowed to show their genitals in public so it is fair.
It is called freedom and in most of the free world men and women have the same rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The rule is simple. If you do not like the rule, go somewhere else.
Who says? What's wrong with trying to change the rules?
In meatspace you just don't have any choice--there is no more land. "If you don't like the country you're in, go start your own" is a great rule, but there are too many people: the countries that already exist cover all the habitable land.
The Internet looks infinite, but it's not. It's only as infinite as peoples' ability to keep track of multiple sites. 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?
If I find something offensive, why shouldn't I speak out against it? It is offensive that breasts are regarded as indecent. If it were merely ridiculous I might be able to swallow it, but since there are so many sick fucks out there who believe that the human body is disgusting and evil, what's wrong with trying to change their attitude? Not doing so invites the same thing that allowing any other form of hatred invites: more people brainwashed, and a society in which the majority grow up ill and try to push their perverted self-hatred onto everyone else.
What's wrong with trying to change minds?
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
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.)
It may not be obscene, but nobody wants to see it! Seriously folks, Go home and feed your brat! Nobody really wants your saggy titties or your screaming stinking brat around anyway! GTFO!
Let's see.
1) Get married.
2) Have a child.
3) Abandon your family because your wife's body suddenly doesn't have the shape and appearance of a 15-year-old. (And for some reason this takes you by surprise.) And because you hate children and think that somehow you were exceptional.
Maybe when you grow up you'll learn better, or maybe you'll just hate your life because the world doesn't look like a Playboy magazine. Sorry about that, but reality isn't going to mold itself to your fantasy world.
P.S. if it bothers you that much, consider not staring. It's not polite anyway.
P.P.S. "Nobody?" That's a pretty wide brush you're painting with, fellow. Just because you find it offensive doesn't mean everybody does. You're one person out of a population of over six thousand million and you don't speak for everybody. Get over yourself.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
The restaurant owner is trying to run a private business and the last thing he/she needs is someone scaring the other customers away.
I'd like to see you use this argument if it was about a restaurant owner refusing to serve a black guy. "I'm trying to run a private business and the last thing I need is this black guy scaring the other customers away.". After all, it's private property, right?
c++;
The last few times a restaurant (or whatever) has tried to pull a stunt like that here in Australia, the breastfeeding advocacy groups held a 'feed in' where they get as many breastfeeding mothers as possible to go the restaurant and breastfeed their babies.
My understanding of breasts, which is admittedly very little, is that the majority is fatty tissue, not devoted to feeding young.
I understand breasts' "primary" function to be attracting a mate, as the majority is not used in milk production.
Read a little evolutionary biology. There is sufficient scientific discussion that face-to-face copulation between humans enabled our species to make it an intimate act long before "certain religions" existed.
First off, if the child is actively breastfeeding, the "objectionable bits", according to Facebook, are covered. Its when pictures are taken of the baby near the exposed breast that they take issue.
Secondly comparing the ability to breastfeed in public vs the ability to post public pictures of breastfeeding are two different issues and one does not beget the other.
When a mother is actually breastfeeding, the child is gaining some benefit from it. Arguments about breast pumps aside, someone is gaining some benefit from the feeding.
Posting pictures of the baby breastfeeding really does not affect the baby's well being, thus Facebook would take the stance that it is perfectly within its rights to take them down.
I personally don't understand why someone feels compelled to post breastfeeding photos on Facebook to begin with, unless it was part of some sort of breastfeeding instruction manual to help other new mothers out. Thus, there would be a net benefit to the baby.
But of the myriad of cute baby photos that you can post of your little darling, why do you have to post pictures of breastfeeding? Why is there a need to document every second of the child's life and post it in a public forum? Is your creativity low? Have you exhausted every other adorable scene?
Perhaps, this stems from me being a male, and so I will never understand the mother/child bond, but I think the whole debate is silly. If the child is not on the breast, then it is not actually being breastfed. Thus it is not technically a picture of the child breastfeeding.
"I'm a humble person really,
I'm actually much greater than I think I am"
There are two aspects to this: facebook's right to have this rule, and people liking this rule. There is really nothing wrong with complaining about a rule you don't like - even if you don't debate facebook's right to have that rule. In fact - many companies would probably prefer to have people complain about the things they don't like, rather than just leaving. It gives them a chance to understand their customers or users and adjust to do something about it.
you may want to move to the nearest monastery. Nothing there should ever disconcert you.
...other than the monks doing the elephant walk.
"You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
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.
For the same reason it isn't illegal for you to chew with your mouth open, also a natural and disconcerting action.
How would you like me to deny your right to food (there's a fundamental human right if there ever was one), all because I felt squeamish about the way you eat? Now why do you deny a baby its rights?
No, bottle feeding isn't an option. Formula is basically processed food for babies and carries many of the negatives of processed food for adults. It should only be used as a last resort. Expressing then feeding from a bottle, without a reason, exposes both the baby and mother to needless risk of infection and other complications.
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.
how is a rating system ever anything other than "black and white"?
Even when it classifies things exactly how YOU might classify them, it's done so in a black and white fashion which others may not agree with. Rating systems are a sign that culture needs to take the stick out of its ass and get rid of the belief that it's not only okay to never be offended, but to be expected.
Sometimes you'll see something you object to. You can choose not to click "view next image", but saying you can choose not to accidentally ever be exposed to anything similar is just feeding the flames.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
internet rule number 5: when you have no valid argument, attack spelling and grammar.
Restricting breastfeeding in public / common private(e.g. restaurants) is different than censoring the pics of same.
I don't think facebook is in the right here, but it's a different can of worms.
In cases like what you describe, this actually affects the woman's ability to nurse, restricting the posting of pictures after the vent doesn't affect the mother's ability to nurse.
Again, I thnk facebook is stupid, but the problems associated with trying to stop public nursing are different than posting pics.
She's forcing her morality on everyone there.
How is she forcing her morality on anyone? She is not forcing anyone to do anything. People asking her to stop are forcing their morality on her because they are asking her to stop feeding her baby.
Some religions feel it is wrong for a man to shave. Am I forcing my morality on them by shaving? Some religions think women should always be covered completely from head to toe. Are European/American women forcing their morality on others by not dressing in that way?
I've seen breastfeeding in all sorts of places (e.g. a crowded Newark airport) and it is simply a non-issue. No one even batted an eye.
I can see where a restaurant may want to promote a certain image and a breastfeeding mother may not be a part of their style. But whiny, crying, misbehaved children are a much bigger disturbance because I can't very well ignore them. A restaurant could always just refuse to serve children. By allowing infants in, you have to accept that they may need to be fed in the way that nature intended.
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 allow you onto my private property to eat at my restaurant. I can tell you to leave for any, or even no, reason.
In general, yes. But if you turned away every black man that came to your restaurant for no reason then you would very quickly be up on discrimination charges. In this case you don't even need to establish a pattern as they have admitted what their reason for asking her to leave was. I don't know the law in question and it would sound like rather hefty protection for such a trivial matter, but if breastfeeding is protected then you can no more demand that breastfeeding women stop or leave than you could demand that black people leave. Nor could you ask them to leave because other customers got upset, any more than you could ask a black man to leave because his presence upsets the white guests. It's not a blanket license, if she steps out of line you can still ban her but otherwise your right might not be as absolute as you think.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Because one is an intimate act between two individuals; the other is just a normal feeding activity and the real reason why breasts exist.
Nonsense. If sex were an intimate act between two individuals then there would be no laws concerning sex in public--nobody else would give a rat's ass. In fact sex is an exciting act to be part of or to watch, no matter how many people (and ducks or whatnot, to taste) are involved.
Along comes Christianity (and other religions), asserting, contrary to all evidence, that sex is an intimate act between two individuals. Since it's so obviously not, society needs laws so that people who want to maintain their personal delusions about sex can legally threaten and harass anyone who provides evidence to the contrary.
And a side note: if breasts exist for no reason other than feeding/scarring young children, then why do so many people (both men and women) have a sexual response to breast stimulation? Are so many people wired incorrectly? Is it all an artificial, incorrect, and arbitrary artifact of the media? Could they have sexualised knees in exactly the same way? Why do breasts have so much fat? They don't need it for milk production. Breasts are also a signal of sexual fitness. If you were being sarcastic, I apologise; I was up late. Breasts may have been involved...
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Which completely ignores the fact in most states (all?!?), businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
You are confusing company policy with THE LAW. I had a boss long time ago who would do the same thing:
1) boss suggests illegal thing
2) employee tells boss that is against the law
3) boss retorts, "what if we make it company policy?"
"Reserve the right" doesn't mean jack shit without the law backing up your position.
She's forcing her morality on everyone there. It wouldn't bother me but it may greatly offend others. If she was asked to stop and refused, at that time they can ask her to leave. If she refuses, SHE is breaking the law - likely several laws.
Not a single law. You aren't required to dance like a monkey just because a store owner asks you to. If this weird-ass restaurant wants to be able to kick people out for a legal activity - breastfeeding - they might have better luck informing ALL female patrons prior to seating them. Fact is, breastfeeding has extra protection. This is unlike PDAs - public displays of affection - where it is more likely you can tell people to take it outside. Fact is too, if they told all their female patrons "no breastfeeding" they might lose 25-75% of their business. The fact that they haven't and won't take that step yet still want to forbid breastfeeding should clue you into what is happening.
If she does have a legal leg to stand on, and it doesn't sound likely, it sounds like several laws and rights are in direct conflict with each other.
There always are rights/laws in conflict with each other. I would focus on the law that EXPLICITLY ALLOWS BREASTFEEDING and EXPLICITLY FORBIDS THIS ASSHATERY. From a legal point of view, this is little different than trying to kick out a person for being black and not having the balls to put up a sign forbidding black people.
I hope so.
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
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.
I can tell you to leave for any, or even no, reason.
That is not really true, though. Anti-discrimination laws protect certain classes (e.g. race, religion, gender) so you cannot refuse service on those grounds. If local laws protect breastfeeding, then you are stuck with it. If you as a restaurant owner are so concerned with dealing with the horrors of a breastfeeding mother, then simply do not serve people with infants. Of course, you will lose revenue, but that is your choice as a (soon to be out of business) restraunteur.
I think his point was that as an advanced culture we have attached our ideals and conceptions over basics bodily functions. Before we had culture and before we had religion, we could just fuck each other because there wasn't an issue. Indecency and the concept of intimacy is something we've created as we've advanced and made room for in our culture it hasn't always been there as was his point with using the monkeys.
"Anyway, the result is that sex is a private thing." - Only when those in charge deemed it otherwise.
Jonathanjk.com
What about places that normally don't allow you to bring in your own food or drink (movie theaters, restaurants)?
In Vancouver last summer there was a big fuss because a breast feeding woman was asked if she would like to use a changing stall at local clothing store. She wasn't even told she couldn't breast feed in public, she was simple asked if she would be more comfortable if she have some privacy. The woman, who was a professor of womens studies at the local university, thought her rights were damaged because she took the offer as an implied request. The press jumped all over the store and how they had violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the end about one hundred womens went to the store for public breast feeding, the store gave them all cookies and the whole thing dies down.
Personally I don't really have a problem with women breast feeding, but I think there should be some limits and when in public does it really kill some of these women to cover up with a little blanket.
...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
It's just my guess that you haven't had to carry a breast pump every where you go for two-three years. Not to mention finding a place to plug it in and pum. Oh, and then the cooler for keeping the milk cold. And the heater to warm it back up. Nor all the necessary items needed to clean and sterilize the pump parts after each use. Don't forget the crying hungry child demanding instant satisfaction for their hunger pains.
Pumping milk is an option some mothers choose. Some choose formula and some choose breast feeding. By far the easiest and most healthy option is breast feeding. IMO the most inconvenient way is to choose to pump because of all the baggage you need to haul.
One thing is for certain. Those kids need and will be fed. Just no way around it. And on their terms, not any one elses schedule. To be offended because someone is breast feeding is ridiculous.
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
OB
I certainly hope not. The restaurant essentially deprived the child of food, while Facebook simply wouldn't let a woman exhibit her photos on their site.
Also keep in mind that Facebook does allow photos of breastfeeding, so long as the nipple and areola are not visible. It seems to me that Facebook is trying to appeal to the broadest set of users possible, and if they feel that female nipples hinder that, then more power to them. Those people that don't like it can set up their own site and stick the photos there.
Along comes Christianity (and other religions), asserting, contrary to all evidence, that sex is an intimate act between two individuals. Since it's so obviously not, society needs laws so that people who want to maintain their personal delusions about sex can legally threaten and harass anyone who provides evidence to the contrary.
I call bullshit. I'm no fan of Christianity, or of religion in general, but I don't see this at all.
Yes, Christianity has massive hangups about sex. But, I'm not buying that sex is not an intimate act because Christianity has issues with it. It was an intimate act before Christianity. Based on what I've read of other cultures, it's a pretty universal human trait. Based on what I've read about evolutionary biology, it makes sense for human sex (vice sex between two gorillas, or two chimpanzees) would be an intimate act. But, feel free to educate me otherwise.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
Equal rights. Men are allowed to remove their shirts in public so women are as well. Neither men or woman are allowed to show their genitals in public so it is fair. It is called freedom and in most of the free world men and women have the same rights.
That's in public, but what about in a private business? Most will throw you out if you don't wear a shirt or shoes, doesn't matter if you are male or female. I'm not against women breast feeding in public, but I am against businesses being told they have to allow it.
Do YOU expect to get photographed and uploaded to 4chan/the pirate bay/whatever every time you leave your house? Would you find that acceptable? Personally I find the whole 'I have a right to take pictures of everyone I see on the street without their knowledge or consent and do whatever the hell I like with them, if people disagree with me then they should just not to be in public places and stay in their homes the rest of their lives'-thing ridiculous.
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.
Thing is, its different when you take photos of yourself breastfeeding. Then it becomes more about sex
Please explain how you've made the leap from A to B in your example.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Your argument doesn't quite work either.
Some monkeys pay for non-estrous sex
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726374.100-macaque-monkeys-pay-for-sex.html
Some use sex as a greeting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
I just get picky when people say "Humans are different ....". We aren't that different.
I believe that you made an accurate summary of what is point was, and IMHO it is incorrect. Let me reiterate: Before we (meaning humans, Homo sapiens) had culture and before we had religion, we could not just fuck each other because there was an issue.
People mate in a supposedly monogomous way, and then we cheat. There are good biological reasons for it. Men look to marry women who look a particular way (young, fertile), and women look to marry men who have certain things (power, money, social standing). On the other hand, they try to get some on the side from someone else. Did you know that women are actually more fertile with men that are not their husbands? That men produce more ejaculate with women they are not married to? That a significant (>5%) of children born to wedlock are not the products of their mother's husband? Why? Because that's the way that we're wired. Husbands are jealous and try to keep their wive(s) from cheating on them. Women try to marry rich and then sleep with the pool boy.
Culture and religion have exacerbated an already difficult issue, and Christianity in particular. But, we were in kind of difficult straights to begin with. It's 'good' from an evolutionary point of view to do things that are 'bad' from a moral point of view.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
Rating systems like what the Movie Industry uses are more gray than this Facebook policy. Facebook either allows a photo (white) or doesn't (black).
The MPAA and ERSB have ranges. The MPAA, for instance, has G (white), PG (light gray), PG13 (gray), R(dark gray), etc.
In fact, they work with your last point: these are gradients of offensiveness and do at least a better job of informing people that they can choose not to "view next movie". In that way, the powers that be give individuals the freedom to censor themselves. That being said, I am perfectly aware that Rating Systems can often be abused in the name of censorship. But they're better than the alternative of outright banning.
Its not much of a leap. If you are circulating photos of your breasts, its probably sex related. Breast feeding in public is acceptable because kids need to eat. Kids gain nothing from you circulating pictures of them breastfeeding.
Which completely ignores the fact in most states (all?!?), businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
Including blacks and hispanics? Last time I checked, the laws forbidding business owners from discriminating against visible minorities. These laws are (legally) pretty well grounded, I suspect that "company policy prohibits us selling to Jews" would get thrown out pretty damn fast, and the owner of such an establishement would be on the receiving end of a large fine.
She's forcing her morality on everyone there.
How fucked up are you that you believe that feeding an infant is about morality? Seriously, you need professional help - I advise making an appointment with a psychiatrist as soon as possible.
I'd like to add that i'm not particularly for censorship, and like most men, I like boobies, but I can understand why facebook wants to ban them. Its just consistency with their policy.
Facebook can ban anything they want. I (and others) can also choose to boycott them if they choose to ban harmless images of breastfeeding. Let's see who wins in the end -- that's the beauty of capitalism.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Hungry babies have various habits which make EVERYONE in their immediate vicinity suffer when not fed.
Suffer is a good word for it. Nothing worse than being in a public place and having to put up with someone else annoying brats that won't shut the fsck up. I say we ban kids from public places... as a bonus you'd never have to deal with seeing breast feeding because there would be no kids around to breast feed!!! Maybe that's a bit extreme, but I'd be all for having designated "kid" and "no kid" areas in public places, just like they used to have with "smoking" and "no smoking" areas.
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
If you are circulating photos of your breasts, its probably sex related
I don't know about you but I've never been particularly aroused by pictures of breastfeeding. Of course there is a kink for this (what isn't there a kink for?) but I think the vast majority of the human race wouldn't find anything sexual in a picture of someone breastfeeding her baby.
Kids gain nothing from you circulating pictures of them breastfeeding.
Kids gain nothing from you circulating any pictures of them. That seems like a pretty thin argument for banning said photos.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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?
Well obviously if a restaurant has a policy about no shirt and shoes which I believe may even be a government regulation, then a woman should not be allowed to remove her shirt.
Luckily breast feeding usually just means lifting up part of the shirt.
As for businesses being told they have to allow it, it's much like how they can't segregate black folks.
Businesses exist due to the government allowing them to (if only by protecting their right to not have their business taken away by someone stronger or better armed) so the government does have a say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
From the article:
the whole field of Web hangouts may be skittish about anything that might expose kids to nudity, said Lee Tien,
I think that's funny. They're so scared that kids might be exposed to nudity. I have one kid (boy, pre-school age). We went to the local pool yesterday. What do you think he sees in the changing room while we're showering and getting ready to go home? He'd certainly see a lot of boobs if his mother took him to the ladies change room instead of the men's.
He barely bats an eyelid and never says a word... he doesn't even notice it; nudity is natural and harmless to kids. It's adults who train them out of it and make them scared of it/excited by it.
I drink to make other people interesting!
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.
Ah, so sorry--I wasn't so much disputing the "intimate" part as the "two individuals" part. If sex were just for two, then passers-by would find nothing interesting at all. They do, which I am citing as evidence that sex needn't be for just two people. For that matter, most sex involves just one person... which is also potentially titillating to passers-by.
As for "intimate", that depends on your definition. Are you saying that sex can be intimate, or that it must? The earlier post seemed to assert the latter. I don't have a good definition, but I have seen lots that do not stand up to scrutiny when evaluated vs. the evidence. Many strangers will have sexual interest in watching a couple. Two men who have never met before can have great sex and then never see each other again. This isn't unnatural (not very popular, but not even remotely close to the fringe). Is discipline play intimate? And I think I won't even bother with bestiality, but if sex must be intimate, than the definition had better cover all of those things and much weirder stuff as well. And if sex could be intimate, then the original claim is completely vacuous.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Lets see....and someone taking a pic of me would be just as bothering as watching someone whip out their breasts and start feeding their kid. Now I can live with it when they actually cover up. But when they don't care (or try) to cover up a little and take a "I can do this in public stance"...Then what is wrong with me having the same pigheadedness as them in going "well its in public so I can take a pic". Your argument is just hypocritical. You have an issue with me taking pics of the act and posting it because it would be offensive but don't care that someone else may find what the mother is doing offensive.
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.
I agree that we are not that different. We're all animals, and studying them (and ourselves) is useful.
Orangutans mate in monogamous pairs. Gorillas have a dominant male, with a harem of females, and the other males don't get any. Chimpanzees live in a large group and mate a lot, but there is a hierarchy of males where the more dominant ones get more. If you didn't know any of this, you could guess it based on sexual dimorphism (male/female size ratio) and sex organ sizes. For example, chimpanzees have small penises but huge testicles: the better to compete at the semen level with the other chimpanzees that have mated with a female. Humans are an interesting mix: we live in large groups, supposedly mate monogamously, but don't really, and our tackle has large penises but (relatively) small testicles. And we usually mate in private.
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. But unfortunately, I didn't see anything about mating privately.
I'm sorry I don't have a reference, but I remember a discussion of the sexual habits of chimpanzees, where a female that wants to mate with a lower ranked male will sneak off with him to have sex. It would be interesting to try to study this more, in relation to our own mating and social habits and when people have sex in private or public.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
Because our primate relatives without religion and minimal culture who share much of our genetic makeup behave just as you say. They fuck each other in public whenever... Oh, wait!
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
> I'd like to see you use this argument if it was about a restaurant owner refusing to
> serve a black guy. "I'm trying to run a private business and the last thing I need is
> this black guy scaring the other customers away.". After all, it's private property, right?
There's a categorical difference between ethnicity, which is inherently congenital if not genetic, versus what you are currently *doing*, which is a behavior issue. Being black is the former. Breastfeeding is the latter.
Incidentally, the "feeding is necessary so bare breasts must be allowed" argument is bunk. There are innumerable ways to be relatively discreet with breastfeeding, even when you are in a public location, so that while people can tell you're feeding the kid, it's not a big public nipple display the whole time. This is what most breastfeeding women do anyway, on account of the fact that they have a sense of modesty. Covering up with a blanket is a common tactic, for instance.
The people who want to post explicit breastfeeding pics on their Facebook profile aren't doing it because they want to be able to feed the kid when it gets hungry. They're doing it because they want to show off the breast. I don't see why Facebook should be required to publish such photos if they don't want to. Showing off bare breasts isn't in line with their publication policy. Freedom of the press belongs, after all, to whoever owns the press.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
but nobody wants to see someone else's kid doing it when trying to eat
I have nothing against somebody else enjoying a meal while I'm enjoying one. If you have, please get out of my society.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
...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.
a breast-feeding photo, while keeping children from seeing nudity.
So should the children who are being breast-fed wear blindfolds?
I don't think deciding whether breastfeeding is obscene or not should be up to the "majority vote".
Nursing a baby is a natural act. It's not on the same end of the spectrum as taking a shit. U know what I mean?
Let's keep things sane - babies are ok, moms nursing babies are ok.
Facebook is retarded. Fuck that, it's not even retarded, it's mental illness.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Actually, there is law to back up the "reserve the right to refuse service" thing. If they ask you to leave, and you don't leave, you're generally considered to be trespassing, which I think is a misdemeanor criminal offense in most jurisdictions, at least in the US.
However, I'm not sure how breastfeeding-rights laws might interact with that. On the one hand, I'm pretty sure that breastfeeding would not automatically protect a woman from being asked to leave for other reasons (e.g., being loud and abusive and disruptive, which will get you kicked out of almost anywhere if you do enough of it). On the other hand, if there are laws specifically protecting breastfeeding, asking a woman to leave just because she's doing that could land the establishment in legal trouble -- a civil lawsuit at the very least. I'm sure there are bound to be cases where arguments can be made on each side of the thing.
IANAL,ATINLA.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
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)
Who owns the restaurant? Whose property is it?
If I don't like you picking your nose, I should be able to ask you to leave my property - otherwise, how's it even my property?
As for breast feeding, we'll sure all be a lot better off when we get over our absurd victorian values. Who the hell cares?
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.
Oh, boy, you're one of those pervs who gets all excited by seing a mum nurse her baby, huh?
Hey, everheard of porn? Buy some. You need it. Badly.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
I didn't exactly get what yoe were trying to say but let me point of to you that it's about the baby's well-being and not about MOB control.
You know - babies - those creatures that need feeding every so often - whenever and wherever they are. It's just Mother Nature, pal.
And, as your doctor and the World Health Organization will tell you, bottlefeeding is not an option unless it's absolutely unavoidable.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
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?
Statistically, if you keep out of 4chan meetings and otaku conferences, what's the chance of you meeting such loser with nothing better to do with his/her life?
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
You do realize you committed a fallacy in retorting, don't you.
No, I didn't think so...
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's their maturity that's the problem? Ha ha ha.
There must be some seriously perverted folks out there if they are getting a woody from a woman breast feeding.
This was a remarkably stupid statement even by slashdot standards. Last I checked, human males were "seriously perverted".
That's your view. Notice that you correlate culture with sexual repression. That correlation is pure cultural bias. How so? Well, it's well established now that culture isn't something uniquely human and transmission of culture is well-documented in the case of primates. So, sexual repression and culture do not go hand-in-hand.
This is an argument often made by moralists, be they high-fallutin' phillosphers or the religious conservatives.
Another view is that sexual repression comes about as there's accumulation of capital, at which point you have arranged marriages, as evidenced by the studies of Bronislaw Malinowski in the Trobriand Islands, before the Christian missionaires brought about sexual repression, mentall illness and alcoholism. Arranged marriages can only work through sexual repression. In the case of the islanders at hand, such arranged marriages garanteed a surplus of food to the chief.
Granted, this is not universally accepted in Anthropology - it being the intellectual hodgepodge it is.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Not exactly.
The business is there to offer a service to the public. That is why they are an OPEN and PUBLIC space.
Otherwise they would be a closed private club.
And they get a license on those terms.
The "right" that they try to ascertain isn't even valid in most cases. And certainly not in this case.
They have the right to refuse if:
a) the house is full;
b) the clients are in salubrity conditions that would disrupt the establishment;
All the rest is just wishful thinking of the owners.
Alas... but your laws may be different... heheheh
The arguments you used are derived from "pop evolutionary psychology." You assum too much about what we know about our ancestors.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
This isn't prejudice. It doesn't stop moms putting up pictures of themselves and their babies. It doesn't even stop them putting up pictures of breastfeeding. It's just a very specific kind pictures of breastfeeding that aren't allowed.
So yes, this is way different from restricting pictures based on race or culture or religion. Well, unless your religion requires you to show your nipples to the world when breastfeeding...
a mother was breastfeeding in a restaurant, and the waitress asked her to stop...
Hey, the sign said "No outside food"...
Just my $0.55 (US inflation, 1774-2008, for $0.02)
It seems to me we will kill all our non-human primate cousins before we glean sufficient information. When I see so many people equating breastfeeding with pornography (not that I think pornography is a such a big deal to begin with), I can't imagine a huge ammount of research money coming from American taxpayers to learn about the origins of primate sexual behavior or comparative sexaul behavior. Not when a huge part of that population has decided their dicks are for pissing-only purposes.
The current human Western animal is such that he will dispend a huge ammount of money for cats and dogs but simply does not give a shit about whether there are 300 or so gorillas alive.
This is how bright we are.
Gene pool reduction will be a huge problem if not outright extermination.
Let's all pray for Ted Haggard, Satan has tempted him.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
You don't get it.
Would you have problems with having sex infront of a bunch of monkeys?
Your argument makes no sense at all.
Also, you fail to realise the "emotion or intimacy" aspect of sex is just another way of nature ensuring the "furthering the species".
Why do you think we have these feelings and we enjoy them? Its natures way of bribing us into doing what it wants.
Go inform yourself better. Breastfeeding is recommended by the World Health Organization (oh, wait, the globalizers! LOL) for a variety of health benefits. Bottlefeeding is the last option.
I just feel you're lazier than I am so I am not giving you any pointers. I hope you exercise your brain and do a little internet searching.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Did you pay anything for it? No. Did you create it? No. Stop complaining and go somewhere else. You agreed to their license when you started using their site.
Second: Frankly I don't see how anyone who purports to be tech savvy doesnt see the easy way around this; host your IMAGES ELSEWHERE
In fact I would surmise that one of the many reasons that I will occasionally still use facebook and not myspace is due to the proliferation of adult content everywhere on my space. Its trashy, sorry. but then again facebook has been on the decline ever since they opened up to non university students IMHO.
I'm not some anti-porn person. I have no desire to see these mothers pictures; and I equally have no compelling desire to 'protect the children'.. Instead I think it's not my or your place to question their policy. They are a private company, they do what they like. Like many nerds i've got a hefty stash. The point is that there is a time and a place for it. And that time and place is NOT facebook. It is a social networking site.
It is not facebooks problem that they are successful and that your smaller photo site isn't.
Here's a better idea. If you want to share your breast feeding photos with your friends, jsut start your own site to HOST THE PHOTOS and then just put a link to the album in your facebook pages...
Furthermore
The problem is not simple because facebook is funded by advertising not by you. Facebooks 'rulers' are going to take caution to prevent material from getting on there that will alienate and upset their financial investors.
What I love is that these are probably the same parents who don't complain when school's filter the internet in its entirety.
Your point about various ratings in movies/games is extremely moot. I say this for two reasons. First it is still black and white, you fall into this category or you don't. You either have nudity or you don't. Facebook basically takes the stand that they are going to be a PG-13 or PG limit. Even more simply; let's pretend there is a ratings system... fbook just chose to set their threshhold beneath the level thata you enjoy. It's black and white by relativity only; they either include or exlude the content you care about. Furthermore I couldn't think of a more flawed and otherwise useless system than the ratings for movies. If you have no idea what I'm talking about go see "This film is not yet rated".
My question to you then, is what is your stance of FCC censorship. Why can't I say fuck shit cunt etc if I said it in appropriate context? It would seem to me that if a public government based agency can set black and white rules you have no business telling a PRIVATE company how they should censor themselves...
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
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.
One problem is the different jurisdictions and cultures have wildly varying views on breast nudity; for example in NY, an equal rights states it perfectly legal for men to walk in public with their aureoles and nipples exposed and therefore it's also legal for women. This means the networks can get fined from the FCC for broadcasting a perfectly legal street scene outside their studios.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.
Internet aside, I doubt most courts today would consider breastfeeding your baby equal to posting a photo of breastfeeding your baby. The former is specifically permitted by law as it's a basic necessity of life issue. The latter would not pass that test as it will not adversely affect the health of the mother or infant in restricting the publishing of photos related to breastfeeding her child.
It could be argued as a 1st Amendment issue, but speech cannot be restricted by the government (psch, yeah right!) </cynicism> but private individuals and businesses including Facebook, can restrict what is posted within the realm of their control.
Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
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.
I agree with your post in spirit, but actually there's an argument that this is incorrect. Other primates don't have breasts. They have mammary glands and nipples, but H sap is the only species of primates that has big lumps of fatty tissue on the female's chest. For that matter, a lot of men have the fatty tissue without having mammary glands. Lots of women are flatchested, and yet their mammary glands work just fine. H sap has several unusual evolutionary innovations in females that are probably the result of sexual selection, just like peacock feathers. These innovations include concealed ovulation, fatty breasts, and a narrow waist. So I hate to say it, but the real reason breasts exist is probably to turn on the male of the species. Most likely it evolved as a sort of advertising strategy that said, "Hey, I'm female, I'm sexually mature, and I'm so goddamn healthy and well fed that I could afford to build up all this fat tissue for no other reason than to give me the broadest possible selection of males to mate with."
IMO the real reason to pressure private organizations (Facebook, restaurants, sports stadiums, ...) to mellow out about breast feeding is that breast feeding is so much better for babies than bottle feeding. My reaction to Facebook's prohibition on breast feeding photos is about the same reaction I'd have if Facebook prohibited photos of women getting prenatal care, or of children eating carrots, or of children running around outside and playing.
Find free books.
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.
Somehow I find the idea of unmarried Monks, Priests and Alter-boys more disconcerting than breastfeeding in public.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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!
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.
Maybe because you're a sick mother fucker who automatically associates a breast with sex? It's a baby eating, for Christ's sake. You see an infant suckling on a teat and you think inappropriate thoughts? You have some serious psychological issues to work through., It's fucking natural, and in most states, protected by law. So why don't you go fuck off and die?
Really, what exactly is the difference? Color? What if the photo of the real breasts is BW?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
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
She's forcing her morality on everyone there. It wouldn't bother me but it may greatly offend others. If she was asked to stop and refused, at that time they can ask her to leave. If she refuses, SHE is breaking the law - likely several laws.
Thank God you're completely fucking wrong, and there have been hundreds of lawsuits to prove it. In states where public breastfeeding is protected by law, if you are a proprietor and try to stop it, you WILL lose. Go ahead, try it. You sick mother fucker.
...welcome our breast-feeding overlords!
For one, you're ensuring that your child doesn't starve to death or experience pain in the form of delayed feeding. It's a matter of life and death to feed your child.
It's not a matter of life and death to fuck in a bus shelter.
There's a heck of a lot more to it than being 'natural'.
52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
Besides, EVERYONE wants to have sex... not everyone wants to watch milk get sucked out of a fat womans nipple.
Not everyone wants to see a fat woman, period. Let's ban the bitches. Once you tip the 250 pound mark, you're executed.
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.
The addiction that is facebook, but with tiities?
And you ask if people will join a camwhore networking site?
Xaotik Designs
That attitude is beneficial to neither democracies or companies who actually want to maintain their user base. Piss off your users and force them to leave, and suddenly you don't have any more users. If Facebook suddenly becomes useless for building friend networks, then it loses the fundamental cornerstone on which its business is based. That wouldn't help Facebook at all. They want to be the best networking site, not the worst. Kind of obvious, really.
Anyway, even good companies can make mistakes. I think a rating system where users can restrict contact on their own would be the best approach.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
Have you tried putting a blanket over yourself in 90 degree heat? With a squirming baby who wants to see the world and not be covered up. My wife has tried the blanket thing and our poor child was dripping sweat because it was so hot under there. Plus using a blanket only draws MORE attention to you, everyone starts looking wondering what the heck is going on under there.
A mother does have a choice what restaurants to frequent. Some of them are willing to help warm milk if you ask.
That's one of the nice things about family restaurants your not stuck with following a policy set in a head office somewhere.
Surely rule no 1 is to make your patrons happy in your restaurant, providing a few basic facilities may not make money directly. But a happy customer is far more likely to return again and again.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Its pretty sick that your first thought about breastfeeding is sex.
So, should Facebook allow explicit images of the "natural human act" of copulation? Or, at least, unless everyone at Facebook is the product of immaculate conception?
Can't say that I agree (or disagree, or even much care) about their limitations on breastfeeding pictures -- but this argument for allowing them is weak.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
I'd be all for having designated "kid" and "no kid" areas in public places, just like they used to have with "smoking" and "no smoking" areas.
Well, isn't it great that that would never possibly happen? Awesome. Please get on your knees and suck my dick.
yes, breasts are the SUPERIOR food for babies. According to the WHO (World Health Organization) there is a clear directive on what is best for baby. 1. Breastfeeding from mom's breast 2. Breastfeeding by a wet nurse 3. Breast milk from a milk bank 4. Formula Sure, go ahead, feed your child fourth best, laced with melamine and BPA. Have fun with that.
Have you ever seen a mom breastfeeding in public? I sit in front of my wife at least once a week in restaurants while she breastfeeding. I can't see skin even if I try to!
So you are saying that if I walked around with my penis out dragging around a mutilated corpse and you looked at it, it would be your fault?
You suck.
Lets see....and someone taking a pic of me would be just as bothering as watching someone whip out their breasts and start feeding their kid.
There's a simple solution to that.
Stop watching.
You do have control over your own eyes, don't you?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
I see it this way. They have a policy, they say naked breasts are offensive if the areolae is shown(this is hearsay about what the policy actually says). I expect them to
1) let people known in advance what the policy is
That means nursing mothers should have know the pictures would be banned, before they were banned.
2) whatever they ban NOT be a matter of taste, unless they specifically say it's so(because they deserve what they get if they go that risky route)
Because by web2.0(ugh I hate that word, but I can't find a better way to say it) standards, anyone saying that is saying "we're smarter than you, instead of allowing you to filter it for yourself, we'll filter it for you".
A much better system one that would actually "work" is a system that lets each facebook user say "I'm offended by this, so don't bother showing it to me", then just have their editors tagging for content.
Naked areolae check
Cute baby check
Some people could in theory find both things not offensive, except when together, or not, why not let them choose?
As for Venus the Milo, reading the facebook policy as it stands, I expect it to be banned, despite the fact it's value as a work of art makes it safe to show in most workplaces.
I hope you exercise your brain and do a little internet searching.
GP was formula fed. They haven't got a brain. At least, not a very functional one, anyway......
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
I think you're missing a key point in this. There's a difference between what's natural, the culturally agreed-upon behaviors expected of civilized people. While I think our (U.S.) attitude towards nudity, sex, and the body human is ridiculous, I'm also aware that we can't just make it go away by proclaiming loudly "But it's natural".
Further, making your case by saying "monkeys do it" is counterproductive. People /strongly/ dislike being reminded of our probable simian heritage. So what you get is a kneejerk response that says, "But that's what makes us civilized" instead of any chance at reasonable discourse - consequently missing any opportunity to convince people of your point of view.
It used to be just about procreation and there was zero emotion or intimacy attached,
Sources? Anytime something feels good to do, there's going to be emotion involved. Whether it's sex or murder, there's emotion. The monkeys probably enjoy it too ;)
shirt and shoes in restaurants is a health department regulation.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
Or maybe I was trying to make a fucking point instead of railing about "fat" women? Moron.
Are you saying people don't realise that it's the monkey in them where those kneejerk reactions come from? Sounds awfully silly of them to be behaving in exactly the way they dislike being reminded of.
There are laws specifically protecting breastfeeding, so your other hand is correct.
If she's not doing anything else, and you ask her to leave because she's breastfeeding, you're in legal hot water.
Although your first point is also correct, in that if she's being loud and obnoxious, you can ask her to leave for that, regardless of whether she's breastfeeding or not. (But being loud and obnoxious while breastfeeding would seriously disturb the baby, so it's very unlikely to happen.)
But if she gets loud and obnoxious because you asked her to leave for breastfeeding, you're still probably in legal trouble.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Fortunately the rest of the world isn't as crazy as you. If we required photographers to get the consent of every person in their shots before publishing then journalism as we know it would practically be outlawed. There is a reason these are called public places.
If somebody singles out a specific person and follows them around all the time taking their picture, many places have stalking laws you can charge them under, or get a restraining order.
It's a very slippery slope trying to regulate who, what, and where in public you can take photos, that can easily go from "you cant photograph people x doing y" to "you can't photograph anyone" to "possessing a camera is illegal."
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
The Internet looks infinite, but it's not.
No, it's only very, very large.
It's only as infinite as peoples' ability to keep track of multiple sites.
We have an answer for that, and its name is Google. There are very few sites that I know by heart, or have bookmarked -- if I need to find something, I STFW.
But back to the social networking concept:
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?
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. I consider it a critical flaw in most social networking sites that they don't support things like XFN, meaning that even if you do start to dislike Facebook, as TFA says, you can't carry your network with you.
With a distributed system, you would own a URL ($10/year buys you a domain), which you could carry to any service you wanted, and keep your network.
It is offensive that breasts are regarded as indecent. What's wrong with trying to change minds?
Nothing wrong with it. I just think that your solution -- convince Facebook -- is short-sighted, although easier. For example: I consider it offensive that nudity is always "indecent", and that sex is "vulgar" -- we're as bad as the Victorians.
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 -- so that we can all decide for ourselves, just like with the rest of the Internet.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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.
You can ask anyone to leave for picking their nose.
Nosepicking is not a legally protected activity. Breastfeeding, however, is.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Hey, the sign said "No outside food"...
"Sorry ma'am, but you have to leave your breasts in your car...."
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
otherwise, how's it even my property
You have the complete right to prohibit all people from entering your property. When you start to allow people to come onto your property to sell them something, society starts to intrude. Whether your like it or not, them's the rules.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
....I doubt most courts today would consider breastfeeding your baby equal to posting a photo of breastfeeding your baby. The former is specifically permitted by law as it's a basic necessity of life issue. The latter would not pass that test as it will not adversely affect the health of the mother or infant.....
I agree with you, but courts have a way of sticking to the letter of the law, rather than the spirit.
If the law states "You can't ask a breastfeeding mother to cover up or leave," then that's what the courts are going with, regardless of the situation. Removing a photo could be considered to be asking her to cover up. Or leave, for that matter.
Now, if the law states "You can't ask a breastfeeding mother to do something which restricts nutritional benefits to her child," then it's another thing entirely, and removing the photo is perfectly legit.
I'm fairly certain the law in Canada states something similar to the former, rather than the latter.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
On the other hand, I find it somewhat ridiculous that you would not object to showing whatever it is you're showing, in public, to a handful of strangers, but you would suddenly object if it was shown, over the Internet, to a few more strangers.
I don't know what the law should be -- it always bothered me when some video shown on TV has various faces blurred out, because they never got that person to sign some sort of waiver. On the other hand, if you're going to snap a photo of someone, and then turn that into an international ad campaign, I'd argue you should have to get their consent, and probably pay them for the privilege.
But regardless of what the law should be, common sense now dictates that if you are in public, you should assume that anything you do might be photographed and broadcast. It's like sex tapes -- sure it was just for the boyfriend, but why do that unless you either wanted it public, or knew the guy well enough to trust him with that? Or piracy -- I won't defend copyright infringement, but assume that very smart people will succeed in pirating your stuff and sharing it with the world, and build your business model with that in mind.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"I can assure you that one does not gather a crowd with having sex in public. It would seem that nobody cares and will at most give you a passing glance they otherwise would not."
Maybe you and your partner are just not very attractive?
I am not left-handed, either!
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.
There's plenty wrong (and actually illegal) with the mutilated corpse anyway.
If it was just your dick, I don't care.
Nice strawman though.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
There's a difference between a statue and a picture of real tits.
Not according to the government.
Yes, well, maybe it's time for some of that "civil disobedience" that Slashdotters are so fond of promoting. The fact that the religious right in the U.S. considers the female body to be an object of shame is, itself, shameful. Most (well, okay, all) Europeans I know consider our government's attitude towards sex in general, and the human female in particular, to be provincial at best, uncivilized at worst. This is one case where I'm in complete agreement with them.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Nah, just that this is Europe. We don't care about sex and skimpy clothing in public. We just get turned off by breastfeeding so we don't like it in public ... you know, just like seeing someone take a poo in the middle of the street would be offputting.
You can't really compare race to public breastfeeding, as the latter is more of a choice.
Breastfed babies don't suck in as much air as
bottlefed babies. Burping the baby is seldom
needed.
There was a real flap in my hometown a couple of weeks before Christmas where a mother was breastfeeding in a restaurant, and the waitress asked her to stop.
Then the waitress was an ignorant twit and the cops more so. I hope she ends up having the same thing happen to her. Denying a woman the right to feed her child is something that even the most sexually-repressed right-wingers in our society haven't managed to do.
... quite the opposite, in fact.
Many years ago, my aunt was at a restaurant breastfeeding her baby. It was a Mexican restaurant, as I recall, and many of the patrons were Hispanic. The waiter came over, saw the child, and leaned over to kiss it on the head. Everyone was somewhat shocked, but apparently he meant no disrespect
It was only the vestigial American prude in us that even made his gesture worthy of note, and the moment passed without incident. But different cultures have different standards. We should all remember that, and in a country that's as large and culturally-diverse as the United States, one-size-fits-all policies are generally more damaging than useful.
Facebook should remember that. Instead, they're taking the approach of trying to avoid giving offense to anyone, and that simply won't work. People will be more offended at having their images censored than they would ever be at a picture of a woman breastfeeding her child. Sheesh.
Facebook is run by monkeys, I'm convinced of that. Wizened old monkey prudes.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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!"
I will admit rating systems are not perfect. I only brought up the movie rating system as an example of a better form of censorship than outright banning, because it is less Black and White. I discuss that in very simple terms in this comment. In addition, I didn't propose using the MPAA's system on Facebook. Though I didn't specify any specific system for rating, what I imagine is a system where the users could rate objectionable material themselves, as this commenter suggested. Regardless of the rating system, though, I did say that the user would control the threshold for what material gets displayed to them. Therefore, even if Facebook did the ratings, the user could still completely circumvent them.
You are right in the latter part; they are a private company, and they can take my suggestion or not as they see fit. As a consumer of their services though, it is my place and right to voice my opinion. And it is in their business interest to listen to their users. Facebook makes money by selling companies the privilege to advertise to people on its site. If Facebook can better foster the community of Nursing Mothers and Mothers in general, then they will sell more ads to those companies targeting that group. More effective censorship policies will allow this group to share pictures more easily and make them more likely to use Facebook. In this sense, by voicing this complaint instead of just running to another company, these women are doing Facebook a favor.
You can actually. That statement is false, it isn't Black and White. Further, The FCC is becoming increasingly irrelevant as more broadcasts and viewers move to Cable television and the Internet, which they can't regulate (yet).
What I would ask is how do you feel about the US TV Rating system?
Thats fine then don't get upset when I whip out my phone take a few boob pics and stare a little.
You're not particularly civilized, are you. A woman's legitimate right to feed her child should not be abridged by the mentally ill. Hardly her fault that you have to get your jollies by staring at breastfeeding women.
... if I happen to be in the vicinity when you're whipping out your camera phone, I hope you won't mind when I take that thing away from you and shove it down your throat, and then stick the battery up your ass. I know, that wouldn't be particularly civilized of me, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
So that's fine then
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Nudity is nudity. They should either not care or ban it all. Making exceptions based on the cultural perceptions of a few is bullshit.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
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.
So, should Facebook allow explicit images of the "natural human act" of copulation?
Yes. I have been waiting for the day that people stop being offended by the very thing they do in their own bedroom (or living room, or kitchen, or bathroom, or all of the above).
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
This was a remarkably stupid statement even by slashdot standards. Last I checked, human males were "seriously perverted".
Yes, well ... it's a relative condition. In fact, sometimes it involves relatives.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Actually, since most restaurants, stores, etc. are private property, they can ask you to leave for any reason. Talking loudly or using profanity is legal everywhere (see the first amendment), but a restaurant can ask you to leave the premises for either of these. If you refuse, you are trespassing, and the police may be called. As to the matter of whether its right or not, proponents of smoking bans tell you the same thing - an individual's right to whatever (even if its legal, and, in the case of breast-feeding, a good idea) must be waived if it is offensive to society. Of course, what is offensive is so subjective that legislating it is a silly matter. But that doesn't stop people from trying.
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.
No, the great thing is that I can and does happen! Google ("kid free zone" "public place").
Anyway, If you want your dick sucked, get your wife to do it for you. Hey, you can make it a family event! Your wife can suck you off while she breast feeds your child. Your man gravy will provide nourishment to her which she'll pass on through her breast milk. The cycle of life is a beautiful thing, just keep that shit behind closed doors.
No one NEEDS to have sex at any particular time.
You obviously haven't met my girlfriend.
Yes, we _all_ have.
Why, we met her on Facebook, breast-feeding you.
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
The cycle of life is a beautiful thing, just keep that shit behind closed doors.
You know what's even better? In my home state, my wife has the right to do that "shit" right in front of you. If you'd like to object, please let me show you the door. See you around (or not), you sexual deviant.
"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)
I find the site of breast-feeding much more bothersome then just seeing a person naked..
Maybe that's because I've never seen a woman who wasn't ugly, and or old, breastfeeding in public, and have only seen young, attractive women, naked. 0.o
Defective Logic
...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
How am I the sexual deviant here? You are the one asking dudes on the internet to suck your dick and you're the one wanting your wife to flaunt her tits in public. I'm just an innocent bystander.
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.
So do you get off on women breast feeding, do you assume most men do even if you do not, or is this yet another case where someone saying "that's stupid" used the least possible amount of intelligence in understanding what was said?
As the other poster said, it's relative. In the massive expansive of things that humans get off on, the majority of it would be considered sexual even by those who aren't personally interested in it. If what gets you off is something nobody else considers to be sexual in nature, then yeah, that's "seriously perverted" even by human male standards.
The enemies of Democracy are
The right to refuse service is not an all encompassing right. It has, in fact, been limited quite a bit over the years by both legislation and court decisions.
The sign above the cash register doesn't trump the law, and it sounds like the law in this case requires an establishment to not discriminate against a breastfeeding woman and her child just because the woman is breastfeeding.
I don't know what shady part of town you hang out in, but I have NEVER had a con artist try to breastfeed me in order to win my trust.
Not that it might not work....
They don't sound unreasonable at all.. and at least legally there are many (most?) municipalities in this puritan country of ours where showing more than their rules is considered "Indecent Exposure".
Since Facebook built its membership with the younger sect (schools, etc) it is in their best interest to keep the content on their site at a level that their primary membership's parents won't object to them observing.
If you need to see titties there are plenty of them on the rest of the interweb to keep you busy for the rest of your life.. why force them on Facebook which has equally compelling reasons to keep their site PG.
Nudity is nudity.
But a pasty or bikini covering a nipple isn't nudity, while a baby covering a nipple is.
Yeah, it's so black and white. That's not a cultural exception at all.
The enemies of Democracy are
So do you get off on women breast feeding, do you assume most men do even if you do not, or is this yet another case where someone saying "that's stupid" used the least possible amount of intelligence in understanding what was said?
I find it mildly arousing and I gather that most males do too. Even if they say they don't. A term like "seriously perverted" is a term of moral judgement. Someone has decided it is wrong, not merely infrequently indulged in. I could talk about how social mores of the US have made any exposure of a female breast a sexual act, but you know what? It doesn't really matter. It's a pretty body part attached to an apparently fertile female and hence is inherently sexual no matter what the mores of society are.
This is why governments are not completely in sync with the Humanness of the People that compose them. In the end, though, humanness prevails, and governments fall. Never bet against Nature. She will always win. Always has.
The more a government steers from the natural inclinations of its citizens, the less stable it becomes.
The USA is steering away, and Obama getting elected was the people saying that the government was going in the wrong direction.
As far as FB is concerned, they can do whatever is legally allowed. They can also lose members.
Actually, since it seems their bandwidth bills are churning through their cash and in this economy it's hard for them to raise more, the worst thing that can happen to them now is to sign up too many users. See: http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/10/31/facebooks-growing-problem/ for more on that.
An interesting tidbit from the link above: only on in four facebook members comes from the US.
"Piter, too, is dead."
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.
So, should Facebook allow explicit images of the "natural human act" of copulation?
Only doggy-style. Everything else is a sinful abomination invented by the devil.
Actually, missionary style is more proper, even though it's not generally found in the animal kingdom.
Then again, humans aren't derived from animals, because evolution is wrong.
Whew, that was close. Almost lost it. Now my arguments are air-tight!
Baby on head! Baby on head!
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I'll try to re-state, as you've completely missed the point:
Saying "This movie is definitely badness-level [0-3]" is no less black-and-white than saying "This movie is definitely badness-level [0-1]".
And aren't we talking about different groups of ADULTS who disagree with what they find objectionable?
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
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.
Most (well, okay, all) Europeans I know consider our government's attitude towards sex in general, and the human female in particular, to be provincial at best, uncivilized at worst. This is one case where I'm in complete agreement with them.
The funny thing is that the bible-thumpers who faint at the sight of a breast perhaps need to read that little story about a woman and a man happily prancing around naked...the way they were apparently created in the image of some supreme being. Right up to the point where some snake convinced the lady to have a bite of an apple anyway.
So chronologically speaking:
- man and woman are naked and innocent, and all is good.
- man and woman are coerced by his Evilness to eat of an apple, lose their innocence, and start covering themselves.
- man and woman are kicked out of Eden.
- woman strives to regain innocence while using breasts for their intended purpose, being the feeding of babies.
- biblethumpers everywhere get up in arms about breasts being visible, be it in public or on the webz...
So whose work are the biblethumpers doing?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
They are unequivocally and inarguably the absolute best one by leaps and bounds.
Some of us were allergic to breast milk you insensitive clod ;-)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
> On the other hand, I find it somewhat ridiculous that you would not object to showing whatever it is you're showing, in public, to a handful of strangers, but you would suddenly object if it was shown, over the Internet, to a few more strangers.
A fair point, but I doubt many women who breastfeed their baby in public do so with the intent to show their boobs to any strangers nearby. That's merely a side-effect, and if you get any 'good' pictures of boobies by taking pictures of a breastfeeding woman it's probably because you went to the trouble of getting a good angle and waited for the right moment, not because the woman was running through the streets topless screaming "Look at me! Look at my tits!". In a way I guess it can be compared to sticking your camera under some woman's skirt and taking a picture. Surely in such a case 'there existed, from a point in a public place, a line of sight to her underwear, which was, at the moment the picture was taken, also in a public place, so why shouldn't I be allowed to take a picture and upload it to the intertubes?' is no proper defense for such an action.
> I don't know what the law should be -- it always bothered me when some video shown on TV has various faces blurred out, because they never got that person to sign some sort of waiver. On the other hand, if you're going to snap a photo of someone, and then turn that into an international ad campaign, I'd argue you should have to get their consent, and probably pay them for the privilege.
I agree it's not easy to find a good point to draw the line, but if it were to be drawn somewhere, the act of trying to take pictures of boobies of some breastfeeding woman without her consent should be on the other side on the line (IMHO).
> But regardless of what the law should be, common sense now dictates that if you are in public, you should assume that anything you do might be photographed and broadcast.
I do, but I wish to live in a world where people wouldn't have to worry about all their actions being 'photographed, stored, and indexed, for generations to come'.
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
If we're going to dictate how one can eat, are you ready to give up your silverware and plate?
I don't think eating is a crime, but if you can't disassociate it with sex, then perhaps you are the pervert.
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.
"Facebook has a black and white policy for censorship, when censorship is a gray area.
No bare breasts. What's gray about that?
I agree that it's not the smartest policy move, but facebook has that right."
Actually no, you and Facebook reflect the continued need to invent stupid rules by churches to restrict the breeding activities of the ignorant population who are so clearly too stupid to behave rationally. We have had a reformation that allows us to think about the world but it seems we are still too stupid to be allowed to think for ourselves about ourselves.
I seem to recall that Western Christians find it objectionable that Muslims make Women wear black bags in order to protect them from rape by uncontrollable males. (It seems curious that the supposedly enlightened mores of Muslim society actually lead to continuous uncontrolled harassment of women whether or not they are wearing a black bag)
I shall be looking with interest over the rest of my life for some sign that America contains a civilisation capable of withstanding the sight of a bare breast. Meanwhile I watch the soldiers of the United States of America butcher thousands of people across the world in the name of freedom. Ironic really. Take a good long look at yourselves, you appear to be ignorant savages led by evil leaders from the outside.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
As a photographer who sometimes takes photos of people I don't know without their knowledge, let me tell you this - you may find people taking photos of you in public unacceptable, but it is absolutely essential that photographers continue to have this right. We do not want to live in a society that restricts what you can do in public (that does not harm others anyway.)
In any case, if you are a breastfeeding mother who is swarmed by 15 year olds with cell phone cameras, or something, you are obviously well within your rights to tell them to leave and if they don't, then you can bring in some "authority", be it your muscular husband, the restaurant manager, or the police, in on it. Whether it's a crime or misdemeanor for them to harass you like that doesn't even matter, because you can guarantee they will stop when challenged. The point is that there are ways to deal with being harassed.
Of course, that doesn't work when you're being stalked by a creepy photographer with a telephoto lens down the street. As celebrities are well aware, you really can't escape being photographed in public. What do you want to do about it? Ban photographing people who are out and about in public space? Seriously? That is a slippery path to take.
And if all you're really annoyed at is people who act like in your quote, who deliberately push the limits of "acceptable" behavior to bring attention to their rights, well, I'm sorry. Are you also annoyed at people who do the same thing to protest for other rights?
There are creepy people who push it, sure, but I just want to continue to be able to take photos in public spaces without worrying about being forced to stop or delete the photos. I, and many others with hard to hide professional-looking cameras, have been told to stop taking pictures of things in public places by authorities (or people who THINK they are authorities.) They don't have a legal right to do so, but not complying has bought some photographers jail time until the police figure out they have nothing to charge them with.
No - because one has the life of a child depending on them, and the others have some ideas contrary to common public thinking. One is essential to life, the other is a life choice.
Not to say the arguments of nudists are wrong - just that the two are not in the same ballpark.
"If everybody is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking" - Gen. George S. Patton
So you compare a drinking baby to having a shit... nice imagery please let me express this is NOT the way all Europeans think !
I don't think they are really just wanting to show off their breasts - the majority are proud that they breastfed their children and want to demonstrate that.
"If everybody is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking" - Gen. George S. Patton
No - feeding an infant is not a matter of choice - its a required natural function essential to the life of that child.
"If everybody is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking" - Gen. George S. Patton
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.
Babies have to eat. You don't have to look at it. If someone is actually forcing you to, you should go to the police.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
bonus points if you can turn on the phone after this.... surgical procedure :D
This is the sig that says NI (again)
A member for almost four years, [Heather] Farley has nearly 400 friends on Facebook, a network she'd be hard-pressed to replicate
I never really got these sites. What's the attraction? Is it not just exactly the same phenomenom from the early/mid 90s, where everyone has a homepage and an email address? Except the email is handled in the browser?
Big whoop. Get contact details, email your friends.
I've nothing against people breastfeeding in public, BUT -
Why isn't the restaurant allowed to ask them to leave?
There are plenty of legal behaviours that the restaurant can decide are not appropriate for its atmosphere. Dress codes spring to mind.
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.
This isn't an issue of biblethumpers. The real question is why charges like sexual harassment charges enforced so unevenly in the first place. If we're going to have rules of that nature on the books then they need to be applied in an even minded manner. I don't think that it's too unreasonable that women be required to play by the same silly rules that men have had to in recent decades.
There isn't really any reason why women have a right to do that in public when there's a tendency to get pissed over much smaller things that men do.
Because companies have policies which allow their employees on as part of employment. And if pictures with nipples are allowed on the likelihood of a serious sexual harassment complaint goes up significantly.
I don't pretend to really get those rules, but the fact of the matter is that with grey area allegations like sexual harassment you can't be guaranteed in all cases to be able to avoid it in the first place. Things like banning breasts from display on computers is a more or less common sense way of cutting down on the more well founded allegations.
If Facebook doesn't enforce these rules there's far more wrong than what you're complaining about.
Quote I personally don't understand why someone feels compelled to post breastfeeding photos on Facebook to begin with, unless it was part of some sort of breastfeeding instruction manual to help other new mothers out. Thus, there would be a net benefit to the baby.
funny you should say this because a friend of mine posted (to try out the FB policies) some pictures which are used by a dutch breastfeeding group as instruction for pregnant women... they were -off course- removed
I'd always assumed that "girlintraining" was a pre-op tranny, myself. Last I heard, the surgeons weren't THAT good.
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 ]
Breastfeeding scares customers away? What sort of backwater Puritan village do you live in? My wife and I have never had any problems with her breastfeeding our 5-month-old in restaurants. Although we go out less frequently than we used to now, but that's beside the point.
We've never gotten nasty looks or trouble from other patrons, and the servers never mind it, and I live in the prudish Midwest. They almost always coo over the baby, and I generally leave a larger tip than usual if our baby has to eat while we're there.
sudo eat my shorts
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.
Actually no, you and Facebook reflect the continued need to invent stupid rules by churches to restrict the breeding activities of the ignorant population who are so clearly too stupid to behave rationally.
Facebook is private property. Anyone using it is doing so under the condition that they abide by the owner's rules.
No different than your house. For example, I don't care how much you masturbate, but you are not allowed to do it in my living room.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I have man-boobs you insensitive clod!
Hey, the former is a choice too - just look at Michael Jackson!
c++;
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?
Nudity seems to be defined as showing male or female genitals or the areola/nipple of a female breast. It is not much related to the actual showing of skin.
Why is a bare shoulder not nudity, nor an exposed deep cleavage of a woman's breast, nor a completely bare chest of a man, nipples and all?
And why would a photo of a nursing mum be nudity, but a woman wearing a tiny bikini isn't? The second case would likely show a larger portion of the woman's skin.
And finally it still surprises me that while female breasts are not allowed to be shown and are called indecent or even obscene, unless it is of indigenous tribes whose female members go naked or wearing only a skirt. Then showing the breasts is no problem. Even when they are of underage girls.
Here in Hong Kong there has been a huge row over some photos of a female singer, 14 at the time, being photographed in a wet see-through t-shirt and skin coloured bra. In the meantime we can receive the Discovery Channel including shows like "Tribe" uncensored - and afaik this channel is relayed from Singapore, with even more prudish laws, sometimes blurring out the deeper decolletes.
It's a strange and very hypocritical world we live in when it comes to issues like nudity.
Gladly, our society had, on the whole, treated breastfeeding in public in a sane way - by treating it as normal, not putting restrictions on it, and even protecting it
I don't live in the US so we don't have a law that protects this right, or gives us this privilege (whatever your point of view is). In general, you don't see people breastfeeding in public here. Most of the restaurants have some private space to do such things (no, not the toilet), or the owner will gladly improvise a space with privacy.
While it is a perfectly natural process, and I personally don't have a problem with it, a lot of people do. You will find people staring as if they've never seen a breast before. I think it sets somewhat of an uneasy setting for both the mother that is breastfeeding and the possible person who takes offense or (worse) gets aroused by it. Maybe it's best for both parties to simply sidestep the problem altogether, and provide a private space where people can take of their babies. Even our trains provide such areas these days.
A friend of mine recently gave birth to a healthy young boy. When she has company around in her own house, she goes to the childs room to breastfeed simply to avoid any awkward situation. I don't think our generation is one raising hell about a bare breast, and I think you see more of a sexual context in the average showergel advertisement than in breastfeeding. It's a matter of consideration towards how others might react.
On the topic of Facebook itself. The Internet is a wonderful place, but in general it mirrors society with the added bonus of the illusion of anonymity because you aren't in direct contact with another person. I wonder how wise it is to put up pictures of yourself breastfeeding on a medium where you have no idea of who is looking at those pictures in whatever context fancies them. What if a future employer takes offense to this (not because he's a puritan or whatever term you wish to label him, but because one of his customers might google his latest project manager and have the first find be a picture of her breastfeeding).
In that context, a few years ago a coworker of mine decided to put pictures of the birth of his daughter online on some photo gallery. Most people tend to just put the pictures of the child online, but he captured the whole birth in a way that most documentaries don't. Is that a bad thing? Not really, it's a very natural process. But in his absence more than one of my coworkers made a derogatory remark, and I personally wasn't exactly jumping for joy when I saw those pictures. Fast forward a couple of years where a coworker had taken pictures of himself in the bathtub with his son and put those on his desk. Rest assured that it only took one coffeebreak before someone said "What the hell", pointing out that our coworker was naked in his pictures. Generally speaking, most people tend to bathe naked. Again, this is a natural thing. So why were so many people uncomfortable with those pictures?
As I grow older for some reason I've come to see society as growing more and more to conveniencing self without regards to others. Most people have become so focused on themselves that they disregard the opinions of others without looking for a middle ground that is acceptable to both parties. I think it's important enough to not lose sight of your surroundings. I think that this applies to both parties in this whole debate.
On the other hand, I find it somewhat ridiculous that you would not object to showing whatever it is you're showing, in public, to a handful of strangers, but you would suddenly object if it was shown, over the Internet, to a few more strangers.
Doing it in public is time-limited, for a few strangers maybe, or if you don't like the strangers you can stop it immediately.
When it appears on the Internet it's out of your control, all strangers can see it, and possibly abuse it.
There is a huge difference to say breastfeed sitting in a quiet corner in a restaurant or in a mall, to having a photo taken of it and having it posted on the internet without your consent.
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?
I still don't understand apparently.
I think you might be getting caught up on the term 'badness-level'. Ratings don't necessarilly tell if you if something is 'bad'. In the case of the MPAA rating system, it tells you what approximate maturity level you'd probably want to be in order to deal with the possible objectionableness of the content. In addition, if you are using something like the TV ratings system, you'll get cues for what type of objectionable content you'll be witnessing, based on categories like Graphic Violence, Sexual Content, Vulgarity, etc. It is a gross simplification of the rating system to claim all rating systems are rating things based on 'badness'. If you like Mature content, then for you the rating system would be inverted to rate goodness.
Of course people disagree as to what they find objectionable. That's why a duality system of ban vs. allow is bad. If you allow all content but then rate the content to give people cues as to what is contained, then they can avoid content that could be potentially objectionable to them.
And the chemicals released in the brains of people running are the same as some drugs. Thus, running and doing drugs are the same thing! We must ban running and jail those caught with running paraphernalia like sneakers, bottles of water, or sweatbands!!!!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Considering there is not law which prevents discrimination against breastfeeding, you are wrong. Asking someone to leave because of their race, religion, etc., of course would be illegal. The laws have been very clear that restaurants and taxicabs have especially wide latitude in applying this law.
I am amazed at how many people are completely out of touch with current laws and what they mean.
I completely agree with everything you say.
But most people don't. That's the problem. We are a society, and we are not, generally, computer-savvy enough to appreciate the benefits of what you've proposed. I use PGP (GPG), but of my hundreds of friends only 4 even realise that encrypting email might be good, let alone the benefits of PGP vs. central key authorities. The ultimate solution is to educate people so that they understand how important decentralisation is (encryption is but a footnote), but meanwhile it seems reasonable to convince people of something closer to their hearts: their breasts.
Baby steps.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
1Go ahead, try it. You sick mother fucker.
Really?!?! Sick? Reread what I said. That statement makes you sound like a idiot. I even said it wouldn't bother me. Pointing out legal rights makes someone a "sick mother fucker"? Wow you really must be.
In most places, breast feeding in public is not protected by law. Many women's organizations are still fighting for such legally protected rights. Until then, they do not have legal protection and it is exactly as I stated, "forcing her morales on the public." Like it or not, forcing your nudity on the public IS a question of morality to the majority of the population.
Learn the law and stop trolling.
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.
Not exactly.
Yes, exactly. In most places, public breast feeding is not a legally protected right so refusing someone service for public nudity is legally protected.
The business is there to offer a service to the public.
And they all have the legal right to refuse service to ANYONE so long as it is not on the basis of established anti-discrimination laws. Given that there is no federal anti-nudity protection law, in all places, save only where state law provides some form of protection, it is perfectly legal to eject a patron under those conditions. Most states have no such protection.
And, the law has made it abundantly clear in almost all states, restaurants and especially taxicabs receive especially wide latitude to interpret their right to refuse service so long as it does not violate federal discrimination laws.
a) the house is full;
b) the clients are in salubrity conditions that would disrupt the establishment;
And you would be wrong. Service can be denied for public disruption, violation of law, health code violations, etc. Considering public nudity is illegal in most places, unless that state specifically protects breast feeding, at that time, exactly as I originally said, they are legally protected in asking her to leave. Failure to leave means she can then be ticketed and/or arrested for violation and several laws, depending on her behaviour at that time.
Including blacks and hispanics?
You really are uneducated.
Like it or not, the law very clearly spells out what qualifies are illegal discrimination. You can legally discriminate. Period. It happens every day. Just the same, discrimination is not required at all in this case. So the rest of your racist ignorance and stupidity is ignored.
How fucked up are you that you believe
I believe it because of fact. Nudity has always been considered an issue of morality in the US. Period. Case closed.
Do you have anything else your ignorant about? Please bother to learn some law before you go on making posts were you come off as a complete racists, idiot, hick.
There are laws specifically protecting breastfeeding,
No such federal law exists. Most states do not provide any such protection.
Most states to do protect public breast feeding. As such, what she did constitutes public nudity.
How is she forcing her morality on anyone?
Public nudity. Public nudity is illegal in most places. Given that everything else has already been explained in the original post, if you're still confused, that's you're problem. Go learn some law. Learn some common sense.
But that would be turning him away for who he is not what he is doing. She can change what she is doing, he cannot change who he is. I think they should at least offer them a corner booth or something out of the way if they insist on doing it, but I suppose it is their right to do it.
Does anybody else think this could be applied under a gray area of the "no shirt - no shoes - no service" EULA you get when walking into McD's?
Oh yeah, and there's the whole part of, why do you need to post PICTURES of you breast feeding on facebook? We kind of got off topic with that one... You could, you know, put the baby down and cover up for 5 seconds while you take your latest profile pic.
I realize I'm posting too late to ever get read, but this another arguement into my head:
If you were to duplicate Facebook's site, you'd be immediately sued into oblivion. IIRC, I've seen a few stories about Facebook's patents get posted over the last couple years. Then there are the trademark and copyright concerns.
In effect, Facebook has a government protected monopoly. As such, they are obligated to open and accessable. If they decide to ban a (protected) class of people based on private proptery rights, they should be obligated to return the public property they have in the forms of patents, trademarks, and copyrights.
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?
Just don't look. Mothers have a right to feed their babies. My wife used to be very sensitive to people who may not want to see that kind of thing, but where are these private places of which you speak? They do not exist, for the most part. Some malls, workplaces, and other businesses have places set aside, but most do not. And no, my kid is not going to be fed in a bathroom.
And there's no reason at all to compare urination to breast feeding. That's the weakest argument I've ever heard, but unfortunately I hear it a lot (and multiple times in this thread.)
As for FB, well... I can't say I would want pictures of my wife breastfeeding posted on facebook anyway, so I guess I don't understand the big deal. It's their site... if they don't want pictures of a certain category there, then that's their business. The attitude behind their policy is wrong, I think, but they are within their rights to exercise it.
My sig sucks.
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 :-)
Wrong.
40 of the 50 states provide laws that protect the woman's right to breastfeed in any public place.
Use google before making such easily checked claims.
Thanks for playing!
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/breast50.htm
Sure... Except that your right to refuse service to anyone is actually restricted by other's rights not to be discriminated against for various reasons, race, religion, sexual orientation, or in 40 states... women who are breastfeeding.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/breast50.htm
I find it mildly arousing and I gather that most males do too. Even if they say they don't. A term like "seriously perverted" is a term of moral judgement. Someone has decided it is wrong, not merely infrequently indulged in.
The moral judgment was made by those who view breastfeeding to be equal to a sex act, too lewd for public. The ones for whom it is so exciting to them that the woman may be prancing around naked for how well they can ignore it, then yeah, they're seriously perverted.
I could talk about how social mores of the US have made any exposure of a female breast a sexual act, but you know what? It doesn't really matter. It's a pretty body part attached to an apparently fertile female and hence is inherently sexual no matter what the mores of society are.
Well you should talk about social mores because it obviously does matter, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. What you're saying applies equally well to women's ankles, earlobes, collar bones, and those oh-so-pretty eyes. Only a few cultures of today have decided that ankles are so "inherently sexual" that they need to be covered. Ours has decided nipples are shameful and must be covered (with clothes not babies). Then there are places in Europe with a strong incest taboo, yet where a man wouldn't be embarrassed to go to a topless beach with a female relative. Breasts are not, apparently, that inherently sexual. Just like ankles, they certainly can be and are in the right context, but not inherently (as in unavoidably) so.
If those body parts are unavoidably arousing and sexual, that sounds like either social mores, or nymphomania (or whatever the male equivalent is called).
The enemies of Democracy are
Public is public, not private. Privacy ends when you move into a public place. It might be annoying that people can do that, but so are plenty of other things people are allowed to do in public. If you want something to be private, then don't do it in public.
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
You just found out why some people think, doping in sport should be forbidden. And in the same moment you found out why other people (with a non empty intersection to the aforementioned) think, banning drugs makes no sense.
I'd consider photos of provocative poses in a bikini a lot more "offensive"/inappropriate/whatever than nursing. Yet the policy of "no bare tits" is making black and white an issue that is really a grey area -- what the GP complained bout.
Well, you're most certainly welcome to :)
I don't give a crap about laws in the US. There is a federal law for this in Canada. That's where I live.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
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
Are you unclear as to the meaning of 'public'? You're either ok with being seen, or not. I don't see what difference it makes if a picture is taken of you when you're already out where anyone can see you. Now, if they're stalking you or being otherwise obnoxious, the camera shouldn't provide any excuse for that behavior (I'd say this should be true for celebrities too, but apparently it's ok to stalk them). I swear people are getting as paranoid about being photographed as some cultures that think it steals your soul.
it's probably because you went to the trouble of getting a good angle and waited for the right moment, not because the woman was running through the streets topless screaming "Look at me! Look at my tits!".
And yet, presumably she cared more about feeding her baby than about covering herself. I applaud that sense of priorities, by the way, but that's a possible consequence.
'there existed, from a point in a public place, a line of sight to her underwear, which was, at the moment the picture was taken, also in a public place, so why shouldn't I be allowed to take a picture and upload it to the intertubes?' is no proper defense for such an action.
True, but it is a reason to avoid wearing skirts in such a place.
Again: I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that there is a way to avoid it: Wear pants.
I wish to live in a world where people wouldn't have to worry about all their actions being 'photographed, stored, and indexed, for generations to come'.
I don't like it either, but it's too late for that.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
When it appears on the Internet it's out of your control, all strangers can see it, and possibly abuse it.
I'm curious -- what does it mean that they would be abused?
I don't disagree with your main point, I'm just curious about what you mean here.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
We are a society, and we are not, generally, computer-savvy enough to appreciate the benefits of what you've proposed.
Yes, we are. We're just too apathetic.
I find that things like this, or OpenID, or Jabber, are actually quite easy to explain to most people. They already use at least one system that works tihs way -- email. There's nothing stopping you from starting your own mailserver -- and short of that, if Yahoo starts causing problems, you can always use Gmail, or vice versa. Or you can buy a domain, and switch at will between service providers, while retaining the same email address.
Whether or not people know this, it intuitively makes sense. And the next step, that you could have a social network be like email, is not that hard to explain, either. Bloggers are already halfway there, as are people who use blogs.
meanwhile it seems reasonable to convince people of something closer to their hearts: their breasts.
I'd use that to open the discussion, if anyone ever seemed doubtful that Myspace or Facebook would abuse their power.
Baby steps.
Except it's not really a step forward, unless you connect the ideas for them. Otherwise, while it's easy enough to understand decentralization, they might not think of it on their own. They might simply think that Facebook is being unreasonable, and consider moving back to Myspace, or looking for a third option, or worse, building their own.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Oh, boy, you're one of those pervs who gets all excited by seing a mum nurse her baby, huh?
So breasts shouldn't excite a man? How bout a teen going through puberty? How bout a young boy?
The fact that people have to argue the interpretation of the act, is proof enough that the act itself is not accepted by the common public.
I'm not for, or against. Sure, bring out the breasts. Just don't get mad if some teen tries to cop a feel, because you did something that was out of the ordinary. And to those that argue this is ordinary/natural/etc., then how come you very very rarely seeing people breastfeeding in public as is? Because as a mature parent, you are expected to act responsible and find a private place (like a bathroom) for these activities. Otherwise, urination is perfectly natural as well and I should be free to do it anywhere.
Argue however you like, these are just facts, not opinions. After reading most of the comments here, everyone is very very one sided sadly, and give emotional and attacking responses... hopefully I don't need to cite any of them as evidence.
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
I would actually make that argument. The problem with segregation was not the private businesses that chose to segregate, but the government mandated segregation. I, honestly, believe that if a private business man( or woman) doesn't want to do business with someone for whatever reason (even if that reason is the person's race), they should have the right to not do business with that person. I would not do business with people who discriminate based on race, but they should have the right to do so. I believe in the long run that businesses that discriminate based on race would suffer as a result.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Yes. I have been waiting for the day that people stop being offended by the very thing they do in their own bedroom (or living room, or kitchen, or bathroom, or all of the above).
I'm sure some guy down the street can't wait for the day when he can pull down his pants and poop right in front of you while you're talking to him. Everyone is comfortable on different levels of exhibitionism (I can't think of a better word off the top of my head) but the consensus of most of the world's cultures after about 10,000 years of human history say you don't expose yourself the following ways in public:
Don't pick your nose
Women don't show breasts
Don't poop
Don't show genitals
And then in many countries, there are others, or exceptions:
Women show breasts when breastfeeding
Don't pick your teeth
Don't show the bottom of your shoe
Pee when only your back will be exposed
Although, with "progressive movements" seem to be getting more and more popular nowadays, for better, or (usually) for worse, it probably won't be long before you see a lot of these changing.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
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"
Agreed. You can't make cultural preception exceptions with a large audience.
My wife runs a mothering website. A few months back, someone posted a facebook "flair" with a nipple on it - this particular person is very pro-breastfeeding.
I personally didn't like it. I didn't like it because if the site were to eventually take off, we'd be forced into a position of either making breasts acceptable at all times, individually reviewing each posted picture, or changing our policy to prohibit such pictures as soon as we started getting the inevitable complaints from the larger audience.
As it turns out, within two days, we started receiving complaints from the 60-70 regulars already visiting the site. Not everybody, but enough that we had to make a decision about what to do.
I made a public statement asking that those kinds of pictures not be posted on the site, and explained why.
There was an uproar. We had to deal with it. But in the end, the community as a whole understood the position we were in and the decision we had to make.
Boobs aren't OK in the U.S. Forcing facebook or any webmaster to change their policy isn't going to make them OK. I don't know who I'd recommend going after, but it certainly wouldn't be webmasters. Make it OK on TV. Make it OK at church. Make it OK in a restaurant where everyone else is eating. Then maybe you can talk to the webmasters. For now, our hands are tied by the people we serve, and the potential audience we'd like to serve. If you really want to put pictures of your boobies up on the web, there are plenty of places that allow that kind of a thing already.
Except that there are such laws in at least forty states in the US specifically allowing women to breastfeed in both public and private places.
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 ]
I think the sad part is that /. had the leading position and they've just let it die miserably. At this point, who cares?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Silly? Sure. But you're very seldom going to convince someone that they're being foolish by saying to them "you're an idiot".
I'm not against it. What I am FOR, though, is the rights of the private property the mother is on. If she is asked to stop or to leave, she must do those things. It's not a difficult concept. I can't just bust into your house and jack my dick off. Can I?
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
I was severely lactose intolerant as a child and raised on soy milk.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
I have nothing against 'the globalizers!LOL' but I do have something against a visitor on private property ignoring the rules and bitching when they're asked to leave after breaking them.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm presenting an argument to defend the people who are trying to preserve their private property rights.
This woman has no right to be on Facebook. She was allowed there, as long as she followed some rules. She broke the rules and was punished. Now she's crying because she broke the clearly written rules.
It'd be like if you went into a 7-11 and started rubbing your dick through your pants. You'd be asked to leave.
The action makes no difference, the fact is she broke the rules she agreed to and was punished.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Not really. There are different kinds of private property. Your home is your home, of course, and you can use any criteria you wish to restrict people from accessing it, or kicking them out. But if you've got a public premise - say, a shop - then you cannot discriminate randomly. You're not allowed to hang a sign that says "no niggers and dykes allowed", for example, and restrict the visitors accordingly. Nor are you allowed to prevent mothers from breastfeeding. In both cases, the needs of the society as a whole overrule your control over your property.
"Nor are you allowed to prevent mothers from breastfeeding."
Yeah, you can. Pretty easily, too. It's called 'asking them to leave.'
"the needs of the society as a whole overrule your control over your property."
I'm sorry, but I thought I lived in the United States of America where my property is mine. The 'needs of society' my Aunt Fanny.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
You might want to check the local laws then (yes, in the USA). In most States, there are laws on the books which do not allow you to "ask them to leave" solely because they're breastfeeding. If you try to kick them out regardless, you break the law, and will get sued.
By the way... it bothers me that your post was "flamebait". It seems that you and I presented the two viable alternatives, and people took sides. I don't think your point is the only answer, but it's completely valid. Mods: what's up with that?
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."