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...
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 ----
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.
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:
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
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?
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."
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?
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.
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
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.
I guess nobody read the TOS.
Did you?
From the Facebook code of conduct:
So what is a woman nursing? Pornographic? Violent? Bullying? Malicious? Abusive?
I'm aware Facebook can remove content at their sole discretion, but nursing doesn't seem to be explicitly covered by their TOS.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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.
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.
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.
As for nursing in public, why not just allow it
In most of the US, it is allowed. check your state laws.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
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!
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!
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.
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!
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.
I admit that I don't use social networking sites, but I find this surprising. Does facebook now have a feature in which your monitor grows arms, puts those Clockwork Orange things in your eyes and forces you to view certain pictures? I guess that's as good of a reason as any to not visit that site.
....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.
There's a difference between a statue and a picture of real tits.
Not according to the government.
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
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.
And keep a stove with a battery pack nearby to warm the milk to 37 degree Celsius.
What you aren't seeing is that the issue is a very sensitive contextual one.
First off, do you want the site to be swarmed by 12-year-old boys that find the pictures titilating? OK, throw that out - who cares, right?
Now you have someone that claims their picture just shows breastfeeding when clearly that is not the intent of the picture. How sensitive contextually should the policy be? And who is the final judge in this?
The problem for a large public site is not that they have to be overly repressive. It is that they must have a clearly defined and easily implemented policy. Failure to do so means everybody loses because it is impossible to say what is allowed and what is not. At that point censorship is either non-existant or is arbitrary. I assure you that without some control Facebook would become a cesspool. So the control has to be something that everyone understands and can be implemented without a great deal of context.
So how does the two adults showing "breastfeeding" get handled? How about the completely nude woman with a baby on one breast? There are a million examples like this of "pushing the envelope" that someone somewhere has to deal with. Quickly and without a lot of contextual judgement.
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.
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.
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."
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.)
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++;
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.
big difference between feeding a child, and exposing your genitals. Breasts are not genitals by the way.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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!
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."
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
...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.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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...
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.
Somehow I find the idea of unmarried Monks, Priests and Alter-boys more disconcerting than breastfeeding in public.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
There's loads of content on Facebook and MySpace that I'm not interested in seeing, but they'd barely have a functioning site if they removed it all just to satisfy my standards. Why should your disinterest in seeing a boob be any more relevant than my disinterest in a strangers wedding photo?
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?
Look, breast feeding a 2 month old because it is hungry is just caring for your child. Having a 3 or 4 year old who has been eating solid foods for years suck on your nipples because it feels good is a sexual act. Getting your nipples sucked because it feels good is pretty universally considered a sexual act. If you don't consider it a sexual act, then I would love to get to know your wife. Will it also not be a sexual act if she returns the favor by sucking on parts of me? Whoo Hoo! Party at CrackedButters' house!
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.
That should put a stop to most of it without the guv'mint encroaching on anyone's liberties, yes?
Why the hell do you imply we ought to put a stop to it?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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....
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
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!
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.
Idiot - There's a very good reason you don't want to see anyone shitting or pissing near you in public. That's because if everyone did it, your environment would be filthy. Breast feeding, on the other hand, does no harm to your environment at all. In fact, a case could be made that it improves it.
Perhaps you should reflect upon what it is you find so distasteful about an infant sucking a tit. Is it the bare breast (which is mostly covered by the babies face anyway), or is it the baby eating, or what ? Would you object if the baby was sicking a breast shaped bottle ? Would you object if the woman was bottle feeding while wearing a tiny bikini ?
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.
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.
In meatspace you just don't have any choice--there is no more land. {...} The Internet looks infinite, but it's not.
Well in contrary to the meatspace, teh intertubes has an (almost) instantenous ability to jump from one place to another.
If I duplicate Facebook's site and change only the breast policy, do you think that people will switch, even though the new one is better?
Why do you need to *duplicate the whole* Facebook ?
Why not just host your *picture galleries* in some jurisdiction that makes a distinction between feeding a child and sexual assault ?
Then only put a single cover picture and link to your gallery on Facebook ? ("Latest pictures of junior available on this URL")
That should solve so many problem on so many levels :
- picture against Facebook's rules of policy aren't hosted there anymore. no more problem.
- the link is visible in Facebook, so friends are kept in loop without having to track hundreds of separate websites. the "hard to move the whole friend network" problem isn't there.
- thanks to advances like OpenID, there won't even be that much different log-ins to track (the friends will use one single OpenID - from their blog for example - to log into all the various off-site galleries)
- bots are able to follow links and can jump from one domain to another following links. If the target gallery is designed to be bots-friendly, the pictures will nonetheless be accessible to Google and such, and will still be searchable.
- In an indirect way, people will be "voting with their wallets" - the users will spend a little bit more time on off-site galleries and a little less viewing pictures on Facebook, thus depriving them from their lucrative ADS revenue stream. If this get significant enough Facebook might notice it, and might rethink its policy. Otherwise you still have a solution that works anyway.
In short :
The web has always been though as a distributed and interlinked system. Please keep this in mind and keep distributing you content in several places and linking them together as you see it fit.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Hey ! I think your onto something there :
I think that just goes to show how stupid and dangerous it is to allow a central authority to gain such control, especially when there are other alternatives. {...} No, the real (but difficult) solution is to convince Facebook's users to start building a truly distributed social network, so that there is no one entity which gets to decide what's acceptable and what isn't
I smell a great business plan !~
We could, you know, imagine a distributed content system. With each content linked to each other.
Doesn't need to be complicated.
Sort of just text documents with pictures in them. But in addition of that with links between them : like some *advanced text*. All connected in all direction like some higher dimensional figure. But I can't find a name for it yet~
But that sure is going to be a lot of complicated data. Maybe we should hire some guys to help us develop this linked-text format. I've heard that the people at the LHC have to deal with lots of data to publish on a regular basis. Maybe they could help us design with format~
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I 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