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.
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!
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.
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:
Why should children have to be fed in a toilet? do you routinely eat in the toilet?
Actually, don't answer that...
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.
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.
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.
dear god, I hope so!
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!
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.
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?
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.
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."
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++;
I think it is more like those black people who insisted on sitting at the front of the bus. They want equality. There's only laws against woman removing their shirts and these woman feel that feeding their child is a good reason to expose themselves. And really requiring woman to cover up parts that men don't isn't much different then some countries that require woman to cover their faces.
Even the arguments are the same. People might get turned on by a face. Who wants to see an ugly old face and so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
...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.
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
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.
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 ]