This:
Hot!
This:
Says Jezebel:
For those who need a refresher course: Facebook banned some photos of mothers breastfeeding their children because they said it violated their Terms of Use. Naturally, this angered a lot of breastfeeding mothers who created a group with 80,000 people titled “Hey Facebook, breast feeding is not obscene!” and some of the mothers even staged a small protest outside of Facebook’s main offices in California.
A spokesman for Facebook says that the site does not ban all breastfeeding photos, just ones where a nipple is fully exposed:
“Photos containing a fully exposed breast (as defined by showing the nipple or areola) do violate those terms (on obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit material) and may be removed,” he said in a statement.
“The photos we act upon are almost exclusively brought to our attention by other users who complain.”
The Facebook spokesman claims that the company’s standards for “indecent” breastfeeding photos are not just found on Facebook: the social networking company called several U.S. newspapers and asked if they could run an ad with a woman breastfeeding with a fully exposed breast, which the newspapers declined (and we all know how great newspapers are doing right now).
Which makes me wonder: What kind of tools spend their days searching on Facebook for photos of breastfeeding moms and complaining that they violate the terms of use? The same sort of tools that create Facebook apps like “Hot Naked Sexy Breasts Nude Bikini Chicks” and “Send Some Tits to Your Buddies,” perhaps?
Really? Nobody’s going to say it? Fine.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBIES!!!!!
@50
Side bar, got distracted and wandered off point – just thinking about how my niece and her husband feel their daughters can do no wrong even when they’re bring down the house. Spoiled rotten.
Sorry for the off message message.
elenchos – that’s fine. do you know how in the open breastfeeding is in utah?
i was just talking about the problems i saw with some of the argumentation used in this thread. facebook has a pretty simple and straightforward policy, and i don’t think i have any problems with the facebook policy. this thread, however, originated with a complain against their policy. the arguments in this thread seem to be about breastfeeding and breasts more than an examination of that policy.
i don’t agree with people who say there shouldn’t be breastfeeding in public, but neither do i think those people must be fake titty lovers trying to keep women down. nor do i believe that breastfeeding should be done without discretion (not that anyone is arguing it should be, though it feels like some people think it should be okay because “it’s natural” or something).
that — as you say — only weirdos are not okay with breastfeeding in public is perhaps noteworthy, but i’m more interested in what that has to do with the facebook policy at hand, and what reality and the policy say about our culture right now.
ellarosa’s right.
Until about 1000 years ago, most human children were breastfed until the age of between 3 and 5 in most societies.
That said, it’s regarded as abnormal since then in a small fraction (what we call the “West”) and more globally for the last couple of decades.
Infrequent – you’re right about the facebook policy. It’s pretty clear, no nipples/areola, and I don’t really have a problem with that. They had to create rules and guidelines, and they did so. Maybe they mismanaged or miscommunicated the guidelines, but I haven’t paid as much attention to that angle.
What some of us have been responding to is the notion @3 (and others) that posting a breastfeeding picture on facebook is a really weird thing to want to do. And, probably the fact that anybody would actually complain about a breastfeeding picture that they saw on facebook, which is how this whole thing got started.
@49, why are you disappointed? I absolutely support the complete freedom to breastfeed in public.
@46, you added the word “only” to make a straw man out of my argument. If anything, the pleasure that women derive from their breasts strengthens my argument, not weakens it.
But you’re right — you, and everyone else — indeed, every THING — on the planet, exists for the sole purpose of sexually exciting me, and only me. And it’s working! I’m jerking off into the fridge as I type this.
By the way, the jezebel post quoted an awesome comment:
Cleaning up vomit is a “special time”, eh. Good to know.
I didn’t cover my kids heads with blankets while I fed them in public. Sue me. Oh wait, completely legal. They didn’t like eating under blankets. Do you?
Infrequent, the question of what Facebook ought to do is only a matter of how much they think it will cost them to continue to antagonize 87,197 (and counting) of their members. There isn’t much to debate as far as I can tell. Maybe Facebook can afford to ignore them; I’m not sure anybody but Facebook has the data to answer that question.
The reasons why women don’t want anyone telling them when, where and how to breastfeed go far beyond the naturalness of it. I suppose the best way to sum it up is that mothers want the power to do what works best for themselves and their babies, and since nobody else is able demonstrate a compelling interest that they deserve a say in that, the law doesn’t give them a say.
Maybe Sad Comment or somebody knows a compelling reason why they should be involved. I don’t think he can even come up with data to support his claims about weaning or anything else.
But, you know. Anyone who does have any facts on their side should start lobbying the legislature, because as it stands moms can let it all hang out if they so desire, and that’s then end of it.
Fnarf, honestly, I’m pretty sure that one or two anthropologists has worked up the nerve to ask about breasts. In some cultures the lips and the face are sexual organs that must be covered. Anything can be sexualized, and of course breasts are to varying degrees. The question is whether some degree of sexualization makes something taboo. No, of course it doesn’t. It takes more than just sexualization, even a lot of it, to make it required to cover up. And the physiological and evolutionary context doesn’t provide any definitive answers, mostly because human reproduction is qualitatively different than other primates and mammals.
Why are you all still posting on this thread? Will in Seattle has already declared a winner. This post is over, forever.
@58, I’m with you. I’m a breastfeeding mom and hate nursing in public — not because I’m embarrassed, but because it’s almost a requirement to cover everything up and my little one doesn’t like it.
I’m not posting photos of myself nursing my baby, but I’ll never understand why anyone would find it offensive.
35: I wasn’t talking about obscenity. I was talking about what turns people on. For instance, I remember Savage posting something here last year about a female principal who became a human sundae when the student exceeded expectations. He pointed out that this was a fetish among some people, and boy did she look happy in the picture. Some people get off on breastfeeding. I could care less if I see a picture of that, but I also wonder why it’s important to post in the first place. Hence, the question of motives.
And I have never, ever understood the foot fetish. Feet look funny and usually smell bad.
Brandon J. @51 raises a subtle but important point, concisely expressed. Of course, @21 and @23 are entirely correct as well.
@60 – there’s always runner up.
elenchos — i had a hard time understanding your last message — or what the point of it was. reading it, though, i think you might have misunderstood a couple ideas i was putting out there. i’ll just try to clarify what i was getting at.
i’ll say again, i don’t care if women breast feed in public. and when i say discreet, i don’t mean “under a blanket”. i say that because i can envision a situation where it might not be appropriate (as i’m sure anyone can).
but as a general rule, people don’t decide laws purely based on what the mother feels is most appropriate. (just like there are other criteria we don’t solely base laws or policies on.)
i do feel #3 did get at the interesting part of it all, which is very similar to the issue of breastfeeding in public. the only think i was getting at was that the facebook policy isn’t wrestling with those concerns. i don’t feel the facebook policy is designed to discourage people from posting breast feeding shots, as is implied by the original post and others here.
thanks for you comment, julie. i think people think it’s weird because at this very instance in time, it is infrequent. like it or not, when you haven’t had a baby of your own, it might seem odd. i only occasionally see breastfeeding in public as is, so it does stand out. just like the guy with the cross on 45th and the ave stands out.
of course i can agree that there is no “reason” breastfeeding in public should stand out — other than the fact that i don’t see it that often. a quick thought about it, and i say it’s not big deal. just like wheelchairs are no big deal — but i still notice them.
to go from noticing to thinking it’s wrong is an interesting question, and i will let you return to your discussion about that. i just didn’t want to misrepresent my opinion on the matter.
People post these pictures on Facebook for the exact same reason they post pictures of themselves eating or drinking or hanging out. It is their normal, everyday life, and they are offended at being called indecent, abnormal, dirty, weird or anything else for it. How would gays feel if Facebook deleted pictures of two men kissing? Same thing. Exact same thing.
Re: the breastfeeding in public thing- it’s all in the presentation. I’ve been in situations where a woman was breastfeeding so discreetly it took a while for me to even figure it out- a small light cloth draped over the baby/boob. Then again, I’ve seen someone whip out a tit on Metro and proceed to the milking in front of god ‘n everybody..
In every culture, in every time, from the dawn of our species to the present women have nursed their children. Why? Because the baby is hungry and wants something to eat and what it wants is its mother’s milk. Read in any conotation you like about what you see when you see a woman nurse a child, but in the end this alone is what it’s about.
So try and restrain your scolding thoughts and odd reactions. Remember—it’s not about you, in fact it’s none of your business. Give the kid the peace to eat his meal and the mother the peace to provide it.
Thank you.
Breast, nipple, bush, cock, hands, ears…none of it is obscene.
The human body is not obscene.
Only the perverted mind is obscene.
It makes me think of former US Attorney General John Ashcroft, who insisted that the nude breasts of a statue in a public building be covered with a blanket.
To that man, all nudity, at least of the female, is obscene (I assume his wife when she is alone with him is an exception).
The world is indeed an obscene place to a perverted mind.
Okay everyone. Back to your corners and I think it is time for this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi1d81bhZ…
Would you like some milk with that? An oldie but a goodie. Enjoy!
I like monkeys.
elenchos – you compare it to two men kissing — but it’s not the same. facebook has an policy regarding nipples showing regardless of the context. for instance, using your example — you wouldn’t take the same offense if facebook didn’t allow pictures of anyone kissing and they didn’t allow pictures of two men kissing.
if someone wants to argue that pictures of woman’s nipples ought to be allowed on facebook, that’s one thing. but most people seem to be thinking this is a policy specifically designed to discourage pictures or women breastfeeding — which it is not. your own example shows the the false analogy.
Infrequent, the Seattle Police Department’s policy on nudity is exactly the same. Context is everything. There is no law in Seattle against being nude. Lewd conduct can get you arrested, and for that to happen somebody must complain, and then they need to show that your actions or the setting of your nudity were lewd. All sorts of nudity appears in non-sexual contexts, printed in medical illustrations, or on television such as when Schindler’s List was broadcast. I believe one bozo congressman from Oklahoma couldn’t deal with that last one, but the rest of humanity was fine with it.
Same sex kissing has historically been considered indecent, and as recently as this year got two women in trouble right here in our very own baseball stadium. The problem is that it sends the message that gays are not regular members of the community and can’t go about their lives in the same way that straights can. Gays take that as a slap in the face, and nursing moms feel the same way.
In many cases Facebook wasn’t just deleting pictures that showed nipples, but also those where it wasn’t in view. Regardless, the overall goal is to argue that even fully exposed breasts are not obscene in the context of feeding a baby. Breastfeeding is the normal way that babies eat, and quite often they can’t be fed without exposing the entire breast. It really is the same as same sex kissing: the fact that some are grossed out is their problem. Breastfeeding advocates don’t think of themselves as radical, alternative-lifestyle weirdos, and they don’t accept the implication that they are.
I think the only way Facebook could have a consistent policy would be to ban pictures of eating. Breastfeeding is the normal way that humans eat when they are young, and eating isn’t obscene, it’s a normal thing that normal people do, very often in a social context. One reason this battle is happening at Facebook is that breastfeeding has won in most every other context and there are only a few pockets of resistance left, making their appeal to community standards a little odd. True, newspapers wouldn’t print the photos, but then look at how people today are turning away from newspapers as irrelevant dinosaurs.
Sad Comment,
I’ve copied and pasted this from the World Health Organization – this is their recommendation for breastfeeding.
***********
As a global public health recommendation, infants should be exclusively breastfed(1) for the first six months of life to achieve optimal growth, development and health(2). Thereafter, to meet their evolving nutritional requirements, infants should receive nutritionally adequate and safe complementary foods while breastfeeding continues for up to two years of age or beyond.
************
Or beyond, you’ll notice. Also, the American Institute for Cancer Research finds that for every five months a woman breastfeeds her child, her risk of breast cancer lessens by 2%. But whatever, breastfeeding toddlers is so weeeeeird.
I weaned my son at 2 and a half, but that’s only because I got pregnant again and it was too unwieldy to continue. I would have kept it going until sometime during age 3, otherwise. And he’s a TALL bastard, my son. Looks four. Could have really wigged the people out.
Why does anyone give a shit, honestly? That’s what I don’t get.
“Evolution doesn’t take place in the conscious mind.”
Fnarf, thank you. I am an evolutionary biologist. This is a key concept that is always a challenge to explain to people. I’m going to add this sentence to my arsenal.
i think we pretty much agree on everything, elenchos. so maybe i need not post. i guess i just thought the facebook policy, unlike the SPD policy you refer to, did not have to do with context. if facebook’s policy is context-based — or if they were removing non-nipple shots, then they were playing unfairly.
the problem, of course, originates from those who have a problem with this sort of thing. they are likely the type who think all forms of nudity are pornographic. i guess that’s kind of still what i’m getting at, though. these aren’t the people who like the hooters fake breast shots, as implied originally. and they aren’t trying to sexualize breasts in one context while make them seem indecent in another. like a black and white policy, they seem nipples and freak. pornographic! they say, and look to flag. there is a difference that i think need to be acknowledged.
the second problem being, in 2009, there are still many of these people out there.