Slashdot Log In
Facebook Nudity Policy Draws Nursing Moms' Ire
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Jan 01, 2009 04:16 PM
from the isn't-breastfeeding-for-the-children-too? dept.
from the isn't-breastfeeding-for-the-children-too? dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was going to predict that some conformist submissive would repeat the trite refrain "their website, their rules" to whore karma, but damn it, you beat me to it.
You know the great thing about individual sovereignty? People can ignore those rules. And they did. And Facebook knows they'd better not piss them off again, because they need mothers' eyeballs more than mothers need Facebook.
Parent
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a private enterprise, they have the right to restrict what they want.
And as private citizens, the mothers have a right to complain, seek publicity & try to get an organization that relies on the public's page views to change its attitude.
Capitalism at work.
Parent
Re:Why is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
As a private enterprise, Comcast has a right to restrict what they want. And they figure that since most of their users don't use bittorrent and it takes up a lot of bandwidth, they should ban it. Capitalism at work. If you don't like it, switch to one of their many competing companies that our free-market economy has ensured exist.
end strawman argument....now
Parent
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Funny)
My tits my be considered part of a comedy act, but I would think it more appropriate to invoke the Eighth [wikipedia.org] amendment rather than the First.
Parent
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the end, breastfeeding in public isn't something I would really want to see
May I ask why? It's never bothered me. Should Mom just not leave the house with little one or ignore his cries if he's hungry when she does? Hell, I'd go one step further. Anywhere it's legal for a male to go topless it should also be legal for women to do the same. This is actually the case in a few jurisdictions already -- including New York State [naturisteducation.org]. It seems like simple equality to me.
But posting pictures of yourself breastfeeding just seems like being deliberately provocative.
Why? Nobody is forcing you or anybody else to look at their Facebook pages.
Parent
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup, I'm with you. In the end, breastfeeding in public isn't something I would really want to see, but whatever. But posting pictures of yourself breastfeeding just seems like being deliberately provocative.
Those aren't the kind of pictures you need to share with everyone - if you want people to see them, there's always email... but I can guarantee you that the majority of those 400 Facebook "friends" you have really don't want to see that, any more than they want to hear about your newborn's growing poo-poo production or the consistency of his vomit. Parents need to accept that there are a hundred little things that are "cute" to them but pretty distasteful to the general populace.
This is the huge downside to using some third party to manage your socializing. They will inevitably want to set some standards of acceptable use and that will certainly step on someone's toes. Facebook is excluding a small group of people. Since the vast majority aren't posting breastfeeding pictures they have no motivation to get upset over this. Since Facebook is a business they will never do anything to exclude a large number of people, but there is no reason for them not to exclude smaller groups (perhaps large numbers of smaller groups) in the name of "decency" and "family friendliness". Of course no one "needs" to share breastfeeding pictures just like there is no "need" for the vast majority of the crap that is on the Internet. Need is not the point. We do not know this lady or her 400 friends so who are we to say which pictures she shares with them.
Personally, I refuse to use things like Facebook because why should I allow anyone to regulate how I can interact with my friends.
Parent
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Further they can ask whoever they want to leave their property.
Actually in most states they can't ask you to leave for breastfeeding in public.
Parent
Damn Puritans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Damn Puritans (Score:5, Funny)
What, pictures of babies eating is harmful to children?
Eating babies maybe, but why babies eating?
Parent
Re:Damn Puritans (Score:5, Insightful)
But I have a feeling you know about all this already. I think its ridiculous--but its how our society evolved.
Parent
Re:Damn Puritans (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not harmful to children. Lots of children see their mothers breastfeeding their siblings while growing up. That's simply the reality, children are far more likely to see mothers breastfeeding than anyone else. Thinking that is weird or somehow wrong is the real perversion.
Parent
Re:Damn Puritans (Score:5, Funny)
I think its ridiculous--but its how our society evolved.
No, that's how our society was intelligently designed. Get it right.
Parent
Re:Damn Puritans (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
What is it with people and nursing babies? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What is it with people and nursing babies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then don't look. Is there some sort of invisible hand controlling what sites you browse to? I don't think this is the kind of thing you're likely to see unless you go looking for it. You're free to browse away from it. And you're always free to tell the original poster that it's in bad taste, if you think so. If they don't think much of you and your opinion, they should be free to ignore your request to remove the image.
It's not the responsibility of others not to offend you; that's a surefire road to censorship, and not a can of worms you want to open. In a free multicultural society, the onus falls on you not to throw a fit if you're offended.
Parent
The nudity laws are unfair (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:The nudity laws are unfair (Score:4, Funny)
Let's keep our heads cool. I strongly suggest that we gather more data before recommending a change to the laws.
Parent
Re:The nudity laws are unfair (Score:5, Informative)
And legally, in most (all but 2) US states, breastfeeding is an exception - it isn't illegal even if the entire breast is exposed. In fact, the crime is asking her to cover-up/leave/stop in most places.
T
Parent
Re:The nudity laws are unfair (Score:5, Insightful)
Or instead of having the woman take her shirt off in public to expose her breast to the world, she could just keep the baby's head under her shirt as well...
It's good to finally see somebody considering this issue with a cool head.
Damned shame you've got it stuck so far out of sight you're not likely to get it unstuck without major surgery. I've never, ever seen a woman (in public) take her shirt off to nurse. Most of them take at least a modicum of care not to flash passersby.
And, aside from the impracticality of stuffing the infant's head under her shirt, your entire statement appears based on the premise that there's inherently something wrong with exposed breasts, or at very least with mothers nursing in public. If our society is so hung up about seeing the occasional nipple, perhaps it's because we've spent so much effort to cover them up.
Or perhaps it's our Puritan heritage. Speaking of heads in uncomfortable places.
This is, of course, My Humble Opinion and should not be mistaken for the enlightened fact it really is.
Parent
There's a kink for everything (Score:5, Insightful)
Have karma to burn (Score:5, Funny)
Stupid double standard (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [tr.im] (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.
Facebook markets to moms (Score:5, Interesting)
My condolences to the Anglo-Saxon culture... (Score:5, Insightful)
...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."
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Interesting)
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:
Parent
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Funny)
No bare breasts. What's gray about that?
Will they ban beach pics of fat uncle Tony who has gynecomastia wearing just his shorts?
Parent
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Funny)
dear god, I hope so!
Parent
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Interesting)
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.....
Parent
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Funny)
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...
Parent
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Um.. (Score:5, Insightful)
When that was socially acceptable, we did.
Parent
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Great Idea !!! You've got a business plan. (Score:5, Funny)
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~
Parent
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Parent
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:4, Funny)
"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.
Parent
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Parent
Re:Shut up, crybabies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should children have to be fed in a toilet? do you routinely eat in the toilet?
Actually, don't answer that...
Parent
Re:Shut up, crybabies. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Prudes (Score:4, Informative)
No, it is an unlawful act that could get you on the sex offenders list, positioning you below a murderer who has served his time. Assuming of course that you live in the land of the not so free.
Parent
Re:Seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess nobody read the TOS.
Did you?
From the Facebook code of conduct [facebook.com]:
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.
Parent
Re:I personally don't want to see it. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Similarities with other groups (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent