Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks The Internet Your Rights Online

Facebook Nudity Policy Draws Nursing Moms' Ire 904

Posted by timothy
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Nudity Policy Draws Nursing Moms' Ire

Comments Filter:
  • Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eggman9713 (714915) <{eggman97132007} {at} {mac.com}> on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:23PM (#26293319)
    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...
  • Seriously (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:23PM (#26293321)

    Do you really need to post pics of your nursing infant on a social website? Does anyone want to share that, really? And are facebook and myspace required to host any picture you send them? I guess nobody read the TOS.

    I think boob hysteria is ridiculous. So is the fake "outrage".

  • Damn Puritans (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:25PM (#26293349)
    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.
  • Prudes (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:26PM (#26293351) Homepage Journal

    Last i heard nudity was legal.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:27PM (#26293359)

    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.

  • by sayfawa (1099071) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:29PM (#26293381)
    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.
  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:30PM (#26293395)

    Just thinking out loud here, but it seems to me that these vocal, nursing mothers have a bit in common with exhibitionists and nudists:

    • The broader community is squeamish about how much flesh is shown.
    • They're at odd with the norms of public behavior in the USA.
    • Posting the pictures might stoke the desires of the viewer.

    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?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:30PM (#26293397)

    Speaking as a straight male who loves looking at naked women, I have to say, I fully support Facebook in this matter. As much fun as it is to see pictures of women with their crotch-fruit sucking on their sagging tits - I'd much rather, uh, not. Ever.

    Sure, it's natural, but so is taking a dump. Doesn't mean I want to see it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:34PM (#26293427)

    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.

  • Re:Damn Puritans (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kitsunewarlock (971818) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:40PM (#26293467) Journal
    Its *considered* harmful to children in this case as it exposes a part of the female anatomy considered again by the society to be shameful and/or only to be exposed in the act of sex. As a result, viewing this part of the female anatomy at a young age is assumed by this society to lead to children having and accepting sex more freely. This society also believes that sex should be downplayed due to a mixture of spiritual beliefs and the ultimate responsibility sexual activity entails (pre-birth control, etc...).
    But I have a feeling you know about all this already. I think its ridiculous--but its how our society evolved.
  • by Lord Kano (13027) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:40PM (#26293473) Homepage Journal

    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

  • by Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (895364) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:43PM (#26293503)
    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?
  • by adam.bower (61676) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:48PM (#26293553) Homepage

    Why should children have to be fed in a toilet? do you routinely eat in the toilet?

    Actually, don't answer that...

  • by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:56PM (#26293629) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by calmofthestorm (1344385) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @04:57PM (#26293635)

    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

  • by kachakaach (1336273) * on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:02PM (#26293661)

    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.

  • by Swizec (978239) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:05PM (#26293685) Homepage
    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.
  • Re:Seriously (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:09PM (#26293729) Homepage Journal

    I guess nobody read the TOS.

    Did you?

    From the Facebook code of conduct [facebook.com]:

    Inappropriate Content

    While we believe users should be able to express themselves and their point of view, certain kinds of speech simply do not belong in a community like Facebook. Therefore, you may not post or share Content that:

            * is obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit
            * depicts graphic or gratuitous violence
            * makes threats of any kind or that intimidates, harasses, or bullies anyone
            * is derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive or hateful

    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.

  • Re:Damn Puritans (Score:5, Insightful)

    by unapersson (38207) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:10PM (#26293743) Homepage

    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.

  • by hairyfeet (841228) <.bassbeast1968. .at. .gmail.com.> on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:10PM (#26293747) Journal

    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.

  • by woolpert (1442969) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:15PM (#26293781)

    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

    You have plenty of options to protect your dignity (and my eyes).

    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.

  • by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:15PM (#26293783) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by ppanon (16583) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:20PM (#26293833) Homepage Journal

    Just why exactly isn't it illegal to breastfeed in public when it's illegal to have sex in public?

    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.

  • by Bonewalker (631203) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:20PM (#26293835)
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:22PM (#26293859)

    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.

  • by hvm2hvm (1208954) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:23PM (#26293869) Homepage
    I think you're right. I don't think the fact that a woman is breastfeeding her baby makes any difference about showing her breasts. They will still be visible and attract attention (or disgust in some cases; yes, that's a little misogynistic). If a picture of a breast (and/or the breast itself) is not permitted somewhere then it shouldn't matter whether a baby is attached to it (the breast).

    The same should go for the story about the breastfeeding mom in the restaurant. It's the same thing as taking off your shirt in a public place. She should have just left and feed her baby at home or somewhere no one cares what's happening around, like a subway :P.
  • Why (Score:4, Insightful)

    by moxley (895517) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:27PM (#26293903)

    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....

  • by Wonko the Sane (25252) * on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:27PM (#26293911) Journal

    It may not be obscene, but nobody wants to see it! Nobody really wants your saggy titties or your screaming stinking brat around anyway! GTFO!

    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.
    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. ...or...

    If you don't want to see it, DONT FUCKING LOOK AT IT!

  • by enjo13 (444114) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:32PM (#26293957) Homepage

    Just because sexuality has been overly criminalized by a prudish society is not the fault of those engaging in sexual acts.

  • by Austerity Empowers (669817) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:35PM (#26293985)

    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.

  • by dtjohnson (102237) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:36PM (#26293991)

    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.

  • by Wonko the Sane (25252) * on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:39PM (#26294031) Journal

    I'm not puritanical, religious or a prude and I have a healthy taste for porn; but I don't want pictures of nursing women thrust at me. I don't understand why it's necessary to show everyone?

    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 own the site (Score:3, Insightful)

    by British (51765) <british1500@gmail.com> on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:40PM (#26294037) Homepage Journal

    ....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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:50PM (#26294113)

    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?

  • by Blain (264390) <slashdot AT blainn DOT com> on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:51PM (#26294123) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Carewolf (581105) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:51PM (#26294125) Homepage

    Of cause a private company or person is legally allowed to censor as they like, but that does not make it morally acceptable.

    With your odd idea that censorship as something that only applies to the government I assume you are an American, so let me explain it in terms you understand; The US constitution is based on the morals of you founding fathers, and they knew and understood that censorship was bad, and forbid the government from restricting the freedom of speech. The idea that other entities could grow large enough that they could make a censorships systems like those of the medieval European kings never crossed their mind. However any form of censorship is still morally questionable to anyone who shares the liberal values that the US and the modern western democracies are founded on. It doesn't matter if it is a democratically elected government, a king or a corporate warlord like Google or FCC that does the censorship, it is all bad.

    Sure I can go to other websites, I can also move to another country, but the first step is always to protest the wrong actions of the place you are at, and try to improve it.

  • by Austerity Empowers (669817) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:52PM (#26294137)

    That may or may not be illegal for a private (which I take to mean privately held) company.

    I'm not sure why "their website, their rules" necessarily brands someone a conformist submissive. It works both ways, imagine having a website dedicated to evolution in an area where discussion of evolution is forbidden. Hiding behind "my website, my rules" doesn't seem quite so offensive, or submissive.

    If you don't like their rules, don't use facebook. If they lose enough hits, they will change. If not enough people care (and I suspect that will be the case), then either beat their business, or cope. It's hard to construct an argument that it's "best for the public good" to force facebook to change their rules based on wanting to post breast-feeding pictures. There are better, more authoritative "how to" sources...this is just for social purposes.

  • by Sique (173459) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @05:55PM (#26294169) Homepage

    And keep a stove with a battery pack nearby to warm the milk to 37 degree Celsius.

  • by jnork (1307843) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @06:03PM (#26294227)

    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.

  • by Beezlebub33 (1220368) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @06:09PM (#26294281)

    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.

  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @06:14PM (#26294323) Journal

    Keep a bottle of milk with you. There are breast pumps for just such a reason.

    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.

  • by BeanThere (28381) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @06:15PM (#26294335)

    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.

  • by fugue (4373) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @06:19PM (#26294381) Homepage

    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?

  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @06:22PM (#26294403) Journal

    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.

    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.)

  • by pipatron (966506) <pipatron@gmail.com> on Thursday January 01, 2009 @06:26PM (#26294435) Homepage

    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?

  • by The Faywood Assassin (542375) <benyjr&yahoo,ca> on Thursday January 01, 2009 @06:30PM (#26294465) Homepage

    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.

  • by Asic Eng (193332) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @06:30PM (#26294467)
    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.
  • by bnenning (58349) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @06:35PM (#26294501)

    If you don't like it, switch to one of their many competing companies that our free-market economy has ensured exist.

    Of course, cable companies are typically granted monopolies by local governments.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01, 2009 @06:46PM (#26294609)

    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.

  • by rabiddeity (941737) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @06:50PM (#26294645) Homepage

    Doesn't mean I want to see it.

    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.

  • by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @06:57PM (#26294705) Journal

    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.

  • by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @06:58PM (#26294723) Journal

    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.

  • by dryeo (100693) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @07:01PM (#26294763)

    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.

  • by dcollins (135727) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @07:02PM (#26294767) Homepage

    ...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.

  • by das3cr (780388) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @07:02PM (#26294771) Journal

    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.

  • by Beezlebub33 (1220368) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @07:05PM (#26294789)

    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.

  • by Thiez (1281866) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @07:06PM (#26294795)
    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.
  • by twostix (1277166) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @07:37PM (#26295085)

    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?

  • by thegrassyknowl (762218) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @07:40PM (#26295117)

    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.

  • Frown (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lord_sarpedon (917201) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @07:52PM (#26295211)

    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.

  • by synthespian (563437) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @07:56PM (#26295243)

    ...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."

  • Um.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by msimm (580077) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @07:56PM (#26295245) Homepage
    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.
  • by John Hasler (414242) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @08:09PM (#26295367) Homepage

    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!

  • by synthespian (563437) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @08:11PM (#26295389)

    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.

  • by Urkki (668283) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @08:39PM (#26295581)

    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...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01, 2009 @08:51PM (#26295661)

    Yes, we all wish that everyone would be a lot more mature so we could show our dicks and tits online without people freaking out. Life is so unfair, isn't it.

    It is not unreasonable, by any stretch, for facebook to ban breast feeding pictures. This has no impact on the baby getting its food. That is the only reason why it is legal to breastfeed in public. It may be stupid, it may not be, but you can't realistically draw parallels between online picture sharing and breast feeding in public.

  • Sad... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lazarian (906722) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @09:47PM (#26296111)
    It's too bad that in North American culture the human body unclothed tends to be interpreted as erotic or pornographic almost exclusively. The idea of a woman breastfeeding her child being interpreted as something that must be done behind closed doors is a perverted concept in itself.

    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?

  • by pclminion (145572) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @10:18PM (#26296355)
    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.
  • Re:A solution? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Failed Physicist (1411173) on Thursday January 01, 2009 @10:59PM (#26296637) Journal

    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?

  • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Thursday January 01, 2009 @11:36PM (#26296835) Journal

    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.

  • by DrLang21 (900992) on Friday January 02, 2009 @12:11AM (#26296997)
    Nudity is nudity. They should either not care or ban it all. Making exceptions based on the cultural perceptions of a few is bullshit.
  • by DrLang21 (900992) on Friday January 02, 2009 @12:16AM (#26297035)

    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).

  • by Chris Burke (6130) on Friday January 02, 2009 @01:53AM (#26297471) Homepage

    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.

  • by BeanThere (28381) on Friday January 02, 2009 @03:26AM (#26297805)

    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.

  • by Veggiesama (1203068) on Friday January 02, 2009 @03:42AM (#26297865)

    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!

  • by OneSmartFellow (716217) on Friday January 02, 2009 @05:12AM (#26298171)
    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 ?
  • by Dhalka226 (559740) on Friday January 02, 2009 @06:24AM (#26298463)

    Of cause a private company or person is legally allowed to censor as they like, but that does not make it morally acceptable.

    The problem is that freedom works both ways. Yes, freedom of speech is a good thing even when it's a corporation and not the government on the other end of the line (I think we can all agree government censorship is bad, so let's leave that part out of the discussion). It's good that people be free to discuss things, even things that may offend others.

    But it's equally the right of those people to decide they don't want to hear it. They're free to only associate with those they please by whatever criteria they choose; they're free to set up a club--or in this case a community--with guidelines of their choosing, and to ask people to leave if they decide that their freedom to say whatever they please outweighs everybody else's right to associate only with those they please. Most people consider this to be a perfectly fair trade-off; you have the right to speak, but nobody has to give you a forum to do so.

    Personally, I have no problem with pictures of mothers breast feeding. I also have no problem with the creator's of a website determining the rules, even if they use silly criteria I don't agree with. My biggest problem is people like you who always claim to bring the authority of morality to the table. It's not that cut and dried, and even if it were it's only YOUR set of morals. If history has shown us anything, it's that nobody everybody holds the same moral values, and there's not necessarily a right or wrong. A lot of people have died to teach us that lesson.

    If you want to protest in hopes that Facebook changes their policies or makes an exception, swell -- but let's not pretend you're morally superior if they ignore you. In the meantime go set up mothersbreastfeedingpics.com and give those people a voice. Freedom for all, that's how it's supposed to be.

  • Re:But WHY? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RPoet (20693) on Friday January 02, 2009 @06:54AM (#26298587) Journal

    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.

  • by MissMoneypenny (589641) on Friday January 02, 2009 @07:41AM (#26298773)
    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.
  • by DrYak (748999) on Friday January 02, 2009 @08:39AM (#26299039) Homepage

    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.

  • by CowTipperGore (1081903) on Friday January 02, 2009 @09:49AM (#26299641)

    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.

    So, what are you actually trying to say? Are you suggesting that FB should leave the breastfeeding pictures alone, or they also should remove those of Jimmy eating a hamburger?

    As for personal feelings on breastfeeding pictures, you are correct that you don't get a good picture of the baby - the picture obviously is of the mother doing something she considers important. Just as some people post pictures of them with their dog, on their snowboard, holding a fishing rod, or graduating school, some mothers identify this action as an important part of their being so it seems natural to include it in their photographs. It isn't about boobs or being provocative.

    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.

    Interesting story, but some guy wanting you to see his wife posing topless is completely unrelated to a mom breastfeeding her baby. It is this inappropriate mixing of opinions on breastfeeding with erotic art or pornography that is the crux of this discussion.

    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.

    And there's even more of a militancy in the status quo of "conform or you're a freak/sinner/pervert". Society as a whole, and the more outspoken members (like many in this thread) regularly shove their lifestyle down everyone's throat and demand acceptance. Further, they demand that everyone else adopts it. I don't see these mothers on FB trying to force your wife to post pics of her breastfeeding or requiring that all mothers must breastfeed in public. No, they simply want not to be considered a deviant for doing something as natural as breastfeeding their baby.

  • by Jason Levine (196982) on Friday January 02, 2009 @10:25AM (#26299985)

    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..

    The double-standard is even weirder than that. Yes, a guy can pretty much take off his shirt where ever and not get arrested for indecent exposure. A woman can show pretty much all of her breast and get away with it. Witness those "barely there" bikinis that some women wear. Those might get some turned heads, but won't be banned. But show a nipple for a second and the Think Of The Children crowd grab their pitchforks and torches.

  • by Jason Levine (196982) on Friday January 02, 2009 @10:43AM (#26300147)

    Unless the woman's breastmilk is squirting across the room into your face, breastfeeding is *not* the same as smoking. You have the option of not looking at a breastfeeding mom. What option do I have if you are smoking near me? Not breathing?

  • by AviLazar (741826) on Friday January 02, 2009 @11:46AM (#26300735) Journal
    Breast feeding in public is required for your baby to eat. That is fine - though you should be discrete - you don't have to be totally topless. You can keep yourself covered enough that nobody can see your chest unless they are at an acute angle.

    As for posting the picture on the site - guess what, it is not required for your baby to survive to post a picture on the site. You are doing it for a personal reason. Well that is fine - except Facebook is owned by someone(s) and they don't want it. If you do not like it you can delete your account. By not respecting their rules you are in violation of their TOC and you are wrong.

As the trials of life continue to take their toll, remember that there is always a future in Computer Maintenance. -- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"

Working...