Facebook Nudity Policy Draws Nursing Moms' Ire 904
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."
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
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.
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
Re:Why is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the general idea from the neo-con agenda. The fact is, even if you own something (specially a company place, that might be considered a public place) you might not have all the right on your side.
There is a difference between public and private. When people mix those two up, bad things happen. Like censorship, stupid rules and more.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not content being provided to the public. It's content being provided to their private network, which you have the option of joining at no cost.
Some social networks opt to have no policing whatsoever, but when push comes to shove, they'll still typically cave in the event of some sort of takedown notice even if they're believed to be in the legal clear (for the reasons you provide). That said, I haven't heard of anyone going to court over it, but I'm pretty sure that the courts would side with the co
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would have agreed with you not that long ago, but once they introduced the "public profile" concept I'd say that avenue of protection went out the window. Now that the content is no-longer only shared within the private network I would venture to guess that when the issue arises that FB (and others) will be held liable for the content that they fail to filt
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Facebook isn't a common carrier. If they were, the policy of blocking bare breast pictures would already be a "problem" for them. The issue here is whether breast feeding should be thrown in that category.
Also, as far as I know, common carrier status is something you can, at least in part, choose to be. If, like Facebook, your policy is to filter user content, then you're obviously not a common carrier. If they choose not to censor and let anybody use the service, then they *might* be a common carrie
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.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
[citation needed] How is it "the same thing?" Has somebody witnessed mothers take their shirts off (both breasts in plain view) in public for nursing? I, being male and all, am no authority on this, but based on the mothers I know and have seen nursing in public, I'd say it's not necessary.
Here's how it happens. In a seated position, fully clothed:
1) Bring baby up to chest.
2) Clear one (1) nipple (e.g. by lifting shirt).
3) Let baby eat.
4) Pull shirt back down.
5) Burp baby. Done.
Nobody except the baby can see any exposed part of the mother's anatomy. Nobody even notices that nursing is taking place unless they happen to be close by; it just looks as if the mother were holding the baby. To get disgusted by this takes real effort.
As far as I know, the very reason mothers nurse in public is that postponing the meal is out of the question. So, no way to wait until home.
Re: (Score:3, 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-p
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Damn Puritans (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You do know we can hit 110f in the summer here, we do have them. Occasionally...
Prudes (Score:3, Insightful)
Last i heard nudity was legal.
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.
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.
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.
Re:The nudity laws are unfair (Score:4, Funny)
More unfortunate would be the women with really puffy areaolae or the ones with the really big, stretched-out pancake areaolae.
Funny that you mention this. One time, my girlfriend and her best friend were tickling each other (yes, I know how hot that is) and her friend's shirt and bra came down just a little bit. Her areolae were like saucers. They were absolutely enormous. I made a joke about it, and she didn't talk to me for a month.
Big silver-dollar areolae require no explanation as they would be impossible to hide unless the baby is hydrocephalic.
When she started to act embarrassed I say "It's ok. I swear I didn't see anything. Not even your big silver-dollar pancake sized areola."
When she got angry, I tried to mitigate with little effect. I said "I didn't say that they were nice, they're just big".
LK
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
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.
There's a kink for everything (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarities with other groups (Score:3, Insightful)
Just thinking out loud here, but it seems to me that these vocal, nursing mothers have a bit in common with exhibitionists and nudists:
So here's the question: Why should nursing mothers be accommodated by changes in Facebook policies, but exhibitionists / nudists not?
I can see some people arguing against exhibitionists posting their pictures, because many people believe that seeing people bump their uglies is bad for kids.
But nursing mothers and non-prurient nudists seem to me to have a great deal in common in this issue. If nursing mothers get their way, should nudists get to post their pictures as well?
Re:Similarities with other groups (Score:4, Informative)
They're at odd with the norms of public behavior in the USA.
Why do you say that public breastfeeding is at odds with the norms of public behavior? Most communities have laws that specifically protect it. When I have seen it in public, no one has even batted an eye. I have never in my life ever seen anyone offended by it. That doesn't sound like deviant behavior to me.
Posting the pictures might stoke the desires of the viewer.
Really?! Is there really a large breastfeeding fetish crowd out there? I know there are many people with feet fetishes (to the point where men have been arrested for licking strange women's feet) so may be we should ban pictures with bare feet. We can all agree that the feet fetishes are weirdos so there is no point in keeping them around. And some people have a fetish for girls with glasses [joyofspex.com] so maybe we should exclude those types of pictures. And then there are the latex, smoking, balloon, etc fetishes. The list of things that "might stoke the desires" is as long as my uh ... It's long.
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.
Have karma to burn (Score:5, Funny)
They can't have it both ways... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would you care? If someone is wanking off to breastfeeding pics, it doesn't automatically makes them "bad"; there are people wanking off to Disney cartoons, too, you know...
Someone stop them! (Score:4, Funny)
My experience... (Score:3, Interesting)
So I started putting my pictures up on a website whose owner I knew wouldn't care I was taking snaps of naked women: My dad.
Why (Score:4, Insightful)
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....
Shameful that this is an issue... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
They own the site (Score:3, Insightful)
....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.
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."
Think of the children! (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
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:
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?
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Funny)
dear god, I hope so!
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.....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:4, Informative)
I didn't exactly get what yoe were trying to say but let me point of to you that it's about the baby's well-being and not about MOB control.
You know - babies - those creatures that need feeding every so often - whenever and wherever they are. It's just Mother Nature, pal.
And, as your doctor and the World Health Organization will tell you, bottlefeeding is not an option unless it's absolutely unavoidable.
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:4, Interesting)
Next argument please.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because sexuality has been overly criminalized by a prudish society is not the fault of those engaging in sexual acts.
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:4, Interesting)
And those chemicals are exactly those that also create the bonding during the sexual intercourse.
From a hormonal point of view breast-feeding and sexual intercourse are pretty similar.
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:4, Funny)
Somehow I find the idea of unmarried Monks, Priests and Alter-boys more disconcerting than breastfeeding in public.
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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And keep a stove with a battery pack nearby to warm the milk to 37 degree Celsius.
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.
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.
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?
Um.. (Score:5, Insightful)
When that was socially acceptable, we did.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:4, Funny)
This was a remarkably stupid statement even by slashdot standards. Last I checked, human males were "seriously perverted".
Yes, well ... it's a relative condition. In fact, sometimes it involves relatives.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's a difference between a statue and a picture of real tits.
Not according to the government. [usatoday.com]
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?
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~
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re:whois nudebook.com (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
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.
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!
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...
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.
Re:Shut up, crybabies. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Shut up, crybabies. (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Shut up, crybabies. (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand how somebody making an issue out of breastfeeding can be found annoying, but how can you have an issue with the act itself?
Scratch that. I don't care what reason you might have for finding breastfeeding annoying - that's your issue. It is when you attempt to tell me what I can and can not do because of your personal hang-ups that I start to get pissed. Telling me I must use a restroom is ridiculous. Calling it "full frontal nudity" is as well. Last I checked full frontal nudity involved a lack of pants and visible nipples, neither of which is the case when I breast fed. Perhaps you kids do it differently today.
I really don't care about the Facebook policy, they're a private enterprise last I looked and I think they should be able to set any reasonable policy they see fit. What I do care about is your notion that
Take your personal notions of dignity and practice them wherever you choose, just don't tell me to wear a burka because you find my skin immodest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 w
Re:Shut up, crybabies. (Score:4, Funny)
Bet it tasted good when you had a couple of dozen braincells firing away going NOMNOMNOM.
still does, man...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
By the same token, they could have any privacy policy and TOS they want, too, but you can bet there would be a huge uproar here if they did things nerds thought was unethical. To me, both cases are just as interesting. (That is to say, not.)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As for nursing in public, why not just allow it
In most of the US, it is allowed. check your state laws.
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.
Edited by Cuisinart (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What you aren't seeing is that the issue is a very sensitive contextual one.
First off, do you want the site to be swarmed by 12-year-old boys that find the pictures titilating? OK, throw that out - who cares, right?
Now you have someone that claims their picture just shows breastfeeding when clearly that is not the intent of the picture. How sensitive contextually should the policy be? And who is the final judge in this?
The problem for a large public site is not that they have to be overly repressive. It
Re:Last year's news (Score:4, Funny)
Fortunately, nobody has to move just yet. Your comment just raised the quality of /. up just enough to keep us going a little longer.