Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Nudity Policy Draws Nursing Moms' Ire

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the isn't-breastfeeding-for-the-children-too? dept.

Social Networks 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."

cancel ×

904 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

whois nudebook.com (0, Flamebait)

nutznboltz (473437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293289)

If you want to post your breastfeeding pics why not do it where it's welcome?

Re:whois nudebook.com (5, Interesting)

ojintoad (1310811) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293437)

RTFA:

A member for almost four years, [Heather] Farley has nearly 400 friends on Facebook, a network she'd be hard-pressed to replicate if she moved to a smaller site with more lenient photo policies.

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:

Palfrey suggests a middle ground might emerge, in which networking sites like Facebook can better satisfy diverse constituencies without creating strife. That will require honing the technology to make it more certain that only people within specific networks and groups could see, say, a breast-feeding photo, while keeping children from seeing nudity.

Re:whois nudebook.com (2, Insightful)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293473)

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

Re:whois nudebook.com (2, Interesting)

ojintoad (1310811) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293617)

I didn't say they didn't have the right to ban things. I said that a problem with that policy is it doesn't take into account gray areas, such non-offensive nudity, which for a lot of people includes breast exposed during nursing. What happens if I want my Facebook photo to be Venus De Milo [sailingissues.com] ?

Re:whois nudebook.com (5, Funny)

glueball (232492) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293619)

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 (5, Interesting)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293651)

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:whois nudebook.com (3, Insightful)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293685)

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:whois nudebook.com (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293775)

It may well be legal to breastfeed in a restaurant, but if it is private property then it is also legal for the owner to ask you to leave. The restaurant owner is trying to run a private business and the last thing he/she needs is someone scaring the other customers away.

Yeah, I know, it's not really scary or antisocial behaviour to breastfeed, but nobody wants to see someone else's kid doing it when trying to eat.

Re:whois nudebook.com (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293747)

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.

Re:whois nudebook.com (3, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293555)

"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 (-1, Troll)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293645)

Breastfeeding is most certainly obscene to civilized people, and Facebook is striking a small victory for a more polite society in which people don't shove the more private aspects of their lives and bodies in everyone's face. Granted, Facebook in many ways is designed to do just that, but at least they have the sense to remove pure obscenity. If certain people want to show off, they can find a location with a more suitable TOS and/or user agreement. Now if only someone would do something about the boors who nurse in public or enjoy loudly describing their dramatic sex lives into their cellphones...

Re:whois nudebook.com (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293681)

Nursing is not obscene and doing it publicly is not exhibitionism. A photo of you having the stick removed from you arse would be obscene though.

Re:whois nudebook.com (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293727)

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

Re:whois nudebook.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293741)

so why are similarly natural bodily functions such as shitting, pissing and fucking; in public; deemed obscene by most civilized societies?

Why is this news? (5, Insightful)

eggman9713 (714915) | more than 5 years ago | (#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...

Re:Why is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293345)

You didn't say "two" or "one".

Re:Why is this news? (0)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293431)

I would think that the women constrained by modesty and/or an unwillingness to break with societal norms lie outside the population you're describing.

I think that would mostly leave the women with bees in their bonnets to be the ones lifting their shirts at the mall.

Re:Why is this news? (2, Informative)

Compholio (770966) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293445)

As a private enterprise, they have the right to restrict what they want.

No, they don't. In the US companies that deliver goods or services for the public are generally perceived to be protected from litigation since they are considered to be a "common carrier," but this is only the case if they do not discriminate with what things they traffic. Once a company that delivers goods or services for the public starts discriminating on what it will allow then it becomes liable for any traffic that it carries.

Re:Why is this news? (0, Flamebait)

Holi (250190) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293465)

Are you serious??? Oh I guess cuz it's on the internet Common Carrier must be involved. Look read up on what constitutes common carrier status and stop mentioning it until you understand.

Re:Why is this news? (1)

Compholio (770966) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293567)

No, common carrier is very broadly defined - it involves taxis, shipping companies, phone companies, regional transportation districts, wire transfer companies, and the list goes on. Generally, any company that transfers a good or service for the general public is considered a common carrier.

Re:Why is this news? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293677)

The phrase you are looking for is 'safe harbour,' which is actually relevant, while common carrier is not.

Re:Why is this news? (2, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293589)

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 copyright holder if it ever came up.

Re:Why is this news? (2, Interesting)

Compholio (770966) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293653)

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.

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 filter.

Re:Why is this news? (1)

juenger1701 (877138) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293647)

wal-mart is not a common carrier and it's one of the largest single goods movers in the country

Re:Why is this news? (1)

Compholio (770966) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293701)

wal-mart is not a common carrier and it's one of the largest single goods movers in the country

Wal-Mart does not move goods for the general public, you cannot ask Wal-Mart to ship something for you to another location.

Re:Why is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293757)

so we cant buy from walmart.com and expect to receive goods the next day ? hmm...must be my imagination then to see all that walmart stuff sitting outside my door....

Re:Why is this news? (-1, Flamebait)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293479)

...1, and zero. The first amendment covers free speech and expression. Unless your tits are part of a comedy act, or are engaging in political protest, I don't see how the first amendment applies. And frankly, I think these breeders ought to have the cuffs thrown on them and dragged out of the stores they do this crap in. If you're going to arrest boys for showing their ass cleavage with baggy pants, don't get all squeamish about cuffing a girl for showing her tits. It's sexist and I know more than a few women that would stand up and cheer the officer on for doing it. If we're going to say showing tits in public is illegal, then fine, no exceptions. Otherwise legalize it so we all can do it! I'm sick of these breeders and their crotch fruit acting like they're special or something because they popped out a baby. No, you're not... It's not a miracle it happened, it's a miracle society lets you. -_-

Re:Why is this news? (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293537)

Unless your tits are part of a comedy act

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:Why is this news? (-1, Offtopic)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293595)

Amen brother.

The flamebait mod you got is retarded, had I not already posted I'd mod you otherwise :(

Re:Why is this news? (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293641)

Amen brother.

I'm nobody's brother, hun.

Re:Why is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293613)

If we're going to say showing tits in public is illegal, then fine, no exceptions. Otherwise legalize it so we all can do it!

Here in New York state, it is legal (though the rules regarding shirts and shoes in many places still apply to everyone). Sadly, few women take advantage.

Re:Why is this news? (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293707)

All the need to do is write something on their tits then

Re:Why is this news? (4, Interesting)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293573)

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:Why is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293667)

The "their website, their rules" thing comes up every time, but consider what would happen if a private company had a policy, say "restricting photos of black people".

"their website, their rules" has its limits, too.

Re:Why is this news? (5, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293629)

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? (3, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#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

Seriously (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#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".

Re:Seriously (4, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293729)

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.

What's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293331)

Those boobies -- I mean babies -- are just doing what the rest of us are thinking.

Damn Puritans (5, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:Damn Puritans (4, Funny)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293371)

What, pictures of babies eating is harmful to children?

Eating babies maybe, but why babies eating?

Re:Damn Puritans (4, Insightful)

kitsunewarlock (971818) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293467)

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.

Re:Damn Puritans (4, Insightful)

unapersson (38207) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293743)

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 (4, Funny)

NickDngr (561211) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293771)

I think its ridiculous--but its how our society evolved.

No, that's how our society was intelligently designed. Get it right.

Re:Damn Puritans (1)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293733)

Who cares about the bloody children. Do YOU want to be seeing ugly naked people everywhere? Breastfeeding is where it starts, next you'll see a fat chick with saggy bewbs the size of a small country taking her shirt off in public just because she can. Or worse, some hairy man will take off his shorts because it's more comfortable.

Prudes (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293351)

Last i heard nudity was legal.

Re:Prudes (3, Informative)

Wildclaw (15718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293585)

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.

Re:Prudes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293735)

No, it's a woman so it's a beautiful thing, circle of life, all natural, all that shit. If you're a guy, then clearly you're a perv and must be punished forever.

a solution (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293353)

spoiler tag- images stay on the site and you have to actually click the link to view the photo- moms get to share their breastfeeding photos and nobody gets "offended" unless they go out of their way to do so...

Re:a solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293621)

No, the solution is to realize that breast-feeding is not exempt from nudity clauses just because it's "miraculous" or "natural".

The problem isn't breast-feeding. You will still find breast-feeding pictures on Facebook. They just won't contain nudity. It's perfectly possible to breast-feed without exposing yourself (and therefore perfectly possible to take pictures of the same).

What is it with people and nursing babies? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:What is it with people and nursing babies? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:What is it with people and nursing babies? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293643)

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.

There's something disturbing about someone who refers to babies as "crotch fruit" and likens breast feeding to "taking a dump". How such an opinion is "insightful", I don't know...

Re:What is it with people and nursing babies? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293737)

You're just making my case stronger. You state that you like looking at naked women (I assume in a sexual way) and somehow equate that to a woman breastfeeding. In fact you can see less nudity than if they were in a bikini and they're not doing anything sexual at all. You also equate it with going to the bathroom which also has more nudity.

Do you also recoil and complain when you see people eating in public? Because that's all that is really going on.

I realize you don't want to see it but I think that is your perverted view where you see breastfeeding as some sort of dirty act. You might want to seek help and look into exactly why you feel this way because it isn't normal. Or maybe you're the kind that would rather go on believing your neighbor is a witch and that you can't travel too far without falling off the Earth.

The nudity laws are unfair (5, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293379)

Legally, female chestal nudity is defined as showing of the nipple and/or the areola.

That is unfair because areolae come in different shapes and sizes. A woman with the nicest nips and smallest, densest areolae wouldn't break this rule because the baby's mouth would nom-nom-nom both the nipple and the areola, obscuring them from the sight of observers in which case the nudity rule wouldn't be broken.

More unfortunate would be the women with really puffy areaolae or the ones with the really big, stretched-out pancake areaolae. There would be no hiding then no matter how big or hungry their baby may be. The puffy areaolae would push the baby's head further away from the teet, increasing the likelihood of passers-by seeing the defiant areola or even the nipple. Big silver-dollar areolae require no explanation as they would be impossible to hide unless the baby is hydrocephalic.

Just my 2 cents as I am not a lawyer, but I hope that more and more brave women step up to fight these sexist, unjust laws.

Re:The nudity laws are unfair (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293411)

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...

Re:The nudity laws are unfair (3, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293471)

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 (0)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293529)

"There would be no hiding then no matter how big or hungry their baby may be."

I'm 6'2", 235 lbs with a size 8 head, and willing to offer concealment services to deserving chestal appendages.

Re:The nudity laws are unfair (4, Funny)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293713)

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

There's a kink for everything (4, Insightful)

sayfawa (1099071) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:There's a kink for everything (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293407)

Hot MILFS With Red Hot Milk JUST FOR YOU!

Links, please!

Last year's news (0, Offtopic)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293387)

I read about this 3 or 4 days ago in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Yet I see dozens of crappy "stories" on slashdot that are not news - some idiot with a blog making a comment on something or other - belongs in idle.

Perhaps it's time to just bite the bullet and move over to Digg since quality here is about the same now.

Similarities with other groups (2, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#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?

Re:Similarities with other groups (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293483)

I would argue there is no distinction between an exhibitionist and a nursing mother who wishes to post pictures of the act.

The underlying motive and reason for the post is essentially the same; the nursing mother wishes to show off, something that is in poor taste to the public at large.

Just because the act is routine and essential to survival of the baby, does not mean it is suitable to occur or be posted in public places like Facebook.

There are other routine acts humans and babies do that should also not appear in public in any way

For example.. adults using a toilet.

Or even a baby getting a diaper change.

Just because the parent has to be involved in certain acts in the routine care of their babies does not mean that all these acts are suitable for posting in public.

Re:Similarities with other groups (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293527)

Posting the pictures might stoke the desires of the viewer

*pushes baby out of the way* OOH OOH ooh let me get up in there and have some, don't bogart all the nectar, man!

Re:Similarities with other groups (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293535)

Nursing mothers simply shouldn't get their way. Likewise, nudists and exhibitionists generally don't have a problem with this, most sane people recognize that there is a place for everything, and if Facebook isn't it they create their own. I know this because I've seen the websites, even paid for a few!

If they don't like Facebook policies, there is absolutely 0 preventing them from starting a website like Facebook and doing whatever they want. Except of course laws in various countries that the would have to abide by. Of course, its far easier to bitch, moan, claim prejudice or whatever, and try to force facebook to change rather than putting effort and money into doing it themselves.

Its far easier to bitch and moan to try and change something you don't pay for than it is to actually do some work and spend the money to solve the problem in a sane way.

These people bitching are just jackasses who can't fit into society, if its not the breast feeding issue, they'll be bitching and moaning about something else, this just happens to be the most organized group they've been able to find recently.

Re:Similarities with other groups (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293615)

They're at odd with the norms of public behavior in the USA.

I am sure that is also the case in Saudi Arabia. Doesn't change the fact that breastfeeding is perfectly okay in public places in most (other) western countries.

Shut up, crybabies. (-1, Flamebait)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293403)

Sorry, but speaking for at least myself and most of my female friends, this kind of thing is really annoying. I'm all for private places for new mothers to nurse their kids at work -- the so-called "lactation rooms". If that fails, many women's restrooms (especially in pre-1980s buildings) have areas to lay or sit down inside. And single-occupancy restrooms are not hard to find. Yay for women's lib, right? O_O You have plenty of options to protect your dignity (and my eyes). If I find you in the bathroom doing your thing, I'm not going to say anything--You and I both have seen worse.

The flip here is there is no excuse for anyone to have to look at your dirty pillows. Save it for the bedroom, or the shower, or the locker, or please god anywhere but online or in public where I can stumble into it. And to all the boys sniggering in back or making the usual comments talking about this entails, kindly STFU. Posting pictures of frontal nudity of any kind is (and rightly should be) banned from websites where people can casually come across it! You want to show your friends that stuff *fine*. Send it in an e-mail or put it in a photo album but for crissakes don't post it on the internet. Most people have the common sense to never let someone take naked pictures of them, but if you're one of the few whose elevators don't go to the top floor, at least think of your decency. Or my eyes.

Re:Shut up, crybabies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293453)

there is no excuse for anyone to have to look at your dirty pillows.

Hey, aren't you Carrie's mom? I thought you were dead!

Re:Shut up, crybabies. (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293511)

Hey, aren't you Carrie's mom? I thought you were dead!

No, just a fan. The movie was great inspiration.

Re:Shut up, crybabies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293491)

You want to show your friends that stuff *fine*. Send it in an e-mail or put it in a photo album but for crissakes don't post it on the internet.

I think most of the internet would go bankrupt without nude pictures on the internet.

Put pr0n on the internet! The survival of the intarweb is at stake!

Re:Shut up, crybabies. (5, Insightful)

adam.bower (61676) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293553)

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. (-1, Flamebait)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293689)

A restroom isn't a toilet, you idiot. And it's not any dirtier than the inside of your car, that bench in the lobby, or most public places which by their nature are crawling with germs anyway. Restrooms are probably the cleanest places you can find in public areas because they're one of the few that are regularly sanitized. But I mean, by all means, go ahead and get morally outraged because some of us would like to walk around in public without seeing people taking off their shirts and nursing their babies in front of large crowds. 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.

Re:Shut up, crybabies. (-1, Troll)

drsquare (530038) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293575)

Let me guess, you're one of those fat chicks whose saggy tits no-one wants to look at anyway. Guessing from your posts already in this thread, no-one wants to have kids with you at all, I can see why you're bitter about women who have babies to feed.

Re:Shut up, crybabies. (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293577)

Maybe it's because I live in Canada, but I just couldn't care. Nope really I just don't care. Kid needs to suck on a breast to get a meal? Fine. Who cares, welcome to the same thing you did 20-30 years ago. Bet it tasted good when you had a couple of dozen braincells firing away going NOMNOMNOM. It's far less aggravating then the small kid screaming their head off.

If it's that much of a problem, don't even get worked up into the whole relationship-having a kid game. You're going to have to deal with that, plus the cold hard reality that kids don't work on a timescale to benefit you. Formula works in a pinch, and then there's the times you can't stick breast milk in a bottle either or store it, and you're stuck with the last option. Hey lets not forget the occasional misfiring brain farts either, those are always fun.(lets not forget the benefits of this either for the kid)

Then again maybe I'm just old enough that I just don't give a damn and have already figured out that it's a part of life, and there is nothing to be worked up over.

You are ultra puritain, hu ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293611)

What do you find disgusting in two pair of breast of a lactating woman ? It is not as if she was enticing people to look at them in a sexual way. But then again since I am old enough to go on the beach, I saw naked breast, so I am quite immunized.

Re:Shut up, crybabies. (4, Informative)

netsavior (627338) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293633)

And single-occupancy restrooms are not hard to find

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.

Have karma to burn (5, Funny)

Xelios (822510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293413)

Obviously those infants are being exploited into performing sexual acts in front of a camera. You're damn right those pictures should be removed, think of the children!

Mothers need to grow up. (0, Flamebait)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293423)

For you breastfeeding mothers out there, I really thought you could be much more mature about your pictures and realize that neither Facebook or MySpace is the place for such content.

Oh, and this has nothing to do with "diversity", so lets not even get sidetracked with trying to shoehorn that BS in the justification.

I'm quite certain, even without looking, that there are plenty of websites/blogs that would more than welcome such content and "camaraderie" between mothers.

Re:Mothers need to grow up. (2, Insightful)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (895364) | more than 5 years ago | (#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?

Re:Mothers need to grow up. (1)

adam.bower (61676) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293571)

Hmmn, so pictures of children eating shouldn't go on facebook or myspace? I've seen pictures of adults eating, what's the difference?

Re:Mothers need to grow up. (1)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293719)

... realize that neither Facebook or MySpace is the place for such content...

Why not, and says whom?

They can't have it both ways... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Reasons not to post breast feeding images. (1)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293433)


Facebook could handle this in a much more efficient maner, for example.
  • We can not allow this because there are baby stalkers
  • Their have been requests for such images to be shown by the united creeps of facebook
  • Tell them that breast feeding women don't have the best breasts, so no one wants to see them.

It's never hot women who do this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293435)

So. Meh. Ban it.

I'm tired of seeing fugly tittys in public.

Pissing is as natural as breastfeeding. Yet if i piss in public i get put on the sex offender list.

A solution? (1)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293443)

How about this -- allow any nudity and adult content on Facebook and Myspace, no holds barred (pun intended) -- but only for accounts labeled as having "adult content." Others can opt-in if they wish to see this content (and can verify age); if they don't opt-in, it need not bother their sensitive eyes.

As for nursing in public, why not just allow it -- as long as you also allow people to stare, comment, take pictures, whatever. That should put a stop to most of it without the guv'mint encroaching on anyone's liberties, yes?

Re:A solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293523)

Mod parent up. If it is so natuaral etc, etc. Then It should be allowed in public as long as I can have a good butchers guilt (and legally) free.

Reality Check (0)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293455)

Its thier website! They can allow/disallow anything they want! You don't HAVE to use them, and there are PLENTY of localities around the world that it IS illegal to breast feed in public so perhaps they just don't want to have problems with those locations.

Really, you have to show your breast feeding to the world? Why? The only people that WANT to see it, don't want to see it because its natural or beautiful, they want to see tits. I highly suspect that most, if not all, of the women who have this overwhelming urge to put pictures of it on the Internet are also slighly voyeristic and want to show thier tits to the world.

If you don't like that they don't allow you to show your tits, don't use their website. This may be hard to believe, but 10 years ago, you didn't have a facebook/myspace/livejournal page. Okay, some of you might have, but the majority of you didn't, so I think you should be able to figure out that you can, in fact, live without posting your tittie shots on the Internet.

If you REALLY want to do it, there are PLENTY of websites that would LOVE to have your tits to show them, they are called porn sites, and there are PLENTY that cater to moms, milfs and nursing so put your pictures where they are welcome and stop thinking everyone else in the world has to confirm to what you want. They don't have to, and if you think they are 'bad' for not allowing it, that pretty much just makes you a spoiled brat.

Finally, as I understand their nudity rules, in order for your picture to get taken down, you would have to show an exposed nipple, which means either you're showing both your breasts or you aren't actually breast feeding since there would be a babies mouth over the breast that is exposed, covering up the very thing that is banned.

Go make a porn if you want to show your tits that bad, hell, I'll probably buy it, but quit with this bullshit if trying to make everyone else in the world do what you want, the entire world really doesn't revolve around you.

Re:Reality Check (2, Interesting)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293705)

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:Reality Check (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293711)

Its thier website! They can allow/disallow anything they want! You don't HAVE to use them, and there are PLENTY of localities around the world that it IS illegal to breast feed in public so perhaps they just don't want to have problems with those locations.

Yeah and there are plenty of places where expressing your opinion is illegal and there are...

Really, you have to show your breast feeding to the world? Why? The only people that WANT to see it, don't want to see it because its natural or beautiful, they want to see tits. I highly suspect that most, if not all, of the women who have this overwhelming urge to put pictures of it on the Internet are also slighly voyeristic and want to show thier tits to the world.

Oh my... Why? Because they are mothers, many describe this time as one of the greatest experiences in their life. They are proud of their children and they want to share that with their friends.

Go make a porn if you want to show your tits that bad, hell, I'll probably buy it, but quit with this bullshit if trying to make everyone else in the world do what you want, the entire world really doesn't revolve around you.

Hell its not about showing your tits, its about sharing an intimate moment and i can't understand what should be wrong with that?

All that people that think about porn when the topic is feeding babies, i don't get it.
At least you spared my the comparison with taking a shit...

I personally don't want to see it. (1, Redundant)

urbanriot (924981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293497)

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?

you know (1)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293521)

I think many people want to turn their lives and life styles into some sort of political showdown. This smacks of Identity politics to me.

15 minutes (-1, Troll)

retech (1228598) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293541)

Facebook really isn't about networking, it's about ego stroking and getting your 15min of fame. Congratulations, you've got it. Now you and your sucklings can move on.

I don't care how many "friends" she has. If she doesn't like the policy she can cough up the $4/month and get her own site. Perhaps she could ask those "friends" to contribute.

Seriously. (1)

YellowMatterCustard (1277360) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293579)

People ought to realize that nudity and sex are two different things.

Exhibitionism (0, Flamebait)

Xistenz99 (1395377) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293597)

For some reason I think that the whole nursing the child pics and such are just a form of exhibitionism. YOu can take those pics, but thats what you want to show your friends, why not loving pictures of you holding your child. People saying its natural are right, however the focus of the picture isn't on the child as it is the mother, which makes in a selfish picture and negates the reason you wanted to show the picture, which is the importance of your child. These women obviously get some sort of gratification from showing some skin and the attention.

Be glad... (1)

Garnaralf (595872) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293625)

... they're not in CT like I am. The "breastfeeding lobby" here is rabid. There is also a number of laws here that impose criminal penalties. I personally know of restaurants that have been closed down just for saying something to a nursing mother. Personally, I find NOTHING sexual about a nursing baby. And people who do are just... disgusting.

Honest mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26293657)

The problem came up over a photo of Anna Nichole Smith breastfeeding her 90 year old husband. At first no one saw a problem with something small and shriveled breastfeeding until some one noticed the big smile.

Stupid double standard (4, Insightful)

kachakaach (1336273) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Someone stop them! (3, Funny)

Seraphim_72 (622457) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293725)

Do you realize that for every one of us there are two, count them, TWO nipples? And almost half of us have some serious fatty tissue behind those nipples! I mean we can't have children seeing the things can we? Keep their shirst on! I mean the single best thing for a newborn to suckle on should be shameful and weird. Babies eat from bottles right? And watching a baby nurse ... well I know all kinds of people that it turns on ... OK not even one. Its a bewb - BAN it!

Time to loosen up a bit (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 5 years ago | (#26293773)

For a long time, enterprises that depend on large-scale public interaction to succeed have taken the easy way out. They seek to immunize themselves from legal challenges, boycotts, and legislation by hysterical, vote-hungry politicians by adopting the most stringent and unreasonable policies. As a result, some wingnut who is offended by the sight of a bare breast, even when it is being used for its primary purpose, receives more consideration than the rest of us who couldn't care less.

Meanwhile, more cynical and opportunistic people co-opt the state's tools of enforcement and coercion to jam their narrow, constricted social vision down our throats. It's time we grew up a little and quit allowing "social zones" like Facebook and even the local shopping mall be controlled by fruitcakes who believe some weird, Disney-esque version of reality is the only one "suitable for all ages". If you can't explain to your five-year-old why the nice lady has an infant glued to her chest, perhaps you should just stay home and unplug the computer. The rest of us have lives to lead, and we're sick of putting up with you.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>