Facebook Pulls Breast-Feeding Photos

Steve

yes,

but I thought you were going to put a pair of these type oftits instead.
 
jimmyb said:
Obviously Facebook has the right to implement whatever policies they want, even if they're to appease those who think that breastfeeding is disgusting, and we have they right to complain and let them know we don't like it.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that the article said anything about breastfeeding being disgusting... what it said from what I recall was that it was deemed to be against their TOS....If people like it or not is irrelevant they broke the rules knowingly or unknowingly and their pics got removed...

It falls back to the adage of their house, their rules.
 
I think there is some confusing over rights occurring... in lieu of a philosophical argument about the entire spectrum of human rights that are innately granted to all, I will use the US constitution given the locality of the company that this whole story is centered around. You can see the difference here if you're interested.

It is important to note, right off the bat, that there is absolutely no clause in the constitution protecting citizens from being offended. Our society has been straying away from this and pretending that such a right actually exists, and exercising this pseudo-right alarmingly often.

Facebook was entirely within its legal rights to remove any content it deemed from its private service (and maybe even required by law to do so given some recent disturbing legislation), even though it may have been something of a PR blunder, I don't think anyone is considering actual legal action because of the removal. However, ethically, it's questionable.

In support of Facebook when it comes to legal repercussions, I'd say they pretty much have their asses covered. Here's an excerpt from their EULA:
"You understand and agree that the Company may, but is not obligated to, review the Site and may delete or remove (without notice) any Site Content or User Content in its sole discretion, for any reason or no reason, including User Content that in the sole judgment of the Company violates this Agreement or the Facebook Code of Conduct, or which might be offensive, illegal, or that might violate the rights, harm, or threaten the safety of users or others. You are solely responsible at your sole cost and expense for creating backup copies and replacing any User Content you post or store on the Site or provide to the Company."
Click to expand...
The entire EULA can be found here.

The real controversy lies in was it correct to do so, regardless of the law? Often we speak to eloquently about freedoms and the importance of liberties, yet in situations where these freedoms may make us uncomfortable, we quickly negate them with some ill-advised legislation or hasty retaliation. Regardless of whether you find breast feeding offensive or beautiful, see it as pornography or art, one has absolutely no right to suppress it. We don't ban the ugly from public, nor do we enforce prior restraint on music we don't like, why in the world would actions that do not affect you, nor restrict your own freedoms, need to be suppressed so vehemently?

It is perplexing why some of the things we most have in common, such as breasts (yes, everyone has them, barring anomalous medical circumstances, just shaped differently by estrogen or testosterone), be one of our most dreaded taboos? We seem absolutely terrified of our own anatomy sometimes. So much so, they we even believe that anyone under the age of 18 knowing much more than how to use the restroom is immediately and irrevocably damaged by this knowledge.

Whether it is useful, artist, functional, instructive, or carries any value at all is not up to any sole view, or even a majority of the viewership. Free speech is just that, and it must be protected, even if only one person believes it worthy of protection.
 
Shawnasee said:
And Wal Mart and the mall = white trash?

wow
Click to expand...


Yes, Wal Mart and the mall = white trash. I can feel my IQ plummeting every single time I step into those establishments.

Any how, this topic treads into my belief that most of the country should be sterilized before it gets much worse. That, however, is another thread entirely.
 
FallenMystic said:
I don't believe that the article said anything about breastfeeding being disgusting... what it said from what I recall was that it was deemed to be against their TOS....If people like it or not is irrelevant they broke the rules knowingly or unknowingly and their pics got removed...

It falls back to the adage of their house, their rules.
Click to expand...

Correct, the article didn't say anything about breastfeeding being disgusting, and I didn't say it did. However, I did say their policy was to "to appease those who think that breastfeeding is disgusting". I'm sure most of the facebook staff doesn't care about a woman feeding her child, but they're attempting to appease and audience who do not believe that.

Again, obviously Facebook has the right to do what they want with their website. Nobody here is suggesting otherwise. We're just saying we disagree with the policy.
 
What do the think the percentage is of decent guys to douche bags these days? :p
 
jimmyb said:
Again, obviously Facebook has the right to do what they want with their website. Nobody here is suggesting otherwise. We're just saying we disagree with the policy.
Click to expand...

Not to be a dick but the point is that your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant; if it were a pay service then yes they would have a beef... but it is not.

There are many policies in this world I don't agree with, but they is what they is; I simply don't have to frequent the places that I don't agree with the policies of.


OldPueblo said:
What do the think the percentage is of decent guys to douche bags these days? :p
Click to expand...

I'd say the numbers are sagging.... </rimshot>
 
It never ceases to amaze me that people find breastfeeding to be "controversial". Humans are animals, more specificly mammals. The difference between mammals and all other vertabrate animals is that we have a particularly benificial mutation, we feed our babies milk that we produce. This is benificial because it allows us to transfer crucial antibodies from mother to infant thus increasing there resistance to disease and bettering there chances for surviving sickness.It is not perverse or sexual. It is a natural , normal thing quite unlike feeding a child a chemical cocktail like "baby formula".

Everybody knows that babies like to put everything they get there hands on in there mouth , right? Well there is a really good reason for that. Babies take every germ they can from there enviroment, put it in there mouth and then drool the germs allover themselves (yeah , all you fathers out there know what I'm talking about). Its instinct for the mother to kiss her baby, which causes her to be exposed to those germs, which her body then develops antibodies for and she then delivers through her breast milk to the baby. Thats one of the reasons why mammals are social animals and why there are so many mammals on Earth today. Its a very effective way to ensure that offspring are resiliant to the bacteria , germs and viruses in there enviroment.

If a woman breastfeeding bothers you, you should grow up. If a woman wants to post pictures of herself breastfeeding online and it offends you, don't look. Breasts are "mammarae glands" and there purpose is to provide nutrition and a basic immune system to infants. The reason men like big boobs is that subconciously your brain recognizes that the can provide ample sustenance to your offspring. They do not exist solely so you can beat off to bignaturals's preview pictures. Jeesh , I thought intelligent sophisticated people read the [H]. :rolleyes:
 
ICE BREAKER!?!?!?!?

pig-feeding.jpg
 
SilverSliver said:
Yes, Wal Mart and the mall = white trash. I can feel my IQ plummeting every single time I step into those establishments.

Any how, this topic treads into my belief that most of the country should be sterilized before it gets much worse. That, however, is another thread entirely.
Click to expand...

It's not the places you frequent, nor the clientele of said places, that make you stupid...it may just be you.

However, as much as it pains me to say this, I do agree with you...limiting the gene pool is a good idea...Lets hope that the pools of those who think like you are empty.
 
7718 said:
It never ceases to amaze me that people find breastfeeding to be "controversial". Humans are animals, more specificly mammals. The difference between mammals and all other vertabrate animals is that we have a particularly benificial mutation, we feed our babies milk that we produce. This is benificial because it allows us to transfer crucial antibodies from mother to infant thus increasing there resistance to disease and bettering there chances for surviving sickness.It is not perverse or sexual. It is a natural , normal thing quite unlike feeding a child a chemical cocktail like "baby formula".

Everybody knows that babies like to put everything they get there hands on in there mouth , right? Well there is a really good reason for that. Babies take every germ they can from there enviroment, put it in there mouth and then drool the germs allover themselves (yeah , all you fathers out there know what I'm talking about). Its instinct for the mother to kiss her baby, which causes her to be exposed to those germs, which her body then develops antibodies for and she then delivers through her breast milk to the baby. Thats one of the reasons why mammals are social animals and why there are so many mammals on Earth today. Its a very effective way to ensure that offspring are resiliant to the bacteria , germs and viruses in there enviroment.

If a woman breastfeeding bothers you, you should grow up. If a woman wants to post pictures of herself breastfeeding online and it offends you, don't look. Breasts are "mammarae glands" and there purpose is to provide nutrition and a basic immune system to infants. The reason men like big boobs is that subconciously your brain recognizes that the can provide ample sustenance to your offspring. They do not exist solely so you can beat off to bignaturals's preview pictures. Jeesh , I thought intelligent sophisticated people read the [H]. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You, sir, are incorrect.
 
7718 said:
It never ceases to amaze me that people find breastfeeding to be "controversial". Humans are animals, more specificly mammals. The difference between mammals and all other vertabrate animals is that we have a particularly benificial mutation, we feed our babies milk that we produce. This is benificial because it allows us to transfer crucial antibodies from mother to infant thus increasing there resistance to disease and bettering there chances for surviving sickness.It is not perverse or sexual. It is a natural , normal thing quite unlike feeding a child a chemical cocktail like "baby formula".

Everybody knows that babies like to put everything they get there hands on in there mouth , right? Well there is a really good reason for that. Babies take every germ they can from there enviroment, put it in there mouth and then drool the germs allover themselves (yeah , all you fathers out there know what I'm talking about). Its instinct for the mother to kiss her baby, which causes her to be exposed to those germs, which her body then develops antibodies for and she then delivers through her breast milk to the baby. Thats one of the reasons why mammals are social animals and why there are so many mammals on Earth today. Its a very effective way to ensure that offspring are resiliant to the bacteria , germs and viruses in there enviroment.

If a woman breastfeeding bothers you, you should grow up. If a woman wants to post pictures of herself breastfeeding online and it offends you, don't look. Breasts are "mammarae glands" and there purpose is to provide nutrition and a basic immune system to infants. The reason men like big boobs is that subconciously your brain recognizes that the can provide ample sustenance to your offspring. They do not exist solely so you can beat off to bignaturals's preview pictures. Jeesh , I thought intelligent sophisticated people read the [H]. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You are completely right, there is nothing attractive/arousing/erotic about breasts.
 
Steve said:
O.K., I give up.

There is no such right to avoid seeing or hearing things in public you disagree with...
No one is inconvenienced by a....
He'll have an easier time understanding....
Why would you want keep him ignorant....
It didn't seem to do them any harm then....
Does your wife wear a burka and veil...
....the Amish or other antiquated religions?
....you don't offend communists or the poor?

You seem to know what is good for everyone and if not they are stupid, prudes, ignorant, communist or their religion is antiquated.

Nice.
Click to expand...

You take half a quote and twist it around to mean the exact opposite. Nice

You wouldn't answer any question I asked. You want to make personal attacks instead.

You're the one who thinks you know what's best for everyone and wants to force everyone to adopt to your standards. I'm advocating freedom. The rights to breast feed in public have been granted by many states and countries.
 
OldPueblo said:
That's a pretty dumb analogy, seriously.
Click to expand...

Not dumb at all.

The reason certain parts of the Islamic world insist that women where burqas is because they find the face to be sexually provocative.

Insisting that women cover their breasts and not feed their children simply because you find them to be overtly sexual is just as intolerant, if not more.
 
jimmyb said:
Not dumb at all.

The reason certain parts of the Islamic world insist that women where burqas is because they find the face to be sexually provocative.

Insisting that women cover their breasts and not feed their children simply because you find them to be overtly sexual is just as intolerant, if not more.
Click to expand...

Yeah the "Islamic world" (which btw isn't accurate either) is the highlight of common sense and perfect for this analogy.
 
SilverSliver said:
Amazing how this thread has spiraled. Sexuality and breast feeding are two different animals. I already make it a point not to go into places such as Wal Mart and the mall, but if on the occassion I do have to enter these places I'd prefer not to see hordes of white trash with their titties flopping out and 6 kids sucking on them.

Hell, under the line of thinking in this thread, it should be perfectly acceptable for me to whip out my dong and take a leak at the food store. Hey, it's natural right?
Click to expand...

You can. Its called the restroom and has these holes you can piss into so you don't contaminate the food. Critical thinking is a good thing, use it some time.

FallenMystic said:
Bambi005 said:
why do people complain when private companies decide to implement changes to their way of doing business?
Click to expand...
Ding! There's the heart of it.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the reason they blocked the images was BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE COMPLAINING, right? :rolleyes:

FallenMystic said:
I don't believe that the article said anything about breastfeeding being disgusting... what it said from what I recall was that it was deemed to be against their TOS....If people like it or not is irrelevant they broke the rules knowingly or unknowingly and their pics got removed...

It falls back to the adage of their house, their rules.
Click to expand...

And? People bitched to have removed. Why can't people bitch to have the censorship removed?

SilverSliver said:
Yes, Wal Mart and the mall = white trash. I can feel my IQ plummeting every single time I step into those establishments.

Any how, this topic treads into my belief that most of the country should be sterilized before it gets much worse. That, however, is another thread entirely.
Click to expand...

Because Target is the gathering place of the intelligent and philosophical, right? :rolleyes:
Its only in their TOS now because people found it digusting, morally or visually.

As for your other point, please explain to me why you are eligible to survive the genocide you propose? I'd love a laugh.

FallenMystic said:
Not to be a dick but the point is that your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant; if it were a pay service then yes they would have a beef... but it is not.

There are many policies in this world I don't agree with, but they is what they is; I simply don't have to frequent the places that I don't agree with the policies of.
Click to expand...

Again, you do realize that the photos were removed because one side bitched, right?

OldPueblo said:
You are completely right, there is nothing attractive/arousing/erotic about breasts.
Click to expand...

I don't recall him saying that at all. In fact, his post is infinitely more valuable to this thread than your shitty attempts to spin it is.

OldPueblo said:
That's a pretty dumb analogy, seriously.
Click to expand...

No, its about as perfect an analogy as you can get. Seriously, your posts are worthless, seriously.

OldPueblo said:
Yeah the "Islamic world" (which btw isn't accurate either) is the highlight of common sense and perfect for this analogy.
Click to expand...

Holy fuck, stfu already. You say its not a good analogy, as if people don't find faces to be sexually stimulating, and he posts a fact directly schooling you about the subject and yet you still manage to make an ass out of yourself and ignore another perfect post.
 
The only reason that some people find a woman's face overtly sexual or a woman breastfeeding disgusting is because they have been brainwashed into believing lies. I'm sure many women find a handsome man's face sexually attractive and even sight of a mans' well muscled s chest can turn them on so in all fairness of equality men should also wear burkas and cover their chest at all times. Right?
 
Klob said:
The only reason that some people find a woman's face overtly sexual or a woman breastfeeding disgusting is because they have been brainwashed into believing lies. I'm sure many women find a handsome man's face sexually attractive and even sight of a mans' well muscled s chest can turn them on so in all fairness of equality men should also wear burkas and cover their chest at all times. Right?
Click to expand...

Don't be silly, its perfectly when men are getting visually raped. Haven't you been reading the thread?

I mean, how would a bunch of nerds be able to day dream about a girl getting wet over them if they could never have the hypothetical chance to make it happen?
 
I want my very own burka, dammit! I don't like women looking at me sexually like I am a piece of meat in a market.
 
Yo Kristoff go back and read with a little perspective and you might figure it out. Here's a hint, faces are not breasts you don't want to squeeze your woman's face while making out/having sex. A breast is a breast regardless of what it's being used for. I can't walk around with my ass cheeks spread apart saying "It's okay I'm not actually taking a dump right now so it's beautiful and natural."
 
Klob said:
The only reason that some people find a woman's face overtly sexual or a woman breastfeeding disgusting is because they have been brainwashed into believing lies. I'm sure many women find a handsome man's face sexually attractive and even sight of a mans' well muscled s chest can turn them on so in all fairness of equality men should also wear burkas and cover their chest at all times. Right?
Click to expand...

You think the sexual drive in men and women is identical in any way? Hint, it's not.
 
OldPueblo said:
Yeah the "Islamic world" (which btw isn't accurate either) is the highlight of common sense and perfect for this analogy.
Click to expand...

It is in fact a perfect comparison.

Judging by the tone of your post, you agree that the Islamic tradition of forcing women to wear burqas is unjust and intolerant. This tradition is justified by saying the face is to sexual to show in public.

You, just like these people, don't want women breastfeeding in public because you find it sexual. The only difference between your positions is that they choose to be intolerant of the face, and you choose to be intolerant of breasts.
 
I'm getting so god damn sick of the tyrannical majority in this nation always shiting a damn brick and getting up in arms whenever they see breast-feeding.

Facebook should've just told the people who were complaining to quit being gay and just learn to accept it.

That's what I don't get about Islamic culture; they're homophobic, yet at the same time they're gay, b/c they can't handle seeing "breasts".
 
jimmyb said:
It is in fact a perfect comparison.

Judging by the tone of your post, you agree that the Islamic tradition of forcing women to wear burqas is unjust and intolerant. This tradition is justified by saying the face is to sexual to show in public.

You, just like these people, don't want women breastfeeding in public because you find it sexual. The only difference between your positions is that they choose to be intolerant of the face, and you choose to be intolerant of breasts.
Click to expand...

The burqa's are an example of extreme behavior and have nothing to do whatsoever with this topic, get over it. I never said I find breast feeding sexual, but the fact remains that breasts are sexual and woman can't control how they're breasts are perceived when they flaunt them. But breastfeeding isn't flaunting you say? Just like anything, there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. Right way, be discrete since after all it's between you and your child. Wrong way, take pictures OF THE EXPOSED BREASTS and plaster them on a public website. Facebook stated there are many breastfeeding pictures that were perfectly fine as has already been stated many times in this thread. I was at a family function the other night where my sister in law breastfed her baby at a table in a room where lots of people moved in and out. The difference between her and facebook attention whore is that unless you directly looked at her for more then a second you had no idea she was doing it. She drew no attention to herself and was completely covered up. Taking the "no censorhip" and "breasts dont mean anything" posts to heart she should have whipped off her shirt and just let it all hang out because after all it's totally natural and beautiful and she shouldn't be censored when she breastfeeds and wants to show everybody she's doing it. Is the point clear now?

no2censorship said:
I'm getting so god damn sick of the tyrannical majority in this nation always shiting a damn brick and getting up in arms whenever they see breast-feeding.

Facebook should've just told the people who were complaining to quit being gay and just learn to accept it.

That's what I don't get about Islamic culture; they're homophobic, yet at the same time they're gay, b/c they can't handle seeing "breasts".
Click to expand...

You are so completely missing the point.
 
OldPueblo said:
The burqa's are an example of extreme behavior and have nothing to do whatsoever with this topic, get over it. I never said I find breast feeding sexual, but the fact remains that breasts are sexual and woman can't control how they're breasts are perceived when they flaunt them. But breastfeeding isn't flaunting you say? Just like anything, there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. Right way, be discrete since after all it's between you and your child. Wrong way, take pictures OF THE EXPOSED BREASTS and plaster them on a public website. Facebook stated there are many breastfeeding pictures that were perfectly fine as has already been stated many times in this thread. I was at a family function the other night where my sister in law breastfed her baby at a table in a room where lots of people moved in and out. The difference between her and facebook attention whore is that unless you directly looked at her for more then a second you had no idea she was doing it. She drew no attention to herself and was completely covered up. Taking the "no censorhip" and "breasts dont mean anything" posts to heart she should have whipped off her shirt and just let it all hang out because after all it's totally natural and beautiful and she shouldn't be censored when she breastfeeds and wants to show everybody she's doing it. Is the point clear now?



You are so completely missing the point.
Click to expand...

YOU are completely missing the point. Reading comp ftw my friend.
 
Awww, I come back and we're at six pages already. That's okay; I think mutual agreement for the first two pages is still an [H] record, anyway.

I don't have time to catch up on the posts, but I'll say that I agree with Steve. The one question you should ask yourself when deciding whether or not to do something is: "will this hurt and/or offend others more than it will help me?" The actions of this lady on Facebook fail that test; she could have just as easily not posted the picture, avoided offending a lot of people, and her quality of life would not have been diminished in the least.

It seems to me like people nowadays like to cause controversy for the sake of causing controversy. "I don't think there's anything wrong with posting these pics of mother nature!" Yeah, well, some people do. And you know that. And you can get the same job done (feeding the baby) without offending them. Therefore, it would only be common (rare?) courtesy and respect for you to do so.

The "they're my rights; I'm keeping them!" attitude of modern America is really getting on my nerves.
 
Again I ask, has anyone seen the actual offending pictures?

We are not talking normal breast feeding pictures. We are talking about complete nudity in some or all of the pictures removed, tandem breast feeding pictures with an infant and a 5 year old attached....and so on. Is there a need to be completely naked to breast feed / demonstrate breast feeding?

I venture to say that most people are not offended by normal breast feeding done in a proper / tasteful manner. There is absolutely no need to be completely naked with an infant and a 3 - 5 year old kid hanging off your boobs on Facebook. There is no need to have BOTH breast exposed in public while feeding a single child.

As usual, it is a small set of people posting offensive pictures that screw it up for the normal people that aren't completely naked, showing bush or dual feeding 5 year olds while breast feeding. If you pull one set of breast feeding pictures, you pull all of them and I think that is what has happened here.

It would seem that my mistake was assuming the people commenting here had actually seen the pictures in question.
 
HOCP4ME said:
Awww, I come back and we're at six pages already. That's okay; I think mutual agreement for the first two pages is still an [H] record, anyway.

I don't have time to catch up on the posts, but I'll say that I agree with Steve. The one question you should ask yourself when deciding whether or not to do something is: "will this hurt and/or offend others more than it will help me?" The actions of this lady on Facebook fail that test; she could have just as easily not posted the picture, avoided offending a lot of people, and her quality of life would not have been diminished in the least.

It seems to me like people nowadays like to cause controversy for the sake of causing controversy. "I don't think there's anything wrong with posting these pics of mother nature!" Yeah, well, some people do. And you know that. And you can get the same job done (feeding the baby) without offending them. Therefore, it would only be common (rare?) courtesy and respect for you to do so.

The "they're my rights; I'm keeping them!" attitude of modern America is really getting on my nerves.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Do people really go trolling around facebook looking for pictures on strangers profiles? Do you?

She didn't post any pictures with the intent of offending others. The two pictures I found online didn't show anything over the top, nothing that would offend me. I'm dumbfounded that people cannot get past these social stigmas.
 
Kristofff said:
As for your other point, please explain to me why you are eligible to survive the genocide you propose? I'd love a laugh.
Click to expand...


It's not genocide, that would involve killing people. Sterilizing people simply limits pro-creation. There is a difference.
 
Steve said:
Again I ask, has anyone seen the actual offending pictures?

We are not talking normal breast feeding pictures. We are talking about complete nudity in some or all of the pictures removed, tandem breast feeding pictures with an infant and a 5 year old attached....and so on. Is there a need to be completely naked to breast feed / demonstrate breast feeding?

I venture to say that most people are not offended by normal breast feeding done in a proper / tasteful manner. There is absolutely no need to be completely naked with an infant and a 3 - 5 year old kid hanging off your boobs on Facebook. There is no need to have BOTH breast exposed in public while feeding a single child.

As usual, it is a small set of people posting offensive pictures that screw it up for the normal people that aren't completely naked, showing bush or dual feeding 5 year olds while breast feeding. If you pull one set of breast feeding pictures, you pull all of them and I think that is what has happened here.

It would seem that my mistake was assuming the people commenting here had actually seen the pictures in question.
Click to expand...

I'll chime in with an answer to your question. Yes I have seen the pictures and I find nothing sexual or arousing in those photos. On top of that, many of the pictures listed shown on the "alternative" site that mothers have reposted that were supposedly removed from Facebook do not break their TOS in any way (no nipples or aerola being shown). If it was just removing pictures with nipples showing, I could sort of understand, but the aerola are not any more sexual than a birthmark on the back of your thigh.

I would post a link to the "alternative" site but I'm not sure if that would be against any rules here at [H] and I've been generally pretty happy with these boards, even for the intolerant users.

On the "alternative" page, I see no issues with the 1st, 4th, 6th, and 8th pictures for example. In fact the 8th picture is probably the on that is most "uncovered" but still nothing like just flopping them out in public. If someone has a problem with this amount of boob showing, they are being prudish children that obviously can't control their own sexual feelings.

The 3rd and 5th pictures may be pushing the limits a bit more, but still are not obscene or pornographic in my opinion. And as to the comments about the mother breast feeding two children at naked earlier in the thread, I'm assuming it was made in response to the 3rd picture, where if you look she is wearing panties (as small red strip behind the hand of the older girl) and a shirt that has been pulled up.

Honestly, I have seen a lot more revealing pictures in National Geographic over the years, which does not have an age limit to purchase so the 13 year olds could get their "saggy titty" fix just by picking up a couple issues (as well as completely naked 60 year old African tribal women :p ).

Now, I will say that while I have no issues with the pictures, my bigger concern is with mothers still breastfeeding 4 year olds, but if that is what they want to do that is their decision. Many cultures around the world breastfeed much longer than the average 1 year here within the USA.
 
Kristofff said:
You do realize that the reason they blocked the images was BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE COMPLAINING, right? :rolleyes:

And? People bitched to have removed. Why can't people bitch to have the censorship removed?
Click to expand...

They can but it is up to the folks at FB to decide; frankly I did some searching on some of the images; some eeh I've seen more on prime time; others were simply disturbing; breastfeeding a 3,4, or 5 year old... yea thats a bit F-ed up... and I would have no issue seeing those removed. Again though my opinion is meeningless, it's up to the folks at FB to decide, not me.
 
Steve said:
Again I ask, has anyone seen the actual offending pictures?

We are not talking normal breast feeding pictures. We are talking about complete nudity in some or all of the pictures removed, tandem breast feeding pictures with an infant and a 5 year old attached....and so on. Is there a need to be completely naked to breast feed / demonstrate breast feeding?

I venture to say that most people are not offended by normal breast feeding done in a proper / tasteful manner. There is absolutely no need to be completely naked with an infant and a 3 - 5 year old kid hanging off your boobs on Facebook. There is no need to have BOTH breast exposed in public while feeding a single child.

As usual, it is a small set of people posting offensive pictures that screw it up for the normal people that aren't completely naked, showing bush or dual feeding 5 year olds while breast feeding. If you pull one set of breast feeding pictures, you pull all of them and I think that is what has happened here.

It would seem that my mistake was assuming the people commenting here had actually seen the pictures in question.
Click to expand...

The pictures in question have nothing to do with the things that have been said in this thread. Those remarks are what I am speaking to, not the actual photos on Facebook.

Things like having to explain to your child what a breast is, what breastfeeding is, by inadvertently seeing a woman breastfeeding in the mall. I mean, what do you say to your child when you walk past a Victoria's Secret store in that same mall?

What do the people who complained about the breastfeeding pics on Facebook think about the "Meet single people in your area!" ads that have a picture of an ass in a thong in them?

I find it highly hypocritical that people will complain about one thing and not the other.

I, personally, didn't need to see the pictures referenced to speak to these things.

I have, however, seen them. Do you really think you're going to see those sorts of things happening in the line at the grocery store? And remember, the grocery store and shopping in the mall are things that you brought up so please don't be incredulous that everyone is speaking to those references and not the actual pictures.


Women breastfeeding their children in public isn't infringing on anyones rights.

Women showing family and friends pictures of their children being breastfed isn't infringing on anyones rights.

The context in which those pictures were posted were not pornographic and thats what Facebook should be taking into consideration before banning/removing them. The fact that some people here find them pornographic is hypocritical and discouraging.

I can understand that it's FAR easier for them to just say "no nipples or areola, period." but as they have learned, the backlash might be more than they can handle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top