<p>It seems like some of you haven’t ever actually seen a baby breastfeeding–I’ve seen plenty of shirts and dresses that show just as much boob as is visible while a properly latched-on baby eats.</p>
<p>When we treat breastfeeding as a taboo thing to be done only in private, we make it harder for mothers to breastfeed. A society where breastfeeding is needlessly difficult and stigmatized is bad for both babies and mothers. There’s nothing inherently problematic or even sexual about seeing a breast or–gasp!–a nipple. Everyone has nipples. I like boobs, but that’s not going to stop me from being respectful of a mother who wants to feed her kid.</p>
<p>Seeing something on a regular basis can be a big part of getting comfortable with it. The more comfortable we are as a culture with images of breastfeeding, the more we’ll hopefully come to see it as a normal and acceptable part of everyday life. Given how many advantages we know exist for breastfed babies, shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to encourage it and make it a bigger part of our society?</p>
<p>it’s a really interesting thing - breastfeeding. </p>
<p>i think the reason it’s such a taboo is that people don’t like to think of themselves as animals, or mammals more specifically. we like to think we’re better than that.</p>
<p>Is it difficult to breastfeed without taking pictures? Is it difficult to not post those pictures on the internet? Maybe breastfeeding should be encouraged, but I don’t see why that means Facebook should be forced to let pictures showing it stay up. And yes it would be problematic for them. How much boob is acceptable? How much nipple should they allow? How old is the person in the picture?</p>
<p>Facebook’s TOS prohibit things that are “obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit.” What are we saying as a culture if we define breastfeeding as fitting in one of those categories? We’re certainly not saying it’s a normal part of the public sphere, which it should be–babies need to eat when they need to eat, even if it’s in public.</p>
<p>Like I already said, a properly latched baby will be covering the entire nipple with their mouth while feeding. Take a look at the picture in the linked article, which Facebook removed. I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen plenty of Facebook pictures of people in low-cut dresses, shirts, and bathing suits that show just as much breast. Removing a picture like that asserts that breastfeeding is de-facto obscene or pornographic, no matter if the amount of exposed flesh would be acceptable in another context.</p>
<p>Successful breastfeeding is contingent on public acceptance and support. If we see breastfeeding as a sexualized act that doesn’t belong in public areas, we’re banishing breastfeeding mothers to their homes and guaranteeing they won’t breastfeed very long. Neither is good for mothers and babies.</p>
<p>Well no one person/company can say what is and isn’t obscene. Didn’t the supreme court say something in the gist of: If the majority of people polled in a community find something offensive, then it’s obscene. Also, Facebook can block whatever they want one their own site lol.</p>
<p>Yeah that’s a good point. Well Facebook is a site for everyone to enjoy, and there are still plenty of people out there who don’t want to see breastfeeding because they feel uncomfortable about it (which, as a business, Facebook wouldn’t want to happen).</p>
<p>Oh shutup already, you don’t find it compelling because your blatantly a feminist. Answer me this question: what are the merits of keeping the picture up and what are the benefits of taking it down?</p>
<p>If you don’t like it, then don’t look at it. Should facebook ban pictures of people in bikinis because other people might find it objectionable?</p>
<p>Facebook is an online community, not a democracy.</p>
<p>In order to be allowed into the community, you have to agree to terms of use. If you do not agree to these terms, you are not allowed in.</p>
<p>Nudity in photos is prohibited, and you agreed to follow this rule upon accepting Facebook’s terms of use.</p>
<p>If you are so against this, create your own social networking site in which nudity in photographs is not prohibited.</p>
<p>So you see, a discussion about whether or not this is ‘right’ will not change Facebook’s decision. The bottom line? It is not allowed on Facebook. If you want to do it, you can do it somewhere else.</p>
<p>Foreman: Thanks for making it obvious you don’t have much to say by using feminist as a slur. I really appreciate you making it easy to decide whether or not to ignore you.</p>
<p>pancakes: The definition of nudity isn’t exactly clear-cut in situations like this. That’s part of the point. As for as whether Facebook will be convinced of anything… they don’t have a ban on breastfeeding photos, it’s done on a case-by-case basis. And while I’ve heard about plenty of people protesting the current criteria they’ve been using to decide whether to remove a photo, I don’t see any comparable groups organizing to ban breastfeeding photos. Facebook may have the right to decide what its TOS will be (though they do need to enforce them in a consistent manner), but its users also have the right to inform them of how they’d like to see things run. That’s all that’s happening.</p>
<p>The idea that breastfeeding in public is somehow lewd, obscene or sexual is preposterous. It is nourishment for a baby – period.</p>
<p>But, from adolescence on the breast has been closely associated with sexual gratification. Why that is, I don’t know, but the breast – and the ***** – have forever been held in something akin to worship. We, as humans, have been and are subject to their subliminal effects.</p>
<p>Take architecture for example. What do the domes of churches most closely resemble in the natural world? Why does man build obelisks, bell towers and long, tall buildings (skyscrapers)?</p>
<p>Perhaps one day, when man has evolved to a certain state where his brain is the real center of motivation, he will build to resemble the cranium…</p>
<p>Meanwhile, we must live with the kind of stupidity that does not know whether to be aroused or be a benign onlooker upon confronting a woman putting babe to teat.</p>
<p>Note: on previewing this post I see that the word for a man’s “private part” has been blocked out – lol – . My, my, I did not realize that the word in and of itself was not allowed on this, what appears to be, a forum of intelligent people.</p>
<p>^this is a forum for intelligent people but not everyone is intelligent on CC. If people are allowed to post whatever they want then CC and facebook could become obscene…I remember a law school discussion website I used to visit…people were allowed to pretty much post what they wanted and there were lots of pornographic material…like outright pornographic material…I don’t want to be seeing that on an online forum</p>