Apparently, it's now

Tits *and* GTFO

American response to Breast feeding. Never quite understood why breast feeding scares them so much, anyone know?

Uses social networking sites...I personally find them the edxact opposite, anti-social rather than social. If I wish to be social, I go out and meet people face to face. If I don't, I stay in simple really.

...I think I love you. Will you have my babies? (then you can join M.I.L.C.)

According to "Debrett's New Guide to Etiquette and Modern Manners", one should never expel liquid from any orifice in public.

So, they're not exactly backtracking -- still using the same 'cover my arse' line of "Photos containing a fully exposed breast - as defined by showing the nipple or areola - do violate [the site's] terms on obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit material and may be removed."

Still able to see pics of paintings portraying (artistically done, of course) nekkid people but as that's not a photo then it's 'art'. The theme of some painitngs could also be called to question as there are scenes of rape and violence. Be a change to see a thought-out policy instead of one dictated by minorities - fat chance, but would be welcome.

... the Morality Police are making tits of themselves again...

So is urination, can I put a pic of myself on my profile doing it then? As long as it's tasteful obviously.

Paris, 'cause she's no stranger to appearing 'au natural'.

Phwarrr.......Knickers knackers knockers !!

Paris, because she doesn't look a *bit* like Les Dawson.

I think it is disgraceful that children may be exposed to pictures of breasts.

When I was breastfed as a baby my mother blindfolded me to protect my delicate infant mind from corruption.

>> "Photos containing a fully exposed breast - as defined by showing the nipple or areola - do violate [the site's] terms on obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit material and may be removed."

Here's another site with lots of obscene/pornographic/sexually explicit pictures of exposed nipples/teats http://www.consumer.philips.com/consumer/en/gb/consumer/cc/_categoryid_MCC_NIPPLES_SU_GB_CONSUMER/

Caution: The above link is probably NSFW (not suitable for wanking)

You can't blame Facebook for taking a tough stance, they have more than their fair share of wankers already - you can see why they wouldn't want any more.

Only if they'd called themselves the Mothers International Lactation Front.

// no coat - dead white males don't need em

Wait, you were thinking about children?

Pervert!

And how can anybody support breastfeeding? It's a closeup, shove-into-your-face indecency combined with touch and feel and the whole oral component ... At least the babies should wear blinds to keep them prudently / prudishly protected.

"The photos we act upon are almost exclusively brought to our attention by other users who complain,"

So why not throw them off Facebook for being ubermoralistic tittards?

It's farcebook that's obscene!

It's just a matter of whether or not you've joined that religion. You know the one - where things that are wrinkly, discolored, and smelly are now "beautiful". Where one of the most painful and, erm, indecorous moments of a person's life is something to be filmed - 'cause let's face it, we'll want to watch that over and over again, right?

Could it be this is just another case of class and good taste taking a back seat to the inane need to publish every last detail of one's life. I'm sure junior will love it when he hits his teens and the pic of 'mom and him' is still in some google cache... And no, this isn't just the Y chromosome talking - none of the ladies I know well would be inclined to post pics of this sort. I'm not saying it's actually obscene mind you - a response of "grow up" would do the complainers a lot of good. But I can understand why one would get confused by the idea "omg omg omg I must be allowed to post these pics on this service of yours I leech for free"

It's just art vs pornography again.

The proud mothers who insist everyone should know what a free spirit they are say it's a beautiful display of the mother-child bond.

The prudes and the hand-wringing-worriers-about-the-children say it's pornography because it shows the naked breast.

The debate is philosophical, and just goes to show that whatever the issue: people are just basically argumentative sods.

But if you're posting to a website you need to abide by the rules of that site, and the rules say it's not allowed. Come on people, it's not hard..

But it is not obscene, nor cute or the slightest bit endearing, interesting, unique or worthy of note.

It's just a kid drinking ffs. OK the container from which it is drinking my raise of few snigger's from those with a school boy mentality, moral outrage from those who are sexually repressed or sexual arousal from those who are, well sick for want of a better word.

However it can be very funny, bitty anyone?

>Seems like the usual American response to Breast feeding. Never quite understood why breast feeding scares them so much, anyone know?

My theory is that Americans are generally scared of natural food. If it's not been dosed with sugar, salt, and fat, and not available in portions containing at least 1.5 times your daily recommended daily calorific intake, then it's not suitable. Heaven forbid it should actually taste of anything, or even worse, be good for you...

Fine. I don't care. Breastfeeding isn't exactly pornographic, but if the rules state clearly "NO EXPOSED BREASTS" then why should some people be allowed to break those rules just because a baby's hanging off it?

Bureaucracy aside, if one of my friends had that as their profile picture, I'd probably report it just to get rid of it, it's weird. Do you know what's even more natural than breastfeeding? Having a huge, steaming turd. Should I share that with my friends? NO.

That is a _UK_ site by a _Dutch_ company you insensitive clod. It is not destined for taleb^H^H^H^H^Hpuritan controlled audience.

(some) nursing mums like to get their baps out to show their birthing triumphs, this is partly a biological driven display (matriarchal dominance, which probably why they are getting arsey; all their hormones means they won't be told what to do) and partly as making another life is cool and they want to tell people, the only pictures that are banned are ones that show whole breasts or nipples, so what's the big deal?

An example of a banned picture is where a baby is haning off one tit (covering the nipple) while the other tit is exposed, why expose the other tit? what's the purpose of this display? does it some how destroy the beauty of the act to cover up the unused tit? there's a line drawn and a nekkid tit is over the line (unless you have a baby covering it up).

Addendum:

Having ahem "researched" the facebook pictures I do worry about the gene pool a bit as it seems like the more tit you see is inversely proportional to the facial beauty, perhaps the group should be renamed, "I want to get my baps out as I'm a bit of a munter and it distracts from my face", OK you might think this is a little harsh, but seriously have a look for yourself (at the faces!).

Oliver says "So is urination, can I put a pic of myself on my profile doing it then? As long as it's tasteful obviously."

As long as the angle of the dangle doesn't exceed the Mull of Kintyre.

Oh come on! It's Facebook not Titbook or Willybook. Now there's an idea.

Hear hear. Now, to follow the Lectards, we shall see Fectards! I think the lady who was shown doing the "number 1" behind the car by GoogleMaps should protest to have her picture restored - it is a beautiful thing!

"Boobs have been sexualised" - Unfortunately so have huge steaming turds by a certain minority! (Not including myself).

On the whole breastfeeding thing I don't really have a problem seeing somebody breastfeeding, for those that do may I offer this piece of advice - DON'T BLOODY WELL LOOK THEN.

Remarkably like the same article on ARS. Thankfully, the excrement corps over there mostly stays there and only a few of the freaks come over here to destroy the discourse.

As I stated over there...it's a shame so many folks get hung up on naked body parts. If the web site says "no boobs", then I guess it's no boobs. Considering that most of the posting apparently weren't in public areas anyway I'm not sure I see the fuss, although the milc extremists seem to have fun shoving it in your face.

Since my better half nursed all three of our sprog and didn't leave it hanging out for everyone to see, i don't have pictures for you...(or me...or the kids), and doubt that anyone else would have wanted to see them anyway. She always considered this a very private affair between herself and the sprog and just tossed a baby-blanket over her shoulder to cover it all up when we were out in public...

Maybe a playmobile scene would cover all the bases for the twits out there?

A bunch of lefties have come up with another tactic to assure themselves and the world that they are mature, experienced and hip and above any purely human reactions.

"I'm great, I am. Everyone else is immature and childish compared to me!"

I don't think that I /want/ to become so desensitized that seeing the naked breast of a female friend or coworker produces absolutely no reaction in me. If women don't like breast fetishism, why don't they give up the plunging necklines and push up bras? Ah right, they like breast fetishism, sometimes.

When I'm masturbating I don't feel that I'm doing anything wrong. Actually, I spend quite a lot of time doing it, and it says a lot about me as a person. Perhaps I'll feature the act in my Facebook profile pic.

and the only thing i found disturbing about the pictures was the age of some of the breastfeeding "babies"

some of them look to be 4 or 5!

Ok ... I have to wade in here.

I live in a town in that joyous bastion of high morals known as Essex.

I can live with breast feeding in public... I can live with 12 year olds in boob tubes and belt skirts... I can even deal with pregnant 14 year olds without batting a mascara'd eyelid..

But; argghh argghh argghh - I am sitting in the doctors waiting room... and a spanish looking woman is breastfeeding... which I have no problem with. Shes pretty, well dressed and I would say late 30's.

Now being a person who loves kids and having a mothering instinct the size of mount olympus I glance at the kiddie to see whether its a boy or a girl and how old. Talk about double take. The kid must be 5 years old *at least* ... and even I am not sure as to the gender... but i am thinking very feminine boy... with long blondish hair in ringlets...

I am not the only person to see what is going on and I am not the only person to be visibly cringing... not only that I come back a few weeks later (I am on medication that requires few weekly injections) ... that the self same girl is doing the self same thing by which point its getting towards the creepy side of strange.

I have no problem at all with breastfeeding on facebook in the least... but please someone drop a hint to people that its normally a good idea to wean said kidling before they start school!!

Have you seen most American breasts? Ewwww!!! There's a reason Paris gets on TV for her not-much-at-all.

And yes, Sarah Bee, I consider some cow whipping out a tit for her snot monkey just as offensive as my whipping out my non-dairy creamer for a wizz. I don't want to see that, and I shouldn't have to. It's not sexual, it may be "natural", but it's most certainly disgusting. Make it stop.

Thank you, Facebook.

First, its against the rules so the pics should be pulled.

Secondly, I love how the majority of commenters constantly bash America to get away from the problems with their own country. Enjoy your ID cards.

...to post pics of breast feeding in a public forum. Try getting a LIFE.

Can't see the problem with breastfeeding at all myself. Mrs Bobbles nursed our son and will no doubt nurse our next child.

The problem seems to be that western societies have trouble remembering that we are still members of the animal kingdom. Mammals at that, mammals being distinctive in that they have mammary glands(breasts) and nurse their young. Facebook and the people that complained to them, should grow up.

Moral outage aside, what's the problem with... y'know.. following the rules? Are these supposed to be "instructional" photos? What the hell is so bad about keeping (unpaid) pictures of your jugs off the internet? Okay, you're breastfeeding your uterine parasite, good for you. But if you are in fact posting pictures of your boobs, then you're breaking the rules.

Sheesh, by those standards I could take full-frontal pics of myself taking a leak as long as I plunk an infant down there in the pisser to share the photo-op. Imagine *that* uproar.

I find it very amusing that some of the commentators here have actually perused Facebook just to get a glimpse of what the fuss is about. If one has never seen a mother breast feed her child before, I can understand the curiosity. Even so, it doesn't take much imagination to picture such a scene. I myself don't find breast feeding offensive at all, nor pissing in public for that matter, providing it is done discretely and preferably on a flowerbed or grass, a doorway or the pavement is not the place to do such a thing. I do however find the sight of an obese person in a swimsuit offensive. But then, that's just my opinion, valid or otherwise. We have all had different standards conditioned into us during our formative years. So I ask who is right? Or do we just comply with what the majority think because it is the most accepted viewpoint?

@Gene Cash.. Disgusting? Even though your comment made me laugh, I can only guess that your conditioning damaged you much more than my conditioning damaged me.

As pointed out in some articles this is not a freedom of speech issue. This is a private website with it's own rules that users agree to abide by. The Terms and Conditions and User Agreements layout what you can and can not do. The site has limited the types of pictures it wishes to post onto its servers. As a user you agreed to this when you created an account. These rules limit what you can post and protect you from what others post.

Although other people in this forum have singled out America for its moral conservatism there are much more 'conservative' nations on the planet in which breastfeeding pictures are not culturally acceptable.

Facebook is a site designed social networking, not social activism. The views of a portion of users in one part of the world are not necessarily the views shared the rest.

Living in a country that allows me the freedom of speech and expression to show pictures of myself breastfeeding does not allow me to post pictures of myself performing that act on a server owned and operated by someone else in violation of it's rules. What it does allow me to do is upload the pictures to another site that allows them, or buy my own domain name (ie seemebreastfeed.com) and host my own breastfeeding site that would allow myself and others to post pictures according to my TERMS OF USE.

Just joined. Because, well Americans can be such stupid prudes, you've got to do what you can to bring some reality to them.

And so you cann that joining doesn't mean no sense of humor.

@Not MILFs then

very good :D

@Sarah bee

"Boobs have been sexualised"

Are you trying to imply that breast, the major secondary sexual charteristic of women are not sexual, except as an uncomon fetish?

don't you have to be a friend of the person whos photos your looking at?

So if you don't like the photos on there, go and tell them (I presume being friends that you actually speak to each other in real life) or just un-friend them....its not rocket science

It's not about breast feeding, it's about posting inappropriate pictures in a PUBLIC forum, which is contrary to the terms of service. No one gives a rats azz if you breast feed or don't. The TOS of FB and other publicly viewed forums forbid the posting of inappropriate material including nudity. It doesn't make any difference if it's your breast, azz, or whatever, it's inappropriate and forbidden. Public forums are viewed by all ages and races. It should not take a rocket scientist to figure out what is appropriate behavior. If you need to ask what is appropriate to post in a public forum, you are not educated enough to be online or for that matter, to be having children. Let's not perpetuate the illness with braindead offspring.

It's often-said in the US that the nipple and areola are defined "sexually-explicit". A women can go to a clothing-required beach and display every part of the breast except for the nipple and areola. Why? And why can men, who have the same EXACT breast structure (except for the milk ducts which are under the skin and therefore never seen anyway), show off their breasts without offense to anyone and nobody asking them to cover their breasts? And don't you dare say size -- there are a lot of (fat) men who would put most women, even well-endowed women, to shame in breast size.

So why is it that women must cover their breasts? If you're one of the people who claim that the breast is "sexually-explicit", can you please define that for me? Because I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't understand that. Other body parts, such as legs, buttocks (women are allowed to wear thongs in public), and earlobes are erogenous zones and are often sexualized and involved in sexual activities, but those are not required to be covered at all times. What makes the breast so different? Specifically, what makes the nipple and areola so different?

Perhaps if we didn't require women to cover their breasts at all times, and people actually grew up seeing women with uncovered breasts, then it wouldn't be such a shock or such a big deal, and it wouldn't be viewed the way it is today. Then again, a lot of good God-fearing Christians* still think that sex itself is the devil's work, so I'm not holding my breath.

* This is not an indictment of all Christians or religious people, only the puritanical and stupid ones. After all, if God created us in His image, shouldn't we celebrate our bodies instead of being ashamed of them?

Problem is that its an open group meaning that kids can browse from example bob the builder to bob the future builder sucking on his mummys teat..

They are only removing pictures of exposed breasts/nipples - which imho is a bloody good thing.. Unless their 21-32 and DD... but then again i would go and join sexsearch...

Again, protesting idiots dont think about the kids... think about the kids!!

Paris.. as she gets her teats out.

"Fine. I don't care. Breastfeeding isn't exactly pornographic, but if the rules state clearly "NO EXPOSED BREASTS" then why should some people be allowed to break those rules just because a baby's hanging off it?"

EXACTLY. I don't have any problems with breast-feeding I guess, but Facebook doesn't allow topal nudity. Your breast is out? THAT IS NUDITY. I would just prefer they allow all the T'n'A the viewer can handle, but they don't.

Women, please, go ahead and just go elsewhere, or put up your own photos on your own site. That is what I do, put my photos up with a photo serving software off my own computer. No censorship whatsoever. And keep in mind, noone is REALLY interested in seeing photos of you breast-feeding your kid.

"And why can men, who have the same EXACT breast structure (except for the milk ducts which are under the skin and therefore never seen anyway), show off their breasts without offense to anyone and nobody asking them to cover their breasts? And don't you dare say size -- there are a lot of (fat) men who would put most women, even well-endowed women, to shame in breast size."

Actually funny you should mention it, I have had people take one look and say "Hey, come on man put your shirt back on! Please!" My man-tits aren't THAT big though, it's my gut that does them in I think 8-).

"buttocks (women are allowed to wear thongs in public)"

but they cannot show the crack or the vag.

Time to start complaining about every single picture where a male nipple is showing. Or a beer gut. Now THAT'S obscene!

Seriously who reports these kinds of pictures to the administrators? And why are you friends with them??

@raving angry loony --> Here here!

1) There are too many people on this damned planet and this damned island already (and no I'm not an greenie nut, I just like being able to go places without other people being in the vicinity)

2) kids are not cute, the majority of the time, the vast majority of kids are dirty, rude, screaming brats taught such manners by their "parents" predominantly by their "mummies" (what was wrong with mum and dad? why the babying of a simple word??)

3)I dont want to see some overweight heifer who has been stuffing her face "for 3" the last nine months whipping out her oversized breasts and neither does my wife. Its as bad as seeing some lard arse guy in a thong.

4) Facebook = private company - thank ye gods politicians havent done online what they have done in meatspace which is that private businesses can be prosecuted for stopping a "moomy" whipping them out in public, even if it upsets their *paying* customers. find a washroom, use a blanket, pick one of many discreet possibilities rather than the middle of the store or in the dining room and put others off their food.

5) Maternity leave is one thing which is ruining the economy, you want kids...quit and re-apply when the kid is old enough to be left, Hmm if I needed six months off to look after my disabled wife what do you think most employers would say..I know "we're sorry but due to the economic climate and targets we have to let you go and we cant offer a reference unfortunately"

6)What ever happened to *equality*? seems that went out of the window and now its "better rights for women" - 18 months paid leave will be the next maternity option and then likely 5 years or maybe eventually 21 years paid (as by then adulthood will start at 21 given the current babying of the kids born in the last 10 years)

It sickens me really, bye bye equality hello 1984 and beloved lady jacqui high priestess as leader *i think I'm about to lose my lunch at that thought* and no I don't want kids, period and neither does the wife. I'm so glad to have met someone who is even more set in their aim to remain childfree

"Besides, I don't quite know what scale of naturalness you're working from there to calculate that your morning loaf er, trumps milk dispension."

Well, the easy way to cover it is simply by plain figures. What percentage of people take a dump compared to the percentage of people who breast feed? If you want to take that further, what percentage of the animal world excrete in comparison to those who have some form of lactation? Either way the argument that taking a dump is a more natural process than breast feeding stands up on its own.

I'm not suggesting that I want to see pictures of people crimping a log by the way, that sort of thing can remain on the fetish sites. But for these women to claim that breast feeding pictures are non-sexual in any way, well I'm sorry but there will be a lot of men/boys who look at those pictures and notice nothing but the tits. I've been around on the net long enough to know that there are even fetish sites devoted to that precise purpose.

Not that it bothers me particularly, I like breasts, but I think it is naive of the women who post these pictures to believe that 'everyone' else sees them in the same non-sexual manner that they do.

I don't find breast feeding disgusting or obscene. However something I do find very disgusting, whenever I make the mistake of thinking about it, is drinking the milk of a cow.

It is funny the society we have created. A baby (or heaven forbid a five year old) drinking its mothers milk is seen by many as disgusting, even though it is a perfectly natural form of feeding. Whilst an adult human drinking the milk of a cow is doesn't raise an eyelid.

BTW, notice how above qualified the 'perfectly natural' with the word feeding. Yes defecating, urinating, masturbating may be perfectly natural and normal bodily functions, but they aren't generally done in public. The difference with breast feeding is that eating and drinking is something which we all do in public.

That these hormone-ravaged-beauty-of-nature crazed females that can't keep their personal lives to themselves didn't think to post pics of their post-natal placentas

Oh crap... if they're reading this they prolly will now...

For some reason it is now assumed that nothing can perform more than one function, I think this is because we've all been dumbed down to the point where so few people can think of even one thing at a time that it's a reasonable assumption.

Yes breasts do perform sexual functions, but they also perform other functions. Do you let your child read, because they could read porn if you do.

Quote from a midwife friend:

"Breasts, like women, can multi task"

>Yes breasts do perform sexual functions, but they also perform other functions.

So do penises and vaginas, so by your logic a woman squatting over a man urinating on to his (also urinating) penis is fine and dandy, not at all obscene?

Breasts, for most of their lives perform a sexual function of attracting a male, that's why they are large even while not nursing, sometimes, for a few months of a womans life they perform an additional non sexual function, but this is a very small percentage of the time, penises however urinate a few times a day, usually more times per day than having sex, therefore it should be OK to get your cock* out in public?

*I guess any kind of poultry would be OK?

...on things that were actually important, we'd be able to actually improve things.

"Breasts, for most of their lives perform a sexual function of attracting a male, that's why they are large even while not nursing..."

Wow. I had to do a double-take there. Do you realize how completely fucking retarded you sound? Talk about ignorant. Since you obviously live in your own little fetish world, please, allow me to let you in on a non-secret -- breasts are not universally large. Since the posters on this site seem to have an obsession with Paris Hilton, she's the perfect example. She has very small breasts. And while you may get the impression from watching porn that most women have large breasts, that is, in fact, not the case. Get out of Second Life long enough to have an actual peek at First Life (aka Reality).

And since you obviously need someone like me to point out your total ignorance, let me burst your "Breasts... perform a sexual function of attracting a male" bubble by merely pointing your direction to the various tribes in Africa, the millions of small-breasted women (less than a B cup) in loving committed relationships all over the world (probably many even in your own town/city), not to mention the rest of the animal kingdom).

As for AC "@Sarah Bee" -- "Not that it bothers me particularly, I like breasts, but I think it is naive of the women who post these pictures to believe that 'everyone' else sees them in the same non-sexual manner that they do."

Since you claim defecation is "more natural" than breast-feeding, and you admit that some people have a sexual fetish for defecation, then do you also think it's naive of people who defecate to believe that 'everyone' else sees defecation in the same non-sexual manner that they do? If you don't believe that's naive, then you're obviously a hypocrite for thinking it is naive when pertaining to breasts or breast-feeding which you claim is "less natural".

Personally, I'd rather see a woman, any woman, openly breastfeed a child as opposed to seeing someone trying to feed mashed food from a jar to a baby who's screaming, spitting up, and making a mess of everything. Yet the former is considered "disgusting" while the latter is considered acceptable.

... for our sexually repressive societies ;)

Anyway, it's only humans (and not all of them) that get so hung up on exposure of certain parts of the body. It's just a body part that's all. Big deal.

I think all women should have clothing that rips off to expose their breasts (a la Janet Jackson) and all power to breast feeding in public...

"bitty!" :)

I appreciate the sentiment mate and normally I wouldn't stoop so low but ... ah what the hell it is a New Year and I haven't been censored yet...

One does not normally associate the consumption of milk by humans as being typically conducted directly from the cow. If you want to walk about town with a Holstein-Friersian on a lead and drop down in public periodically to stick one of her teats in your mouth then by all means, be my guest. but if I were you I'd avoid holidaying in India - just in case.

There is a biological imperative to feed a small child when it's hungry otherwise it will scream and then eventually become comatose and die.

There is a further imperative for mother of small child to get out of the house to do stuff like pay the gas bill and nip to the super. These things may frequently take longer than the length of time the baby ape is not hungry - other people in the vicinity either then have their ears assaulted by screaming of hungry child or can eyeball the (usually reasonably discreet) breastfeeding of child, from which they can avert their eyes and get on with their lives. If, during this (usually reasonably discreet) episode, tit falls out of young ape's mouth, bystanders are required to ignore, sigh and avert their eyes or whatever (usually reasonably discreetly).

Anyone who doesn't acknowledge the biological imperative of child to eat is stupid. Anyone who subverts second imperative with 'someone else should do the shopping' or 'feed the kid from a bottle' needs to get a life. Thus, with some small amount of acceptance and decorum, we will all get by. I spent six years of my life breastfeeding a succession of sprogs in a reasonably discreet fashion and they appear to have grown up fine.

As for the facebook debate? Frankly, given the second imperative and the chance that involuntary exposure happens and everyone must just get over it...I'd go with get over it. And the complaining offenders should really look back into themselves and wonder what's wrong with their sad selves that they care. And the mums with boobs should just purge their friends lists and accept that not everybody likes them.

And 'think of the kids': I couldn't care if my sprogs see breasts, regardless of their age. They appear unfazed by normal stuff. If they see a new mother breastfeeding, the male offspring fail to see/ignore and the female offspring go 'aw, look at that cute baby.' But whatever. I'm past caring. I spent six years fighting these people's battles for them, now they can do what they want with it. I don't think there's any pictures of my nekkid breastfeeding going around t'internet though but who knows.

Yawn.