This is bizarre to me. The beautiful naturalness of breastfeeding was considered offensive by Facebook (FB) and yet, daily, thousands of photographs of animal cruelty are paraded on Facebook’s pages in one guise or another with totally impunity. Grizzly photos of animals being abused are considered acceptable. But are they?
Some people complain to FB about animal abuse photos to no effect but when one person complained that the picture above was published on FB was offensive, it was removed without further ado.
I realise the debate is not black and white because:
- Some women are exhibitionists and post photos of breast feeding for that purpose and
- Some photos of animal abuse are required to get the message across, which is that it is abuse (a lot of people don’t see animal abuse as what it is) and it must stop.
However, there should be limits on the number of animal abuse photos on FB. Without limitations publishing these pictures makes things worse. The images normalise animal abuse and desensitise people; it becomes a norm. Or the pictures damage us psychologically.
On receiving the complain, Facebook’s immediate response was to remove the breastfeeding picture but they had second thoughts and reinstated it, stating that such photos have never been against the company’s Community Standards, but nipples had to be concealed! I don’t get that either.
“The image that you shared was removed in error – it has now been republished” (Facebook to Miss Bond).
Miss Bond, 30, who lives in Oswestry, Shropshire was pleased the company had updated its policy. She remarks:
“The thing for me is that I see so many animal cruelty or beheading or child abuse images on Facebook and report them myself but nothing gets done….But something as precious and natural as this is removed instead.”
Mumsnet, the well-known website for mums state that they are “not surprised” that someone had complained:
“We have a problem with photos of women breastfeeding on Facebook because they involve breasts.”
It is strange that female nudity in a sexualised context is all over the online media but feeding a baby naturally is outlawed. It seems we are frightened of what is natural and functional but not sexual. Perhaps the later is more fantasy and not quite real, making nudity acceptable, while when it is genuinely real we are offended. Any ideas?
There is an FB page in which people argue with FB about breastfeeding photos — The Ban on Breast Feeding.
This is what makes me bloody livid!! I seen some horrors on FB and have reported it like I happened to click onto someone’s page because a joke was shared that was funny and I thought oh I wonder if his page is public and I wonder if there’s any other jokes on there? No jokes but his picture at the top of his profile page was of him having sexual intercourse with his dog. It was very graphic and I was stunned. I reported him to FB but not even to reporting system is wired up for animal or child abuse!! Its as if they deliberately don’t want you to report certain things because they know so much of it is on there they would lose out if they started getting onto these individuals!
For me more licensing needs to come into play with social networking because if you are the owner of this site and you don’t act accordingly then you are as responsible as the perpetrators and you should be treated as if you are the ones actually showing those images!!
With social networking comes responsibility and its not violating freedom of speech as some idiots argue its simply stopping animal cruelty!
Why they allow animal cruelty pics and not breast feeding ones .. EASY. Face book is run by inept, heartless, unethical morons. Who claim to have community standards on their site (LOL … you could have fooled me). Even “IF” you were to complain about some douche bag doing something horrid or cruel & abusive to animals. This is their general reply “we have viewed the content and found that it does not go against our company standards .. we appreciate your reporting it and make every effort to ensure that..blah, blah, blah”. No matter how disturbingly disgusting the pic/video of an animal being tortured by a evil, sick douche … they seem to allow it. I mean they can get a bunch of people reporting it .. and do Sweet F*** All! But .. 1 person complains about seeing a baby breastfeeding … OMG .. we can’t have that .. take it down. I like how they keep their priorities straight like that. It’s best to report pics/videos to Interpol … than the: We’re too stupid to do anything because “WE” have no morals or ethics even tho we claim to face book.
I don’t know if breast feeding will ever be accepted as normal, because so may think of breasts as sexual organs.
They’re really not, boys.
Concentrate way, way, way doen.
I was watching that Superbowl and it was unfair that Janet Jackson took all the flak, but Justin Timberlake got hardly a mention. It was clearly a rehearsed stunt and not a genuine wardrobe malfunction.
Good point Claudia. There is a prudish sensitivity to seeing the breast but no problem in seeing a domestic cat kicked over a fence on a video. Bloody bizarre world we live in.
Good counter argument, Melanie. Thanks. However, I don’t think, from an aesthetic point of view, sh*tt*ng is on a par with breastfeeding. As for sex it is too close to porn.
I don’t particularly like seeing breastfeeding either. It is voyeuristic but it should not be seen as objectionable over animal cruelty photos. I have learned that animal cruelty photos don’t work. They don’t make an impact. They just hurt initially and nothing changes.