Facebook says no to leaky nipples
 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...l?iid=tsmodule

I'm one for allowing moms to nurse their babies in public because the kids gotta eat. But this backlash on Facebook is the most ridiculous story I've read today. If you want to put pics of yourselves and your boobs online, do so elsewhere.

These moms don't HAVE to be on Facebook. Everybody else has to comply with their ToS, why should they be given an exception?

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2517126532

(Be careful, pics posted to that group do contain some flashes of nip)

Grossaroo!

Obscene? Really? That's nuts. Have a no nipples rule if you wish, but don't tag nursing pictures as "obscene".

FWIW - many of the nursing pictures show no nipple - so what of those? If it's just boob and kid, does it get pulled?

eta - Ah, I see that yes, they do get pulled. So - c'mon! No nipples is fine, but just breastfeeding ? C'mon . . .

Breastfeeding is natural and I have no problem with a woman feeding her child in public as long as it's done in an appropriate manner. I've seen way too many women flash out both boobs and leave one hanging for the world to see while the kid eats off the other. I've also seen kids ages 4+ feeding in public. WTF?

Still, I don't see why these women feel the need to post these pictures all over facebook. There are sites for breastfeeding moms out there. Post the pics there and not on facebook.

I plan on breastfeeding, but I wouldn't feel comfortable posting pics of it online

I think it's worth noting that the overwhelming majority of women who feel free enough to post their faces in the shots shown in that group (at least through my relatively-thorough perving process) are moderately to very unattractive.

This is such a stupid hippie non-issue.

:rolleyes:I really wonder about someone who needs to put pictures of themselves breastfeeding on Facebook. Yes, we all know breasts feed babies, but that still doesn't mean you need to post pictures of it happening. What's next? People posting pictures of themselves having sex? After all, sex is meant to create babies. :rolleyes:

I think many people object to the act of breastfeeding because someon women go out of their way to do it in public in a flashy manner..almost as if they WANT someone to say something so they can retort with their favorite comback, "breasts were meant to feed babies."

This one's just for you, KSig RC: http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-...261155_840.jpg (NSFW)

LMAO I second that.

I also want to add that those women can say what they want to, but some of those photos had a pornographic feel to them. Some of the ones were the women were almost completely naked and breastfeeding their baby and their semi-adult/toddler/child too big to be breastfeeding were borderline.

[hijack]

So my husband and I were eating dinner at a nice Indian restaurant, when the waiter plopped a couple with there ~2-3ish old daughter next to us. I did not think much of it, until the woman who was sitting next to me, grabbed her cranky antsy daughter, lobbed one of her boobs and went on to feed the toddler!!! The little girls feet were next to me, when she proceeded to kick me disturbing my meal!!! I was civil, and the woman was embarrassed.

I don't have a problem with breastfeeding children, even in a lounge location, but at public restaurant, that is just unsanitary to me and if I had known better, I would have called Public Health... But it didn't happen and the lunacy is etched in my mind... Oh well..

[/end hijack]

Ew

Which part of it was unsanitary? The feet?

When I see things like this, I'm reminded of the "cause-heads" from the movie "PCU." People just protesting for the sake of protesting...we used to have a bunch of them at Boston U, but it appears they're spread all over the place.

I agree with Jeni, what part is unsanitary? That woman does have a right to breastfeed her child wherever she chooses.



I will say it is unnecessary for people to post those online. I hate it when even my friends (or friends of friends) show pictures of their kids while they are sucking a boob. Take a picture of the child alone! Is it THAT hard?

I don't understand why women have to breastfeed at the table in restaurants though. Restaurants already have a policy that says you must be wearing a shirt and shoes when you come in to eat. There is a reason for that. When someone just whips out their breast and starts breastfeeding at the table, with no cover, it seems like that is a violation of the policy. And it does seem a bit unsanitary.

That's pretty much how I feel about it.


If Facebook has a clear policy about what constitutes obscene photos, then these women have to deal with the consequences if they are in violation. I hope Facebook doesn't back down on this issue.

We're not gonna protest!

I fully support breastfeeding, including bfing in public as long as the mother complies with general discretion. I loved bfing, even though it was really difficult for me. But this is just silly. IIRC Photobucket and flickr have similar guidelines and lj had some issue with bfing pics used as icons. The uproar over those eventually died down, and so will this.

seeing as this actually applies to me now (ha!) i have to side with facebook. i just really don't see the point of taking pics of me breastfeeding my child and posting them online. is that really necessary?! discretion is key here. and i'm not so much about the boobie being gross but rather that i don't want some damn dirty pervs starting at my nips.

as for bf in public. ehh. i'm split. i have no desire to whip them out while eating at a restaurant because i think its possible to have better timing. but i already understand that sometimes you need to feed the kid - that's why i have a small blanket/towel to maintain some privacy and respect other people.

what i won't deal with though is people who want women to bf in restrooms. THAT is unsanitary and disgusting. if you wouldn't eat your dinner in a public restroom neither will my kid.

Both... :)

I'm having trouble understanding how it's unsanitary. I get why it would make other patrons uncomfortable. But, unsanitary? How is a breast unsanitary?

EXACTLY!

Technically, human boobie juice secretes all kinds of stuff--it is thought HIV is secreted by human boobie juice... It is just as bad as a human bite. While it is the best nutrition for THAT woman's child, it is NOT the safest nutrition for unrelated patrons sitting close to her... Meaning as close as I was to the baby, aside from the little unruly tyke kicking me, if her chit skeeted on me, Oh, you had better believe she would have gotten sued for endangering my health...

Same reason why pets besides "seeing eye dogs" are NOT allowed in the grocery store... That's public health... Talk to them...

Seeing eye dogs aren't pets. ;) That's another I don't quite get. Why some animals are allowed in restaurants and others are not. I've been to restaurants (granted, these places of business were not in the U.S.) where dogs were allowed at the tables of their owners. They'd even eat table scraps. As long as they aren't mangy, I really don't care. It's the kitchen that really concerns me.

I gotcha on the breastmilk thing, but it seems an extreme concern to me.

So if they weren't in the US, then what exactly is it you don't get?

But in a restaurant you should be concerned about more than the kitchen.

BESIDES "seeing eye dogs"...

Technically "pets" are NOT allowed in restaurants that serve humans. If you EAT in a place where you sit down, using the restaurant's plates, cups and "eatingware", they MUST ensure a reasonable level of sanitation upon receipt of your meal. So, if it is some beach burger joint, and you use their area to eat, they are liable for anything that happens from the time you sit down, get served and eat... And hot dog stands have to have some level of sanitation.

Now if you choose to eat your food on your beach blanket rather than their area, the liability is reduced.

PETS confound this issue in restaurants--this is different from "seeing eye dogs--or assistance animals" they are trained from an early age to behave a particular way in ALL situations... But random pets, not appropriate where human food is prepared or consumed...

It's like that dog that stole the dog bone at the Walmart recently--not that's funny...

Have you thought about what incredibly nasty and vile germs are on the bottoms of the shoes that you're tracking through restaurants? That dust gets kicked up and into your food. There are bacteria in the dirt in some places that is, IIRC, 50X stronger than any antibiotic we've ever discovered. Let a little of that dust get on your food and see what happens. I never let restaurant workers sweep near me while I'm eating. Now, THAT's disgusting!

I'm eh on animals in restaurants and don't really care as long as they're clean and flea free. They're no dirtier than we are and I'm more likely to catch an illness from a person than an animal anyway. But, like I said, I wouldn't want anything getting in and contaminating food in the kitchen...people included.

If you just don't like dogs, that's on you. But, the idea that groomed dogs would make a restaurant any dirtier than we already make it is laughable...thus why seeing-eye dogs are a-ok.

I loved that the store manager "confronted" the dog and said something like "DROP IT!" LOLOLOL!

:confused: Are you talking to me specifically when you say "you" or are you just saying a general "you?"

As for the part about germs on shoes, I think we all know that germs are carried in on shoes. And I also don't let people sweep near me in restaurants.

Gutter is a tool!

That movie holds a special place in my heart, if only because it references the CT blue laws that are still on the books (no alcohol served on Sundays or past 9 pm).

General. Obviously, I don't know if you personally like or don't like dogs.

I heard they were going to arrest the dog??? So what would they do if it was a bear? It would be like "where do you put an 800 lbs bear?",

"A-N-Y-W-H-E-R-E H-E W-A-N-T-S-!"

Who would moniter that in a restaurant?

Good point.

At the places I went, the restaurant staff had the right to refuse pets just as they had the right to refuse patrons.

I should have been more specific. How would a restaurant monitor checking dogs for fleas?
I would have a problem ( I do own a dog) with somebody's "pet" being inside a restaurant. Like it was said before, seeing eye dogs, ok, but folks bringing their pets to dinner, hell no. I would think restaurants would be concerned that one the patron's pets might attack someone. People may have dogs that are friendly to them, but not everyone else.

While seeing-eye dogs are highly trained, they are still dogs and they still get fleas and do have bad reactions other dogs, particularly when their harnesses are removed and down-time is signaled. That's something owners often do to give the animal a break while they eat. I have no problem with any kind of clean, tame and socialized dog being in a restaurant. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that one would be ok with seeing-eye dogs but not other dogs.

I think it would be interesting to have dog and non-dog sections like smoking and non-smoking in areas that still have them. A lot of places with outdoor cafes allow dogs in the outdoor area. I used to take my puppy to places like that. People sat outside even if they didn't have a dog with them.

This hijack is waaaaaaaay off topic. We could talk about dogs in restaurants that nurse their pups under the table. :D

I have to say I'm with Facebook on this one. If Facebook has said that exposed nipples are a no-go, then that's their prerogative. A nipple is a nipple, whether someone's sucking on it or not.

PS to OTW: That photo is NASTY!

I'm with Facebook as well. I'm not really sure why anyone would want to post those types of pictures to begin with. It's one thing to show a cute pic of mom with baby feeding. It's altogether different when it's mom's leaky nip.

Agreed.

As far as other public places, I don't really have an issue with women nursing in public as long as they're doing so discretely. Most women I know who have kids carry blankets with them so they can nurse while not exposing themselves.

Point. Set. Match.

This is the only thing that should matter. While it does bring up some good questions (e.g., Is it disrespecting surrounding people to BF without cover?), the misc. questions shouldn't be all over the news. Keep it to the main issue and leave it alone.

Outside of media attention: What are these women thinking? I looked at the group sort of on the fence about it--A women BFing her kid isn't that bad, but why on FB? Then the page loaded--over 3,000 pictures of women breastfeeding. What on earth would possess women to put picture after picture of themselves doing this with their babies on Facebook? It seems so personal (aside from your naked boob) to bond with your baby like that...do 140,000,000+ people really need to see? And some of those pictures were disturbing, I agree. Did anyone see the two girls playing "pretend feeding?" People commented on how cute it was, but it seemed way too much like child pornography. I don't see what's cute about an 8yo hiking her shirt all the way up so that a 6yo could "suck" on her nipple and then goold old Mom putting it on the Internet. :eek: