It’s Milky Boobs That Threaten The World’s Teens
How do we know? Because Facebook says so!
Remember a couple of years ago when LiveJournal crapped all over itself by threatening to suspend people who posted breast-feeding imagery including the dreaded and oh-so-dangerous wild MILF-nipple?
Well, this time it’s Facebook’s turn. The story is all over the internets, but this story sums up the fundamental stupidities. First, Facebook claims that breastfeeding images violate their policy on “obscene, pornographic or sexually-explicit material” — proving only that they don’t know what any of those words mean — and then they try, pretty much in the same breath, to backpedal by explaining that they know nipples aren’t obscene — nipples are of course wonderful! — but the dark skin surrounding the nipple is dangerous to teens, you see:
Facebook said the pictures violate the company’s policy on obscene, pornographic or sexually-explicit material, because of the display of the aureola – the dark skin around the nipple. Reportedly, it had also threatened to terminate accounts of people who do not comply with such policy.
“We agree that breast-feeding is natural and beautiful, and we’re very glad to know that it is so important to some mothers to share this experience with others on Facebook,” said Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt.
The company insists it is not about obscenity, but more about safety. The policies are to ensure the site remains safe, secure and trusted by its users, who also include teenagers.
Mr Schnitt said only photos which showed the aureola have been removed and others left intact.
I know if I had teens who were big Facebook users, I’d be losing sleep at night worrying about all the aureola-skin they might see on Facebook. Yup, that would be my number one concern about teen safety in connection with a social networking site. Boy howdy.
Memo to Tony Comstock: Did you know that when you turn on Google’s SafeSearch filtering, it filters out most of the internet dictionary pages that will tell you what “aureola” means? Yup, even the dictionaries that limit themselves to art and astronomy and never even mention the medical meaning. Citizen, nipples aren’t safe even when you’re a doctor and want to talk about them in Latin! It’s not even safe to teach people the words!
Shorter URL for sharing: https://www.erosblog.com/?p=2806
Here in NY State women have a constitutional right to show their nipples in public for about 15 years, including all my years as a “teenager”. I don’t believe that it has led to increased child mortality. Unfortunately, it has not significantly contributed to female nipple displays.
I just like to point out though that there are a lot who will say that nursing is qualitatively different and should be accepted. I say context doesn’t matter, especially not being located on a woman vs. a man.
and this is why i have never bothered using facebook or myspace, i’d just get banned…
Keeping the world safe from those evil milk spouts…
Breastfeeding should be a private matter. It would be nice if people would just go about their business but the general public can not be trusted to mind their own business, They’ll gawk, stare, point etc instead living their lives.
Its like a car accident,it happens everyday but people slow down and cause a traffic jam as everybody slowly passes by watching. Either get out and help or move along at your normal pace.
Hopefully as breastfeeding in public becomes more routine people will stop having issues with it, but I fear it will be more like a car accident. People see them daily but they still stop and stare.
I hope that made sense and I didn’t offend anybody.
This is getting ridiculous. Who needs the government to censor our speech when we have the private institutions such as Facebook and Google doing that work for them?
Um… not sure what you mean by the Google thing: Areola turns up many results. Aureola is I think a different spelling and not the one a lot of websites use. And yes, I turned SafeSearch on.
Um…I linked to two examples of what I meant.
Sorry Bacchus, but as James noted, the links are for “aureola” not “areola”. Go to those same sites and type in the spelling you didn’t use, and it brings up a definition including nipple-surrounding-flesh. Two different words entirely.
Not that I don’t totally agree with your opinion on the whole issue, but it looks bad if you factually undercut yourself.
I was trying to avoid going down this particular avenue of linguistic pedantry, but apparently I’m not to be allowed that option.
To be clear, aureola and areola do exist as distinct words with different (though similar) meanings and different linguistic origins. “Aureola” has its roots in the Latin for “gold” and refers to things like the golden halo in religious icons; “areola” has its roots in the Latin for “area” and means (among other things) the dark area around the nipple. However, the words are confused so often that many respectable sources list both “spellings” as alternates of each other — which is how I went (very slightly) astray in drafting this post.
In this case, the word attributed to Facebook’s policy was aureola, in the source from which I quoted. So, “aureola” was the search I did. At the time, I thought we were looking at a simple case of alternate spellings; now, I’m better educated.
Still, when you turn Google’s safe search on and do the search I mocked, it filters out many of the dictionary definitions, including the two I linked to. Does anybody think this is not risible?
To my eyes, this makes Google’s filter look worse, not better. When you search for a word, that properly means “a golden ring” but is commonly used to mean “the flesh around a nipple”, why does Google filter out the very definitions that might help to clear up the confusion? What’s unsafe about the definitions I linked to?
Got it. Something about that didn’t come off completely clearly there for whatever reason.
And yes, it makes Google look much worse in that light.
For the record, I think the idea of not being able to be naked in public is ridiculous. If I could reform society, one of the first things I would do would be to make it socially acceptable to show as much or as little skin as one desires.
That said, I see where Facebook is coming from. I read a statement from one of their PR people that explained it a little better than the article you posted did (though for the life of me, I can’t find it now), and it stated that they were not removing photos because they were obscene or pornographic, they were removing photos because they contained nudity, which is against the Facebook TOS. I feel that it’s important that they remain consistent in what they remove, and it’s tough to justify why they removed a 20-something girl without a top on at the beach, and left a 20-something girl without a top on at the beach holding a baby, you know? I’ll admit, they probably have inconsistencies as to what exactly counts as nudity (I heard it was nipple or nothing). However, Facebook is a huge website with millions of members and tons of staff and I would imagine it’s somewhat difficult to maintain a completely consistent standard, especially when it’s more or less a judgement call 90% of the time anyway.
And before anyone says “but there are tons of boobs all over Facebook and THEY haven’t been removed!” the statement I read also said that the photos that had been removed had been because Facebook received complaints about them – they didn’t go around looking for photos to remove.
Anyway, my point isn’t that nudity is bad or wrong or shameful (I feel the exact opposite, actually) but that Facebook needs to be consistent in the policies they enforce, and if boob isn’t allowed, then the context doesn’t matter, boob isn’t allowed.
Hmm… Are topless males playing volleyball on the beach allowed in Facebook?…
How large of a fat deposit must be behind the area of darker flesh before it’s considered a boob? My chest area (which happens to be male), has more “bump” than some of the women I’ve dated.
In my state, male areloas are safely displayed around any area where a substantial amount of water can be found (i.e. ocean beaches, ponds, rivers, lakes, even cement-lined pools and hot-tubs. Surely it’s the more agressive FEMALE areola to which they are directing their suppressive attention? Here they must be corraled by the all-powerful inpenetrable pastie (even in men’s clubs where children are not allowed…), which I must assume acts as some sort of a blinder, similar to that which one places on a horse, to keep the beast from running wild in the streets…
Surely it’s no accident that beast and breast are so similarly spelled…
An artist painted my body with henna and posted the gorgeous pics on his facebook page. They show my boobs. I wonder if he’ll get in trouble?
I just revisited this posting due to a “similar sex blogging” link which directed me here, and I had a new thought. In art history class, we were taught that many of the marble statues in antiquity were brightly painted originally, and in most cases, the color had washed away over the ages, revealing the white marble underneath.
I can’t help but wonder if the Venus de Milo ever had (and if it as yet retained…) dark areola pigment, would it have been utterly destroyed by now or perhaps just hidden away in some secret collection like the Vatican’s?
Nice piece of Nominative Determinism, Schnitt being German for cut.
As an aside, how many times have peeps left out the ‘n’?